Tuesday, September 4, 2012

My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 8: "The Image of Edessa" (4)

Here is part 8, "The Image of Edessa" (4), of my critique of historian Charles Freeman's, "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," May 24, 2012 [page 7]. See previous part 7.

[Above (click to enlarge): Fifth century depiction of the crucifixion of Christ between the two thieves, without crosses, on the wooden door of the Basilica of Saint Sabina, Rome. This is one of the earliest surviving depiction of the crucifixion of Christ: "Santa Sabina," Wikipedia, 3 September 2012]

Freeman continues with his reasons why he thinks the Image of Edessa is not the Shroud of Turin (doubled four times with only Jesus' head visible in landscape aspect):

There are two reasons why this could not be the Shroud of Turin (quite apart from the lack of water damage on the eyes of the Shroud!). The first is that no one knowing the legend that gave the image its authenticity, as a cloth wiped by Christ himself on his face while he was alive, would have stared at the face we see the Turin Shroud and have believed that this was an image of a living man. We can assume that the image, if extant, in the sixth century, would have been brighter than it is now. It might have been possible to fold the Turin Shroud up to conceal the image of a naked lifeless body but this could hardly have been kept secret for long. The Turin Shroud is of a dead man, the Edessa image is, like all the other images of this time, a living Christ. They cannot be one and the same.

Freeman's first- mentioned reason why the Image of Edessa cannot be the Shroud, "the lack of water damage on the eyes of the Shroud," doesn't hold water (pun intended)! First, as we saw in part 7, art historian Hans Belting's report that on feast days the people of Edessa approached the Edessa Image and sprinkled water on its eyes, is anonymous, vague, and not contemporaneous. And as I pointed out, it is highly unlikely that the Edessan clergy would have let the common people get close enough to their holiest relic for them to be able to sprinkle water on its eyes, let alone allowing them to do it.

Besides, even if water was sprinkled on the Image of Edessa's eyes (which are the Shroud image's eyes), the Shroud has been through at least two fires in 1532 and 1997, when water was used to put out those fires, and yet the Shroud's image was not affected. That is because it is not a chemical but a physical change to the cloth. Indeed, Freeman confirms that (despite those two fires and the copious amounts of water used to extinguish them), there is a "lack of water damage on the eyes of the Shroud." So again Freeman shows his ignorance of the topic he is criticising, that the Shroud's image is not affected by water.

Freeman's second-mentioned reason why the Image of Edessa cannot be the Shroud of Turin, because "no one ... would have stared at the face we see the Turin Shroud and have believed that this was an image of a living man" ignores the fact that the Shroud's image is very faint, it is a photographic negative, and there is not the unmistakable evidence of the Shroudman's torture, crucifixion and death on His face as there is on His body. So it would be precisely those who were brought up "knowing the legend" that the Image of Edessa was "a cloth wiped by Christ himself on his face while he was alive" who "would have stared at the face we see the Turin Shroud and have believed that this was an image of a living man"!

Freeman presents no evidence for his assumption "that the image ... in the sixth century, would have been brighter than it is now." Again, either Freeman has not read Ian Wilson's latest book he is criticising (as he implied he had), or Freeman conceals from his readers that in it Wilson mentioned that the Shroud's image was so indistinct back in 944 that some of those who had the luxury of examining it closely, such as the Emperor's sons and son-in-law, could not perceive some of the Image's facial features:

"Amid so much ceremony and self-evident excitement it is difficult to determine when and where, if at any point at all, anyone meaningfully saw the Image removed from its casket in a way that could enable proper study. Nevertheless, that this actually happened is confirmed by an independent contemporary account, not part of the Story of the Image of Edessa. According to this, 'A few days beforehand, when they [the imperial party] were all looking at the marvellous features of the Son of God on the holy imprint, the Emperor's sons [i.e. Stephen and Constantine] declared that they could only see the face, while Constantine his son-in-law said he could see the eyes and the ears.' [Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CIX, 812-13, in Guscin, 2009, p.180.] Given the extraordinary efforts that had been made to obtain the Image, several historians have expressed puzzlement that it should have appeared so indistinct to the few who were allowed to view it directly ... If the Image of Edessa was genuinely one and the same object as today's Shroud of Turin, no such explanation is of course necessary. The Shroud's watery-looking impression and its uncertainty of detail would readily explain Romanos's sons' perception difficulties." (Wilson, 2010, p.165).

Freeman's third-mentioned reason, "It might have been possible to fold the Turin Shroud up to conceal the image of a naked lifeless body but this could hardly have been kept secret for long" is just an unsubstantiated assertion. Sixth century Edessa was not open democratic society, and people back then would have believed what they were told by the clergy. Even if there were rumours that under the Edessa Cloth's face image lay the image of Jesus' naked lifeless body", it would be dismissed by most Edessans as both preposterous and blasphemous. While a select few among the clergy must have known that behind the image of Jesus' face was His double body length burial shroud, bearing the image of Jesus' bloodstained, naked and crucified body, Freeman himself has given compelling reasons why the Edessan clergy would have kept this a very closely guarded secret.

Freeman's gives as his fourth-mentioned reason why the Image of Edessa is not the Turin Shroud, the Byzantines had a taboo about showing Christ, who was God incarnate, dead:

There is another important reason why this is not the Turin Shroud. There was a taboo in the Byzantine world about showing Christ, no less than God, of course, dead. Of course, most images avoided the problem by showing Christ while alive as the Edessa image surely did. What about the Crucifixion? There is a fascinating wood panel of the Crucifixion from about AD 420 on the door of Santa Sabina in Rome. It shows Christ and the two thieves. Christ has his arms outstretched but they are in the orans or praying form and he is standing as if alive. There is simply no cross behind him. So Christ can be shown `on the cross' while still being alive. This was one way of getting around the theological problem of showing Christ dead. Even if the Turin Shroud did show the face of the real dead Christ, it could not have been displayed without causing immense controversy. None is recorded among the accounts of the veneration of the Edessa image.

But this is a non sequitur, i.e. "it does not follow." That is, while it is true that the early Eastern Byzantine Church, and indeed the early Western Roman Church, was very reluctant to depict Jesus as dead, as evidenced by there being no extant early depictions of Christ on the cross, as the above 5th century depiction of Jesus crucified between two thieves, without crosses, attests.

But it simply does not follow that because the Byzantines had a taboo on showing Christ dead, the Image of Edessa cannot be the Shroud of Turin (folded eight times, mounted on a board and framed, so that Jesus' face only is visible in landscape aspect). That would only be the case if the bloodstained Shroud of Turin, bearing the image of a naked, crucified Christ, was a Byzantine forgery. But if the Shroud is authentic, and its bloodstains, and its naked, crucified image, really are of Jesus Christ, then that the Byzantines had a taboo on depicting that reality is beside the point.

Indeed, that the Byzantines had a taboo about depicting a dead Christ would explain why the Image of Edessa is the Turin Shroud! That is, why the Edessan clergy doubled the Shroud in four, mounted it on a board and framed it, so only the face of Jesus was visible in landscape aspect, hiding the unmistakable marks of Jesus' torture, crucifixion and death on His body, on the remaining 7/8ths of the cloth.

Freeman's "the face of the real dead Christ ... could not have been displayed without causing immense controversy" and "None is recorded among the accounts of the veneration of the Edessa image," would only apply if: 1) the Edessan public could perceive the face image as that of "a dead Christ"; and 2) it was widely known among the general Edessan populace that behind the face of Jesus on the Image of Edessa was folded His full burial shroud, bloodstained and bearing the image of His naked, crucified body. So again, Freeman has given a good reason why the burial shroud of Jesus was folded eight times, and mounted in a frame so only His face could be seen in landscape access. And then Byzantine artists `airbrushed' out signs of death on Jesus' face, a prime example being the "reversed 3" bloodstain on Jesus' forehead was depicted by Byzantine artists as a double or triple wisp of hair.

The next fallacy Freeman commits is "begging the question," that

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Crucifixion," St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, 8th Century: Belmont University, Nashville, TN]

is, assuming in his premise the conclusion of his argument:

The earliest known representation of Christ dead on the Cross comes from an eighth century icon of the Crucifixion in St. Catherine's Monastery, Sinai. Christ's eyes are closed although the blood is still flowing from his hands, feet and side, with a separate stream of water from his side. This icon is also notable as it is the very first to show the Crown of Thorns. (See the entry/illustration of the icon in the catalogue of the Byzantium and Islam exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum, New York, 2012, catalogue entry 27, page 55.) This is another representation clearly based on the gospel accounts. The earliest example known in the west is the Gero Crucifix of c. 970 from Cologne Cathedral. Christ's suffering then becomes a major element of medieval thinking, which is why many would believe that only in the Middle Ages would a relic such as the Turin Shroud with its emphasis on suffering be created. If it were created earlier, it would not have been venerated. The theological counter-attack would have been overwhelming.

[Above (click to enlarge): The Gero Cross or Crucifix, c. 965–970, in Cologne Cathedral in Germany: Wikipedia]

That is, Freeman first assumes that the Turin Shroud was "created" and then he concludes that it could only have been created "in the Middle Ages." With his mind taken captive (Colossians 2:8) by the philosophy of Naturalism ("nature is all there is-there is no supernatural") Freeman apparently cannot conceive that the image on the Shroud was not "created" by man in any age, but was imprinted on Jesus' burial Shroud at the moment of His resurrection:

"Although many wonder why anyone should find a few stains on an old piece of linen so fascinating, it is the character of those stains ... which is so compelling. The plain fact is that no normal human body leaves behind an image of itself, certainly not one with the extraordinarily photographic character of that on the Shroud. Can it be by accident, therefore, that this phenomenon has happened uniquely in the case of Jesus Christ, the one man in all human history who is accredited with having broken the bounds of death? If the Shroud really is two thousand years old, could whatever happened at that moment in time quite literally have flashed itself on to the cloth that we have today, a now permanent time-capsule of how Jesus's body looked at the very moment of his resurrection?" (Wilson, 2010, p.293).

But Freeman does not go far enough: if the Turin Shroud had not already existed in every age since the first century, depictions of Christ naked, bloodstained, and having died an horrific death by crucifixion, would never have been created at all, let alone venerated, because "The theological counter-attack would have been overwhelming"! An artist in the Middle Ages or earlier, who forged the Shroud, showing Jesus for the first time totally naked, front and back, and with the horrific marks of His scourging, crucifixion and death, which the Gospels do not depict in detail, would have been burned at the stake for blasphemy and his forgery would have been included in his pyre!

Continued in part 9: "The Image of Edessa" (5)

Posted 4 September 2012. Updated 23 December 2023

26 comments:

Matt said...

"Indeed, that the Byzantines had a taboo about depicting a dead Christ would explain why the Image of Edessa is the Turin Shroud! That is, why the Edessan Byzantines doubled the Shroud in four, mounted it on a board and framed it, so only the face of Jesus was visible in landscape aspect.

Freeman's "the face of the real dead Christ ... could not have been displayed without causing immense controversy" and "None is recorded among the accounts of the veneration of the Edessa image" would only apply if it was widely known among the general Edessan populace that behind the face of Jesus on the Image of Edessa was folded His full burial shroud, bloodstained and bearing the image of His naked, crucified body."

Agree! And the face of Jesus on the shroud is rather faint to the naked eye, so without digital enhancement it would not be hard to interpret the face as having eyes open, or "at worst" eyes closed in contemplation.

Matt said...

"But Freeman does not go far enough: if the Turin Shroud had not already existed in every age since the first century, depictions of Christ naked, bloodstained, and having died an horrific death by crucifixion, would never have been created at all, let alone venerated, because "The theological counter-attack would have been overwhelming"!"

Interesting point, but i'm not convinced. Maybe the depictions of a suffering Christ could have developed independent of the Shroud's depiction - after all the art depicting his suffering is merely showing what is described in the Gospels. There might have just been a change of theological / cultural views over time that spurred the change in artistic depiction of our Lord.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Matt

>>"Indeed, that the Byzantines had a taboo about depicting a dead Christ would explain why the Image of Edessa is the Turin Shroud! That is, why the Edessan Byzantines doubled the Shroud in four, mounted it on a board and framed it, so only the face of Jesus was visible in landscape aspect.
>>
>>Freeman's "the face of the real dead Christ ... could not have been displayed without causing immense controversy" and "None is recorded among the accounts of the veneration of the Edessa image" would only apply if it was widely known among the general Edessan populace that behind the face of Jesus on the Image of Edessa was folded His full burial shroud, bloodstained and bearing the image of His naked, crucified body."

>Agree! And the face of Jesus on the shroud is rather faint to the naked eye, so without digital enhancement it would not be hard to interpret the face as having eyes open, or "at worst" eyes closed in contemplation.

Thanks. I had considered including that, and that it was a photographic negative, as further reasons why the Byzantine artists (who would not have been aware that under the visible face image was Jesus' folded full burial shroud, with unmistakable bloodstains and crucifixion wounds), interpreted Jesus' face image as of Him while he was alive.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Matt

>>"But Freeman does not go far enough: if the Turin Shroud had not already existed in every age since the first century, depictions of Christ naked, bloodstained, and having died an horrific death by crucifixion, would never have been created at all, let alone venerated, because "The theological counter-attack would have been overwhelming"!"

>Interesting point, but i'm not convinced. Maybe the depictions of a suffering Christ could have developed independent of the Shroud's depiction - after all the art depicting his suffering is merely showing what is described in the Gospels.

The Gospels don't describe it in sufficient detail for a forger to make the image on the Shroud, just: 1) "having scourged Jesus" (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15). Not "Jesus was then flogged to the point of death by two men each wielding a Roman flagrum, which was a multiple cord whips tipped with bone and metal to strip away flesh with each stroke, leavin well over 100 lash marks on His body."

2) "and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head" not "the soldiers twisted a cap of thorns which they forced over His head, causing Him indescribable agony" (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2).

3) "they crucified him" (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18), not "the Roman soldiers drove large iron nails through each of Jesus' wrists and ankles" causing unimaginable agony. And if He wanted to breathe, He had to raise His body by pushing down with His legs against the nails, each time causing further indescribably agony."

What I mean is the TOTAL NUDITY and HORRIFIC DETAIL of Jesus' crucifixion on the Shroud. Almost all Christian artists down through the centuries have depicted Jesus in a loincloth and have toned down the marks of His torture.

Maybe in our secular age, artists might have eventually got around to depicting the nudity and brutal reality of Jesus' suffering, crucifixion and death that is on the Shroud (but they haven't done it yet, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" notwithstanding). But they did not and would not have done that in the 14th or earlier centuries.

>There might have just been a change of theological / cultural views over time that spurred the change in artistic depiction of our Lord.

Well, the fact is that, even with the Shroud's total nudity and horrific detail as an exampke, there HASN'T BEEN such a change yet (artists today still depict Jesus in a loincloth and tone down His torture-even though they have the Shhroud as a model), and there certainly WASN'T such a change in the 14th century or earlier. See above.

An artist in the Middle Ages or earlier, who forged the Shroud, showing Jesus FOR THE FIRST TIME totally naked, front and back, and with the horrific marks of His torture, which the Gospels do not depict in detail, would have been BURNED AT THE STAKE and his forgery would have been part of his pyre!

It is BECAUSE the Shroud has always existed since the 1st century, and there never was a time that it was known that its image was created by a forger, that the Shroud has not been destroyed, but rather has been preserved, against all the odds, down to our day.

Stephen E. Jones

Matt said...

Stephen
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are several accounts of the Image of Edessa being created by either Jesu's bloody sweat, or via an imprint of his face following the washing of his face.

Do not these accounts imply a rather faint / ephemeral image of a face on the Image of Edessa, rather than a more bold, "painting style" image, which is consistent wiht the Shroud's faint facial image?

Stephen E. Jones said...

Matt

>Correct me if I am wrong, but there are several accounts of the Image of Edessa being created by either Jesu's bloody sweat, or via an imprint of his face following the washing of his face.
>
>Do not these accounts imply a rather faint / ephemeral image of a face on the Image of Edessa,

Faint but not ephemeral:

"e·phem·er·al ... 1. lasting a very short time; short-lived; transitory: the ephemeral joys of childhood. 2. lasting but one day: an ephemeral flower." ("ephemeral," Dictionary.com)

>rather than a more bold, "painting style" image, which is consistent wiht the Shroud's faint facial image?

Agreed. Since the Image of Edessa, IS the Shroud, folded eight times, with only the face 1/8th visible, showing Jesus' face only in landscape aspect, the Image of Edessa's image IS the Shroud's face image.

Stephen E. Jones

Matt said...

Certainly, it is very difficult, and in my view impossible, to reconcile Jesus's nudity, display of body wide torture, and untypical wrist wound with the theory that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. Because it makes absolutely no sense that a medieval forger would depict Jesus in this manner.
It would be nice to hear Freeman try and explain this away....I am yet to hear a convincing rebuttal by ANYONE of this point

Stephen E. Jones said...

Matt

>Certainly, it is very difficult, and in my view impossible, to reconcile Jesus's nudity, display of body wide torture, and untypical wrist wound with the theory that the Shroud is a medieval forgery.

Agreed. Again, any forger in the Middle Ages who was the first to depict Jesus on the Shroud: naked front and back, bloodstained, tortured by crucifixion and dead; would have been burned at the stake for blasphemy and his blasphemous forgery would have been burned with him.

>Because it makes absolutely no sense that a medieval forger would depict Jesus in this manner.

Agreed. Especially since the Gospels:

1) don't describe in detail what "scourging" was; or

2) what being "crucified" involved (crucifixion was outlawed by Constantine in 337, and Greek and Roman historians didn't describe it in detail);

3) say that the soldiers "divided his garments" (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Jn 19:23-24), not that Jesus was stark naked;

4) say that the nail marks were in Jesus' "hands" (Jn 20:24-27Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2) without going into detail that it was more like a cap than a wreath as medieval artists imagined it.

So how COULD a 14th century forger have got it so right? And why WOULD he break with centuries of tradition if he wanted his forgery, the Shroud, to be accepted? The essence of forgery is CONFORMITY, not innovation. No counterfeiter ever forged a $7 bill!

>It would be nice to hear Freeman try and explain this away....

Don't hold your breath!

>I am yet to hear a convincing rebuttal by ANYONE of this point

Ditto!

Stephen E. Jones

Matt said...

Stephen
Agreed.
Let's try and think of a hypothetical scenario to explain the MASSIVE departure of the Shroud from convention....mmmmm.....

Here goes...

Medieval genius decides he will create a fake Burial Shroud of Jesus. Motivation could only be commercial, perhaps to sell for a lucrative price as a relic.

He somehow knows more about the crucifixion process than others, including the fact that the crucifixion nails would need to be driven through the wrists rather than the palms. He creates the image without a loin cloth, because of course anyone would realise that Jesus would be nude when wrapped in the burial shroud.

Although these features are totally contrary to the artistic tradition of Jesus's depiction, the artist has a plan for a private sale rather than public display, and he has an explanation for the image that would convince a potential purchaser of its authenticity (he argues that the conventional artistic depiction is wrong). The explanation would make sense to any intelligent and wealthy potential buyer, who would not be worried about its potential controversy if it was for private keep.

This is the only potential medieval forgery theory I can think of, but of course doesn't address how a forger could have actually created the Shroud.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Matt

>Let's try and think of a hypothetical scenario to explain the MASSIVE departure of the Shroud from convention [...]
>
>Medieval genius decides he will create a fake Burial Shroud of Jesus. Motivation could only be commercial, perhaps to sell for a lucrative price as a relic.

Then the forger would make his forgery conform to traditional depictions of Christ on the cross, like the 8th century St. Catherine's monastery example above (cited by Freeman), where Jesus is wearing a tunic and is nailed through the palms, or the 10th century Gero Cross example above (also cited by Freeman), where Jesus is wearing a loincloth and is also nailed through the palms.

>He somehow knows more about the crucifixion process than others, including the fact that the crucifixion nails would need to be driven through the wrists rather than the palms.

How WOULD a forger know about the ROMAN crucifixion process, which ceased in AD 337 and Greek and Roman historians never described it in detail (probably because their readers knew that detail and it was so horrific that they preferred not to describe it)? And again, even if he did, WHY would he depict it when none of his contemporaries would know it and would think he got it WRONG, considerably devaluing his forgery?

>He creates the image without a loin cloth, because of course anyone would realise that Jesus would be nude when wrapped in the burial shroud.

Again, "anyone" would NOT know that Jesus was TOTALLY NUDE on the cross. The gospels only say that the Roman soldiers "divided his garments" (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Jn 19:23-24). So if the Shroud had not at that point already existed showing Jesus stark naked, it would be UNTHINKABLE for a medieval mindset, which a medieval forger would have unconsciously shared.

Apart from the fact that, as previously pointed out, a medieval forger who, in forging the Shroud, was the FIRST to depict Jesus totally nude, bearing the marks of the horrific tortures of scourging and crucifixion (which the gospels don't depict in detail), would have been BURNED AT THE STAKE for blasphemy and his forgery, the Shroud, woud have been included in his pyre.

>Although these features are totally contrary to the artistic tradition of Jesus's depiction, the artist has a plan for a private sale rather than public display, and he has an explanation for the image that would convince a potential purchaser of its authenticity (he argues that the conventional artistic depiction is wrong). The explanation would make sense to any intelligent and wealthy potential buyer, who would not be worried about its potential controversy if it was for private keep.

WHO WAS this intelligent and wealthy medieval private buyer? Although the `impartial' Professor Edward Hall, Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, one of the three labs which dated the Shroud as "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" in 1988, claimed:

"`There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century,' he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it." (Hedges, R., "Obituary: Professor Edward Hall," The Independent, August 16, 2001)

the key word is "Someone"!

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

There actually is NO EVIDENCE of any forger making the equivalent of multi-millions of pounds from selling the Shroud. In fact, the first historically documented owners of the Shroud, Geoffroi de Charny and his wife Jeanne de Vergy:

"Geoffroi de Charny and his wife Jeanne de Vergy are the first reliably recorded owners of the Turin Shroud. The first public exhibition of the Shroud is memorialized in The Pilgrimage Medal shown here and dating from that time. The medal shows the image of the Shroud with very precise indications in spite of its small dimensions. On this medal one can see a frontal and dorsal view of the body, the linen herring patterns, four marks of burns as well as the coats of arms of the Charny and Vergy families. This pilgrimage medal is exhibited at the Cluny museum in Paris (France)." ("Geoffroi de Charny: Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 23 July 2012).

were POOR and could only build a humble church at Lirey, France, to exhibit the Shroud in the 1350s.

>This is the only potential medieval forgery theory I can think of,

Thanks for the FAILED attempt! ;-)

>but of course doesn't address how a forger could have actually created the Shroud.

That's the next IMPOSSIBLE problem.

Not only would the forger have to have a SUPERHUMAN KNOWLEDGE to plan the forgery of the Shroud in the 14th century, he would also have to have a SUPERHUMAN ABILITY to actually do it.

A fully comprehensive, coherent and PLAUSIBLE forgery theory of the Shroud's creation is more INCREDIBLE than that the Shroud really is Jesus' burial sheet, and bears the image of His scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified, dead and RESURRECTED body.

Proof of that is that NO Shroud anti-authenticist has yet even PROPOSED such a comprehensive forgery theory. If Shroud anti-authenticists had attempted to proposed such a forgery theory, they would have given up as the improbabilities increasingly mounted to the point of IMPOSSIBILITY, and they realised that their forgery theory was HARDER TO BELIEVE than that the Shroud is authentic!

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Flagrum3 said...

As to Freeman's comment; "the face of the real dead Christ...without causing controversy" and the ongoing discussion here; I have argued against this point, many times with others that have made the same argument. Unfortunately they won't accept 'possible expanations' for this. Such as; The image when viewed in real life is extremely faint! Several people who have managed to see the Shroud in 'real life' and 'close up' have stated that the blood could 'barely' be distinguised from the image colour. Barbet mentions this and that only when he managed to view the Shroud "outside" the cathedral in daylight, did the blood become more apparent, but still only very subtly. Furthermore, it has also been stated, that it is completely indistinquisable whether the eyes are open or closed...If one accepts these recent eyewitness accounts/descriptions of the image and then considers; What one would be able to distinguish, centuries ago, in a candle lit cathedral, where one could only get within several meters of the cloth? I would submit one could easily come to the conclusion that one could conclude the image was of a 'LIVE' Christ and 'simply' come to the conclusion; "it was created whilst Jesus placed it on his face". The image itself has been discribed several times in the past has seeming to have been created by sweat! Now if the Shroud was kept folded in the tetradiplon configuration for most all of it's pre-Constantinople existance, where it was shown VERY RARELY to the public, and only sparingly to the higher class, still folded, and in POOR lighting. Why is it so hard for some to accept painters renditions showing a "LIVE" Christ? and/or outside of the Byzantine taboo of displaying Christ dead or suffering, and just because of the logical reasons mentioned above?

It boggles the mind, that some can be so closed minded to reasonable thoughts as these. I say close-minded becuase evrytime I have mentioned these scenarios, they have always been IGNORED, never dismissed, just ignored.

F3

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>As to Freeman's comment; "the face of the real dead Christ...without causing controversy" and the ongoing discussion here; I have argued against this point, many times with others that have made the same argument. Unfortunately they won't accept 'possible expanations' for this. Such as; The image when viewed in real life is extremely faint!

I am sure that we ALL accept that "The image when viewed in real life is extremely faint." I myself have stated that many times and that photography enhances the image.

>What one would be able to distinguish, centuries ago, in a candle lit cathedral, where one could only get within several meters of the cloth? I would submit one could easily come to the conclusion that one could conclude the image was of a 'LIVE' Christ and 'simply' come to the conclusion; "it was created whilst Jesus placed it on his face".

No argument from me on that point. The fact is that, lacking the knowledge that behind Jesus extremely faint face image was His whole body image, front and back, it was an entirely reasonable hypothesis for those in the early centuries to propose that the face image was caused by Jesus' miraculously imprinting His face on the cloth.

>The image itself has been discribed several times in the past has seeming to have been created by sweat!

Agreed. As I have myself stated that also was the position of Paul Vignon and Ray Rogers.

>Now if the Shroud was kept folded in the tetradiplon configuration for most all of it's pre-Constantinople existance, where it was shown VERY RARELY to the public, and only sparingly to the higher class, still folded, and in POOR lighting. Why is it so hard for some to accept painters renditions showing a "LIVE" Christ? and/or outside of the Byzantine taboo of displaying Christ dead or suffering, and just because of the logical reasons mentioned above?

Who are these "some" who find "it so hard for some to accept" that Byzantine painters thought they were painting a face image of a live Christ? Was it on another Shroud blog? I cannot recall anyone here who fit that description. I myself have stated that, without knowing that under the face image was Jesus' full burial shroud showing unmistakably the marks of His crowning with thorns, scourging, crucifixion and death, the early Byzantine artists would have assumed that they were painting a live Christ who imprinted His image on the cloth when He washed His face and dried it on the cloth, as the Story of Abgar and the Acts of Thaddeus stated.

>It boggles the mind, that some can be so closed minded to reasonable thoughts as these. I say close-minded becuase evrytime I have mentioned these scenarios, they have always been IGNORED, never dismissed, just ignored.

I am not aware of these scenarios above being ignored on this blog. I almost always respond to comments here and I would have AGREED with you, as I do now.

Stephen E. Jones

Flagrum3 said...

Sorry Stephen when I talk of "some", I am speaking of not this blog or you, but of the likes of Freeman and other Historians and bloggers outside of this one; Namely one Yannick Clement on Dan's blog, whose comments have been backed by Freeman and other supposed experts...I guess my starting sentence on my last comment left who "some" are pretty vague, sorry.

Oh and when I mention about the likeness seeming as 'made by sweat' I am not talking to the more recent attempts of describing the image, as in Rogers or Vignon but of 'ancient' writers discriptions of such and lending to the accounts of some ancient writers postulating it was created by Jesus touching the cloth to his face.


F3

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>Sorry Stephen when I talk of "some", I am speaking of not this blog or you, but of the likes of Freeman and other Historians

Does Freeman and other historians deny that Jesus' face in the Image of Edessa was faint?

>and bloggers outside of this one; Namely one Yannick Clement on Dan's blog, whose comments have been backed by Freeman and other supposed experts...

I don't normally read comments on Dan's or anyone else' blog, so I am not aware of what Yannick Clement claims. But from what I saw of his comments when I was commenting on Dan's blog, I would not lose any sleep over him not agreeing with you!

>I guess my starting sentence on my last comment left who "some" are pretty vague, sorry.

It would help if you wrote with greater precision. From memory you often comment vaguely and then have to clarify what you mean. Why not clarify what you mean from the start?

>Oh and when I mention about the likeness seeming as 'made by sweat' I am not talking to the more recent attempts of describing the image, as in Rogers or Vignon but of 'ancient' writers discriptions of such and lending to the accounts of some ancient writers postulating it was created by Jesus touching the cloth to his face.

I realised that. My point was that it was a reasonable assumption by ancient writers that Jesus' image on the Edessa Cloth was caused by sweat, because even some modern writers, e.g. Vignon and Rogers claimed that.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Flagrum3 said...

Hi Stephen,

I will try to be more precise in my writings...I am working on it.

You asked; "Does Freeman and other historians deny that Jesus's face in the image of Edessa was faint?"

No, but they seem to ignore that the Shroud image, itself, is faint and this fact can nullify part of their argument against Wilson's hypothesis. An argument rehashed by several historians. This argument being; [The painted renditons of the Mandylion/Image of Edessa, show no signs of blood or torture, and show Christ with open eyes and alive. Therefore they could not have been based on the Shroud, as one look at the Shroud one sees Christ in death!]...So in essence they are simply ignoring the fact that the image on the Shroud is so faint as the blood traces cannot be discerned from the image traces, nor can one clearly discern whether the eyes are open or closed, when viewed in 'real-life'.

There is no evidence to show that the Shroud image may be any fainter now, then when viewed in ancient times. One can only assume so.

This is what dumbfounds me; These 'supposed' highly intelligent scholars of history can just ignore these logical facts, facts which I believe completely negates their argument.

F3

Matt said...

Yes Flagrum I agree with your comments, which nicely align with my own view that to the naked eye the image of Jesus's face (which I have had had the privilege of seeing in the flesh)is indeed faint, as is the blood, and it could easily be intepreted as being Christ's face alive with open eyes. And like you, this very faint image makes sense of the interpretations of the Image of Edessa being the sweat imprint of Jesus's face. Of course as you say such factors are conveniently overlooked by the likes of Freeman et al.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>I will try to be more precise in my writings...I am working on it.

Good! If you want your arguments to be taken seriously by others, you first must show that YOU take them seriously enough to check them for logical rigour, and good English style, including spelling. I usually word-process all my comments, which automatically highlights my spelling errors.

>You asked; "Does Freeman and other historians deny that Jesus's face in the image of Edessa was faint?"
>
>No, but they seem to ignore that the Shroud image, itself, is faint and this fact can nullify part of their argument against Wilson's hypothesis. An argument rehashed by several historians. This argument being; [The painted renditons of the Mandylion/Image of Edessa, show no signs of blood or torture, and show Christ with open eyes and alive. Therefore they could not have been based on the Shroud, as one look at the Shroud one sees Christ in death!]...So in essence they are simply ignoring the fact that the image on the Shroud is so faint as the blood traces cannot be discerned from the image traces, nor can one clearly discern whether the eyes are open or closed, when viewed in 'real-life'.

I realised from your comment that I did not answer this argument of Freeman's, so I have inserted the following into my current post:

---------------------------------
Freeman's second-mentioned reason why the Image of Edessa cannot be the Shroud of Turin, because "no one ... would have stared at the face we see the Turin Shroud and have believed that this was an image of a living man" ignores the fact that the Shroud's image is very faint, it is a photographic negative, and there is not the unmistakable evidence of the Shroudman's torture, crucifixion and death on His face as there is on His body. So it would be precisely those who were brought up "knowing the legend" that the Image of Edessa was "a cloth wiped by Christ himself on his face while he was alive" who "would have stared at the face we see the Turin Shroud and have believed that this was an image of a living man"!

Freeman presents no evidence for his assumption "that the image ... in the sixth century, would have been brighter than it is now." Again, either Freeman has not read Ian Wilson's latest book he is criticising (as he implied he had), or Freeman conceals from his readers that in it Wilson mentioned that the Shroud's image was so indistinct back in 944 that some of those who had the luxury of examining it closely, such as the Emperor's sons and son-in-law, could not perceive some of the Image's facial features:

[continued]

Edmund said...

I am following the discussion with interest. It seems impossible to know how faint the Shroud may have been in the early centuries and whether it would have been possible to copy from it. Could you copy from it now without any artificial enhancement?
I see that Stephen is putting forward, in other posts, an alternative thesis that the Shroud was copied in Antioch in the early third century against Wilson's thesis that it was copied in the sixth century. Is that correct? It would seem that the earlier it was copied, the closest to when it was actually formed, the more likely that there would be a good image to be seen.

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

"Amid so much ceremony and self-evident excitement it is difficult to determine when and where, if at any point at all, anyone meaningfully saw the Image removed from its casket in a way that could enable proper study. Nevertheless, that this actually happened is confirmed by an independent contemporary account, not part of the Story of the Image of Edessa. According to this, 'A few days beforehand, when they [the imperial party] were all looking at the marvellous features of the Son of God on the holy imprint, the Emperor's sons [i.e. Stephen and Constantine] declared that they could only see the face, while Constantine his son-in-law said he could see the eyes and the ears.' [Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CIX, 812-13, in Guscin, 2009, p.180.] Given the extraordinary efforts that had been made to obtain the Image, several historians have expressed puzzlement that it should have appeared so indistinct to the few who were allowed to view it directly ... If the Image of Edessa was genuinely one and the same object as today's Shroud of Turin, no such explanation is of course necessary. The Shroud's watery-looking impression and its uncertainty of detail would readily explain Romanos's sons' perception difficulties." (Wilson, 2010, p.165).
---------------------------------

>There is no evidence to show that the Shroud image may be any fainter now, then when viewed in ancient times. One can only assume so.

Indeed, there is evidence that it may have been EVEN FAINTER (see above).

>This is what dumbfounds me; These 'supposed' highly intelligent scholars of history can just ignore these logical facts, facts which I believe completely negates their argument.

Why are you dumbfounded? Most of these "highly intelligent scholars" are atheist/agnostics (as Freeman is-in fact Freeman is an ex-Catholic) so they have a HUGE PERSONAL INVESTMENT in ignoring and denying the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity.

If they admit that the Shroud is authentic, then they know in their heart of hearts that they would be on the `slippery slope' (or rather up-ramp!) to becoming a Christian).

But that could mean problems with, and even the loss of, their atheistic/agnostic family and friends. As well as adversely affecting their academic standing, since Naturalism (nature is all their is-there is no supernatural) is the dominant philosophy in the academic world.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

As it happens, my morning reading today was John 12:39-41:

"39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 40 `He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.' [Isa 6:10] 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his [Jesus'] glory and spoke of him."

My ESV Study Bible notes' comment on this is:

"John cites Isa. 53:1 and 6:10 to indicate that the Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah was predicted by Scripture and thus serves to confirm (rather than thwart) God's sovereign plan. ... Seen here is John’s emphasis on divine sovereignty and human responsibility. On the one hand, the people should have believed and are held guilty for disbelieving (`they still did not believe in him,' John 12:37). On the other hand, God blinded their eyes so that they did not have the spiritual ability to believe, and John can even say they could not believe (v. 39). (On the need for God to first give people the ability to believe, see 1:13; 6:44.)"

The relevance of this to the Shroud-deniers is that, as they have continually resisted the claims of Christ on their life, their heart has become progressively hardened, until they reach a point where they CANNOT BELIEVE, after which they cannot repent and be saved.

Their ignoring and rejection of the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity is just a part of their overall problem of what the Bible calls "hardness of heart" with respect to Christianity.

I don't claim that any particular individual has reached that point, where they CANNOT BELIEVE. Only God knows that. But Scripture does warn that there IS such a point for every individual.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

Edmund

>I am following the discussion with interest. It seems impossible to know how faint the Shroud may have been in the early centuries and whether it would have been possible to copy from it.

We know from the 15 Vignon Markings, which are ALL on various Byzantine icons from the 6th century (but not the whole 15 on any one icon), and ALL 15 are on the Shroud, that the Shroud WAS copied from at least the 6th century.

Also, if the Marcellinus and Peter catacomb's Shroud-like image of Christ, is 4th century, then we know that the image of Christ on the Shroud was sufficiently visible to be copied from at least the AD 300s.

>Could you copy from it now without any artificial enhancement?

There were many (possibly even HUNDREDS) of copies of the Shroud made from at least the 16th century (see Torres, D.D., "Shroud Copies," BSTS Newsletter, No. 59, June 2004).

And the only "artificial enhancement" that I am aware of which can increase the visibility of the Shroud's image are various forms of photography, which didn't exist until the 19th century.

>I see that Stephen is putting forward, in other posts, an alternative thesis that the Shroud was copied in Antioch in the early third century against Wilson's thesis that it was copied in the sixth century. Is that correct?

I prefer Markwardt's theory that the Shroud was in or around Antioch from c. AD 47 to 526, when it was taken to Edessa, but from c. 326 to 526 the Shroud was hidden above Antioch's Gate of the Cherubim. See his "Ancient Edessa and the Shroud" (2008) [PDF]; "The Fire and the Portrait" (1998); and "Antioch and the Shroud" (1999) [PDF].

That is, compared to Wilson's theory that the Shroud was taken to Edessa by the disciple Thaddeus in c. AD 30 and from AD 57 to 526 it was hidden above Edessa's main gate, during which time it became completely forgotten.

Therefore, according to Markwardt's theory, but not Wilson's theory, the Shroud COULD have been copied in the early 4th century. But I don't know whether Markwardt himself claims that it was. Indeed, I myself don't actually claim that the Shroud WAS copied in the 4th century, unless the Marcellinus and Peter catacomb's Shroud-like image of Christ is proven to be 4th century.

>It would seem that the earlier it was copied, the closest to when it was actually formed, the more likely that there would be a good image to be seen.

Not necessarily. As Markwardt has pointed out, it is possible that the image gradually became more visible over centuries (the ENEA report mentioned a possible mechanism for this), which would explain why there is no 1st-2nd century record of there being an image, and it would explain the relative obscurity of the Shroud in those early centuries.

And as I mentioned in a previous comment under this post, the Shroud's image was so indistinct back in 944 that some of those who were able to examine it closely, such as the Emperor's sons and son-in-law, could not perceive some of the Image's facial features.

And there is no evidence that the Shroud's image has grown fainter in the over 650 years that the Shroud has been exhibited publicly.

Indeed in one of Wilson's books, he says that his subjective impression is that the image appeared to be getting more distinct since he first saw it in 1973, but he put this down to the different lighting.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

>... Wilson's theory that the Shroud was taken to Edessa by the disciple Thaddeus in c. AD 30 and from AD 57 to 526 it was hidden above Edessa's main gate, during which time it became completely forgotten.

That should be 525 for Wilson's theory.

Also, after I posted my last comment I realised that it may seem contradictory that:

1) the Shroud's face was visible enough for it to be copied by artists from the 6th and even possibly from the 4th century; and

2) the Shroud's face was so faint that the Edessan public in the 6th century were not able to tell that it was the face of the dead Christ; and even some who examined the Shroud face up close in Constantinople in 944, e.g. the Emperor's sons and son-in-law, could not make out its facial features.

But there is no contradiction. First, it is unlikely that the Edessan public saw the Image itself regularly, if at all. As Ian Wilson points out regarding the same Byzantine "not for common gaze" mindset which applied when the Image of Edessa (which was the Shroud folded eight times with Jesus' face only visible in landscape aspect) was taken to Constantinople from Edessa in 944:

"Despite all the excitement of the Image's reception in Constantinople, and all the public activities ... the general Constantinopolitan public seems only to have been allowed to see the closed casket containing the Image, not the Image itself. There were no known public expositions of the Image, such as would later become relatively common in the case of the Turin Shroud. To the Byzantine mind, something of this kind for so holy an object was quite unthinkable." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," 2010, pp.172-173).

Second, even today the Shroud face is very faint and has the paradoxical property that the closer one is to it, the less distinct its individual features become:

"But what principally draws the eye during any direct viewing is the Shroud's famous and all-important double image. Like the subtlest of shadows, cast on the cloth can be seen faint imprints of the back and front of the body of a man with long hair and a beard. He seems to be quite naked, bloodstained in places, and laid out in the attitude of death. To those unfamiliar with the Shroud, the head-to-head arrangement of the two imprints ... can only appear most curious without some explanation of the basic theory behind how they seem to have been formed. First the body the Shroud wrapped was laid on one half of the cloth, thereby creating the back-of- the-body imprint; the remaining half of the cloth was then drawn over the head and down to the feet, creating the front-of-the-body imprint. Given a corpse soaked in sweat and blood, each side of the body thereby acted like some kind of printing plate. Yet another of the surprises arising from viewing the Shroud directly rather than via a photograph is discovering just how pale and subtle the two body imprints appear. First-hand assessments of their colouring range from straw-yellow to sepia, much depending on the prevailing light conditions. Nevertheless there is universal agreement on their most enigmatic property: the closer one tries to examine them, the more they seem to melt like mist." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," 2010, p.7).

Indeed, that members of the Emperor's family in Constantinople could not make out the Shroud's facial features when examining it close up in 944 is EXACTLY what would be the case if the Image of Edessa they were examining WAS the face of the Shroud of Turin!

Stephen E. Jones

Edmund said...

Stephen , Thanks for your full reply.
Wilson says (in the quote you provide): 'Nevertheless there is universal agreement on their most enigmatic property: the closer one tries to examine them, the more they seem to melt like mist.' From looking at photos of the Shroud without any artificial enhancement, Wilson seems right - one cannot grasp the picture, just a vague outline. So if one is observing the cloth today can one see the Vignon markings? Do we know if Vignon took his markings from looking at the cloth without any enhancement of it? I had just assumed, although without any evidence, that the cloth must have been much clearer in ancient times. If it was actually fainter I can't see how any artist would have seen enough of it to copy it.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Edmund

>Wilson says (in the quote you provide): 'Nevertheless there is universal agreement on their most enigmatic property: the closer one tries to examine them, the more they seem to melt like mist.' From looking at photos of the Shroud without any artificial enhancement,

Any photo of the Shroud IS an artificial enhancement.

But remember that when viewed directly the Shroud is life-size, so presumably that compensates somewhat for the lack of enhancement.

>Wilson seems right - one cannot grasp the picture, just a vague outline.

Wilson doesn't say that. He is only talking about if one tries to get "closer" (and by that he means VERY close-so one can touch it) then the Shroud image starts to blend into the cloth. The image is only a difference in tone of the linen fibrils, due to the image fibrils' accelerated aging, i.e. they are darker.

Wilson elsewhere that you can see the Shroud features "readily enough" if you stood back beyond "touching distance":

"If you stood back you could make it out readily enough: a bearded face, a pronounced chest, crossed hands, legs side by side, together with, as one looked up at the back-of-the-body image, a long rope of hair, taut shoulders and buttocks, and soles of the feet. But the image colour was the subtlest yellow sepia, and as you moved in closer to anything like touching distance ... it seemed virtually to disappear like mist. Because of the lack of outline and the minimum contrast to the ivory-coloured background, it became wellnigh impossible to `see' whatever detail you were trying to look at without stepping some distance back again." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud," 1998, p.4).

Have you looked at the Shroud using ShroudScope: Face Only Vertical?

>So if one is observing the cloth today can one see the Vignon markings?

Yes, if you step back about a metre or more. And some of the Vignon Markings are not part of the image, e.g. the reversed 3 bloodstain on the forehead, the topless square above the nose is a flaw in the Shroud's weave and the `neckline' is a crease in the fabric.

>Do we know if Vignon took his markings from looking at the cloth without any enhancement of it?

Vignon studied Byzantine icons and compared them with Secondo Pia's 1898 photos, and later with Giuseppe Enrie's 1931 photos, of the Shroud. He saw the Shroud at the 1931 exhibition and may have seen it at the 1898 exhibition.

The really major "enhancement" that Pia's 1898 first photographs of the Shroud made was to convert its photographic negative properties into photographic positive properties, enabling features to be seen for what they really were on the Shroud Man, e.g. his wide open staring eyes were really closed in death.

This photographic negative property of the Shroud image enabled the Byzantines to interpret Jesus' face image as imprinted when He was alive.

The very concept of photographic negativity was unknown until 1839. And even though photographic negativity had been known for nearly 60 years by 1898, it never dawned on anyone that the Shroud's image was a photographic negative.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>I had just assumed, although without any evidence, that the cloth must have been much clearer in ancient times.

There are three possibilities: 1) the image is clearer today than it was in the 6th century; 2) the image is fainter today than it was in the 6th century; or 3) the image hasn't changed much since at least the 6th century, when the Vignon Markings first began to appear on icons of Christ's face.

It is impossible to determine which is right, because no one has lived long enough to notice any change and even if they did it would be subjective.

There is a theoretical concern that the Shroud's image is disappearing as the fabric's age catches up with the accelerated age of the image fibrils, but as far as I am aware no one has proved that this is happening appreciably.

>If it was actually fainter I can't see how any artist would have seen enough of it to copy it.

Artists would presumably have a keener eye for detail than the average person. So even if the image was fainter in the 6th century, they could still have discerned the Shroud's Vignon Markings and other features.

Stephen E. Jones