tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post9097125295906971107..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 5: "The Image of Edessa" (1)Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-2814045652360635172012-08-18T21:45:18.041+08:002012-08-18T21:45:18.041+08:00Matt
>Thanks Stephen, good stuff, look forward...Matt<br /><br />>Thanks Stephen, good stuff, look forward to part 6.<br /><br />Hopefully I will post it by tomorrow (Sunday) night.<br /><br />>Crows were disappointing tonight, doubt very much they can win the flag despite their high position in the league, although even Collingwood lost<br /><br />Well Adelaide is equal top with the Swans and Pies, so they are more than a chance for the flag. Especially since they are playing Melbourne and Gold Coast their last two games. The Eagles are getting some of their injured players back and in the last two games they are playing the Pies here and Hawks over there, and if they win both they could be in the top four. Especially since the Swans are playing the Cats and Hawks in their last two games. The Dockers have probably left their run too late, but if any team can win the flag from the bottom of the eight it's them.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-16116089283483590292012-08-18T21:18:48.568+08:002012-08-18T21:18:48.568+08:00Matt
>The other interesting point about Eusebi...Matt<br /><br />>The other interesting point about Eusebius's response to Constantia was the seemingly cunning way it was framed. <br /><br />Agreed. As I had previously pointed out, why didn't Eusebius simply reply to Constantia, words to the effect: "Sorry, but I don't have an `image of Christ' to give to you"?<br /><br />>The way it reads it doesn't deny the Shroud, it merely questions the point / value / appropriateness of PAINTED likenesses, of which the Shroud is clearly not. <br /><br />Good point. Clearly Eusebius did know what Constantia meant, the burial shroud of Jesus with His image imprinted on it, but he `played dumb'. <br /><br />This is not to say that Constantia knew exactly what the "image of Christ" was, but she: 1) knew that it existed; and evidently thought that Eusebius: 2) knew what it was; 3) knew where it was located; and 4) could get it for her.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-44937161827031332632012-08-18T21:03:17.703+08:002012-08-18T21:03:17.703+08:00Matt
>Interesting too that Eusebius had confli...Matt<br /><br />>Interesting too that Eusebius had conflicts with the Bishop of Antioch, Eustathius, between 325 - 330. Who knows, maybe this conflict, and the fact that the shroud was in Antioch at this time, led to his downplaying / denial of the image to Constantia?<br /><br />The Arians (as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea" rel="nofollow">Eusebius</a> was) and the Orthodox (as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustathius_of_Antioch" rel="nofollow">Eustathius</a> was) had their conflicts, but they were still Christians, and there was no way that Eusebius would betray the existence and location of the Shroud for the semi-pagan Constantine to cut it up and use it for lucky charms (see my previous comment).<br /><br />>Eusebius also had conflict with St Athanasius, who attested to "the Icon".<br /><br />See above.<br /><br />>Maybe just coincidence, maybe not. <br /><br />The "coincidence" is that they were all "truly devout eastern clergyman" who would not "dare disclose the existence of any of Christ's Passion relics and thereby risk both their transmittal to the West and the possibility of their desecratory employment by the Emperor" (see previous comment).<br /><br />We may owe the survival of the Shroud to the heroism of one Arian Christian, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoret_of_Antioch" rel="nofollow">Theodoretus</a>, the treasurer of the Antioch cathedral, who when Emperor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate" rel="nofollow">Julian the Apostate</a> c.331-363) demanded that he "deliver some objects which he had hidden" refused and "suffered torture and final execution":<br /><br />"When the Count of the East, Julian’s uncle, closed the Basilica and attempted to confiscate its sacred objects, the treasurer of the cathedral resisted: In the words of Professor Eisen: `Theodoretus, for this was his name, refused to deliver some objects which he had hidden and, it is said, suffered torture and final execution rather than reveal some important secret. What that secret was is not known, but we may conclude that it referred to the treasure which he had hidden and whose hiding place he refused to divulge. ... The author also suggests that the Arian Presbyter, Theodoretus, at the cost of his head, successfully concealed Antioch’s Passion relics in diverse places located throughout the Golden Basilica of Constantine.'" (Markwardt, 2008).<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-----------------------------------<br /><b>Comments</b> 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-83103945658043971882012-08-18T20:31:46.638+08:002012-08-18T20:31:46.638+08:00The other interesting point about Eusebius's r...The other interesting point about Eusebius's response to Constantia was the seemingly cunning way it was framed. The way it reads it doesn't deny the Shroud, it merely questions the point / value / appropriateness of PAINTED likenesses, of which the Shroud is clearly not.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-76851457272618167312012-08-18T20:21:53.279+08:002012-08-18T20:21:53.279+08:00Thanks Stephen, good stuff, look forward to part 6...Thanks Stephen, good stuff, look forward to part 6.<br />Crows were disappointing tonight, doubt very much they can win the flag despite their high position in the league, although even Collingwood lostMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-89871352818756760492012-08-18T16:43:41.570+08:002012-08-18T16:43:41.570+08:00Matt
>>"Yes. As previously noted in on...Matt<br /><br />>>"Yes. As previously noted in one of my comments under part 2 of this series, the letter of the Emperor Constantine's sister Constantia (c.293-c.330) to Eusebius (c. 263-339), requesting he send her an "image of Christ", presumably must have been written between 320-330, given she died in 330 at the age of 37. <br />><br />>>This is about the time (326) that Markwardt says the Shroud was hidden in Antioch's Gate of the Cherubim because of Constantine's policy of centralising all relics in Constantinople."<br /><br />>So - perhaps Constantia's request for the image which we think might be the Shroud was in the context of the move to relocate all relics to Constantinople.<br /><br />Agreed. And it is significant that Markwardt quotes Downey, <i>A History of Antioch in Syria</i>, p. 352, that "Bishop Eusebius of Caesaria, [was] nearly appointed Bishop of Antioch in 326." (Markwardt, J., "<a href="www.shroud.com/pdfs/markward.pdf" rel="nofollow">Antioch and the Shroud</a>," 2008. PDF). <br /><br />So this would explain why Constantia asked Eusebius to send her an "image of Christ" in about 326: she thought Eusebius was about to be made Bishop of Antioch. If so, it would also confirm that the Shroud was in Antioch.<br /><br />>Eusebius's response was quite dismissive. We can only speculate why. Perhaps he knew of the image, and knew that it was in Antioch, but didn't want it known or moved to Constantinople. <br /><br />As a Church historian who could read Syriac (as he states in his <i>Ecclesiastic History</i>), and presumably speak it, Eusebius would surely have known of the image and that it was in Antioch. <br /><br />But as Markwardt points out, the "pagan-bred" Constantine's (and his family's) practice was to divide relics into pieces and use them as lucky charms:<br /><br />"In 326, the pagan-bred Constantine, enthralled by his new religion's relics, sent his elderly mother, Helena, to Jerusalem to search for momentos of Christ's Passion. ... Dividing both the True Cross and the Title into three pieces, Helena left one part of each relic in Jerusalem and sent the remaining portions to the Emperor and to Rome. Similarly, of the three Holy Nails found in the tomb, Helena sent two to Constantine and the other to Rome. ... Once these sacred objects were in the hands of Constantine, he reportedly employed them as lucky charms ... the Emperor placed a portion of the True Cross in his statue set high above the Forum of Constantinople. He also attached one of the Holy Nails to his helmet and made a bridle for his horse from the other. Under such circumstances, no truly devout eastern clergyman would dare disclose the existence of any of Christ's Passion relics and thereby risk both their transmittal to the West and the possibility of their desecratory employment by the Emperor." (Markwardt, 2008).<br /><br />so even though Eusebius may have been otherwise an Iconoclast, being a "truly devout eastern clergyman," Eusebius would not likely betray the location of the Shroud to the Emperor's sister.<br /><br />>Or maybe he didn't know of the image (surely unlikely given Athanasius's comments about "The icon").<br /><br />If the image existed (which it did), whether it was in Antioch or Edessa or anywhere else in between, if anyone knew of its existence and where it was located, the Syriac-speaking Eusebius, the "Father of Church History" would have.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-80854700449791403072012-08-18T13:34:18.258+08:002012-08-18T13:34:18.258+08:00Matt
>>`... but two years before Titus and ...Matt<br /><br />>>`... but two years before Titus and Vespasian sacked the city, the ... disciples of Christ ... depart[ed] from the city and [went] to the kingdom of King Agrippa ... and carried everything relating to our faith. At that time even THE ICON with certain other ecclesiastical objects were moved and they today still remain in Syria.'<br /><br />>... the Kingdom of Agrippa II was just to the west of Damascus, and about 200 miles south of Antioch. Therefore, does this not suggest that the Shroud did not go straight to Antioch - rather that it was in the Kingdom of Agrippa for an unknown period before being moved to Antioch at some later date? <br /><br />Agreed. But it is not essential to Markwardt's theory that the Shroud went straight from Jerusalem to Antioch in AD 68 and stayed there until AD 540.<br /><br />Markwardt's theory is that the Apostle Peter took possession of the Shroud when he and John went into the empty tomb on the morning of Jesus' resurrection as recorded in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2020:3-8&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Jn 20:3-8</a>.<br /><br />And then in AD 68, before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, Peter took the Shroud with him to Antioch. But that does not preclude Peter and the escaping Christian refugees from Jerusalem temporarily residing in Agrippa II's kingdom in Syria enroute to Antioch.<br /><br />For my next post in y series, "<a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/my-critique-of-charles-freemans-turin.html" rel="nofollow">My critique of Charles Freeman's `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey'</a>" I will briefly outline Markwardt's theory in response to Freeman's criticism of Wilson's reliance on the "The Abgar legends [which] ...claim that the image had come to Edessa in the first century where it had been hidden in the city wall before its `reappearance' in the sixth century."<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-71613329818923378612012-08-18T11:30:26.070+08:002012-08-18T11:30:26.070+08:00Interesting too that Eusebius had conflicts with t...Interesting too that Eusebius had conflicts with the Bishop of Antioch, Eustathius, between 325 - 330. Who knows, maybe this conflict, and the fact that the shroud was in Antioch at this time, led to his downplaying / denial of the image to Constantia?<br />Eusebius also had conflict with St Athanasius, who attested to "the Icon".<br />Maybe just coincidence, maybe not.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-46856965202713352192012-08-18T10:57:48.872+08:002012-08-18T10:57:48.872+08:00"Yes. As previously noted in one of my commen..."Yes. As previously noted in one of my comments under part 2 of this series, the letter of the Emperor Constantine's sister Constantia (c.293-c.330) to Eusebius (c. 263-339), requesting he send her an "image of Christ", presumably must have been written between 320-330, given she died in 330 at the age of 37. <br /><br />This is about the time (326) that Markwardt says the Shroud was hidden in Antioch's Gate of the Cherubim because of Constantine's policy of centralising all relics in Constantinople."<br /><br />So - perhaps Constantia's request for the image which we think might be the Shroud was in the context of the move to relocate all relics to Constantinople.<br /><br />Eusebius's response was quite dismissive. We can only speculate why. Perhaps he knew of the image, and knew that it was in Antioch, but didn't want it known or moved to Constantinople. Or maybe he didn't know of the image (surely unlikely given Athanasius's comments about "The icon").Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-61452536828276860732012-08-18T10:52:23.485+08:002012-08-18T10:52:23.485+08:00`…but two years before Titus and Vespasian sacked ...`…but two years before Titus and Vespasian sacked the city, the faithful and disciples of Christ were warned by the Holy Spirit to depart from the city and go to the kingdom of King Agrippa, because at that time Agrippa was a Roman ally. Leaving the city, they went to his regions and carried everything relating to our faith. At that time even THE ICON with certain other ecclesiastical objects were moved and they today still remain in Syria.'<br /><br />I've looked at a map in my old dusty King James version of the Bible and the Kingdom of Agrippa II was just to the west of Damascus, and about 200 miles south of Antioch. Therefore, does this not suggest that the Shroud did not go straight to Antioch - rather that it was in the Kingdom of Agrippa for an unknown period before being moved to Antioch at some later date? Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-13587626908492498822012-08-16T22:36:35.257+08:002012-08-16T22:36:35.257+08:00Matt
>Athanasius's comment is interesting ...Matt<br /><br />>Athanasius's comment is interesting in light of the letter from Eusebius to Constantia we have previously discussed. <br /><br />Yes. As previously noted in one of my comments under <a href="http://tinyurl.com/cpobnzo" rel="nofollow">part 2 of this series</a>, the letter of the Emperor Constantine's sister <a href="http://tinyurl.com/c4ojkag" rel="nofollow">Constantia (c.293-c.330)</a> to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ce4v534" rel="nofollow">Eusebius (c. 263-339)</a>, requesting he send her an "image of Christ", presumably must have been written between 320-330, given she died in 330 at the age of 37. <br /><br />This is about the time (326) that Markwardt says the Shroud was hidden in Antioch's Gate of the Cherubim because of Constantine's policy of centralising all relics in Constantinople. <br /><br />>We concluded that the letter from Eusebius to Constantia, concerning the latter's request for Eusebius to send her an "image of Christ" that she had heard of, was probably dated from 320-330. <br /><br />Agreed. See above.<br /><br />>And given Athanasius's time as bishop of Alexandria, it is likely that his statement concerning "the Icon" dates from some time around 330 - 370AD. <br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />>So we clearly have two credible pieces of evidence, involving two of the most credible churchmen / historians of the time, within a period of half a century maximum, that confirm the presence of an Icon, that must have been pretty special to have been requested by Constantia, and referred to as "The Icon"<br /><br />Yes. Unlike that part of Wilson's theory that the Shroud/Image was hidden in the wall above Edessa's main gate from AD 57-525, with no one by the 4th century remembering the Shroud/Image had even been in Edessa; Markwardt's theory that: <br /><br />1. the Shroud was in Jerusalem from 30-68; <br /><br />2. then it was in Antioch/Syria where in 326 it was hidden in Antioch's wall above the Gate of the Cherubim; and <br /><br />3. following Antioch's great earthquake and fire of 526; <br /><br />4. the Shroud was taken to Edessa, where it saved the city from the Persian siege in 544; <br /><br />5. incurring the poker hole damage;<br /><br />6. following which the Shroud was doubled in four and framed as a landscape mode face only portrait of Jesus to hide the poker hole damage, becoming the Mandylion;<br /><br />ties in with a number of lines of historical evidence, and is inherently more plausible and therefore is to be preferred over that part of Wilson's theory.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-86332876200448970022012-08-16T21:21:26.385+08:002012-08-16T21:21:26.385+08:00Stephen
Athanasius's comment is interesting in...Stephen<br />Athanasius's comment is interesting in light of the letter from Eusebius to Constantia we have previously discussed. We concluded that the letter from Eusebius to Constantia, concerning the latter's request for Eusebius to send her an "image of Christ" that she had heard of, was probably dated from 320-330. And given Athanasius's time as bishop of Alexandria, it is likely that his statement concerning "the Icon" dates from some time around 330 - 370AD. <br />So we clearly have two credible pieces of evidence, involving two of the most credible churchmen / historians of the time, within a period of half a century maximum, that confirm the presence of an Icon, that must have been pretty special to have been requested by Constantia, and referred to as "The Icon"Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-71351451981433193762012-08-15T07:56:44.764+08:002012-08-15T07:56:44.764+08:00Matt
>And what's more "THE icon"...Matt<br /><br />>And what's more "THE icon" (image) dating from this time just has to be the Shroud, <br /><br />Again agreed, on the basis that there would have been MANY icons of Jesus in Athanasius' day (4th century), so THE icon must have been a unique one. <br /><br />>as if we think depictions of Jesus in the Middle Ages were limited, lacking in anatomical accuracy, then this would be even more the case in these ancient times.<br /><br />Agreed, but Athanasius apparently did not say anything about the anatomical accuracy of the image. <br /><br />>No artistic representation of that time could convincingly portray Jesus's image <br /><br />Agreed, but again Athanasius did not say anything about how convincing was the image. It is important that we remain objctive and stick to the facts.<br /><br />It is more than sufficient that Athanasius in the 4th century knows of the existence in Syria of THE icon of Jesus that was in Jerusalem up to AD 68 in the custody of Christ's disciples and take it to "the kingdom of King Agrippa." <br /><br />This must be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_II" rel="nofollow">Agrippa II</a> (c. AD 27-94), because his father <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_I" rel="nofollow">Agrippa I</a> had died in AD 44. Agrippa II's kingdom included part of Syria (see Wikipedia reference above), but apparently not Antioch. He is the King Agrippa before whom the Apostle Paul appeared in Caesarea (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2025:13-26:32&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Acts 25:13-26:32</a>).<br /><br />It is far more plausible that the Shroud was in the custody of the Apostles in Jerusalem, and was then taken to Syria (not necessarily Antioch at first) before Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, rather than it leave the Apostles' custody and be taken to Edessa soon after Jesus' death in AD 30-33. <br /><br />The Edessa story of the Image being in the custody of Edessa's Abgar V from ~AD 30-33 until his death in AD 57, and then hidden in Edessa's wall above a gate, being completely forgotten, and then being discovered after a flood in AD 525, seems clearly to be an implausible retrospective application to Edessa of the true history of the Shroud having been hidden in Antioch's city wall above the Gate of the Cherubim in c. 326, when Constantine began centralising all relics in Constantinople, and its hiding place being rendered untenable <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/526_Antioch_earthquake" rel="nofollow">in 526 when an earthquake and fire destroyed Antioch</a>, and after that it was moved to the by then largely Christian Edessa.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-80265460975399032202012-08-14T21:49:46.488+08:002012-08-14T21:49:46.488+08:00And what's more "THE icon" (image) d...And what's more "THE icon" (image) dating from this time just has to be the Shroud, as if we think depictions of Jesus in the Middle Ages were limited, lacking in anatomical accuracy, then this would be even more the case in these ancient times.No artistic representation of that time could convincingly portray Jesus's image Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-19676240167727848112012-08-13T19:53:42.833+08:002012-08-13T19:53:42.833+08:00Matt
>Are you aware of the credibility or othe...Matt<br /><br />>Are you aware of the credibility or otherwise of the Mansi source?<br /><br />No. But but I presume it was this "Mansi" whose "output was chiefly of a mechanical order, and unoriginal" (i.e. he simply recorded what was in the original sources):<br /><br />"Gian (Giovanni) Domenico Mansi (16 February 1692 – 27 September 1769) was an Italian theologian, scholar and historian, known for his massive works on the Church councils. ... His long career was filled chiefly with the re-editing of erudite ecclesiastical works with notes and complementary matter. His name appears on the title-pages of ninety folio volumes and numerous quartos. An indefatigable worker, widely read and thoroughly trained, his output was chiefly of a mechanical order, and unoriginal ... His task was most often limited to inserting notes and documents in the work to be reproduced and sending the whole result to the printer ... . ..." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Domenico_Mansi" rel="nofollow">Giovanni Domenico Mansi</a>," Wikipedia, 27 April 2012). <br /><br />>Reference to "the Icon" in Jerusalem AD 68 is compelling, in my opinion. Potentially reference to an "icon" could include a number of religious objects, but the fact that "THE icon" is singled out separate to "certain other ecclesiastical objects" suggests an importance, an awesomeness, that separates it. <br /><br />Agreed. There were probably THOUSANDS of icons in Athanasius' day (c. 296-373). So THE icon can ONLY be the Shroud: not the Mandylion because the Shroud was not yet doubled-in-four).<br /><br />And it is VERY significant that it was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria" rel="nofollow">ATHANASIUS</a> who mentioned it, because he is a veritable bastion of orthodoxy.<br /><br />There are other sources quoted by Markwardt (read them for yourself at the links I provided in one of my comments above), which I haven't had the time to comment on them.<br /><br />Today I received Mark Guscin's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Image-Edessa-Medieval-Mediterranean/dp/9004171746" rel="nofollow">The Image of Edessa</a>" (2009), which I hope to read in the coming days.<br /><br />I also have recently scanning for eventual publication on Shroud.com, Lennox Manton's "Byzantine Frescoes and the Turin Shroud" (1994) and "Cappadocian Frescoes and the Turin Shroud" (1996) with photos that Manton personally took of the images of Christ in the rupestral (rock) churches of Cappadocia, Asia Minor.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-16868071026434823822012-08-13T16:04:47.417+08:002012-08-13T16:04:47.417+08:00Thanks Stephen. Are you aware of the credibility o...Thanks Stephen. Are you aware of the credibility or otherwise of the Mansi source?<br />Reference to "the Icon" in Jerusalem AD 68 is compelling, in my opinion. Potentially reference to an "icon" could include a number of religious objects, but the fact that "THE icon" is singled out separate to "certain other ecclesiastical objects" suggests an importance, an awesomeness, that separates it. <br />Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-51692896712396439082012-08-13T06:29:54.223+08:002012-08-13T06:29:54.223+08:00Matt
>I found that quote of Athanasius's v...Matt<br /><br />>I found that quote of Athanasius's very interesting. Is there a source for the quote (presumably it was from a letter or some manuscript). <br /><br />It is at footnote 14 of Markwardt's PDF article I cited above:<br /><br />14 ... [Latin text omitted] Dobschutz, vol. 3, p. 282, n. 3. Dobschutz derives this passage from Mansi, XIII, 584a = Athan. opp. II 353c.<br /><br />>BTW good win by the Eagles over the cats!<br /><br />Even better win by the Crows over the Dockers!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-2089514174024807882012-08-12T20:31:54.798+08:002012-08-12T20:31:54.798+08:00Stephen
I found that quote of Athanasius's ver...Stephen<br />I found that quote of Athanasius's very interesting. Is there a source for the quote (presumably it was from a letter or some manuscript). BTW good win by the Eagles over the cats!Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-53699487195187879872012-08-10T23:26:15.304+08:002012-08-10T23:26:15.304+08:00Flagrum3
>... Just to verify the existence of...Flagrum3 <br /><br />>... Just to verify the existence of different subtitles; Use the link in the blog to the Amazon page for the book "The Shroud" that Stephen posted. Then click the book image where it says "Look Inside", another book cover will come up,...Check-out the subtitle.<br /><br />Thanks. The subtitle inside indeed says, "Fresh light on the 2000-year mystery" but the subtitle on the cover says, "The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved." It seems strange that this reprint has got two different subtitles: one on the cover and a different one inside. And my copy of that same book, by the same publisher (Bantam) has no subtitle, just "The Shroud". <br /><br />>I also tend to lean towards Jack Markwardt's theory for the 'early years' of the Shroud's/Image of Edessa's whereabouts. I think it makes better sense of the "Hidden in the Wall" story. <br /><br />Agreed. And Markwardt has strong evidence for this theory:<br /><br />"In the fourth century, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria (ca. 328-373), affirmed that a sacred Christ-icon, traceable to Jerusalem and the year 68, was then present in Syria:<br /><br />`…but two years before Titus and Vespasian sacked the city, the faithful and disciples of Christ were warned by the Holy Spirit to depart from the city and go to the kingdom of King Agrippa, because at that time Agrippa was a Roman ally. Leaving the city, they went to his regions and carried everything relating to our faith. At that time even THE ICON with certain other ecclesiastical objects were moved and they today still remain in Syria. I possess this information as handed down to me from my migrating parents and by hereditary right. It is plain and certain why the icon of our holy Lord and Savior came from Judaea to Syria.'" (Markwardt, J., "<a href="http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p02.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ancient Edessa and the Shroud: History Concealed by the Discipline of the Secret</a>," Ohio Shroud Conference, 2008. [PDF 2.2 Mb] My emphasis).<br /><br />Markwardt has a footnote pointing out that at that time, Edessa was not in the Roman province of Syria.<br /><br />>As in not being hidden for a lengthy 5 hundred years, which seems a very long time to be encased in a wall and susceptible to certain elements. <br /><br />I don’t think the Shroud being sealed up in a wall for 468 years (from AD 57-525) is a problem. But I do think that Wilson's claim that there was no one who remembered what had happened to the Shroud, after it was hidden in Edessa's wall above the main gate, is a major problem. It is hard to believe that the person or persons who so hid the Shroud would not make sure it would be remembered where it was hidden. What would be the point of hiding it so well that it might never be found? And what if that part of the wall was about to be destroyed in a siege? How could the Shroud be saved if no one knew that it was there? <br /><br />In fact Wilson's theory is that by the 4th century, no one remembered that the Shroud had ever been permanently located in Edessa. That is itself evidence that the Shroud had not been, before the 4th century, permanently located in Edessa!<br /><br />Markwardt's theory does not have the same problems. His claim is not that no one knew, or remembered, that Shroud was in Antioch, but rather it was known but only by a tiny minority, who kept it a closely guarded secret. Also, the length of time the Shroud was hidden in Antioch's Gate of the Cherubim is much shorter, from AD 326-540, or 214 years.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-37494393320650364412012-08-10T17:06:20.061+08:002012-08-10T17:06:20.061+08:00To anonymous and Stephen, Just to verify the exist...To anonymous and Stephen, Just to verify the existence of different subtitles; Use the link in the blog to the Amazon page for the book "The Shroud" that Stephen posted. Then click the book image where it says "Look Inside", another book cover will come up,...Check-out the subtitle.<br /><br />I also tend to lean towards Jack Markwardt's theory for the 'early years' of the Shroud's/Image of Edessa's whereabouts. I think it makes better sense of the "Hidden in the Wall" story. As in not being hidden for a lengthy 5 hundred years, which seems a very long time to be encased in a wall and susceptible to certain elements. <br /><br />F3Flagrum3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-67246115409602135292012-08-08T22:55:59.068+08:002012-08-08T22:55:59.068+08:00Matt
>RE: Point 5
Remember we have some eviden...Matt<br /><br />>RE: Point 5<br />Remember we have some evidence from the legend of St Alysius that he spent some years in Edessa around 400AD and his prayers were answered by an icon bearing Jesus's image.<br /><br />This is St. Alexis, who: <br /><br />"... went off to the city of Edessa Because of an image he had heard tell of, Which the angels made at God's commandment... (BSTS Newsletter, No. 16, May 1987, p.14).<br /><br />And who lived in Edessa between 412 and 435:<br /><br />"Saint Alexius ... a "Man of God" of Edessa ... who during the episcopate of Bishop Rabbula (412-435) lived by begging and shared the alms he received with other poor people ..." ("Alexius of Rome," Wikipedia, 24 March 2012).<br /><br />But the problem with this is: a) it is mere hearsay; b) it does not say that St. Alexius saw the Image; c) where are all the others who would have seen the image if it was in Edessa in 412-35?; and d) it refutes Wilson's own theory that the image of Edessa had been walled up above Edessa's city gate from AD 57-525 and been completely forgotten by the Edessans by the 4th century (see below).<br /><br />More likely this relates to a memory of my point 2, that Thaddeus, one of the 72, had exhibited the Shroud in Edessa during the reign of Abgar V (AD 13–50) and St. Alexius had heard of that. <br /><br />>So although the legend is not necessarily bullet proof, it suggests an alternative history that has the Shroud in Edessa well before the 500s.<br /><br />One of the many problems with this, as already mentioned, is that Wilson's theory is that the Shroud must have been completely forgotten when Egeria visited Edessa in the 4th century:<br /><br />"Being as sure as we can be that the Image arrived very early in Edessa is important, because the next difficulty we face is that almost as quickly and mysteriously it vanished, and in circumstances sufficiently dire that all living memory of its hiding place became lost ... Had the Christ-imprinted cloth Image of Edessa been around late in the fourth century the one person who would undoubtedly have let us know all about it was a highly observant lady pilgrim whom historians mostly label Egeria ... [who] arrived in Edessa some time between the years 384 and 394. If anything as interesting as the Image of Edessa had been in evidence in the city, there can be no doubt that this intrepid lady would have sought it out, and given us a full description. ... But Egeria made no mention of any Image being kept in the city ... And for well over a century after Egeria's time other prolific contemporary writers, among them the famous St Ephrem of Edessa, were also silent on the subject. It was as if it had never existed." (Wilson, "The Shroud," 2010, pp.122-124).<br /><br />In his "Blood and the Shroud" (1998), Wilson has a chronology which states in bold print: [AD] "57 ... <b>We now enter a long period of obvious ignorance concerning the cloth's whereabouts.</b> (p.264) ... 525 ... <b>and the cloth found</b>" (p.266).<br /><br />But effectively it makes no difference to Wilson's overall theory if the Shroud was: <br /><br />1) walled above a gate in Edessa from AD 57-525 with no remembrance of it; or <br /><br />2) Thaddeus (Addai) had with him the Shroud in Edessa in ~AD 50, as well as other places, and then took it back to Antioch. Where in 362 it was walled up over a gate in Antioch until 526, when it was discovered after an earthquake destroyed the city walls. Then the Shroud was taken to Edessa before the Persian destruction of Antioch in 540, where it re-appeared in Edessa during the Persian attempted conquest of Edessa in 544. And then the Antioch true history of the Shroud was applied by the Edessans retrospectively to Edessa. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-91738053775447143832012-08-08T18:57:00.986+08:002012-08-08T18:57:00.986+08:00Stephen
RE: Point 5
Remember we have some evidence...Stephen<br />RE: Point 5<br />Remember we have some evidence from the legend of St Alysius that he spent some years in Edessa around 400AD and his prayers were answered by an icon bearing Jesus's image.So although the legend is not necessarily bullet proof, it suggests an alternative history that has the Shroud in Edessa well before the 500s.<br />MattMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616935642703486461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-65625685182131431802012-08-08T18:39:58.838+08:002012-08-08T18:39:58.838+08:00Anonymous
>I ordered and purchased Wilson'...Anonymous<br /><br />>I ordered and purchased Wilson's 2010 "The Shroud" early in 2012 from my local bookstore ... The book is soft cover with cover subtitle "The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved" but subtitle appears nowhere else. Publisher is Bantam Press. Page numbers quoted above match identical extracts in my copy. <br /><br />My hardcover edition of Wilson's book I bought online in 2010 as soon as it became available. Like yours it only has the subtitle "The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved" on the cover, so perhaps the subtitle is not really part of the book's official title and can be varied in further reprintings.<br /><br />>I note Flagrum 3 copy is 2010, but his subtitle "Fresh Light on the 2000 Year Old Mystery" is different from my copy. <br /><br />And mine. I have a copies of other Shroud books by Wilson, e.g. his first "The Turin Shroud" (1978) and his "The Blood and the Shroud" (1998) which have different sizes and number of pages.<br /><br />>I also concur with your comments that Jack Markwardt's two papers on placing the Shroud in Antioch seems a muchmore credible scenario.<br /><br />Thanks. I thought I better make that clear that, although I agree with Wilson's theory that the Shroud was at Edessa in the 6th century, doubled in four as the Mandylion, I do not agree with that part of Wilson's theory which holds the Shroud was at Edessa from the first century hidden in Edessa's wall until the 6th century.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-87909363331860086832012-08-08T18:16:45.500+08:002012-08-08T18:16:45.500+08:00I ordered and purchased Wilson's 2010 "Th...I ordered and purchased Wilson's 2010 "The Shroud" early in 2012 from my local bookstore in Wellington NZ. I can't remember from whom they obtained the copy. The book is soft cover with cover subtitle "The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved" but subtitle appears nowhere else. Publisher is Bantam Press. Page numbers quoted above match identical extracts in my copy. I note Flagrum 3 copy is 2010, but his subtitle "Fresh Light on the 2000 Year Old Mystery" is different from my copy. I also concur with your comments that Jack Markwardt's two papers on placing the Shroud in Antioch seems a muchmore credible scenario.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-27198601429506338112012-08-08T13:45:33.010+08:002012-08-08T13:45:33.010+08:00Flagrum3
>Thanks Stephen, and sorry about spel...Flagrum3<br /><br />>Thanks Stephen, and sorry about spelling errors, which you were graceful enough not to mention ;-)<br /><br />No need for an apology. This is not a spelling competition.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />>Anyways, I agree with you that Freeman has shown "Incompetence" or "Dishonesty" at the least in his paper, as even being a laymen I noticed his omissions and could have refutted his writings. <br /><br />I don't claim that Freeman is generally dishonest or incompetent. But his prejudice against the Shroud's authenticity causes him to underrate the evidence for, and overrate the evidence against, the Shroud's authenticity. <br /><br />>But I find this seems to be the 'NORM' when reading much of the literature out there written by skeptics of the Shroud. People like Joe Nickell for instance.<br /><br />Agreed. They suffer from the same underlying problem, namely their minds have been taken captive (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col%202:8&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Col 2:8</a>) by the philosophy of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)" rel="nofollow">Naturalism</a> (nature is all there is-there is no supernatural) which dominates the schools and universities (including even some that are, or were, Christian).<br /><br />>Thier literature is mostly made up of lies, half-truths, followed by misrepresented so-called 'facts'from scrupulous scources.<br /><br />Agreed. Some of them, like Nickell, are little better than charlatans, who make a good living out of professional skepticism. <br /><br />>Never backing thier claims with proper historical or scientific references, especially scientific peer-reviewed documentation.<br /><br />There is an older debate between Nickell and Barrie Schwortz on a skeptic radio show about the Shroud where Barrie raised this point and Nickell had the chutzpah to claim that not being peer-reviewed was an <i>advantage</i>! <br /><br />You would think that would ring alarm bells among Nickell's fellow-skeptics but it didn't. The problem is that their minds have also been taken captive by naturalism and they apparently saw nothing wrong with Nickell's `reasoning'.<br /><br />But when Naturalism has captured a mind, then a naturalistic <i>falsehood</i> is always to be preferred over a supernaturalistic <i>truth</i>!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com