[This and the next post are a (not very humble, I’m afraid, but respectful, I hope) tribute to Teddi Pappas, who is one of the very few authenticists still trying to study the Shroud from primary sources. I disagree with her in almost every way, but that’s no reason not to acknowledge a fellow explorer in the jungle, recognise her discoveries and applaud her endeavour to make sense of them.]
In 52 BC, the Roman politician Titus Annius Milo was put on trial for the murder of his rival, Publius Clodius. Marcus Tullius Cicero defended Milo on the grounds of self defence, attempting to show that Clodius had ambushed Milo as he was travelling with his wife and household servants in his coach on the Appian way from Rome. Clodius, on the other hand, was on horseback accompanied by a posse of thugs, for no apparent reason. During the ensuing affray, Clodius was wounded and fled to a nearby inn, where Milo had him killed, but only, he claimed, because he feared for his life if Clodius was let go. As there was considerable dispute about the exact nature of the retinues of each man, Cicero turned to the place where they met, just outside Clodius’s house. Would Milo have plotted his ambush there, where Clodius could call upon a thousand reinforcements at a moment’s notice, or was it not infinitely more likely that Clodius simply waited for the hapless Milo to come along the road, and jumped him as he passed by? “Res loquitur ipsa, iudices, quae semper valet plurimum.” Facts, my Lords, always carry the greatest weight in such a case, and here they speak for themselves.”1
Sadly for Milo and Cicero the facts did not speak for themselves and Milo was convicted and banished for life.
The expression “res ipsa loquitur” cropped up again in 1863, when a barrel of flour fell while being lowered from an upstairs warehouse hatch and struck a pedestrian walking below. The pedestrian (Mr Byrne) sued the owner of the warehouse (Abel Boadle) for negligence, but since there was no specific evidence of negligence the case was dismissed. On appeal, however, C.B. Pollock, one of the three judges, famously said, “There are certain cases of which it may be said res ipsa loquitur, and this seems one of them. In some cases the Courts have held that the mere fact of the accident having occurred is evidence of negligence.” His fellow judges agreed, and Byrne was awarded £50. The case set a dangerous precedent, reversing the usual presumption of innocence, by making the very fact that an accident has occurred at all an act of negligence by default.2
The term is now strictly restricted to cases of negligence, and never used in criminal trials. M’learned friend Theodora Pappas, however, in defending the authenticity of the Shroud against its detractors, is fond of quoting “res ipsa loquitur,” and cites the case of serial killer Paul Dennis Reid as a demonstration. After murdering several people in different fast-food restaurants in Tennessee, Reid was arrested and convicted on the basis of several pieces of evidence, including the fact that Reid’s thumb print was detected on a movie rental card belonging to one of the victims, which was found on a roadside the day after the killings. It is Ms Pappas’ contention that this video card spoke for itself, such that where it was found and how it got there was irrelevant to the case. This is not apparent from transcripts of the trial, in which the circumstances of the find and whether they supported the defence or the prosecution are clearly discussed in some detail.3
But even metaphorically, does the Shroud speak for itself? In a church in Turin is a long thin cloth, about the size and shape of an altar cloth and nothing like any shroud ever seen. On it are the faint marks of the front and back of a man, which look like imprints from a bas relief. The cloth is z-spun, which is typical of Europe but not the Middle East, and apparently woven on a four-shaft treadle loom, not invented till the 12th century. It has no provenance prior to the 1350s, and was never touted as a genuine relic until the 1450s. If it speaks for itself, it speaks clearly of an origin in Europe in the Middle Ages.
M’learned friend, on the other hand, thinks that what speaks for itself is the fact that the image has not been precisely duplicated. It hasn’t been done = it can’t be done = it must be miraculous. And that’s it.
========================================
1). ‘Pro Tito Annio Milone ad Iudicem Oratio,’ Marcus Tullius Cicero, 52 BC, in numerous sources in Latin and English.
2). The English Reports, Exchequer Division, Vol 159, ed. Max Robertson, 1916
3). ‘State of Tennessee V. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr.’, various hearings.
Hi John,
Thanks for your comments, considered as always.
1). Many of the Gothic cathedrals and abbeys of Europe have vast altars, easily capable of housing the Shroud hanging in front as an antependium. Inventories of their linens however, which were used in huge numbers for hundreds of years, are very few and far between, and it is not at all surprising that any particular linen, even from a large establishment, should have left no trace to history.
2). The Shroud is not like either an ancient or a medieval shroud. It isn’t an actual shroud and was never intended to be one. It was an artistic representation of one, for which the specific dimensions and/or markings of an actual shroud were less important than its display capabilities.
3). A bas-relief need not be one sided. The statue required for an Easter sepulchre, some of which were certainly bas-reliefs on one side, could have been carved in bas relief on the back as well, although I’ve never seen one. Maybe a piece of wood was shaped specially to match. But you’re right that a body, or a statue, packed around with appropriate material might also simulate one.
4). I know, and you know, all the discussions about the alleged references to the Shroud before the 14th century. I give none of them any credence at all. As to the provenance of a re-purposed Easter Quem Quaeritis shroud, there is no reason why we should have any provenance for it. Most of them have vanished without trace. The deans of Lirey claimed it as a relic, so suppressed its provenance which no doubt they knew, and Pierre d’Arcis said that he could provide full details if the Pope wanted.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Hugh,
Not that I wish to defend the weak claims of that lawyer you have rightly corrected, whose comments are so often rambling and digressive, to say the least, but here are a few comments on your own claims at the very end of your “Res Ipsa Loquitur” blog of June 9:
You write, “about the size and shape of an alter cloth….”
But Hugh, at 14 feet long (4 meters), the Lirey/Turin Shroud would have been an extremely long altar cloth, that length perhaps only ever used for a cathedral altar cloth. And as such, it seems unlikely to have gone missing without any documentary report thereof.
Again you write, “and nothing like any shroud ever seen.”
True. But you omit to say that while we really do not know the dimensions of typical ancient Jewish shrouds from 2000 years ago, because only 2-3 have ever been found, we do have a good sampling of medieval European shrouds, because quite a number of them have been recovered or are depicted in artworks, and none of those extant or depicted medieval shrouds are of the dimensions 4 x 1. They all wrapped the body around the sides, not lengthwise, and were basically squarish in shape, closer to 2 x 2 in their proportions. If you know otherwise, please cite. And if so, I’ll bet there are only an utterly paltry one or two of them – at most. And from which century and which country?
Again you write, “On it are the faint marks of the front and back of a man, which look like the imprints of a bas relief.”
Hugh, this statement seems a contradiction in terms. A bas-relief is a one-sided only sculpture. Or do you know of any two-sided bas-relief sculptures from the Middle Ages? Citation please. By the way, if the front imprint of the man on the Lirey/Turin Shroud looks like a bas-relief, it also looks quite like the frontal image of an ancient man who was crucified and whose body, during its tomb burial, was draped over with a burial shroud which was not tightly wrapped around him but was instead left open and indeed propped up on its sides by a few objects such as jars or sacks of aromatics, thus enabling, by accident, his image to appear on it undistorted.
Your comment on the z-spun cloth is beyond me because I have no knowledge of weaving at all. But the record is certainly far from full and exhaustive.
And again you write that the Lirey/Turin Shroud “has no provenance prior to the 1350s, and was never touted as a genuine relic until the 1450s.”
But it does have a very possible and often proposed provenance in antiquity and in the earlier medieval period under a different name or names. And the artist or mere everyday artisan whom you speculate created the Lirey Shroud somewhere in France in the early 1300s is apparently likewise “without provenance,” without any other similar creations, with no name, no later “school” to his name or even to his style left behind, with no documentary record of his town or province of origin or patron, and with no church record of their precious altar cloth or Easter ritual cloth having ever been pilfered by anyone. Surely a “shroud” with an image on it such as that displayed in Lirey would have been easy enough to identify as having come from a specific church/cathedral in France, and a shroud with a double body image on it even more so.
So, a medieval European provenance of the Lirey/Turin Shroud seems to me still completely uncertain on the grounds you have offered here.
But I do share your skepticism about the “resurrection” claims made by certain people about the Shroud image.
John Loken
Hi, Hugh,
I’m rather confident that you’ll not find me claiming anywhere that the SHROUD speaks for itself. With regard to the Shroud of Turin, I don’t ever refer to just one piece of evidence that gives us assurance beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the actual burial cloth of Christ with His supernaturally created image on it. Instead, with the Shroud, itself, I refer to the BODY OF EVIDENCE—as well as the CONTEXT that this body of evidence pertaining to the Shroud needs to be assessed.
Undoubtedly, you and Dan and other skeptics will, nonetheless, state that you all are not convinced. However, I think that this is akin to the jury nullification that came from the verdict of the infamous O.J. Simpson murder case in California that went on from late 1994 to 1995. The jury was unconvinced by a mountain of compelling evidence that the prosecution presented to demonstrate Simpson’s guilt, yet the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”
The reception of the body of evidence revolving around the Shroud’s authenticity has something strangely in common with the reception of the body of evidence that the California prosecutors presented in the Simpson case. In both of these situations, the body of evidence pertained to someone very famous, and this fame caused people to treat the evidence in a very different way than if the same evidence was presented with regard to someone who was not famous.
There is, however, a bit of a contrast that should be mentioned before I go back to what the two “cases” have in common. In Jesus’ case, people had (and continue to have) very polarized opinions about Him. In Simpson’s case, at that time, he was more than just a very highly acclaimed (albeit then retired) athlete. He had, also, appeared in at least one huge commercial (for Hertz) and had become a Hollywood celebrity—appearing in some films. He was, by all accounts, widely beloved by, overally, the general public in America and probably other parts of the world that were (American) football fans. Additionally, he was considered by many to be very handsome, very physically fit and very charismatic. These three characteristics (even among non-celebrities) are known to give people an advantage (a sort of “halo effect”) that their less attractive counterparts do not enjoy. If, for example, the evidence in Simpson’s trial had been brought against an unattractive person that nobody had ever heard of, would a jury have found the mountain of evidence that the prosecution had to be more than sufficient? Without a doubt, YES! Many defendants have been found guilty of 1st degree murder with far less pieces of incriminating evidence than what was presented in Simpson’s case. But, most (if not all) of the jurors and around half of the nation, were not assessing the evidence impartially.
Why? As aforementioned, there was Simpson’s status as a widely beloved celebrity that was, additionally, charismatic and good-looking. But, there was something else—and this is where things become polarized. There were underlying racial tensions which, additionally, factored into this case—particularly since the now deceased Simpson was African-American and his murdered ex-wife was white (their divorce was finalized in October 1992.) Eight of the 12 jurors in Simpson’s criminal trial were African-American females. There are many African-American females who have been, and are, quite vocal about African-American males dating or marrying white women. However, it seems that the anger about this tends to not be with who it should be—the African-American male—but it can tend to get misdirected to the white woman. It doesn’t really take a psychologist to figure out that there was, quite likely, jury nullification due to Simpson’s beloved status as a celebrity and his good looks and charisma, but, also, perhaps, a subconscious lack of sympathy for this white woman (and the white waiter who was, also, slaughtered. Additionally, Simpson’s trial was in Los Angeles—which had January 24-October 3, 1995 (the murders occurred, on June 12, 1994.) This was, also, amidst the backdrop of the infamous Rodney King riots (brought about from racial tensions between African-Americans and whites) that went on from April-May of 1992, also, in Los Angeles. (Also, it is quite the rarity for a single murder trial to go on for over 7 months. According to A.I., the average murder trial in the U.S. lasts from 1-4 weeks—and (from what I’ve seen), I agree with that assessment, and I’d add that most do not go on for as long as 3-4 weeks.
Anyhow, my whole point with the O.J. Simpson case and the “case” regarding the Shroud’s authenticity, is that there had been (and is) a mountain of evidence in both situations—which, under normal circumstances, would have been more than enough for people to arrive at the conclusion that Simpson was guilty and that the Shroud is authentic—if the person or object in question were concerning someone or something that did not pull on peoples’ biases to where they become blind to the body of evidence and the reasonable and rational conclusion that come from it when, especially, viewed in its proper context.
Well, (as usual), I digressed, but, I think, these were points that were worth taking the time to make. Again, to emphasize, I don’t recall ever pointing to just one piece of evidence for the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity. Instead, I habitually point to a BODY of evidence which does—and that this body of evidence is so strong that a full chain of custody/provenance is not needed because the body of evidence—and the context which envelops the Shroud evidence, makes an unbroken chain of custody/provenance not needed, because the BODY OF EVIDENCE regarding the Shroud’s authenticity speaks for itself.
Additionally, regarding Archdeacon Gregory Referendarius’ sermon, the numerous, pertinent details in this sermon (which I highlight in this recent podcast that I did with Dale Glover) demonstrate how, when looking at ALL of this evidence—with the piece de resistance being that Gregory said that it (the Image of Edessa) was worthy of WORSHIP (not just mere veneration.) For the details regarding Gregory’s sermons, one can find listen to them from the 1:02:00 mark at https://www.youtube.com/live/o0uFUUMn2fo?si=wZe57-CWxxaga6eg.
Hugh, you mention that in the first, the image is made only by drops of sweat from Jesus’s face (albeit similar to drops of blood), but in the second, the image has been embellished by actual drops of blood from Jesus’s side.
I don’t find these two sentences inconsistent at all. Why? Because—as we know from studying the Shroud evidence—that on the Shroud’s linen cloth there is the straw-yellow body image (which the best evidence points to its being cellulosic aging from—quite likely the accelerated aging derived from Resurrection Energy), and then there are the bloodstains which “embellish” the body image. The body of evidence for the Shroud indicate that the body image is (of course) a totally different process that occurred at a different time than the deposition of the bloodstains on the cloth. Let’s all say it together: Blood first, image second.
Gregory—quite correctly—pointed out that what brought about the body image on the cloth was something different and quite inexplicable—as compared to the blood clots. Those clots—those glorious clots (!)—that Gregory referred to were—as people like Vignon and Barbet and others (even before STURP’s 1978 investigation—authentic, bloody transfers from actual blood clots—as opposed to painted or dribbled on blood onto the cloth—which looks different from a transfer from a blood clot and which lacks the characteristic serum halo that a blood clot yields when in a certain position or positions—such as a vertical position.
Let’s look, again, at what Gregory said: “This reflection, however, let everyone be inspired with the explanation –has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the originator of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint of Christ, since after the drops [should be “clots”] [of sweat] fell, it was embellished by drops from his own side.” [Emphasis added.]
Undoubtedly, Gregory must have known that sweat can cause yellowing on clothing (particularly under the armpits.) Clearly, Gregory is harkening to Luke 22:44 where Jesus is praying in Gethsemane shortly before His arrest. However, we must think HOW Jesus was positioned when He was praying. Matthew 26:36-39 tells us that Jesus “fell with His face to the ground and prayed. I don’t think anyone is going to argue that Jesus was not fully clothed when He did this. As such, while sometimes we sweat profusely from our heads when we are stressed—and maybe not in other areas of our bodies—whether Jesus was sweating anywhere else on his body other than His head would be irrelevant—as—with His being fully clothed—the only sweat that anyone would have been able to observe was sweat coming down from His FACE. (Even if some of this sweat originated from above Jesus face—such as in the hair on His head—with Jesus’ face being down to the ground, the sweat from the hair would be travelling across His face and it would be from the face that someone would be capable of observing the sweat and/or sweaty blood (via hematidrosis) falling to the ground.
So, this perfectly explains why Gregory is referring to the sweat coming from Jesus’ face. Again, let’s remember that Gregory mentions (his hypothesis) that it was through the simple touching to the FACE of Christ that an image of his FORM was made. It is important to note that Gregory uses two different words—“face” and “form.” A “face” is not the same as a “form.” Typically, when referring to a body, the face is the front portion of the head and if one just talks about the “form”—this strongly implies the entire body (not just the face—otherwise, Gregory would have just repeated the word “face” again. The likelihood is incredibly high that there was a reason for his change in the terms.
Regarding Guscin’s change of opinion, I think that he is trying to give Gregory a greater understanding of certain things than what Gregory, himself, admits to having. Specifically, Gregory said the following as he began his sermon:
“The assembly of people is unbelievable, because the reason why every-
body has come together is almost beyond understanding. For how can
something be unbelievable if it can be understood? The fitting dignity is to believe the object exists, and to praise it beyond reason. Like one
who tries to put, as it were, a golden cord on it, profound thoughts of
eloquence perhaps, by which what cannot be made is said to have been
made, and the loose bound, we could compare this to boldly trying
to measure the infinite.”
This is so typical of the Shroud of Turin in that there are certain aspects of it that we can feel confident in explaining, and then there are those things which elude us (like the continued redness of the bloodstains.)
(It’s 3:30 a.m. –further commentary will continue tomorrow . . .)
Cheers,
Teddi
Hugh, a confession: last night, having eaten one too many fish and jalapeño tacos, I had a strange dream. In it, I traveled back to 12th century Hungary, where a tired illustrator of the Pray Codex — having consumed a truly heroic quantity of goulash — sat admiring his drawing of a burial shroud and fell into a heavy, carbohydrate-induced sleep. In his dream, he imagined that his drawing might miraculously become real linen, and that the linen might miraculously produce an image of Jesus.
And when he awoke, there it was.
When I awoke, however, it had turned into a negative. I can only conclude that the chain of miraculous transmission runs: a Hungarian artist’s post-goulash fever dream → real linen → my post-taco subconscious → and somehow the rest is history.