But it was while it was in France, soon after the start of what is sometimes called its “undisputed”, or documented history, that Bishop d’Arcis became one of the first people to express doubts about the 4.4 m (14ft 5in) long and 1.1 m (3ft 7in) wide piece of linen cloth.
Writing in 1390, the bishop said that the cloth first started attracting pilgrims in 1355 when it was in the possession of the Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight building a church at Lirey to give thanks to God for a miraculous escape from English imprisonment during the Hundred Years War.
D’Arcis told the pope that his predecessor as Bishop of Troyes, Henry of Poitiers, had fairly quickly discovered “the fraud” and obtained a confession from the artist who produced it that it was “a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.”
It is fair to say that when d’Arcis wrote about the shroud still being used as a moneyspinner in 1390, he was a bit angry.
“I cannot fully or sufficiently express in writing the grievous nature of the scandal,” he told Pope Clement VII. “The Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man …
“And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud.”
Even in 1355, d’Arcis told Pope Clement, medieval experts were debunking the claims being made about the shroud.
The bishop recalled that during Henry of Poitiers’ investigation “Many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time.”
I usually take statements such as this, and check their internal logic. If the writer of this letter was really in direct contact with the artist, then it is strange that he mentions
i.e. forgery without specifying the method of the forger. That would’ve been debunking. It’s not impossible that D’arcis wouldn’t specify the method of forgery, but it’s a bit unlikely given that he had the motive and the opportunity (motive, opportunity and weapon are used together to find someone suspected of murder) to do so. Without debunking the shroud, it’s just an angry letter from a perceived competitor.
That has to do with their assessment of the bible texts. One possible explanation is that, because there is only a sligth discoloration on the shroud, the linen had to age a bit, before it became more visible, and by that time, most of the gospels would’ve already been written down. But don’t take it for granted, that this is what happened.
Over the centuries, the shroud would’ve been known by many names and unlike de Charny, most of the other places made elaborate contraptions to show the face to the public, but keep the rest of it hidden most of the time.
Okay, we now have 2 possible motivations for the forger, namely apologetics and money. But in both cases, his secondary goal would have been to convince his contemporaries that his false shroud was the real one.
And so my objection at 97 remains as to why the forger, against all medieval representations, created an image with a helmet of thorns as opposed to a circlet and nails through the wrists?
The Shroud issue aside, stating there is no evidence “at all” for Jewish men wearing their hair shoulder length at the time of Jesus is ridiculous. You act as though you have every bit of information throughout the past 2000 years to make such a sweeping assertion. Also, Jesus Christ was not “typical” he was rebuked by the Pharisees for such things as not washing his hands, eating with sinners and forgiving sins etc.
Also a quote from comment section of link below which is a reasonable assessment:
“In the absence of any known reputable acheiropteios (not made by human hands) image of Christ, the cultural norm would have been to represent Christ and the saints according to the cultural norms of the artisan. The bearded Christ only seems to have become traditional following the emergence of the Image of Edessa around the sixth century. In an oriental culture, Christ would have been depicted with oriental features. I am acquainted with several Maori depictions of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, commonly wearing moko (facial tattoo) huia feather in the hair (signifying chieftainship), and wearing a feathered cloak (sign of royalty), notwithstanding known European depictions. The statues in the early colonial NZ churches normally had light Irish features, usually with blue eyes. Artisan’s motives are not solely religious, they are also (even subconsciously) culturally affirming.”
Well you didn’t do a good job here, because your conclusion doesn’t proceed logically from your premises.
This is called ad hoc reasoning. In other words you have already decided on your conclusion, and you’re just making up unsubstantiated statements to try and support it.
There is no agreement among Shroudists that the image shows a “helmet of thorns”, or that it shows “nails through the wrists”. The idea that Christ was given a “helmet of thorns” was invented by certain Shroudists to match what they believed they saw in the image on the Shroud.
The Greek word used in the gospels is στέφανος, which of course refers specifically to a wreath, not a helmet.
No. You’re misrepresenting me. I even went so far as to say this.
It is possible for Jesus to have had long hair, a ponytail, a long beard, and sidelocks.
This person is clearly unaware that Jews depicted Jewish men with short cropped hair, a neatly trimmed beard, and no ponytails or sidelocks. Clearly this person has no understanding of what “an oriental culture” actually depicted in its art.
If you haven’t been following the recent nails-in-the-wrist debate, you should be. Over the years, I’ve often pointed out that the nails of the crucifixion were not through Jesus’ hands but through his wrists. Once upon a time someone told me this. Or maybe I read it in a book. When I looked at the photographs of the shroud it seemed so obvious that I never questioned it. I can’t possibly imagine how many times I’ve repeated this fact and relied on this fact to make a point. But is it a fact? An argument began in a posting on another subject.
On this page there are numerous quotations. Some interpret the crown of thorns as a helmet or cap different to traditional artistic depictions, others say it was a crown, like traditional artistic depictions. None of the arguments for a cap or helmet spends any time at all addressing the Greek.
And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down before Him and mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”
Geoffrey de Charny was considered by many of his time to be a knight of knights, a man of the utmost character. He literally wrote the textbook on chivalry. Accusing him of lying and especially forgery is just not very plausible.
I would like to know. In your opinion, what does the shroud tell us about the nails? Does it show, in line with medieval representations, that they cross the palms or does it show, against these representations, that they cross the wrists?
I don’t think it shows any nails, or nail holes. I think Shroudists have a bad habit of unjustifiably extrapolating large amounts of fine detail from vague smears and splotches. They see what they want to see.
@jety, @Giltil: Some interesting information regarding comment 104
(Beginning on paragraph 6)
Also bishop D’arcis and de Charny were related. D’Arcis mother was Charny’s great aunt who left him (Charny) an inheritance which he used to build Church in Lirey
Let me ask you another question. Would it be fair to say that your take regarding the Shroud is that the image of the crucified man seen on it was produced by a forger who wanted his contemporaries to believe that it was the real Shroud that had wrapped Jesus’ body?
