Archaeological dating accomplished
This is the catch-22 that sindonologists fail to appreciate: For the shroud to be the shroud, it more or less has to look the way it looks.Furthermore, the shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type.The single salient quality that these sacred objects share is that very quality that is so striking about the shroud-namely, a faint and elusive image seemingly pro-duced by bodily secretions.How is it, finally, that we know for certain that the Shroud of Turin is a fake?
They have become relics through physical contact with the sacred, and they are icons because of the resultant image; but in neither case is there (by definition, at least) any intervention by an artist.
And stealing and forgery were both part of the business.
It was also a time when the material remains of Jesus' Passion were very much in vogue, when St. Chapelle solely to enshrine the Crown of Thorns (which had recently been stolen from Constantinopole).
Among the earliest acheiropoietai is the Column of the Flagellation, in Jerusalem.
This relic (the column) appears for the first time in fifth-century historical sources, which describe its location in the Church of Holy Sion; but it is only in the sixth century that pilgrims began to see the image of Jesus' hands and chest impressed into its stone surface, left there, presumably, as Jesus was bound in place for the flagellation.
Search for archaeological dating accomplished:
Alan Whanger - Previously unpublished response to the article When the Shroud of Turin went on display this spring for the first time in 20 years, it made the cover of Time magazine with the blurb "Is this Jesus?