a reply to: Lazarus Short
I appreciate the replies to the thread, and the comments trying to find the level of seriousness or precision that is in behind this.
My position with respect to this finding is of caution, for different reasons:
- This was disclosed in a relatively informal manner, I don't see the name of any scholar connected with the supposed analysis of translations. The
video is posted in youtube with no name attached to it, just a nickname and no names associated with production or any institution taking
responsibility of it.
- The title of the video is in the best of the cases sensationalist, Solid proof that the Shroud is of 1st century, taking in account that no body
really assumes responsibility on its content, in spite of how many sites are reproducing it. Such a claim if it is true may deserve public
acknowledgement from the academic community.
- It comes to my attention that who talk in the video never refer his findings to some specific facsimile of this Letter of St Paul, in other words,
which ancient original he is trying to translate more accurately, where is located, how he got access to it or what references are in the middle.
- There is no mention at all of archives, museum, library, or collection of ancient writings or other possible institution where the original that is
matter of the translation could be associate with.
- I am still trying to find other sources that , for instance, validate the finding of the Fresco of the face of Christ that supposedly come from the
1st or 2nd centuries and that might be found in the Callixtus catacombs in Rome in 2010, if we believe in what the video says.
- The only pictures that come in any search in the web of that portrait of Christ are in just black and white and always associated with this
specific video or with Shroud sites advertising the video.
- Now, the question of Edessa is interesting, since according with the History sources I have found on the topic there was a sudarium in that city
that might have been stored beyond any date of the first century. When anybody investigate the topic of the Mandylion, the Edessa cloth always
appears related or refereed as to be the same, as well as the same one that was in Constantinople until the time of the Crusade of XII century.
- If St Paul was in possession of a relic of the category of the original Shroud at some point of his life why there is only one single mention of
the object in all his extremely large contribution of writings to the New Testament? Is this a confirmation of the prosecution that the ancient
Christian communities had at the time? but if that is the case why he never mentioned it also in the same subtle way again in any other of his
- The author of the video clearly states that this mention of the Shroud, if it was what appears to be, is unique and used only once along all the
- Another intriguing fact is that there are no records of the Shroud in Italy in so early times, no Historic accounts of that fact, even no Christian
tradition concerning that ? An object of such importance by force couldn't be completely ignored along so many centuries.
Catholic authorities when they refer to the History of the Shroud always refer its byzantine origin, there has been no other claim before that it was
a relic that from Italy was sent to Constantinople before it came back from that city later.
The Angel of Lightness
edit on 5/4/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)