![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A possibly conclusive answer to the riddle of the Shroud of Turin
http://shadowshroud.com/
This is the link to a site describing a simple but highly original and interesting experiment about the famous Shroud of Turin, a mysterious object that has been in the keeping of the Dukes of Savoy (later Kings of Sardinia and Kings of Italy) for several centuries. It is allegedly the funeral shroud of Jesus Christ, described by an eyewitness in the Gospel of John (that John is eyewitness account is my own belief, which I will defend if challenged); however, in spite of several attempts to identify it with an object seen at various times in the Christian East, it does not appear in recorded history in about 1350, and the first thing we hear about it at all is that the local Bishop, Henry of Poitiers, condemned it as a fraud. At first he simply had the viewings stopped; but when the exhibitions were revived, thirty years later - evidently in the hope that with the Bishop dead, people would not remember his inquest and condemnation - his successor wrote a lengthy letter to Pope Clement VII.
"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Sometime since in this dioceses of Troyes, The Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not of any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted..." The bishop then described the image on the cloth, along with the circumstances of the exhibitions, and continued: "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [the Bishop] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth was cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. I offer myself as ready to supply all information sufficient to remove any doubt concerning the facts alleged."
Clement VII considered the matter and issued a Papal Bull, which ordered that the Shroud of Turin be advertised only as a "copy." Since then, and in spite of its immense popularity, the Church has never admitted the Shroud as an acknowledged relic, calling it only "an object worth meditating over" - just like any other work of art. The issue seemed closed when, in the eighties, an Oxford lab proved by radiocarbon dating that the material of the Shroud was dated from the fourteenth century. I am one of those who think there are a few problems with radiocarbon dating, whatever the case may be, it certainly cannot cover the difference between first and fourteenth century AD!
However, a genuine riddle remained. How had the artist, whom Peter had actually found and questioned, managed the negative, "X-ray" effect that is much the most convincing feature of this fake? I think it is rather fitting that the best answer discovered thus far should be by a man who is, a), a Christian, and b), not a scientist. This site shows what almost certainly did happen - as well as that we are not the trusting fools that our enemies claim us to be.
This is the link to a site describing a simple but highly original and interesting experiment about the famous Shroud of Turin, a mysterious object that has been in the keeping of the Dukes of Savoy (later Kings of Sardinia and Kings of Italy) for several centuries. It is allegedly the funeral shroud of Jesus Christ, described by an eyewitness in the Gospel of John (that John is eyewitness account is my own belief, which I will defend if challenged); however, in spite of several attempts to identify it with an object seen at various times in the Christian East, it does not appear in recorded history in about 1350, and the first thing we hear about it at all is that the local Bishop, Henry of Poitiers, condemned it as a fraud. At first he simply had the viewings stopped; but when the exhibitions were revived, thirty years later - evidently in the hope that with the Bishop dead, people would not remember his inquest and condemnation - his successor wrote a lengthy letter to Pope Clement VII.
"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Sometime since in this dioceses of Troyes, The Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not of any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted..." The bishop then described the image on the cloth, along with the circumstances of the exhibitions, and continued: "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [the Bishop] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth was cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. I offer myself as ready to supply all information sufficient to remove any doubt concerning the facts alleged."
Clement VII considered the matter and issued a Papal Bull, which ordered that the Shroud of Turin be advertised only as a "copy." Since then, and in spite of its immense popularity, the Church has never admitted the Shroud as an acknowledged relic, calling it only "an object worth meditating over" - just like any other work of art. The issue seemed closed when, in the eighties, an Oxford lab proved by radiocarbon dating that the material of the Shroud was dated from the fourteenth century. I am one of those who think there are a few problems with radiocarbon dating, whatever the case may be, it certainly cannot cover the difference between first and fourteenth century AD!
However, a genuine riddle remained. How had the artist, whom Peter had actually found and questioned, managed the negative, "X-ray" effect that is much the most convincing feature of this fake? I think it is rather fitting that the best answer discovered thus far should be by a man who is, a), a Christian, and b), not a scientist. This site shows what almost certainly did happen - as well as that we are not the trusting fools that our enemies claim us to be.
no subject
There is also the fact that Jn 19:35 seems to disclaim authorship by an eyewitness, and that textual criticism is often held to show that the gospel was redacted more than once, and that Jn 21 is a later addition. There is also of course the facts that Jesus is excluded from the synagogues, and the Sadducees are not mentioned, both anachronistically reflecting post-temple Judaism.
(I'm probably boring you by telling you what you already know, sorry. But I'm very interested in such a non-mainstream view of the gospel.)
no subject
There is an important point in this. Luke's pernickety precision of detail has been demonstrated since the days of Ramsey, and it takes increasingly complex (and unrealistic) theories not to accept that his work is from the first century. Anyone who knows how people from that age thought and wrote - anyone who has read, say, Tacitus, Longus, Apuleius, Lucian, or any first-, second-, or third-century prose writer - would know that such precision was not within a million miles of them. Even the historians are guilty of monumental anachronisms, and as for the ordinary writers of entertainment, they never touch the past without showing that they know nothing about it. So Luke must be a first-century author - unless we imagine some sort of supergenius who had invented, alone, the whole modern technique of historical research. And what we have of Luke hardly suggests overwhelming genius. But he was collecting stories that had already become traditional (as opposed to the "we" passages of the Acts of the Apostles, where he is recording clearly personal experience), and that shows that the body of lore - of stories, of remembered speeches - about Jesus had already largely stabilized into a number of standard anecdotes, while at the same time being easily within the reach of living memory.
(continuend in next comment)
no subject
The famous passage "this is the witness that tells these things, and we know that his testimony is true", tells us two things: one, that a specific Christian community had collaborated with the aged witness in writing and editing the work, and that they bore, from their own collective knowledge, witness to his authenticity. Since he was surely the oldest of them, what do they mean? I think they mean that they know that his teaching has never changed, that he has not been defrauding or misleading them. In terms of later Christian practice, that is hardly surprising: in the early Dark Ages, I can tell you from my own reading that two widely separated Christian works such as St.Gildas' The Ruin of Britain and Baudonivia's Life of St.Radegund testify to an exactly similar process of writing, in which a community stakes its honour upon the truth and veracity of the account of events given by one of them who is, for whatever reason, regarded as pre-eminent. I would be interested to see whether this is a tradition that can be traced in earlier Christian writing.
When I examine a document for separate sources, I look for breaks in style, in subject, in rhythm; in view of the world; in attitude to specific themes and issues. Such issues may certainly be found in the three Synoptics, but I would like anyone to show me where in the world is a more unified literary production than the Fourth Gospel. From beginning to end it is of one piece. The solemn asseveration that the witness who saw "all these things" was there with the community comes in twice: when the author mentions decisive visual evidence that Jesus was indeed dead (the wound in his side gave out "blood and water", that is his blood had broken down), and when he mentions what seems to be the last time he saw his Master (and a touching and rather pathetic hope that he might see Him once more at least before he died). In other words, it is used to underline the fact that this man, who claims to be an eyewitness, has certain evidence that Jesus had once been dead and then had come back to life.
One thing that, to me, absolutely screams eyewitness, is the frustrated end-note - which must have frustrated so many of us since, although it might just as validly be said of any interesting person of the past: "If I could say it all, I do not think that all the books in the world could cover all the things that Jesus said and did." Anyone who calls this a later addition or suggests that it indicates insincerity just has no idea how real people think and feel. Is it not the exact same frustration that seizes you when you are trying to convey some great experience of your own? "Oh, my God, that was a breathtaking game last night... you should have seen how so-and-so hit that homer when nobody even thought he'd see it - and then the opponents forced their way back in with the most fantastic triple play there's ever been... Oh, I wish I could begin to explain you how fantastic it was. Everything happened. It would take a book..."
Whoops..