Today, a substantial number, if not a majority, of informed researchers who believe the Shroud probably does date to antiquity subscribe to some version of Wilson’s historical reconstruction. His 1978 book The Shroud of Turin still remains the best place to begin a quest for the Shroud’s earlier history. About 1969 he made a remarkable observation that has opened the door to the cloth’s earlier history, and that eventually helped him become a professing Christian. Although strongly agnostic and disinterested in religious matters, his interest in art history made him wonder how medieval artistry could produce such a lifelike, photo-like image. Ian Wilson was a 14-year-old English teenager in 1955 when he saw a picture of the Shroud’s photographic negative. Likewise, if the Lord eventually were going to reveal how the New Testament sindon reached us today, there would be someone who would receive the requisite insight. The ABR fellowship has no doubt who God’s point man is to understanding where Joshua’s Jericho may be found. There is now adequate reason to believe that researches in the last century have produced that history, albeit slender at times and, of course, controversial. Although a consensus of modern scientific scrutiny disproves any known human artistry, many thoughtful Christians will remain doubtful unless the Shroud’s first 1300 years are better understood. Writing 34 years later, an angry French bishop claimed that an investigation in Charny’s time had proven that the image “was made by human hand and not miraculously made or given” (Bonnet-Eymard 1991: 251). Unfortunately, before he could leave any testimony as to how he came by the cloth, he was killed the next year in a battle of the Hundred Years’ War. A highly respected but nevertheless minor French nobleman, Geoffrey de Charny, was the Shroud’s first certain owner in about 1355. Critics complain that its known history only goes back to mid-14th-century France, a setting that is infamous for fabricating relics, suspiciously consistent with the 1988 C-14 result, and a long way from Jerusalem. However, there still remains the question of the Shroud’s earlier history.
#SHROUD DEFINE PROFESSIONAL#
For how these influenced a professional archaeologist, see The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology .)Ī 1988 radiocarbon dating of 1260 to 1390, subsequently shown to be possibly defective (see Latest Developments on the Shroud of Turin: Part II), is the only major scientific contradiction. (For a brief summary of the main conclusions, see A Summary of STURP's Conclusions . Though the Shroud of Turin was practically unknown outside European Catholic circles at the end of the 19th century, in the last 100 years modern scientific studies repeatedly have produced evidence consistent with the view that the Shroud is an old burial cloth and not human artistry. Ian Wilson for pictures and especially for his historical reconstruction which this article follows. Special thanks to Professor Emeritus of History, University of Southern Indiana, Daniel Scavone for reviewing this paper and making suggestions for improvement. Most informed Christians now know that there is a serious candidate, the Shroud of Turin.
If biblical archaeology is defined loosely as "the study of the ancient things related to the Bible," then surely the sindon, linen used to wrap Jesus's body in death, has to be of interest. Quick Links: Part One / Part Two / Part Three / Part Four
Life & Ministry of Jesus & the Apostles.
0 kommentar(er)
