If that wiki comment is directed at me, feel free to present even the slightest shred of historical evidence the shroud is genuine. I am disinclined to blindly believe legends that arise 1300 years after an event happens and I am not apologetic about it. In fact, I would be militantly against believing something is “historical” because of a reference 1300 years after the fact. It might be but anything logically possible might be as well.
Eyewitnesses have enough trouble getting their facts straight let alone accepting something appearing in the record 500 generations later. How many relic forgeries and misattributions have their actually been throughout history? How credulous and naive some Christians are.
That depends on what you consider a historical reference. Some scholars point out that it first appeared in western Europe after the Fourth Crusade and note that the family who donated it to a church had a member who’d gone on that Crusade and brought back items from sacking Constantinople, and link that to a shroud-like object that vanished from Constantinople at the same time. The descriptions of the object from Constantinople match the Shroud if mounted for viewing, and mention of that run back to 944 when the object came to Constantinople having been rescued in the face of advancing Muslim invaders. There is also strong evidence that it was known in the sixth century, including the fact that very rapidly depictions of Jesus stopped looking like a young Roman man and started looking like the face on the Shroud – a change that would have needed some highly significant reason behind it.
Where it was before the sixth century is unknown, but there are numerous references to the continued existence of the burial shroud of Christ including one I can’t track down since my library is 90% in storage that stated that the image was nothing any artist could have made (though unfortunately there’s no further explanation of why that observation was made).
But even if it had been totally hidden till such a late century that’s no reason to dismiss it; there are archaeological discoveries with gaps at least as big.
Hi St.Roymond!
Thanks for all that info about The Shroud before 1300s, I never heard of any of this before.
The YT video, long as it is, goes into details about this particular aspect, as well as many others to do with The Shroud. Good news is, it does have time stamps
Your question shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did. After all, I’m the one who titled this thread: “To Gary Habermas Fans”. I only did that because I know already from previous responses, "The Shroud of Turin is not "of burning interest to Biologos folk. In fact, if anything, it’s viewed with negative suspicion ranging from “restrained skepticism” to “rabid rejection” bordering on, IMO, hilarious rejection. The funniest assessment came from a senior forum member who asserted that “The Shroud” was a product of “the second oldest profession”: “relic” production among Christians.
So I knew, coming out of the starting gate, that anything positive or informative I wanted to say about it would evoke more negative comments than positive, or even just curious comments.
So the challenge was to introduce a substantially lengthy interview between two Catholics–one a priest and the other not–about a subject that interests me but is not necessary to salvation. Given a choice between waking a horde of nay-sayers and potentially inspiring mild curiosity among a few, I chose the latter route.
Little did I realize how off-topic responses could become. Too late now, but at least I got the actual subject matter out on the stage, didn’t I?
“Epistemic humility” constrains my laughter, but your question and the 'trash Habernas and inerrancy" Rational Wiki article that you linked to demand a comment; so here’s my response:
Newsflash! “Biblical inerrancy” is not a Christian invention. It started with the Jews: and I, for one, am not surprised that there are a good number of them who still affirm it. Good luck trying to persuade them to give it up.
Mr Sampson, I have listened to an hour of the Father Dalton interview. I am truly sorry. I did not realize how far off I was. I sincerely apologize. I was a numbskull. It was fun to hear two enthusiastic Catholics discussing things.
I appreciate your presence on the Forum and your thoughtful comments.
It’s a nice summary; thank you! Yes, the 2 are very bright and the interview was fascinating. I like their sense of humor. I finished the entire video while working last night. I like Fr Dalton’s reminder that it’s not a salvation issue, at all. He uses it for meditation, it seems. I certainly learned a lot.
Thanks.
A demonstrable reference to it. Not a shoulda coulda woulda maybe possibly could be. An actual reference that we know refers to our shroud. If you cannot provide that you cannot provide any compelling historical evidence.
Sources, dates, reliability of the families claim. From Wiki:
The period until 1390 is subject to debate and controversy among historians. Prior to the 14th century there are some allegedly congruent but controversial references such as the Pray Codex.[2][4] Although there are numerous reports of Jesus’ burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the 14th century, there is no reliable historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently at Turin Cathedral.[5] A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.[6]Barbara Fralehas cited that the Order of Knights Templar were in the possession of a relic showing a red, monochromatic image of a bearded man on linen or cotton.
The shroud was identified as a forgery in 1390 by a Bishop. It largely appears when forgeries were big business. Anyone can claim anything. How do we know what is true?
Please list all the depictions of Jesus in the entire Christian world (spread over a huge geographical location) up to the sixth century and then list all the ones that just “very rapidly” turned into an image that looks like what we find on the Shroud? Please also explain how the shroud somehow, unknown for 500 years, changes all art, then goes unrecorded for another 800 years. This is not good historical thinking.
You, like many Christian apologists and Shroud proponents, are confused as to how history actually works. If the shroud doesn’t show up until 1300 years after Jesus , 500 generations later, there is no historical reason to accept it. Your comment seems to stem from presumption as if it is the burden of proof of someone to disprove the shroud’s authenticity. That burden lies on any and every truth claim made.
Archaeological discoveries have to be dated. Th portion of the Shroud that was dated was shown to very late indeed. Maybe I am being uncharitable but I saw people who still want to believe in it decide they must have dated a portion that was repaired much later – or insert 10 other excuses here. Maybe one is legitimate. I am skeptical though. People don’t like to let go of beliefs and some people have just committed to authenticity and will do what needs to de done to harmonize things in their mind smoothly.
Even if the shroud was mentioned in the 6th century (something not even REMOTELY established) that’s still 500 years later (20 generations). Apologists try hard to establish that the gospels are based on eyewitnesses and certainly dismiss the dozens of second century gospels as accurate, yet we are to credulously and blindly believe later legends about the Shroud.
The appropriate historical judgment on anything when there is a lack of evidence is non-liquet and that is being pinch charitable since the actual dated portion of the shroud was shown to be late along with its first historical reference–which occurs in a time of rampant forgeries and was actually pronounced a forgery at the time. What I never understand is how some Christians (apparently in a haphazard fashion) choose to accept some “tradition” over others. Why reject the pronouncements that it was a forgery 600 years ago?
From a quora response ( I bolded some things):
Documentary evidence: The first reference to the “Shroud” dates to 1390, when the Bishop of Troyes, Bishop Pierre d’Arcis, wrote a letter to the Pope in Avignon, Clement VII, telling him that a noble family in his diocese was displaying a relic for veneration that was in fact a fake. He informed Clement that this supposed “Shroud” had also been displayed by the De Charny family about 35 years earlier and that it had been investigated by the then Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, who had been suspicious of how such a major relic could suddenly appear in the hands of French family and sceptical that there would be no mention of a miraculous image on the burial cloths of Jesus in the gospels or any other Christian writing of the previous millennium. D’Arcis informed the Pope that Bishop Henri inquired as to the origin of this remarkable artefact and quickly discovered it was a fake:
Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.
As it happens, Pope Clement VII (who was actually an Antipope set up in opposition to Pope Urban VI in Rome) was a relative of the De Charny family and so would be inclined to defend them against this charge of faking the “Shroud” if it had no basis. Clearly it did have a basis, however, so Clement instead ordered the De Charnys to stop declaring the “Shroud” to be the genuine article and to display it as as a “representation” of the shroud of Jesus only. But he also granted indulgences to any pilgrims who went to see this “representation”, so his cash-strapped relatives still got the pilgrims and money they were seeking via their scam in the first place.
So why do we believe the family with the shroud but not Bishop Pierre d’Arcis and Bishop Henri?
Updated January 21 2023
Check here for important announcements and other Shroud of Turin Website news. This page will be updated whenever new page additions, articles and other resources are added to the site. Each item carries a posting date indicating when it first went online. The most recent update appears at the top of the page. As you scroll down through the page, you can review the items that were added this year in chronological order. You should find this an excellent way to sample the evolving content of this website. And you can also view every previous year’s Website News pages at the links below:
That’s a remarkably sane opinion, and one I personally share. As I wrote above:
Personally I compare the Shroud to the American Flag: Knowing “Ol’ Betsy” is on display in Washington D.C. doesn’t make me any more American than waving one on the 4th of July, but knowing there is one helps to remind me that I don’t live in Mexico.
Oddly enough, there are people who object to waving flags.
Used to; failed to exercise the ability and lost it. I read quite a bit of theology in French for my Master’s thesis (along with quite a bit of German), but I can’t even understand an old Jacques Cousteau TV show these days.
Why do you ask?
I’m wondering what word(s) they used. The reason is that I remember instances of one or more early Fathers referring to the Word of God as inerrant, but they meant it the way an archer would use it, that the Word always flies straight to its target.
Also, thinking of Jews… a rabbi I used to bump into now and then at St. Louis University down in the rare books room made the intriguing mark one day about the first Genesis Creation account that of course the days are meant as literal days, it’s just that the story isn’t meant as literal. He didn’t expand on that, but years later at a seminar on ancient near eastern literature I found myself getting a handle on it when a presenter was describing a certain kind of ANE literature and suddenly it clicked in my mind that his description fit the first Genesis Creation account – and he described how for the purpose of expounding on the main point of this kind of literature the details could be treated as literal, in fact were meant to be, but that the account as written was not meant literally and so the details couldn’t be carried outside a piece of this kind of literature; they were only literal for “internal purposes”.
It can’t be a forgery: there is no paint, no added pigments, in fact no added material except the blood and some stains. It also contains 3D information that no one back then could have even conceived of let alone managed. Further there were no art techniques back then capable of producing a change in the coloring of the fabric that is a change in the fabric material itself.
I take it you didn’t bother with the video.
The assertion that the Shroud was “unknown for 500 years” is projection: you’re saying that because there is no data that convinces you then no one back then knew about it, either.
As for those other “800 years”, if everyone knew where it was, one wouldn’t expect to find mention of it.
The Gospels are written as eye-witness accounts. The second century gospels were recognized back then as spurious.
That’s all bogus because it wasn’t painted and because there were no art techniques back then that could produce the kind of image it is plus no one back then knew what a photographic negative was – and the image on the Shroud is not merely a photographic negative, it’s one that contains 3D information.
So we don’t believe the two bishops because their statements are contradicted by reality.
Early in the interview, Father Dalton mentioned that he was first “turned onto” the Shroud by a lecture which he attended at the Pontifical University in Rome, given by Emanuela Marinelli. It so happens that Emanuela has written a book: Suaire de Turin - Témoignage d’une présence.
As you can see, it’s in French (there is no English Translation). I bought the cheapest copy available. And it’s now on its way from France.
I’m hoping to find a French-literate Carmelite nun to translate it into English for me. If I do, I’m going to suggest the nun (and her convent) publish the translation into English and “make a little money off it.” I’ll get my translation, and the nuns can have the monetary proceeds. LOL! Win-win. Plus, in English, the book may attract more interest in the Shroud. Win-win-win.
