Don't forget that in the XIII century there were (at least) forty burial shrouds of Jesus circulating in Eastern and Western Europe. Each of them was of course the real thing. A few of those cloths are still visible today in France (Carcassonne, Cahors, Cadouin); others have been lost or destroyed during the French revolution.
By Antonio Lombattihttp://www.antoniolombatti.it
Deputazione di Storia Patria
Parma, Italia
January 2011
In the last 20 years I have seen many documentaries on the Shroud of Turin. Each of them promised to finally solve the "mystery" of the most controversial Christian relic of all times. I have to say that "Remaking the Shroud," recently aired by NatGeo TV, is the best one I've ever watched so far. It doesn't want us to be convinced that this medieval relic is the real burial cloth of Jesus. It doesn't want to convey the message that this artifact is miraculous or mysterious. It simply tries to distinguish if the Shroud of Turin has to be considered an icon made to evoke and inspire the faithful or a hoax forged to fool the gullible and help medieval monasteries to make lots of money.
This is the best Shroud film ever produced probably because most of the people who have been involved in it are professional scholars and not "shroudologists": the medievalist Richard Kaeuper (University of Rochester), who speaks on the first owner of the Turin Shroud -- the French knight Geoffroy de Charny; -- the archaeologist Shimon Gibson (Texas A&M University), who refers on Second Temple burial cloths and rites, the art historian William Dale (University of Western Ontario), who deals with byzantine icons; and the chemist Luigi Garlaschelli (University of Pavia), the first scientist to remake a full-size shroud.
The documentary is divided into three main parts. In the general introduction, we are told what the Shroud is: a linen bearing a double image of a (presumed) man who should show the marks of Jesus' crucifixion. However, there are many inaccuracies and the image is anatomically incorrect. When the relics first appeared in France around 1355, the bishop ordered an inquiry and found out that such burial cloth with a double imprint did not find any confirmation in the Gospels. Moreover, the Pope who had to face the first controversy on the public display of the Shroud wrote in the bull that he be granted permission to show it, but it had to be said with a clear and loud voice that it was a mere representation of the burial cloth of Jesus and not the real one. Finally, even the owners - the French family de Charny - when asked for permission to place the relic in their church have always referred to the Shroud as a representation.
The image is anatomically incorrect: when a scalp bleeds, it doesn't flow in rivulets, the blood mats on the scalp or in the hair. Instead, on the Shroud we can see neat artistic rivulets seeming to be levitated on the outside of the locks.
It's not true that the image of the hands crossed on the pelvis with missing thumbs -- which is typical of medieval art -- shows that the man of the Shroud was nailed in the wrists. We can only see one exit wound and it is in the hand
The right arm is much longer than the left, the head is too small in proportion to the body image. The "bloodstained" right footprint is anatomically impossible to obtain. If you lie on your back and place the right foot completely flat, you must bend the knee at a considerable angle, thus raising the calf of the leg a significant distance away from the underlying cloth. 
Moreover, if you think of a body lying on a linen sheet, you would expect the back image -- with all the body weight and pressure -- to be darker and more deformed than the front image. Even more absurd are the locks of hairs at the sides of the face. The hair is on the level with the cheekbones. As the body is lying on its back, these locks of hair, if they had been freed, would by their natural weight have fallen back. Finally there is a curious space between the hair and either side of the face. Last but not least, the front image measures 205 centimeters and the back 198.
It's because of this evidence, that Garlaschelli tried to remake a full-size shroud. Garlaschelli reproduced the shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. He placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A bas-relief was used for the face. The linen was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed the pigment from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. The pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries. Garlaschelli then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.
His replica is amazing, and even the shroudologist Mark Guscin has to admit it. As for those who claim that under the microscope the image cannot be identical to the Turin Shroud, one must consider that even two coins minted in the very same mint aren't identical under the microscope. The goal achieved by Garlaschelli was to show that such a relic could easily be produced in the Middle Ages.
But shroudologists are hard to convince, and they speak of the Shroud as the "snapshot of the resurrection," thus avoiding any scientific explanation for the image formation. Richard Kaeuper is right when he says that the first historical document on this relic dates from the middle of the XIV century. Many Shroud experts agree on that, even if they quote meaningless legends and apocryphal texts to support the presumed existence of the Shroud in the first millennium. When the Pontifical Academy of Sciences chose the three university labs to perform the carbon dating, leaving aside all the church and diocese amateurs who dealt with the Shroud for years -- it confirmed its medieval origin. Thus, historical and scientific data do match.
Then Shimon Gibson is interviewed on the Akeldama shroud fragments found in Jerusalem in 1999. A very curious aspect of the whole controversy is why Shroud fans have never mentioned the Second Temple burial cloth remains that were found. The answer is quite simple because they completely contradict the Shroud as a first century Jewish artifact: fabric, patteakeldama shamirrn, twist of the fibers and a four meter long cloth have nothing to share with the archaeological findings. Gibson refers to his amazing discovery of the first Jerusalem shroud ever found: it is made of wool (not linen), it has a simple 1:1 twill weave with 'S' spinning twist (3:1 complex herringbone twill weave with 'Z' spun). Moreover, despite the fact that the Akeldama shroud remained in the dirt and bacterial contamination for 2,000 years, it was carbon dated to 50 AD. So, archaeological evidence from controlled excavations of Second Temple Jewish tombs clearly prove that the Turin Shroud is not an artifact from that period.
In the last segment of the documentary, William Dale illustrates how Byzantines were those who created and used icons after the controversy among iconophiles and iconoclasts was settled. The Shroud is a "not made by human hands” image which tells the whole story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. People who were not able to read or understand the Gospels had an image to look at. It was the ideal icon for illiterate believers. In Dale's opinion, the Shroud was created just to evoke and inspire the faithful. However, bishop Pierre d'Arcis in 1389 wrote that the dean of the collegiate church of Lirey had the Shroud displayed with the deliberate intent of deceipt and cash offerings from the pilgrims (fraude premeditata). The bishop even stated that some people were paid to fake healings so that the faithful in the church could believe that miracles were happening thanks to the relic (ut subtili ingenio aurum extorqueretur ab eis, inibi confingebatur miracula mendaciter certis hominibus ad hoc precio conductis, qui se sanari fingebant in ostensione dicti sudarii, quod domini sudarium ab omnibus credebatur.) So, on this, I don't agree with Dale.
Don't forget that in the XIII century there were (at least) forty burial shrouds of Jesus circulating in Eastern and Western Europe. Each of them was of course the real thing. A few of those cloths are still visible today in France (Carcassonne, Cahors, Cadouin); others have been lost or destroyed during the French revolution.
In the end, the documentary produced by the Nat Geo TV is the best one aired so far on this topic, and I encourage you to watch it since it debunks some of the popular quackery that has been said and written on the Turin Shroud which is easily accessible on the web and in the bookstores.
Selected bibliography
U. Chevalier, Étude critique sur l'origine du St. Suaire de Lirey-Chambery-Turin. (Paris: Picard, 1900)
G. Ciccone, La Sindone svelata e i quaranta sudari. (Donnino: Livorno, 2006)
S. Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2010)
L. Garlaschelli, "Life-size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image," Journal of Imaging Science and Technology 54(4), 2010
R. Kaeuper and E. Kennedy, A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry. (Philadelphia: Unv. of Pennsylvania Press, 2005)
A. Lombatti, Sfida alla Sindone. (Pontremoli: Centro Editore, 2000)
J. Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin. (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1999)
G. Rinaldi, "Lo scienziato immaginario," Scienza & Paranormale 43(3), 2003
W. McCrone, "Scientific Detection of Fakery in Art," SPIE Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engi 3315(1), 2006
http://sindone.weebly.com where you can find articles on many Shroud issues, mostly in Italian
Comments (25)
1) History: It's true that the Pope wrote in his bulla: "it had to be said with a clear and loud voice that it was a mere representation".
It's also true that in the last version of the bulla this sentence was deleted; you can read about this matter:
Emmanuel Poulle, « Le linceul de Turin victime d'Ulysse Chevalier », Revue d'histoire de l'Eglise de France, 2006, vol. 92, n° 229, p. 343-358
2) Anatomical correctness: many forensic doctors have studied the Shroud's image and no one has found problems in the anatomy; I can remember: Antony Sava, Robert Bucklin, PierLuigi Baima Bollone, Frederick T. Zugibe (http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/).
You can read the last peer reviewed paper by Dr. Gilbert Lavoie:
"A medical study of the surface anatomy of the image and a medical forensic evaluation of the blood marks of the Shroud of Turin in relation to image formation".http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/LavoieWeb.pdf
3) About the "amazing" life-size reproduction of the Shroud made by Prof. Garlaschelli, please read the peer reviewed paper:
Heimburger,Fanti "Scientific comparison between the Turin Shroud and the first handmade whole copy".http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/HeimburgerWeb.pdf
#1 - domenico - 02/01/2011 - 09:40
1) I cannot believe that Prof. Gibson in the documentary said that Akeldamà Shroud is all wool and s-spun;
I quote from his book:
"since both the woolen and linen parts exhibit a type of warp that was both Z-spun and S-spun" ("The final Days of Jesus", p. 144).
2) Prof. Lombatti writes that "Shroud fans have never mentioned the Second Temple burial cloth remains that were found";
this is very incorrect since we have this 2010's paper:
Fulbright, "Akeldama repudiation of Turin Shroud omits evidence from the Judean Desert"http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/FulbrightAkeldamaWeb.pdf
#2 - domenico - 02/01/2011 - 10:07
Tell that the shroud has been "reproducted" is a big lie. Mr G. made a personal reproduction of some superficial elements, but the really mystery ones he doesen't. Nobody until now solved or reproducted them. So is a picture, not so well done yet, of the exterior sembling of the Sindone, made with "middleage's" thechniques, nothing more. A useless painting without any scientific interest.
Be skeptic but be true.
#3 - W.B. - 02/01/2011 - 12:19
Domenico, as I told you on my website, the congress you mention is not a scientific and peer-reviewed one, but is one of those shroudologist meeting where pensioners and lawyers give papers on C14 dating and things like that. Peer-reviewed articles are published elsewhere.
Domenico, a fair dialogue with shroudologists is impossibile because they don't allow scholars - like Garlaschelli and others - to see and analyze the Shroud.
History: the June 1390 papal bull you mention says «figura seu representacio sudarii Domini nostri JX» (U. Chevalier, doc. L, p. 38). Clear enough, isn't it?
The technical paper on the Akeldama shroud was written by Orit Shamir (IAA): she says the different pieces are made of wool and are S-spun. The way the man of Jerusalem shroud was buried is depicted in Gibson's last book and it's completely different from what the Turin Shroud shows. As for the Fulbright's article, I have already written that she quotes textiles fragments that once again prove how the Turin Shroud is NOT a Second Temple Jewish artifact (here: http://www.antoniolombatti.it/B/Blog01-11/Voci/2010/12/25_Il_convegno_di_Frascati_sulla_Sindone.html ).
#4 - Antonio Lombatti - 02/01/2011 - 18:24
The argument that “even two coins minted in the very same mint aren’t identical under the microscope” is ludicrous. Buy into this silliness and you can throw out half of all forensic medicine and crime scene testimony. So what, one might say, if two molecular samples don’t match? “[Consider that even two coins minted in the very same mint aren’t identical under the microscope.”
The differences between the Shroud of Turin image and the Garlaschelli-produced image, under a microscope are as different as the surface of the moon and the Florida Everglades. Look at the pictures in the paper by Thibault Heimberger and Giulio Fanti: the lower image was created using the the Garlaschelli method. The top image is from the shroud.
Heimberger and Fanti say, "We conclude that most of the critical characteristics of the Turin Shroud image are very different from those of Garlaschelli’s image. As a consequence, it is unlikely a forger may have produced the body image or the Turin Shroud by this technique. We conclude the image is still not reproducible."
#5 - Dan Porter - 02/01/2011 - 19:24
1)Here we have the publication of the "PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO THE ACHEIROPOIETOS IMAGES" by the Italian scientific and national agency ENEAhttp://www.enea.it/produzione_scientifica/volumi/V2010_12-Acheiropoietos.html
We can read: "Forty papers were submitted for publication and thirty-five were accepted for publication in this volume after a rigorous peer-review process".
I have nothing else to add waiting that also "skeptics" (pensioners or not for me it does not matter) publish peer reviewed articles.
(of course we have Garlaschelli's paper but in the same journal we find Fanti's paper).
2)In the bulla we read «figura seu representacio sudarii Domini nostri JX»?
How I said we can read Poulle's article in wich he explains the meaning of this expression and that this is a objective genitive; also in the modern language we say "the image of the Shroud" but this means only "the image imprinted in the Shroud" or "the image on the shroud".
3) It's very interesting to read in the same article that the Shroud's image is anatomically incorrect but also that the best way to reproduce it is to use the real body of a man; if a forger used a real body how he could have been wrong in the anatomy and especially in the height?
#6 - domenico - 02/02/2011 - 07:55
1) I've already said what I thought about this sort of meetings; even UFO believers say they organize scientific congresses.
2) «representacio sudarii» clearly means a representation of the burial cloth and not the real relic.
3) Garlaschelli used a bas-relief and a body.
#7 - Antonio Lombatti - 02/02/2011 - 17:50
Prof. Lombatti seems to give credence to the allegations that Bishop Pierre D’Arcis made in his famous memorandum.
I would say something about.
First of all the memorandum is a document from the "altera pars" in a litigation: we don't know the documents that Charny's family and the dean of the collegiate could have sent to the Pope.
Furthermore the memorandum is, how the name suggests, only a draft and not an official document: it is without date and signature. No one can say that the memorandum was sent to the Pope and mostly in this exact version; the Pope never refers to it (The same Chevalier wrote: "Extrait que j’ai fait d’une pièce latine sans date qui est (on a rayé: paroit estre) une lettre ou requeste d’un éveque de Troyes (on a rayé: ou autre ecclesiastique) à un pape”).
The reasons for so much hatred against the Shroud are very clear: the Bishop had a cathedral with very less important relics than the Lirey's Shroud. Pilgrims (and money) went to Lirey and not to Troyes; the Bishop needed money to complete the Cathedral's construction.
To these economic reasons we could add reasons of power and prestige: the fact is that Charny's family asked permission to show the Shroud only to the King and to the Pope but never to the Bishop.
So we can say that Bishop d'Arcis moves charges that we could easly move to himself.
Emmanuel Poulle, « Le linceul de Turin victime d'Ulysse Chevalier », Revue d'histoire de l'Eglise de France, 2006, vol. 92, n° 229, p. 343-358
Luigi Fossati, "La Santa Sindone - Nuova luce su antichi documenti", Borla, Turin, 1961
#8 - domenico - 02/03/2011 - 09:54
Mr. Lombatti, in one of the answer to Mr. Domenico, you wrote "As I told you on my website, the congress you mention is not a scientific and peer-reviewed one, but is one of those shroudologist meeting where pensioners and lawyers give papers on C14 dating and things like that. Peer-reviewed articles are published elsewehere."
As chair of IWSAI and editor of the Proceedings, I would like to make clear to the readers of this blog that you have never been involved in the organization of the workshop IWSAI, www.acheiropoietos.info, nor participated to any of the review processes of the papers submitted for publication in the Proceedings volume. In other words, you don't know what you are writing about.
Once made clear this, your statement quoted above is FALSE and unsubstantiated. All the forty papers submitted for publication in the IWSAI Proceedings volume experienced a blind review process. Among them, six papers were examined by one Referee, thirty by two Referees and four by three Referees. Thirty five papers have been modified according with the Referee's opinions and then accepted for publication.
Twentyseven highly skilled Referees (most of them from Universities and Research Centres of six Countries) gave their time to review the forty papers.
Useless to say, I have in two folders of my pc all the correspondence concerning the peer review process of each of the 40 papers.
As a consequence, I am asking you immediately to take back what you wrote and to make amends for these false statements in the same blog you wrote them.
In the case you refute, I'll ask to the Legal Affairs Office of ENEA to act against you and the owner of this site for libel suit. In Italy we say "con ampia facoltà di prova" if you don't catch the point.
regards,
Paolo Di Lazzaro, Senior Researcher in the ENEA Frascati Research Centre
#9 - Di Lazzaro, Paolo - 02/03/2011 - 11:45
@ Domenico: I quoted the Pope's words, and not the Memorandum. He said that it was a mere representation of the burial cloth of Jesus and that a fraud was perpetrated in that church. Period.
@ Paolo Di Lazzaro: Is this the way you debate about the Shroud?!? Threatens? Your comment has nothing to share with my review, so you should have posted it on my blog. Or do you prefer a wider audience? As for the review process, I'm eager to know the name(s) of the one(s) who accepted D. Fulbright's paper, for example, for which I have shown elsewhere it was full of errors. And I'd also like to know the names of the other reviewers. I guess there were you, Fanti and all the other shroudies of the ShroudScienceYahoo group. This is a party reviewing process and not a balanced one. So, before editing my post, I'd like to know the names. NAMES, please.
#10 - Antonio Lombatti - 02/03/2011 - 16:31
Antonio the fact that someone is threatening to sue you for telling the truth and debunking insanity and unscientific 'claims' is just more evidence that you're on the right track.
You can always spot the desperate argument by its willingness to litigate rather than convince. And since you (and I and all sensible people) can't be convinced by insipid arguments or lunacy, the natural next step for the purveyors of such madness is threatenings.
Keep up the good work.
#11 - Jim West - 02/03/2011 - 17:39
According to you, Mr Lombatti, Clément VII said that the shroud "was a mere representation of the burial cloth of Jesus and that a fraud was perpetrated in that church. Period."
Totally wrong. Clément VII refrained from expressing his opinion in January 1390(traditional attitude in matters of relics) and one can see an evolution between the first draft ("figura predicta non est verum sudarium, sed quedam pictura") and the final bull and its ambiguous sentence : "figuram predictam non ostendunt ut verum sudarium, sed tanquam figuram dicti sudarii domini" . It is no more question of a picture (D'Arcis' thesis) and the use of "tanquam" is not crystal clear (surely that the reason why it was chosen).
In June 1390, in a new bull, the pope encourages the pilgrimages to Lirey...
I think that, as a church historian, you should also read and take into account Emmanuel Poulle, "Les sources de l'histoire du linceul. Revue critique", Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, 2009, 3-4, pp. 747-782.
#12 - Cazab - 02/04/2011 - 00:36
Prof. Lombatti, please, you quoted the d'Arcis Memorandum at the end of your article in order to reply to Prof. Dale..
Prof. Di Lazzaro: I have clearly replied to Prof. Lombatti with the ENEA link; anyone who reads it understand what we are talking about and how "ad hominem" is Lombatti's point.
When "skeptical" authors will organize a congress with peer reviewed process I will be very happy to read their articles and I never ever would think to question their process.
#13 - domenico - 02/04/2011 - 08:16
About the textile:
since we are talking about a National Geographic's documentary I think that it's useful to quote something from a 2009's National Geographic article on the Akeldamà Shroud and to make some comment.
1).
So the typical burial shroud of the first century is an unique "jackpot". I would know his statistical significance.
Mati Milstein indeed writes: .
So the "typical" shroud was imported! Someone (i.e. A. Gorski) says that this family was connected with Greece, wich makes the shroud even less typical.
3)< The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said>.
That is a bit strange: Gibson says that the Akeldamà Shroud is imported from elsewere but when he speaks about the Turin Shroud he can not think that also it could be imported (we know complex twills from Syria, Egypt and also Europe; we know a 4,5 m. shroud from Egypt).http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy.html
#14 - domenico - 02/04/2011 - 08:29
of course, how Mr. Cazab writes, the Pope never spoke about frauds;
indeed, the Pope in the official bulla writes that Geoffoy I de Charny put the Shroud in the Church "zelo devocionis accensus.. ad ecclesie predicte decorem, devocionem populi et cultus divini augmentum".
The exact opposite of the charges made by the Bishop: this also leaves doubt that the Pope has received the memorandum.
#15 - domenico - 02/04/2011 - 10:26
I didn't quote the D'Arcis Memorandum, I quoted two papal bulls: the first one, January 1390, when the Pope asked to stop the fraud of the Shroud and wrote the it was a painting; a second one, June 1390, when the Pope removed the word «pictura» and said it was a «representacio» of the burial cloth of Jesus. Also for king Charles VI it was a fraud. And this is the very same expression used by Marguerite de Charny's husband to list the relics he inherited.
As for Second Temple burial shrouds, I know that you may not agree with Shimon Gibson, Orit Sharmir, Joe Zias, Rahel Hachlili, Ann Killebrew, Levy Rahmani, James Tabor and others who have excavated and found hundreds of Jewish tombs. But the only perfect parallel with the Shroud is a 3:1 herringbone twill linen kept in the Victoria & Albert Museum. And it is medieval.
As for the IWSAI congress, I acknowledge it experienced a peer-review process. However, I still remain dubious about the scholarly expertise of the reviewer.
#16 - Antonio Lombatti - 02/04/2011 - 17:27
Come on, Mr. Lombatti, can't you just be serious for one minute and check your facts?
You wrote : "I didn't quote the D'Arcis Memorandum, I quoted two papal bulls: the first one, January 1390, when the Pope asked to stop the fraud of the Shroud and wrote the it was a painting; a second one, June 1390, when the Pope removed the word «pictura» and said it was a «representacio» of the burial cloth of Jesus."
I will just quote Emmanuel Poulle in his article published in Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique in 2009 : « Il faut donc corriger l’idée que U. Chevalier voulait imposer d’après le dossier de 1390. Loin de déclarer que le Linceul était un faux, et refusant de suivre Pierre d’Arcis, Clément VII s’était contenté de ne pas prendre parti, selon d’ailleurs l’attitude ordinairement tenue par la papauté, depuis le début du 14e s., en matière de reliques; et il a, dans le même temps (en juin 1390), promulgué une nouvelle bulle pour encourager les pèlerinages à Lirey. »(Emmanuel Poulle, "Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin, Revue critique", RHE, 2009, 3-4, pp. 779-780.)
#17 - cazab - 02/04/2011 - 20:09
Cazab, it's true that popes in the Middle Ages let the faithful worship the forskin of Jesus, the milk of the Virgin Mary, four bodies of Mary Magdalene and two heads of John the Baptist. This is why it is very strange to read such accusations against a relic. Clement VII in his first bull said: «quodque ostendens dictam figuram ... dicat alta et intelligibile voce, omni fraude cessante, quod figura seu representacio predicta non est verum sudarium Domini nostri Jhesu Christi, sed quedam pictura seu tabula facta in figuram seu representacionem Sudarii» (January 1390) [doc. K]. A
In the following bull, June 1390, Clement changed «pictura seu tabula» in «figura seu representacio» and thus confirmed that it was a representation of the shroud.
When on July 6, 1418, the canons of Lirey handed over the Shroud to Humbert de la Roche and Marguerite de Charny, they confirmed to have received a «representation of the shroud of Jesus». Our first source to name the Lirey shroud as the Holy Shroud dates 1443.
#18 - Antonio Lombatti - 02/05/2011 - 10:34
Caro Antonio...
Again you should read recent peer-reviewed articles and check your facts before writing.
Especially when you write : "Clement VII in his first bull said: «quodque ostendens dictam figuram ... dicat alta et intelligibile voce, omni fraude cessante, quod figura seu representacio predicta non est verum sudarium Domini nostri Jhesu Christi, sed quedam pictura seu tabula facta in figuram seu representacionem Sudarii» (January 1390) [doc. K]. A"
It is false. This is not the bull, this is only the first draft, rejected by Clément VII. The final bull of January 1390 includes this sentence " figuram predictam non ostendunt ut verum sudarium, sed tanquam figuram dicti sudarii Domini".
So unfortunately I have to repeat that if you want to be credible on this topic, you first have to read and take into account the two articles by Poulle ("le linceul de Turin victime d'Ulysse Chevalier", RHEF, 2005 and "les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin, Revue critique", RHE, 2009).
#19 - Cazab - 02/05/2011 - 23:45
I'm sorry for the #14 comment I posted: there was a transmission problem I think.
If possible I'll repeat it to be more clear:
From a 2009's National Geographic article about the Akeldamà Shroud in wich is interwieved Prof. Gibson, the discoverer of the Akeldamà Shroud:
1)"In all of the approximately 1,000 tombs from the first century A.D. which have been excavated around Jerusalem, not one fragment of a shroud had been found" until now, said archaeologist Shimon Gibson. "We really hit the jackpot".
- So the typical burial shroud of the first century is an unique "jackpot". I would know his statistical significance.
Mati Milstein indeed writes: "Assuming the new shroud typifies those used in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, the researchers maintain that the Shroud of Turin could not have originated in the city. That's perhaps a big assumption [sic!], given that there are no other known shrouds from the same place and time for comparison".
2) "Both the tomb's location and the textile offer evidence for the apparently elite status of the corpse, he added. The way the wool in the shroud was spun indicates it had been imported from elsewhere in the Mediterranean—something a wealthy Jerusalem family from this period would likely have done".
- So the "typical" shroud was imported! Someone (i.e. A. Gorski) says that this family was connected with Greece, wich makes the shroud even less typical.
3)"The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said".
- That is a bit strange: Gibson says that the Akeldamà Shroud is imported from elsewere but when he speaks about the Turin Shroud he can not think that also it could be imported (we know complex twills from Syria, Egypt and also Europe).http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy.html
Prof. Lombatti, I do not have to agree or disagree with the distinguished scholars you mention but I consider totally arbitrary that the Shroud of Akeldamà is presented to the public as the typical Jewish first-century shroud considering all the uniquenesses that the discoverer Prof. Gibson must admit.
#20 - domenico - 02/06/2011 - 10:49
Cazab, the first bull reflected the thought of the pope in that period. It was sent to the bishop of Troyes and Chevalier found three copies of it. In the second version of the bull, the pope confirmed it was a representation even if he omitted the "fraud" controversy. After that official position, the Shroud wasn't displayed by the canons of Lirey and was given to the Charny family in 1418.
Gibson underlines the importance of the Akeldama shroud because it it the only Jerusalem fragment ever found.
#21 - Antonio Lombatti - 02/07/2011 - 11:51
Dr.Lombatti give much credit to Prof. Gibson's opinion and expertise.
Maybe not everyone have noticed that I quoted twice Prof. Gibson saying something different from what Dr. Lombatti writes in his article.
In the article we read:
"it [the Akeldama shroud] is made of wool (not linen), it has a simple 1:1 twill weave with 'S' spinning twist".
Prof. Gibson writes and says:
"since both the woolen and linen parts (of the Akeldama shroud) exhibit a type of warp that was both Z-spun and S-spun".
(S. Gibson,"The final Days of Jesus", p. 144)
"The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles"..."The way the wool in the shroud was spun indicates it had been imported from elsewhere".
(from the National Geographic article quoted in the #20 comment).
Well: only wool or linen and wool? S-spun or Z-spun?
#22 - domenico - 02/20/2011 - 12:46
http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/FulbrightAkeldamaWeb.pdf
This article totally blows Professor Gibsons false assertions of the shroud out of the water.
The claim by Gibson that akadelma tombs site in jerusalem disprove the authenticity of the shroud is completely refuted on the basis of ancient textile evidence from the judean desert and elsewhere.
Pietro Savio published a cloth woven in a herringbone pattern dated to 130C.E. Discovered in the excavations of the necropolis at Antinoe. Plus there pre-dynasty burials described by Petrie and Mackay involving large textiles with the characteristic selvedge fringe. In one example a long cloth lay below the body and was folded over it in the same manner as the shroud of turin.
Twill-weave textiles of shroud fragments and nearly intact shrouds have been found at various excavation sites in the judean desert and all around in egypt to europe from even before the era of Jesus that have shown this type of weave.
#23 - bob smith - 08/28/2011 - 20:31
M. Lombatti, you wrote
"Don’t forget that in the XIII century there were (at least) forty burial shrouds of Jesus circulating in Eastern and Western Europe. Each of them was of course the real thing. A few of those cloths are still visible today in France (Carcassonne, Cahors, Cadouin); others have been lost or destroyed during the French revolution."
Would you list these forty burial shrouds and give evidence that they were considered genuine?
Thank you,
-- Mario Latendresse
Menlo Park, USA
#24 - Mario Latendresse - 06/16/2012 - 18:07
The 42 shrouds are quoted by the French historian Ferdinand de Mély (Le Saint-Suaire de Turin est-il authentique? Paris, 1902, p. 21). I've been able to locate 15 of them (all full cloths):
1 - Sindone di Torino
2 - La Santa Sindone di Aquisgrana
3 - Il Santo Sudario di Arles
4 - Il Santo Sudario di Besançon
5 - Il Santo Sudario di Cadouin
6 - il Santo Sudario di Cahors (Sainte Coiffe)
7 - Il Santo Sudario di Carcassonne (Saint Cabouin)
8 - Il Santo Sudario di Compiègne (Saint Seigne)
9 - Il Lino di Cristo di Iohanavank in Armenia
10-Il Santo Sudario di Lisbona
11-Il Santo Sudario di Magonza
12-Il Sudario del Senor di Oviedo
13-La Sindone di Parigi
14-Il Santo Sudario di San Giovanni in Laterano in Roma (da non confondere con l'immagine acheropita del Laterano che è un dipinto su tavola).
15-Il Sudarium Christi di Andechs in Baviera (che sarebbe una metà)
16-La Sindone Mondissima di Limoges.
Moreover, in my 2000 book I quote over 100 shroud fragments coming from other (presumed) full burial cloths.
As for the authenticity of the relics, in the medieval world even the imprints of the buttock of Jesus and the milk of the Virgin Mary were "real". I mean, churches displayed them as if they were authentic. Burial shrouds weren't a problem at all.
#25 - Antonio Lombatti - 06/16/2012 - 19:35