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

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

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.

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*

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.

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

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