© Stephen E. Jones[1]
"S"
This my Turin Shroud Dictionary has been superseded by my new Turin Shroud Encyclopedia.
This is the page "S" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. See the "Main index A-Z" page for links to other pages in, and information about, this dictionary. Entries below are in alphabetical order.
Shroud of Turin. The Shroud of Turin is a linen sheet ~4.4 metres long by ~1.1 metres wide, which has since 1578 (apart from short 
periods due to wars) been held in Turin Cathedral. It bears the front and back, head to head, image of a naked man who has been beaten, flogged, crowned
[Right: Face image on the Shroud of Turin: Shroud University.]
with thorns, crucified and speared in the side, matching the Gospels' description of the suffering, death and burial of Jesus Christ (Mt 27:27-60; Mk 15:16-46; Lk 22:63-23:54; Jn 19:16-42), and indeed His resurrection (Mt 27:61-28:6; Mk 15:47-16:8; Lk 23:55-24:7; Jn 20:1-9)! The Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in the 1350s under the ownership of French knight Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300-56) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428). There is overwhelming historical and artistic evidence of the Shroud's existence back to the first century. Bloodstains on the Sudarium of Oviedo match those on the head of the Shroud. Modern science has been unable to explain away naturalistically the image on the Shroud, and attempts reproduce the Shroud have all failed. The two main items of evidence against the Shroud's authenticity, the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud's linen to 1290-1360, and the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, have been discredited. Shroud anti-authenticist theories contradict each other. So strong is the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity that agnostic art historian, Thomas de Wesselow, accepts that the Shroud is authentic. [return].
Notes:
1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Shroud of Turin," not the whole page "S"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return].
Created: 13 January, 2015. Updated: 20 January, 2015.
Posts
2 comments:
I just deleted an anonymous comment that I considered substandard.
It is my long-standing, stated policy that:
"Comments ... I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. ..."
In this case the commenter quoted a member of STURP supposedly having become a Shroud sceptic.
I considered the comment to be substandard because:
1. The quote of the member of STURP didn't even say that he had become a Shroud sceptic; and
2. There was no reference and/or link back to the quote so I could check that he actually said it, and if so, what was its context.
Therefore the comment did not appear.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.
>Therefore the comment did not appear.
Actually the comment did appear at first, but in the process of responding to it I realised;
1. that the quote did not say that the STURP member had become a Shroud sceptic.
2. There was no reference or link back to the quote, so I could be wasting my time responding to a made-up quote.
So I deleted the published comment as substandard.
I was in the process of pointing out to the commenter that the Shroud's authenticity does not depend on the personal views of any individual, whether he is a member of STURP or not.
The Shroud's authenticity rests on the OVERWHELMING weight of the EVIDENCE, only some of which STURP discovered.
STURP was limited to a physico-chemical testing of the Shroud, but some of the strongest evidence for the Shroud's authenticity is historical and artistic.
Besides, it was old news. From memory in 1989 one member of STURP did become a Shroud sceptic when the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was announced.
I can't at the moment remember his name but it was not the STURP member quoted by the commenter, nor Walter McCrone who despite his claims, was not a member of STURP.
Stephen E. Jones
---------------------------------
Reader, if you like this my The Shroud of Turin blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its Google PageRank number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.
Post a Comment