Possible History of the Shroud of Turin

[Seeker2000]

Hi everybody,

during the last few days I again researched various aspects of the Shroud of Turin on the internet. I also looked at the possible pre-1350 history of the Shroud and that's what I want to talk about on this thread.

I will post a longer posting with some thoughts I had, involving quotes from a couple of sources and I would like to know what you think about it.

So please tell me what you think about these issues. I hope there are some people on this forum with good historical knowledge and maybe even better sources than I have. I'll post some more specific questions at the end of my posting.

Thanks in advance for reading it :)

I hope it doesn't sound too confusing. ;)

[Seeker2000]

The Shroud of Turin is often compared to the Image of Edessa or the Mandylion. Maybe the Image of Edessa started only as a legend in the first place or maybe not, but at least in 944 a cloth from Edessa was handed over to the Emperor in Constantinople in an exchange. I also read that around 960 the Kéramion - a tile whith the image of Christ on it; also part of the Edessa legend - was brought to Constantinople. At the moment I'm not really sure if this cloth depicted a face only or an image of the whole body and/or blood. At that time Gregory Referendarius, archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, also held a sermon about the cloth, in which he said that the image was formed through sweat and blood (so maybe there was blood on the cloth) and he also mentioned a liquid flowing from the side, which could be understood as refering to the sidewound on the Turin Shroud. He also mentioned a "likeness of a man" which could maybe be understood as refering to a full body image. You can read a translation by Mark Guscin of the sermon at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf. The parts I mentioned are on paragraph #22 on page 12 of the PDF.

However, this is not my main point of interest. When reading about the Crusades and the pillages, I discovered the following textual records:

In 1201 Nicholas Mesarites, keeper of the relic collection at the Chapel of the Pharos, wrote the following:

Taken from a German newsgroup posting (http://groups.google.com/group/de.sci.geschichte/msg/d05f70df061aae4e?), translated by me below:
1201 Nikolaos Mesarites, Kustos der Reliquiensammlung im Großen Palast zu Konstantinopel, erwähnt in einer Auflistung die »Begräbnis-Sindones [entáphioi sêndones] Christi: » ... aus einem Linnen von billigem und leicht erhältlichem Material. Immer noch duften sie nach Myrrhe und widerstehen dem Verfall, weil sie den ge-heimnisvollen, nackten toten Leib nach der Passion einhüllten.« Und er fährt fort: »An diesem Ort ersteht Er [Jesus] wieder auf, und das Sudarium und die Begräbnis-Sindones sind der Beweis.« In derselben Aufzeichnung erwähnt Mesarites auch ein »cheiromaktron [Hand-tuch, Anm. d. Ü.]« mit dem »Urbild« Jesu, »geschaffen durch eine ge-wisse Kunst der Zeichnung, nicht von Hand gefertigt«.
----
----translation:----
1201 Nicholas Mesarites, keeper of the relic collection at the Great Palace of Constantinople, mentions in a list the "sindon and the burial linens [entáphioi sêndones]" of Christ: " ... of a linen of cheap and easily obtainable material. Still smelling of myrrh and defying decay, because it wrapped the mysterious, naked dead body after the Passion." And he goes on: "In this place He [Jesus] rises again, and the sindon and the burial linens is the proof." In the same record Mesarites also mentions a "cheiromaktron [handkerchief]" with the "primal image"* of Jesus, "created through a certain art of drawing, not made by hands".
*or maybe archetype? Or preimage? It's "Urbild" in German...

Here's a different translation of part of it, from an English newsgroup posting (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.turin-shroud/msg/11cf5c2d449ba5be?):
"....the burial shrouds of Christ: these are of linen. They are of cheap and easy to find materials, still smelling of myrrh and defying decay since they wrapped the outlineless, fragrant-with-myrrh, naked body after the passion."

The author of this posting writes that this could maybe have been the Turin Shroud, because Mesarites knows the body is naked and describes it as outlineless which fits the image on the Turin Shroud which is uniquely virtually lacking in outlines.

The sindon being the proof that Christ rises again in that place could also be understood as refering to an image of Christ on the sindon.

Well, so far I think we have a list of the relics at the Chapel of the Pharos at 1201, including a burial shroud or maybe even several linens or shroud parts as well as a handkerchief with an image of Christ that is not made by hands. The former might or might not have an image, the latter definitely has one, although one cannot be sure if it contains a face only or more. I think that this latter cloth probably is the Mandylion, because a) Mandylion means something like "handkerchief" and b) the Mandylion/Image of Edessa was also called an "acheiropoitos", which means "not made by human hands".

Lastly, I want to mention textual records from Robert de Clari, a French crusader who was in Constantinople in 1203. He also talks about the relics he saw there.

A Posting from here (http://www.christianforums.com/t23639&page=4%20Mandylion%20"robert%20de%20clari"&hl=de) says this about him:

Robert de Clari, a knight from Picardy, takes part in the capture of Constantinople. His reports describe the riches and relics he saw. Among them are the two pieces of the true cross, the head of the lance, two nails, a phial of blood, a tunic, and a crown. In a separate account he describes a linen cloth bearing the face of Jesus. (Later to be known as The Veronica from the legend that St. Veronica wiped the face of Jesus and the image of his face was imprinted on three parts of the linen.)

Another account talks of the Shroud in Blachernae: "And among the others there was a monastery known as Lady Saint Mary of the Blachernae, in which was kept the shroud in which Our Lord was wrapped; on every Friday this was held out, so well that it was possible to see the face* of Our Lord. And neither Greek nor Frenchman knew what happened to that Shroud after the town was taken."
*Other sources usually translate this as "figure" which could be more correct and would rather sound like a full body image - e.g. take a look at the citation Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Possible_history_before_the_14th_century:_The_Image_of_Edessa) uses

So Robert de Clari also lists the relics from the Chapel of the Pharos, but the burial shroud containing an image he sees at another church - the monastery known as Lady Saint Mary of the Blachernae. In addition to this he tells us that the shroud vanished after the crusade and no one really knows where it went. In 1205 a nephew of one of three Byzantine Emperors will protest and say that they know that the sacred linen is in Athens. He could very well be talking about the Blachernae Shroud here.

But is this Blachernae Shroud the Mandylion/Image of Edessa which Mesarites mentioned in his record about the Chapel of the Pharos? Or maybe one of the sindons mentioned there?

Well, Robert de Clari also talked about relics from the Chapel of the Pharos and he at least mentioned, according to above source, a linen cloth with the face of Jesus, which could very well be the Mandylion.

Another French source (http://www.fl.ulaval.ca/hst/visio/cr4no3costantini.htm) gives a more detailed description. I'll post some excerpts and will try to translate it as good as I understand it:
Nicolas Mesaritis, gardien du trésor, en a dressé la liste [...] Robert de Clari évoque la richesse du lieu

"que on apeloit la Sainte Chapele [...] Or avoit encore (…) deux riches vaisseaus d'or qui pendaient en mi la chapele ê deux grosses chaînes d'argent. En l'un de ces vaissiaus si avoit une tuile et en l'autre une toile."

Cette tuile et cette toile sont les deux principales images dites ê juste titre acheiropoiètes (prononcez: akeyro-) ou (selon la transcription de la prononciation byzantine, itaciste), achiropiites — le mandylion et le kéramion. Ce sont elles seulement, ou plutôt, la première et son clone, qui méritent, plus que le nom de premier tableau, celui de prototype de toute image.
----
----translation:----
Nicholas Mesarites, keeper of the treasure chamber, compiled a list of it [...] Robert de Clari notes the riches of the place

"that is called the 'Sainte Chapele'* [...] Now one has also (...) two rich golden containers/jars that hung in midst of the chapel from two big silver chains. In one of these containers there was a tile and in the other there was a linen."

This tile and this fabric are the two principal images known as acheiropoitos (pronounced: akeyro-) or (according to the transcription of the byzantine pronunciation, itacist), achiropiites - the Mandylion and the Kéramion. It is only them, or rather, the first and its clone, which deserve, more than the name of the first image, that of the prototype of every image.
*This should be the Chapel of the Pharos

So, what we have here is a mention of what probably is the Mandylion and the Kéramion. Another German text (http://www.rotary-es-filder.de/vortrag/021021_Leichentuch.pdf) says that this is only a copy of the Mandylion with the original being at the Blachernae Church - but I'd guess that this is only the opinion of the author and no certain fact.

So, for me it seems as if the Mandylion/Image of Edessa stayed at the Chapel of the Pharos, while a Shroud with an image on it turned up at the Blachernae Church at least in 1203 or 1204, probably earlier. My French source even says, that a shroud at least was venerated in Constantinople not only since 1202, but since at least 1092 - but I can't comment on this, because I don't know how they came up with these dates. What happened in 1092 in Constantinople? Unfortunately I couldn't find anything about this on the internet...

Another source even states this:
What then became of the Shroud? Nicephorus Callistus wrote in his ecclesiastical history that in the year 436 the Empress Pulcheria had built in Constantinople the basilica of Saint Mary of the Blachernae, and that she kept there the "burial linen" of Jesus Christ. It was there that Robert de Clari found the Shroud in 1204.

Well, I don't know when this was written and I don't know if it is true, but it just seems a bit strange to me, so at the moment I really doubt that this Shroud had been there for such a long time before 1204. But anyway, even a 436 appearance would be 400 years after the death of Christ, which is quite a long time. 1092 or 1202 would be around 1000 years after it.

Well, my conclusion from all of this is, that I think, if I have not misunderstood some of these sources or there are errors in them, this would mean that the Blachernae Shroud is not the same thing as the Mandylion/Image of Edessa and so the Turin Shroud could probably not be identified with the Mandylion/Image of Edessa, at least not on the basis of the Robert de Clari record "Where there was the Shroud in which our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday raised itself upright so one could see the figure of our Lord on it." - which is often cited as evidence that the Turin Shroud is the same as the Image of Edessa.

So I think that maybe the Blachernae Shroud could be the Turin Shroud... but this is not certain of course. The first certain historical record of the Turin Shroud is still around 1350, so it might be a completely different shroud.

Finally, if you want to, you can take a look at this paper, which discusses other shroud parts from Europe and comes to the conclusion that they probably don't originate from the Shroud of Turin, but could come from the other sindons that were mentioned by Mesarites: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n56part5.pdf


So, what do you think about my ideas? What do you believe which cloths have existed and which are identical? Is one of those the Turin Shroud? Or is the Turin Shroud the Image of Edessa after all? Do you see any errors in my reasoning?

Also: Do you have better sources than I have? I'd especially like to have a better and more complete source of Robert de Clari's talk about all those relics. I'd also like to know what happened in 1092 and what one should think about the Nicephorus Callistus account of the 432 building of the Blachernae basilica, involving the "burial linen" of Christ.

[spin]

The Turin shroud is a red herring. The story of the raising of Lazarus and that of Jesus's burial in John make it clear that the nt tradition is one of the head being covered with a cloth (soudarion) and the body wound in cloth strips (oQonion). The other gospels merely talk of a type or quality of cloth (sindwn), which can be found in classical sources even implying cloth strips. The gospel tradition is against the shroud.


spin

[Sparrow]

My best guess for the shroud of Turin is that it is a forgery less tahn 100 years old. With all the shrouds that seem to have existed, it reminds me a little of the industry around owning a flag flown over the US Capitol. There are people who spend their work day raising and lowering flags at the Capitol so that the flag can then be sold as one that has flown over the building (nobody seems to care that ir was for only seconds). So I got this mental image of these shroud purveyors, wrapping and unwrapping the body of Jesus, so that many relics could be distributed.

My question really is, if the closest (in time) shroud you have is 400 years after the death of Jesus, how do you know the image is his? Same for an image in a window, piece of toast, etc., how do you know the image is of Jesus? You can't exactly compare it with his drivers license.

[Seeker2000]

My best guess for the shroud of Turin is that it is a forgery less tahn 100 years old.

Well, I'd say that this is definitely not true. The existence of the shroud has been documented since at least approx. 1350 (I don't know the exact year right now) and it has also been carbondated to that time range. Although it has been suggested that the dating of the shroud gave an age which could be too young, the idea that the resulting age could be too old is a new one. :D

[Toto]

I think that was a typo for 1000 years. ??

But the shroud is an obvious fake. What more is there to say?

[S.C.Carlson]

But the shroud is an obvious fake. What more is there to say?

I'm glad someone said it...

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Why hasn't the carbon dating ended this kind of silly speculation?

The shroud is a medievel forgery. That's it. Even the earliest 14th century record of the shroud calls it a fake. The human figure depicted is not even anotomically accurate.

Incidentally, the Gospel of John says that Jesus was wrapped in a bunch of linen strips, not draped in one piece of cloth.

[spin]

Yup, that's what I said in post #3, linen strips and a cloth to cover the head. But still this shite continues.


spin

[Sparrow]

Well, I'd say that this is definitely not true. The existence of the shroud has been documented since at least approx. 1350 (I don't know the exact year right now) and it has also been carbondated to that time range. Although it has been suggested that the dating of the shroud gave an age which could be too young, the idea that the resulting age could be too old is a new one. :DAs bad a typist as I am, I'm apparently even worse as a proofreader. Yes, I meant 1000 years.

But I am interested in any comment on how we would know that an ancient image is that of a famous person. I'm not aware of any historical depiction, contemporaneous with the life of Jesus.

[Clivedurdle]

It's Leonardo! And because it's by him it is not a fake, but a priceless work of art! :)

[Huon]

The shroud of Turin is a linen cloth (approx. 4.36 m x 1.1 m) which was first shown in 1357 at Lirey, a very small village in Champagne, near Troyes, east of Paris, France. The tissue was analysed in 1988 by Walter Mac Crone. Radiocarbon datation showed that the tissue should have been made between 1260 and 1390.

The archives of the french département (district) Aube, in the town Troyes, (series 9 G) preserve the first written traces mentioning the existence of the shroud of the collegiate church of Lirey. A collegiate church usually does not depend of the local bishop. So, the collegiate church of Lirey was not dependent of the bishop of Troyes.

Around 1350, the shroud appeared in Lirey and was shown for the first time in 1357. The chevalier (knight) Geoffroy de Charny who was the lord of the village, obtained in 1353 a pension from the king of France John II the Good to build the collegiate church of Lirey. The church was built and the shroud preserved inside it. To help pigrimages, Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254) granted indulgences to the pilgrims. In 1356 Geoffroy de Charny was killed at the battle of Poitiers. His son Geoffroy II de Charny succeeded him and died in 1398.

In the archives, one can find a papal bull edicted by Pope of Avignon Clement VII (1378-1394). This bull tries to put an end to a conflict between Geoffroy II (plus the collegial church canons) and the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis. Many times had bishop Pierre d’Arcis forbidden the exposition of the shroud, which he considered to be a recent forgery. In 1389, the Pope had authorized the exposition. Then Pierre d’Arcis wrote a report to the Pope to prove that the shroud is the work of a forger. In january 1390, Clement VII published an arbitration, promulgating four similar acts, one for the bishop of Troyes, one for Geoffroy II de Charny, and the other two for two neighbouring bishops. Two of these documents are preserved in the archives of Aube.

After having reminded that the exposition of the shroud is legitimate, and reminded the stages of the conflict, the Pope compels the person responsible for the exposition to say clearly and intelligibly in loud voice "this figure or representation is not the true shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but only a painting or a picture which represents him". The pope’s decision forbids also that the ceremonies be too sumptuous, as this could incite the fidels to believe in the authenticity of the relic.

For more details you might go to :
http://www.shroud.com/history.htm

Here you will find how the shroud came to Turin.

[Huon]

"The Mandylion" is a cloth discovered in Edessa, now Sanli Urfa, Turkey. In 525 CE, Edessa was flooded by the river Daisan. It is said that during the reconstruction of the town, a cloth bearing a face image was found inside a door of the town. This cloth is mentioned by Evagrius Scholasticus in his Ecclesiastical History. It was declared "acheiropoïetos", "Not made by human hands". In later centuries it became known as "The Mandylion", "little handkerchief". Emperor Justinian (527-565) had a cathedral built at Edessa to preserve the Mandylion. Edessa was conquered in 609 by the Persians. In 944, emperor Romanus I Lecapenus (919-944) besieged Edessa and exchanged the Mandylion for a group of Muslim prisoners. The Mandylion was brought to Constantinople. In 1204, the Crusaders ransacked Constantinople, and many relics disappeared, among which the Mandylion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_Edessa

[spin]

But who gives a damn about an old cloth. It has nothing to do with BC&H. For chrissake, stop this crap.


spin

[Toto]

Let's try this in Science and Skepticism - they haven't had a shroud thread in a while.

[skepticalbip]

You need to look at the shroud in context of the "holy relic" industry during the middle ages. There were enough relics sold during this period to make the practice an industry. There were enough "pieces of the origional cross" sold to build a cathedral, enough "blood of Christ" sold to fill several bath tubs, enough bones of saints to fill several grave yards, etc. O.K. so it is a little exageration but the point is that it was an industry at the time and many, many fakes were produced and sold as "holy relics".

[Seeker2000]

As bad a typist as I am, I'm apparently even worse as a proofreader. Yes, I meant 1000 years.

Ok, I guess I should have known that from the context. ;)

But I am interested in any comment on how we would know that an ancient image is that of a famous person. I'm not aware of any historical depiction, contemporaneous with the life of Jesus.

Well, I don't think that's possible without having such depictions. The people who believe the Shroud to be authentic usually identify it with the Image of Edessa and state that the depictions of Jesus changed around the time the Image of Edessa appeared to the depiction of him we know today - so according to them, the Shroud inspired them all. Of course this is not more than a theory.

It's Leonardo! And because it's by him it is not a fake, but a priceless work of art! :)

That theory is really stupid, because Leonardo lived after the first recorded appearance of the Shroud. ;)

@Huon: Your first posting doesn't address my topic and the second one doesn't address any of my points. *g*

But who gives a damn about an old cloth. It has nothing to do with BC&H. For chrissake, stop this crap.

Well, I did a search and the most recent shroud threads were on BC&H, so I started it there. I don't think this thread fits with Science and Skepticism, because it's not about science, but rather about history. Maybe General Religious Discussions would fit it better, because it's about the history of religous relics.

You need to look at the shroud in context of the "holy relic" industry during the middle ages. [...] O.K. so it is a little exageration but the point is that it was an industry at the time and many, many fakes were produced and sold as "holy relics".

Yep, that's true. Actually that is part of my theory. From the sources, that I found, a couple of cloths - at least one, the Mandylion/Image of Edessa - seem to have existed that are now tried to be identified with the Turin Shroud. One is the Mandylion cloth from the 944 exchange and one is the Kéramicon. Robert de Clari seems to have seen those in 1203 or 1204. Another one is the "Shroud in which our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday raised itself upright so one could see the figure of our Lord on it". This was also seen by Robert de Clari, but at the Blachernae basilica. So I conclude that both cloths are probably not the same. A cloth which was probably the Mandylion is also mentioned by Nicholas Mesarites in 1201. He also mentions other sindons of Christ, which IMHO are probably again other cloths than the first two, made "of cheap and easily obtainable material". That's my opinion on this so far, I just wanted to know if someone here has better knowledge or additional information about this topic.

I don't say that one of those cloths has to be the Shroud of Turin. I also think that it's probably a forgery from the time of the carbon dating. But because the Image of Edessa/Mandylion has often been connected with the Shroud, I looked at that part of the history.

[Huon]

@Huon: Your first posting doesn't address my topic and the second one doesn't address any of my points. *g*


Sorry.
I thought that it is clear that the tissue of the Shroud of Turin was made between 1250 and 1350.