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.

[Swordmaker]

If the scientist were aware that the sample was not indicative of the whole, why would they then form an opinion of the whole based upon information of the sample? Seems like quite a con job by the scientists here.

They were not aware of the problem. However, they did not bother to check further because the results met their pre-conceived notions. It was only other scholars who were astounded at the results because of other scholarship that showed the Shroud in existence for at least back to the 11th Century... and documentation with descriptive evidence to the 10th. This flew in the face of the 14th century results of the 1988 C14 dating tests.

Raymond Rogers thought he was easily going to shoot down the patch theory by showing that such a patch did not exist... but instead wound up confirming it. However, he did not fault the science done by the C14 labs—they accurately dated what they had been given. What they tested was a mixture of probable first century material and 16th century material that in average dated to 1260 to 1390 AD.

So it wasn't a "con job" per se... just sloppy science.

[Swordmaker]

The image on the shroud looks to me like your average six foot tall 12th century Knight Templar from northern Europe, not the average five-foot four inch first century Jewish-Semite from Judea.

Actual surveys of skeletons from first Century Jewish cemeteries in Jerusalem show that the average male height was approximately 5' 8" tall... only 3/8 of an inch shorter than the average American male. The average height of the Romans of the period was closer to your 5' 4". The 5'10" height of the man on the Shroud of Turin is not even one sigma from the average.

[bonnieblue4me]

ping

[Coleus]

 

Shroud of Turin again on display in 2010

 

[Vermont Lt]

My father in law had it in his garage, along with all of the bent nails, old oil, and pieces of wood that we cannot quite figure where it came from?

[BroJoeK]

"You don't read clearly. If your general level of acuity matches that of your reading, you're in real trouble."

You caught me! I confess, you're right, now I'm in "real trouble." So, are you going to tell us all the difference between a crown of thorns and a phylactery? And by the way, did Jews typically wear their phylacteries while being crucified? Why do none of the contemporary historians mention this?

"There was no average six foot tall 12th century male. Even by the late 1700's the average French adult male weighed about 110 pounds and the British about 134."

A typical northern European male will grow to around six feet, if he is well fed while raised. In ancient times such was rarely the case, except for a select few who became the warrior knights.

The average Jewish Semite of first century Judea was around five feet four inches, according to their remains.

The figure on the shroud of Turin looks to me more like your typical northern European knight than a first century Semite from Judea.

[BroJoeK]

"Actual surveys of skeletons from first Century Jewish cemeteries in Jerusalem show that the average male height was approximately 5' 8" tall... only 3/8 of an inch shorter than the average American male. The average height of the Romans of the period was closer to your 5' 4". The 5'10" height of the man on the Shroud of Turin is not even one sigma from the average."

Those are surprising numbers, not what I've heard before. Will have to look more into it.

[aruanan]

You caught me! I confess, you're right, now I'm in "real trouble." So, are you going to tell us all the difference between a crown of thorns and a phylactery? And by the way, did Jews typically wear their phylacteries while being crucified? Why do none of the contemporary historians mention this?

Again, you don't read well or widely. Did anyone say that a phylactery was worn during crucifixion? No. Did you read previous reports on the physical details of the body revealed on the shroud? Apparently not or you would have read about the imprint of the phylactery. Binding this on every day for two decades leaves a mark. Why should contemporary historians be any more likely to mention any marks from habitual use of a phylactery than they were to mention Jesus's circumcision?

A typical northern European male will grow to around six feet, if he is well fed while raised. In ancient times such was rarely the case, except for a select few who became the warrior knights.

A typical northern European male will grow to around six feet now with a couple of centuries of increasingly better nutrition behind them as well as good in utero nutrition. If you've had inadequate in utero development of organ systems, it doesn't matter how much food you shovel in later; there will limits to growth that will be overcome only over the course of decades and centuries. Of course, an unusually large infant of a very small mother, such as happens after a sudden increase in general nutrition, leads to stillbirths because the baby is too large to be born. Read deeply at the link I provided previously so you can get a better idea of the general state of nutrition in Europe prior to industrialization.

[BroJoeK]

"Again, you don't read well or widely. Did anyone say that a phylactery was worn during crucifixion? No. "

I confess to knowing nothing about phylacteries. Never heard of them before. Never heard a claim that Jesus ever wore phylacteries. Never saw a picture or painting of Jesus showing phylacteries. Never heard of phylacteries leaving long-lasting marks. Never saw a report of phylactery marks on the shroud image.

What seems obviously in the shroud image is a crown of thorns, with blood dripping. This is always referred to in speaking of the shroud. Since phylacteries are not usually mentioned, I'd think someone wishing to make this point would feel some obligation to show what they mean, wouldn't you?

aruanan: "A typical northern European male will grow to around six feet now with a couple of centuries of increasingly better nutrition behind them as well as good in utero nutrition."

Now we see different people making different claims about the average heights of wealthy 12th century northern European knights and poor first century Semitic males. Also, the height of the shroud image is in question -- I think it's six feet, but Swordmaker says shorter.

So, will have to spend some time to see if I can find more authoritative information on these questions.

For the moment, I'll grant you may be right, until or unless I can show otherwise.

[alstewartfan]

Wpin, it's amazing how dismissive some people are of the Shroud's authenticity in light of the fact that the relic cannot be duplicated by even our most brilliant scientists. To me, what's stunning is that there is so much intricate detail on it, despite the fact that these are not obvious to the naked eye. In fact, before the advent of photography, the artifact must have seemed rather unimpressive. I probably would have joined in the skeptical chorus centuries ago, but I'm not laughing now. Yes, in case anyone is wondering, I believe that it is the actual burial cloth of Christ. Happy Easter! Bob

[BroJoeK]

"For the moment, I'll grant you may be right, until or unless I can show otherwise."

A little googling produced the following info:

• the Wikipedia article says nothing about phylacteries, nor do photos show any obvious sign of a phylactery. So I conclude, pending further data, that aruanan's remarks about phylactery marks are bogus.
• The Wikipedia article says estimates of the figure's height range from 5 ft 9 inches to 6 ft 2 inches.
• I'd say that is extraordinarily tall, considering that even today, the average Dutchman (world's tallest people) is only 5 ft 10 inches.
• Estimates I found of average male heights during the Roman Empire range from 5 ft to 5 ft 5 inches.
• Other reports say that European Crusaders were typically 6 feet tall.
• All discussions of average heights emphasize that these are at least as much a matter of nurture as nature. In other words, some of us are born to be tall, but all of us will grow taller if well fed & raised.

So, here's the bottom line: we see a shroud image roughly 6 feet tall, which is above average height, even by today's standards, not so unusual for European Crusaders, while extraordinarily tall for the Roman Empire era. We also note that the image looks decidedly not Semitic, but rather northern European.

Finally, is there any other information out there suggesting that Jesus was unusually tall, or not Semitic looking? Not that I know of.

[alstewartfan]

No offense, but I believe that the man's face absolutely looks Semitic. And, the height of the person is not extreme, if that matters. But, to my thinking, it all boils down to the question of whether the image is miraculous, and if not, what process made it? Until that question is answered, I remain extremely curious.
There are numerous wonders regarding the Shroud, one in particular is the fact that the nails are in the wrists, despite the countless erroneous Medieval artistic crucifixion depictions which show the nails through the hands. Bob

[Swordmaker]

the Wikipedia article says nothing about phylacteries, nor do photos show any obvious sign of a phylactery. So I conclude, pending further data, that aruanan's remarks about phylactery marks are bogus.

No, BroJoeK, they are not bogus.

Several researchers have stated that, under enhancement, the outline of a small phylactery appears to have been attached to the forehead between the eyes. This is the "open square" or "U" above the bridge of the nose in the image. That U or Square has been commented as appearing in many Iconic images that are thought to be created in the image of the Man on the Shroud such as the Christ Pantocrater. In addition, there appears to be the shadows of bindings of the arm phylactery on the image's right arm (left arm of the man), eclipsing some image features and blood stains under it.

"More recent investigations of the Shroud by Dr. Alan Whanger, Professor Emeritus of Duke University in North Carolina, utilizing modern scientific instrumentation such as the polarized image overlay technique, appear to reveal the presence of a tephillin- a Jewish phylactery or prayer box that contains a portion of Scripture - attached to the forehead and the right arm." Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, p.67

And more:

"When [Robert] Haralick [professor and director of the spatial data analysis laboratory] at Virginia Tech examined the Shroud image, he found that the object had "a non-physiological three-dimensional structure." He also detected a band extending around the head (on both front and dorsal images) at the level of this box. The Whangers believed that this box was a "phylactery" . . . The Whangers also found evidence of the phylactery the man wore on his left arm, after noting that the blood flow pattern on the left forearm was quite different from that on the right. It separated into seven streams, and they were convinced that this might have been the result of the presence of a leather strap. Ruffin, Bernard, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-to-date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic", Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, Huntington, Indiana, 1999, P. 108.

I have heard a couple of papers presented on the possibility. I would not state as a fact that they are present, but there are tantalizing hints that they are. I am keeping an open mind about the existence of phylacteries on the Shroud image.

The Wikipedia article says estimates of the figure's height range from 5 ft 9 inches to 6 ft 2 inches.

The Wikipedia estimates are inclusive of all of the various claims, including those of the skeptical crowd that tend toward the extreme 6 foot 2. This extreme is an estimate made by people who have never even touched the Shroud who then use it to "debunk" the shroud by comparing it to a false claim that average Jewish males were about 5'3" tall. I prefer to refer to the published and peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject rather than Wikipedia.

In 1999, Professor Giulio Fanti, Emanuela Marinelli, and Dr. Alessandro Cagnazzo, of the G. Colombo CISAS (Interdepartmental Center for Space Studies and Activities) of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Padua, published their findings in a peer-reviewed symposium. In an article and presentation entitled "Computerized anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud ", Fanti, et al., reported the results of multiple measurements of the positions and lengths of many body parts on the Shroud, including shin lengths (mid-buttocks to mid knee, mid-knee to ankle joint), arm lengths (shoulder to elbow, elbow to wrist), facial proportion to standard body sizes, and foot size, etc., all related to forensic proportional body size tables, were presented in peer-reviewed science published actual measurements of the image on the Shroud put the height of the man at about 174cm ±2cm (5'8.5" +/-1").

CONCLUSIONS

An anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Shroud was carried out making comparisons with bibliographic data and experimental research.

The images were acquired and elaborated to point out the outlines of the two imprints and to carry out the measurements corrected following the systematic effects found, like for instance those due to the cloth-body wrapping effect.

The height of the Man of the Shroud was obtained both directly measuring with digital techniques and comparing the most significant anthropometric indices with bibliographic data, and imposing the same kinematic conditions (angles of the knees and feet) in the frontal and dorsal imprint.

From the comparison among the anthropometric indices characteristic of different human races with those of the Man of the Shroud it was possible to point out that the Semitic race is the closest one to the characteristics obtained.

The tibio-femoral index, one of the most significant, calculated for the Man of the Shroud (equal to 83% ±3%) is completely compatible with the mean one quoted in bibliography (equal to 82.3%), the tibio-femoral index measured on three different copies of the Shroud (respectively equal to 115%, 105%, 103% ±4%) showed the incompatibility of the images painted by artists who at that time did not have enough anatomic knowledge.

The height of the Man of the Shroud turned out to be 174±2 cm (Emphasis mine—Swordmaker), the rotation angle of the knee (β+γ) equal to 24±2° and the rotation angle of the foot δ equal to 25±2°.

The frontal and dorsal imprints of the Man of the Shroud are anatomically superimposable.

For those who still claim that the Jews of the First Century were small of stature, the literature proves them wrong. Archaeologist William Meacham addressed the issue in his 1983 paper:

"The estimated height of the Shroud man at around 175-180 cm corresponds with the average height (178 cm) of adult male skeletons excavated in the 1st-century cemetery near Jerusalem (Haas 1970) and with the ideal male height of 4 ells (176 cm) according to an interpretation of the Talmud (Kraus 1910-11)."Meacham, W., The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology,, CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - Nº. 3, University of Chicago Press, June 1983.

Dr. N. Haas of the Department of Anatomy, Hebrew University--Hadassah Medical School, is noted for finding the only known victim of crucifixion when he was examining and measuring the skeletons found in a 1st Century Jewish Cemetary in Jerusalem. His findings on the heights of the males skeletons of the 1st Century period is considered definitive for 1st Century Semitic Jews. His peer-reviewed article is: "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Gi’vat ha-Mivtar", Israel Exploration Journal 20:38-59, 1970. Unfortunately, it is not available on line. I read extracts from Haas article in Biblical Archaeology Review many years ago.

We also note that the image looks decidedly not Semitic, but rather northern European.

Anthropologists will disagree with you. "Carleton Coon (quoted in Wilcox 1977:133) describes the man as "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Curto (quoted in Sox 1981:70, 131), however, describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic." ibid Meacham.

[Swordmaker]

Ping to my reply previous to this ping... ;^)>

[BroJoeK]

"I prefer to refer to the published and peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject rather than Wikipedia."

First, thanks for your extraordinarily informative response. Even where I disagree, still much appreciate & enjoy it.

Now, on Wikipedia -- I always turn to Wikipedia first, because it invariably represents "conventional wisdom," and more often than not, "conventional wisdom" is as good as we can get. In other words, where Wikipedia is wrong, it's usually because a awful lot of people are also wrong.

In this example, I don't defend Wikipedia except to say that many people apparently don't know the facts. Seems that someone more knowledgeable might work on re-writing that Shroud article?

"Several researchers have stated that, under enhancement, the outline of a small phylactery appears to have been attached to the forehead between the eyes. This is the "open square" or "U" above the bridge of the nose in the image."

I see it now.

"That U or Square has been commented as appearing in many Iconic images that are thought to be created in the image of the Man on the Shroud such as the Christ Pantocrater."

Here is the oldest known Christ Pantocrater, from St. Catherine's Monastery, Mt. Sinai:

Compare to:

Compare to Zeus at Ephesus:

"...all related to forensic proportional body size tables, were presented in peer-reviewed science published actual measurements of the image on the Shroud put the height of the man at about 174cm ±2cm (5'8.5" +/-1")."

I'll take that as authentic.

"From the comparison among the anthropometric indices characteristic of different human races with those of the Man of the Shroud it was possible to point out that the Semitic race is the closest one to the characteristics obtained. "

Not sure how to take that -- note the word "possible."

[BroJoeK]

"No offense, but I believe that the man's face absolutely looks Semitic."

No offense taken, especially since I'm no expert and you may well be.

I've been trying to figure out just what would make a definitive statement on this question. We see posted here some scientific reports, certainly sounding scientific, though of unknown impartiality.

Wouldn't the word of an unquestionable authority -- for example, someone indisputably Semitic themselves, who might say in effect: "I recognize that face, it looks just like my Uncle Shem" -- wouldn't that end any possible debate?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Swordmaker]

Not sure how to take that -- note the word "possible."

That's the best anyone can do in the comparative sciences. It boils down to a matter of expert opinion... which can translate to someone unknown, under pressure, saying something based on who knows what. The study that did the measurements at least had some basis in objectivity.

However, those conclusions based on someone looking at a negative of a positive that is apparently a pseudo negative and then stating that it looks like a "Saphardic Jew or a Noble Arab," i.e. something subjective are, well, always suspect.

[alstewartfan]

Well, I live in Scranton, and we have a healthy Jewish population. In some folks you can see a Semitic look, others you can’t. I also know folks who look Jewish, but aren’t. People are so individual that one can never know with certainty. But to the point, when I see the Shroud, I see someone who very strongly resembles the historical representation of Jesus, if not Uncle Shem. Blessings, Bob

[BroJoeK]

"But to the point, when I see the Shroud, I see someone who very strongly resembles the historical representation of Jesus, if not Uncle Shem. Blessings, Bob."

I've long been told, and assume, that ancient representations of Jesus -- i.e., the Christ Pantocrater -- were based not on any personal knowledge of His appearance, or even on some Jewish-Semitic archetype, but rather on contemporary Greek images of Zeus, such as the one above, from Ephesus.

And it makes some sense to suppose that ancient Greek Christians would look for a recognizable image for their God in forms that were readily available. So they might say, for example to potential converts: "yes, He looks a little like Zeus, but is much superior." They'd then have at the same time, both instant connection and distinctions to point out.

Anyway, I'm no expert, am only saying that to me, the Shroud image looks like a Knight Templar. And of course this is no new idea. It's also been suggested (with bitter irony) that the image is of a certain specific Templar named Jacques de Molay.

Obviously the issue is, was there a pre-Templar history to the shroud? For that answer, I suppose we'll have to wait until a more careful analysis of various shroud materials is done.