Here is "2.6. The other marks" (2): Poker holes," which is part 13 of my series, "The Shroud of Turin." The series was originally titled, "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have retitled it "The Shroud of Turin" so that my posts in this series are more easily found using a search engine. The previous post in this series was part 12, "2.6. The other marks" (1): Burns and water stains ." See the Contents page (part 1) for more information about this series.
Note: The sub-title of this post originally was "Poker holes, dirt on foot and limestone," but I have expanded the `poker holes' section following my response to Jack Markwardt's comment under it. But then the post became too long, so I have extracted the "dirt on foot and limestone" part and will re-post that separately in my next post. I have therefore reduced the sub-title of this revised post to "Poker holes" only.
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.6. THE OTHER MARKS (2): POKER HOLES
© Stephen E. Jones
As explained in my previous post, by "other marks" I mean those significant marks on the Shroud of Turin which are not wounds (see "2.4. The wounds") or bloodstains (see "2.5. The Bloodstains").
`Poker holes' The so-called `poker holes' are four sets of holes
on the Shroud[1]. Two of these sets are on either side of the man's buttocks on the Shroud's dorsal side of the Shroud and two sets are on either side of the crossed hands on the frontal side[2].
[Right (click to enlarge): `Poker holes' (outlined in yellow): Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical: Overlays: Poker Holes]
Each set is a group of three main holes with black edges and varying numbers of smaller, black-edged holes[3]. The edges of these holes are blacker than the fire damage of 1532[4] and a material resembling pitch has been detected around them[5]. If the Shroud is folded in four, once lengthwise and once widthwise, all four sets of holes superimpose upon one another in the centre of the folded cloth[6], in a descending degree of damage[7].
[Above): The four sets of `poker holes' on the Shroud in a clockwise descending order of damage. First (dorsal left side) top left; second (dorsal right side) top right; third (frontal right side) bottom right; and fourth (frontal left side) bottom left: Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical. Note the steep rate of reduction of hole size between the first and fourth set of holes, even though each hole would have been only about 1.3 mm above its counterpart when the theorised "red hot poker" (Wilson) or "pitch soaked firebrand" (Markwardt) was thrust through all four layers of the folded-in-four Shroud (see below).]
That the damage was deliberate and not an accident is evidenced by the holes occur in the exact dead centre of the Shroud if it is folded in four once lengthwise and once widthwise[8].
There is no record when this `poker holes' damage to the Shroud occurred, but a painted copy of the Shroud dated 1516, held in the Church of St Gommaire, Lierre, Belgium, clearly shows them[9].
[Right: Copy of Shroud dated 1516, kept in the Church of St. Gommaire, Belgium, clearly depicting the four sets of `poker holes' on the Shroud of Turin[10]]
Moreover the Pray Codex (1192-95) clearly depicts one of the L-shaped sets of holes on the Shroud[11], which means the `poker holes', and the Shroud itself, are earlier than 1192-95[12]. This is well before the earliest 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[13] and therefore (as we shall see in greater detail in "5. Art and the Shroud") is more evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is wrong[14]. It is also another problem for the forgery theory[§10] because it pushes further back the time of the claimed forgery from the already artistically backward 14th century[15].
[Left: Pray Codex (1192-95) depicting a set of L-shaped `poker holes' found on the Shroud[16].]
Various theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the `poker holes'. A Dominican scholar, Fr. Andre-M. Dubarle, theorised that the holes were caused by hot coals which dropped from a censer which was swung over the centre of the Shroud as it lay folded in quarters on an altar[17]. But that does not explain the presence of pitch around the holes.
Another theory is that of historian Ian Wilson that the Shroud was subject to a 'trial by fire' in Jerusalem in about AD 680 by a Muslim ruler, Caliph Mu'awiyah[18], which involved the Shroud having been "folded in four and deliberately run through three times with something like a red-hot poker."[19]. However, that 'trial by fire' is based on mere hearsay by St. Adamnan (c. 627–704), who was the abbot of a monastery on the Scottish Island of Iona, relating what a shipwrecked Bishop Arculf of Perigueux who had visited Jerusalem in about 677, had supposedly told him[20]. According to Adamnan, Arculf had claimed to have seen the Shroud in Jerusalem and had "learned" (but did not personally witness) that it had recently been subjected to a `trial by fire' by Jerusalem's Saracen ruler (Caliph Mu'awiyah)[21]. But Arculf told Adamnan that the Shroud he saw was "about eight feet long" and evidently bore no image[22]. Moreover, there is nothing in Arculf's account about a hot poker or firebrand being plunged into the Shroud, but rather Arculf described the Shroud as fluttering above the fire 'like a bird with outstretched wings'[23]. Wilson himself had previously concluded that what Arculf saw "could not have been the ... Shroud of Turin"[24] but was "almost certainly a so-called holy shroud of Compiegne, destroyed in the French Revolution"[25].
Yet another theory of the origin of the `poker holes' is is attorney Jack Markwardt's that "a pitch-soaked firebrand" was thrust through the folded-in-four Shroud's "dead center, four times"[26] by the Edessans during the Persian siege of Edessa in AD 544, in a desperate attempt to have God cause the siege tower to catch fire, so the siege would be lifted [27, 28] (which actually happened). Markwardt bases his "pitch-soaked firebrand" theory of the origin of the `poker holes' on the late 6th century report by the Syrian historian, Evagrius[29]. But Evagrius specifically stated that the Edessans "brought out the divinely made image not made by the hands of man ... and washed it over with water, they sprinkled some upon the timber ... [and] the timber immediately caught the flame ... and the fire spread in all directions."[30]. There is no mention of the Edessans thrusting a burning "pitch-soaked firebrand" through the Shroud. Moreover in a comment under this post, Markwardt wrote of Wilson's `trial by fire theory': "I find it hard to accept that reverent Edessan or Byzantine Christians would ever have subjected such a sacred image to a trial by fire." But by the same token it is hard to believe that the Edessa Christians would have thrust a burning "pitch-soaked firebrand" through the Shroud, especially since they would have seen Jesus' image on it. Much more plausible (albeit miraculous) is Evagrius' account where the Edessans washed the Mandylion/Shroud with water and then sprinkled some of the same water on the timber and it caught fire. That there is the Biblical precedent in 1 Kings 18:31-39 where the prophet Elijah, in his contest with the false prophets of Baal, poured water on wood on an altar and "the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the...wood," adds to the plausibility of Evagrius' account that only water was poured on the Mandylion/Shroud.
In view of the above, I now consider that the `poker holes' were not caused by "hot coals" (Dubarle), or "a red-hot poker" (Wilson), or by "a pitch-soaked firebrand" (Markwardt), but by drops of hot pitch accidentally falling on the Shroud, possibly on more than one occasion, during an early Christian ritual when the Shroud was folded in four. My reasons include:
1. More damage would be expected to a thin linen cloth, "a little heavier than shirt cloth" [31], which the Shroud is, if a red hot poker, or especially a pitch-soaked burning firebrand, was thrust through it four times.
[Above: Map of the four sets of `poker holes' in descending degree of damage[32]. The map corresponds to the Shroud being horizonal with the frontal side left and the dorsal side right.]
2. The holes would be expected to be fairly uniform in diameter if they were caused by four thrusts of the one burning firebrand or hot poker into the folded-in-four cloth in rapid succession. But the four holes in what was the topmost set, that on the Shroud's dorsal left-hand side[33], range from about 26 x 26 mm to 32 x 24 mm. All hole sizes were measured by me from a printed copy of the Shroud and multiplied by a scale factor (see comment below).
3. The area around this topmost set of holes, which unlike the other three sets, would have been directly exposed to the flame of the firebrand or radiant heat of the red hot poker, would be expected to exhibit a markedly greater degree of charring, but it doesn't.
4. The rate of progressive decline in the hole sizes is too steep for a pitch-soaked burning firebrand or red hot poker to have been the cause. The top and bottom hole sets' corresponding hole sizes are: 26 x 26 mm and 8 x 21 mm, 29 x 21 mm and 11 x 8 mm, 26 x 16 mm and 11 x 8 mm, 32 x 24 mm and 5 x 3 mm. As can be seen the largest hole on the topmost set (32 x 24 mm) is the smallest hole (5 x 3 mm) on the bottom set. But the Shroud is only "about one third of a millimetre" thick[34] which means that if a burning pitch-soaked firebrand or red hot poker was thrust through the folded-in-four cloth it would compress the four layers so that each layer would be only about a third of a millimetre below the one above it. But then there would be no appreciable progressive reduction of the size of each burn hole from its counterpart immediately above it. There seems no way that a hole created by a red hot poker or pitch-soaked firebrand, thrust through a folded-in-four thin linen cloth, would within the space of about 1.3 mm, reduce in diameter from 32 x 24 mm to 5 x 3 mm.
5. There are many smaller burn holes in the same area, indicating that drops of hot pitch had fallen on the Shroud at different times.
[Above: Topmost (dorsal left) set of `poker holes': Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical:. Note the many smaller holes, indicating that other drops of hot pitch had fallen on the same central area of the Shroud at different times, while it was folded in four the same way, presumably as part of an early Christian ceremony.]
I will be interested to hear if these problems with the "red hot poker" and "pitch soaked firebrand" theories of the origin of the `poker holes' have occurred to anyone else (pro- or anti- Shroud authenticity). For convenience I will continue to refer to them as `poker holes' but I now will think of them as hot pitch burn holes, unless someone can come up with a better explanation that fits the facts above.
NOTES
1. 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.66. [return]
2. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
3. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
4. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.4. [return]
5. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, p.47. [return]
6. Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
7. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
8. Wilson, 1986, p.78. [return]
9. Wilson, 1986, p.70. [return]
10. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.18. [return]
11. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.115. [return]
12. Maloney, P.C.1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," 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, p.32. [return]
13. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615. [return]
14. De Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.183. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
16. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, plate IV. [return]
17. Maloney, P.C., 1990, "The Current Status of Pollen Research and Prospects for the Future," ASSIST Newsletter, Vol. 2., No. 1, June, pp.5-6. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.184. [return]
19. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.4. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.94. [return]
21. Wilson, 1979, p.94. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.94. [return]
23. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.94. [return]
25. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.103. [return]
26. Markwardt, J., 1998, "The Fire and the Portrait," Shroud.com. [return]
27. Markwardt, 1998. [return]
28. Markwardt, J., 1999, "Antioch and the Shroud," Shroud.com. [return]
29. Markwardt, 1998. [return]
30. Evagrius, "Ecclesiastical History," in Wilson, 1979, p.137. [return]
31. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.2. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
33. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
34. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.161. [return]
§10. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]
To be continued in part 14, "2.6. The other marks (3): Dirt on foot and limestone."
Last updated: 25 October, 2015.
Posts
16 comments:
Great post again Stephen.
Skeptics will usually come out with a weak argument that a forger could have sprinkled microscopic travertine aragonite on that area of the shroud, but that's rediculous.
Why would a forger fool people of that age by doing this since no one even had the technology to even detect it back then.
Once we get past that they would have to seriously contend with the evidence.
Bippy123
>Great post again Stephen.
Thanks.
>Skeptics will usually come out with a weak argument that a forger could have sprinkled microscopic travertine aragonite on that area of the shroud, but that's rediculous.
A 14th century or earlier forger wouldn't have known that aragonite existed. Aragonite was first discovered in 1797:
"Aragonite... Named in 1797 for the type locality, the village of Molina de Aragón, Spain, and not the province of Aragón, a mistake made by several later writers. ... Year of Discovery: 1797" ("Aragonite," Mindat.org, 2013).
Also, the Aragonite was not "sprinkled" all over the Shroud. STURP's reflectance spectroscopy experts, Roger and Marty Gilbert, only obtained the strong and anomalous spectral signal, which later was identified as Aragonite, from the right foot of the Shroud man.
>Why would a forger fool people of that age by doing this since no one even had the technology to even detect it back then.
Another good point. We are not talking about large crystals in which Aragonite might be distinguished from Calcite, but limestone dust particles, the crystalline structure of which can only be distinguished under a powerful microscope.
But not only is the limestone dust on the Shroud travertine (stream deposited) Aragonite, but it has the same chemical signature (in the amounts of trace elements like strontium and iron) as the travertine Aragonite found in and around Jerusalem. So the 14th century or earlier forger would have had to have gone to the unnecessary trouble of obtaining from Jerusalem limestone dust for mainly the heel of the Shroud man and then in such small quantities that no one knew it was there until STURP discovered it in 1978.
>Once we get past that they would have to seriously contend with the evidence.
Few Shroud sceptics ever get that far. The vast majority decide the Shroud cannot be authentic on philosophical, religious or `common sense' grounds, irrespective of the evidence.
The rare agnostic Shroud pro-authenticist, art historian Thomas de Wesselow, makes that point, that "Without even looking at it, most people make a rough calculation ... that it is plainly incredible, not even worth considering" and "The doubts creep in only when and if - a rare event they start studying the cloth":
"`Too good to be true' - that is a regular response to the Shroud of Turin. Without even looking at it, most people make a rough calculation (based on all sorts of hidden assumptions) that it is plainly incredible, not even worth considering. The doubts creep in only when and if - a rare event they start studying the cloth. Surprisingly, perhaps, the overwhelming majority of those who consider the matter carefully (including atheists, agnostics and non-Catholic Christians with a healthy disregard for religious relics) conclude that the Shroud might very well be what it purports to be: the winding sheet of Jesus. And the primary evidence that leads to this conclusion is the pattern of injuries apparent on the cloth. Far from being too good to be true, the Shroud's blood-image seems too good to be false." (de Wesselow, T., "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, 2012, p.132).
PS: Since Aragonite was discovered in Spain, I have deleted the statement in my above post that Aragonite is not found in Europe.
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.
Thank you again Stephen for the thoroughly researched answer. Everytime I visit your site I seem to learn something new. :)
Did you happen to catch the news on shroud.com
BREAKING NEWS!
Pope Authorizes Television Exhibition of Shroud on March 30, 2013
http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm
It was announced this morning that Pope Benedict XVI, as one of his last acts as Pontiff, has authorized a television only exhibition of the Shroud of Turin on March 30, 2013 (Holy Saturday) directly from the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist where the cloth is permanently stored. Here is an excerpt from an e-mail I received this morning from my friend Bruno Barberis, President of the International Center for the Study of the Shroud (Centro Internazionale di Sindonologia) in Turin with the details:
I would like to give you in advance an important piece of news. On March 30th (Holy Saturday) in the late afternoon (Italian time) in the Turin Cathedral there will be a TV exposition of the Holy Shroud. The exposition will be broadcast by the RAI Uno television network. This event, connected with the "Year of Faith," will happen 40 years after the first and unique TV exposition of the Shroud on November 23rd, 1973. The Shroud will remain in its room in the Cathedral and the length of the exposition will be around one hour. On March 1st in Turin at 11.00am a press conference will be held regarding this special exposition.
It is likely that footage from this exposition will be picked up and shown by other television broadcast networks around the world and on the internet. I will do my best to keep you updated as more details become available. In the interim, you can also check our Facebook page, where I can quickly post any news that may come in while I am traveling and lecturing.
For more information on the unprecedented occasion of this first "technological" exhibition of the Shroud, check out the news page (in English) of the Collegamento pro Sindone website by Emanuela Marinelli. The page includes more details on Pope Benedict's decision to display the Shroud and a message from Msgr. Cesare Nosiglia, the current Archbishop of Turin. As always, our deepest thanks to Emanuela for making this information available so quickly. Grazie!
Here is a link to a more recent and detailed article in the online version of the Italian publication Gazzetta del Sud (this version is in English) about the upcoming "technological exposition" of the Shroud: http://www.gazzettadelsud.it/news/37027/Pope-Emeritus-orders-TV-broadcast-of-Shroud-of-Turin.html.
Posted February 27, 2013 - Updated March 9, 2013
Bippy122
Is there a Bippy122 as well as a Bippy123?
>Thank you again Stephen for the thoroughly researched answer. Everytime I visit your site I seem to learn something new. :)
Thanks. A main reason why I decided to write this series, "The Shroud of Turin" (formerly "The Shroud of Jesus?" is so that I can learn new things about the Shroud myself as I research each topic.
>Did you happen to catch the news on shroud.com
Yes. I am on Barrie Schwortz' Shroud.com mailing list. But I don't post Shroud news anymore because Dan Porter on his Shroud of Turin blog does that and I am presume most (if not all) of my readers read his blog as well.
But for those who missed them, Dan reported this news on his blog twice: "STERA also breaks the news of the TV only shroud exhibition" and "ANSA: Ratzinger orders TV broadcast of Shroud of Turin".
>BREAKING NEWS!
Pope Authorizes Television Exhibition of Shroud on March 30, 2013
>
>http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm
>
>It was announced this morning that Pope Benedict XVI, as one of his last acts as Pontiff, has authorized a television only exhibition of the Shroud of Turin on March 30, 2013 (Holy Saturday) directly from the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist where the cloth is permanently stored. Here is an excerpt from an e-mail I received this morning from my friend Bruno Barberis, President of the International Center for the Study of the Shroud (Centro Internazionale di Sindonologia) in Turin with the details:
>
>I would like to give you in advance an important piece of news. On March 30th (Holy Saturday) in the late afternoon (Italian time) in the Turin Cathedral there will be a TV exposition of the Holy Shroud. The exposition will be broadcast by the RAI Uno television network. This event, connected with the "Year of Faith," will happen 40 years after the first and unique TV exposition of the Shroud on November 23rd, 1973. The Shroud will remain in its room in the Cathedral and the length of the exposition will be around one hour. On March 1st in Turin at 11.00am a press conference will be held regarding this special exposition.
>
>It is likely that footage from this exposition will be picked up and shown by other television broadcast networks around the world and on the internet. I will do my best to keep you updated as more details become available. In the interim, you can also check our Facebook page, where I can quickly post any news that may come in while I am traveling and lecturing.
>
>For more information on the unprecedented occasion of this first "technological" exhibition of the Shroud, check out the news page (in English) of the Collegamento pro Sindone website by Emanuela Marinelli. The page includes more details on Pope Benedict's decision to display the Shroud and a message from Msgr. Cesare Nosiglia, the current Archbishop of Turin. As always, our deepest thanks to Emanuela for making this information available so quickly. Grazie!
>
>Here is a link to a more recent and detailed article in the online version of the Italian publication Gazzetta del Sud (this version is in English) about the upcoming "technological exposition" of the Shroud: http://www.gazzettadelsud.it/news/37027/Pope-Emeritus-orders-TV-broadcast-of-Shroud-of-Turin.html.
Now, thanks to you, this important announcement is also on my blog.
I am not sure it will be broadcast on Western Australian TV, but hopefully I will be able to see it via the Internet.
Stephen E. Jones
Sorry about that Stephen, I accidentally typed the 2 instead of a 3. It's my ipad mini keyboard :)
We are both the same bippy123
Stephen:
In my 1998 paper, The Fire and the Portrait, I cited Evagrius’ ca. 593 CE account of the defenders of Edessa having dug an underground tunnel and having employed an acheiropoietos (not made by human hands) Christ-icon in starting a fire which consumed the enemy’s siege tower during the Persian siege of 544 CE. I suggested that the cloth now known as the Turin Shroud had been laid upon timber stacked in a tunnel located beneath this siege tower and that the relic was penetrated four times by a pitch-soaked firebrand. I noted that the charred edges of all twelve of the Shroud’s poker holes “present evidence of pitch”, a circumstance which had been observed by Ray Rogers’ during his 1978 examination of the Shroud and which was reported by him in an article (which he co-authored with Larry Schwalbe in 1982) entitled “Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A Summary of the 1978 Investigation”, Analytica Chimica Acta 135, pp. 3-49.
I would now like to reference a second historical text, not cited in my original paper, which would seem to further corroborate my conclusion. In an account of this same military episode, one written more than forty years earlier than that of Evagrius, Procopius of Caesarea, a Byzantine historian, makes no mention of any acheiropoietos Christ-icon but he does relate that the city’s defenders dug out a chamber adjacent to the Persian siege embankment:
“Then they threw in there dry trunks of trees of the kind which burn most easily, and saturated them with oil of cedar and added quantities of sulphur and bitumen” (i.e., pitch). Procopius, History of the Wars, Book II, Vol. XXVII, 1-4.
Thereafter, Procopius relates, the stacked wood was set afire resulting in extensive damage to the Persian siege embankment.
Thus, (1) Evagrius places an acheiropoietos Christ-icon in the Edessan underground tunnel and he credits it with starting the critical fire; and (2) Procopius denotes bitumen (pitch) as an essential ingredient in the fire-starting process that occurred within the Edessan underground chamber during this same historical episode; and (3) the Turin Shroud features scientifically-confirmed pitch-soaked holes which have seemingly been created by the penetration of a metal or wooden firebrand. I am not aware of any other historical record which substantiates that the Turin Shroud, whether it may or may not have once been known as the Image of Edessa or the Mandylion, was ever subjected to a trial by fire which implicated either its penetration or its exposure to pitch. Arculf reportedly related to Adamnan that, in ca. 681-683 CE, the Caliph Mu’awiyah sent an eight-foot long and non-imaged sudarium to fluttering above an open fire, but he did not recite that this cloth had been either subjected to penetration by a firebrand or exposed to pitch. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been satisfactory explained how holes allegedly created by errant censer sparks could display the presence of pitch to the degree observed and reported by Rogers.
Perhaps the cause of this particular fire damage to the Turin Shroud will never be determined with absolute certainty, but I find it hard to accept that reverent Edessan or Byzantine Christians would ever have subjected such a sacred image to a trial by fire and it does appear that the available historical and scientific evidence references events which reportedly transpired beneath the the walls of Edessa in 544 CE.
Jack
Thanks for your comment. The following multi-part response is my friendly and constructive critique of your Jerusalem-Antioch-Edessa theory, which I accept, with the aim of strengthening it.
>In my 1998 paper, The Fire and the Portrait, I cited Evagrius’ ca. 593 CE account of the defenders of Edessa having dug an underground tunnel and having employed an acheiropoietos (not made by human hands) Christ-icon in starting a fire which consumed the enemy’s siege tower during the Persian siege of 544 CE.
I had previously posted in my "My critique of Charles Freeman's `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey,' part 6: `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa' (2)" that I personally prefer your Jerusalem-Antioch-Edessa theory to Ian Wilson's Jerusalem-Edessa theory.
>I suggested that the cloth now known as the Turin Shroud had been laid upon timber stacked in a tunnel located beneath this siege tower and that the relic was penetrated four times by a pitch-soaked firebrand.
However, it seems to me there are problems with a "pitch-soaked firebrand" or a hot poker, being the cause of the `poker holes'.
I printed out a ShroudScope enlargement of the the four sets of `poker holes'. On my printout the Shroud measured 211 mm wide. Since the Shroud itself is 111 cm (1110 mm) wide, then 1 mm on my printout equals 1110/211 = 5.26 mm on the Shroud.
I am following the order in Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," p.66, of: top set = dorsal left, second set = dorsal right, third set = frontal right and bottom set = frontal left.
1. On my printout, in the topmost set of holes (dorsal left), the top hole of the laterally inverted "L" measured 5 x 5 mm (all measurements to the nearest mm). That equates to 26 x 26 mm (or about 1 inch x 1 inch) on the Shroud. I would expect a "pitch-soaked firebrand" to have caused more damage than that to a thin, linen cloth, as the Shroud is.
2. I would also expect the area around this topmost set of holes, which unlike the other three sets, would have been directly exposed to the flame of the firebrand, to exhibit a markedly greater degree of charring, but it doesn't.
3. The remaining three holes in this topmost set's laterally inverted "L", measured down to left, were: 5.5 x 4 mm (= 29 x 21 mm), 5 x 3 mm (= 26 x 16 mm) and 6 x 4.5 mm (= 32 x 24 mm). This raises another problem with a pitch-soaked burning firebrand or a hot poker being the cause. I would then expect the holes to be fairly uniform in diameter if they were caused by four thrusts of the one burning firebrand or hot poker into the folded-in-four cloth in rapid succession, but they aren't.
4. When the Shroud is folded once lengthways and once widthways, each of the four major holes in the four sets superimposes over its counterpart in the underlying sets. But then the rate of progressive attenuation of the hole sizes is too steep for a pitch-soaked burning firebrand to have been the cause. The Shroud is only about one third of a millimetre thick (Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud," p.161) which means that the total thickness of the folded-in-four cloth would be less than 2 millimetres, allowing for some space between the folds. But if a burning pitch-soaked firebrand or hot poker was thrust through the folded-in-four cloth it would compress the four layers so that each layer would be only about a third of a millimetre below the one above it. But then there would be no appreciable attenuation of the size of each burn hole from its counterpart immediately above it.
[continued]
[continued]
>I would now like to reference a second historical text, not cited in my original paper, which would seem to further corroborate my conclusion. In an account of this same military episode, one written more than forty years earlier than that of Evagrius, Procopius of Caesarea, a Byzantine historian, makes no mention of any acheiropoietos Christ-icon but he does relate that the city’s defenders dug out a chamber adjacent to the Persian siege embankment:
Procopius of Caesarea (c. AD 500-c. AD 565) was the official historian of the Roman Emperor Justinian I (c. 482–565), and the Persian attack on Edessa in 544 is called "Justinian vs. Khosrau I" in Wikipedia's "Roman–Persian Wars."
>“Then they threw in there dry trunks of trees of the kind which burn most easily, and saturated them with oil of cedar and added quantities of sulphur and bitumen” (i.e., pitch). Procopius, History of the Wars, Book II, Vol. XXVII, 1-4.
>
>Thereafter, Procopius relates, the stacked wood was set afire resulting in extensive damage to the Persian siege embankment.
That Procopius in about 551 does not mention the defenders of Edessa having dug an underground tunnel and employed an acheiropoietos (not made by human hands) Christ-icon in starting a fire which consumed the Persian's siege tower during the Persian siege of Edessa in 544 CE, as Evagrius did in his c. 593 account of the same event, may be explained by it being too embarrassing to admit in Justinian's time that the Edessans used and deliberately damaged the very burial Shroud of Christ.
Although, see below where I have second thoughts about whether the Edessans would have deliberately damaged the Shroud while seeing Jesus image on it. In that case, Procopius not mentioning the"acheiropoietos Christ-icon" might have simply been because he did not considered it essential to his account of the Persian siege tower catching fire.
>Thus, (1) Evagrius places an acheiropoietos Christ-icon in the Edessan underground tunnel and he credits it with starting the critical fire;
But Evagrius account says the Edessan after "attempting to fire the wood" then "washed it [the Shroud] over with water" and "sprinkled some upon the timber" after which "the timber immediately caught the flame":
"The mine was completed; but they [the Edessans] failed in attempting to fire the wood, because the fire, having no exit whence it could obtain a supply of air, was unable to take hold of it. In this state of utter perplexity they brought out the divinely made image not made by the hands of man, which Christ our God sent to King Abgar when he desired to see him. Accordingly, having introduced this sacred likeness into the mine and washed it over with water, they sprinkled some upon the timber ... the timber immediately caught the flame, and being in an instant reduced to cinders, communicated with that above, and the fire spread in all directions." (Evagrius, "Ecclesiastical History," in Wilson, 1979, p.137).
No mention in the above by Evagrius of "the divinely made image not made by the hands of man" [the Mandylion/Shroud] being thrust through four times with a burning pitch-soaked firebrand or hot poker.
It seems much more plausible that the Edessans would have brought the Mandylion/Shroud to the entrance of the tunnel filled with wood and saturated with cedar oil with added sulphur and pitch (they wouldn't have wanted to be in the tunnel with the Mandylion/Shroud when it caught fire!), and sprinkled water on it and then some of that water on the wood.
[continued]
[continued]
Also, there is the Biblical precedent in 1 Kings 18:31-39 where Elijah, in his contest with the prophets of Baal, poured water on wood and "the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the...wood." This adds to the plausibility of Evagrius' account that only water was poured on the Mandylion/Shroud.
>and (2) Procopius denotes bitumen (pitch) as an essential ingredient in the fire-starting process that occurred within the Edessan underground chamber during this same historical episode; and (3) the Turin Shroud features scientifically-confirmed pitch-soaked holes which have seemingly been created by the penetration of a metal or wooden firebrand.
Agreed, the mention of "bitumen" = "pitch" (Gk. asphaltos Gn 6:15 LXX?) in Procopius' account may be significant, in view of the `poker holes' being rimmed with burnt pitch residue.
>I am not aware of any other historical record which substantiates that the Turin Shroud, whether it may or may not have once been known as the Image of Edessa or the Mandylion, was ever subjected to a trial by fire which implicated either its penetration or its exposure to pitch.
Agreed. The only mention of a "trial by fire" was in the HEARSAY account of what Bishop Arculf of Perigueux is supposed to have told Iona's Abbot, St. Adamnan:
"About 670, a Frankish bishop, Arculf of Perigueux, shipwrecked off the lonely island of Iona in the Scottish Hebrides, had been given shelter in the island's monastery by its abbot, St. Adamnan. In gratitude he related to his host the story of his recent pilgrimage and how he had actually seen in Jerusalem the reputed shroud of Jesus. He told how he had learned that not long before there had been a dispute about the shroud between Christians and Jews, and Jerusalem's Saracen ruler had subjected it to a trial by fire, the relic fortunately landing safely in the hands of the Christians. He himself saw it taken out of its shrine "and raised aloft, amid a multitude of people assembled in the church, who kissed it, and he himself kissed it. And it was about eight feet long." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin," 1979, p.94).
But the story is inherently implausible. First, note that Arculf only "learned" it. He did not see the `trial by fire' himself.
Second, the Shroud would have had to have been taken from Edessa to Jerusalem in about 677. But in 943 it took an ARMY from Constantinople to get the Edessans to part with the Mandylion/Shroud, yet according to Wilson's "trial by fire" theory of the origin of the `poker holes' the Mandylion/ Shroud was taken from Edessa to Jerusalem without any recorded protest by the Edessans.
And, third, as if a "multitude" of Christians in Jerusalem would stand idly by and allow a Muslim to hold the Shroud, let alone over an open fire!
But as Wilson himself pointed out in 1979, what Arculf may have seen was only seen a COPY of the Shroud in the abbey of St. Cornelius, Compiègne, France:
"... the shroud seen by Arculf could have borne no image or he would undoubtedly have mentioned it. Furthermore, the length of the cloth, eight feet, was much shorter than that of the Turin Shroud. Father Maurus [Green] observed that the argument was in any case a specious one. A Jesuit scholar, J. Francez, had in 1935 put up a very convincing case for the shroud seen by Arculf having been a gift to Charlemagne about 797. In 877 Charlemagne's grandson Charles the Bald gave it to the royal abbey of St. Cornelius, Compiègne [France], and there for over nine hundred years it enjoyed great esteem as the Holy Shroud of Compiègne, an eight-foot-long tissue of fine linen that was the object of huge pilgrimages and numerous state occasions. This shroud was destroyed in the French Revolution. Clearly it could not have been the same as the present-day Shroud of Turin." (Wilson, 1979, p.94).
[continued]
[continued]
>Arculf reportedly related to Adamnan that, in ca. 681-683 CE, the Caliph Mu’awiyah sent an eight-foot long and non-imaged sudarium to fluttering above an open fire, but he did not recite that this cloth had been either subjected to penetration by a firebrand or exposed to pitch. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been satisfactory explained how holes allegedly created by errant censer sparks could display the presence of pitch to the degree observed and reported by Rogers.
It was HEARSAY by Adamnan, and it was also HEARSAY by Arculf, in that, by his own admission he only "learned" about this `trial by fire' and did not see it for himself. And as Wilson himself pointed out in 1979, an "eight feet" long Shroud which bore "no image" was not the Shroud of Turin.
>Perhaps the cause of this particular fire damage to the Turin Shroud will never be determined with absolute certainty, but I find it hard to accept that reverent Edessan or Byzantine Christians would ever have subjected such a sacred image to a trial by fire and it does appear that the available historical and scientific evidence references events which reportedly transpired beneath the the walls of Edessa in 544 CE.
Agreed. The `poker holes' could have merely been an accident with a burning pitch filled censer (or several accidents with burning pitch filled censers, bearing in mind that there are multiple tiny burns in that same area on the Shroud), before the Shroud even reached Edessa in 526 (according to your Jerusalem-Antioch-Edessa theory).
But in that case there would have had to have been an early ritual in which the Shroud was folded in two lengthways and then in two widthways, and a censer waved over the dead centre of the thus folded Shroud.
By the same token I find it hard to believe that "reverent Edessan ... would ever have subjected such a sacred image to" thrusting a burning pitch-soaked firebrand or hot poker into the Mandylion/Shroud. They would have had to have unfolded it and so they would have seen Jesus' image on it. Even though the burning firebrand or poker would miss the image, it is hard to believe that "reverent Edessan" could have brought themselves to do that. And that they would have thought that the Christ their God would have responded favourably to their extreme desecration of His Shroud by causing the Persian siege tower to catch fire.
In conclusion, Jack, in my opininion your origin of the `poker holes' theory that the Edessans thrust a pitch-soaked burning firebrand into the folded in four Shroud, when they could see Jesus' image on it, is implausible and problematic.
Since it is not essential to your overall theory Jerusalem-Antioch-Edessa theory, it should, in my opinion, be separated from it.
Stephen E. Jones
My paper had addressed this issue from an entirely historical standpoint; i.e., assuming that the “poker holes” were caused by a pitch-soaked object, when could this damage have occurred?
Your observations, while most insightful and interesting, would require confirmation via scientific experimentation which would take into account such variables as: (1) the tautness or slackness of the cloth at the time of its penetration (e.g., was it held tautly above the stacked timber or was it lightly draped over same?); (2) the number of firebrands employed (was it but one firebrand, applied successively, as you assume, or as many as four separate firebrands?); (3) the number of persons involved in thrusting these firebrands into the cloth (were there several persons of disparate size and strength, were they men or women, were they young and strong or old and infirm, etc.?); (4) the angle of the penetrations (were they all administered frontally, or were some leveled from the sides, or from above, or from below?) ; and (5) the nature of the firebrands (were they all metal rods of uniform shape, length, and thickness, or were they simple wooden tree branches, randomly pulled from the timber stack, and of varying shapes, lengths, and thicknesses?). Only then could a conclusion be reached, within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, as to whether fire damage was caused by pitch-soaked pokers or firebrands.
Perhaps Procopius did not mention an acheiropoietos Christ-icon because, when he wrote his account, the Persians were still waging war against the Byzantine Empire, and he may not have desired to entice Chosroes into again attacking Edessa in order to seize and destroy the icon. When Evagrius wrote about this same incident in ca. 593, Chosroes was long dead (d. 579 CE) and, ironically, the Byzantine Empire was then allied with Chosroes’ grandson, the ruler of Persia.
Perhaps Evagrius did not mention the firebrand incident for the reason which I previously suggested: the Edessenes, not wishing to reveal their desecration of a holy image, invented the rather fanciful story that they merely sprinkled water on the cloth and that this had miraculously started the critical fire. If the Turin Shroud is properly identifiable with the Image of Edessa/Mandylion, it was, at some point, folded into a portrait, perhaps by the Edessan defenders in order to conceal the damage which they had inflicted upon the holy image.
I do not believe that a connection has ever been made between censers employed by the medieval Eastern Church and pitch. I believe that such censers contained charcoal and similar materials.
Evagrius clearly reports that this icon was not brought to bear until every other attempt at defense had failed. The desperate Edessenes well knew that, only four years earlier, Chosroes had completely destroyed Antioch, enslaved many of its citizens, and marched them to Persia. Facing defeat and a similar fate, the Edessenes’ use of this icon to invoke God’s help as a fire-starting intermediary is entirely understandable and a far cry from their having capriciously subjected it to a trial by fire.
Thus, unless and until it is disproved by scientific experimentation, or until pitch can be firmly linked to medieval Eastern Church censers, the Persian siege hypothesis will continue to provide the most plausible of all the “poker hole” theories because (1) it fits within the context of two historical accounts, one linking an acheiropoietos Christ-icon to a fire-related event and the second linking pitch to the starting of that same fire; and (2) Rogers’ scientific experimentation has demonstrated that this fire damage is associated with pitch. I agree that, even if this damage is not connected to the Persian siege, it would have no bearing upon the Turin Shroud’s suggested presence in Antioch until 540 CE. The relic may have incurred this damage either while in Antioch, or, if the Mandylion Theory is historically correct, a debatable proposition, while it was subsequently in Edessa or Constantinople.
Jack
Thanks again for your comment.
>My paper had addressed this issue from an entirely historical standpoint; i.e., assuming that the “poker holes” were caused by a pitch-soaked object, when could this damage have occurred?
[...]
I am in the midst of completely rewriting my post above to take into account my re-think of the entire `poker holes' theory.
But my revised post has grown so long that I will split off the "dirt on foot and limestone" part and repost the latter separately. I hope to re-post the `Poker holes' only part today.
I will then respond to your latest comment.
Stephen E. Jones
Jack
Thanks again for your comment. But it has `crossed in the mail with my revised post above.
>My paper had addressed this issue from an entirely historical standpoint; i.e., assuming that the “poker holes” were caused by a pitch-soaked object, when could this damage have occurred?
And as I said, I accept your overall Jerusalem-Antioch-Edessa theory. But I disagree that they were caused by a "pitch soaked FIREBRAND" which is how you have previously described that "object."
>Your observations, while most insightful and interesting, would require confirmation via scientific experimentation
I welcome scientific experimental testing of the four theories of the origin of the Shroud's `poker holes': 1) Dubarle's cinders from a censer; 2) Wilson's "red hot poker"; 3) Your "pitch soaked firebrand"; and 4) my drops of hot pitch at different times.
>which would take into account such variables as: (1) the tautness or slackness of the cloth at the time of its penetration (e.g., was it held tautly above the stacked timber or was it lightly draped over same?); (2) the number of firebrands employed (was it but one firebrand, applied successively, as you assume, or as many as four separate firebrands?); (3) the number of persons involved in thrusting these firebrands into the cloth (were there several persons of disparate size and strength, were they men or women, were they young and strong or old and infirm, etc.?); (4) the angle of the penetrations (were they all administered frontally, or were some leveled from the sides, or from above, or from below?) ; and (5) the nature of the firebrands (were they all metal rods of uniform shape, length, and thickness, or were they simple wooden tree branches, randomly pulled from the timber stack, and of varying shapes, lengths, and thicknesses?).
I have no objections to testing the above variables, but as far as I know, none of the proponents of the above four theories: Dubarle, Wilson, yourself, or myself has specified any of them. So whose theory would they be testing?
>Only then could a conclusion be reached, within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, as to whether fire damage was caused by pitch-soaked pokers or firebrands.
Or drops of hot or burning pitch!
But I disagree that "Only then could a conclusion be reached." In the absence of such scientific testing, the 5 points I made above count heavily against three or four thrusts of a "red hot poker" (Wilson) or a "pitch soaked firebrand" (yorself) through the cloth.
For example it would clearly be very difficult, if not humanly impossible, to THREE OR FOUR TIMES thrust a "red hot poker" or a "pitch soaked firebrand" through a folded in four sheet of shirt thickness linen, each layer of which is only about a third of a millimetre thick, and penetrate all four layers. Yet the rate of reduction of burn hole diameter is so steep that over a distance of about 1.3 mm the size (to the nearest mm) of each counterpart hole (1-3 down and 4 left/right) in the top (T) and bottom (B) layers are:
T1: 26x36 B1: 8x21
T2: 29x21 B2: 5x5
T3: 26x16 B3: 11x8
T4: 32x24 B4: 5x3
A red hot poker or pitch soaked firebrand would go right through four layers of thin linen, each only a third of a millimetre thick, and the total of four layers only about 1.3 mm thick, and each counterpart hole would be about the same in the top and bottom layers.
A drop of hot pitch however would have to burn through each layer in succession and there would be a rapid progressive reduction in counterpart hole size.
[continued]
[continued]
>Perhaps Procopius did not mention an acheiropoietos Christ-icon because, when he wrote his account, the Persians were still waging war against the Byzantine Empire, and he may not have desired to entice Chosroes into again attacking Edessa in order to seize and destroy the icon.
I accept that if Evagrius account is true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is) that an "acheiropoietos [not made with hands] Christ-icon" [the Mandylion/Shroud] was washed with WATER by the Edessans during the Persian siege of Edessa in 544 and then some of that WATER was sprinkled on the oil and pitch soaked timber in the tunnel under the Persian siege tower, and it immediately (and miraculously) caught fire and was destroyed.
Therefore Procopius, writing closer to that time than Evagrius about the same event, must have known about the role of the "acheiropoietos Christ-icon" in lifting the Persian siege but for some reason chose not to mention it.
>When Evagrius wrote about this same incident in ca. 593, Chosroes was long dead (d. 579 CE) and, ironically, the Byzantine Empire was then allied with Chosroes’ grandson, the ruler of Persia.
OK.
>Perhaps Evagrius did not mention the firebrand incident for the reason which I previously suggested: the Edessenes, not wishing to reveal their desecration of a holy image, invented the rather fanciful story that they merely sprinkled water on the cloth and that this had miraculously started the critical fire.
Sorry, but there is NO "firebrand incident" in Evagrius or any other historical source. The "rather fanciful story" as you put it "that they merely sprinkled water on the cloth and that this had miraculously started the critical fire" is what Evagrius' historical source STATES.
By what right do you as a modern historian set that aside? Especially as a CHRISTIAN historian who presumably believes that God could have supernaturally caused water soaked wood to catch fire as He did in the account of Elijah's contest with the prophets of Baal (see above and below)?
And you yourself wrote of Wilson's "trial by fire" theory: "I find it hard to accept that reverent Edessan or Byzantine Christians would ever have subjected such a sacred image to a trial by fire ..."
Well by the same token I (and you should to be consistent) find it even harder to accept that "reverent Edessans" would: 1) plunge a burning firebrand into the Shroud while seeing Jesus' image on it; and
2) believe that the same Jesus now ascended to God's right hand would FAVOUR them for doing it by lifting the Persian siege for doing it!
And far from being a "fanciful story that they merely sprinkled water on the cloth and that this had miraculously started the critical fire," as I pointed out in my previous comment and now in my revised post above, in doing so they would be following the Biblical precedent of what Elijah did in 1 Kings 18:31-39 where, in his contest with the false prophets of Baal, poured water on wood on an altar and "the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the...wood ..."
>If the Turin Shroud is properly identifiable with the Image of Edessa/Mandylion, it was, at some point, folded into a portrait, perhaps by the Edessan defenders in order to conceal the damage which they had inflicted upon the holy image.
Again, I dispute that "reverent Edessans" would EVER deliberately inflict such damage on the Shroud which bore Jesus' image.
>I do not believe that a connection has ever been made between censers employed by the medieval Eastern Church and pitch. I believe that such censers contained charcoal and similar materials.
I had already deleted "censers" in my revised post above in respect of my drops of hot or burning pitch theory. The only place I now mention "censers" in my revised post is in respect of Dubarle's "hot coals from a censer" theory.
[continued]
[continued]
>Evagrius clearly reports that this icon was not brought to bear until every other attempt at defense had failed. The desperate Edessenes well knew that, only four years earlier, Chosroes had completely destroyed Antioch, enslaved many of its citizens, and marched them to Persia. Facing defeat and a similar fate, the Edessenes’ use of this icon to invoke God’s help as a fire-starting intermediary is entirely understandable and a far cry from their having capriciously subjected it to a trial by fire.
I have no problem with all the above, except that your theory that the Edessans thrust a burning firebrand into the Shroud.
And again, Evagrius actually stated that the Edessans used WATER. I see no reason to go behind what he said. Especially as the Bible records a similar account of Elijah using water on wood and God causing the wood to catch fire.
>Thus, unless and until it is disproved by scientific experimentation, or until pitch can be firmly linked to medieval Eastern Church censers,
See above that I don't now claim that the pitch was in a censer. Nor do I claim that the `poker holes' damage was done to the Shroud in "medieval" times. I expect it happened in the earliest days of the Church, before the Shroud was encased in a frame.
>the Persian siege hypothesis will continue to provide the most plausible of all the “poker hole” theories because (1) it fits within the context of two historical accounts, one linking an acheiropoietos Christ-icon to a fire-related event and the second linking pitch to the starting of that same fire; and
I disagree that it is "plausible" that "reverent Edessans" as you yourself call them, would ever plunge a burning firebrand into the Shroud, in which they could see Jesus' image. And that they would think they would gain divine favour in doing so. It is most IMPLAUSIBLE.
Evagrius states that the Edessans used "WATER" and I see no reason to set aside that part of his "historical account," especially as it has a Biblical precedent.
>(2) Rogers’ scientific experimentation has demonstrated that this fire damage is associated with pitch.
That's why I assume the `poker holes' were caused by drops of hot or burning pitch. Indeed, that is what Shwalbe & Rogers stated:
"The hypothesis that these holes were BURNED THROUGH WITH A HOT POKER IS PROBABLY INCORRECT. Close inspection of the peripheral areas reveals a foreign material there, resembling pitch. The radiographs also show high density structures that support this observation. This earlier damage may have resulted from BURNING PITCH THAT PERHAPS FELL ONTO THE SHROUD from a torch. " (Schwalbe & Rogers, , "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin," 1982, p.47. My emphasis.)
>I agree that, even if this damage is not connected to the Persian siege, it would have no bearing upon the Turin Shroud’s suggested presence in Antioch until 540 CE. The relic may have incurred this damage either while in Antioch, or, if the Mandylion Theory is historically correct, a debatable proposition, while it was subsequently in Edessa or Constantinople.
Agreed. To conclude, as I previously said, your "pitch soaked firebrand" origin of the `poker holes' theory is not an essential part of your overall "Shroud’s ... presence in Antioch until 540" theory, and it would be better for your overall theory to clearly separate the two.
Stephen E. Jones
Hugh Farey made the following comment about the `poker holes' under my post, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.4. The wounds". But it would have been off-topic under that post, since it says nothing about the `poker holes'.
So I have copied Hugh's comment to be under this post which is about the `poker holes' and have responded to Hugh's comment.
>I agree with your comments about the poker holes. In another place I have suggested myself that if, as some say, the shroud underwent some kind of ordeal by fire to test its authenticity, then it clearly failed!
Thanks for your comment.
But although I disagree with Wilson's "trial by fire" theory for reasons given in my revised post above, if the Shroud had been subjected to a trial by fire in which those conducting the trial expected the Shroud to have been destroyed unless it was miraculously preserved, and it did survive with only comparatively minor damage, as the `poker holes' are, then it could have been regarded by those performing the trial by fire that the Shroud passed it.
For example, the survival of the Shroud during the 1532 fire could be regarded as a type of `trial by fire' in which the Shroud would have been expected to have been destroyed, yet it miraculously survived, with comparatively minor damage in that the all-important image was largely preserved.
>The fact that it continues to be venerated suggests that no such trial took place, and the poker holes are more likely to be accidental.
See above. While I agree that the `poker holes' were unlikely to have been caused by a trial by fire (for reasons given in my revised post above), and were more likely to have been accidental, it is fallacious to claim that because the Shroud still exists today, that suggests it was not involved in a trial by fire. It could have been involved in a trial by fire and survived largely unscathed that trial.
Stephen E. Jones
Post a Comment