tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post5324958444276552147..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 6: "The Image of Edessa" (2)Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-12809920484960982082012-09-02T18:05:21.805+08:002012-09-02T18:05:21.805+08:00Here is a comment I have just now posted to Dan Po...Here is a comment I have just now posted to Dan Porter's blog under the post: "<a href="http://shroudstory.com/2012/08/23/scholarly-incompetence-or-dishonesty/#comment-15717" rel="nofollow">Scholarly Incompetence or Dishonesty?</a>"<br /><br />==================================<br />September 2, 2012 at 6:00 am | #47 <br /><br />I am receiving comments to this post only on Dan's blog, because I wanted to see if Mr Freeman responded to my apology, and action I took to <i>immediately</i> remove from the comments on my blog every claim of mine that Charles Freeman was being paid to write his articles on the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa. I note that Mr Freeman puts the word "apology" in single quotes. That is his problem. <br /><br />The comment "WHAT HE KNOWS TO BE FALSE" was in a sentence about Charles Freeman being paid money, so it was deleted along with that sentence.<br /><br />I have no particular desire to gratuitously hurt or embarrass Mr Freeman, or damage his reputation, so in future I am going to confine myself to objectively pointing out his false statements and any relevant information he fails to tell his readers because it would undermine his case, with no personal observations by me about Mr Freeman himself.<br /><br />I point out that Charles Freeman himself has set a precedent in this in claiming in his "<a href="http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/freeman_shroud_edessa_misguided_journey/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey</a>" that "[Ian] Wilson fails to tell his readers that it [<i>The Doctrine of Addai</i>] contains relevant material which might undermine his case":<br /><br />"<i>The Doctrine of Addai</i> is used completely inappropriately as Wilson fails to tell his readers that it contains relevant material which might undermine his case, weak though it already is."<br /><br />with the clear implication by Charles Freeman that Ian Wilson is being less than completely academically honest in that.<br /><br />I am going to post a copy of this comment of mine to my blog under, "<a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/my-critique-of-charles-freemans-turin_23.html" rel="nofollow">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)</a>. "<br /><br />I am then going to unsubscribe again to this Dan Porter's blog. So if Charles Freeman has any more complaints or criticisms about my ongoing series critiquing his paper above, he should comment under the relevant post on my blog, otherwise I won't see it.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />==================================<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-79972545403633537282012-09-02T08:26:37.436+08:002012-09-02T08:26:37.436+08:00Flagrum3
>Actually, I meant the "Christ w...Flagrum3<br /><br />>Actually, I meant the "Christ with beard" as my the third choice of frescos-(I should learn to be more specific in my comments). <br /><br />OK. Well, I wanted to link to those bearded Christ frescoes anyway.<br /><br />>I have done a bit of research, myself, on early Christ images and I have to say I have been contemplating along the same lines as you; "there being two streams". <br /><br />I don't know if Markwardt agrees with it, but it does support his Antioch theory, where the Shroud was viewable from AD 30/33-c.326, rather than Wilson's Edessa theory where the Shroud was not viewable from AD 57-526. <br /><br />>But, as you say the earlier stream of paintings (frescos), had their differences from the later ones and few Vignon markings and/or not as 'exacting to the Shroud' as the 'Panticrator' images are. <br /><br />Considering the Medieval Gentile Christians antipathy towards Jews, who had persecuted Christians and informed on them to the Romans, for the last 3 centuries, it is surprising (to put it mildly) that from the 4th century, Roman Christians started depicting Christ as Pantocrator (Almighty, All-Ruler) with a Jewish face.<br /><br />Only the knowledge of the Shroud's image, from the 4th century, could account for that. <br /><br />And that would fit with Constantine through his sister, Constantia, in the early 4th century, asking Eusebius for the "image of Christ" a copy of which was painted as a fresco in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellinus_and_Peter" rel="nofollow">catacomb of Marcellinus and Peter</a> (both martyred AD 304), which was near Constantine's villa <br /><br />>Which again I believe, adds credence to the Shroud suddenly appearing in Edessa in the mid to early 6th century. <br /><br />Agreed, the sudden appearance of the Shroud at Edessa in AD. 526 is common to both Wilson's and Markwardt's theory.<br /><br />>It's possible the artists of the catacomb frescos, if they had seen the Shroud in Antioch, were not allowed to copy it, so they were bascially working off memory, hense not many congruences. <br /><br />Agreed. Markwardt also believes that the image only appeared gradually (the ENEA report proposed a mechanism for this), which would explain why there were less Vignon markings in the earlier Antioch depictions. <br /><br />This also would explain why Vignon marking 2, the topless square above Jesus' nose is so common, and may be in that early 4th century catacomb of Marcellinus and Peter Pantocrator fresco. It is a flaw in the Shroud's weave and so would always have been there, as the face image appeared around it.<br /><br />>I showed the Pantocrator of St. Cahterines monastery to my daughter, (which happens to be my favourite rendition) and "immediately" she stated 'Panticrator' meant 'Ruler of All' with no hesitation. This leads me to believe this may be most likely the proper translation of the word, seeing as she had no hesitation in her mind.<br /><br />Agreed. <br /><br />>Just a note; Freeman has left a comment on Dan's blog and it refers "STRONGLY to you" if you haven't ventured there lately you may like to read what he's said! I wonder why he wouldn't just aswell done so here?<br /><br />Thanks again for this. I want to be 100% truthful on my blog and even through Freeman did not ask me to remove my allegation that he must have been paid by <i>Free Inquiry</i> to explain the evident falsehoods in his articles, I immediately deleted them.<br /><br />>Thanks for all your responses, and a big thanks for all the work you put in at Shroud.com making all those BTSB articles viewable.<br /><br />Thanks, and your correction of BSTS (British Society for the Turin Shroud) is noted.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-66645611673083176442012-09-02T02:50:00.684+08:002012-09-02T02:50:00.684+08:00Correction to my last post; I meant to thank you f...Correction to my last post; I meant to thank you for your work with the BSTS Newsletters, not BTSB as stated.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />F3<br />Flagrum3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-55634943875770066852012-09-02T02:31:18.884+08:002012-09-02T02:31:18.884+08:00I have deleted all my comments in which I wrongly ...I have deleted all my comments in which I wrongly assumed that Charles Freeman must have been paid for his articles on the Image of Edessa (see above).<br /><br />I have reposted those deleted comments minus anything about Freeman being paid for his articles.<br /><br />Some of the comments are now out of chronological order, but there does not seem much point to reposting the reposted posts in current chronological order because they will be out of sequence with the posts they were a continuation of.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-20768396563161776142012-09-02T02:20:27.120+08:002012-09-02T02:20:27.120+08:00Here is another reposted comment, minus anything a...Here is another reposted comment, minus anything about Charles Freeman having been paid for his articles (see above). I will then delete the original.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones said... <br /><br />[continued]<br /><br />Freeman either does not know this, in which case he is IGNORANT; or more likely he does know this, in which case he is again DISHONEST, in concealing this important information from his readers. <br /><br />And/or, as suggested in my previous comment:<br /><br />[DELETED]<br /><br />But Freeman has inadvertently highlighted what is a plausible solution to the problem of some n important part of the Shroud's history, <br /><br />"However, just when the Shroud/Image of Edessa identification might seem all but established, we encounter a setback. During the twelfth century, various visitors to Constantinople, when writing about their experience, provided lists of the relics they had been told were kept in the imperial collection. Whereas previously there had been no mention of Constantinople possessing Jesus's burial linens, now, without any indication of how these had suddenly appeared, they were listed, and with no reference to any imprint. But also listed, as if a separate object, was what sounds like the Image of Edessa. ... While such duplication is disquieting (though in any event it is unlikely that either pilgrim saw the relics they listed), it is easy enough to account for. Tourist confusion is not uncommon in any century. Even in modern times visitors to Turin viewing a photographic copy of the Shroud sometimes suppose they are seeing the true original. But there may well be a deeper explanation. If the cloth, as they seem to have done, they could not simply tear up as so much waste paper the Image of Edessa's tradition that Jesus had created it in life, as an image just of his face. As stressed earlier, this would not have been in the Byzantine mindset. Their solution would have been to use a copy of the Image as the 'face only' relic and gradually suggest that there existed an imprint on the burial linens likewise." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud,<br /> 2010, pp.184-185).<br /><br />So this Image of Edessa which "disappeared from Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade ... reappearing as a relic in King Louis IX of France's Sainte Chapelle in Paris" and "finally disappeared in the French Revolution" was probably this COPY of the Image of Edessa which Constantinople ALREADY HAD when it ALSO ACQUIRED the Shroud in 944.<br /><br />>but that the onus of proof is on those who think it is authentic to provide the evidence for this.<br /><br />This is DISHONEST of Freeman and of you Chris for quoting it without disclaimer, to give the impression that "those who think it [the Shroud] is authentic" need "to provide the evidence for this," as though they HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE THIS.<br /><br />The real problem for Freeman, and for you, is that, in regards to the authenticity of the Shroud you are INVINCIBLY IGNORANT:<br /><br />"There does remain, nonetheless, a cast of mind which seems peculiarly closed to evidence. When confronted with such a mind, one feels helpless, for no amount of evidence seems to be clinching. Frequently the facts are simply ignored or brushed aside as somehow deceptive, and the principles are reaffirmed in unshakable conviction. One seems confronted with what has been called `invincible ignorance.' ... the cast of mind that clings with blind certainty to principles, even in the teeth of the facts." (Fearnside, W.W. & Holther, W.B., "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument,", 1959, pp.111-113)<br /><br />The fact is that NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE that the Shroud is authentic would convince Freeman, you, and your anti-authenticity ilk, that it is. <br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-63559189665500729032012-09-02T02:08:58.060+08:002012-09-02T02:08:58.060+08:00Here is another comment I am reposting, minus any ...Here is another comment I am reposting, minus any claim of mine that Charles Freeman was paid for his articles. Apologies if these reposted comment are out of date/time order.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones said...<br /> <br />[continued]<br /><br />>As for Freeman's statement on the 'tetradiplon'...I have heard some very mediocre and sometimes childish remarks about this, such as; Freeman's rediculous folding example or another big one is the Mandylion was never depicted in art as showing blood on the image...<br /><br />Great point! <br /><br />>Unbelievably stupid assertions! <br /><br />Or just wilful disregard for the truth, in order to make money out for the gullible readership of Free Inquiry, who desperately need reassurance that the Shroud is a fake.<br /><br />>Why is it so hard for some to accept the statement studied in dealing with the mandylion, as simply a naive attempt by one viewing the image to interpret what he cannot understand. <br /><br />What? Are you saying that The Acts of Thaddeus is not 100% true? But then Wilson could be right after all, that tetradiplon ("four-doubled") and sindon (a large linen sheet) were, after the discovery in the 6th century that what was thought to be just a face only image of Jesus, was in fact a large linen sheet with the naked, bloodstained and horrifically tortured image of Jesus' whole body, front and back, inserted into an earlier version of The Acts of Thaddeus containing a legendary account of Edessa's King Abgar V's servant Ananias receiving from Jesus before His crucifixion an imprint of His face on a cloth to try to `explain' that earlier known face only visible Image of Edessa.<br /><br />>It would not be the only time the image was described as being from bodily secretions (sweat). <br /><br />In fact that was the basis of Paul Vignon's c. 1902 Vaporographic theory and of Ray Rogers' 2003 Maillard Reaction theory.<br /><br />>Freeman with his rediculous little cloth folding example, literally ignores the fact the Image of Edessa/Mandylion were folded in such a way as the cloth was left in a 'Landscape' form...<br /><br />[DELETED]<br /><br />>Unbelievable!<br /><br />Except that St. Paul predicted that near the time of Jesus' return, most people won't want to hear that Christianity is true, but will listen to false teachers who will scratch their "itching ears" by telling them falsehoods that they want to hear:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%204:3&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2 Tim 4:3</a>. "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,"<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-----------------------------------<br />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. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-65468974941541830812012-09-02T02:02:14.239+08:002012-09-02T02:02:14.239+08:00See above. Here is a copy of comment I made on Aug...See above. Here is a copy of comment I made on August 30, 2012 at 12:44 AM, in which I wrongly claimed that Charles Freeman was being paid to write his articles. I am reposting this comment, minus that claim. <br /><br />Stephen E. Jones said... <br /><br />[continued]<br /><br />>Freeman is clearly not as clever as he makes out, or is disingenious, or deceiving, or a combination of all of the above. <br /><br />Agreed. [...]<br /><br />>Clearly in the legend, the image of Edessa is not considered to be the burial cloths of Christ, but a cloth upon which Jesus's facial image was imprinted. <br /><br />Agreed. <br /><br />>The legend simply misinterpreted the Image of Edessa (which we think is the Shroud) as a cloth upon which Christ's face was imprinted, because those who had seen it or heard of it had seen it folded and only showing the face. <br /><br />Agreed. As the Veronica legend did. If one could only see the face image, then for a pre-scientific 6th-7th century writer, it is a reasonable assumption that Jesus' face image was imprinted on the cloth while He was still alive to satisfy Abgar V's request for healing.<br /><br />>The image WAS IN FACT the Shroud, the burial cloths, so there is no destruction of Wilson's theory. <br /><br />Agreed. Freeman gets it back to front. It isn't Wilson's theory which is destroyed by the Acts of Thaddaeus's theory, but rather the Acts of Thaddaeus' theory which is destroyed by Wilson's theory!<br /><br />>The only destruction is of Freeman's questionable credibility!!!<br /><br />Agreed. But then Freeman is an academic nobody, a "freelance historian," not accountable to anyone [...].<br /><br />Freeman and his anti-Christian ilk don't realise that in so doing they are acting out their part in Christs' Play. In "The Parable of the Weeds" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2013:24-30&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Mt 13:24-30</a>) He whose image is on the Shroud told us that He allows these weeds to "grow ... until the harvest" at which time (if they don't repent) He "will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds ... and bind them in bundles to be burned."<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-7440998616227753722012-09-02T01:52:43.086+08:002012-09-02T01:52:43.086+08:00Here is another comment I made, this one on August...Here is another comment I made, this one on August 30, 2012 at 12:41 AM, which contained an assumption by me that Charles Freeman must have been paid for his articles. See above. I have deleted any reference to Freeman being paid, and am reposting this comment because it contained other matters.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones said... <br /><br />[continued]<br /><br />F>So here, in the very same text, we have a clear reference to the burial cloths having been left in the tomb. This immediately destroys Wilson's argument. The Acts have already made it clear that the Image of the living Christ has arrived in Edessa and here are the burial cloths described independently of them."<br /><br />It is hard to believe that even Freeman could write such NONSENSE! It would only "destroy... Wilson's argument" if either: 1) the order of events in the <i>Acts of Thaddaeus</i> were TRUE; and/or 2) "Wilson's argument" was BASED ON the order of events in the <i>Acts of Thaddaeus</i> being true. But NEITHER is the case. <br /><br />NO Shroud pro-authenticist (let alone Wilson) believes that the image on the Shroud was imprinted by Jesus' washing His face and drying it on the Shroud while He was still alive. How was Jesus' body image imprinted on the Shroud, for starters?<br /><br />Quite clearly the <i>Acts of Thaddaeus</i> is (as Wilson believes) an attempt by an early writer to revise the existing Edessan Story of Abgar, with the discovery that what was thought to be only an image of Jesus' face on a small piece of cloth was in fact a "four-doubled" (<i>tetradiplon</i>) large linen sheet (<i>sindon</i>).<br /><br />>Firstly, Wilson's comment that the text goes on to describe the towel as a <i>tetradiplon</i> is NOT misleading as Freeman attests. If one wants to be a nit picker, it doesn't really describe the towel as a <i>tetradiplon</i> - the towel, the object in question IS the <i>tetradiplon</i>. But that is beside the point.<br /><br />Good point. And Wilson doesn't even mention a towel, but says "cloth" (see above).<br /><br />>And Freeman's comment that the account of the resurrection destroys Wilson's argument is baloney. <br /><br />Agreed. It would only do that if the <i>Acts of Thaddaeus</i> was infallibly true, but even Freeman wouldn't believe that. [DELETED]<br /><br />Wilson describes his works being attacked by "certain plausible-sounding and publicity-seeking people with absolutely no concern for truth" who "actually do recognize truth, but ... see it as too threatening to their own quite different priorities for it to be allowed to live":<br /><br />"Speaking personally, one of my most painful and yet illuminating experiences, having as a writer expressed my beliefs in Jesus in the 1984 version of this book and also in the otherwise so discredited Turin Shroud, has been to be most deviously targeted in efforts to undermine these beliefs by certain plausible-sounding and publicity-seeking people with absolutely no concern for truth. The illuminating aspect is that for modern-day people to be so motivated can only mean that they actually do recognize truth, but like Caiaphas, see it as too threatening to their own quite different priorities for it to be allowed to live." (Wilson, I., "Jesus: The Evidence," 1996, pp.178-179).<br /><br />Although I don't say it because it would be regarded as the ultimate <i>ad hominem</i>, I firmly believe there is a deeper and darker dimension to these attacks on the Shroud and on Shroud pro-authenticists.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-41802455951465179832012-09-02T01:32:34.636+08:002012-09-02T01:32:34.636+08:00As mentioned above, here is a copy of a comment I ...As mentioned above, here is a copy of a comment I made on August 30, 2012 at 12:32 AM, which I have deleted, because it claimed (wrongly) that Charles Freeman was paid for his articles.<br /><br />That comment is here reposted because it contained matters other than the above claim. <br /><br />Stephen E. Jones said...<br /> <br />[continued]<br /><br />"<i>Charles Freeman</i> Charles Freeman is a scholar and freelance historian specializing in the history of ancient Greece and Rome. He is the author of numerous books on the ancient world including The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason. He has taught courses on ancient history in Cambridge's Adult Education program and is Historical Consultant to the Blue Guides. He also leads cultural study tours to Italy, Greece and Turkey. In 2003, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He lives in Suffolk, England. ... In addition to a law degree, he holds a master's degree in African history and politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and an additional master's degree in applied research in education from the University of East Anglia. In 1978 he was appointed head of history at St Clare's, Oxford." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Freeman_(historian)" rel="nofollow">Charles Freeman (historian)</a>," Wikipedia, 11 May 2012).<br /><br />So it seems that Freeman specialty is "African history," which has little or no relevance to the history of the Image of Edessa and the Shroud, And Freeman has held no university History appointment. "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clare's,_Oxford" rel="nofollow">St Clare's, Oxford</a>" is merely a "day and boarding school in North Oxford, England." <br /><br />Which explains the LACK OF ACADEMIC RIGOUR and indeed DISHONESTY in Freeman's articles on the Image of Edessa. [DELETED]<br /><br />F>This is the only example that Wilson gives so when he says that that the text `goes on' to describe the cloth as <i>tetradiplon</i>, he is being misleading. <br /><br />Here is what Wilson wrote:<br /><br />"And what evidence do we have that this Edessa cloth actually was the Shroud? In the case of the Image of Edessa's dimensions, one important indicator is to be found in one of the very first documents to provide a 'revised version' of the King Abgar story in the wake of the cloth's rediscovery. The document in question is the Acts of Thaddaeus, dating either to the sixth or early seventh century. Although its initially off-putting aspect is that it 'explains' the creation of the Image as by Jesus washing himself, it intriguingly goes on to describe the cloth on which the Image was imprinted as tetradiplon `doubled in four'. It is a very unusual word, in all Byzantine literature pertaining only to the Image of Edessa, and therefore seeming to indicate some unusual way in which the Edessa cloth was folded." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud, 2010, p.140).<br /><br />Wilson, unlike Freeman, is not "being misleading" at all. He states that the "Acts of Thaddaeus" is "a 'REVISED VERSION' of the King Abgar story IN THE WAKE OF THE CLOTH'S REDISCOVERY." And Wilson also states that it "its initially OFF-PUTTING ASPECT is that it 'EXPLAINS' the creation of the Image as by Jesus washing himself." So Wilson makes it clear to his readers that he does NOT accept as historically true the Acts of Thaddaeus's REVISED account of the image being imprinted on the cloth after it was "four-doubled" (Gk. <i>tetradiplon</i>).<br /><br />F>As this is the only argument of any significance that he produces to back his claim that this is the Shroud of Turin, this is a serious matter. <br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-53800977077692184262012-09-02T01:14:16.878+08:002012-09-02T01:14:16.878+08:00As mentioned above, here is my comment on Dan Port...As mentioned above, here is my comment on Dan Porter's blog, where I responded to Charles Freeman's comment about my assumption that he must be being paid for his articles in <i>Free Inquiry</i> and/or its "The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website": <br /><br />==================================<br /><a href="http://shroudstory.com/2012/08/23/scholarly-incompetence-or-dishonesty/#comment-15692" rel="nofollow">http://shroudstory.com/2012/08/23/scholarly-incompetence-or-dishonesty/#comment-15692</a><br />September 1, 2012 at 12:50 pm | #40<br /><br />I don’t normally read comments to Dan’s blog, but I was tipped off by a commenter on my blog that Charles Freeman had replied to a comment on my blog, on Dan’s blog, where the comment, as far as I am aware, has never appeared.<br /> <br />Mr Freeman states above: <br /><br />----------------------------------<br />Jones’ latest contribution:<br /> <br />He [Freeman] is merely a “freelance” `gun for hire’ who presumably was PAID MONEY by the atheist publication Free Inquiry and/or its “The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website,” run by arch-atheist and Shroud anti-authenticist Steven Schafersman to write his two `hatchet job’ articles on the Image of Edessa for the gullible, true believers in the Shroud’s inauthenticity, `sceptical’ (so-called), readership of Free [so-called] Inquiry! <br /> <br />Freeman is deliberately writing WHAT HE KNOWS TO BE FALSE for Free Inquiry’s “The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website to MAKE MONEY.<br />----------------------------------<br /> <br />I accept Mr Freeman’s assurance that there was no payment asked or received for his articles:<br /> <br />----------------------------------<br />Unfortunately Jones has now over-reached himself as can be seen below (from the Comment provided by him on his latest critique on his blog). There is no payment asked or received for my articles.<br />----------------------------------<br /> <br />I will delete immediately any comments (Blogger does not give the option of modifying them) which alleged that Mr Freeman was paid for his articles.<br /> <br />I apologise to Mr Freeman for any hurt or embarrassment I caused him by my assumption that he was paid for his articles in Free Inquiry and/or “The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website.”<br /> <br />I will also immediately post this comment where I made the above assumption.<br /> <br />Stephen E. Jones<br />==================================<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-79902967391873012612012-09-02T01:05:07.326+08:002012-09-02T01:05:07.326+08:00Flagrum3
>Just a note; Freeman has left a com...Flagrum3 <br /><br />>Just a note; Freeman has left a comment on Dan's blog and it refers "STRONGLY to you" if you haven't ventured there lately you may like to read what he's said! I wonder why he wouldn't just aswell done so here?<br /><br />Thanks for the tip-off. I normally don't read comments on Dan's blog, just his posts, so I had not read Freeman's comment about me. <br /><br />I agree that it is strange that Freeman would read comments about him on my blog, and yet reply to those comments on Dan's blog, where those comments had never appeared!<br /><br />The following is a copy of my response to Freeman on Dan's blog. As can be seen, I withdraw unreservedly my assumption that he must be being paid money for his articles in <i>Free Inquiry</i>'s "The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website."<br /><br />I also will delete all comments where I claimed that Freeman was being paid for his articles. Blogger does not allow me to edit comments, only delete them.<br /><br />But because those comments had other matters in them, I will repost them below, minus anything about Freeman being paid for his articles.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-26911577804735552862012-09-01T23:38:21.071+08:002012-09-01T23:38:21.071+08:00Hi Stephen,
Actually, I meant the "Christ wi...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />Actually, I meant the "Christ with beard" as my the third choice of frescos-(I should learn to be more specific in my comments). I have done a bit of research, myself, on early Christ images and I have to say I have been contemplating along the same lines as you; "there being two streams". But, as you say the earlier stream of paintings (frescos), had their differences from the later ones and few Vignon markings and/or not as 'exacting to the Shroud' as the 'Panticrator' images are. Which again I believe, adds credence to the Shroud suddenly appearing in Edessa in the mid to early 6th century. It's possible the artists of the catacomb frescos, if they had seen the Shroud in Antioch, were not allowed to copy it, so they were bascially working off memory, hense not many congruences. I showed the Pantocrator of St. Cahterines monastery to my daughter, (which happens to be my favourite rendition) and "immediately" she stated 'Panticrator' meant 'Ruler of All' with no hesitation. This leads me to believe this may be most likely the proper translation of the word, seeing as she had no hesitation in her mind.<br /><br />Just a note; Freeman has left a comment on Dan's blog and it refers "STRONGLY to you" if you haven't ventured there lately you may like to read what he's said! I wonder why he wouldn't just aswell done so here?<br /><br />Thanks for all your responses, and a big thanks for all the work you put in at Shroud.com making all those BTSB articles viewable.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />F3Flagrum3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-66252929628487484042012-09-01T21:31:54.187+08:002012-09-01T21:31:54.187+08:00[continued]
>As to Matt's comment to me. I...[continued]<br /><br />>As to Matt's comment to me. I never said the fresco's matched the Image on the Shroud but simply there were 'simularities', especially the one in Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter.<br /><br />Agreed. But there are also differences. Wikipedia in its following " Christ Pantocrator" entry, states that "the title `Pantokrator' to refer to Christ ... was a result of the Christological shift that occurred during the fourth century" and "The development of the earliest stages of the icon from Roman Imperial imagery is easier to trace":<br /><br />"In Christian iconography, Christ Pantocrator refers to a specific depiction of Christ. Pantocrator or Pantokrator (from the Greek Παντοκράτωρ) is a translation of one of many Names of God in Judaism. ...Meaning. The most common translation of Pantocrator is `Almighty' or `All-powerful'. In this understanding, Pantokrator is a compound word formed from the Greek words for `all' and the noun `strength' (κρατος). ... Another, more literal translation is `Ruler of All' ... Later development. The primary transference of the title `Pantokrator' to refer to Christ rather than the Creator was a result of the Christological shift that occurred during the fourth century, reflected through iconography; Christ Pantocrator has come to suggest Christ as a mild but stern, all-powerful judge of humanity. The icon of Christ Pantokrator is one of the most widely used religious images of Orthodox Christianity. Generally speaking, in Byzantine church art and architecture, an iconic mosaic or fresco of Christ Pantokrator occupies the space in the central dome of the church, in the half-dome of the apse or on the nave vault. ... The development of the earliest stages of the icon from Roman Imperial imagery is easier to trace." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/g2lt2" rel="nofollow">Christ Pantocrator</a>," Wikipedia, 22 August 2012).<br /><br />This caused me to speculate that there may be two streams of Christ Pantocrator iconography:<br /><br />1. An earlier, beginning 4th century, Roman Western Christ Pantocrator, based on the Shroud at Antioch, with none or few, Vignon markings; and <br /><br />2. A later, beginning 5th century, Byzantine Eastern Christ Pantocrator, based on the Shroud at Edessa, with many Vignon markings.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-56128833572988281282012-09-01T21:31:10.107+08:002012-09-01T21:31:10.107+08:00Flagrum3
>Thanks for clarify the Callistus fre...Flagrum3<br /><br />>Thanks for clarify the Callistus fresco, I couldn't find much info on the internet about it actually,<br /><br />Since it no longer exists, there isn't be any tourist guide information about it. It's a pity that rock damp and taper smoke had caused the fresco's paint to flake off.<br /><br />Sir Wyke Bayliss (1835–1906) who owned Heaphy's original painting but which has disappeared, wrote of the photograph of it:<br /><br />"The facsimile reproduced here however, was made by Thomas Heaphy before the deadly effects of damp and smoke had destroyed this loveliest of all the remembrances of our Blessed Lord - which I believe to have been the work of a Roman artist, a portrait painter, who had himself seen Christ." (Morgan, R., "The Holy Shroud and the Earliest Paintings of Christ," 1986, p.62).<br /><br />Morgan points out that even accepting an early or middle second century date (AD 101-150), it is "difficult" that the artist "had himself seen Christ." If he was 10 when he saw Jesus in AD 30, he would have been 80 in AD 100. <br /><br />So if Heaphy's painting was an accurate reproduction of the fading fresco (and I don't agree with Wilson's sweeping rejection as fraudulent of ALL of Heaphy's work) then it is not impossible that the fresco's artist relied on an accurate, passed-down, recollection of what Jesus looked like.<br /><br />Indeed, if Markwardt's "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/9bnh76g" rel="nofollow">Antioch and the Shroud theory</a> [PDF]" theory is correct (as I believe it is) then the Shroud image, while not publicly available, was not hidden from minority Christian groups in and around Antioch for nearly 300 years from AD 30-326, which is plenty of time for artists to copy it from memory and create an earlier parallel tradition of Shroud likenesses, which could even include some of the more prominent Vignon markings such as the topless square between the eyebrows.<br /><br />>so I was a little suspicious actually about it's dating or provenance but thought it was interesting nonetheless, <br /><br />It is good to be sceptical to reduce the likelihood of false positives (thinking something is authentic when it isn't). But if one is TOO sceptical, one increases the likelihood of false negatives (thinking something isn't authentic when it is).<br /><br />>and Yes the third Jesus fresco I spoke of, is the one you linked to.<br /><br />I linked to two others, but I presume you mean the "Good Shepherd fresco from the Catacombs of San Callisto".<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-12275258506781559322012-08-31T23:46:07.462+08:002012-08-31T23:46:07.462+08:00Hi Stephen,
Thanks for clarify the Callistus fres...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />Thanks for clarify the Callistus fresco, I couldn't find much info on the internet about it actually, so I was a little suspicious actually about it's dating or provenance but thought it was interesting nonetheless, and Yes the third Jesus fresco I spoke of, is the one you linked to.<br /><br />As to Matt's comment to me. I never said the fresco's matched the Image on the Shroud but simply there were 'simularities', especially the one in Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter.<br /><br />F3Flagrum3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-66609773076408012702012-08-31T23:39:31.412+08:002012-08-31T23:39:31.412+08:00[continued]
And yet as none other than the two Ki...[continued]<br /><br />And yet as none other than the two Kings of Shroud denierdom, Steve Schafersman points out, and Joe Nickell agrees, "If the shroud is authentic [i.e. not "a product of human artifice"], the image is that of Jesus":<br /><br />"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson and Stevenson and Habermas go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on <i>this</i> shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate). I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.' [Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," <i>The Skeptical Inquirer</i>, Spring 1982, p.42]" (Nickell, J., "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," 1987, p.141).<br /><br />So if the Shroud is not authentic, then it MUST be "a product of human artifice." But then why has not any Shroud denier yet come up with a plausible, comprehensive human artifice forgery theory which includes all the major features and facts about the Shroud? <br /><br />I have even toyed with the idea of doing it myself-to seriously try to explain away the Shroud as "a product of human artifice." And then it would be seen how ABSURD is the Shroud forgery theory!<br /><br />>It's a dynamic that Shroud-authenticists should find very encouraging. When your opponent is forced to attack a straw man position, it's often an indication that he can't deal with the real one. <br /><br />Agreed. And in their heart of hearts the "Shroud deniers" must know it too!<br /><br />>When he's also forced to attack a straw man physical artifact, it should indicate that even more strongly.<br /><br />Good point. That is really what all the attempts to recreate AN ASPECTS of the Shroud's image and then claim it as how the Shroud was produced. In effect they are examples of "The Straw Man fallacy ... committed when a person simply IGNORES A PERSON'S ACTUAL position and SUBSTITUTES A DISTORTED, EXAGGERATED OR MISREPRESENTED VERSION of that position":<br /><br />"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of `reasoning' has the following pattern: Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of `reasoning' is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2rbpf" rel="nofollow">Fallacy: Straw Man</a>," The Nizkor Project, 31 August 2012).<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-89532238694451578112012-08-31T23:37:09.856+08:002012-08-31T23:37:09.856+08:00The Deuce
>Charles Freeman illustrates somethi...The Deuce<br /><br />>Charles Freeman illustrates something about Shroud debate that I've noticed: Critics of the Shroud invariably leave out major salient facts to make their case.<br /><br />Good point. And if they had the truth, and in their heart of hearts knew it, they wouldn't need to conceal important fact and misrepresent the Shroud pro-authenticity position as they do. <br /><br />>It's not that we have a certain set of facts before us that we all agree on, but that the Shroud-authenticists and Shroud-deniers simply disagree on the interpretation.<br /><br />Agreed. But it is significant that even if the Shroud was a 14th century or earlier fake, it would be the greatest work of art the world has ever seen. Yet "Shroud-deniers," including the history of art community, ignore it as though the Shroud doesn't exist!<br /><br />Former British Society for the Turin Shroud General Secretary Dr Michael Clift raised this point with the Oxford Radiocarbon Lab's late Director, Prof. Edward Hall:<br /><br />"I find most thought-provoking the failure of the scientists in 1988, with their fanfare-style accusations of `fake', to have killed the Shroud stone dead by now. ... Therefore it is not without justification that I bring before you some of the considerations which make me more and more sceptical as time goes on. Firstly the attitude of one of those 1988 scientists, Professor 'Teddy' Hall, was in my eyes starkly unobjective. He said something like, `It's finished, finished! No one will have any further interest in the Shroud of Turin'. Setting aside the fact, unconcealed by him, that he is an atheist (and might therefore have an axe of his own to grind) I really must tell of his reaction when I questioned him on these words of his. `Surely, Professor Hall', I asked him, `if your result shows that the image was not produced miraculously by God the Father, will not scientists now be more interested in it, to find out how man did this thing?' His incredible reply was, `I don't believe in God the Father, old boy'! At that moment of breath-taking <i>non sequitur</i> I wrote him off as a thinker. 'The Fool hath said in his heart ...' (Michael Clift, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/92y2jqu" rel="nofollow">Carbon Dating - What Some of us Think Now</a>," <i>BSTS Newsletter</i>, No. 33, February 1993, p.5).<br /><br />but all he got was an inane <i>non sequitur</i> reply. The reason was not because Prof. Hall was stupid-as a nuclear physicist he must have had a very high IQ. It is just that for a "Shroud-denier" that question is UNANSWERABLE, so they DON'T answer it.<br /><br />>Rather, the Shroud-authenticists deal with all the facts, whereas the Shroud-deniers conveniently forget or ignore known salient facts and features of the Shroud that are incompatible with the argument they are trying to make, as if ignoring them means they no longer require an explanation.<br /><br />Agreed. See above. It is why no one has come up with a Shroud forgery theory which completely and plausibly explained all the "known salient facts and features of the Shroud." Whoever did it would be hailed as a secular superhero, would become a multi-millionaire from the book publishing, movie rights and lecture circuit, and they would probably bestow a Nobel Peace Prize (peace from secularists' private worries that the Shroud might be authentic!) for him/her. <br /><br />But if any "Shroud-denier" had ever tried it, they would have quietly shelved it. Because, as the improbable explanations increasingly mounted, it would become obvious to them that such a theory would be far harder to believe than that the image on the Shroud was created as a by-product of Jesus' resurrection!<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-81544032114513141642012-08-31T22:01:17.459+08:002012-08-31T22:01:17.459+08:00[continued]
>the third one which I did not lin...[continued]<br /><br />>the third one which I did not link too does not. <br /><br />Was it this Christ with a Beard in the catacomb of Commodilla:<br /><br />"Mural painting from the catacomb of Commodilla. Bust of Christ. This is one of first bearded images of Christ. Earlier Christian art in Rome portrayed Jesus most often as the Good Shepherd, disguised as Orpheus, young, beardless and in a short tunic. During the 4th century Jesus was beginning to be depicted as a man of identifiably Jewish appearance, with a full beard and long hair, a style not usually worn by Romans. The symbols on either side are Alpha and Omega signifying `I am the beginning and the end'. Date: Late 4th century" ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/93vd6m5" rel="nofollow">File:Christ with beard.jpg</a>," Wikipedia, 12 January 2006).<br /><br />Or was it another bearded Jewish-looking Christ, the "Good Shepherd fresco from the Catacombs of San Callisto":<br /><br />"Close on Jesus as the Good Shepherd. Ceiling - S. Callisto catacomb. Period: early Christian Date: mid 3rd century A.D. Materials: painting in catacomb ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8dddt49" rel="nofollow">File:Good shepherd 02b close.jpg</a>," Wikipedia, 13 January 2006).<br /><br />>Also with further reading on the Callistus fresco, it apparently dates most likely to the late 2nd century from what I gathered.<br /><br />If you mean the first one mentioned, the original might have been late 2nd century, although as O'Rahilly observed, that date was assigned by Heaphy who "was prone to early dates" and "the third century is much more probable" (O'Rahilly, A., "The Crucified," 1985, p.90). <br /><br />But see above that that fresco had been long since destroyed by damp and smoke and Heaphy's painting of it may be just from his imagination since Wilson has proved Heaphy committed fraud in some (if not most) of his catacomb and relic paintings.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-42557843514472763232012-08-31T21:57:48.048+08:002012-08-31T21:57:48.048+08:00Flagrum3
>Well it looks like those two links d...Flagrum3<br /><br />>Well it looks like those two links didn't work. <br /><br />They worked for me. See my previous comment.<br /><br />>Anyways these are of the renditions found to appear very similar to the Shroud face, <br /><br />The first one, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8qr9cgn" rel="nofollow">The Callistus Fresco</a>" is not a fresco (it having been destroyed by damp and smoke) but a photo of a painting (the original of which has disappeared) by an English painter Thomas Heaphy (1775-1835), who has been proven to be a fraud in at least some of his catacomb and relic reproductions.<br /><br />The second however, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8vbs86t" rel="nofollow">Christ Between Peter and Paul</a>, 4th century [?]" in the "Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana" is VERY significant, being clearly a Pantocrator, appearing to bear at least one key Vignon marking, No. 2, the topless square (although due to the low resolution this may be an illusion). <br /><br />As I commented above, if it really is 4th century, and it really is based on the Shroud, and not an independent tradition of what Jesus looked like, then it would falsify that part of Wilson's theory which claims the Shroud was hidden above Edessa's main gate from AD 57-525.<br /><br />But it would not necessarily falsify Markwardt's theory that the Shroud was hidden above Antioch's Gate of the Cherubim from about AD 326-526. <br /><br />So if this "Christ Between Peter and Paul" fresco in the Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, was painted in the first quarter of the 4th century then it would be consistent with Markwardt's theory.<br /><br />But this "4th century" and "about 400) dates may be just guesstimates. Nevertheless, I am surprised that I had not read more about this fresco. <br /><br />I have just found a Wikipedia page about the two martyrs Marcellinus and Peter (not the St. Mark and the Apostle Peter):<br /><br />"Saints Marcellinus and Peter ... were two 4th century Christian martyrs in the city of Rome ... Very little is known about the two martyrs' lives. Marcellinus, a priest, and Peter, an exorcist, died in the year 304, during the persecution of Diocletian. Pope Damasus I claimed that he heard the story of these two martyrs from their executioner who became a Christian after their deaths. Damasus' account is the oldest source concerning these two martyrs. Damasus states that they were killed at an out-of-the-way spot by the magistrate Severus or Serenus, so that other Christians would not have a chance to bury and venerate their bodies. The two saints happily cleared the spot chosen for their death: a thicket overgrown with thorns, brambles, and briers three miles from Rome. They were beheaded and buried in that spot. ... According to the Liber Pontificalis, Constantine the Great built a basilica in their honor, since a structure built by Damasus had been destroyed by the Goths. Constantine had his mother, St. Helena, buried in a porphyry tomb in this church," ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/l8qd53" rel="nofollow">Saints Marcellinus and Peter</a>," Wikipedia, 8 March 2012). <br /><br />The Constantine connection is significant. Especially Helena, Constantine's mother, who was the royal family's main relic collector. It would explain why two relatively obscure martyrs, as these two were, had one of the first Pantocrators painted in their catacomb.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-75958783657685832662012-08-31T21:57:47.600+08:002012-08-31T21:57:47.600+08:00Flagrum3
>Well it looks like those two links d...Flagrum3<br /><br />>Well it looks like those two links didn't work. <br /><br />They worked for me. See my previous comment.<br /><br />>Anyways these are of the renditions found to appear very similar to the Shroud face, <br /><br />The first one, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8qr9cgn" rel="nofollow">The Callistus Fresco</a>" is not a fresco (it having been destroyed by damp and smoke) but a photo of a painting (the original of which has disappeared) by an English painter Thomas Heaphy (1775-1835), who has been proven to be a fraud in at least some of his catacomb and relic reproductions.<br /><br />The second however, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8vbs86t" rel="nofollow">Christ Between Peter and Paul</a>, 4th century [?]" in the "Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana" is VERY significant, being clearly a Pantocrator, appearing to bear at least one key Vignon marking, No. 2, the topless square (although due to the low resolution this may be an illusion). <br /><br />As I commented above, if it really is 4th century, and it really is based on the Shroud, and not an independent tradition of what Jesus looked like, then it would falsify that part of Wilson's theory which claims the Shroud was hidden above Edessa's main gate from AD 57-525.<br /><br />But it would not necessarily falsify Markwardt's theory that the Shroud was hidden above Antioch's Gate of the Cherubim from about AD 326-526. <br /><br />So if this "Christ Between Peter and Paul" fresco in the Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, was painted in the first quarter of the 4th century then it would be consistent with Markwardt's theory.<br /><br />But this "4th century" and "about 400) dates may be just guesstimates. Nevertheless, I am surprised that I had not read more about this fresco. <br /><br />I have just found a Wikipedia page about the two martyrs Marcellinus and Peter (not the St. Mark and the Apostle Peter):<br /><br />"Saints Marcellinus and Peter ... were two 4th century Christian martyrs in the city of Rome ... Very little is known about the two martyrs' lives. Marcellinus, a priest, and Peter, an exorcist, died in the year 304, during the persecution of Diocletian. Pope Damasus I claimed that he heard the story of these two martyrs from their executioner who became a Christian after their deaths. Damasus' account is the oldest source concerning these two martyrs. Damasus states that they were killed at an out-of-the-way spot by the magistrate Severus or Serenus, so that other Christians would not have a chance to bury and venerate their bodies. The two saints happily cleared the spot chosen for their death: a thicket overgrown with thorns, brambles, and briers three miles from Rome. They were beheaded and buried in that spot. ... According to the Liber Pontificalis, Constantine the Great built a basilica in their honor, since a structure built by Damasus had been destroyed by the Goths. Constantine had his mother, St. Helena, buried in a porphyry tomb in this church," ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/l8qd53" rel="nofollow">Saints Marcellinus and Peter</a>," Wikipedia, 8 March 2012). <br /><br />The Constantine connection is significant. Especially Helena, Constantine's mother, who was the royal family's main relic collector. It would explain why two relatively obscure martyrs, as these two were, had one of the first Pantocrators painted in their catacomb.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-44054072577380849362012-08-31T15:31:42.624+08:002012-08-31T15:31:42.624+08:00[continued]
"On the larger picture, Jesus is...[continued]<br /><br />"On the larger picture, Jesus is between S. Peter and S. Paul and above a painting of the Divine Lamb. Detail of a fresco on the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, Via Labicana, Rome, Itally, 4th century. (See larger picture on the right). During the 4th century, Jesus was beginning to be depicted as older and bearded, in contrast to earlier Christian art, which usually showed a young and clean-shaven Jesus." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8q6p37e" rel="nofollow">File:ChristPeterPaul detail.jpg</a>," Wikipedia, 15 January 2006).<br /><br />especially the "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/9tjula3" rel="nofollow">Full resolution (540 × 787 pixels</a>" Jesus is unmistakably in Pantocrator pose, with His hair parted in the centre, His eyes wide and staring, His right hand with its fingers in the act of opening, and what looks like Vignon marking 2, the `topless square, which is a flaw in the weave of the Shroud!<br /><br />I can only find one reference on my computer to this catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter fresco:<br /><br />"Now the image on the Cloth of Turin clearly agrees with this type of representation of Christ, at least in the basic features. It shows a very striking similarity to some very ancient pictures of Christ, e.g., to a picture in the catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus (about 400), to the Christ of the three crosses on the portal of St. Sabina in Rome (beginning of the fifth century), to several mosaics in S. Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna (around 500), and to the mosaic in the apse of SS. Cosmas and Damian, Rome (about the sixth century). Such being the case, we must have here some relationship of dependency either direct or at least indirect. Agreement so extensive cannot be due to chance. There would be no trouble explaining it, if the image on the Cloth of Turin were a painting. Then it would simply be another link in the artistic tradition. Anyone making a `Shroud of Christ' must abide by the portrait canonized as traditional and legitimate. But should the fact be that the image on the Cloth of Turin is not a work of art at all, as those who have probed its artistic technique and style all but unanimously confess, then what? How explain its remarkable agreement with the traditional portrait of Christ?" (Bulst, W., "The Shroud of Turin," 1957, p.41).<br /><br />Clearly Bulst, who was an expert on the Vignon markings, thought this fresco had at least some of those markings and therefore was based on the Shroud. <br /><br />If this fresco could be PROVEN to be 4th century (but I doubt it was because there would be many more like it from that century-although not necessarily-see below) then it would defeat that part of Wilson's theory that the Shroud was hidden above a gate in Edessa's wall from AD 57-525. <br /><br />It would not however defeat Markwardt's theory that the Shroud was hidden above a gate in Antioch's wall, from AD 326-526, since copies of the Shroud could have been made in Antioch in the first quarter of the 4th century. <br /><br />Indeed, it may have been such early copies based on the Shroud which prompted Constantine's sister Constantia to ask Eusebius for the "image of Christ" in about AD 325 and drove it underground. It may be significant that this catacomb was "near to an imperial villa belonging to Constantine."<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-39999028025375853242012-08-31T15:13:44.556+08:002012-08-31T15:13:44.556+08:00Flagrum3
>Stephen here sre those frescos of Je...Flagrum3<br /><br />>Stephen here sre those frescos of Jesus from the catacombs you asked for;<br />><br />>http://www.jesusandhischristines.org/pic2.htm<br /><br />Thanks, this is "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8qr9cgn" rel="nofollow">The Callistus Fresco</a>" However, it is not a photograph of the fresco itself, which had been long ago destroyed by rock damp and taper smoke, but a photograph of a claimed painting of it by a Thomas Heaphy, and Heaphy's original painting of it is missing (Rex Morgan, "The Holy Shroud and the Earliest Paintings of Christ," 1986, p.62).<br /><br />But Ian Wilson, from a detailed comparison of Heaphy's paintings with the relics he claimed to have based them on, concluded that Heaphy was "a cheat" and "a time-wasting deceiver" who "never ever gained the privileged access he claimed" but "liked to pretend that he had" and his copies were therefore "pure fiction" ("Holy Faces, Secret Places," 1991, pp.89-90). <br /><br />Note that I do not necessarily agree with Wilson that ALL of Heaphy's catacomb paintings were copies of copies, or based on his imagination, but Wilson shows that many of them were, so Heaphy cannot be relied upon.<br /><br />>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChristPeterPaul.jpg<br /><br />However, this one, "Christ Between Peter and Paul, 4th century" in the "Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana":<br /><br />"This cemetery is at the third milestone on Via Labicana, near to an imperial villa belonging to Constantine. `Christ with the book of the Gospels is seated between Peter and Paul. Below, the Lamb is standing in the centre on a hill, from which flow out the four symbolic rivers of Scripture. To the sides are the most venerated Martyrs, with their names: Gorgonius, Peter, Marcellinus, Tiburtius, all acclaiming the Lamb." ... The historical and religious associations of this catacomb [the Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter] are summed up and illustrated in a beautiful picture representing the Savior with S. Paul on his right and S. Peter on his left: and, on a line below, the four martyrs who were buried in the cemetery, Gorgonius, Peter, Marcellinus, and Tiburtius, pointing with their right hands to the Divine Lamb on the mountain. The heads of the two apostles are particularly fine, and the shape of their beards most characteristic. This well-known fresco, preserved in cubiculum no. 25 of Bosio's plan, was discovered in 1851 by de Rossi ..." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8vbs86t" rel="nofollow">File:ChristPeterPaul.jpg</a>," Wikipedia, 12 January 2006).<br /><br />is VERY interesting because in the enlargement of Jesus' face and upper body, in "which Jesus was beginning to be depicted as older and bearded, in contrast to earlier Christian art":<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-49858618265549945772012-08-31T15:13:44.252+08:002012-08-31T15:13:44.252+08:00Flagrum3
>Stephen here sre those frescos of Je...Flagrum3<br /><br />>Stephen here sre those frescos of Jesus from the catacombs you asked for;<br />><br />>http://www.jesusandhischristines.org/pic2.htm<br /><br />Thanks, this is "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8qr9cgn" rel="nofollow">The Callistus Fresco</a>" However, it is not a photograph of the fresco itself, which had been long ago destroyed by rock damp and taper smoke, but a photograph of a claimed painting of it by a Thomas Heaphy, and Heaphy's original painting of it is missing (Rex Morgan, "The Holy Shroud and the Earliest Paintings of Christ," 1986, p.62).<br /><br />But Ian Wilson, from a detailed comparison of Heaphy's paintings with the relics he claimed to have based them on, concluded that Heaphy was "a cheat" and "a time-wasting deceiver" who "never ever gained the privileged access he claimed" but "liked to pretend that he had" and his copies were therefore "pure fiction" ("Holy Faces, Secret Places," 1991, pp.89-90). <br /><br />Note that I do not necessarily agree with Wilson that ALL of Heaphy's catacomb paintings were copies of copies, or based on his imagination, but Wilson shows that many of them were, so Heaphy cannot be relied upon.<br /><br />>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChristPeterPaul.jpg<br /><br />However, this one, "Christ Between Peter and Paul, 4th century" in the "Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana":<br /><br />"This cemetery is at the third milestone on Via Labicana, near to an imperial villa belonging to Constantine. `Christ with the book of the Gospels is seated between Peter and Paul. Below, the Lamb is standing in the centre on a hill, from which flow out the four symbolic rivers of Scripture. To the sides are the most venerated Martyrs, with their names: Gorgonius, Peter, Marcellinus, Tiburtius, all acclaiming the Lamb." ... The historical and religious associations of this catacomb [the Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter] are summed up and illustrated in a beautiful picture representing the Savior with S. Paul on his right and S. Peter on his left: and, on a line below, the four martyrs who were buried in the cemetery, Gorgonius, Peter, Marcellinus, and Tiburtius, pointing with their right hands to the Divine Lamb on the mountain. The heads of the two apostles are particularly fine, and the shape of their beards most characteristic. This well-known fresco, preserved in cubiculum no. 25 of Bosio's plan, was discovered in 1851 by de Rossi ..." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8vbs86t" rel="nofollow">File:ChristPeterPaul.jpg</a>," Wikipedia, 12 January 2006).<br /><br />is VERY interesting because in the enlargement of Jesus' face and upper body, in "which Jesus was beginning to be depicted as older and bearded, in contrast to earlier Christian art":<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-33516943617991711692012-08-31T09:38:36.977+08:002012-08-31T09:38:36.977+08:00>Google "Chris P." and "Shroud&q...>Google "Chris P." and "Shroud" and you will find who "Chris P." may be.<br /><br />One hit brings up a "Chris P" who comments on a Shroud article, "<a href="http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/2009/12/17/shroud-discovered-dating-to-first-century-palestine/4065/" rel="nofollow">Local shroud expert talks about burial-cloth discovery dating to first-century Palestine</a>," <i>Colorado Springs Gazette</i>, December 17th, 2009:<br /><br />--------------------------------<br />How can it [the Shroud] be said to be from `the time of Jesus' when there is no proof whatsoever of the existence of Jesus. You are supposed to be writing factual articles for a newspaper. <br /><br />The `Shroud of Turin' certainly is not from then so why talk to these people. We need to move on and not keep revisiting people’s imaginary beliefs.<br /> <br />Colorado Springs needs facts based industry to provide jobs not faith based nuttery.<br />--------------------------------<br /><br />If this is our Chris P., then she does not even believe in "the existence of Jesus" let alone that "The `Shroud of Turin' ... is not from then [first-century Palestine]"!<br /><br />Perhaps Chris P. will enlighten us who she really is. Note that anyone who does not believe in the existence of Jesus or that the Shroud of Turin is not from first-century Palestine is welcome to comment on this blog. <br /><br />But they must not be DISHONEST, pretending they are simply presenting what others have written (e.g. Charles Freeman that the Shroud is a fake), implying that it is not necessarily their position and are merely leaving it to others to comment on it, when it IS their position that the Shroud is a fake. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-83462013058427816182012-08-31T07:53:12.325+08:002012-08-31T07:53:12.325+08:00Flagrum3
>I should clarify when I mentioned Ve...Flagrum3<br /><br />>I should clarify when I mentioned Veil of San Silvestro, I meant The "Holy face" of San Silvestro.<br /><br />OK.<br /><br />>I tend to intermix the words Veil and Holy face as they all seem to be the same in appearance, even the Veronica the Vatican has seems to be the same size, dimensions and most probably at one time had the same face adorning it, in all probability. <br /><br />Interesting observation. Maybe they are all modelled on a woman's veil? Which would explain why they are all so similar, and so different from the Shroud.<br /><br />>But if you use your Wiki-link to the S.Silvestro and compare it too the image shown in the link to the British museum, I'm sure you will agree with my point that they may be one in the same, as they look identical, including the casing. <br /><br />See my previous comment where Wikipedia STATES they are one and the same.<br /><br />>Which was the point I was trying to make to Chris.<br /><br />Google "Chris P." and "Shroud" and you will find who "Chris P." may be.<br /><br />And why she didn't respond to my comment:<br /><br />"I doubt that is true [that she has only a `limited reading of both sides of the argument']. If you are who I think you are, you have a wide reading of both sides of the Shroud authenticity argument."<br /><br />>As for your future rebuttal to Freeman's "Tetradiplon" paper; I'm fairly patient. I can wait ;-)<br /><br />OK. I may yet respond to it before I get to the end of my critique of Freeman's first article.<br /><br />>I look forward to your next installment to this on-going rebuttal.<br /><br />I have started on it.<br /><br />>As for the asking of the Greek version to The Acts of Thaddeus, thanks for the response, I will continue searching. <br /><br />See my previous comment that it may be in volume 8 of <i>The Ante-Nicene Fathers</i>.<br /><br />>My daughter happens to speak Greek fluently and has studied ancient Greek. ...<br /><br />Great. But we can take it on good authority that in <i>The Acts of Thaddeus</i> the word translated "towel" is <i>tetradiplon</i> ("four-doubled") and the word translated "the linen" is <i>sindon</i>:<br /><br />"And Ananias, having gone and given the letter, was carefully looking at Christ, but was unable to fix Him in his mind. And He knew as knowing the heart, and asked to wash Himself; and a towel [Gk. <i>tetradiplon</i>] was given Him; and when He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image having been imprinted upon the linen [Gk. <i>sindon</i>], He gave it to Ananias, saying: Give this, and take back this message, to him that sent you ... And after I have been taken up into the heavens I shall send you my disciple Thaddæus, who shall enlighten you, and guide you into all the truth, both you and your city." ("<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0826.htm" rel="nofollow">The Acts of Thaddaeus, One of the Twelve</a>," <i>New Advent</i>, 29 January 2010). <br /><br />>... As an example she has stated that Tetradiplon can be translated two ways; four folded or four doubled. <br /><br />Yes. See this quote from Wilson which had posted previously that <i>diplon</i> means "`two fold' or `doubled'":<br /><br />"... I noticed how a sixth-century Greek version of the Abgar story, <i>the Acts of the Holy Apostle Thaddaeus</i>, describes the Edessa cloth as a <i>tetradiplon</i>. ... an extremely rare word, and totally exclusive to the Edessa cloth. Yet, because it is a combination of two common words, <i>tetra</i> meaning `four' and <i>diplon</i> meaning `two fold' or `doubled', its meaning is actually very clear: `doubled in four', suggesting four times two folds." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," 2000, pp.110).<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com