Yes, which is why the depiction of the man on the shroud matches typical medieval Jewish stereotypes, and shares artistic conventions with other medieval depictions of Jesus, including the wound on the right side.
Because people are raising these points as alleged evidence for the shroud’s authenticity. There are some aspects of the image which are clearly objective, but there are others (especially the ridiculous number of supposedly incredibly fine details), which are clearly pareidolia. I believe the ponytail (not pigtail), is an example of pareidolia, but the long hair and beard certainly are not.
@Jonathan_Burke I don’t see how nail holes in either the wrist or hand would confirm the shrouds authenticity. Can you define what you men by “authenticity”. Also, you say “the depiction of the man on the shroud matches typical medieval Jewish stereotypes” Have you watched the video jety posted at 115. Also can you tell us where you think this medieval Jewish “stereotype” came from?
Maybe one of the Shroudists here can help you, it’s not my claim.
It’s an English word, you can read the meaning here.
No, because it is five and a half hours long, and I don’t have that amount of time to waste. I suffered through the first 90 minutes, and didn’t hear anything which hasn’t already been addressed. The contents of the first hour were virtually the same as the contents of articles on the shroud site which has already been linked to repeatedly in this thread, complete with the same images. The second talk spent 30 minutes trying to establish the claim that Jesus was wrapped in a single piece of cloth, and I totally lost interest at that point.
Some of the statements in the video were woefully ignorant. Discussing the Pray Codex, the first speaker says that Christ is depicted naked, and claims that this is highly unusual, saying Byzantines did not depict people naked and would certainly never have done so of Christ.
“That’s not in keeping with Byzantine sensibilities”
“But that was unheard of, really, in Byzantium, they didn’t paint naked images”
He is clearly unaware of Byzantine art depicting naked figures, including Byzantine artwork in actual Byzantine churches, depicting naked men and women, and even depicting a full frontal naked Jesus. The Byzantines had no qualms about this. Such lack of knowledge is typical of Shroudists.
Other arguments in the first hour are equally weak.
Geoffroi de Charny is the earliest recorded owner of the Shroud of Turin.
Geoffroi was a very honorable man, widely recognized as highly virtuous.
It is therefore highly unlikely that he would have lied about owning the original shroud of Christ.
I shouldn’t need to demonstrate that this is not evidence of anything. If you think that video has anything groundbreaking to offer, please email it to relevant professionals for their assessment.
From observing contemporary medieval Jewish people and exaggerating and generalizing their appearance. This is how stereotypes are typically formed.
Okay. So I imagine that it is also your take that the forger deliberately drew the « traces of blood » on the right hand of the man of the shroud so that his fake would match with what was known about the Jesus’ death, i.e., that Jesus was crucified and had his hands pierced by nails, right?
I think the forger splashed pigment around rather haphazardly in the general direction of where he thought the hands should be, and ended up with a result which is sufficiently vague that Shroudists (or “sindonologists” as I will call them from now on), cannot agree if it’s supposed to indicate that the nail pierced the palms or the wrists.
The shroud is not really a fantastic piece of work. It looks like someone has over-done the effort in their attempt to be convincing. It’s highly surprising that they would imagine that wounds would continue to bleed profusely for six hours, without any of them ever clotting and stopping the blood flow of any of the wounds. Some sindologists claim that the wounds were clotted by the robe given to Jesus, and they were then ripped open when the robe was taken from him before his crucifixion, but in that case there would be evidence for this, his back would be a smeared mess of blood (without neatly distinctive wounds), and the wounds would clot again anyway (we’re talking about six hours of clotting time).
The idea that these wounds would be so perfectly reproduced on a shroud applied to Jesus’ body after six hours, without the blood of any of the wounds being smeared across his back by the cross, and with every wound still perfectly distinct without any sign of repeated clotting, re-opening, and re-clotting, is also highly unlikely.
Additionally, the forger incredibly seems to have imagined that Jesus’ body (apparently still bleeding after six hours), was immediately wrapped in a burial cloth without any attempt to wash the body. This problem continues to vex sindonologists, who cannot agree on a solution.
It is difficult to imagine such a denial of reality. If the shroud is the work of a forger, there is absolutely no doubt that his forgery is an extraordinary piece of art that has fascinated, fascinates and will continue to fascinate a multitude of scholars of all kinds. Don’t forget that the Shroud is considered to be the most studied artifact in the history of science. This would certainly not be the case if it was not exceptional.
I note you didn’t respond to any of the points I raised.
This alleged “denial of reality” is shared by the overwhelming majority of professionals in relevant fields, including multiple independent experts who have investigated the Shroud in some capacity. If you want to change this situation you need evidence, and you need to present it to these professionals.
It doesn’t matter how fascinating it is, to whom, what matters is if there’s any evidence for its authenticity.
I see no evidence for this. I only see sindonologists making this claim, without evidence.
If nothing else, colloquially this is true. I can’t think of a single historical artefact that was studied by this number of methods known to science.
Photography, photomicrography, backlit photography, microscopic analysis, VP-8 image analysis, visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-rayfluorescence spectrometry, microchemistry, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser-microprobe Raman analysis, carbon dating, a whole host of blood tests and chemical tests, textile analysis, forensic analysis, pollen analysis, genetic testing of the dust collected from the shroud, tests with nanosecond uv lasers and with neutrons (technically not performed on the shroud but I still included them because they’re cool), various strength tests.
And I can’t think of a relevant method that wasn’t used on some part of the shroud at some point.The point is that there is no other historical artefact that had the whole known arsenal of scientific tests unleashed on it, and they even invented some new tests specifically for the pupose of studying th shroud.
Depending on the geometry of the cross, the horizontal part would’ve only bruised his shoulders while carrying it, leaving his entire back free of any further interference from the cross while hanging from it in a somewhat forward leaning position, which is exactly what we see. There are bruises on his shoulders, but not elsewhere.
If the shroud is the work of a forger, why on earth are the hands of the crucified represented with four fingers, without thumbs visible? This rather incomprehensible singularity under the forger’s thesis is easily explained under the authenticity thesis. Indeed, it is known that when a nail is driven through Destot’s space in the wrist, as was the case for the crucifixions at the time of Jesus, it causes a lesion - but not a section - of the median nerve in its motor part, causing the forced abduction of the thumb towards the palm of the hand.
This is desperate ad hoc argumentation. Additionally, the idea that the cross never touched his back even when he was nailed on it, and that he was leaning forward so far when the cross was erected that his back was untouched, isn’t remotely plausible. This is just literally making things up to try and explain away problems.
Showing the hands with four fingers, thumbs not visible, is a feature of a number of artworks of Jesus lying in repose. Artwork of the “lamentation of Jesus” across many centuries shows the palms down, with only four fingers visible; the Lamentation in the church of Saint Panteleimon in Nerezi (twelfth century), the Lamentation by Mantegna (fifteenth century),the Lamentation by Raphael (fifteenth century), and the dead Christ in repose by Holbein (sixteenth century), are just a few examples.
This is what I was talking about before, the totally unjustified extrapolation of extraordinarily fine detail from vague features of the image. Firstly, as I’ve pointed out, sindonologists can’t even agree if the hands show the nails pierced the palm or the wrist.
Secondly, primary flaccidity after death causes the body to relax, which would release the thumbs from any abduction of the thumb. The only way the thumbs could be beneath the palms is if they were carefully placed there. This is unsurprising given the fact that the position of the image in the shroud is very obviously contrived; it is clearly showing a body which has been purposely arranged in a particular way.
It’s totally implausible that at death Jesus’ arms spontaneously crossed themselves neatly over his body, one hand beneath the other, and froze there while he was wrapped. The image shows a body which has been carefully arranged for burial, so that the legs, arms, and hands have been moved into specific positions by whoever wrapped it.
All this obsession over trying to extrapolate evidence from tiny details, instead of addressing the much larger and significant issues (like the C14 dating and the lack of blood), is typical of sindonologists. But the larger issues won’t go away.
Actually no. It’s called hanging from the cross for a reson. Maximum pain is achieved when the recipient is only supported by the nails through his hands and feet hanging, without having any support on the back whatsoever. Air is forced out of one’s lungs by the person’s own bodyweight, and so breathing becomes an excruciating excersize of trying to slightly raise one’s body by relying on the nail of the feet. That’s why the romans broke the legs of the persons on the cross whom they wanted dead. Without the support of the legs a cricified person suffocates within ten minutes.
For the cross to have the claimed ability to support one’s back the horizontal beam would’ve had to lean slightly backwards. That’s just not the case.
It appears the stereotype you claim happened in the Middle Ages was also occurring before Middle Ages. In addition to the other images posted on this thread there is also this:
Edit: Click on square. Image is not showing in post.
While it is true that flaccidity normally occurs just after death, preceding Rigor Mortis, in some cases, Rigor Mortis appears immediately after death which is called the cadaveric spasm. The cadaveric spasm occurs without primary loosening. This situation can be seen in deaths that have occurred after a serious physical or emotional stress, which is exactly what happened to Jesus. So none of your arguments is working here; the premature state of Jesus’ Rigor Mortis offers a very nice explanation to all your objections.
Can you give the time the first speaker in first hour said this. Starting about 1:05 he gives credit to de Charny but does not say what is quoted above.
Considering the angles from which the 4 works you mention were painted, it is perfectly normal not to see the thumbs. The situation is clearly different with the Shroud; given the angle chosen by the putative forger for representing Jesus, it is incomprehensible not to see the thumbs. But if the shroud is authentic, the absence of visible thumbs make perfect sense.
This is not about whether there is support for the back, it’s about whether the back ever comes into contact with the upright stake. If you believe this never happens, please demonstrate it using primary sources and the relevant literature.
You also seem to be unaware of the variety of ways in which crucifixion was practiced, including being bound by ropes. The earliest imagery we have of crucifixion not only shows the victim’s back upright against the stake, but also shows the victim supported by a footrest, so they were not simply suspended by their wrists or hands.
Unsurprisingly, I see nothing here which is relevant to the point. No ponytail, no forelocks, short trimmed beard. This is not the medieval Jewish stereotype.
This is just another example of ad hoc reasoning. You’re simply making things up as you go along. There is no evidence here for cadeveric spasm. On the contrary, the arms are relaxed, the hands are relaxed, the fingers are relaxed. Yet you claim that this cadaveric spasm affected only the thumb on each hand (!). Are you also claiming that this cadaveric spasm pulled the man’s arms over his body, fully extended, crossed neatly over himself, with the fingers fully extended and relaxed? Is that what you are claiming?
You seem to be unaware of Dr Frederick Zugibe’s demonstration that Destot’s Space was not pierced. See here and here, which addresses in detail your argument regarding alleged spasms.
It is not incomprehensible. Why would it be incomprehensible? The artwork I’ve cited shows Jesus lying in a range of different positions, and you can’t see the thumbs in any of them.
Let’s cut to the chase. Why not just give me a validated C14 date showing the shroud is a first century artifact? Simple.
I didn’t say he said it, I said this was the argument made. He says de Charney claims the shroud was authentic and was “freely given” to him, and then says we need to know what kind of man de Charney was. He then goes on to describe de Charney’s righteous character.
Something needs to be said about Geoffrey de Charney, who had custody of this. It is of note that Geoffrey de Charney was referred to even during his life as the true and perfect knight. He was the author of at least three works on chivalry, and was perhaps Europe’s premiere knight during his lifetime, with the reputation for great skill at arms and also for great piety and honor. On more than one occasion he was given the great honor of carrying the Oriflamme, the battle standard of the King of France into battle. Geoffrey lost his life at the Battle of Poitiers while carrying the Oriflamme on 19 September 1356, not much more than one year after he first displayed it [the shroud] in Europe, after 150 years of obscurity. How did he get it? What kind of man was he? He was a very honorable, famous knight in France, and all of a sudden the shroud, not an acheiropoieta, but the shroud today that’s in Turin, Italy, was in his possession.
The obvious conclusion is that we should believe de Charney when he says he shroud is authentic and it was “freely given” to him. You even repeated this argument in your very next post.
So if you think he is saying something different, what do you think he is saying? Do you think he is citing the information about Geoffroi de Charney to prove Charney was unreliable, that he was dishonest, that the shroud is a forgery? Or do you think he was citing Charney as evidence for the shroud’s authenticity?
I did not say he said what is quoted above. You are quoting from me, but I was not quoting from him.
Frankly, I’m bored by this debate, and I never ever ever become bored. Ever! I think it’s time to close it. Unless you think that you did not make your point clear enough yet, which I think that you certainly did.
“I did not say he said what is quoted above. You are quoting from me, but I was not quoting from him.”
You stated that was one of the arguments which again no one in the first hour said this. Regarding Your comment on Jewish stereotype, the image you use as an example @ 1 also does not contain a ponytail.
