Monday, April 25, 2016

My review of "The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God" (2016) by Philip E. Dayvault

Philip E. Dayvault's 2016 book, "The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God" [Right: Amazon.com[1].] arrived by mail on 15th April, 2016. Because I don't have the time to read its 298 pages in one sitting, I will review it in installments and then when other priorities arise (e.g. my April Shroud of Turin News starting on 1st May), I will complete this review in the background. I hope this review in progress will be found by some intending buyers of the book before they waste their money on it (unless they are into historical fiction, or rather fantasy). Here is the fourth installment of my review of that book, between the horizontal lines, on which will be the basis of a reader's review that I will submit to Amazon.com and other online booksellers which list and allow readers' reviews of the book. See my previous posts, "`Modern-day 'Indiana Jones' links Shroud to 1st century': Shroud of Turin News - March 2016" and "`Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity': Shroud of Turin News - February 2016." Dayvault's words are in bold and the numbers in square brackets are page numbers in the book.


Leading Shroud scholar, Ian Wilson once began a review of a much better book than this one by Philip E. Dayvault, with:

"... very sadly the subject of the Shroud needs this particular book like a hole in the head ..."[2]
And very sadly the same applies to Dayvault's book because it is so wrong that it is at best an exercise in self-delusion (as will be seen). And I write as a fellow Christian and Shroud pro-authenticist of Dayvault.

• "Upon seeing the cloth, King Abgar V was healed of leprosy and gout and converted to Christianity, as soon did the entire city." [viii]. Wrong. While Edessa's King Abgar V (r.13-50) may have been healed of leprosy by Jesus' disciple Thaddeus and then converted to Christianity, along with some of Edessa's citizens, there is no evidence for, and good evidence against, that Abgar V saw "the cloth," i.e. the Mandylion, which was the Shroud four-doubled (tetradiplon), i.e. folded 4 x2 = 8 times[3]. In the earliest c. 325 record of Abgar V's healing and conversion, that of Eusebius (c. 260–340)[4], there is no mention of a "cloth"[5] or an image[6]. And some (if not most) leading Shroud scholars now regard the story of Abgar V "seeing the cloth" as a "pious fraud"[7] and accept that it was under King Abgar VIII (r. 177-212) that Edessa became a Christian city[8]. Shroud pro-authenticist historian Dan Scavone has shown that it was Abgar VIII who was the originator of the Abgar V legend and had it inserted into Edessa's royal archives[9] (unknown to Eusebius). Even Ian Wilson the leading proponent of the Abgar V theory, now concedes:

"Abgar V was part of a dynasty of rulers bearing this same name, and one successor slightly more favoured by historians as the Abgar whom Addai [Thaddeus] converted (and who therefore may have been the true recipient of the Image of Edessa/Shroud) is Abgar VIII,' who reigned from 179 [sic] to 212" (my emphasis)[10]

• "Also, according to the legend, King Abgar V displayed the cloth and had a tile bearing the same facial image of Jesus Christ placed over a Western Gate of the `City'" ... [viii]. Wrong. The 945 "Official History of the Image of Edessa" (Appendix C, pages 272-290 in Ian Wilson's 1979 book, The Shroud of Turin): 1) does not say "a tile bearing the same facial image of Jesus Christ" was "placed over a Western Gate of the `City'." That "tile" (there were two) which the "Official History" states, had a "copy of the likeness of the divine face" which "had been transferred to the tile from the cloth" was at "Hierapolis" [Hierapolis, Syria, modern Manbij], not Edessa:

"8. Christ entrusted this letter to Ananias, and knew that the man was anxious to bring to completion the other command of his master, that he should take a likeness of Jesus' face to Abgar. The Savior then washed his face in water, wiped off the moisture that was left on the towel that was given to him, and in some divine and inexpressible manner had his own likeness impressed on it. This towel he gave to Ananias and instructed him to hand it over to Abgar ... When he was returning with these things, Ananias then hurried to the town of Hierapolis ... He lodged outside this city at a place where a heap of tiles which had been recently prepared was lying, and here Ananias hid that sacred piece of cloth. ... The Hieropolitans ... found ... one of the tiles nearby, another copy of the likeness of the divine face ... the divine image had been transferred to the tile from the cloth ... they retained the tile on which the divine image had been stamped, as a sacred and highly valued treasure" (my emphasis)[11].
That tile with Jesus' image on it was transferred from Hierapolis, Syria, to Constantinople in 968 or 969[12], that is ~24/25 years after the Mandylion/Shroud had been transferred from Edessa to Constantinople in 944[13]. Nor does the "Official History" say that the Edessa tile was "placed over" a gate of the city. It states that the "the image," i.e. the image of Jesus on the "towel" (see above), "lay" in a "place" which "had the appearance of a semispherical cylinder" and "a tile," of which nothing is said about it having an image, was "placed ... on top" of the image:
"15. ... A statue of one of the notable Greek gods has been erected before the public gate of the city by the ancient citizens and settlers of Edessa to which everyone wishing to enter the city had to offer worship and customary prayers. Only then could he enter into the roads and streets of the city. Abgar then destroyed this statue and consigned it to oblivion, and in its place set up this likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand, fastening it to a board and embellishing it with the gold which is now to be seen ... And he laid down that everyone who intended to come through that gate, should-in place of that former worthless and useless statue-pay fitting reverence and due worship and honor to the very wondrous miracle-working image of Christ, and only then enter the city of Edessa. And such a monument to and offering of his piety was preserved as long as Abgar [V] and his son [Ma'nu V] were alive, his son succeeding to his father's kingdom and his piety. But their son and grandson [Ma'nu VI] succeeded to his father's and grandfather's kingdom but did not inherit their piety ... Therefore ... he wished just as his grandfather had consigned that idolatrous statue to oblivion so he would bring the same condemnation on the image of the Lord also. But this treacherous move was balked of his prey. For the bishop of the region, perceiving this beforehand, showed as much forethought as possible, and, since the place where the image lay had the appearance of a semispherical cylinder, he lit a lamp in front of the image, and placed a tile on top. Then he blocked the approach from the outside with mortar and baked bricks and reduced the wall to a level in appearance. And because the hated image was not seen, this impious man desisted from his attempt. .. Then a long interval of time elapsed and the erection of this sacred image and its concealment both disappeared from men's memories" (my emphasis)[14]
And Wilson pointed out that "a semispherical cylinder" is an apt description of "an arched vault," and "one of the four main gates of Edessa, that to the west, was specifically known in Syriac as the Kappe gate, which means gate of arches or vaults"[15]. So there is no reason to think that this undistinguished, "a tile," placed on top of the Mandylion/Shroud, in an arched vault above Edessa's "public gate of the city," the Western Gate, was: a) attached to anything; and b) had an image on it. The only tile which the 945 "Official History" records as having an image on it was the tile which had been in "a heap of tiles" at Hierapolis Sysria, and was still there in 945 when the "Official History" was written. So this Hierapolis tile, the only tile which is recorded as having an image of Jesus on it, must have been the tile which was later called "the Keramion." And that Hierapolis tile had never been at Edessa nor had anything to do with Edessa! So the answer to Dayvault's question that he asked in the Preface of his book:
"Could the small mosaic, the ISA Tile, be the actual historical and legendary Keramion?"[viii]
already is a resounding NO, and we are still only in the Preface, with still more to come in that Preface!

"... (Citadel), as a memorial to this momentous event. "[viii]. Wrong. As per my previous post, firstly, the Citadel was not the city, but a castle inside the city of Edessa[16] (see photo below). Dayvault

[Above (enlarge): Photo at page 221 of Dayvault's book of Edessa's citadel, with Dayvault's self-evidently false annotation that at the arrowed point is a "Gate" when there is no gate (see further below). But note that even Dayvault has to admit that this is only the Western end of "the Citadel" not of the city!]

is misleading his readers by a fallacious word-play between "city" and "citadel." In his online PDF, Dayvault wrote:

"Interestingly, the word, `city' derives from the Latin word, `civitas', which also can mean `citadel.'"[17]
The footnote 7 Dayvault cited, "7 http://viagabina rice.edu/oecus/oecus html, `Site 10 Villa: The Oecus Emblema', by Philip Oliver-Smith," does not have the words "civitas" or "citadel" in it. And in his book Dayvault simply asserts, with no reference:
"Civitas (Latin) means either city or citadel"[117].
But apart from that being false (my Latin-English dictionary states that the Latin "civitas" means "citizenship; community state;" and that the English "citadel" is "arx" in Latin[18]), that word-play only works in English. In Syriac the word for "citadel" is birtha[19], which Dayvault in his book even states[60] and "Edessa" in Syriac is "Orhay"[20].

And as can be seen in the photo below from page 220 of Dayvault's book, with Dayvault's annotation that this is the "Western Gate of the Citadel," on that same page 220 Dayvault wrote that it was "Viewed

[Above (enlarge): Photo at page 220 of Dayvault's book of the Western end of the Citadel, with Dayvault's self-evidently false (and self-deluded or worse) annotation that it is the "Western Gate of the Citadel. But as can be seen in the maximum zoom Google Earth photo of the Western end of the Citadel, again there is no gate!]

from across the moat while looking eastward, the westernmost tip of the Citadel in Sanliurfa and its tunnel entrance is pictured above." As can be seen in the Google Earth photo below, that place from where

[Above (enlarge): Google Earth photo of Sanliurfa[21] showing the Western end of Edessa's Citadel. The triangular `island' (red arrow) is evidently from where Dayvault took his photo above, and the circular structure (blue arrow) is evidently what Dayvault called the "Western Gate Monument." Which is in fact a tower/windmill (see below)! Note that if there was a gate at the Western end of the Citadel, Dayvault was in the ideal location to photograph it, but didn't!]

Dayvault evidently took his page 220 photo above, is on the triangular `island' to the upper left of the western end of the Citadel (red arrow). And the circular structure on the tip of the western end of the Citadel blue arrow) is evidently what Dayvault called the "Western Gate Monument" in his same photo above. But a photo on a "Rome Art Lover's" website identified this as the remains of a tower/windmill (see below). That is confirmed by an online tourist guide document,

[Above (enlarge): "Remains of a tower/windmill at the western end of the citadel ..."[22]. How could Dayvault go to Sanliurfa, with a Turkish guide/interpreter (page 95ff), and not know that this is the remains of a tower/windmill? But if Dayvault did know that this structure had been a tower/windmill, but withheld that from his readers, then that would be dishonest.]

"A Guide to Southeastern Anatolia," which states of "Sanliurfa": "The ruined Byzantine and Islamic structures include a windmill to the west of the citadel"[23]. That this is the same structure that Dayvault called the "Western Gate Monument" above, but from a different angle, is confirmed by its inclusion in a triptych photo on page 222 of Dayvault's book from that different angle (see below).

[Above (enlarge): Triptych photo on page 222 of Dayvault's book, being different views of what he calls, the "Western Gate Monument." The middle photo especially shows that it is in fact the "tower/windmill" in the photo above!]


To be continued in the fifth installment of this book review.

Notes
1. Dayvault, P.E., 2016, "The Keramion Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God," Morgan James Publishing: New York NY. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 2007, "Review of Brendan Whiting The Shroud Story, Harbour Publishing, Strathfield, New South Wales, Australia, 2006." 21 January. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1974, "The Shroud in history," The Tablet, 13th April, p.12; Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.44-45; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.120, 307 n.16; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, pp.36-37, 39-40; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.112-113; Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 171, 184; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.104-105, 114-115; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.141; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.152-153; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, pp.55, 57; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.132-133; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.110-111; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.2-3, 5-6; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.140-141, 148, 299, 174; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.186-187. [return]
4. Eusebius, c. 325, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," Book I, Chapter XIII, Cruse, C.F., transl., 1955, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing, 1966, pp.46-47; Wilson, 1979, pp.127-128; Antonacci, 2000, p.133; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.107; Guerrera, 2001, pp.1-2. [return]
5. Ruffin, 1999, p.54; Guerrera, 2001, p.2. [return]
6. Drews, 1984, p.62; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.80-81; Scavone, D.C., 2002, "Joseph of Arimathea, the Holy Grail and the Edessa Icon," Collegamento pro Sindone, October, pp.1-25, p.2. [return]
7. Markwardt, J.J., 1998, "Antioch and the Shroud," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.94-108, 94; Markwardt, J.J., 2009, "Ancient Edessa and the Shroud: History Concealed by the Discipline of the Secret," in Fanti, G., ed., "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, p.384. [return]
8. Guerrera, 2001, p.2. [return]
9. Scavone, D.C., 2010, "Edessan sources for the legend of the Holy Grail," Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Frascati, Italy, 4-6 May 2010, pp.1-6, 1. [return]
10. Wilson, 2010, p.119. [return]
11. "Court of Constantine Porphyrogenitus `Story of the Image of Edessa' (A.D. 945)," in Wilson, 1979, pp.272-290, 276-277. [return]
12. Wilson, 1979, p.132; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.71; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.74; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.256. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, pp.116, 151; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, pp.92; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.36-37; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.85; Wilson, 1998, pp.148-149; Guerrera, 2001, pp.4-5; Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.xxvii; Wilson, 2010, p.165. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, pp.280-281. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, pp.131-132; Wilson, 2010, pp.131-134. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, p.172. [return]
17. Dayvault, P.E., 2011, "`FACE of the GOD-man': A Quest for Ancient Oil Lamps Leads to the Prototype of Sacred Art...and MORE!," Shroud University, May 11, p.24. [return]
18. Kidd, D.A., "Collins Paperback Latin Dictionary," HarperCollins: London, 1995, Latin-English p.37 & English-Latin p.29. [return]
19. Wilson, 1998, p.172; Scavone, 2010, p.1. [return]
20. "Edessa: Names," Wikipedia, 20 April 2016. [return]
21. "Sanliurfa," Google Maps: Earth, 29 April 2016. [return]
22. Piperno, R., 2011, "Sanliurfa: page one," A Rome Art Lover's Webpage. [return]
23. "A Guide to Southeastern Anatolia: Şanlıurfa Citadel, November 16, 2007. [return]

Posted: 25 April 2016. Updated: 30 April 2016.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Non-traditional #13: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
NON-TRADITIONAL #13
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the ninth and final installment of part #13, "The man on the Shroud: Non-traditional," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Colour #12] [Next: No outline #14]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Non-traditional #13

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud is non-traditional[2].

[Above (enlarge): "Man of Sorrows," c. 1347, by Naddo Ceccarelli (c. 1330–60), in Liechtenstein Museum, Vienna[3]. Although this work was painted in 1347, before the Shroud's first undisputed public exposition at Lirey, France, in 1355[4], Jesus' hands are crossed, the right over the left, with an awkward crossing point at the wrists, as on the Shroud[5]. So even though this 14th century artwork reflects a prior knowledge of the Shroud, it still retains traditional medieval Christian art conventions: Jesus is not naked but wearing a loincloth; the crown of thorns is a circlet, not a cap; and the nails were through the palms of His hands, not the wrists (as we will see).]

Naked. The man on the Shroud is entirely naked)[6] (see also part #9). Although the man's hands cover his genitals[7], the tip of his penis seems to protrude below his fingers[8], and there are extensive scourge marks around his genital area[9] (see future below). Moreover, his back is completely nude[10], showing his buttocks[11]. This is consistent with all four gospels which state that just before His crucifixion, Jesus' clothes were taken by His Roman soldier executioners (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-24)[12]. However, in medieval Christian art, the crucified or dead Jesus was almost never depicted completely naked[13], but wearing at least a loincloth[14] (see above and below). A claimed exception is the Holkham Bible[15]. But there the figure of Jesus is cartoon-like[16] and he doesn't have genitals (see part #9)! Other than the Shroud, the only depiction of Jesus' completely naked back that I am aware of is the second century Roman Alexamenos graffito which depicts Jesus naked from the rear, on a cross, with the head of a donkey[17] (see below).

[Above (enlarge): The Alexamenos graffito mocks Alexamenos, a second century Christian Roman soldier or slave[18], who is depicted raising a hand in worship of a naked Jesus with a donkey's head, on a cross from the rear, under the caption: "Alexamenos worships [his] God"[19] This earliest known depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus, dated c.200, was found in 1857 scratched on a wall in an excavated building under the Palatine Hill, Rome[20]. The nude back view of Jesus was presumably designed to be especially shocking and degrading.]

Crown of thorns. (see also my 08Sep13). In mockery of Jesus' confirmation to Pilate that He was the King of the Jews (Mt 27:11; Mk 15:2, Lk 23:3, Jn 18:33-37), the Gospels record that the Roman soldiers guarding Jesus twisted together a crown [Gk. stephanos] of thorns and put it on His head (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2)[21]. The shape of the crown cannot be determined[22] from the Greek word for "crown" (stephanos)[23], which means "primarily, that which surrounds, as a wall or crowd (from stepho, to encircle)"[24]; "to put round ... a crown (with which the head is encircled)"[25]. So traditional Christian art has depicted Jesus wearing a wreath[26] or circlet[27] crown of thorns, down to the present[28]. But the pattern of puncture marks all over the scalp of the man on the Shroud indicate that his crown of thorns was a "cap"[29] or "helmet"[30] (see below).

[Above (enlarge): "Helmet" of thorns in the permanent exhibition of the Shroud of Turin in the Pontifical Institute Notre Dame of Jerusalem Center[31].]

Nails in the hands. Traditional Christian art has depicted the crucifixion nails that the Gospels state were in Jesus' hands (Jn 20:19-20, 24-28; Lk 24:36-40)[32] as being in His palms[33],

[Above (enlarge): "Gero Cross, late 10th century, Cologne Cathedral, Germany"[34]. As can be seen, the nails in Jesus' hands are in His palms, and Jesus is not naked but wearing a large loincloth.]

including by some who have copied the Shroud[35]. However, as Paul Vignon (1865-1943) had pointed out[36], and surgeon Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) proved experimentally on cadavers, that when a man's body is suspended on a cross by only a nail through the palm of each hand, the nails would tear through the fleshy palms[37] and the crucified would fall off his cross[38]. However Barbet also proved experimentally on other cadavers that a nail through the wrist (as on the Shroud[39]-see next) of each hand would support a suspended man's body without tearing through the bony wrists[40]. On the Shroud only the nail wound in the left hand is visible, its counterpart in

[Above (enlarge)[41]: Nail exit wound on the back of the Shroud man's left wrist[42], showing trickles of blood from that wound and the inferred wound in the right hand, both of which trickles ran down each forearms when the hands were raised above the head on the cross].

the right hand being covered by the left hand[43]. The existence of a corresponding nail wound in the right hand can be inferred from the trickles of blood down the right forearm, similar to those on the left forearm[44]. This is consistent with the Gospels because the New Testament Greek for "hand" [cheir][45] included the wrist[46] and in fact the hand, wrist and arm up to the elbow[47], because the Greek words for "arm" [ankale and brachion][48] did not include the arm from the elbow to the hand (i.e. the forearm)[49].

Problems for the forgery theory. (see previous three: #10, #11 & #11). Jesus completely naked. It is highly unlikely that a medieval artist/forger would have depicted Jesus naked[50], when He was usually represented wearing robes[51] or at least a loincloth[52]. But the supposed forger must have intended to stress Jesus' nudity because hr not only depicted Jesus fully naked from behind showing even His buttocks (as in the

[Above (enlarge): Scourge marks on the Shroud man's buttocks (rotated 180°)[53]. According to the forgery theory the medieval forger not only depicted Jesus completely nude from behind without even a loincloth, but he deliberately emphasised Jesus' complete nudity by placing scourge marks over them.]

Alexamenos graffito above), but the forger had shown scourge marks around Jesus' genital area which a loincloth would have hidden[54].

[Above (enlarge): Scourge marks around the genital area of the Shroud man[55]. According to the forgery theory the 14th century, or earlier, forger deliberately depicted them there.]

The Alexamenos graffito is also known as the "graffito blasfemo," or blasphemous graffito[56]. A completely naked depiction of Jesus would have been sacrilegious and blasphemous to the medieval mind[57], and the usual punishment for blasphemy in medieval Europe was death by burning at the stake[58]. So no medieval European forger would have dared to depict Christ naked[59] realistically, as the man on the Shroud is[60] . Therefore the complete nudity of the image on the Shroud is a further proof of its authenticity[61]!

The crown of thorns is a cap. That the crown of thorns on the Shroud is a cap (see above) is evidence that the Shroud is authentic and so is a problem for the forgery theory. In the East the traditional crown of kings was a mitre which covered the entire head like a cap[62]. But a European medieval forger would be unlikely to know this and even if he did, he would most likely still have depicted Jesus wearing a circlet, not a cap, crown of thorns as on the Shroud[63]. That is because even after the Shroud had first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in 1355, European

[Above (enlarge): "Christ Carrying the Cross as portrayed by El Greco [1541–1614], 1580."[64]. Note that even in 1580, more than two centuries after the Shroud had indisputably first appeared at Lirey in 1355, this leading European artist was still depicting Jesus wearing a traditional circlet, or wreathlet, crown of thorns.]

artists continued to depict the crown of thorns on Jesus' head as a Western circlet crown, not as an Eastern mitre (cap) crown, as on the Shroud[65].

Nails in the wrists, not palms. A medieval artist/forger who who intended his shroud to be accepted, would not have contradicted the traditional iconography, showing only only one full hand on the Shroud and therefore only one nail wound[66], in the wrist, not the palm[67]. It was not until the 17th century, and therefore likely influenced by the Shroud, that a minority of artists, notably Van Dyck, began depicting

[Above (enlarge)[68]: "Crucifixion," 1622 by Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641), was one of the first depictions of Jesus crucified by a nail in each wrist, albeit well past the Middle Ages (5th-15th centuries).]

Jesus crucified, suspended by a nail in each wrist[69] (see above). A medieval forger would certainly have placed the hand nail wound in Jesus' palm, as he would have had to conform to traditional norms, if he wanted his false shroud to have been accepted[70]. Medieval tradition demanded that the nail-wound in the left hand be in the centre of the palm, and in a forged relic such independence from tradition would not have been tolerated[71]. A medieval forger would have depicted two nail wounds in the centre of Christ's two hands, not one nail wound in one wrist, because in the Middle Ages the wounds of Christ had intense devotional interest and were always conventionally depicted[72]. And because Christ's wounds were considered profoundly meaningful and were a focus of devotion in the Middle Ages, if the Shroud were a medieval forgery, the wounds in the hands (plural) would have been clearly marked[73]. Since crucifixion had been abolished across the Roman Empire (including Europe) in 337[74], by Emperor Constantine the Great (c. 272–337), a medieval forger would be most unlikely to know enough about Roman crucifixion to contradict the unanimous view of medieval Christianity, that nails had been driven through the middle of Jesus' palms[75]. So either an unknown medieval artistic genius had a unique insight into the practice of Roman crucifixion, or the Shroud genuinely documents this ancient torture[76]!

Conclusion A medieval forger of the Shroud would have wanted his forgery to be accepted by his contemporaries, so he could sell it for a higher price. His forgery would therefore have conformed to traditional norms shared by his contemporaries.

The forger would not therefore have depicted Jesus completely nude, but would have added at least a loincloth. He certainly would not have shown Jesus' buttocks and added scourge marks around Jesus' genital area and buttocks. Indeed if a known medieval forger had done that he would have been burned at the stake for blasphemy!

Which incidentally is another reason to believe that Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (†1377-1395) was wrong in his 1389 memorandum's claim that the image on the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" and one of his predecessors, Bishop Henry de Poitiers (†1354-1370), had "discovered ... the artist who had painted it"[77]. That known artist would have been arrested, charged, tried, found guilty of blasphemy, and burned at the stake. In which case there would have been a record of his trial and execution, and its details, including the forger's name would have been cited by Bishop d'Arcis, who had been a lawyer[78]. That d'Arcis did not cite the name of the forger, or details of his trial and execution, shows that there never was a forger, and d'Arcis was at best misinformed, or at worst lying.

A medieval forger would have depicted the crown of thorns, not as a cap, as the Shroud man's is, but as a circlet, as did all medieval and most later artists who depicted Jesus having been crowned with thorns, including some who copied the Shroud (see right). Even if the forger had somehow (given that crucifixions had ceased in Europe more than a thousand years before 1355[79]) known that Eastern kings were crowned with a cap not a circlet, his contemporaries would not have known that.

[Right (enlarge): Copy of the Shroud dated 1516, kept in the Church of St. Gommaire, Lier, Belgium, showing Jesus naked, but His crown of thorns is a circlet, and He has two hands visible with a nail wound in each palm[80]. So it would have been easy for a forger to have depicted Jesus' two nail wounds while His hands covered His genital area, as the artist of this copy - probably Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528) - did.]

A medieval forger of the Shroud would not have shown only one of Jesus' hands in full, and therefore only one of His hand nail wounds, because the wounds of Christ were very important in medieval Christian devotion. And a medieval forger would have shown the nail wounds in the centre of each of Jesus' hands, that is, His palms, as traditional medieval Christian art did, even those who copied the Shroud (see above).

These three non-traditional major features of the Shroud image are three more problems for the medieval forgery theory and three more reasons why the Turin Shroud is authentic! That is, the actual burial sheet of Jesus Christ, bearing the imprint of His beaten (Mt 26:67-68; 27:30; Lk 22:64; Jn 18:22; 19:3), scourged (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:16; Jn 19:1), crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5), crucified (Mt 27:35,38,44; Mk 15:24-27,32; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:16-18), dead (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37,39; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30), legs not broken (Jn 19:32-33), speared in the side (Jn 19:34), wrapped in a linen shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:40), buried in a rock tomb (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:38-42) and resurrected (Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 24:1-6; Jn 20:1-9) body!

To be continued in the part #14 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Habermas G.R., "Discussion," in Habermas G.R., Flew A.G.N. & Miethe T.L., ed., 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.120; Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.170. [return]
3. Krén, E. & Marx, D., 2016, "Ceccarelli, Naddo, (active 1340s in Siena), Man of Sorrows, c. 1347, Tempera on panel, 71 x 50 cm, Liechtenstein Museum, Vienna," Web Gallery of Art. [return]
4. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.99; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.90; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.128, 278; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.4, 52; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
5. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.179. [return]
6. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.17; Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.30; Wilson, 2010, p.183. [return]
7. Wilson, 1998, p.26; de Wesselow, 2012, p.145. [return]
8. Wilson, 1998, pp.24, 28. [return]
9. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.41. [return]
10. Vignon, 1902, p.42; Beecher, 1928, p.17. [return]
11. Messenger, J., 2002, "More on the `Mysterious' Shroud: In Response," Voice News, June 14. No longer online). [return]
12. Wilson, I., 1996, "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, p.129; Wilson, 2010, p.52. [return]
13. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24 - No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 307; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.29; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.70. [return]
14. Vignon, 1902, p.41; Hynek, 1951, p.30; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.188; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.176, 179. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.71. [return]
16. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.55. [return]
17. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, p.237; Wilson, 1998, p.49; "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 12 January 2016. [return]
18. O'Rahilly., 1985, p.237; Wilson, 1998, p.49. [return]
19. "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 2016. [return]
20. O'Rahilly, 1985, p.237; "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 2016. [return]
21. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.41; Wilson, 1979, p.52; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.44, 122; Wilson, 1986, p.44; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.85; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, pp.42-43; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.119; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.38. [return]
22. Ruffin, 1999, p.43. [return]
23. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Second edition, pp.765, 784, 838. [return]
24. "crown," in Vine, W.E., 1940, "An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: With their Precise Meanings for English Readers," Oliphants: London, Nineteenth impression, 1969, Vol. I., p.258; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.417. [return]
25. Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.587. [return]
26. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.70-71; Wilcox, 2010, p.188. [return]
27. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.4; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.57; de Wesselow, 2012, p.131. [return]
28. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, p.93; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.30; Iannone, 1998, p.54; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.34; Guerrera, 2001, p.38. [return]
29. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.35; Barbet, 1953, p.93; Wuenschel, 1954, p.48D; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.4; Heller, 1983, p.4; Wilson, 1979, pp.36-37, 52; Wilson, 1986, p.20; Zugibe, F.T., 1988, "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.19,27,29; Bucklin, R, 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: A Pathologist's Viewpoint," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.271-279,274; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.30; Iannone, 1998, p.54; Guerrera, 2001, p.38; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.57; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, pp.36-37; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.231; Wilcox, 2010, p.188; Wilson, 2010, p.44; de Wesselow, 2012, p.131. [return]
30. Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY, p.292; Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.15. [return]
31. Danin, A., 2010, "Botany of the Shroud: The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin," Danin Publishing: Jerusalem, Israel, p.59. [return]
32. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.45,123; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.86-87; Iannone, 1998, p.57; Antonacci, 2000, pp.22,120; Guerrera, 2001, p.39. [return]
33. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978., "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.40; McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.35; Heller, 1983, p.3; Meacham, 1983, pp.284, 307; Drews, 1984, p.25; Wilson, 1986, p.22; Iannone, 1998, pp.56-58; Wilson, 1998, p.36; Cahill, 1999, p.288; Adler, A.D., 2000, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.129-138, 131; Guerrera, 2001, p.39; de Wesselow, 2012, p.119. [return]
34. "Crucifixion in the arts," Wikipedia, 15 January 2016. [return]
35. Barbet, 1953, p.31. [return]
36. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.40. [return]
37. Barbet, 1953, pp.110-111,114; Wuenschel, 1954, p.44; Meacham, 1983, p.284; Iannone, 1998, p.58; Wilson, 1998, p.35; Cahill, 1999, p.288; Adler, 2000, p.131. [return]
38. Heller, 1983, p.3; Drews, 1984, p.25; Cahill, 1999, p.288; de Wesselow, 2012, p.119. [return]
39. Meacham, 1983, p.284; O'Rahilly, 1985, p.136; Adler, 2000, p.131. [return]
40. Barbet, 1953, pp.114-118; Wuenschel, 1954, p.44; Drews, 1984, p.25; O'Rahilly, 1985, p.137; Wilson, 1986, p.22; Wilson, 1998, p.35; de Wesselow, 2012, p.119. [return]
41. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
42. Guerrera, 2001, p.39; de Wesselow, 2012, p.119. [return]
43. Heller, 1983, p.3; Wilson, 1986, p.22; Wilson, 1998, p.34; Guerrera, 2001, p.39; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.118-119. [return]
44. Wilson, 1986, p.22; Guerrera, 2001, p.39; de Wesselow, 2012, p.119. [return]
45. Green, 1986, pp.817, 840. [return]
46. Iannone, 1998, p.58. [return]
47. O'Rahilly, 1985, p.137; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.152. [return]
48. Vine, 1940, Vol. I., p.75. [return]
49. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve...The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-753, 740; Antonacci, 2000, pp.22, 284. [return]
50. Iannone, 1998, p.180. [return]
51. Vignon, 1902, p.42. [return]
52. Vignon, 1902, p.41; Hynek, 1951, p.30; Wilcox, 2010, p.188; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
53. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," (rotated 180°), Sindonology.org. [return]
54. Vignon, 1902, p.43. [return]
55. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical, Sindonology.org. [return]
56. "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 12 January 2016. [return]
57. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.88. [return]
58. Wendel, F., 1963, "Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought," [1950], Mairet, P., transl., Fontana: London, Reprinted, 1965, p.96; Wilcox, 1977, pp.170-171; Wilcox, 2010, p.188. [return]
59. Barbet, 1953, p.31; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.81. [return]
60. Wilcox, 2010, p.188. [return]
61. Vignon, 1902, p.43. [return]
62. Ricci, G., "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.67; Meacham, 1983, p.292; Antonacci, 2000, p.102; Tribbe, 2006, p.98; Wilcox, 2010, p.188 [return]
63. Iannone, 1998, p.70. [return]
64. "Crown of thorns," Wikipedia, 10 March 2016. [return]
65. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.81. [return]
66. Vignon, 1902, p.40. [return]
67. Barbet, 1953, p.31. [return]
68. "File:Anthony van Dyck - Crucifixion - WGA07434.jpg," Wikipedia, 31 January 2015. [return]
69. McNair, in Jennings, 1978, p.35; Wilson, 1998, p.36; [return]
70. Barbet, 1953, p.114. [return]
71. Vignon, 1902, p.40. [return]
72. de Wesselow, 2012, p.119. [return]
73. de Wesselow, 2012, p.121. [return]
74. "Crucifixion: Ancient Rome," Wikipedia, 18 April 2016. [return]
75. Drews, 1984, pp.25-26). [return]
76. McNair, in Jennings, 1978, p.35; de Wesselow, 2012, p.120. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, pp.266-267. [return]
78. Wilson, p.11; Wilson, 1998, p.121; Wilson, 2010, p.231. [return]
79. McNair, 1978, p.36. [return]
80. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.18. [return]

Posted: 13 April 2016. Updated: 25 April 2016.

Monday, April 4, 2016

"Modern-day 'Indiana Jones' links Shroud to 1st century": Shroud of Turin News - March 2016

Shroud of Turin News - March 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #3 of the March 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

[Previous: March 2016, part #2] [Next: April 2016, part #1]


I received Philip E. Dayvault's book, "The Keramion: Lost and Found" (2016) by mail on 15th April. Having dipped into it, I can see it is just as wrong as his online 2011 PDF summary of his then future book. So I have now decided to review the book in installments in a separate post, in a format that can be posted, when finished, to Amazon.com and other booksellers which list the book and allow online readers' reviews of it. In the interim my recommendation to readers is not to buy the book, unless they are interested in Shroud fiction (or rather fantasy)! See also "Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity": Shroud of Turin News - February 2016 and My review of "The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God" (2016) by Philip E. Dayvault.

"Modern-day 'Indiana Jones' links Shroud to 1st century," WND, March 23, 2016, Jerome R. Corsi ... NEW YORK – An

[Above (enlarge): Photograph of a mosaic tile discovered in 2002 by Philip E. Dayvault in Sanliurfa (formerly Edessa), Turkey. According to historian Ian Wilson and classics scholar Mark Guscin, this is the earliest known depiction of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion, dating from "between the sixth and seventh centuries" (see below)[2]. Dayvault deserves great credit for discovering it. However it is NOT, as Dayvault claims, "The Keramion," as we shall see. Throughout this post I have assumed that the article's claims are Dayvault's, even though it was written by Jerome Corsi. See also my "Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity": Shroud of Turin News - February 2016."]

archaeological discovery that appears to place the origin of the Shroud of Turin in first century A.D. conflicts with three independent scientifically conducted radiocarbon 14 tests that estimated a date range of A.D. 1260-1390. See my series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking." The shroud is believed by many scholars to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Philip E. Dayvault, a former FBI special agent and physical-science technician who has been studying the Shroud of Turin since 1973, ventured to Turkey on an Indiana Jones-like expedition in 2002. While there, he discovered a small mosaic in a faraway museum maintained by Muslim curators that appears to provide physical corroboration for the existence of the Shroud back in the first century. See my previous post on the "hype" ("Hype (derived from hyperbole) is promotion, especially promotion consisting of exaggerated claims" (my emphasis)[3]) in Dayvault's claims, and those making claims on his behalf. Even if this mosaic was The Keramion (which it isn't-see further), it would not itself be evidence that places "the origin of the Shroud of Turin in first century A.D." There is other evidence which does that.

The mosaic, known as the "ISA Tile," substantiates the salient points of the synthesized 1,700 year-old "Legend of King Abgar V." As pro-authenticist historian Dan Scavone has documented, the "Legend of King Abgar V" (i.e. that King Abgar V of Edessa (r. AD 13-50) was given the Mandylion/Image of Edessa (the Shroud tetradiplon = "four-doubled") by Jesus' disciple Thaddeus (Addai)) is almost certainly false:

"I have turned up evidence that points directly to the late-second-century Edessan king Lucius Abgar VIII Megas (Abgar the Great. 177-212 CE [aka Abgar IX]) as the originator of the legend of Abgar V's apostolic conversion. It was he who inserted the Abgar V story - as we have it - in the royal archives. This king was concerned to provide his lands with a conversion by a direct disciple of Jesus. In fact, we now have evidence that Abgar VIII himself was converted to the orthodox Faith - and at a time when all manner of Christian teachings were competing for the minds and hearts of the people of Edessa. The writer of the DA [Doctrine of Addai] thus will have found in the archives that Abgar V. who suffered a crippling ailment, sent his agents on a mission to the Roman governor at Eleutheropolis ["a Roman city in Israel, some 53 km southwest of Jerusalem"[4]]. We know this information can only have come from Abgar VIII's time, since it was only about 200 that Roman emperor Lucius Septimius Severus renamed the town of Beth Gubrin as Eleutheropolis, to celebrate his granting of municipal status to its people. There is more: significantly, according to Rome's sixth-century Liber Pontificalis, King Lucius Abgar VIII - who took his nomenclature to honor his Roman conqueror, the same Lucius Septimius Severus - sent a letter to Pope Eleutherus (175-189) asking for missionaries to come and preach the Faith in his city. We also know from the important Roman historian Dio Cassius (150-235) that this Abgar, now friend of the Roman Empire, paid a celebrated state visit to Rome in the time of Pope Eleutherus. The coincidence of Abgar letter to the pope and his presence in Rome argue strongly for Abgar VIII's studied acceptance of orthodox Christianity. It speaks to the determined efforts of this king to combat paganism (as his contemporary Bardaisan wrote in his Dialogus de Fato. In the pre-Nicene setting of Abgar VIII, still a time of multiple Christian sects, we may surmise that this Christian king wisely saw the value of his city's conversion by an immediate colleague of Jesus, one who would surely be in a position to teach the most orthodox form of Christian beliefs, as received from an intimacy with Jesus himself. Hence, we find the story of Abgar V's first-century conversion and the roles of Thomas and Thaddaeus/Addai inserted in the archives."[5]
The legend allegedly chronicles how the Shroud of Turin went from Jerusalem to Turkey before arriving in Turin, Italy, where the Catholic Church preserves it in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist. That the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud was taken from Edessa in 944 to Constantinople is well- established:
"943 A large army sent by the Byzantine emperor Romanus arrives at the walls of Edessa, then still under Arab Muslim control. The Byzantine general promises to leave Edessa untouched, to pay a large sum of money, and to release 200 high-ranking Muslim prisoners, all in return for surrender of the Jesus-imprinted cloth. After Edessa's emir consults with the Muslim leadership in Baghdad a deal is struck, much against the wishes of Edessa's citizens, and the cloth is taken off to Constantinople.
944 15 August. After a long land journey across the breadth of what is today Turkey, the Jesus-imprinted cloth of Edessa is received in Constantinople amid great celebrations. It is accorded its own feast day, 16 August. Because of the awe in which the cloth is regarded in Eastern Orthodox thought, there is no public showing, only privileged private showings. The cloth is installed in the Pharos Chapel of Constantinople's Imperial Palace, the repository of other most sacred relics of Jesus."[6]
That the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud was in Edessa in 544 is also fairly well-established:
"544 Persian king Kavadh's son and successor Khosraw arrives before Edessa's walls with a yet more formidable army. The Persians are again repulsed - but this time reputedly thanks to the protective powers of the Jesus-imprinted cloth now confidently referred to as having been brought to Edessa during the reign of Abgar V five centuries earlier. According to later Byzantine sources this cloth had recently been found sealed in a niche above one of the city's gates. Its immediately famed facial imprint of Jesus is unequivocally described as 'not by hand made'. Some near contemporary accounts refer to it as on a sindon, also as tetradiplon, doubled in four, suggesting that it was on a large cloth folded considerably smaller than its full size.
540s At much this same time there appear in Christian art the very distinctive depictions of Jesus as long-haired and bearded that are essentially universally accepted as his likeness to this day. According to manuscripts recently found at St Catherine's monastery, Sinai, Syriac- speaking monks of this time travelled from Edessa and its surrounds carrying with them depictions of this likeness. Directly drawn from the Jesus-imprinted cloth of Edessa, these depictions were used to decorate newly founded churches in Georgia and elsewhere. Meanwhile the original cloth itself is housed in Edessa's Hagia Sophia cathedral, reputedly one of the most beautiful shrines in all Christendom."[7]
But that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud was discovered in 525 in one of Edessa's walls after a major flood:
"525 Edessa suffers its most serious flood yet, with thirty thousand citizens estimated killed in the disaster, and several major churches destroyed. From Constantinople the very able emperor-to-be Justinian initiates a major reconstruction programme. This involves re-routing Edessa's river Daisan, reconstructing the city's walls, and completely rebuilding several churches, including the cathedral, subsequently to be known as Hagia Sophia, like its Constantinople counterpart. These are the likely circumstances in which the Jesus-imprinted cloth became rediscovered."[8]
is not well-established and indeed contrary to the evidence. Pro- authenticist attorney Jack Markwardt's theory[9] is more plausible that the Mandylion/Shroud had been hidden in one of Antioch's gates until a major earthquake in 526 followed by a fire destroyed most of Antioch's buildings and uncovered the Mandylion/Shroud's hiding place (see below). The Mandylion/Shroud was then taken to Edessa in 540 where it had a lower status than Abgar V's (forged) letter from Jesus (see my "Chronology of the Shroud 31-176"), until as a last resort the Mandylion/Shroud was instrumental in repelling the Persian siege of Edessa in 544. The Edessans then raised the status of the Mandylion/Shroud to Edessa's primary palladium and falsely `retrofitted' the true uncovering of the Mandylion/Shroud's hiding place in Antioch's walls after the 526 earthquake, to Edessa's flood of 525. Dayvault must be aware of Markwardt's Antioch theory because Markwardt's first presentation of two papers on his Antioch theory "Antioch and the Shroud" (1998) and "The Fire and the Portrait" (1998) [10] were at the 1998 Dallas Symposium at which Dayvault presented four papers[11].

The archeological find in Turkey In an interview with WND, Dayvault recalled it was May 21, 2002, when he found the ISA Tile mosaic "in the innermost sanctum of the archaeological museum in faraway Şanliurfa, Turkey." "I was there because I was researching ancient oil lamps ... I asked the director a second time for permission to conduct a `look-see' in the innermost sanctum, and he finally gave me permission to go in there and look around." ... It was a small area, some 20 by 30 feet in size, that was accessed only through a series of locked gates and doors. "In there, the most priceless artifacts were maintained by the museum," ... in the corner, on the second shelf, I found the ISA Tile, the mosaic that immediately caught my attention." ... "The Muslim curator with us, realizing I had spotted this, exclaimed, `Isa, Isa,' which I knew meant `Jesus, Jesus.' "Isa" means "Jesus" in Arabic[12].

[Above (enlarge): Edge views of the Sanliurfa mosaic in the article, photographed by Dayvault in 2002. Note that the mosaic base is limestone, not clay as the Keramion was (see below).]

"... I had immediately recognized the face on the mosaic as the same face as the crucified man in the Shroud of Turin." The museum had apparently kept the ISA Tile from public view for decades. But upon finding it, the curator explained to Dayvault's translator that the mosaic was actually the Muslim director's "most prized possession" of all artifacts in the museum. ... "The museum inventory records officially described the mosaic tile simply as depicting `a bearded man,' without any suggestion the bearded man was Jesus Christ." As mentioned in my previous post about this, the Museum Director told Ian Wilson and Mark Guscin that it was a mosaic of the "Image of Edessa":

"DR MEHMET ONAL sipped a glass of tea as we looked out over his excavation site. `I have a surprise for you both,' he said. `We have a mosaic of your "Image of Edessa" here in Sanliurfa.' ... As Sanliurfa's museum director Erman Bediz explained to us, it was just a six-inch-by-eight-inch fragment some local citizen had found while making structural alterations to his house. He had hacked it out then sold it to the museum on a no-questions- asked basis. It was not even on public display, kept hidden away in one of the museum's storerooms. Even so, as the very Islamic Dr Onal and his companions had already perceived, this was quite unmistakably some early mosaicist's interpretation of the prophet Jesus's face as imprinted on this city's one-time 'Image of Edessa' ... The point also immediately apparent to Mark Guscin and me, from our familiarity with depictions of the Image of Edessa to be found elsewhere, was that stylistically this unique Sanliurfan example dated somewhere between the sixth and seventh centuries. It was therefore not only the earliest- known such depiction; it came from the very city from which the legend of this mysterious cloth had originated"[13].
Dayvault admits that if this account is true, then "the ISA Tile would have been only a copy of an even earlier prototype":
"The provenance of the Shroud has been relatively historically determined, but even less so for the ISA Tile, or the historical Keramion. Its vague historical provenance suggests a time in nearby Hierapolis, or possibly even Georgia; and later, in Constantinople. The museum obtained it in 1972 from a local citizen who said he had `cut it out of a wall' while renovating a house. According to a confidential source, museum officials were never able to obtain the exact location of this house. The donor had sold it to the museum for an `undisclosed amount of money' and on a strict `no-questions-asked' basis, a fairly common practice in Turkey. If his story were true, the ISA Tile would have been only a copy of an even earlier prototype" (his emphasis)[14].
That is presumably because Dayvault would have to explain how this mosaic came from Constantinople in 1204 (see below) to a house in Edessa, which was, and has been continuously since 1144, under Moslem rule.

In his recently published book, "The Keramion: Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God," [See book cover] he describes the discovery and discusses the importance of the find. As mentioned in that previous post, I have ordered Dayvault's book but it hasn't arrived as yet [It arrived on 15th April]. When it does I will briefly review it in a Shroud of Turin News [See above for my change of plan.] ... Dayvault ... took photographs of the ISA Tile from different angles and views. "The ISA Tile looked heavy, like concrete, but it was surprisingly as light as a feather when picked up," ... "The overall size of the tile was approximately 9x12x4 inches. This is an important account of Dayvault's handling and photographing of the mosaic, since Wilson and Guscin apparently never saw it, let alone handled it:

"The photo of the mosaic reproduced as this book's plate 110, and on the back cover [see previous post], does not carry the Sanliurfa Museum's official permission. When Mark Guscin and I were told of the mosaic's existence, we positively pleaded to be allowed to view the original, only to be told by the museum director that this needed approval from Ankara. But despite this being obtained we heard nothing back from the museum, and at the time of going to press have been unable to obtain an official photo and permission despite our best efforts. The photo, reproduced from a Turkish journal, is therefore provided here in the public interest." (my emphasis) [15].

The beveled substrate base of the tile was most likely tufa, or a volcanic ash and limestone mixture, extremely light and durable in nature." This alone proves false Dayvault's claim that this Sanliurfa mosaic is "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion" (see below). The Greek word "keramion" derives from keramos, which means "clay" and includes "a roofing tile":

"keramion ... a dimin[utive] fr[om] keramos ... an earthen vessel, a pot, jar; a jug or pitcher ... Mk. xiv. 13; Lk. xxii 10 ... keramos ... 1. clay, potter's earth. 2. anything made of clay, earthen ware. 3. spec. a (roofing) tile."[16]
And apart from the fact that a mosaic is not a clay tile, "tufa" is "a variety of limestone":
"Tufa is a variety of limestone, formed by the precipitation of carbonate minerals from ambient temperature water bodies."[17]

The legend According to the legend of King Abgar V, shortly after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, in about A.D. 30, Judas Thaddeus, one of Christ's 12 disciples (or Thaddaeus, one of the seventy-two disciples), allegedly carried to King Abgar V in Edessa – an ancient city in upper Mesopotamia that is now modern-day Şanliurfa, Turkey – a cloth that bore the face of Jesus Christ. See above quote by pro-authenticist historian Dan Scavone, that the Abgar V legend is anachronistic and therefore false. As I mentioned in another previous post, even in Eusebius' ~325 mention of the (unknown to him forged Abgar letter) there was nothing about an image of Jesus on a cloth.

It was known then as the "Image of Edessa," which many today associate with the current Shroud of Turin. That the Abgar V legend is false does not change the fact that the "Image of Edessa" is rightly called that because the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud was at Edessa for four centuries from 544 to 944 (see above).

The legend relates that King Abgar V, afflicted with an incurable illness speculated to be gout or possibly leprosy, supposedly had heard of the miracles being performed by Jesus. So he wrote to Jesus and asked him to come to Edessa to cure him. The historian Eusebius records that while Jesus was unable to come to Edessa, he was impressed that Abgar believed without seeing him, while many who had witnessed Jesus did not believe in him. Upon seeing the cloth, King Abgar V was healed. Dayvault begins to mislead his readers, in order to support his false claim that this Sanliurfa mosaic is "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion":

"While conducting ancient oil lamp research in museum depots in Turkey during May 2002, Philip E. Dayvault, of Raleigh, NC, discovered a mosaic which depicts the Face of Christ and is remarkably derived from the Shroud of Turin, the traditional burial cloth of Jesus Christ. By comparing its image with various ancient Christological depictions, i.e., paintings, Icons, frescoes, and mosaics, he subsequently determined this mosaic to be the prototype of numerous Christological depictions; and also, the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion"[18]
But as Scavone pointed out, in Eusebius' "version there is no mention of a portrait" (or cloth) and it was Jesus' "letter which cured Abgar":
"The Abgar story was also told, somewhat differently, by Eusebius, fourth century Bishop of Caesarea (in Palestine). In his version there is no mention of a portrait. He alters another point: He reports that Jesus sent his reply to Abgar in a letter, and it was this letter which cured Abgar and was kept with all honor and care"[19]
In response, he converted to Christianity and Edessa became one of the first Christian communities outside Jerusalem. That Abgar V (r. 13-50) sent one of his servants Ananias (a Jewish name) to ask Jesus to come and heal him and Jesus promised verbally to send a disciple after His death, resurrection and ascension, to heal Abgar and preach the gospel in Edessa, which subsequently happened through Thaddeus, I accept as the likely "kernel of fact"[20] behind the Abgar V legend. The legend continues that King Abgar displayed the cloth and had a tile bearing the facial image of Jesus Christ placed over a Western Gate of the "City" (Citadel), as a memorial directing visitors to Edessa to pay homage to the image of Jesus Christ. The Western Gate was NOT the "Citadel." See the map of ancient Edessa below which shows the "West Gate" is different from the "Citadel" and in fact they are

[Above (enlarge): "Edessa in its heyday as a Christian city ... only the citadel remains"[21]. Note that the "West Gate" (middle left) is different from the "Citadel" (lower left).]

about 700 metres (~2300 feet) apart. Also as can be seen in the Google Earth photograph of the Citadel below, it had no western gate. Indeed the Citadel did not exist in the time of Abgar V,

[Above (enlarge): "Edessa citadel, Urfa, Turkey (TR)"[22]. As can be seen, especially when enlarged, the Edessa Citadel has no western gate. As would be expected, the only access to it is from within the city, from the north.]

having been built by Abgar VIII in 205 (see quote below)[23]! Dayvault is trying to force the facts fit his theory, rather than the other way around. Because only the Citadel exists today, Dayvault has `matched' his photograph of the underside of the Sanliurfa mosaic with vague features on a stone block at what he falsely called "the Western Gate

[Above (enlarge): Dayvault's claimed "unique features" of a stone block at what he calls the "Western Gate" of Edessa's Citadel and the underside of the Sanliurfa mosaic[24]. Note that the "Toolmark Impressions" and "`Screw like' Mark(s)" would be on the wrong sides if the mosaic was placed over the block. This can be verified by printing out the photograph, pushing a pin through the "W. Gate Stone Block" photograph at the arrow points of the "Toolmark Impressions," "`Screw like' Mark" and "Triangulated Point," then cutting out the underside of the tile photograph around the "Consistent Margins." When the cut out of the tile is laid over the "W. Gate Stone Block," face to face, aligned with the "Consistent Margins" and a pin is pushed through the latter's pin holes through the overlaid tile photograph cut out, it can be seen that the respective arrow points are nowhere near each other! Also the "`Screw like' Mark(s)" don't look anything like each other. And the "Consistent Margins" have just been drawn by Dayvault.]

of the Citadel"[25], and then falsely claimed that was where the Sanliurfa mosaic tile (which Dayvault falsely claims is "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion") had been!

In A.D. 57, the second son of King Abgar V, named Ma'nu VI, Ma'nu VI (r. 57-71) was evidently not Abgar V's son but his grandson (see below), i.e. Ma'nu V's (r. 50–57) son [26] assumed the throne and reverted to paganism, at which time the cloth bearing the image of Jesus, the Keramion tile and an oil lamp were concealed in a tunnel niche of the Western Gate of the Citadel. This is simply false. As we saw above, not only was there no "Western Gate of the Citadel," the Citadel did not exist in "A.D. 57" but was built by Abgar VIII in AD 205:

"Biblical scholar Adolf Harnack [1851-1930] first noticed in 1904 that the interpolated King Lucius in the Liber Pontificalis was really King Abgar VIII, full name Lucius Aelius [Aurelius] Septimius Megas Abgarus VIII (177-212 [aka Abgar IX]), first Christian king of Edessa and the only King Lucius who espoused Christianity in the late second century, time of Pope Eleutherus. Harnack also revealed the crucial fact that Edessa was sometimes referred to by a term describing its citadel: in Syriac Birtha, in Latin Britium. The sixth-century Syriac Chronicle of Edessa announces that "in the year 205 Abgar VIII built the Birtha."[27]
And as Scavone showed above, it was Abgar the Great (177-212), who was "the originator of the legend of Abgar V ... It was he who inserted the Abgar V story - as we have it - in the royal archives."

But even according that legend, on which Dayvault bases his entire claim, it was clearly "the public gate of the city" (i.e. Edessa's Western Gate - see map above), not the non-existent Western Gate of the then non-existent Citadel where "the cloth bearing the image of Jesus, the Keramion tile and an oil lamp were concealed," as can be seen in the 945 "Story of the Image of Edessa":

"A statue of one of the notable Greek gods has been erected before the public gate of the city by the ancient citizens and settlers of Edessa to which everyone wishing to enter the city had to offer worship and customary prayers. Only then could he enter into the roads and streets of the city. Abgar [V] then destroyed this statue and consigned it to oblivion, and in its place set up this likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand, fastening it to a board and embellishing it with the gold which is now to be seen, inscribing these words on the gold: `Christ the God, he who hopes in thee is never disappointed.' And he laid down that everyone who intended to come through that gate, should-in place of that former worthless and useless statue-pay fitting reverence and due worship and honor to the very wondrous miracle-working image of Christ, and only then enter the city of Edessa. And such a monument to and offering of his piety was preserved as long as Abgar and his son [Ma'nu V] were alive, his son succeeding to his father's kingdom and his piety. But their son and grandson [Ma'nu VI] succeeded to his father's and grandfather's kingdom but did not inherit their piety, but spurned their piety and deserted to demons and idols. Therefore, as intending to pay their due to demons, he wished just as his grandfather had consigned that idolatrous statue to oblivion so he would bring the same condemnation on the image of the Lord also. But this treacherous move was balked of his prey. For the bishop of the region, perceiving this beforehand, showed as much forethought as possible, and, since the place where the image lay had the appearance of a semispherical cylinder, he lit a lamp in front of the image, and placed a tile on top. Then he blocked the approach from the outside with mortar and baked bricks and reduced the wall to a level in appearance. And because the hated image was not seen, this impious man desisted from his attempt. For the following reason, I think the priest decided to place the tile in front of the image namely that there might be no rot from the dampness of the building or the wetness of the mortar in the receptacle of the image which might increase the damage done by lapse of time. Then a long interval of time elapsed and the erection of this sacred image and its concealment both disappeared from men's memories." (my emphasis)[28]
They remained hidden there for some 468 years before being discovered by workmen rebuilding the walls in AD 525 after a devastating flood. This is highly implausible (to put it mildly) that the "the cloth bearing the image of Jesus, the Keramion tile and an oil lamp," having been bricked up above Edessa's public gate with no one noticing (itself highly implausible), it would then be completely forgotten by everyone. Much more plausible is Markwardt's Antioch theory that the Mandylion/Shroud had been hidden in one of Antioch's gates in 362 (and not necessarily forgotten), and had been taken to Edessa after its hiding place was uncovered following Antioch's 526 earthquake and before the Persian destruction of Antioch in 540:
"In October of 525, a great fire ravaged a considerable part of Antioch and, seven months later [in May 526], a major earthquake destroyed almost the entire city, including the Great Cathedral, and killed the Patriarch and more than 250,000 other people. ... This paper proposes that, in the process of clearing away the debris of the earthquake ... the Monophysites discovered the Shroud in the place where it had been hidden in 362. Persecuted by both Patriarch Ephraemius [d. 545] and Emperor Justinian [c. 482–565], the Monophysites could not exhibit the cloth; however, their possession of the Shroud may have been rumored. In ... 540 when King Chosroes I [of Persia] invaded Syria and marched his army to Antioch. ... This paper proposes that, before the Persian attack, the Monophysites of Antioch fled with the Shroud to a nearby safehaven where the local Christian Church had maintained a long tradition of ecclesiastical independence and where Monophysites constituted the religious majority and had their own bishop. In 540, the city of Edessa was clearly the most logical destination for the Monophysite refugees of Antioch. In 544, a holy icon "not made of human hands" was present in Edessa during its siege by King Chosroes. Ernst Von Dobschutz [1870–1934] concluded that this date indicates, more or less, the arrival of the icon in the city and his conclusion finds support in the fact that, prior thereto, no icon is mentioned in Edessan literature ..."[29].

Resemblance to artistic depictions of Jesus Dayvault wrote that "almost immediately after the Shroud's rediscovery in A.D. 525, Christian art flourished around the world, as fast as couriers and artists could travel, with many of the depictions bearing a resemblance to the Keramion face." First, the "Official History" does not say there was a "face" on the "tile" placed on top of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud (see above). According to the "Official History" that was another tile which was at Hierapolis, Syria (modern Manbij):
"Christ entrusted this letter to Ananias, and knew that the man was anxious to bring to completion the other command of his master, that he should take a likeness of Jesus' face to Abgar. The Savior then washed his face in water, wiped off the moisture that was left on the towel that was given to him, and in some divine and inexpressible manner had his own likeness impressed on it. This towel he gave to Ananias and instructed him to hand it over to Abgar so that the latter might have some consolation for his longing and disease. When he was returning with these things, Ananias then hurried to the town of Hierapolis ... He lodged outside this city at a place where a heap of tiles which had been recently prepared was lying, and here Ananias hid that sacred piece of cloth. ... The Hieropolitans ... searched the spot and found there not only what Ananias had placed there, but also, in one of the tiles nearby, another copy of the likeness of the divine face. Unexpectedly and incomprehensibly the divine image had been transferred to the tile from the cloth without being drawn ... they retained the tile on which the divine image had been stamped, as a sacred and highly valued treasure. ..."[30]
That tile with "a likeness of Jesus' face" was still at Hieropolis when the 945 "Official History" was written, and was only transferred to Constantinople in 968:
"968 Byzantine Emperor Nicephoros Phocas [c. 912–969] orders the keramion, the tile reputedly discovered with the cloth of Edessa, to be transferred from Hierapolis [Syria] to Constantinople." (my emphasis)[31]
So it was this other tile, which had "a likeness of Jesus' face" on it, not the tile which was taken with the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud from Edessa to Constantinople in 944. I myself had not realised this.

He further contends that while the ISA Tile (Keramion) was displayed over the Western Gate of the Citadel in Edessa during its "public years," from approximately A.D. 30 to 57, it was readily available for artists to copy, paint and possibly even trace into copybooks. The "ISA Tile" is NOT the "Keramion" (for starters it is not made of clay which is what "keramion" means - see above). And it was NOT "displayed over the Western Gate of the Citadel in Edessa" (for starters "the Citadel in Edessa" did not exist until 205 - see above).

These copybooks were then used to transport the image likeness to other locations throughout the empire, where it was replicated in frescoes, mosaics and other works of art in cathedrals and catacombs. And there was NO "image likeness" on the tile placed on top of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud. That "image likeness" was on another tile at Hierapolis, Syria, which was only transferred to Constantinople in 968, and was presumably the tile then called "the Keramion" - see above. And why would artists want to copy the face image on the Hierapolis (not Edessa) tile when they could copy the face image on the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud?

"I believe the ISA Tile, likely created in the time of King Abgar V as a representation of the image regarded today as the Shroud of Turin, served as the prototypic model for numerous ancient depictions of Jesus Christ that have survived today … and bearing the traditional image we recognize as the face of Jesus Christ," Dayvault wrote. Again, "the ISA Tile" was NOT "created in the time of King Abgar V." For starters Wilson and Guscin (the latter a world authority on the Image of Edessa) date the Sanliurfa mosaic (called by Dayvault "the ISA Tile") to "between the sixth and seventh centuries" (see above). And again, why would "the ISA Tile," being a mere "representation of the image" [on] "the Shroud of Turin" (i.e. the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud) be "the prototypic model for numerous ancient depictions of Jesus Christ" and not the "Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud" itself?

As evidence, Dayvault identified a long list of unique features known to Shroud scholars as "the Vignon markings." Many are observed when comparing the image of the bearded man on the ISA Tile to the image of the crucified man in the Shroud and to various artistic portraits of Jesus. Again, why would Dayvault claim that this "ISA tile" is the source of "the Vignon markings" and not the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud itself? Especially since (as we saw in my previous post, "Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity," the Sanliurfa mosaic has only "nine (9) Vignon markings" (which is impressive) but the Shroud has all fifteen (15)!

One such portrait is the famous image of "Christ Pantocrator," a painting made with hot wax and pigment on a wooden panel reportedly commissioned by Emperor Justinian and gifted to St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, Egypt, dating back to around A.D. 527. Again, why would Dayvault claim (or even think) that this Pantocrator was based on the Sanliurfa mosaic and not on the Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud original?

Several other christological depictions dating to circa A.D. first and second centuries have also been forensically examined and determined to have derived from the ISA Tile. Yes, "forensically examined and determined by" Dayvault!

Examining the ruins of the Western Gate of the Citadel from the ancient city of Edessa that are still standing in Şanliufa, Turkey, Dayvault believes he has found the hiding place inside the tunnel of the Western Gate of the Citadel. Since it can be seen above that there is NO "Western Gate of the Citadel," how could Dayvault, having been there, write this?

There, blocks were removed and a portion was chiseled out of the limestone or marble wall to accommodate and hide the Shroud of Turin, the Keramion and an oil lamp from the time when Ma'nu VI came to power. No, as we saw above, "the Shroud of Turin [as the Mandylion], the Keramion [no, just a tile-the Keramion was at Hierapolis until 968 - see above] and an oil lamp" were bricked up inside "the public gate of the city."

This was to prevent their certain destruction. He also identified several physical features still there, including two prominent marble pillars with Corinthian capitals that appear in paintings such as one dating from 1678 currently in the State Historical and Cultural Museum-Preserve of the Moscow Kremlin Museums. What Dayvault omits to inform his readers is that these "Corinthian capitals" are at the Northern Gate of the Citadel of Edessa (see below). As the map below with a location key

[Above (enlarge): Corinthian capitals at the Citadel of Edessa[32].]

to the above photo of the Corinthian capitals shows.

[Above (enlarge): Extract of map with key showing the approximate location of the above Corinthian capitals (click on the original link to verify). They can be seen on the photo of the Citadel above as being at the Northern gate of the Citadel, not the non-existent Western gate, as Dayvault must know since he has been there but does not tell his readers[33].]

It depicts the discovery of the burial cloth of Christ, traditionally known as the "Mandylion" from its hiding place in the city walls of Edessa. That an artist in the 17th century depicted the "two prominent marble pillars with Corinthian capitals" which are at the Northern gate of the Citadel, in his painting representing the legend of the discovery of the Image of Edessa at the Western Gate in 525 (which didn't actually happen - see above), is

[Above (enlarge)[34]: A "seventeenth-century Russian icon of the cloth of Edessa in the Verkhospassky Cathedral, Moscow, showing the [legendary] discovery of the Edessa cloth in the sixth century, hidden in a niche above one of the city's gates"[35]. Presumably this is the "painting... dating from 1678 ... in the State Historical and Cultural Museum... Moscow ..." that Dayvault is referring to. Note the two columns in the distant background, above right, which presumably are meant by the artist to be those at the Northern gate of the Citadel.]

irrelevant. The artist was probably ignorant of the exact layout of Edessa in the first century, given that Edessa had been under Moslem rule since 1144. But even if he wasn't, a painting is not a photograph and the artist likely exercised "artistic license" in adding the Citadel's Corinthian columns in the background. However note that they are in the background, and the Edessa gate that the Mandylion is depicted as having been found in is clearly not the gate of the Citadel, which still exists today, with its Corinthian columns.

In conclusion, I wrote in a previous post:

"It would be a pity if Dayvault had sat on his important discovery for nine years (2002-2011) and only published it in 2011 after Wilson had beaten him to it in his 2010 book. It is a further pity that Dayvault has detracted from the importance of his discovery in its own right by making the grandiose (and evidently false) claim that this Sanliurfa mosaic is `the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion'."
I haven't as yet (12th April) received Dayvault's book, but Dayvault had himself commented on that previous post and did not deny that he had kept this important discovery to himself, unpublished, for "nine years (2002-2011)." If so, then Dayvault deserves discredit for withholding this important discovery from the Shroud pro-authenticist community and the wider public. Especially if Dayvault's motive was to make money by publishing it in a book[36] with the sensationalist title: "The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God." But as we saw above, this Sanliurfa mosaic cannot be "The Keramion," i.e. the tile which bore an image of Jesus' face[37], found and kept at Hierapolis, Syria[38] (modern Manbij), transferred from Hierapolis to Constantinople in 968 or 969[39] and disappeared during the sack of Constantinople in 1204[40]. Because, in summary:
  • Wilson and Guscin (a world authority on the Image of Edessa) dated the Sanliurfa mosaic to "between the sixth and seventh centuries."
  • Dayvault admits that if the Sanliurfa museum's account is true, that the tile had been cut it out of a wall in a Sanliurfan house, then it would only be a copy of an earlier prototype.
  • Edessa's King Abgar VIII (177-212), originated the story of Jesus' letter to Abgar V and inserted it into Edessa's archives.
  • The Mandylion/Shroud was not hidden above Edessa's gate in ~57 and found there in 525, but was brought to Edessa from Antioch following that city's great earthquake of 526.
  • The Greek word keramion derives from keramos, which means "made of clay" but the Sanliurfa mosaic's base is not clay but tufa, a variety of limestone.
  • The 945 "Official History of the Image of Edessa" states that the Mandylion, tile and lamp were hidden above "the public gate of the city" (i.e. the Western Gate) not the Citadel which has no Western Gate.
  • Dayvault's claimed "unique features" of a stone block at the Citadel and the underside of the Sanliurfa mosaic don't match.
  • Edessa's Citadel did not exist in 57 but was built by Abgar VIII in 205.
  • The "Official History" does not say there was an image of Jesus' face on the tile hidden with the Mandylion and lamp in Edessa's gate. It says the image was on another tile at Hierapolis, which was 686 miles = 1105 kms from Edessa, and was only transferred to Constantinople in 968-969.
  • The Sanliurfa mosaic has only 9 Vignon markings, compared to the Shroud's 15, so the Shroud, not the mosaic, is the "prototypic model" of the depictions of Jesus from the sixth century.
  • The two pillars with Corinthian capitals that appear in a 17th century painting in Moscow depicting the discovery of the Mandylion above an Edessa gate, are in the distant background, and presumably are those at the Northern gate of the Citadel, which further refutes Dayvault's claim that the Mandylion was hidden and discovered above the Citadel's gate.

So at every key point above, Dayvault's claim that this Sanliurfa mosaic is "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion" is false! As stated above, when I receive Dayvault's book, on which this article is based, I will briefly review it in a Shroud of Turin News, and if the above key points are still valid, I will also review the book on Amazon.com, and in the interests of the truth about the Shroud, I will recommend that prospective buyers do not waste their money on it.


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.2. [return]
3. "Hype," Wikipedia, 6 March 2016. [return]
4. "Eleutheropolis," Wikipedia, 2 November 2015. [return]
5. Scavone, D.C., 2010, "Edessan sources for the legend of the Holy Grail," Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Frascati, Italy, 4-6 May 2010, pp.1-6, 1-2. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.300). [return]
7. Wilson, 2010, pp.298-299. [return]
8. Wilson, 2010, p.298. [return]
9. Markwardt, J.J., 1998, "Antioch and the Shroud," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.94-108. [return]
10. Markwardt, J.J., 1998, "Antioch and the Shroud," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.296-319 & "The Fire and the Portrait, Ibid, pp.320-334. [return]
11. Dayvault, P.E., 1998, "CSST-An Overview," in Minor, et al, 1998, pp.145-148; "The Frei Collection Digitization Project," Ibid, pp.215-217; "The Sanctuary of the Shroud: A Security Challenge," Ibid, pp.343-347 & "Security Matters!," pp.348-350. [return]
12. "Isa (name)," Wikipedia, 27 March 2016. [return]
13. Wilson, 2010, p.2. [return]
14. Dayvault, P.E., 2011a, "`FACE of the GOD-man': A Quest for Ancient Oil Lamps Leads to the Prototype of Sacred Art...and MORE!," Shroud University, May 11, p.7. [return]
15. Wilson, 2010, p.296. [return]
16. Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.344. My transliteration). [return]
17. "Tufa," Wikipedia, 21 January 2016. [return]
18. Dayvault, P.E., 2011b, "Face of the God-man: A Quest for Ancient Oil Lamps Leads to the Prototype of Sacred Art...and MORE," Christian Newswire, May 17. [return]
19. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.81. [return]
20. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.17; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.188. [return]
21. Wilson, 2010, p.131. [return]
22. "Edessa citadel in Urfa, Turkey (Google Maps)," Virtual Globetrotting, 2016. [return]
23. Scavone, D.C., 2002, "Joseph of Arimathea, The Holy Grail & the Edessa Icon," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 56, December. [return]
24. Dayvault, 2011a, p.25. [return]
25. Ibid. [return]
26. "Rulers of Osroene," Wikipedia, 2 March 2016. [return]
27. Scavone, 2002. See also, Scavone, D.C., 2002, "Joseph of Arimathea, the Holy Grail and the Edessa Icon," Collegamento pro Sindone, October, pp.1-25, p.10. [return]
28. "Court of Constantine Porphyrogenitus `Story of the Image of Edessa' (A.D. 945)," in Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.280-281. [return]
29. Markwardt, J., 1999, "Antioch and the Shroud," in Walsh, 2000, pp.100- 101. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, pp.276-277. [return]
31. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.269; Wilson, 1979, p.132. [return]
32. Elżbieta, 2015, "Edessa - citadel," Vici.org. [return]
33. "Citadel of Edessa [Urfa]," Vici.org, 2016. [return]
34. Polverari, S., 2014, "From the Mandylion to the Shroud," Shroud of Turin: The Controversial Intersection of Faith and Science Conference, October 9-12, 2014, St. Louis, Missouri, pp.1-9, 4. [return]
35. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.107. [return]
36. Dayvault, 2011b. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, p.169; Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.18; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, pp.70-71; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.132. [return]
38. Wilson, 1979, p.132; Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.18; Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.70-71. [return]
39. Wilson, 1979, p.132; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.71; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.74; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.256. [return]
40. Currer-Briggs, 1984, pp.6,70; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.73; Wilson, 1998, p.273. [return]

Posted: 4 April 2016. Updated: 26 April 2016.