You probably mentioned this in a previous post but why do icons and other images have Our Lord with a "divided beard" ? Was this traditional in the 1st c. AD ?
Want to add, that I found several Celtic stone carvings of Christ, do not know the date. Imagine a Christ on the cross, his face is radiant, his aspect is triumphant. I look at it and applaud. This is a Christ so powerful and successful.
I've been learning about the shroud and it's completely fascinating!
I'd like to believe it's the real deal. I'd like to see double-blind laboratory testing to confirm some of those things that could be faked today (by both sides - it would be just as easy for a hostile researcher to disconfirm limestone deposits potentially matching Jerusalem limestone as for a friendly one to confirm them).
But, if it's a fake, it would still be utterly bizarre that the thing was done in photonegative. I can't think of any reason why a medieval fraudster would have done that, even if the concept were available to him and the methods to UV burn it were as well.
Thanks for this post, Hilary. I've read so many books about the shroud over the last 20 years, and you've managed to summarize the most important findings in this post. The shroud also seems to be Our Lord's proof of the resurrection. That same force that seared the image of His sacred body onto the linen probably also blew open the stone sealing the sepulcher. What a gift that shroud is to the world. And, by a series of miracles and divine interventions, it has been preserved to this day, despite nearly being consumed by fire. I love that this shroud has since been the inspiration and blueprint for iconographers from the time it was rediscovered.
The more I learn about the Shroud more fascinated I get by it. This little American Protestant is completely convinced of its authenticity. HOWEVER, what's even more interesting is how there are instances of Eucharistic miracles being subjected to blood type analysis, and the result is consistently AB. That's something to chew on for sure.
> I’ve personally always been impatient with the suggestion that it is a “work of Christian art”. Quite apart from the total absence of pigments or dyes, no one in the middle ages would have even conceptualised a photo-negative, let alone had the slightest inkling how light could be used to create such an image.
Nothing about the image requires the conceptualization of a photo-negative.
As for regular imprints, those were known way before 1st century A.D.
> Mr. Moraes suggests that it was created for iconographic - that is - devotional reasons by a Christian artist. But what on earth would a Christian artist of the 1st or 13th century have thought to achieve by creating a photo-negative, even if he had been, by some freak flash of genius, able to conceive of such a thing?
Again the "photo-negative" red herring. It's just a two-tone picture, or one tone, the other being the cloth itself. There have been positive and negative prints for millenia (etching is positive, relief-printing is negative. Both can be achieved via carving, each producing either the "whites" or the "black" parts)
> The purpose of iconography was and is to excite devotion in the viewer by visually representing theological realities. But this barely-there, ghostly negative could not possibly have succeeded in that way for a man of pre-modern visual mind.
It could very well have succeeded in presenting a "holy artifact" though, for gathering donation money and/or prestige to those owning it. It would hardly be the first case of such fakery - many are documented through history.
> the photo-realist style was outside the possible mental framework of anyone alive, even very realistic drawing styles were at least somewhat stylised and “artistic” or painterly.
If we're to take the holy origin at face value, the "relief of a cloth wrapped around the dead body of Christ" would be much closer to describing it (the crude details, distortions, and all) than "a photo-realistic depiction of Christ that appeared on a cloth". It simply is not that photo-realistic to begin with. It's quite crude. Whoever made this is no Richard Estes. Not even Rubens-era realism.
Second, actual photo-realistic paintings are known to have existed in ancient and hellenistic times. There are accounts of fruit paintings so real that birds would try to eat them (told about Zeuxis, similar same-era painters would be Timanthes and Parrhasius).
One can just look at the (mass-produced for tomb decorations) ancient Fayum portraits, for a far more realistic set of human portraits.
And negative/relief etc imprinting was hardly unknown.
Also the post disingenuously makes claims that are far from settled or even when research says the opposite. "It was made in the 1st century" for example, when there is carbon dating placing it as far later. It basically cherry picks from various researchers and pundits the most favorable cases (even when the researchers are e.g. devout enthusiasts with an agenda).
Mind you, I have no qualms for actual holy artifacts, of saints and such. This one is fishy and too on-the-nose.
You probably mentioned this in a previous post but why do icons and other images have Our Lord with a "divided beard" ? Was this traditional in the 1st c. AD ?
I think the post makes it clear: because He had a divided beard.
WOW. Need to reread tomorrow, but just a great post. Learned such important things. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
As always, a serious study, with references. I had never seen those mosaics of Christ, and I wish I were on that mosaic team.
Your painting is beautiful.
Want to add, that I found several Celtic stone carvings of Christ, do not know the date. Imagine a Christ on the cross, his face is radiant, his aspect is triumphant. I look at it and applaud. This is a Christ so powerful and successful.
I've been learning about the shroud and it's completely fascinating!
I'd like to believe it's the real deal. I'd like to see double-blind laboratory testing to confirm some of those things that could be faked today (by both sides - it would be just as easy for a hostile researcher to disconfirm limestone deposits potentially matching Jerusalem limestone as for a friendly one to confirm them).
But, if it's a fake, it would still be utterly bizarre that the thing was done in photonegative. I can't think of any reason why a medieval fraudster would have done that, even if the concept were available to him and the methods to UV burn it were as well.
I often appreciate your work. This is brilliant. Thank you.
Thanks for this post, Hilary. I've read so many books about the shroud over the last 20 years, and you've managed to summarize the most important findings in this post. The shroud also seems to be Our Lord's proof of the resurrection. That same force that seared the image of His sacred body onto the linen probably also blew open the stone sealing the sepulcher. What a gift that shroud is to the world. And, by a series of miracles and divine interventions, it has been preserved to this day, despite nearly being consumed by fire. I love that this shroud has since been the inspiration and blueprint for iconographers from the time it was rediscovered.
Thank you and I will check your Christmas shop. How do I find out if I have a paid subscription? I have so many I can’t keep track of them.
I believe the Shroud is real and also had the rare privilege of seeing the Ovieto cloth. Everything I’ve seen and read leads to its authenticity.
I've checked the subscriber list using the email shown here and you're not on it in any form.
Thanks for sharing this.
The more I learn about the Shroud more fascinated I get by it. This little American Protestant is completely convinced of its authenticity. HOWEVER, what's even more interesting is how there are instances of Eucharistic miracles being subjected to blood type analysis, and the result is consistently AB. That's something to chew on for sure.
> I’ve personally always been impatient with the suggestion that it is a “work of Christian art”. Quite apart from the total absence of pigments or dyes, no one in the middle ages would have even conceptualised a photo-negative, let alone had the slightest inkling how light could be used to create such an image.
Nothing about the image requires the conceptualization of a photo-negative.
As for regular imprints, those were known way before 1st century A.D.
> Mr. Moraes suggests that it was created for iconographic - that is - devotional reasons by a Christian artist. But what on earth would a Christian artist of the 1st or 13th century have thought to achieve by creating a photo-negative, even if he had been, by some freak flash of genius, able to conceive of such a thing?
Again the "photo-negative" red herring. It's just a two-tone picture, or one tone, the other being the cloth itself. There have been positive and negative prints for millenia (etching is positive, relief-printing is negative. Both can be achieved via carving, each producing either the "whites" or the "black" parts)
"Nothing about the image requires the conceptualization of a photo-negative."
Other than the fact that it is a photo-negative, that is.
> The purpose of iconography was and is to excite devotion in the viewer by visually representing theological realities. But this barely-there, ghostly negative could not possibly have succeeded in that way for a man of pre-modern visual mind.
It could very well have succeeded in presenting a "holy artifact" though, for gathering donation money and/or prestige to those owning it. It would hardly be the first case of such fakery - many are documented through history.
> the photo-realist style was outside the possible mental framework of anyone alive, even very realistic drawing styles were at least somewhat stylised and “artistic” or painterly.
If we're to take the holy origin at face value, the "relief of a cloth wrapped around the dead body of Christ" would be much closer to describing it (the crude details, distortions, and all) than "a photo-realistic depiction of Christ that appeared on a cloth". It simply is not that photo-realistic to begin with. It's quite crude. Whoever made this is no Richard Estes. Not even Rubens-era realism.
Second, actual photo-realistic paintings are known to have existed in ancient and hellenistic times. There are accounts of fruit paintings so real that birds would try to eat them (told about Zeuxis, similar same-era painters would be Timanthes and Parrhasius).
One can just look at the (mass-produced for tomb decorations) ancient Fayum portraits, for a far more realistic set of human portraits.
And negative/relief etc imprinting was hardly unknown.
Also the post disingenuously makes claims that are far from settled or even when research says the opposite. "It was made in the 1st century" for example, when there is carbon dating placing it as far later. It basically cherry picks from various researchers and pundits the most favorable cases (even when the researchers are e.g. devout enthusiasts with an agenda).
Mind you, I have no qualms for actual holy artifacts, of saints and such. This one is fishy and too on-the-nose.
A photo-negative implies specific film substraits and chemical processing.
This is just a negative - negative imprints are known since millenia B.C.