- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,696
- Reaction score
- 1,534
- Location
- The City Different
- Website
- www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
There's an interesting new book out by Ian Wilson about the Shroud of Turin. It's called (unsurprisingly, if somewhat pretentiously) The Shroud: A 2000-year-old Mystery Solved. It really doesn't solve anything, but it elaborates (and gives data) on several hypotheses that the author first made thirty years ago. I've always found the question fascinating. There's a good review by John Ray of it in the October 29 Times Literary Supplement. (Ray is a noted Egyptologist, and should know a thing or two about burial shrouds and the like.)
For those who don't know what the Shroud is, it's got its own website, its own blog, and its own society. It purports to be the burial shroud of Jesus, imprinted with His image. The common wisdom, based upon radiocarbon dating done in 1988, has been that the Shroud is a fourteenth century fabrication. Wilson argues that it is more complicated than that.
For one thing, pollen evidence from the fabric suggests that the shroud has been in Anatolia, and limestone residues on it are similar to those found in the Holy Land. The alleged forger has also included several other things that would seem excessive for his (or her) purposes. There turns out to be a second image on the other side of the cloth which is essentially invisible. There are no brush strokes of any sort, and the image has a three-dimensional aspect of a sort unknown in any other work of art from the Middle Ages or before. The blood stains on the image also predate the image itself.
Wilson thinks the Shroud is actually a relic known as the Mandylion of Edessa, a Byzantine artifact that disappeared with the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. If so, that would at least get it to Europe. But how could the image have been placed on the cloth? If it is a forgery, as the experts maintain (in opposition to millions of believers), in the words of the reviewer: " . . . this man could have taught things to Leonardo." The forger would be "an artist of astonishing sophistication," with artistic abilities that are not in evidence in any other work of the era. In short, a genius who left us nothing else besides the Shroud. Wilson asks: "Is it easier to believe in such a person, or to accept that there are things that are beyond our understanding, and the Shroud is one of them? Perhaps the truth is that the religious people are afraid that the Shroud will turn out to be a work of art, and the art historians are afraid that it will not."
Anyway, I recommend reading Ray's review -- it's quite short and well worth it. The book itself I haven't read yet.
For those who don't know what the Shroud is, it's got its own website, its own blog, and its own society. It purports to be the burial shroud of Jesus, imprinted with His image. The common wisdom, based upon radiocarbon dating done in 1988, has been that the Shroud is a fourteenth century fabrication. Wilson argues that it is more complicated than that.
For one thing, pollen evidence from the fabric suggests that the shroud has been in Anatolia, and limestone residues on it are similar to those found in the Holy Land. The alleged forger has also included several other things that would seem excessive for his (or her) purposes. There turns out to be a second image on the other side of the cloth which is essentially invisible. There are no brush strokes of any sort, and the image has a three-dimensional aspect of a sort unknown in any other work of art from the Middle Ages or before. The blood stains on the image also predate the image itself.
Wilson thinks the Shroud is actually a relic known as the Mandylion of Edessa, a Byzantine artifact that disappeared with the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. If so, that would at least get it to Europe. But how could the image have been placed on the cloth? If it is a forgery, as the experts maintain (in opposition to millions of believers), in the words of the reviewer: " . . . this man could have taught things to Leonardo." The forger would be "an artist of astonishing sophistication," with artistic abilities that are not in evidence in any other work of the era. In short, a genius who left us nothing else besides the Shroud. Wilson asks: "Is it easier to believe in such a person, or to accept that there are things that are beyond our understanding, and the Shroud is one of them? Perhaps the truth is that the religious people are afraid that the Shroud will turn out to be a work of art, and the art historians are afraid that it will not."
Anyway, I recommend reading Ray's review -- it's quite short and well worth it. The book itself I haven't read yet.