The Crown of Thorns

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#1
That's about the famous relic that was stationed in Notre Dame untill the 15th of April fire.

As an atheist I don't believe in such relics but ... I thought it was something similar to the pictures of that brush with sharp thorns as we see in many old paintings. I've always thought the relic tried to be made of some Palestine plant and it contained thorns. Well, I was really surprised to know that:

1. there are no thorns in the reliquary at all. No thorns! The kings either bought it like this or sold out or just gave them away.

2. the brush that's in the reliquary is not from Palestine but from the Baltics, Scandinavia or the British isles.

So why the people are so much agitated about that relic? Why they belive it was on Jesus head? Why does the Church not hide those facts?
 
Nov 2016
769
Germany
#2
there are no thorns in the reliquary at all. No thorns! The kings either bought it like this or sold out or just gave them away
You are probably referring to the first picture (1) where the thorns are strangely not recognizable, but there is a photo from another perspective (2) where the thorns are clearly recognizable. That the object is historically authentic, however, only die-hard followers of Christianity should really believe. But they might not be very enthusiastic about the fact that the crown does not correspond to the place on the Turin shroud where a crown of thorns must have left an impression.

(1)
1559131823084.png

(2)
1559131456651.png
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#3
You are probably referring to the first picture (1) where the thorns are strangely not recognizable, but there is a photo from another perspective (2) where the thorns are clearly recognizable. That the object is historically authentic, however, only die-hard followers of Christianity should really believe. But they might not be very enthusiastic about the fact that the crown does not correspond to the place on the Turin shroud where a crown of thorns must have left an impression.

(1)
View attachment 20124

(2)
View attachment 20123
Those thorns at the bottom picture are just an embroidery. The church does not deny there are no thorns in the casket. On the contrary even the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "It seems likely according to M. De Mély, that already at the time when the circlet was brought to Paris the sixty or seventy thorns, which seem to have been afterwards distributed by St. Louis and his successors, had been separated from the band of rushes and were kept in a different reliquary. None of these now remain at Paris".
 
Nov 2016
769
Germany
#4
Those thorns at the bottom picture are just an embroidery.
Oh, I see. This also explains why there is no blood group analysis of the thorns, as was done with the sudarium and the shroud, both of which strangely have the same blood group, namely AB. I think it's possible that the thorns were sold individually, which has brought a good cash with 70 thorns.
 
Last edited:

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#5
But all sources say the main part of the Crown is made of "Juncus balticus". Juncus balticus does not grow in Palestine. Juncus balticus grows in Northern Britain, the Baltic and Scandinavia. (see for example - Relics of the Passion – 6 – The Crown of Thorns). So all the pious Church can suggest is: "The Crown had been braided from the rushes of the Juncus balticus, while the thorns attached to it by the Roman soldiers were from the Ziziphus spina-christi.". But I can hardly imagine the soldiers inserting thorns from one plant to the thread of another.
 
Nov 2016
769
Germany
#6
But all sources say the main part of the Crown is made of "Juncus balticus". Juncus balticus does not grow in Palestine. Juncus balticus grows in Northern Britain, the Baltic and Scandinavia.
The stuff is growing worldwide, it is even said to be one of the most widespread plants at all. It grows in Eurasia (i.e. also in Palestine), North America, South America and Australia. The question why Roman soldiers (purely hypothetically, of course) used the thorns of another plant can probably be answered in such a way that the Baltic rush simply has no thorns, so that for the purpose of a crown of thorns these have to be taken elsewhere, for which Ziziphus spina-christi is well suited.
 
Last edited:

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,749
Blachernai
#7
One should start from more recent times with these sorts of things. Do we have any evidence that the crown now in the possession of the Notre Dame treasury is even the same one that Baldwin II sold to Louis IX?
 
Nov 2016
769
Germany
#8
Do we have any evidence that the crown now in the possession of the Notre Dame treasury is even the same one that Baldwin II sold to Louis IX?
Of course I also considered this, but I think this question to be rather secondary, since I very much doubt the historical authenticity of the crown of thorns anyway. First of all there was talk of a revered crown of thorns in the 6th century, but one does not even know if it is the same one that Baldwin gave to the French king in order to receive a loan of more than 12,000 gold pieces in return from Venice. In 1790, the relic was hidden in the abbey of Saint-Chapelle and brought to the cathedral of Notre Dame in 1806.

In my opinion, the question of whether the present crown is the same as that Baldwin gave to the French is not more important than the questions of whether Baldwin's crown of thorns is identical to the crown venerated in Jerusalem since the 6th century and, above all, whether the latter was an authentic crown of thorns from Jesus' crucifixion (which is extremely doubtful). Therefore, it makes sense to speculatively consider the present crown as genuine and then to consider the meaning of the plants used.
 
Last edited:

Edratman

Ad Honorem
Feb 2009
6,602
Eastern PA
#9
The crown of thorn pictured is quite elaborately woven. I would guess that a crown of thorns that was intended to both mock and inflict pain would be a rather slapdash construct, with little or no attention paid to appearance.
 
Likes: Tammuz
Nov 2016
769
Germany
#10
I would guess that a crown of thorns that was intended to both mock and inflict pain would be a rather slapdash construct, with little or no attention paid to appearance.
The argument is valid, but an apologist could argue that the crown of thorns was originally designed very simply, but was then elaborated even more in the course of traditional worship in order to express the religious meaning visually. Apologists have invented even more incredible constructs to defend their faith against objections.
 
Likes: Edratman