Knights Templar hid the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican

Times Online ^ | 04/05/2009 | Richard Owen

[BuckeyeTexan]

Medieval knights hid and secretly venerated The Holy Shroud of Turin for more than 100 years after the Crusades, the Vatican said today in an announcement that appeared to solve the mystery of the relic’s missing years.

The Knights Templar, an order which was suppressed and disbanded for alleged heresy, took care of the linen cloth, which bears the image of a man with a beard, long hair and the wounds of crucifixion, according to Vatican researchers.

The Shroud, which is kept in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral, has long been revered as the shroud in which Jesus was buried, although the image only appeared clearly in 1898 when a photographer developed a negative.

Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican Secret Archives, said the Shroud had disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and did not surface again until the middle of the fourteenth century. Writing in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Dr Frale said its fate in those years had always puzzled historians.

However her study of the trial of the Knights Templar had brought to light a document in which Arnaut Sabbatier, a young Frenchman who entered the order in 1287, testified that as part of his initiation he was taken to “a secret place to which only the brothers of the Temple had access”. There he was shown “a long linen cloth on which was impressed the figure of a man” and instructed to venerate the image by kissing its feet three times.

[Wpin]

Hey Silly Man...are you incapable of reading? Or, is it just a problem with discerning meaning from what you read? I would suggest the latter of course...

Answer my questions and we will continue playing...

[BroJoeK]

"Take a good look at the picture. The face isn't as long and slender as it may first appear,"

Swordmaker tried to make the same point by posting the following images -- the second being a computer enhanced version of the original photo:

I frankly don't know what to make of the enhanced image. Seems to me what can and should be done is some "reverse engineering." Produce from the Shroud image an accurate model, or models if they are needed. Compare the models' dimentions to those of an "average" Semite, Indo-European and any other ethnic group that might seem appropriate.

Understand that within any ethnic group there is always a range of dimentions, with standard deviations and outliers. All of that considered, what group does the Shroud image most resemble?

And on Swordmaker's issue of whether Jesus' ancestry might include some none Semitic progenators, others have made an extraordinarily good point on this:

The New Testament cites at least two occasions of proof-positive that Jesus was not some unusual looking outsider amongst the Jews. The most famous, of course, was the kiss of Judas necessary to identify which of the group was Jesus. This tells us that Jesus could not be easily distinguished from other Jews by his physical appearance.

[BroJoeK]

"Answer my questions and we will continue playing..."

Did you have a question about the Shroud? Could you repeat it?

[verity]

Bears a slight resemblance to Tom Hanks. ;-0

[annalex]

The Church does not consider the shroud “proved”. One is not required to believe anything in particular about the shroud. There are signs pointing to that being authentic shroud of Christ, — its unexplained physical properties, consistence with what we do know of Christ and 1c Palestine, and the legent around it.

For nearly sure it is a burial cloth of someone, so it deserves respect on that level. It does not deserve to be ripped to shreds out of some curiosity.

It surely reminds us powerfully of Christ. I am convinced that even if disproved by carbon dating or something else it will retain that power.

[Wpin]

You failed Silly Man, adios. All can see your stupidity at any time now, just by following this thread.

[csense]

The New Testament cites at least two occasions of proof-positive that Jesus was not some unusual looking outsider amongst the Jews. The most famous, of course, was the kiss of Judas necessary to identify which of the group was Jesus. This tells us that Jesus could not be easily distinguished from other Jews by his physical appearance.

It may tell you that, but it doesn't tell me that. Even if Jesus did look different than the rest of the "group," I'm not sure why that would be an indicator to the apprehenders.

[csense]

Understand that within any ethnic group there is always a range of dimentions, with standard deviations and outliers. All of that considered, what group does the Shroud image most resemble?

I'm not trying to be flip here, but I think your method would suffer an aneurysm if tried to compare Moe Howard, Curly (Babe) Howard, or Larry Fine to, oh say, Tony Curtis (Bernard Schartz) let alone how they, individually, would compare to any given "group."

[BroJoeK]

"Even if Jesus did look different than the rest of the "group," I'm not sure why that would be an indicator to the apprehenders."

The New Testament provides us with no direct information on Jesus' physical appearance. But in three places that I could find it suggests he was not markedly different from his contemporaries:

1 Corinthians 11:14 (NIV):

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..."

Luke 4: 28-30 (NIV):

"All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way."

Mark 14: 43-44 (NIV):

"Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

"Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.""

The suggestion in these verses -- and certainly only a suggestion -- is that Jesus was not markedly different in appearance from his contemporaries. Else, how could Paul condemn his long hair, or Jesus disappear in a crowd, or need to be specially identified amongst his disciples?

So the Bible's suggestion is that Jesus was entirely ordinary looking -- ordinary for a 1st century Jew. Did the "average" 1st century Jew look like the Shroud image?

Highly doubtful. The Shroud image seems too tall, it's face is too narrow and hair too long.

Yes, Swordmaker argues the image is not as tall as most scholars who studied it report -- 5'8" or 5'9" not six feet, says Swordmaker -- which according to Swordmaker WAS near the "average height" of 1st century Jews.

But other studies -- and just plain common sense, imho -- tell us the "average height" of 1st century "marginal Jews," must have been much closer to 5'1".

That's it. That's the whole argument in a nutshell. It tells me the Shroud image is unlikely to be that of Jesus, even if carbon-14 dating showed its age as approximately correct.

What new information might change this opinion?

• Reliable scientific dating, demonstrating an appropriate age.
• A strong explanation of how "long hair" being disgraceful should not apply to the Shroud image.
• A more thorough review of the Shroud image height compared to "average" heights at the time.
• A comparison of the Shroud's facial dimensions to those of other 1st century Jews. Are Shoud image dimensions "average" or outliers?

For whatever it's worth: such new data could at least allow the possibility of an authentic Shroud image, imho. Until then, we have to say, "most unlikely."

[BroJoeK]

"I'm not trying to be flip here,"

I have no problem with "flip" whatever. ;-)

The question you raise is how similar in appearance modern Jews with names like Howard, Fine and Schwartz resemble 1st century Semites from Judea?

I'd suggest, after about 100 generations, probably not that much.

As to what those 1st century Semites actually looked like, all we have to go on are the skulls which survived, as rendered by computer programs.

Yes, I'm certain there was a range of "average" sizes and shapes, just as there is in any human population. But there are any number of 1st century skulls that have been studied, from which averages & standard deviations, etc., might be calculated.

The question then is whether the Shroud image fits these normal ranges, or does it better fit the ranges for some other ethnic group?

I don't know the answers, of course. So can only go by what my flip & "lying eyes" tell me. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

"BTW, I am not your pal...I laugh at you and your stupidity. I am playing you along so others get to see how utterly foolish you are."

Of course you are my "pal." I count any loyal Freeper my "pal," even the ones who just can't control their impulses to insult me. ;-)

In the grand scheme of things, we are all on the same side, and should not forget that, ever.

[BroJoeK]

FYI, and for whatever it may be worth: by my count, in the past year over two dozen posted threads on the Shroud of Turin attracted 1,000 or more views.

But only one attracted over 10,000 views -- this one. The current count is almost 13,000 and that is nearly 1,000 more than when wpin recently "reactivated" it. Indeed, it's almost double the number of the second most viewed Shroud thread. And two more threads on this same article attracted another 4,000 veiws.

Amazing...

[Swordmaker]

Amazing...

It is, isn't it. Two controversial subjects... the Shroud and the Templars with their connection to the Masons and conspiracies and the founding of the US. Sorry it was reactivated by an insult to you, though, Joe.... that shouldn't happen.

[annalex]

The New Testament quotes don't do all that much. The Nazarites did not cut their hair, nor is it easy to imagine St. John the Baptist giving himself a crew cut. In 1 Corinthians 11 there is actually no "long", literally, St. Paul says that hair in itself is a disgrace to a man, "κομα ατιμια αυτω εστιν" (St. Paul himself, according to iconography, was bald). The literal reading is thereby excluded, and idiomatic readings are many: then men, unlike women, naturally grow bald, or that men are not preoccupied with their hair (That was the favorite of Jerome's, who translated "si comam nutriat, ignominia est illi"). There certainly is no sign of hair grooming in the Man on the Shroud. Or, perhaps, that men cannot cover their face with their hair and women can, -- but the Man on the Shroud, uncombed and with prominent sidecurls (here's that mandatory hair again), couldn't do that as well, he'd need hair down half his back to do so.

The miraculous escape episode in Luke 4 could mean many things, but that Jesus was able to sneak by unnoticed is not one of them, since the crowd had no difficulty not only locating Him, but dragging Him to the cliff. I could just as plausibly argue that Jesus physically intimidated his assailants BY his large stature, although most likely natural explanation is His commanding psychological presence, many times attested to in the Gospels.

The kiss of Judas is a necessity for two reasons, none having to do with Jesus's not physically standing out. First, let us recall that Judas most likely held no personal enmity to Jesus, -- he was, after all a longtime apostle, and later repented. The kiss was therefore, a sign that he, Judas wanted to give, to signal the complexity of his feelings to Jesus and to others.

Secondly, put yourself in the position of the military officer. You are going to pick and arrest just one man out of twelve or more, at night. Would you be satisfied with the instruction "pick the tall one"? For all you know they may be all lying down asleep, when it is difficult to observe height, it will be dark, and there may be (indeed there was) a scuffle. I think, the officer asked Judas to identify Christ on the spot rather than by description.

[Wpin]

Well, don’t cry over it guys. It is an insult to read illogical and poorly thought out “reasoning” regarding something as holy as the Shroud of Turin. That is truly the insult on this thread. And hence...that is what should not happen Swordmaker...

[csense]

Amazing...

It's an interesting subject, especially when the people discussing it are well informed on the subject matter. Personally, I find Swordmaker's posts to be very impressive, as I'm sure many other people do also.

I'm not sure what your true feelings are regarding the Shroud, Joe, but my advice is, don't be so quick to dismiss it. Just because the very existence of such a thing seems counter intuitive, doesn't mean it can't be true.

[BroJoeK]

annalex: "The Nazarites did not cut their hair,"

Where does it say Jesus was a "Nazarite"?

annalex: "nor is it easy to imagine St. John the Baptist giving himself a crew cut. "

Was John the Baptist ever considered a possible "King of the Jews"?

annalex: "In 1 Corinthians 11 there is actually no "long", literally, St. Paul says that hair in itself is a disgrace to a man, "κομα ατιμια αυτω εστιν" (St. Paul himself, according to iconography, was bald). The literal reading is thereby excluded, and idiomatic readings are many: then men, unlike women, naturally grow bald, or that men are not preoccupied with their hair "

Here we see an easily testable claim. So let's go find what the real experts say about it.

1 Corinthians 11:14

1. New International Version: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"

2. King James Version: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? "

3. New King James Version: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"

4. American Standard Version: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? "

5. New Living Translation: "Isn’t it obvious that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair?"

6. Young's Literal Translation: "doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? "

This particular link lists 20 different Bible translations -- all but one of which use the terms "long hair" and "disgrace," "shame" or "dishonor."
The one exception is a ludicrous jazz riff on the original words called, "The Message":

The Message [13-16]: "Don't you agree there is something naturally powerful in the symbolism—a woman, her beautiful hair reminiscent of angels, praying in adoration; a man, his head bared in reverence, praying in submission? I hope you're not going to be argumentative about this. All God's churches see it this way; I don't want you standing out as an exception."

So the vote amongst recognized experts in this field is 19 translations of "long hair," and one "head bared in reverence."

annalex: "I could just as plausibly argue that Jesus physically intimidated his assailants BY his large stature, although most likely natural explanation is His commanding psychological presence, many times attested to in the Gospels."

Jesus' "commanding psychological presence" obviously did not keep him out of this tight spot in the first place, so it is not a satisfactory explanation.

The obvious explanation WOULD be that, at the last minute Jesus' friends showed up and formed a protective barrier around him, allowing him to pass through the crowd. I say WOULD be, because that's not what the New Testament says happened. So the more reasonable explanation is that he did, in fact, slip through the crowd unnoticed.

Again, it points to the idea that Jesus was not unusual looking for a first century Judean.

annalex: "Would you be satisfied with the instruction "pick the tall one"? "

Especially not if Jesus were no taller than his fellow countrymen.

Let us note that when the Bible sees a person's physical stature as unusual or important -- i.e., a Sampson or Goliath -- it points that out to us. Where no such mention is made, we have to assume the person's appearance was not out of the ordinary.

The question then is whether the Shroud image was "ordinary" for Jesus' time.
As Swordmaker points out, some experts say it totally was.
Other say "no."
My opinion (for whatever that might be worth) is the image could possibly represent someone considered a potential "King of the Jews," but not someone as our modern scholars identify, a "marginal Jew."

Imho, we can't have Jesus both ways...

[annalex]

The Nazarites, and John the Baptist, were important figures and role models for the Christian community. St. Paul can be counted on being aware of that. Hence, he wouldn't have insulted every one with long hair as you would have him do. That is the point, not whether Jesus Himself was a Nazarite.

Regarding the "testable claim" -- I tested it by going to the Greek original. No "long" there, just "hair" without any adjective. You disagree -- find it. Most English translations try to produce a readable text and this would not be the only time when accuracy suffers.

Here it is again, test away (Stephanus, from your Bible Gateway source; the interlinear word by word is mine):

13εν υμιν αυτοις κρινατε πρεπον εστιν γυναικα ακατακαλυπτον τω θεω προσευχεσθαι

in your selves judge proper is woman uncovered to God pray

14η ουδε αυτη η φυσις διδασκει υμας οτι ανηρ μεν εαν κομα ατιμια αυτω εστιν

or not itself the nature teaches us that man indeed if hairs dishonor him is

15γυνη δε εαν κομα δοξα αυτη εστιν οτι η κομη αντι περιβολαιου δεδοται αυτη

Woman though if hairs honor hers is because the hairs instead covering given her

It is a bit awkwardly written ("if hair"), -- my interlinear is also ugly because I wanted to match words for the ease of following without a dictionary,-- so naturally translators insert something to help it make better sense. But, there is no "long" (κομα μακρα, or something like that) there.

I say WOULD be, because that's not what the New Testament says happened (about the escape form assault in Luke 4)

So, you speculate. I however rely on several references to Jesus speaking with authority (without any authority obvious to the Pharisees). The Jesus evidently allowed the anger against Him to be expressed, but yet did not accept a physical assault, is also consistent with His behavior, refusing to be apprehended before His time.

Especially not if Jesus were no taller than his fellow countrymen

But it is not necessary to assume that. His stature, whatever it was, is not a way to indentify a prisoner in a crowd at night, so your argument is hollow.

[BroJoeK]

annalex: "St. Paul can be counted on being aware of that. Hence, he wouldn't have insulted every one with long hair as you would have him do. That is the point, not whether Jesus Himself was a Nazarite. "

"...he wouldn't have insulted every one with long hair as you would have him do." ? Not I would have him do -- what every serious translator of the Bible over many centuries "would have him do."

Why those recognized experts translated this way, of course I have no idea. One has to assume there are sufficient historical and contextual reasons, such that every serious translator agrees Paul is here talking about "long hair," and not just some vague reference to his own baldness!

So you are not arguing against me, pal. You are arguing against virtually every translator who's ever looked at this passage. They simply don't disagree amongst themselves. If even just some had developed another interpretation, then I'd say, "OK, you may have a point here." But they didn't.

And we also need to take very clear note of what you are doing:
on the one hand, you argue with NO EVIDENCE whatever -- none -- that the Shroud of Turin could be (or is?) the burial shroud of Jesus (it's not even proved to be a burial shroud, must less first century, much less Jesus').
On the other hand you argue the translations of dozens of biblical & linguistic scholars over many centuries are wrong!

In short, you argue the Shroud is authentic, but the Bible is in error! Amazing. And Wpin keeps claiming that I am the one insulting his/her religion?

annalex: "So, you speculate."

No, I refused to speculate, since that was NOT what the Bible says. You by contrast speculate that Jesus spoke "with authority," to escape, even though the text does not report him doing that. Indeed, I'd say that since "speaking with authority" is specifically reported elsewhere, the fact it was not mentioned here indicates that's NOT what happened.

The text here clearly wants us to understand that Jesus "passed through the crowd" to escape, and nothing else. Not that he gave some inspiring speech, or that his friends came to his rescue. "Passing through the crowd" implies what? That the angry mob either could not see him, or seeing could somehow not touch him. And yet they had "touched" him to drag him there in the first place.

Process of elimination...

annalex: [Jesus'] "stature, whatever it was, is not a way to indentify a prisoner in a crowd at night, so your argument is hollow."

Hollow? Jesus' stature, "...whatever it was" was not unusual enough to merit any mention in the New Testament, anywhere. And Jesus in Gethsemane was one place where such mention would logically have occurred -- had it been important. But it wasn't.

I'll say again: the Shroud image necessarily raises the question of whether our modern historical understanding of who Jesus was, and what he looked like, is even remotely accurate? If as some experts say, the Shroud image is too tall, face too thin and hair too long, then Jesus was not who those scholars have imagined him to have been -- a "marginal Jew" from the Galilee.

Jesus would have been someone very different, and quite unknown to them. Of course, I don't exclude this possibility, but would not automatically assume it.

[BroJoeK]

"I'm not sure what your true feelings are regarding the Shroud, Joe, but my advice is, don't be so quick to dismiss it. Just because the very existence of such a thing seems counter intuitive, doesn't mean it can't be true. "

My true feelings are that the Shroud is most unlikely to be authentic. "Most unlikely" could change to "somewhat possible" if reliable carbon-14 testing showed appropriate dating. But there is no possible scientific way to "prove" the Shroud image is Jesus. For one, a reliable chain of custody is not there, and neither do we have a scientific explanation of how the image may have formed.

Any scholar will tell you there is only so much -- and that is not very much -- which we can possibly know historically about 1st century Judea in general and Jesus in specific. And many have spent their careers trying to tease out whatever data various records may offer.

I think these scholars are sincere and very serious minded, but their image of Jesus far far more closely resembles the one on the right than the left: