The Shroud of Turin is one of the most remarkable objects in
the world. It is a piece of flax linen fourteen feet long and three and a half
feet wide. It was originally carbon dated to the 13th to 14th century.
Fragments of pollen trapped in the fabric match species native to the Holy
Land indicating it comes from there. It was owned by a number of
French aristocrats and kept in a series of churches until it was badly burned
by fire. Soon after that, in 1578, it was moved to the royal chapel of the
cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin , Italy ,
hence its name; where it has been kept ever since. What makes the Shroud
amazing it that it has on it an image of a tall man with a beard and long hair.
The man has wounds on his wrists and forehead and these correspond with what
looks like bloodstains on the cloth. The front and back on the man are visible
vertically on the cloth indicating that it was wrapped around him from head to
toe; this is the traditional way to shroud a corpse in Jewish funeral rites.
Obviously this man matches the biblical description of Jesus Christ and in fact
the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke describe how, after his crucifixion,
Joseph of Aramathea officiated the burial of Jesus and wrapped his body in a
shroud. The Shroud's fame only really took off in 1898 when it was photographed
and the negative revealed a positive image of the man, meaning that the image
itself was a photographic negative. Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, of Rennes
le Chateau fame, claim that it is an unrecorded experiment in early photography
by Leonardo da Vinci. They say that the face of the man resembles portraits of
Leo indicating that he modelled himself. Although Leonardo was undoubtedly a
very clever man who was interested in optics, there is no trace of conventional
photographic chemicals on the shroud. The oldest known permanent photograph was
taken over three hundred years later in 1826. The original carbon dating done
in 1988 has always been called into question and now a new test has been done using
"WAXS", wide-angle X-ray scattering. This reveals the age of the
cellulose in the linen. The cloth is actually much older than was previously
thought, about two thousand years old; so it was made at the time of Christ. Of
course just because the cloth is old enough to be Jesus' shroud doesn't mean
necessarily that it is. Source: https://metro.co.uk/2024/08/20/scientists-analysing-cloth-jesus-buried-in-make-huge-breakthrough-21454792/.
New analysis on the marks thought to be bloodstains also supports the authenticity
of the Shroud. They have chemicals in them matching those of blood from
somebody who died of shock and trauma, which was the cause of death from crucifixion.
According to the Gospels Jesus' received wounds where the man in the image has
them. The forehead ones were caused by the crown of thorns put on his head as mockery
for him being declared "King of Jews". Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13765919/shroud-turin-jesus-cloth-confirms-biblical-story.html.
When I brought this up on Facebook somebody replied that it
had to be fake because the image was that of a white man. This is despite the
fact it shows no skin colour; the long hair and beard match the traditional form
of Jesus in the ecclesiastical art of Europe . These
pictures also often show Jesus with pale skin. Of course Jesus would not have
looked like that. Racially he was the same as the indigenous population of the
region today, the Palestinians and the Sephardic Jews. In other words he would
have been brown with shorter black hair. My correspondent showed me some old Egyptian
Coptic pictures of Jesus and they show him this way. However it could be that
Jesus styled his hair and beard to make himself look more Greek or Roman. That
might have given him some status the same way that modern British men drive a
particular car. I'm not sure about the Shroud of Turin. It remains enigmatic
and fascinating. One thing's for sure, there are only two possibilities. Either
it is one of the most extraordinary and unusual works of art and/or technology every
devised; or it is the most incredible holy relic the world has ever seen. Both
possibilities are exhilarating.
See here for more information: https://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.com/2020/04/third-rail-radio-programme-83.html.
And: https://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.com/2014/03/ben-emlyn-jones-on-mind-set-podcast-45.html.
See here for more information: https://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.com/2020/04/third-rail-radio-programme-83.html.
And: https://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.com/2014/03/ben-emlyn-jones-on-mind-set-podcast-45.html.
6 comments:
Hi Ben, I don't think you can be categorical about the race of Jesus except to say he was unlikely to have been sub-Saharan African or East Asian. You can't really draw a line on a map to say where white ends and brown begins. Many people would say the Greek/Turkish border but that's more of a cultural line than a biological one and it wouldn't take long to fill a room with Turks who would pass for white or Greeks who look brown. Palestinians also show a lot of variety and there are people throughout the Arab world with pale skin and blue eyes, even in Saudi and Iraq.
Hi GM. I appreciate all your comments and of course I know I'm speculating on the most likely possibility, but I have heard that the racial landscape of that region has not changed much in the last 2000 years. Of course the Middle East has always, to a certain extent, been the crossroads of the world. We don't have Jesus' DNA so we don't know exactly what his lineage is. I personally don't believe he was a virgin birth. He was conceived in the usual way and Joseph was probably his father. However, it could be there was a paternity bombshell involved; it wouldn't be the first time that had happened. I personally am in two minds about the Shroud. I just think it's a fascinating object whatever its origins. It should not exist, yet it does.
I have no disagreement with anyone describing Jesus as Palestinian, J**ish, Middle Eastern, Levantine or West Asian. He was arguably all of those things but none of those descriptors tell us much about his appearance except perhaps that he would have had vaguely Caucasoid features, as opposed to M*****oid or N***oid. Those groups show a wide variety of phenotyptes and it is perfectly possible, for example, that he had blue eyes as depicted in ecclesiastical paintings.
I must admit to being a bit triggered by this issue. My late mother belonged to a Unitarian sect called the Christadelphians and she was one of those people who rail against Roman Catholic depictions of Jesus, saying he would have had brown eyes because all the J**s had brown eyes until they started intermarrying with Europeans. As a young adult I once told her (in reponse to one of her outbursts in an Anglican church) that quite a few of the Iraqis I was working with at the time (Saddam era) had blue or green eyes. I was promptly told I was "a liar" because "Arabs have brown eyes because they are from Abraham like the J**ws".
Okay, GM, I didn't know that there were people in the region who looked like that. On reflection it's not impossible seeing as so many Turks and Iranians are pretty much the same in appearance as white Europeans. I myself have only seen people with brown skin, black hair and dark eyes who originate from the Middle East. Obviously the Ashkenazi Jews of Israel are different, having moved into the region from abroad in the last couple of generations.
She's not typical, but is by no means unique either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahed_Tamimi
Interesting how she could easily be a Londoner or a Welsh-speaker from Lampeter. The genetic landscape does not always match the cultural and linguistic landscape.
Post a Comment