Talk:Veil of Veronica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Link to Acts of Pilate

"The story of Veronica and her veil does not occur in the Bible, though the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate" mentions a woman who was cured by touching the hem of Jesus' cloak."

I can't vouch for anything in the Acts of Pilate, never having read it, but I can say that such a story is recounted in the Gospel of Luke (8:43-48). But my main question is what does this story have to do with Veronica's Veil? Could someone explain this? Otherwise, I think the sentence should be taken out. --Jen Moakler 05:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just read Veil of Veronica and I, also, don't understand the relation of the phrase "though the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate" mentions a woman who was cured by touching the hem of Jesus' cloak." with Veil of Veronica.MATIA 00:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Display in Rome, 1849

Are you folks familiar with that legend that the Veil was displayed in Rome in (I think) 1849 and the Face of Christ began to look lifelike and was witnessed? Maybe we can put it in this article. I don't know where to get some really solid primary sources though. Anyone know? User:JesuXPIPassio

[edit] Disappearance / Basilica Remodelling

The article right now states that the Veil disappeared when the Basilica was remodeled (when was that?). Was it later recovered? The German article states that it is kept in a safe in the Veronica column of the Basilica. AxelBoldt 23:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this remodelling of Saint Peter's refers to when they tore down the old Basilica to put up the new one? That would have been in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The current Basilica is actually the second one. I gotta wonder how they would have lost something important like that. It's like moving from one home to another and losing your sofa. If anyone's interested by the way, there's been some recent news of the Holy Father visiting some monastery that houses what might be the holy relic. An interesting fact, the imprint of Jesus' face on that cloth disappears when you hold it up to the light.JesuXPIPassio 10:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this:

the image was brought to Saint Peter's, and until 1608 it was kept in the Vatican Basilica ... When the part of the Basilica housing the relic was remodeled in 1506, the veil disappeared.

How can it have been kept until 1608 if it disappeared in 1506? This needs to be explained. — Johan the Ghost seance 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial

I've moved the images around to try to get a better layout; in particular, I've put the actual picture of the veil at the top of the article, which makes a lot of sense to me. I've also removed the sizes on thumbnails, as we should not override the preferred thumbnail size setting in users' preferences. I also put the headings in this page. Hope this helps. — Johan the Ghost seance 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

The article says it is "very obviously a man-made image - probably dating to the late middle ages or early renaissance; typical of representations of the human form from this period, it is naiively-executed, with numerous stylised features, showing that the artist either did not understand, or did not wish to comply with the basic principles of proportion that apply to realistic renderings of the human form." but when the Pope recently visited it, the tv news news story (might have been CNN) said that researchers have determined it is not a painting. Now it looks fake to me, but my opinion is as OR as that of the editor who wrote the sentence. Some websites offer evidence it is the real thing: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/stv02001.htm Therefore the sentence in the article is a bit POV and OR and needs a cite from an art expert in a verifiable source. Edison 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop this nonsense right here please. A 3 year-old child could tell you this thing is a mediaeval creation. You can even see the brushstrokes in the stylised hair for heaven's sake! The only "original research" here is from anyone who claims it is of divine origin - the onus is on such persons to present evidence of that allegation. The burden of proof is most certainly NOT on those who assert that it is exactly what it appears to be - a poorly executed man-made image. --Centauri 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This is no different from a self proclaimed art expert stating that some painting is obviously not by the famous painter it is attributed to. A 3 year old expert in medieval style? Maybe it is a 19th century copy of a medieval fraud. But it is Original Research to give your opinion, with all the stylistic shortcomings enumerated. If it is so obvious, do a little research and find an expert in a published work who says so. For the Shroud of Turin, there was the late Walter McCrone. On the other side, there are adults way beyond three years old (see the website I listed above) who do not share your opinion. I may agree with you as to my opinion of how it looks, but Wikipedia policy says my opinion and your opinion and your stylistic criticisms are OR. Edison 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me repeat myself. It is not original research to state that something is what it appears to be. It is original research to say that something is something other than what it appears to be. Thus, we don't require a citation to support the assertion that the Sydney Harbour Bridge is a large steel arch bridge - nor do we require a citation to support the assertion that the Veil of Manoppello is a man-made image. --Centauri 00:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Say it as many times as you wish, and it is still your OPINION as a self styled art expert. It is like stateing that a person is ugly or beautiful. Clearly other responsible adults feel differently. Still OR. Edison 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point here. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can articulate the issue for you. The bottom line is that we have photographic evidence of the "veil" being a man-made image. It's not a matter of personal opinion; it's an established, verified fact. If others want to claim that god created it, then it's up to them to provide evidence of it. It would also be a good idea not to post deliberately misleading edit summaries in future. Nobody has removed any {{Fact}} tag from the article. --Centauri 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, a "verified fact" is not something you personally are really sure of. Instead, it is a claim or statement that you can provide a citation for to a reputable source. You claim that "Nobody has removed any {{Fact}} tag." This is demonstrably untrue. I added a {{Fact}} tag 4:18 on Sept 9. It was removed in your edit of 00:13 on Sept 11, per the History of the article. Please understand that it also looks to me like a painting, way more fake than the probably fake shroud. In fact, it reminds me of the style of paintings of Henry VIII, so it might be from that era. But that means we share an opinion, not that it is a verifiable fact. Find where a competent expert said it in a journal or newspaper and you're good to go. But people who have seen the actual object say brush strokes are not visible. What you see in a photo may be the weave of the very delicate fabric, not "photographic evidence:" it is a fake. Again opinion and OR. If it had been painted with pigment and medium like an oil painting, the transparency of the image would not survive. Its clarity is said to vary with the angle of the light and of viewing. If a fake, I would assume it might have been painted with transparent dyes.Edison 18:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Edited comment to correct typos. Edison 18:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V Edison 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your argument has transitioned into the realm of the truly surreal. Suggest you familiarise yourself with Occam's razor. Apologies re the [citation needed] oversight. I did in fact inadvertently remove it, once. --Centauri 04:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if Wikipedia policies seem surreal. I have been shaving away at BS for over 30 years with Occam's Razor: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem," or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR. With the {{Fact}} tag restored, feel free to remove the qualifier I added "Some feel that.." before your analysis of how much it looks like a painting. I have looked for a citation to the effect that it appears to be a painting in Google books to no avail, and in the NY Times online historical file (subscription) through the end of 2003 also without finding such a reference. Most online references are just blogs and don't make a very reputable cite. Will keep an eye open for one. There is also the argument that what is newly in the spotlight is if anything a copy of the historical veil.Edison 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Spanish tradition

The following text is difficult to understand, probably because it was written by a non-native English speaker who was translating from Spanish. (No offense intended here. If I were to write in Spanish, the result would probably be equally difficult to understand.)

In an alternative Spanish tradition, the existence of more than one real reply would be possible for a legend, according to which, Veronica realized two folds in the veil before drying Christ's face, being stamped his face in various sides of the veil, for what four replies should exist.

I think "reply" means "impressions" or "replicas". "realized two folds in the veil" is probably better translated as "made two folds in the veil". I hesitate to make these corrections as I would prefer someone who is familiar with this variant of the legend to correct it.

--Richard 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veronica's Veil in Fiction

I think this could to be mentioned. The veil of Veronica is mentioned many a time in Anne Rice's Memnoch the Devil. It's complete fiction, but uses parts of the story of Veronica to prove to the world God exists.

What are other people's thoughts?

[edit] Rewrite

I have pretty much re-written this article, based on Ian Wilson's book Holy Faces, Secret Places, the only English language text to discuss the Veronica in detail. In the course this I have had to get rid of a number of statements which do not seem to me to have any support. In particular, I have been careful to avoid saying the Manopello image is anything other than a distraction in the story of the Veronica - in my opinion, it is most unlikely that this has any connection with the image displayed in the Vatican during the 'golden age' of Veronica worship.

In making revisions, please bear in mind that this is a very complex subject. Consider (1) The Veronica story grew over many centuries, in interaction between East (where the idea of a God-made image arose) and West. (2) The Veronica itself (assuming it is the one kept in St Peter's) is not available for inspection. (3) Source material if often hard to interpret as it uses a religious rather than a historical mode of discourse. (4) Possible connections between the Turin Shroud, the Mandylion and the Veronica are the subject of much speculation which I haven't gone into.

Also, can people avoid using the words fake or fraud. To describe any image in this way implies knowledge of the the motives of whoever produced the image in question - such knowledge is not available. In the case of the Manopoello image we do not even know whom the image is meant to represent - it's not the fault of the artist that later generations have constructed a legend that it was made by God.

--John Price 19:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Manopello is indeed a distraction, but a notable one. More to the point, I see no references to the theory that the remodelling of St Peter's (and the broken frame in the post-remodelling inventory) had something to do with Urban's decision to withdraw the Veronica from sight, which is less of a distraction than Manopello. Relata refero (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)