Monday, December 16, 2024

Objections answered (2): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

Objections answered (2) #33

To all my readers. Wishing you and yours a safe and happy Christmas and a better New Year!

This is the tenth installment of "Objections answered (2)," part #33 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia, which will help me write Chapter "21. Objections answered" of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See 06Jul17, 03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22, 8 Nov 22 & 20Jun24. It follows my "Objections answered (1) #25" of 07Jul23.

I am basing this "Objections answered (2)" on an online article, "The

[Right (enlarge): Spencer McDaniel - Bad Ancient]

Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax," by a Spencer McDaniel." She (a transgender person) is described as:

"Spencer McDaniel is an aspiring scholar of ancient Greek cultural and social history. She graduated with high distinction from Indiana University Bloomington in May 2022 with a BA in history and classical studies (Ancient Greek and Latin languages), with departmental honors in history. She is currently a student in the MA program in Ancient Greek and Roman Studies at Brandeis University. Some of her main historical interests include ancient religion, mythology, and folklore; gender and sexuality; ethnicity; and interactions between Greeks and "foreign" cultures. She is the author of the blog Tales of Times Forgotten, where she writes regular, in-depth posts about ancient history and related topics."
Newcomers start with: "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell"

[Index #1] [Previous: Image of Edessa #32] [Next: To be advised #34]


As with the format of "Objections answered (1)," I will present McDaniel's objections to the Shroud being Jesus' burial sheet under headings using her words as far as possible. They will be in bullet points, enclosed in single quotation marks as from an imaginary objector, which will be closer to what will appear in my book.

• `The Shroud of Turin is a hoax that was originally created in France around the 1350s AD by an artist trained in the Gothic figurative style'

"Unfortunately, we can be virtually certain that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax that was originally created in France in around the 1350s AD by an artist trained in the Gothic figurative style as part of a faith-healing scam"[MS20].
McDaniel is a scholar but her article is not scholarly. She cites no references for her assertions and neither does it have a bibliography of what Shroud literature she has read (if any).

Who was this "artist"? And who was the artist who "trained" him "in the Gothic figurative style"? McDaniels is postulating not one, but two unknown artists! Where are her supporting references from Gothic art experts that the Shroud is a work of mid-14th century Gothic art? And since the Shroud image is not painted (from my book in progress):

Not painted It has been known since at least the 1930s that the Shroudman's image is not painted. By examining the Shroud with a magnifying glass during the 1931 exposition, English Roman Catholic prelate Arthur Barnes (1861-1936), could see individual threads in the image area with no colouring matter covering them[BA34, 10-11, 14. See below]. Sceptics now admit that the man's image is not painted. Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001), then Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, when in 1988 collecting his laboratory's Shroud sample, examined the Shroud with a magnifying glass and satisfied himself that the image was not painted[WI98, 198]. Sceptic Joe Nickell (1944-) has admitted that, "...convincing evidence for any painting medium (that is, oil, egg tempera, etc.) on shroud image fibers is lacking"[NJ87, 99]. Former Nature editor Philip Ball (1962-), likewise conceded, "the shroud ... does not seem to have been painted ..."[BP05]. The Shroud of Turin Project (STURP) confirmed in 1981 that no paint, pigment, or dye constitutes the man's image[SS81].
(and it is not a statue), the Shroud cannot be a work of Gothic art!

[Left (enlarge[11Jul16]): Photomicrograph taken by optical engineer Kevin Moran (1934-2019) of 15 microns (15 thousandths of a millimetre) diameter Shroud fibres attached to one of Max Frei (1913–83)'s Shroud sticky tapes. Each image (yellow) fibre can be clearly seen, with no colouring matter (paint, pigment or dye) covering it. The yellow colour of the image fibres is due to a physical change in the flax: dehydrative oxidation and conjugation of cellulose[27Jul24]. The boundaries between the image (yellow) and non-image parts of each fibre are only about 1 micron (1 thousandth of a millimetre) wide. No human artist/forger can paint, etc., with such precision. These fibres are too thin (about half the thickness of an average human hair, and there must be many millions of them), to be individually painted or dyed, etc, by a medieval forger!]

• `The Shroud of Turin is a hoax that was originally created in France around the 1350s AD as part of a faith-healing scam'

The words "faith-healing scam" are Joe Nickell's, which McDaniel plagiarises by not putting them within quotation marks and not including a reference attributing them to Nickell[PGW]:

"In 1389 a bishop reported to Pope Clement VII that it had been used in a faith-healing scam in which persons were hired to feign illness, then, when the cloth was revealed to them, to pretend to have been healed, `so that money might cunningly be wrung' from unsuspecting pilgrims. `Eventually,' he said, after `diligent inquiry and examination,' the `fraud' was uncovered. The cloth had been `cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who painted it' (D'Arcis 1389)"[NJ15]
And it is Nickell who is running a `sceptics scam' in making a living off unsuspecting sceptics by continuing to repeat Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-95)' false, "The cloth had been `cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who painted it'" claim, when (as we saw above) Nickell admitted in 1987 (~37 years ago) that the Shroudman's image is not painted!

As for Nickell's `faith healing scam' claim, he bases this on d'Arcis claim in his 1389 memorandum that:

"This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, through out the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to be the shroud of our Lord"[WI79, 267] "
There are multiple problems with d'Arcis' statement above: • d'Arcis' claim above is at best hearsay[SD89, 15; AM00, 152-153], or at worst he just made it up[AM00, 153]. d'Arcis provided no documentary evidence to support his claims[SD89, 15; AM00, 153]. And as we have seen (there was no "artist who painted" the Shroud because it is not "painted"!), and will see, key claims in d'Arcis' memorandum are false! • The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is "the shroud of our Lord." • So it is possible that there were real miracles of healing associated with that first undisputed exposition of the Shroud. • Neither Geoffroy I's widow, Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428), nor the Lirey church, were wealthy after the c. 1355 exposition. Following her husband's 1356 death, Jeanne had to appeal to the young future king Charles V (r. 1364-80) for her infant son Geoffroy II (1352-98) to be granted the two houses in Paris that Charles'captured father, King John II (r. 1350-64) had promised Geoffroy I (c. 1306-56). And the small wooden Lirey church fell into disrepair[WI79, 213; SH81, 29; WI91, 25; TF06, 47] until it was replaced in stone over 170 years later in 1526[WI98, 287]. Yet according to d'Arcis and Nickell, Jeanne de Vergy, and/or the Lirey church, would have been fabulously wealthy from all that "money" they allegedly had "cunningly ... wrung from" the "multitude"! This is further evidence that d'Arcis was not simply mistaken, but was actually lying in his memorandum! Significantly, d'Arcis in his memorandum had to defend himself from the allegation that he was "acting through jealousy and cupidity and to obtain possession of the cloth for myself":
"The scandal is upheld and defended and its supporters cause it to be spread abroad among the people that I am acting through jealousy and cupidity and to obtain possession of the cloth for myself"[WI79, 269]
McDaniel continues:
"We know this primarily because there is no definitive record of the shroud prior to the fourteenth century and the earliest definitive record of the shroud is a letter recording that the forger who made it had confessed, but also because of a wide array of other factors. For instance, the shroud doesn't match the kinds of funerary wrappings that were used in the Judaea in the first-century AD or the specific description of Jesus's funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John. The fabric of the shroud has also been conclusively radiocarbon dated to the Late Middle Ages"[MS20].
• `There is no record of the shroud prior to the fourteenth century' I have left out "definitive" here and next because the Cambridge Dictionary defines it as: "firm, final, and complete; not to be questioned or changed," and so McDaniel is trying to win her argument by a definition!

This is both fallacious and false. It is fallacious that if there was "no record of the shroud prior to the fourteenth century," it would not automatically prove that the Shroud was "a hoax that was originally created in France around the 1350s AD by an artist." Shroud sceptics would need to prove that. But, as the Irish theologian Patrick Beecher (1870-1940) pointed out in 1928, even if there was no "documentary evidence" for the origin of the Shroud, it "carrie[s] in itself its own proof of its genuineness":"

"Some eighteen months ago the London Times had a photograph of a bronze statue that was found at the bottom of the Aegean Sea. Experts examined it and pronounced it a genuine Greek statue. It was accepted as such; no one doubted the opinion that was expressed; and it will be labelled for all future time as a Greek statue. Suppose some one had objected and said: `No, I refuse to believe that it is a Greek statue unless I get documentary evidence as to when and where it was made, and how it came to be at the bottom of the sea.' Would that attitude be regarded as reasonable? ... NO, rather he would be looked upon as eccentric in not being able to see that the statue carried in itself its own proof of its genuineness. Very well, but we have vastly stronger intrinsic proof for the genuineness of the Shroud." (emphasis original)[BP28, 136-137].
And it is false that there is no record of the shroud prior to the fourteenth century. For starters see in my "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell":
After the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, Nicholas Mesarites (c. 1163-aft.1216), the Keeper of the Byzantine Empire's relic collection, recalled that in 1201[11Nov17] the collection included "the sindon [which had] wrapped the un-outlined (Gk. aperilepton), naked dead body [of Christ]"[11Jun16]. "sindon," "un-outlined," "naked." This can only have been the Shroud, 59 years before its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date and 154 years before the Shroud first appeared in c. 1355, in undisputed history, at Lirey, France[27Jul24]!
• `The earliest record of the shroud is a letter recording that the forger who made it had confessed' This is false! Because the Shroud is not painted (see above), there was no "forger who made it" and therefore no confession. d'Arcis provided no checkable details about the forger because there wasn't one: d'Arcis made him up! That is, in this d'Arcis was lying, just as he was lying about the "money" that Jeanne de Vergy and/or the Lirey church had "cunningly ... wrung from" the "multitude" (see above). d'Arcis really was "acting through jealousy and cupidity ... to obtain possession of the cloth for [him]self" (see above)! And as for "The earliest record of the shroud" being in Bishop d'Arcis' 1389 memorandum, see again, for starters Nicholas Mesarites' statement that in 1201, Constantinople's relic collection included "the sindon [which had] wrapped the un-outlined (aperilepton), naked dead body [of Christ]"!

• `The shroud doesn't match the kinds of funerary wrappings that were used in the Judaea in the first-century AD' This also is false. McDaniel's claims about the Shroud are largely arguments from ignorance because evidently she knows little of pro-Shroud literature. Today (21 December 2024) I briefly looked at the comments under her post, and in one of her replies she admitted, "I had not heard of Thomas de Wesselow ..."! Contrary to McDaniel's unsubstantiated assertion that, "The shroud doesn't match the kinds of funerary wrappings that were used in the Judaea in the first-century AD," Jewish scholar Victor Tunkel (1933-2019) confirmed that "the Shroud [is] perfectly compatible with what he would expect of a Jew crucified in first century AD. Palestine"!:

"As a subject the Shroud traverses many religious divisions, and on 12 May it was a particular privilege to hear the views of a Jewish scholar, Victor Tunkel of the University of London. Victor Tunkel began his talk with a gentle reproof to many Shroud writers for relying too heavily on Christian sources rather than consulting the acknowledged complex world of Jewish Law and practice. He pointed out the lack of need for many of the theological arguments concerning whether the body of Jesus would or would not have been washed before burial. It was quite unnecessary to postulate the man of the Shroud having gone unwashed due to haste. Jewish Law is quite explicit that anyone who died a bloody death, as from crucifixion, would have gone unwashed, because it was important in Pharisaic belief for all elements of the body, including the life-blood, to be kept together. This was so that the body would be kept complete for a physical resurrection at the end of time. The same need for lack of disturbance of bloodstains meant that while one who died an unbloody death would have been buried in relatively normal clothes - shirt, breeches, etc - Jesus would have been wrapped in a single sheet called in Hebrew a sovev (the word means `to surround' or `go around') readily corresponding to what we know of the Turin Shroud. Victor Tunkel accordingly found the Shroud perfectly compatible with what he would expect of a Jew crucified in first century AD. Palestine." (my emphasis)[WI83, 9].
• `The shroud doesn't match the description of Jesus's funerary wrappings in the Gospel of John.' McDaniel asserts with no references:
"In Judaea during the first century AD, people did not normally wrap whole bodies in a single rectangular piece of linen; instead, people wrapped the body in strips of linen and wrapped the head separately from the body using its own piece of linen. The Gospel of John 20:6–7 actually explicitly describes Jesus’s head and body having been wrapped separately in precisely this manner."
Because McDaniel is ignorant of pro-Shroud literature (see above), she fails to distinguish between the burial of Jews who died a normal, unbloody death, like Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44), and Jews who died a bloody death, like Jesus, as explained above:
"The same need for lack of disturbance of bloodstains meant that while one who died an unbloody death would have been buried in relatively normal clothes - shirt, breeches, etc - Jesus would have been wrapped in a single sheet called in Hebrew a sovev ... readily corresponding to what we know of the Turin Shroud."
And the Gospel of John does not purport to provide a "description of Jesus's funerary wrappings" at the time of Jesus' burial. The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke do that:
Mt 27:59-60 "And Joseph [of Arimathea] took the body [of Jesus] and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud [sindon] and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock."
Mk 15:46: "And Joseph [of Arimathea] bought a linen shroud[sindon], and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock."
Lk 23:53: "Then he took it [the body of Jesus] down and wrapped it in a linen shroud [sindon] and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid."
The Gospel of John's account is a "description of Jesus's funerary wrappings" after Jesus had been resurrected:
Jn 20:3-8 "3 So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. 4 Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths [othonia "strips of linen" NIV] lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the face cloth [soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;"

So at the time of Jesus' burial, his wrists, ankles and chin would have been bound with strips of linen[othonia] to keep them together; a facecloth [soudarion] moved to the top of Jesus' supine head; within an all-enveloping shroud (sindon = Heb. sovev). After Jesus' resurrection, the strips of linen (othonia) and the facecloth (soudarion) were in the empty tomb, but the Shroud (sindon) was no longer there-Jesus had taken it with him out of the tomb! See my "Servant of the priest" mini-series.

• `The fabric of the shroud has also been conclusively radiocarbon dated to the Late Middle Ages.' The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud cannot be correct! Not only are there historical refererences to what can only be the Shroud, long before 1260, for example Nicholas Mesarites' above recollection that in 1201, Constantinople's relic collection included "the sindon [which had] wrapped the un-outlined (aperilepton), naked dead body [of Christ]," which can only be the Shroud. There also are artistic references to what can only be the Shroud long before 1260. For example, the 1192-95 Pray Codex

[Right (enlarge): The Entombment of Christ (upper) and Three Marys [sic Mk 16:1-6] at the tomb (lower). The images are claimed as one of the evidences against the radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin (Wikipedia's words. My emphasis)[PCW]!

which contains four pen and ink drawings that are at least 100 years earlier (i.e. 1095)[MP98, 33]. Two of those four drawings contain at least fourteen unique correspondences with the Shroud (see 04Oct18), far too many to be the result of chance!

• `The proportions of the figure on the shroud are anatomically incorrect.' Another unsubstantiated assertion from McDaniel! One of the earliest supporters of the Shroud being Jesus' burial sheet was the agnostic, Professor of Anatomy at the Sorbonne, Yves Delage (1854–1920):

"Yves Delage (13 May 1854 – 7 October 1920) was a French zoologist known for his work into invertebrate physiology and anatomy. He also discovered the function of the semicircular canals in the inner ear. He is also famous for noting and preparing a speech on the Turin Shroud, arguing in favour of its authenticity. Delage estimated the probability that the image on the shroud was not caused by the body of Jesus Christ as 1 in 10 billion"(Wikipedia's words. My emphasis)[DYW]
And he did this because of the anatomical realism of the Shroud!:
"Yves Delage, who at the turn of the century was the Sorbonne's distinguished professor of comparative anatomy. It is ironic that Delage, who was a religious agnostic (and continued to be an agnostic during and after his study of the Shroud) was thus cast as the champion of the Shroud's authenticity ... Delage insisted that the anatomical detail revealed by Pia's photographs was too correct to have been produced by an artist"[DR84, 4]

"In early 1900, after hearing of the mysterious photographs taken of the Shroud by Secondo Pia in 1898, he [Vignon] met with Pia and was convinced that the image on the Shroud could not have been painted. Vignon worked closely with Yves Delage, a professor of anatomy at the Sorbonne. Their association was unique in that Vignon was a devout Catholic while Delage was an agnostic. Delage concurred that the photographs of the Shroud were anatomically correct and could not have been produced by an artist"[GV01, 51]
"It was only in 1898, when the first photograph of the Shroud was taken by Secondo Pia, that the full detail of the man on the Shroud was seen in the negative produced by Pia ... The first medical study of Pia's photographs was carried out by a team at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1900, led by a biologist, Paul Vignon. Their findings were presented by one of the team members, Prof Yves Delage, in a lecture to the Paris Academy of Sciences. He explained that, from a medical point of view, the wounds and other markings on the Shroud were so anatomically flawless that they could not have been the work of an artist. It was his conclusion that the Shroud bore the image of Christ, created by some unknown process as he lay in the tomb."[OM10, 170
Due to their ignorance of pro-Shroud literature, sceptics assume that the Shroudman is lying flat and therefore his body looks anatomicaly distorted. But in fact, he was in his hanging-on-a-cross position, fixed by rigor mortis, which could only be broken at the shoulders, not at the larger abdominal and leg muscles:
"The dorsal view of the legs provides crucial evidence of the state of the body and its position in death. As we have seen, the left foot appears half-hidden, as if it slightly overlapped the right, and this ties in with the fact that the right calf is much more strongly marked than the left, implying that the left leg was raised a little off the cloth. This arrangement, which is not how the lower legs and feet rest naturally, is best understood in terms of rigor mortis. When someone dies, their body initially goes limp, but within three hours (sooner if the body is hot) a complex chemical reaction in the muscles causes them to become rock hard, and the body remains fixed in position. This is the condition known as rigor mortis. The man wrapped in the Shroud would seem to have died with one foot crossed over the other, his left leg fractionally bent, a position maintained after death ... The position of the hands is also revealing. They are crossed over the genitals, which is lower on the body than we might expect. If you lie down on a flat surface and attempt to recreate the pose, you will find that your upper arms naturally rest on the ground and your hands cross nearer your navel, about 6 inches higher up the body than on the Shroud. To imitate the Shroud's image, you have to lift your arms and hold them almost straight - an unnatural resting position. What can account for this posture? The answer, I think, is that the man's arms were fixed in rigor mortis and maintained the stiff position they had on the cross, except that they would originally have been splayed out either side of his head. The rigor in the shoulders must have been broken - an operation requiring quite a bit of force - so that the arms could be contained within the narrow sheet (and help preserve the man's modesty)"[DT12, 144-146]
Note that the above explanation is by Thomas de Wesselow, who McDaniel admitted above "I had not heard of..."!

Artist and physicist, Isabel Piczek (1927-2016), after a careful study of

[Above: Artist Isabel Piczek's reconstruction of how if Jesus body was bent forward slightly, as it would have been due to rigor mortis having set in while Jesus' dead body was left hanging on the Cross for several hours, His hands could have easily covered His genitals[PI96].]

Shroud photographs, has depicted what the Shroudman would have looked like in profile, lying on the Shroud in death. Note that the above would most unlike any Gothic art depiction!

• `The proportions of the figure on the shroud closely match the proportions of figures in Gothic art of the fourteenth-century.'

• `The bloodstains on the shroud are not consistent with how blood flows naturally, which suggests the stains have been painted on.'

• `The fabric of the shroud was made using a complex weave that was common in the Late Middle Ages but was not used for burial shrouds in the time of Jesus.'

To be continued in the eleventh installent of this post.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Bibliography
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY,.
BA34. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London.
BP05. Ball, P., 2005, "To know a veil," Nature, 28 January.
BP28. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin.
DR84. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
DYW. "Yves Delage," Wikipedia, 27 October 2024.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
MP98. Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in MM02, 16-47
MM02. 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.
MS20. McDaniel, S., 2020, "The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax," Tales of Times Forgotten, 24 February.
NJ87. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000.
NJ15. Nickell, J., 2015, "Fake Turin Shroud Deceives National Geographic Author," 23 April.
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
PCW. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 19 December 2023.
PGW. "Plagiarism," Wikipedia, 7 December 2024.
PI96. Piczek, I., 1996, "Alice in Wonderland and the Shroud of Turin," Proceedings of the Esopus Conference, August 23rd-25th, Esopus, New York.
SD89. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA.
SH81. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI.
SS81. "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October 1981, Shroud.com.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI83. Wilson, I., 1983, "A Jewish View of the Shroud of Turin," BSTS Newsletter, No. 6, September/December, 8-9
WI91. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London.
WI98. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.

Posted 16 December 2024. Updated 25 December 2024.

Sunday, December 1, 2024

History of the Shroud (1) #50: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

HISTORY OF THE SHROUD (1) #50

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is #50, "History othf the Shroud (1)," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" This post is based on my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourteenth century (2)." For more information about this "overwhelming" series, see the "Main index #1." I have decided to alternate between "Prehistory of the Shroud AD 30-1354" and "History of the Shroud 1355-" This latter will help me write Chapter "11. History of the Shroud" of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See 06Jul17,

[Right (enlarge): The planned cover of my book.]

03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22, 8 Nov 22 & 20Jun24. The in-line references which clutter these posts are for me to choose from for the numbered endnotes in the book.

Newcomers start with: "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell"

[Main index #1] [Previous: Prehistory of the Shroud (6) #49] [Next: To be advised]

c.1355 First exposition of the Shroud in undisputed history at Lirey,

[Left (enlarge)[RCF]: Rebuilt Church of St. Mary, Lirey, France. It was on these grounds in c.1355 that the Shroud was first exhibited in undisputed history [OM10, 50].

France by Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–56) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428)[OM10, 4, 49; WI10, 221-222, 302.]. This date is based on a 1389 memorandum by the then Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-95) [see "1389d"], to Pope Clement VII (r. 1378-94), which stated that the Shroud had been exhibited in Lirey "thirty-four years or thereabouts" previously[HT78, 99; WI79, 91; WI98, 111; GV01, 14; OM10, 52; WI10, 228], that pilgrims were told it was "the true shroud of Christ" and that "from all parts people came together to view it"[WI79, 268; GV01, 14; OM10, 53; DT12, 14].

c.1355-56 Pilgrim's badge or medallion in the Cluny Museum, Paris[AF82, 30-31; WI98, 127; OM10, 49], from the first exposition

[Above (enlarge): Lead pilgrim's badge or medallion in the Cluny Museum, Paris[LM12] from the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France from c.1355-56[WI10, 221-222].]

of the Shroud at Lirey, France, in c.1355-56. It was found in 1855[WI98, 127-127; AM00, 150] by a French archaeologist, Arthur Forgeais (1822-78), in the mud of the Seine River, Paris[BB91, 245; WI91, 194; WI98, 126-127; TF06, 42], under the Pont au Change bridge[WI79, 194; WM86, 5]. Forgeais found hundreds of pilgrim's medallions to various holy places at that location (but only one of the Lirey Shroud exposition), which indicates it was a pilgrim `wishing well' site[FA12]. The badge depicts the actual Lirey exposition[BB91, 245; SJ03, 12], with the arms and hands of two clerics holding the Shroud[WI79, 194; AF82, 31; WI98, 127; WI10, 221], whose heads and arms have broken off[BB91, 246; WI98, 127; GV01, 103]. Also depicted is the exposition platform and its support posts on either side[SJ03, 12], the tops of which have also broken off. The clerics are holding a full-length, front and back, head-to-head depiction of the Shroud[WI79, 224D; AF82, 30-31; MW86, 96; WM86, 5; WI98, 127; GV01, 103; TF06, 42; WI10, 302-303], the first known[WI79, 224D; AF82, 30-31; WM86, 5; WI91, 21; WI98, 127; WI10, 303]. The man on the Shroud is depicted fully naked, front and rear, with his hands crossed covering his genitals[WI98, 127; GV01, 103]. Under the Shroud is a depiction of the reliquary in which the Shroud was then kept[BB91, 246; GV01, 103]. That this is a depiction of the Shroud's reliquary and not simply a depiction of the de Charny and de Vergy coats of arms solves the apparent problem[WI98, 253-254] of Jeanne's coat of arms seeming to be on the right and Geoffroy's on the left[OM10, 49; WI10, 222]. The roundel in the centre represents the empty Tomb[WI79, 224D; WM86, 5; WI98, 127; GV01, 103; SJ03, 12; AM00, 15; WI10, 221], and around it are instruments of the Passion: a flagrum, the scourging column, the lance, pincers, nails, and the cross upon which is hung the crown of thorns[BB91, 246; GV01, 103; SJ03, 12]. Despite the small (about 6.2cm. by 4.5cm. (or 2½ in. by 1¾ in.) size of the badge[WI98, 126; SJ03, 12; WI10, 221; FA12], "little bigger than a large postage stamp"[WI98, 126], the mold-maker even depicted the Shroud's herringbone weave[GV01, 103; SJ03, 12; FA12; WI10, 221] [see 16Jul15]. The Cluny Museum dates this badge as 1357[WI79, 224D; MW86, 97; WM86, 5; GV01, 103] but it seems unlikely that the exposition began, or continued, after Geoffroy I's 19 September 1356 death in the Battle of Poitiers [see "1356c"]. Not only would Jeanne have been grieving the death of her husband, King John II had been captured [see "1356d"], the French army had been decimated and roving bands of English "companies" remained behind in France after the Battle of Poitiers [see "1356e"], looting defenceless French towns, which would have made it too dangerous for pilgrims to travel, let alone the danger to the Shroud [see "1358a"].

1356a In a letter dated 28 May 1356[BW57 9; WI79, 90, 193; CN84, 65; CN88, 49; SD89, 15-16; BB91, 242; WI91, 20; WI98, 128; GV01, 10; TF06,42; WI10, 224], Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–70), writing from his diocese of Aix/Gap-Embrun (r. 1349-53)[WI98, 278; WI10, 224, 229] formally ratified Geoffroy I's letters instituting the Lirey church, praised him and approved its "divine cult":

"Henri, by the grace of God and of the Apostolic See, confirmed bishop elect of Troyes, to all those who will see this letter, eternal salvation in the Lord. You will learn what we ourselves learned on seeing and hearing the letters of the noble knight Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Savoysy and of Lirey, to which and for which our present letters are enclosed, after scrupulous examination of these letters and more especially of the said knight's sentiments of devotion, which he has hitherto manifested for the divine cult and which he manifests ever more daily. And ourselves wishing to develop as much as possible a cult of this nature, we praise, ratify and approve the said letters in all their parts a cult which is declared and reported to have been canonically and ritually prescribed, as we have been informed by legitimate documents. To all these, we give our assent, our authority and our decision, by faith of which we esteem it our duty to affix our seal to this present letter in perpetual memory. Given in our palace of Aix of our diocese in the year of Our Lord 1356, Saturday, the 28th of the month of May" (my emphasis)[BB91, 242; WI91, 20; WI98, 128; GV01, 11; WI10, 224].
In Roman Catholic theology, a "cult" is devotion or veneration other than to God[CRW], so Henri can only be referring to the Shroud with approval because the new Lirey church didn't have any other "cult":
"Although there is no mention of a Shroud in this letter, the bishop congratulates de Charny on his `devotion ... for the divine cult' and his own wish to `develop as much as possible a cult of this nature.' The repeated references to this cult could only refer to the sacred object housed in the church and not the church proper, thereby suggesting that the Shroud was in Lirey by 1356. This document, which is kept in the archive of Aube, Lirey, is the only genuine act of Bishop Henri de Poitiers that can be authenticated"[GV01, 10-11].
1356b On 19 September 1356 the Battle of Poitiers was fought at

[Right (enlarge): Battle of Poitier at Nouaillé-Maupertuis in 1356, in the Chronicles of Froissart, c.1470[FBP]. The mounted French knights in armour (right) were no match for the longbows of the English foot-soldiers[ WI79, 199; HJ83, 18; OM10, 47; WI10, 224].]

Nouaillé, near the city of Poitiers in Aquitaine, western France[BPW]. An English army led by Edward, the Black Prince (1330–76)[AF82, 44; CN88, 49], defeated a much larger French army led by King John II (r. 1350–64)[WI79, 199; AM00, 151; BPW]. The loss included the capture of King John II[WI98, 278; BPW], his son Philip II (1342–1404)[PTW], and much of the French nobility[BPW]. The effect of the defeat on France was catastrophic, leaving the country in the hands of the 18 year-old Dauphin, and future King, Charles V (r. 1364-80)[BPW; CVW].

1356c Death of Geoffroy I de Charny on 19 September 1356 in the Battle of Poitiers[AF82, 44; GV01, 12; GNW]. He died, Oriflamme in hand[CN88, 49; WI98, 278; RC99; 64], interposing his body between an English lance and his king[WI79, 91; CN88, 49; WI91, 21; WI98, 278; RC99; 64]. Geoffroy's body is buried in a nearby graveyard[WI98, 278] but 14 years later, in 1370, his gallantry was publicly recognized in a state funeral when his remains were reburied in the Abbey of the Celestins in Paris[WI79, 91; CN88, 49; WI91, 21] [see future "1370"].

1356d King John II was taken captive in the same Battle of Poitiers[JTW]. The Treaty of Brétigny in 1360 set John's ransom at 3 million crowns, so leaving his son Louis I, Duke of Anjou (1339–84) in English-held Calais as hostage[LNW], John returned to France to raise the funds[JTW]. However in 1363 Louis escaped[LNW] and John, for reasons of "good faith," voluntarily returned to England[JTW], where he died in 1364 and his body was returned to France[JTW].

1356e Marauding bands of English soldiers, called "companies," after the Battle of Poitiers, began roaming the French countryside, looting defenceless towns and castles[OM10, 51]. The two largest companies were led by French archpriest Arnaud de Cervole (c. 1320-66) and English knight Sir Robert Knolles (c. 1325-1407)[OM10, 51].

1357 In June twelve bishops of the pontifical court at Avignon grant indulgences to all who visit the church of St Mary of Lirey and its relics[WI98, 278; GV01, 12; OM10, 52]. However, the Shroud is not listed as a relic of the Lirey church[BB91, 245]. And never was[RTB], because it was the private property of the de Charnys[RTB],. See 16Feb15, 20Jun18 & 09Nov18, where Geoffroy I's granddaughter, Marguerite de Charny (1390-1460) , refused to return the Shoud to the canons of the Lirey church becuase it was "conquis par feu" ("conquered by fire"), that is a "spoil of war" of Geoffroy I (presumably conferred on him by King Philip VI (1328-50) - see 10Feb18).

1358a A "company" (see "1356e") under English knight Robert Knolles (c.1325–1407) attempts to capture Troyes, but under the leadership of Bishop Henri de Poitiers, the attack fails[OM10, 51]. Lirey is only ~12 miles (~19 km) from Troyes[WM86, 11; CN88, 37; WI98, 129; RC99, 65; AM00, 151; SJ03, 13; OM10, 51.] and such a valuable and well-known religious artifact as the Shroud would have been a prime target for one of the companies, so presumably it had already been taken to a safer region of France[WI10, 229].

1358b In May there began a short-lived, but widespread peasants' revolt, known as the Jacquerie[JQW], which spread into Lirey's Champagne region, and although it was directed primarily against the nobility in manors and castles (which included Jeanne's), there was also indiscriminate looting[WM86, 81; WI98, 278; OM10, 50; WI10, 229].

c. 1358 Due to the threats of the "companies" [see "1356e" and "1358a"] and the peasants' revolt [see "1358b"], presumably the Shroud was taken in c. 1358 by Geoffroy I's widow Jeanne, with her two young children Geoffroy II (1352-98) and Charlotte (c.1356-98), to a safer region of France[OM10, 51-52; WI10, 228-229]. Such as her castle at Montfort-en-Auxois [Right (enlarge)[Château de Montfort].] (aka Montfort near Montbard)[PA07] which was ~93 km (~58 mi) south of Lirey. [see 16Feb15a].

c. 1359 Jeanne married the wealthy and influential Aymon IV of Geneva (c. 1324-88)[WI79, 203; AF82, 33; WI91, 18; WI98, 279; GV01, 12-13; OM10, 68; WI10, 229], an uncle of Robert of Geneva (1342-94), who became Avignon Pope Clement VII (r. 1378-94)[WI79, 203, 205; AF82, 33; CN88, 43; WI91, 18; CN95, 34; GV01, 13; OM10, 83] [see future "1378"]. Then she took her two children Geoffroy II and Charlotte, and the Shroud from Montfort to the safety of one of Aymon's estates in High Savoy (that part of France bordering both Sitzerland and Italy), probably Anthon[WI91, 18; WI10, 229-230] [see 16Feb15b]. Aymon's domains were close to Annecy where Clement VII had been born and grew up[WI91, 18]. Because of Clement VII's unexpected siding with Geoffroy II and Jeanne's 1389 exposition of the Shroud against Bishop d'Arcis' objections [see "1389f"], presumably Jeanne had privately shown the Shroud to Robert of Geneva and explained its history[OM10, 83], how her Fourth Crusader ancestor Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234) had looted the Shroud in the 1204 Sack of Constantinople and brought it to Burgundy, France, via Athens [see "c1332"] [SD89, 96-97; TF06, 32]. So Pope Clement VII would have known the true facts about the Shroud's history, how it had come into the possession of the de Charny family and why this must remain a secret [see 15Aug17] [CN88, 43].

1370 Geoffroy I was given a hero's reburial at the Abbey of the Celestins in Paris by John II's son, King Charles V (r. 1364-80)[WI79, 203; WI91, 21; WI98, 279].

1375 Archbishop Guillaume (William) de Vergy (r. 1371-91)[ BB91, 245; SD91, 199], claimed to have found the original Besançon shroud lost in the 1349 fire [see "1349b"] [SD91, 199-200] and `verified' it by a `miracle' of laying that `shroud' on a dead man who immediately revived[SD91, 200; GV01, 12]! Thus a de Vergy `verified' by this `miracle' that this was the original Shroud[SD91, 200], which fits the theory that the de Vergys arranged the transfer of the Shroud from Besançon in Burgundy to Jeanne de Vergys in Paris[SD91, 200] [see "c1343"]. This painted copy of the Shroud with the frontal image only[SD91, 200; GV01, 12] [see "c1351"] was kept at Besançon until it was destroyed in 1794 during the French Revolution[BA34, 57; GV01, 12; TF06, 39; OM10, 113]. Guillaume was a favourite of John II's older son, King Charles V[HVW], but came into conflict with John II's youngest son Duke Philip II of Burgundy (1342–1404), whom he excommunicated and took refuge at Avignon[GDW]. Where he was in 1391 made Cardinal of Besançon by Avignon Pope Clement VII (r. 1378-94)[HVW].

c.1375 Previously thought (following Wilson) to be the only known examples of medieval herringbone twill linen weave, which are in

[Left (enlarge): The larger fragment of only known other examples of a herringbone twill weave in linen (the grey part is a reconstruction), dated the second half of the fourteenth century[WI98, 69], in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, ref. no. 8615-1863[WI98, 69]. This 18 cm x 10.5 cm fragment, the larger of two (see ref. 7027-1860), is of coarser weave than the Shroud and was sold to the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1863 by collector Franz Bock (1823-99) who attributed it to Italy[WI90, 14].]

the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[WI98, 69]. However, Wilson had evidently overlooked that French ancient textile curator Gabriel Vial (1916-2005), had mentioned in his 1976 technical report on the Shroud (see 12Oct24), that the "only herringbone in linen so far analysed and published is that ... [by] Martin de Vos ... This painting of The Last Supper is on linen with a 3:1 (herringbone) twill weave. It is very late — second half of the XVI th century — and much simpler than that of Turin." (see below).

[Right (enlarge [12Oct24]): "The Last Supper" (c. 1575) by Maerten de Vos (1532-1603). It is painted on a piece of 3:1 herring-bone twill weave linen, 1.46 metres (57.48 in.) high and 2.125 metres (83.66 in.) wide].

These are the only known examples of herringbone twill linen (other than the Shroud - see 16Jul15b]). So how could a medieval forger (unknown) have obtained a ~4.4 m x 1.1 m [see 16Jul15c] herringbone twill linen sheet on which to depict (by unknown means) Jesus' crucified body (front and back)?]

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Bibliography
AF82. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
BA34. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London.
BA91. Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX.
BB91. Bonnet-Eymard, B., "Study of original documents of the archives of the Diocese of Troyes in France with particular reference to the Memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis," in BA91, 233-260.
BPW. "Battle of Poitiers," Wikipedia, 28 October 2024.
BW57. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI.
CN84. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK.
CN88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
CN95. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK.
CRW. "Cult (religious practice)," Wikipedia, 27 November 2024.
CVW. "Charles V of France," Wikipedia, 7 November 2024
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
FA12. Foster, A., 2012, "The Pilgrim's Medallion / Amulet of Lirey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 75, June.
FBP. "File:Battle-poitiers(1356).jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 11 October 2024.
GDW. "Guillaume de Vergy," Wikipedia, October 17, 2024.
GNW. "Geoffroi de Charny," Wikipedia, 15 September 2024.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
HJ83. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA.
HT78. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY.
HVW. "House of Vergy: Notable members," Wikipedia, 17 October 2024.
JQW. "Jacquerie," Wikipedia, 23 August 2024.
JTW. "John II of France," Wikipedia, 18 November 2024.
LM12. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org.
MW86. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY.
LNW. "Louis I of Anjou," Wikipedia, 8 November 2024.
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
PA07. Piana, A., 2007, "The Shroud's "Missing Years," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 66. December, .9-25.
RC99. 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.
RCF. "Lirey, France," Google Street View, August 2008.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
SD89. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA.
SD91. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in BA91, 171-204.
SJ03. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI90. Wilson, I., 1990, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 26, September/October, 11-18.
WI91. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London.
WI98. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.
WI10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London.
WM86. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London.

Posted 1 December 2024. Updated 20 December 2024.