Evidence for God from Science

Did you have a look at the videos on that page I linked to? The alignment seemed to me at least intriguing.

hughfarey wrote:

DBowling wrote:According to Christian tradition/legend, at around 50 AD the Mandylion was taken from Jerusalem to Edessa and given by the evangelist Thaddaeus to King Agbar V. So by the time Constantine was exploring the holy sites of Jerusalem, the Mandylion was buried in the walls of Edessa due to earlier persecution of Christians by Rome. The Mandylion remained buried in the walls of Edessa until it was rediscovered during the middle of the 6th century. In 943 AD Byzantine Emperor Romanus sent an army to Edessa to 'negotiate' with the Muslims who now controlled Edessa for possession of the Mandylion... and the Mandylion finally made its way to Constantinople.

This was quite a persuasive argument when first presented, but is not generally supported, if at all, by any of the historians who have made the Image of Edessa their principle study. Their main objection, as I understand it, is that the image is not identified as a shroud, or even a full length depiction, at any time during its history,

The primary objections to linking the Mandylion and the Shroud are.
1. The Mandylion is represented as a rectangular piece of cloth with the face of Jesus 'miraculously' imprinted on it.
2. The Mandylion is not referred to as the burial cloth of Christ.
As Sir Steven Runyon says.
"The image of Edessa was always described by the Byzantines as a 'mandelion', a kerchief, which is quite different from a 'sindon' [or shroud]."
So initially there appears to be a significant difference between the physical description of the Mandylion and the Shroud.

This is why investigations into descriptions of the Mandylion which indicate that there is more to the Mandylion than just a cloth with an image of the face of Jesus are significant.

From The Resurrection of the Shroud by Mark Antonacci
"The Image of Edessa/Mandylion was not necessarily a small cloth, at least according to several references to it. One early author describing the Image of Edessa actually used the word sindon, which means "shroud", and is the word used in the Gospels to describe Jesus' burial garment. The original of the "Latin Abgar legend" also presumed it was a cloth several yards long. St. John of Damascus, writing in ca. 730, referred to the Image of Edessa as a likeness of Jesus upon a "himation," which was a full-length, oblong, outer garment worn by the Greeks over the shoulder and down to the feet. Further, in the late tenth century, Leo the Deacon refers to the Image of Edessa as a peplos, which, too was a full-size robe."

So the sermon of Gregory in 944 is not a "one off". There are a number of references to the Mandylion that indicate that it was more than just a kerchief, and one specifically refers to the Mandylion as a 'sindon' (ie shroud).

I am more familiar with Marc Guscin's tranlation (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf), based on André-Marie Dubarle's bilingual commentary (Greek text, French translation and commentary, at http://www.persee.fr/doc/rebyz_0766-559 ... _55_1_1935,

I think Marc Guscin's conclusion in your link above is interesting...
"Gregory's lack of inquisitive spirit about the origin of the image and the side wound is most frustrating, yet no matter what he did or did not think about the origin of the blood from the side, one thing is clear – according to this sermon, the Image of Edessa had a bloodstain from the wound inflicted on Christ's side, and therefore contained a full body image. No amount of contrived pseudo-translations or explanations can get away from this simple fact."

However, that's not the main point of my remarks above, which was that there is no mention of any relics at all anywhere (except in retrospect) until the relic 'cult' emerges during the 5th century. Were they all hidden in walls for 300 years?

My Christian tradition is Evangelical Protestant. I really have no interest in relics, and my inclination towards relics in general is to dismiss them... that's my personal bias. So from my perspective, relics in general and the history of the Shroud are totally separate topics. Whatever one chooses to believe about the Shroud... it is truly unique.

But I personally think that based on historical and physical evidence, a plausible and reasonable argument can be made that the Mandylion and the Shroud are one and the same.

And indeed you are not alone. But it must be recognised that plausibility is not definitive, and that it is not absurd to reject it.

I agree... And I think I have acknowledged that plausibility is not 'definitive'.
However, it must also be recognized that it is not 'absurd' or 'a triumph of wishful thinking over evidence' to come to the conclusion that the historical and physical evidence indicate that the Mandylion and the Shroud are one and the same.

Kurieuo wrote:Did you have a look at the videos ...

Yes indeed, but I did not find them convincing, so I downloaded pictures of three Justinian coins (from wildwinds.com) and one of the shroud and overlaid them, using an opacity slider to move between one and the other. (I use 'Pages' on a MacBook, but I'm sure there are PC versions). Firstly, I had to pin point the centres of the eyes, the tip of the nose and the line of the lower lip on each image (just about the only clearly identifiable things on the shroud), and then adjust the size so that the eyes exactly fitted. Now we find that the coins' noses are far too short to fit the Shroud - something easily seen on both videos, in fact. The lower lip is equally out of synch, although it is better on the lower coin than on the upper one. Then I downloaded a picture of Tom Hanks in Castaway, and a statue of Zeus. They all merge into each other wonderfully. Others have used Albrecht Durer and Leonardo da Vinci and the west wall of the Cistine Chapel. What is intriguing is not the alignment of any two of the images, but the fact that they all align so well.

DBowling wrote:"The Image of Edessa/Mandylion was not necessarily a small cloth, at least according to several references to it. One early author describing the Image of Edessa actually used the word sindon, which means "shroud", and is the word used in the Gospels to describe Jesus' burial garment. The original of the "Latin Abgar legend" also presumed it was a cloth several yards long. St. John of Damascus, writing in ca. 730, referred to the Image of Edessa as a likeness of Jesus upon a "himation," which was a full-length, oblong, outer garment worn by the Greeks over the shoulder and down to the feet. Further, in the late tenth century, Leo the Deacon refers to the Image of Edessa as a peplos, which, too was a full-size robe."

Primary sources, primary sources, primary sources.... The "early author" was the writer of the Acts of Mari, 6th century, and the word he used was 'sedona', not sindon. In his story the 'sedona' was exclusively used on Jesus's face, not his whole body, and neither 'sedona' nor 'sindon' mean 'shroud', but refer to the quality, rather than the size, of any cloth from a handkerchief to a sail. (See, for example, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ek#lexicon)
John of Damascus does use the word 'himation', but then he also uses the word 'rakos', indicating a much smaller cloth, often translated as 'rag'. Some commentators think he is confusing, perhaps deliberately, the Image of Edessa with the Image of Camuliana, which may have been much bigger, giving them both the same provenance.
And so to 'peplos' which, like 'sindon', did not automatically indicate any particular size. It means covering, and is used for everything from a chariot to a funeral urn, as well as people.

To attempt to derive a size for the cloth, the words describing it are insufficient, so we must do our best from the context, in which Jesus invariably only uses the cloth to wipe his face.

However, it must also be recognized that it is not 'absurd' or 'a triumph of wishful thinking over evidence' to come to the conclusion that the historical and physical evidence indicate that the Mandylion and the Shroud are one and the same.

Perhaps not. But then, I never said it was....

Just wondering Hugh, if your repair test comes back "invisible", why does that matter so much? Would it change your opinion? It just seems to me, nothing but an earlier date through re-dating the actual shroud would convince you it is in fact earlier.

Kurieuo, I'm amazed and shocked that Hugh claims not to know about the without a trace claim because it's on the very blog he used to frequent all the time and it was mentioned on multiple occasions but I agree with you that Hugh won't change his mind from
This .

Kurieuo wrote:Just wondering Hugh, if your repair test comes back "invisible", why does that matter so much? Would it change your opinion? It just seems to me, nothing but an earlier date through re-dating the actual shroud would convince you it is in fact earlier.

You may be right, but really it's all a question of balance. Much of my dissatisfaction with the 'patch' hypothesis rests in the fact that I don't believe a patch or a reweave could be invisible. If it proves to be so, then a major piece of evidence discrediting the radiocarbon date would be verified, and my view of authenticity would certainly be swayed. I'd still want to know 'how it was done', though.

hughfarey wrote:

DBowling wrote:"The Image of Edessa/Mandylion was not necessarily a small cloth, at least according to several references to it. One early author describing the Image of Edessa actually used the word sindon, which means "shroud", and is the word used in the Gospels to describe Jesus' burial garment. The original of the "Latin Abgar legend" also presumed it was a cloth several yards long. St. John of Damascus, writing in ca. 730, referred to the Image of Edessa as a likeness of Jesus upon a "himation," which was a full-length, oblong, outer garment worn by the Greeks over the shoulder and down to the feet. Further, in the late tenth century, Leo the Deacon refers to the Image of Edessa as a peplos, which, too was a full-size robe."

Primary sources, primary sources, primary sources.... The "early author" was the writer of the Acts of Mari, 6th century, and the word he used was 'sedona', not sindon.

Ok... I'll have to follow up on that one to see what the linguistic link between sindon and sedona (if any) is.

To attempt to derive a size for the cloth, the words describing it are insufficient, so we must do our best from the context,

Correct.
But if a person's conclusions about the relationship between the Mandylion and the Shroud are based upon the premise that.
"The image of Edessa was always described by the Byzantines as a 'mandelion', a kerchief, which is quite different from a 'sindon' [or shroud]."
(I am referring to Mandylion 'experts' here... not you)

And if additional research demonstrates that the Mandylion is described by other terms that can refer to much larger pieces of cloth than just a kerchief.
And if additional research demonstrates that the Mandylion contained images from the pierced side of Jesus in addition to just the face.
Then it is legitimate to reevaluate conclusions that are based on a premise that is later demonstrated to be factually inaccurate.

However, it must also be recognized that it is not 'absurd' or 'a triumph of wishful thinking over evidence' to come to the conclusion that the historical and physical evidence indicate that the Mandylion and the Shroud are one and the same.

Perhaps not. But then, I never said it was....

Good

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Just wondering Hugh, if your repair test comes back "invisible", why does that matter so much? Would it change your opinion? It just seems to me, nothing but an earlier date through re-dating the actual shroud would convince you it is in fact earlier.

You may be right, but really it's all a question of balance. Much of my dissatisfaction with the 'patch' hypothesis rests in the fact that I don't believe a patch or a reweave could be invisible.

From my perspective French reweaving is child's play when compared with creating a full size negative image of the crucified Jesus (front and back) that contains three dimensional information hundreds of years before the invention of photography.

DBowling wrote:

hughfarey wrote: Primary sources, primary sources, primary sources.... The "early author" was the writer of the Acts of Mari, 6th century, and the word he used was 'sedona', not sindon.

Ok... I'll have to follow up on that one to see what the linguistic link between sindon and sedona (if any) is.

Yeah... that's what I figured.
The Syriac 'sedona' comes from the Greek 'sindon'.

DBowling wrote:The Syriac 'sedona' comes from the Greek 'sindon'.

I know. And neither of them mean 'shroud'.

hughfarey wrote:

DBowling wrote:The Syriac 'sedona' comes from the Greek 'sindon'.

I know. And neither of them mean 'shroud'.

All three Synoptic Gospels use the Greek word 'sindon' to refer to the linen cloth that Joseph of Arimathaea wrapped the body of Jesus in after he was crucified (Mat 27:59, Mk 15:46, Lk 23:53)

A shroud is a length of cloth or an enveloping garment in which a dead person is wrapped for burial.

So even though the Greek word sindon refers generically to a linen cloth.
Within the context of the synoptic crucifixion accounts, it does refer to the cloth that Jesus was wrapped in.
This is why The RSV translated the Greek sindon into the English 'linen shroud' within the context of the synoptic crucifixion accounts.

And none of the NT uses of the word 'sindon' refers to a kerchief.

DBowling wrote:All three Synoptic Gospels use the Greek word 'sindon' to refer to the linen cloth that Joseph of Arimathaea wrapped the body of Jesus in after he was crucified (Mat 27:59, Mk 15:46, Lk 23:53). So even though the Greek word sindon refers generically to a linen cloth. Within the context of the synoptic crucifixion accounts, it does refer to the cloth that Jesus was wrapped in. This is why The RSV translated the Greek sindon into the English 'linen shroud' within the context of the synoptic crucifixion accounts. And none of the NT uses of the word 'sindon' refers to a kerchief.

I don't see your point here. The word kerchief was not required by the Gospel writers, so they didn't use the word they would have done if they had needed it. There was no Greek word which means 'shroud'. This is significant, as it suggests that there was no requirement for one, probably because there was nothing to distinguish a cloth used for wrapping a dead body from a cloth used for wrapping a live one (cf. Mark 14:51). The English language seems to have gradually appropriated 'shroud' to refer to dead bodies, as we have so many words we can afford to refine the meaning of synonyms into distinct characteristics, in this case referring to the purpose for which a cloth might be used, so it is not unreasonable for the RSV to use the word, but it is a semantic distinction unknown either to 1st century Greek, or even 16th century English, which is why the KJV doesn't use it in that sense either.

hughfarey wrote:

DBowling wrote:All three Synoptic Gospels use the Greek word 'sindon' to refer to the linen cloth that Joseph of Arimathaea wrapped the body of Jesus in after he was crucified (Mat 27:59, Mk 15:46, Lk 23:53). So even though the Greek word sindon refers generically to a linen cloth. Within the context of the synoptic crucifixion accounts, it does refer to the cloth that Jesus was wrapped in. This is why The RSV translated the Greek sindon into the English 'linen shroud' within the context of the synoptic crucifixion accounts. And none of the NT uses of the word 'sindon' refers to a kerchief.

I don't see your point here. The word kerchief was not required by the Gospel writers, so they didn't use the word they would have done if they had needed it.

Actually they did... four times (well three times in the Gospels and once in Acts)
Luke and John use the word 'soudarion' to refer to a napkin or handkerchief.

Luke (who uses the word 'sindon' in reference to Jesus' burial cloth in Luke 23:53) uses the word soudarion twice to describe a handkerchief. (Luke 19:20, Acts 19:12)
Interestingly enough, John uses soudarion twice to refer to the face cloths used on Lazarus and Jesus. (John 11:44, John 20:7)

So the NT does make a clear distinction between a 'sindon' (used 6 times to refer to a body length linen cloth) and a soudarion (used 4 times to refer to a handkerchief/napkin/face cloth).

DBowling wrote:Actually they did... four times (well three times in the Gospels and once in Acts).

Yes, of course you're right. I must have been having a senior moment! It is usually assumed that soudarion is related to the Latin word sudor, and means specifically something for wiping your face with, while sindon carries connotations of a finer material.

This thread has gone a bit quiet, so can I move on to the second video referenced in Kurieou's opening post?

Video 2 asks whether it can be shown that the cloth wrapped a human body. It spends some time on the fact that there is blood on the Shroud. This is not usually disputed. It does not, of course, prove the age or authenticity of the Shroud. John Heller and Alan Adler also tested for some of the breakdown products of hemoglobin, such as bilirubin, which can occur within a body as a result of trauma, or outside the body, especially if drawn off improperly, or mixed with other things, such a anti-clotting agents. Again, this proves nothing about the age of the Shroud.

The video moves on to demonstrate the 3-D effect famously found on the old X-Ray analysing machine, the VP-8 image analyser, but which can easily be found and recreated on any modern image software such as ImageJ. The effect can easily be produced by anybody sketching what they think might be left on a cloth if it were to drape a blood-drenched body, or even by any full-face, front-lit, black-background photograph. However, ironically, it clearly demonstrates that the Shroud could not have been wrapped around a dead body, as it suffers from very little of the distortion expected were that to have been the case. In fact John Jackson, who first noticed this effect in the early 1970s, now believes that the image on the Shroud was made as the cloth fell, perfectly horizontally, and not wrapped at all, through the body, which became ‘mechanically transparent’ at the moment of resurrection.