Here's a prime example, but there are more, many more that one could cite, especially from Dan Porter's Obfuscation Central (shroudstory.com).
There are many reasons for this obscurity, dating from the times of the apostles with its Jewish tradition of what was or was not kosher, the many early persecutions of Christianity, the avaricious depredations of tyrants in confiscating church treasures, the need for concealment of things most precious, the history of iconoclasm, the initial reluctance to display Christian imagery, Byzantine superstition and its whole secretive approach towards liturgy in general, the concealment of Passion relics in the Emperor’s palace, Byzantine prudery when it came to displaying nudity, and so on. For example, there was uncertainty in displaying images of Christ for purposes of battle standards; a series of defeats determined that such displays were contrary to the divine will. The Shroud itself displays an abject defeated Christ, and is not the stuff to inspire confidence as a protective device in the defence of cities. Following 12 months of continuous earthquakes in Constantinople, the Image of Camulliana, the Image of God Incarnate, was kept concealed in a box for some hundreds of years, and was only opened towards the end of the first millenium.
Once again, I repeat my challenge to those who dispute that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake: show just one instance of the 'double man' image in art appearing prior to the Lirey display in 1357 or thereabouts.
|Lirey Pilgrims badge, circa 1357. Note the first known appearance in history of the iconic 'double man' image/imprint outlined in white.|
Even a written reference will do, but it has to refer to a DOUBLE IMAGE (you know, kind of memorable, dare one say iconic).
This blogger's hunch: the TS was made to seem as if an imprint left by a combination of sweat and blood by the crucified Jesus on Joseph of Arimathea's linen. Quite how that look-alike bodily imprint was made where the "sweat" was concerned is anybody's guess. It could have been thermal (a contact scorch from a heated template) OR maybe thermochemical (incorporating ideas explored by the perceptive Luigi Garlaschelli, using a combination of heat and 'dry' or relatively dry acid).
Postscript: the slide at the top of this post is just one of 19 (the last in fact) from a splendid series under the heading "Misleading Language". There are others there too that may well be deployed in the weeks and months to come, seeing the kind of tactics deployed by diehard defenders of authenticity for whom sound scholarship is an alien concept, for whom browbeating with a string of irrelevancies or with vague, untestable 'possibilities' is seen as a legitimate debating technique.
Update: 11:00, still 17 Feb
And here's the same gent's latest comment on Obfuscation Central:
The man's arrogance and presumption takes one's breath away. So does that, albeit watered down, of Obfuscation Central's site owner in choosing to showcase one of his recent comments, a classic of its kind.
Daveb of Wellington, New Zealand, writes:
Whether 3:1 herringbone, Z spun is characteristic of 1st century Palestine or not is irrelevant, in view of trade caravans. The Persians were well-advanced in making large carpets of intricate design by the 5th c. BCE. The Pazyryk carpet is of intricate design, is 2.8m x 2.0m, and dates to 5th c. BCE. If Iranians could produce intricate designs of such size in 5th c. BCE presumably in wool, then anyone else can produce a 3:1 herring-bone weave, 4.0m x 2.0m, Z twist, 1st c. in linen. A doddle, which stretches no-one’s credibility!
My comment: It's not a question of whether Palestininans 2000 years ago living under Roman occupation could or could not have produced a herringbone weave with linen. It's a question of whether they would have wanted or needed to do so, whether the benefit would justify the extra cost and effort.
Carpets are one thing. They are intended to be decorative and long-lasting. They are not just woven wool. They have added knots a plenty that provide the pile. Months, sometimes years of work go into making a single and very costly carpet, especially those with complex patterns.
Linen garments are more utilitarian. They are usually made for everyday use, being cool to the skin. The weave pattern is only one way of adding interest. There are easier and cheaper ways, namely by dyeing,
It's tedious in the extreme to have detailed discussion of specific declared a waste of time by daveb' and his overarching "big picture". Stick to the specifics please daveb. You are becoming seriously boring, not to say over-bearing.