Posted on 08/07/2008 6:25:36 AM PDT by NYer
True. The Shroud is unchanging. Our capability to understand is changing. The onion continues to be unpeeled awaiting the 'fullness of time'.
Thanks for the ping!
That was one smart medieval forger ;-)
*******************
It does seem to stretch belief, doesn't it? :)
Why then are there no other comparable images in all of recorded history?
And how can the fact that the rare blood type found on the Shroud (AB, which occurs in about 3% of the population) matches the blood type on the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano be explained?
Because the circumstances of its creation would have been virtually unique. The cloth would have had to stand in front of the original stone prototype, without touching the prototype, for hundreds of years to produce the image without causing distortion. Yet the Byzantine history fits the bill very nicely for such a scenario. The only discrepancy is that the Edessans who found the image believed that the cloth image was the prototype, and the stone image the copy.
And how can the fact that the rare blood type found on the Shroud (AB, which occurs in about 3% of the population) matches the blood type on the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano be explained?
That I can't say. But I've never been convinced that the bloodstains weren't deliberately placed there at some later date to lend authenticity to the image. One thing I've noticed over the years is that there are two major schools of thought regarding the Shroud. The first is that it's a medieval forgery, or at least a forgery of some kind. The second is that it's a miraculous relic associated with Jesus. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. I've been attacked equally from both sides.
Or are you saying that the Shroud was created around 532 and left in front of some statue during its stay with the Edessans until the Byzantine emperor took it to Constantinople in 944? If this is the case, how does that square with the description of the Mandylion being an image of a face within a latice-work frame? Wouldn't the Shroud have to be fully unfurled the entire time to produce the image you refer to? Yet no contemporary sources refer to it as being in that condition.
The Byzantine history states that Abgar took the miraculous image created on cloth by Jesus ("Shroud" we can call it, just to avoid confusion, although there's no real proof that this was what we now know as the Shroud) and placed it before the city gates, where formerly pagan images were kept. Upon Abgar's death, his son reverted to paganism and began destroying images. To preserve the image, Abgar's followers hid it by bricking it up inside the wall, where it couldn't be seen. There it remained until its discovery around 500 years later, alongside an exact copy of the image on a tile ("keramion" in Greek). (I'm taking all this from memory, so don't fault me over minor details.)
My speculation (and it's only speculation) is that the original image was not on cloth, but on stone. A cloth image would quickly have gone to ruin exposed to the elements in Edessa. In concealing the image, Abgar's followers draped a cloth in front of it, for protection; out of reverence, or whatever--I don't profess to know. The cloth took the image from the original stone prototype; not the opposite, as its discoverers believed.
The prototype may very well have been a front-and-back Janus-type image for all we know. At this juncture, all I'm really suggesting is an image-forming mechanism. There's no way we'll ever know the details, or even be able to account for the caprices of human nature, in determining exactly how events played themselves out.
I'm reminded of a funny "Far Side" cartoon--in one panel a group of African missionaries is huddled in the dark, fearful of a native attack. "Don't worry," says one of them, "they only attack to the sound of the drums." In the next frame we see the natives themselves--standing by a large drum whose player has inadvertently beaten a huge hole into its side.
Even if the shroud can be dated back to the time of the death of Christ it still would not be proof that it was His burial wrap.
Secondly, is there any known way that radioactive stone could create such an image in a first century, linen, Jewish burial cloth? The image was formed by the scorching of the outermost layers of the linen. To this day, scientists have been unable to recreate the phenomenon, as far as I know.
The current scientific evidence suggests that the image was caused by an intense burst of radiation emanating from a human body (or facsimile) onto a flat cloth suspended a short distance from the body.
No amount of empirical evidence can prove with absolute certainty that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus. But then, no amount of empirical evidence can prove the historicity of any ancient event (or artifact) with absolute certainty. The historicity of ancient events can only be known with varying degrees of probability.
However, the notion that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus is supported with overwhelming scientific evidence, making it the most verifiable ancient artifact in history.
Consider that, to this day, scientists have been unable to reproduce the image.
Consider also that the rare blood type (AB, occurring in 3% of the population) found on the Shroud of Turin also matches the Sudarium of Oviedo (purported to be the cloth that wrapped Jesus' head) and the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano (purported to be the flesh of Christ).
The odds of these three objects bearing type AB blood are 3/100 x 3/100 x 3/100 or 9 in 1,000,000, making the three-forgery theory astronomically improbable, and making a link to Jesus astronomically probable. No ancient artifact could be better correlated to a person and event than the Shroud of Turin to Jesus.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist who opines that the image was formed by intense radiation emanating from a human body, apart from the scientists who have, for one reason or another, bought into the miracle scenario. What I'm speculating is something very similar, only rather than a short, intense burst, I envision a long, low-level exposure. Slow-cooking, if you will.
Also, there is a contradiction in your basic concept. You say right off that, according to the Byzantines, Abgar's original image was on a cloth. The only source for this confirms the idea. But you say that the original image was in stone. There is not the slightest hint of this in any of the sources, and it contradicts the very origin of the Shroud as it relates to Abgar. According to the story, he needed a cure, and was given a cloth that Jesus "wiped" His Face upon. That the people might not have understood the origin of the cloth as resulting for the crucifixion, and rather might have been something Jesus merely wiped His face on, is understandable. Especially if it was already folded and framed, and was thought, therefore, to be much smaller than it is. But why would Jesus send Abgar a giant tile?
Further, you have a cloth laid out flat and straight put in front of the tile, with no real, apparent purpose for doing this. Surely, no 1st Century person would suppose that stretching a cloth in front of a tile would produce an image, so what would be the purpose in doing this? Again, the tile/Shroud needed to be hidden quickly. It would take enormous effort to get the cloth arranged "just so" inside of a wall that is partly disassembled. If no one would have dreamed that an image could be produced, why in the world would they go through all of this trouble? And what sources would you have that contradict the known story that the Shroud/Mandylion placed in the wall was made of cloth?
I'm not trying to be a pain. I've just never heard of this theory, and would like you to explain it. So far, just in human terms, it would take less faith to believe in the assumption that the standard story of the Shroud is genuine than it would take to believe in all of these extra steps and convolutions, done with no discernible purpose, as you theory demands.
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/pantocrator.htm
not to mention the many other scientific modalities
that come down in favor of authenticity = from forensics, to plant biology, the weave and age of the linen, etc...
...and, of course, the distinction between blood groups wasn’t discovered until the 20th Century.
Making the assumption that both the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo were, indeed, burial wrapings of our Savior [which has not been proved in either case], why are there no Shroud of Turin type markings on the Sudarium of Oviedo?
These 1st Century people either deliberately picked a radioactive stone to make this tile or statue you speak of, or it was a stupendous "coincidence" that they just happened to stumble on this material when making Jesus' image. The first scenario is impossible for them to have conceived deliberately. It is impossible that they would have had any knowing purpose in picking out radioactive material to use. That leaves us with "stupendous coincidence." Wow. Of all people to have this happen with! Not Julius Caessar, or Nero, or some Roman or other pagan god, or even just some wealthy patron of the arts. Nope! Jesus Christ Himself! Who woulda thunk it?
In order for the naysayers to avoid even the possibility that the Shroud is what it purports to be, we are now reduced to a one-in-a-hundred gazillion chance that a bizarrely radioactive stone was used to make an image of a Palestinian Jew later billions of people would recognize as God, the image would survive 2000 years with incredible clarity and consistency with known medical facts about crucifixion, and the method of image production would be utterly inexplicable, even with 20th and 21st Century science available to attempt the solve! That, is the kind of faith that can move mountains!
You're not really understanding where I'm coming from--not surprising, because it's a convoluted subject that involves a number of disciplines, and isn't amenable to a trite explanation.
My take on it is that the whole thing was an amazing set of circumstances. No one set out to produce a figure on cloth; no one involved would have known that the image from a piece of stone statuary would get transferred to a piece of cloth. It was a freak happenstance that occurred when people tried to hide a statute that had been incorporated into the city walls of Edessa because the new leadership didn't particularly care for it. Sedimentary rock is well known to contain sometimes significant amounts of radioactive material, such as Thorium and Uranium.
If you go over the supposed history of Abgar V, you'll find that the least common denominator of all the stories is Abgar's desire to be cured of some kind of lingering and disfiguring illness (the image stories didn't arise until after the fifth century discovery of the Mandylion). Does it really beggar the imagination to suppose that at one point a desperate and very sick Abgar heard of Jesus's ministry (which seems to have been well-known at the time it was carried out) by way of the significant Jewish population of Edessa, and that in desperation he sought Jesus's assistance? Who knows? Perhaps Jesus actually cured him, or perhaps he only thought that Jesus had cured him. But there's a credible historical body of evidence suggesting that something along those lines happened, and out of gratitude he either became a Christian or showed favoritism toward the memory of Jesus and his sect. And what more natural thing than to create a lasting monument to his healer?
But you still haven't explained how or why the person hiding the materials would have a 14+ foot cloth hidden in the wall totally unfurled, flat and straight. It makes no sense to do that at all, especially when, in your view, it was the tile or statue that was important. Yet, if the cloth were not flat, the image we see in the Shroud today couldn't possibly have occurred. It would be hopelessly distorted if the cloth were anything other than flat. How do you explain this? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a person would hide the cloth in this manner. Too labor intensive and too long an operation time-wise to have been done by someone merely trying to hide the cloth and tile in a wall.
Also, if the basic Abgar story is true, nowhere does it mention this tile you speak of. And the tile is enormous! I presume that it would be the same size as the Shroud image today, no? Why would Christ (or His Apostles, later on) give Abgar this giant thing? The concept alone, if true, would be utterly unique in history. I dare say that no one else ever thought to send a personal memento like that, before or since! If you're saying that the tile is just a copy of the cloth sent originally by the Apostles, the tile "copy" being made later by Abgar, then the cloth itself would have the same impression of a crucified man, front and back, no? Well, that's the Shroud!!! Why go through the extremely unwieldy subsequent step of having a fresh cloth stretched out in front of the tile and buried in the wall alongside it? Who would know that any image, no matter how faint, would be thereby made on the cloth? Your theory is far too complicated to be credible, and presupposes knowledge and motives that, frankly, are simply impossible for any 1st Century person to have had.
A coincidence, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.