Knights Templar hid the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican

Times Online ^ | 04/05/2009 | Richard Owen

[Swordmaker]

I've long been told, and assume, that ancient representations of Jesus -- i.e., the Christ Pantocrater -- were based not on any personal knowledge of His appearance, or even on some Jewish-Semitic archetype, but rather on contemporary Greek images of Zeus, such as the one above, from Ephesus.

That was merely a theory, usually propounded by critics of the Shroud origins of the modern Christ iconography.

However, early representations of Jesus, much closer to the era of reverence for Zeus, were young, clean shaven men depicted as shepherds with a very Mediterranean appearance some would call Apollonian. The question has to be asked why the early Christian church would suddenly decide that Jesus Christ at the age of 33 would look like Zeus, a god that was then several centuries out of vogue?

The bearded appearance of Jesus, one that we recognize today as the image of the Christ, only started after the discovery in ~525-544 AD of the Image of Edessa (most likely the Shroud, folded, doubled in four, so that only the face was visible), hidden in the Gate of Vaults. Comparative studies find almost a hundred points of congruence between the Shroud and this later iconography, including the square between the eyes, the raised cheek, the representation of the blood trail on the forehead as wisps of hair, etc. Many of these icons even included the sharp cloth fold across the neck on the Shroud. Comparisons to the statues of Zeus find fewer than 15 points of congruence... about the amount one would expect of an image of any bearded man.

Anyway, I'm no expert, am only saying that to me, the Shroud image looks like a Knight Templar. And of course this is no new idea. It's also been suggested (with bitter irony) that the image is of a certain specific Templar named Jacques de Molay.

The theory that the man on the Shroud is Jacques de Molay has one major problem. Forensic pathologists have concluded that the image is most certainly that of a dead man... but de Molay was BURNED alive at the stake on March 18, 1314 and his body was totally destroyed.

Obviously the issue is, was there a pre-Templar history to the shroud? For that answer, I suppose we'll have to wait until a more careful analysis of various shroud materials is done.

There certainly is evidence of a pre-Templar history to the Shroud.

On August 15th, 944, Gregory Referendarius, Arch Deacon of the Hagia Sophia, delivered a sermon on the occasion of the arrival of the Image of Edessa to Constantinople. Much of the sermon is based on allegory and spoken in flowery language leading to difficulty in translation of actual meaning, but some of it is quite clear. In his sermon Gregory described the image on the cloth as "the form" of Jesus, not "the face" or "visage." In Greek, the word for "form' is defined as "body" not "face" or "visage." When he spoke of the face of the image, he specifically used either the Greek word for "face" or "visage," but when speaking of the overall image, it was always "Form".

"And miraculously, just as he made everything from nothing in his divine strength, he imprinted the reflection of his form on the linen."

In addition, Gregory uses the Greek words for "linen" that are the singular form of "Othonia", used in Luke's gospel as the Greek word equivalent for "sindon", a Shroud, which indicates Referendarius' knowledge that the Image was actually a a grave cloth.

Gregory comments on the presence of both sweat and blood on the image and specifically mentions the ability to see the "source of Living Water" well known to refer to the blood and miraculous water that flowed from Christ's side when it was pierced by the legionnaire's spear.

". . . blood and water there, here sweat and image. Oh equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side."

Still more pre-Templar evidence:

"A tenth century codex, Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69[7] found by Gino Zaninotto in the Vatican Library contains an eighth-century account saying that an imprint of Christ's whole body was left on a [cloth] kept in a church in Edessa: it quotes a man called Smera in Constantinople: "King Abgar received a cloth on which one can see not only a face but the whole body" (in Latin: [non tantum] faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris)."

150 years after the Image of Edessa's arrival and Gregory's sermon, we find more pre-Templar evidence of the Shroud's existence in Constantinople:

"Nicholas Mesarites, in 1201 the overseer of the imperial relic treeasurey in Constantinople and thus eyewitness, described the sindon (Shroud) in his care. "In this place the naked Lord rises again [anistatai--]and . . . the burial sindons can prove it [ekdelon--]." Scavone, Daniel. "Joseph of Arimathea, the Holy Grail, and the Edessa Icon", Collegamento pro Sindone Internet, October 2002.

Two years later, before the sacking of the city by the Crusaders, Robert di Clari reported:

"In the church of Our Lady of Blachernae [the Blacharnae Palace being the more recent dwelling of the Byzantine emperors] the sydoines [Grave clothes] of Jesus stood up straight every Friday [cascus devenres se drechoit tous drois] so that the figure of Our Lord could be plainly seen there." ibid, Scavone, D.

From the arrival of the Image of Edessa, the "Mandylion", the inventory of the relics held in Constantinople included the "Shroud of Our Lord"... but strangely, not the Mandylion. The shroud disappeared from the inventory, along with hundreds of other inventory items, with the sacking of Constantinople by the knights of the 4th Crusade in 1204.

About a year after Constantinople was plundered, Theodore Ducas Anglelos, in a letter to Pope Innocent III wrote: "The Venetians partitioned the treasure of gold, silver and ivory, while the French did the same with the relics of saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after His death and before the resurrection."

[aruanan]

"Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Gi’vat ha-Mivtar", Israel Exploration Journal 20:38-59, 1970.

We have this in our library.

[BroJoeK]

"early representations of Jesus, much closer to the era of reverence for Zeus, were young, clean shaven men depicted as shepherds with a very Mediterranean appearance some would call Apollonian. The question has to be asked why the early Christian church would suddenly decide that Jesus Christ at the age of 33 would look like Zeus, a god that was then several centuries out of vogue?"

"Comparisons to the statues of Zeus find fewer than 15 points of congruence... about the amount one would expect of an image of any bearded man."

Extraordinarily interesting. That change in imagery from "young Apollo" to "older Zeus" has long been commented on, and assumed to correspond with the apotheosis of Christianity -- from persecuted fringe group to the Roman Empire's officially enforced state religion. And so it's assumed -- along with the rest of the Church, Jesus Himself was "promoted:" from Apollo to Zeus.

From Wikipedia:"The oldest known surviving example of the icon of Christ Pantocrator (illustration, right) was painted in encaustic on panel in the sixth or seventh century..."

Wiki: "It was only when the overpainting was cleaned in 1962 that the ancient image was revealed to be a very high quality icon, probably produced in Constantinople."

Swordmaker: "The theory that the man on the Shroud is Jacques de Molay has one major problem. Forensic pathologists have concluded that the image is most certainly that of a dead man... but de Molay was BURNED alive at the stake on March 18, 1314 and his body was totally destroyed."

If I remember that history, de Molay was first severely tortured, then allowed a long recovery before being burned at the stake. So the suggestion is that during de Molay's recovery, the Shroud was used as a miraculous aid to healing. The image then would result from de Molay's high fever and sweating. That's the suggestion.

I would question how "forensic experts" could conclude the image was "most certainly" that of "a dead man."

But anyway, the history you cite sounds as strong as any -- at least to the sixth century. It would remain to establish that this particular material is that referred to in the histories, by dating the material. It seems the previous effort was done rather clumsily, indeed astonishingly so, considering the original plans. Presumably, we will eventually see more carefully analyzed results.

If the material is as ancient as claimed, then whether it was used to aid de Molay's recovery would simply be an interesting side note.

[Swordmaker]

If I remember that history, de Molay was first severely tortured, then allowed a long recovery before being burned at the stake. So the suggestion is that during de Molay's recovery, the Shroud was used as a miraculous aid to healing. The image then would result from de Molay's high fever and sweating. That's the suggestion.

That's sort of a chicken and egg conundrum, Joe. If the image is de Molay, then what made the Shroud, sans image, anything more than an old sheet? In other words, why would it have had any miraculous healing abilities if it did not have the image of a crucified man on it? Which came first? The image or de Molay healing to make the image? It is illogical grasping at straws by a certain group of skeptics who want the Shroud to be something other than what it appears to be.

King Phillip order four men executed on March 14: Templars Jacques de Molay, Geoffroi de Charnay (Grand Preceptor of Normandy), Hugh de Peyraud (Visitor-General), and Guy d’Auvergne (Grand Preceptor of France). 40 years later, the Shroud would be put on display in a little wooden chapel in Lirey, France, by one Geofrey de Charney, King John II's Standard bearer, author of the French Code Of Chivalry, and thought to be either de Charnay's great nephew or grandson. The differences in spelling in those times was a matter of opinion. So there certainly appears to be some connection to the Templars.

[BroJoeK]

"If the image is de Molay, then what made the Shroud, sans image, anything more than an old sheet?"

Well, naturally, now I can't find (was it borrowed?) the old book where I read that story years ago, so can't even confirm that I retold it correctly. And obviously, the book itself offered no "proof," so it's strictly an assertion based on speculation, and no doubt some bitterness by "heirs" to Knights Templar traditions.

My main point in all this is that the Shroud image itself strikes me as more of a warrior Knight Templar, than of the somewhat effeminate or Jewish "man of peace" image we typically see. Of course that's subjective, and others might as easily claim it looks just like their Uncle Shem. ;-)

One final point on the broader subject. I'm not a Mason, don't know any Masons, but read that many of our Founding Fathers were Masons, including Washington and Franklin, so am inclined to think very highly of Masons. Indeed, I'd say, if there were no Masons, there would be no USA, as we know it today.

Therefore, I note with some distress that the Church historically ranked Freemasons and Jews along with Communists as among the worst of the worst anti-Christians. But these days the Church has begun to make peace with Jews, and I wonder if now maybe they would also take another look at the Freemasons, beginning with their purported ancestors, the Knights Templar?

If sincerely acknowledging the Templars' role in preserving the Shroud is an effort in that direction, then I applaud it.

[Wpin]

Only if it is done correctly, it was not in the case of the Shroud of Turin...

[Wpin]

And yes, the carbon dating of the Shroud indicated that it was of later date, and therefore a fake. Later, it was discovered and proven by one of the original scientists who conducted the original testing that the fibers taken were not original to the cloth. The fibers were made, in the middle ages to "repair" a damaged area of the cloth. There was a 'special' on History or Discovery about this. Another interesting fact discovered was the (and please forgive my ignorance on this) liquid (from the blood) that only shows up with certain testing and was unknown to the medieval world...might be hemoglobin. Anyway, people from the middle ages were unaware of this liquid and it's traits so it would be impossible for them to 'fake' this. Also, the trauma areas are consistent with those of someone who has been beaten horribly and crucified. I believe the Shroud is real. God gives us ample evidence daily of his existence and why not leave us with a memento of his son's sacrifice?

[Wpin]

Unresponsive to my question. Some detail about how it got to Constantnople in 33 and how you know it was there for nearly 1200 years. Why don't you explain how you know it wasn't so ? Shut up or put up.

[Wpin]

Why would the grail be kept under the Temple? Do you mean the Jewish Temple? Why would they keep the grail there? The temple was built upon the rock of Abraham where he nearly sacrificed his son. This is an extremely holy site and appropriate for another holy relic such as the Holy Grail.

[Wpin]

Assuming that this is true, that they did the carbon dating on a patch, I am amazed at the incompetence of the scientists. Now that is a naive statement... :) The 'patch' was masterly done...this was a cherished holy relic after all, they had the best of the best do the 'patching'. It is undoubtedly true by the way, watch the documentary on it, very moving and informative.

[Wpin]

“If the scientist were aware that the sample was not indicative of the whole, why would they then form an opinion of the whole based upon information of the sample? Seems like quite a con job by the scientists here.”

That is odd, I did not post this, yet is has my ‘name’ on the post...

[Wpin]

“So, here’s the bottom line: we see a shroud image roughly 6 feet tall, which is above average height, even by today’s standards, not so unusual for European Crusaders, while extraordinarily tall for the Roman Empire era. We also note that the image looks decidedly not Semitic, but rather northern European.”

Your basis is ridiculous, the average does not mean all and explain exactly how the “image looks decidedly not Semitic” Also, what are your qualifications for these forensics?

[Cacique]

btt

[BroJoeK]

Wpin: "Your basis is ridiculous, the average does not mean all and explain exactly how the “image looks decidedly not Semitic” Also, what are your qualifications for these forensics?"

You respond nine months later?! And did you read all the posts before reopening the debate?

Wpin: "Your basis is ridiculous, the average does not mean all..."

Of course not, but where is there any suggestion in ancient literature that Jesus was of unusual stature? Nowhere. And if Jesus had been six feet tall in a land of five-foot four inch males, might that not have been remembered and mentioned?

So go back to post #133, where Swordmaker argues the case that
A) the Shroud figure is not six feet, but 5' 8" to 5' 9" and
B) the average Semitic male in 1st century Israel was about 5 ft 10 inches tall.

Well, I'd say that Swordmaker has selected his data rather carefully, since the usual numbers for the Shroud range up to 6 ft 2 inches.

As to the average height of first century Semites -- there's no doubt that wealthy, well fed children of aristocrats grew somewhat taller than average. But is there any suggestion in ancient literature that Jesus was such a child? No. Therefore, might we not reasonably suppose he was of average or below average height?

Wpin: "...and explain exactly how the “image looks decidedly not Semitic”."

On the question of whether the Shroud image "looks Semitic," to me it does not. Others say it does, so who is right? Well, here is an example of what some say a Semitic Jesus might look like:

"The Jesus pictured on the cover of this month's Popular Mechanics has a broad peasant's face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. He would have stood 5-foot-1-inch tall and weighed 110 pounds, if the magazine is to be believed."

Wpin: "Also, what are your qualifications for these forensics?"

Forensics? I thought we were talking about the Shroud. Did you mean something else?

[Bodleian_Girl]

If the Bible is true, the "reports" from the Vatican are not true!!!

Luke 23:52  This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

53  And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

John 20:5  And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6  Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7  And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

8  Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

[Wpin]

My point is silly man...here you have positive evidence (the Shroud) and you ignore that for inference of material that really is irrelevant. Not very bright. But what is worse is you choose to try to belittle others for their beliefs with your nonsense...

Nine months later your remarks do not make any more sense than when you wrote them...and the link to this thread is on the Popular Articles section in the right column...

I saw the site where you probably get your information and the picture you used for your interpretation of what you think Jesus looked like...again ignoring the positive evidence for bu*lsh*t...it is just another ridiculous site spewing crap without fact or reason.

The evidence is there that the Shroud of Turin is real, there is no other example in the world that replicates it, and science today cannot replicate it accurately. So, of course you would say it must be fake...because he is too tall and doesn’t look what you and other bigoted idiots consider to be Jewish...what a stupid position to take to discuss the Son of God. Grow up.

[Swordmaker]

"Unresponsive to my question. Some detail about how it got to Constantnople in 33 and how you know it was there for nearly 1200 years." Why don't you explain how you know it wasn't so ? Shut up or put up.

The simple answer is that it was not transported to Constantinople, a city that was not called that in 33AD, which was not dated that, in 33AD, and that the travels of the Shroud are cloaked in mystery for much of its existence but that there are reliable reports of a cloth with an image of Christ under different names that have been described from at least the 2nd Century, when it was known as the Mandylion, the Image of Edessa, and even myths and rumors from even earlier. There is a gap from the 2nd Century to the 6th that is explained by it having been sealed in a wall in Edessa, Turkey, to protect it from Iconoclasts before it was re-discovered in an earthquake that destroyed the wall in 525 AD.

[Swordmaker]

"Unresponsive to my question. Some detail about how it got to Constantnople in 33 and how you know it was there for nearly 1200 years." Why don't you explain how you know it wasn't so ? Shut up or put up.

The simple answer is that it was not transported to Constantinople, a city that was not called that in 33AD, which was not dated that, in 33AD, and that the travels of the Shroud are cloaked in mystery for much of its existence but that there are reliable reports of a cloth with an image of Christ under different names that have been described from at least the 2nd Century, when it was known as the Mandylion, the Image of Edessa, and even myths and rumors from even earlier. There is a gap from the 2nd Century to the 6th that is explained by it having been sealed in a wall in Edessa, Turkey, to protect it from Iconoclasts before it was re-discovered in an earthquake that destroyed the wall in 525 AD.

[Mr. Lucky]

Fascinating. Thank you.

[BroJoeK]

Wpin: "My point is silly man"

So I am a "silly man"? Instantly you start in with insults and personal attacks. Before taking even a moment to present a fact or reasoned argument, first-things-first: you must insult me? WTF is that?

Wpin: "here you have positive evidence (the Shroud) and you ignore that for inference of material that really is irrelevant."

Now, if you have read about the Shroud then you know perfectly well the evidences is not "positive" but highly disputed and debated. That indeed is what this thread is all about.

If you have read ALL of this thread, then you know perfectly well that I have "ignored" nothing, nor presented "irrelevant" material.

Wpin: "Not very bright. But what is worse is you choose to try to belittle others for their beliefs with your nonsense..."

So, can you quote for us even ONE example where I "belittled others for their beliefs"?

For examples: did I EVER call ANYONE a "silly man" or say they were "not very bright"?

Wpin: "...the link to this thread is on the Popular Articles section in the right column..."

Now I see that. And I note nearly 12,000 views, even though just 158+ responses. Fascinating.

Wpin: "I saw the site where you probably get your information and the picture you used for your interpretation of what you think Jesus looked like...again ignoring the positive evidence for bu*lsh*t...it is just another ridiculous site spewing crap without fact or reason."

The fact is, so far as we can know, Jesus was a Semite and Semites do look somewhat different from, for example, northern Europeans. It's also a fact that Jesus was born into a lower economic status, not an upper class family, which likely meant he did not as a child eat as well or grow as tall as more priveleged children.

So when we look at average sizes for ancient Semites, we can reasonably suppose Jesus was at the lower end of the range.

That's why the question I raise is whether the Shroud image looks more like an aristocratic European or a typical poor Semite? Indeed, compare these three images, and tell us which one does not seem to fit:

Typical 1st Century Jew - Semite:

Shroud of Turin:

Wpin: "The evidence is there that the Shroud of Turin is real, there is no other example in the world that replicates it, and science today cannot replicate it accurately. So, of course you would say it must be fake...because he is too tall and doesn’t look what you and other bigoted idiots consider to be Jewish...what a stupid position to take to discuss the Son of God. Grow up."

In fact, if real evidence were there that the Shroud is what it's said to be, then the debate would be over, wouldn't it?

But the truth is, much of the evidence that reasonable people would ask for is not there. Even something as obvious and readily doable as carbon 14 dating is not indisputably established. So the probability remains that the image is of someone other than Jesus.

I could go on, but it seems that you view this exchange as just a great opportunity to throw insults and invective at me, so perhaps we should leave it go at that?