Shroud of Turin

[Unseen.Warfare]

Wasn't there a big group of people in the 1970s making a fuss in the Orthodox world about the Shroud of Turin? About it's authenticity? I remember seeing a letter from Fr. Seraphim Rose where he mentioned "pointless debates" and noted the Shroud of Turin. Does anyone know more about what he was referring to exactly?

The context is that a few people were angry at Fr. Alexei Young for putting out his article on the Shroud and said it was a demonic trick or something and said it was fake and tried pressuring him into not releasing it. Initially Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Herman weren’t that interested in the topic and they ended up looking more into it and came to the conclusion that the Shroud was most likely authentic. Saint John Maximovitch believed the Shroud was real. Someone wrote a book that was at Jordanville that ended up coming up missing. They were trying to get ahold of the book. It turns out a Shroud was mentioned many times in the early church and was venerated. The evidence points towards the Shroud being authentic.

[Unseen.Warfare]

ABB6637C-9110-4F86-84B6-2C3A1F39ED4F.jpeg (109.52 KiB) Viewed 4631 times

Article
X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample

[eish]

So, that article I posted by Fr. Alexei Young was disputed. In those letters I posted above you can read what Fr. Seraphim had to say about it.

I wholeheartedly agree with Fr. Seraphim's sobre comments. Well worth the short read. Notably:

Almost no attention is given to what from the Orthodox point of view is crucial: actually identifying the Shroud as an Orthodox holy object. It’s extremely important that the Orthodox history of the Shroud be made quite certain; then the scientific corroboration becomes stunning. But to build almost the whole argument on the scientific evidence is extremely risky.

As a tangent, I find the whole argument--which Fr. Seraphim also mentions--about nailing through the wrists versus the palms to be bizarre. We are told by SCIENCE(TM) that nails for crucifixion must go through the wrist because the flesh of the palm would tear out. Who performed a repeatable experiment? Nobody I know of. A mere expert guess? Like experts guess at pandemics and future weather? I shall now guess that rock climbing is impossible because the flesh would tear off the fingertips. The textual and archaeological record is too scant but we can at least say that crucifixion must sometimes not have involved nails through the wrist.

To add insult to injury, the same SCIENCE(TM) which claims to debunk Christianity because we commonly depict nails through the palms instead of the wrist or forearm, also claims to debunk the shroud on the grounds that archaeology has not found evidence of nailing through the wrist. Among a grand total of one certain skeleton and a possible one. Wow, we're done, I'm signing up for a reddit account.

While not definitive, those who hate Christ have a visceral reaction which makes them say stupid things. If it strikes a nerve, maybe the demons are unhappy.

[Unseen.Warfare]

So, that article I posted by Fr. Alexei Young was disputed. In those letters I posted above you can read what Fr. Seraphim had to say about it.

I wholeheartedly agree with Fr. Seraphim's sobre comments. Well worth the short read. Notably:

Almost no attention is given to what from the Orthodox point of view is crucial: actually identifying the Shroud as an Orthodox holy object. It’s extremely important that the Orthodox history of the Shroud be made quite certain; then the scientific corroboration becomes stunning. But to build almost the whole argument on the scientific evidence is extremely risky.

As a tangent, I find the whole argument--which Fr. Seraphim also mentions--about nailing through the wrists versus the palms to be bizarre. We are told by SCIENCE(TM) that nails for crucifixion must go through the wrist because the flesh of the palm would tear out. Who performed a repeatable experiment? Nobody I know of. A mere expert guess? Like experts guess at pandemics and future weather? I shall now guess that rock climbing is impossible because the flesh would tear off the fingertips. The textual and archaeological record is too scant but we can at least say that crucifixion must sometimes not have involved nails through the wrist.

To add insult to injury, the same SCIENCE(TM) which claims to debunk Christianity because we commonly depict nails through the palms instead of the wrist or forearm, also claims to debunk the shroud on the grounds that archaeology has not found evidence of nailing through the wrist. Among a grand total of one certain skeleton and a possible one. Wow, we're done, I'm signing up for a reddit account.

While not definitive, those who hate Christ have a visceral reaction which makes them say stupid things. If it strikes a nerve, maybe the demons are unhappy.

They don’t do this only with Christ, this is a common theme with scholastic types.

“[Gi-ming Shien] told me that whenever there is a conflict between archeology and written texts, human beings must believe the written texts, because archeology is only…your opinions and interpretations, while the written texts are other human beings — whom you have to trust.”
Fr. Seraphim in 1981 (Damascene, 77)

“I am a student of Chinese philosophy, and it is my belief that I must rely upon the Chinese traditional viewpoint, rather than follow the newly invented and untraditional arguments of modern scholars. To do the latter would result in depriving Chinese philosophy of all criteria of meaning and value; it would end in a state of confusion leading nowhere.”
Unpublished text by Gi-ming Shien (Damascene, 77)

The same people who doubt that Christ was a historical person… Also doubt the existence of Lao Tzu and that he wrote the Tao Te Ching

“A problem often crops up with ancient Chinese texts. Modern scholars doubt them and question their authenticity with great loquacity, valor, and volume. Then along comes some archeological site that proves the text was right in the first place.

Let me give the first example that popped into mind: 說文 Shuowen Jiezi, an etymology dictionary written about 100ce. Many people proclaim loudly that it is not reliable: these are people who have not done much work with the text. Of course there are mistakes, but overall, the accuracy of the work is astonishing. For example, 貞, which of course everybody knows means constancy. But for some reason, the author of Shuowen defined it as 卜問 asking a question, divining. This exposed him to a lot of ridicule until the end of the 19th century, when the oracle bones, which had been lost for three thousand years, started coming out of the ground, and lo and behold! 貞 means to divine a question. (one of my oracle bone teachers said that without Shouwen, scholars would still be fighting about the definition of this character.)

So yes, Lao Tzu does appear in historical texts. The 史記 Historian’s Records, written around 100 BCE, said that Confucius studied under Lao Tzu. 小戴禮記 the Rites have several passages about Confucius working with, and studying under Lao Tzu.

I see no valid reason to doubt the existence of Lao Tzu. I cannot tell you when he was born or what he liked to eat for breakfast, but from the standpoint of 訓詁 textual analysis, I see no valid reason to doubt his existence.”

The devil tends to pull a veil over the eyes of scholars.

[SavaBeljovic]

I know my Vladyka mentions the thing with the nails and where they were normally placed during Crucifixions... He was talking about the difference between the Orthodox iconography of the Crucifixion and the Western depictions of the event. He was talking about the San Damiano Cross (13th century, but it comes from an 11th century prototype) and how Western depictions differ from Russian icons from the same period. I can't recall exactly what he said but he mentioned, but he said something about how Russian icons were more historically accurate due to the placement of nails versus Western depictions.

I will probably ask him about it when I call him later this week and write what he says in here.

[eish]

I had a brain wave. (Rare, I know.) Crucifixion by nailing through the wrist strongly implies breaking the bones, which is scripturally unsound.

[Suaidan]

I had a brain wave. (Rare, I know.) Crucifixion by nailing through the wrist strongly implies breaking the bones, which is scripturally unsound.

I'm getting myself ill by saying this but....

Depends on where on the "wrist" since that's more a regional designation than the actual wrist joint itself. If one nails upward from the convergence point of the radius and ulna and the nail exits at the wrist, the chance of bone-breaking is mitigated and the hands would have maximum "hold" for the rest of the body, which is also supported by the footrest.

Yep, don't feel well now