The Crown of Thorns

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
I think there is increasing reason to believe that the Oviedo sudarium and the shroud of Turin (which are interconnected) are in fact genuine, but that is a whole new discussion!
There is no reason at all to think they are close to the First century or that they have any conection between themselves. Let alone to Jesus (if he was real that is).
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
The stuff (Juncus Balticus) 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.
Is there any link to some botanical book that can prove that it grows everywhere? So far I've found it belongs to the Northen parts of Europe and damp places (https://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Juncus+balticus - Habitats - Damp to wet soils, usually in saline conditions. Range - N. Europe, Northern N. America, N. Asia in boreal areas.)
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,206
Welsh Marches
Northern distribution as far as know, but right around the world, not just in Baltic area etc. as suggested in Wikipedia.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,206
Welsh Marches
There is no reason at all to think they are close to the First century or that they have any conection between themselves. Let alone to Jesus (if he was real that is).
There is considerable reason actually, but as I said, that is a whole different discussion. There is very definite reason to think that the sudarium and shroud are interconnected, the pattern of bloodstains on the sudarium closely matches that on the shroud, the blood group is the same (AB, relatively rare, 1-2%), the pollen finds match, etc. That is one reason why the carbon dating for the shroud is so implausible, because the sudarium can definitely be traced back to the 6th Century.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
Northern distribution as far as know, but right around the world, not just in Baltic area etc. as suggested in Wikipedia.
I have cited a botanical database not Wikipedia. And it says the plant likes damp places. And it has no spikes as far as I know.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,206
Welsh Marches
No spikes, I think the idea was that the rushes were used to bind the twigs holding the thorns, which came of course from another plant (in this case one that was actually native to Palestine). Not that it matters greatly because these relics are hardly likely to have been genuine. I was referring to the Wikipedia article on the crown of thorns which is inaccurate on the distribution of this kind of rush.
 
Nov 2016
1,006
Germany
There is no reason at all to think they are close to the First century or that they have any conection between themselves. Let alone to Jesus (if he was real that is).
Also @Linschoten:

Maribat is quoting in #21 a text with me as source, but the text is NOT written by me, but by LINSCHOTEN:

I think there is increasing reason to believe that the Oviedo sudarium and the shroud of Turin (which are interconnected) are in fact genuine, but that is a whole new discussion!
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
Also @Linschoten:

Maribat is quoting in #21 a text with me as source, but the text is NOT written by me, but by LINSCHOTEN:

I think there is increasing reason to believe that the Oviedo sudarium and the shroud of Turin (which are interconnected) are in fact genuine, but that is a whole new discussion!
But of course. There was some error with the quoting service. Or I couldnt cope with it. Sorry
 
Nov 2016
1,006
Germany
Mid-second century is a long way from the time portrayed in the Gospels. More than enough time for all organics to have faded and a new ideas of sacred materiality to creep into Christian thought.
"Earliest Christianity" is usually a term for the span between 30-150 CE. Polycarp is said to have lived around 150 CE, as I wrote.

Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period AD 30-150, 2 Vols by Johannes Weiss

Apart from that, you simply can't claim without evidence that there was no relic worship even in the first century (if there was any Christianity at all in this century, which is not proven). All you can say is that we know nothing of such worship. I already wrote you that.

People believe all sorts of things. Understanding their beliefs is key to the study of history.
"Understanding" the beliefs of these people is not so difficult. The real challenge is to explain how these beliefs came about. For this purpose you have to look critically below the surface of the symbolism of belief because the real motives are unconscious.
 
Last edited: