Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Double image #10: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
DOUBLE IMAGE #10
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #10 of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Naked #9] [Next: Faint #11]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Double image #10

Introduction. The man on the Shroud is a double image[2]: front and back, head to head[3].

[Above (enlarge): "The Holy Shroud" by Giovanni Battista della Rovere (1561-1627) in the Galleria Sabauda, Turin, Italy[4]. Della Rovere showed how the double image of the man on the Shroud (held by angels) came to be imprinted on the cloth[5]. His body was first laid on one end of the cloth, then the remainder was drawn over his head and down to his feet[6].]

Front and back The double image of the man on the Shroud is of his front and back[7] (or frontal and dorsal[8]).

[Right (enlarge): 1931 negative photograph by Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961) of the man on the Shroud's double image: front and back, head to head[9]. As can be seen, at the top of the back image there is a blank space over the feet[10]. This is due to the man having been laid on the back half of the cloth with his feet too far (~8-10 cms[11]) from the edge, leaving the front half not long enough (~2.5 cms short[12]) to cover his feet[13]. So the back end was brought up over his toes to overlap the front end[14], hence the blank area. This is very significant (see below).]

Head to head. As can be seen [right], the front and back images are head to head[15], which indicates that the body was laid on one end of the cloth while the remainder was drawn over the head and down to the feet[16] (see above). There is a gap of about 6½ inches[17] (~16.5 cms) between the two head images[18], which is the top of the head[19] and which bears no image[20]. The apparent image between the front and back head images is a waterstain from extinguishing the 1532 fire[21].

The first known depiction of the Shroud's double image. The first known depiction[22] of the Shroud's double image[23], front and

[Above: (enlarge)[24]: Pilgrim's badge, found in the mud of the River Seine, Paris, in 1855[25].]

back[26], head to head[27], was on a lead badge (above), preserved in the Musée de Cluny, Paris[28], which was worn by a pilgrim[29] to or from the Shroud's to the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud in c. 1355 at Lirey, France[30].

Problem for the forgery theory. This is yet another (see previous three #6, #7 & #9) problem for the medieval forgery theory. Since the Cluny Museum's Lirey pilgrim's badge is the first known depiction of the Shroud's full-length, double body image, a medieval forger would not have had any Christian work of art on which to base his forgery of the Shroud. But then, as Paul Vignon (1865-1943) pointed out, "departure from tradition ... can never have been knowingly done by a forger, whose ... intention would have been to appeal ... to the imagination of his public":

"Now let this be well noted: every time that we find in the Holy Shroud some strangeness, some departure from tradition, we may feel assured that such strangeness, such departure, can never have been knowingly done by a forger, whose direct intention would have been to appeal forcibly to the imagination of his public."[31]
And as Alfred O'Rahilly (1884–1969) observed, the Shroud was not "in accordance with contemporary and previous portrait painting" and amongst other disadvantages, its "two full body-lengths would make exposition very difficult":
"Our difficulties continue when we come to consider the alleged anonymous painter of about 1350. Previously to 1898, a shroud more impressive to the eye, more in accordance with contemporary and previous portrait painting, would have been far more popular. What could have induced an artist to give us these obscure smudges whose details have been unravelled only in our own time? He chose a most inconvenient size; the two full body-lengths would make exposition very difficult. Five visible wounds would have better satisfied the devotional requirements of the time; yet on the shroud the wound in one hand is completely covered by the other hand, and only in our day has the wound in the right sole been located. He broke with traditional iconography; Our Lord's body was depicted nude, so copyists hastened to add a loin-cloth; the wound in the right hand is located in the wrist; the sufferings were depicted with brutal realism. Moreover, there was a waste of incredible subtlety; for all the various physiological and anatomical details, presumably inserted in defiance of current artistic procedure, remained entirely unnoticed and unknown for about 550 years."[32]
Further, as as we saw in part #4, the Shroud's weave was expensive, so a double body length sheet of it would be an unnecessary additional expense for a forger. And as Noel Currer-Briggs (1919-2004) points out by asking, "Why did he [the forger] draw Christ in this particular way - with frontal and dorsal image of the body? ... Hardly for monetary gain":
"There is simply no genius of this calibre known to art historians capable of creating such a masterpiece at this period. But that does not mean there was not such a genius; after all, he could have worked in total isolation and produced no other work of a comparable nature. So let us assume that he did live in some remote monastery or castle unknown to the rest of the world outside. Why did he draw Christ in this particular way - with frontal and dorsal image of the body? what could his reasons have been? Hardly for monetary gain. There is no record of the Shroud having been bought or sold before the mid-fifteenth century."[33]
Finally, as mentioned above as "very significant," the man was laid on the back half of the cloth with his feet too far from the edge, leaving the front half not long enough to cover his feet, so the back end was brought up over his toes to overlap the front end. As Ian Wilson points out, "this is just the sort of mistake that someone enshrouding a genuine body might easily have made" but "an artist-forger would ... have made sure he 'imprinted' ... the body's front half in full":
"No less convincing a pointer to the Shroud being genuinely an ancient Jewish grave cloth, rather than a faked semblance, is the fact that its imprints are not just a straightforward 'front-half' and `back-half' of the `sandwich-board' variety, as any artist-forger would have concocted it, and as artists indeed sometimes unthinkingly copied it during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Instead the front half, rather than, as might be expected, extending all the way down to and beyond where the man of the Shroud's toes would have been, stops at least 2.5cm short, with the recently discovered hem showing that it never had any more length in its `finished' form. Yet in the case of the back half a region of blank cloth carries on for as much as 8 or 10cm beyond where the toes can be seen. Because of this overlap, the Shroud would therefore have been turned back over the short front half in order to make a neat funerary 'parcel'. Although this is just the sort of mistake that someone enshrouding a genuine body might easily have made, since after all, they would hardly have been expecting any image to form, an artist-forger would almost certainly have made sure he 'imprinted' at least the body's front half in full, leaving any 'skimping' to the less important back half."[34].

Continued in part #11 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.2; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.12; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.2; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.7. [return]
3. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.18; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.33. [return]
4. "The Holy Shroud (oil on canvas)," by Giovanni Battista della Rovere, (1561-1627)," Bridgeman Images, Berlin, Germany. [return]
5. Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, pp.19-20; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.164; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.176. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.21; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.12; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.12; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.169. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.113; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.1; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.3; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.3; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.4; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.12. [return]
8. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.39; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.1; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.31; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, pp.2, 11; Adler, A.D., 1996, "Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.81-86, p.81; Baima-Bollone, P. & Zaca, S., 1998, "The Shroud Under the Microscope: Forensic Examination," Neame, A., transl., St Pauls: London, p.6; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.60; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.1. [return]
9. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Horizontal," (rotated left 90 degrees), Sindonology.org. [return]
10. Wilson, 2010, p.10. [return]
11. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B.M., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.46. [return]
12. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.46. [return]
13. 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.36. [return]
14. de Wesselow, 2012, p.13. [return]
15. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.9; Wuenschel, 1954, p.14; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.12. [return]
16. McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.23; Heller, 1983, p.vii; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.4; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.33; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.12; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.18. [return]
17. de Wesselow, 2012, p.148. [return]
18. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.12; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.37; Wilson, 1979, p.54. [return]
19. Wilson, 1986, p.4. [return]
20. Bulst, 1957, p.96; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.164. [return]
21. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve...The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-753, 740; Brooks, E.H., II., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., 1981, "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago IL, p.13. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.224d; Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.12. [return]
23. Foster, A., 2012, "The Pilgrim's Medallion / Amulet of Lirey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 75, June. [return]
24. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
25. Wilson, 1991, pp.21, 78C; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127. [return]
26. Adams, 1982, pp.30-31; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.97. [return]
27. Scavone, D.C., 1995. "Letter To The Editor From Professor Dan Scavone," BSTS Newsletter, No. 41, September; Tribbe, 2006, p.42. [return]
28. Wilson, 1979, pp.194, 224D; Adams, 1982, p.30; Wilson, 1979, p.194; Wilson, 1986, p.4; Wilson, 1991, p.78C; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127; Ruffin, 1999, p.64; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Oxley, 2010, pp.49, 106; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
29. Adams, 1982, p.31; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.15; Wilson, 1991, pp.20-21; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, pp.126-128; Ruffin, 1999, p.64; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Oxley, 2010, pp.49, 52, 106; Wilson, 2010, p.222; de Wesselow, 2012, p.14; Foster, 2012. [return]
31. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.32. [return]
32. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, p.53. [return]
33. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.155. [return]
34. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.45-46. See also Wilson, 1998, pp.36-37; Wilson, 2010, p.10. [return]

Posted: 13 January 2016. Updated: 29 October 2016.

No comments: