Shroud of Turin

I met the fellow in this article once, had a chance to sit with him
and chat. We were together on an unrelated matter, but he told
me about this experiment, and showed me his pictures.

http://www.examiner.com/a-661455~Demonstration_calls_shroud_into_question.html

Basically, he showed how gall ink that was in use at the time (that the shroud has been
carbon dated, and that circumstances somewhat place its origins, if non-supernatural) for doing
transcriptions makes an eerie x-ray type image as a byproduct of its regular
use. He showed me detailed photos of this "shroud of Leo" that they had made.
He concocted the ink, etc., in a chemically similar manner to the original ink
that scribes would use. Pressure onto skin or other would create these startling
negative images that looked exactly like the Shroud of Turin.

The inference, though circumstantial, is that the technique is natural, was discovered accidentally
by ordinary scribes, and put to use in the manner of the shroud.

Nothing definitive, but interesting, and historically and scientifically sound
inquiry into the matter, anyway.

I'll drop him an email. It's been over a year since we spoke,
I don't know if I can get photos or not, but I'll try. I'd like
another look, myself!

As for why to go to the trouble . . . well, relics are big business! You could build a
whole Noah's Ark with all the pieces of the "true cross" out there, methinks. Good
for tourism, drawing new members, and really sending donations through the roof!

You are correct that Christians might carefully preserve such things, were their provenance truly known. It is a bit of a stretch for me, anyway, to conceive that at a time when Jesus was "newly resurrected", that people would have taken his cross away and started to hack off pieces of it. His fame had not spread that wide, yet. You are correct, it's possible.

This gets us into the whole topic of relics, in general, I suppose. Although there would be motivation to preserve actual relics, I contend that it's impossible to sort that motivation, from the motivation to use a "supposed relic" as an advertising icon. It's well documented that trade in relics was an important thing to confer legitimacy on early churches, so much so that you almost needed to have one, at any cost. That sort of market is ripe for abuse. On the topic of relic theft and trade, see Furta Sacra.

Of course, I'm on the completely skeptical side of all of this, but I'm fascinated by relics. A book on the skeptical side is Relics of the Christ. Holy Prepuce!?!? Yikes.

I'll look for that Wilson book. A cursory glance at his Googlishness indicates that he's pretty much made his career as a Shroud defender.
I'm interested in his book on the Black Sea flood, though.

In a slightly related anecdote, I once had the Buddha on my head. There was a tour of Buddhist relics in town, and I went down for a prayer service. At the end of the prayer service, you could go up, have a few Tibetan chants said over you, and a reliquary with some bone fragments of the Buddha in it placed on your head. As they
say on the internets tubes, w00t!

You and I seem to be the only relics on LT interested in discussing relics. :)

Now I need to go on the Quest for the Quest for the True Cross.
I know it's around here somewhere, LT says I own it. My books
are "artfully distressed" in their organization.

I saw some fragments of St. Peter's bones in an exhibition that
came through town a few months back, Vatican Splendors.
Very, very tiny. About the same as the Buddha fragments that I
saw, almost like small pebbles/grains of sand.

Interesting to see a Holy Relic in the context of a museum, as opposed to venerated in a service or in a place of worship. It seems to zap all the power out of it, from an imbued significance point of view. "Oh, look, bones of Peter", is so much different than having them ethereally waved over you with chanting and incense.

Used to be that all Catholic churches had to have a relic in an altar stone set into the main altar. I don't know if that's still true. Not a relic of Jesus, just a relic of a saint. In the missions we used to have portable altar stones to carry with us in the Mass kit to use on temporary altars in outstation chapels, but nobody seems to bother with that nowadays. There are also reliquaries (spelling?), where relics are set in ornate gold or silver mounts with a little window (a bit like the monstrance for Benediction, for those who are familiar with Catholic culture), and are displayed from time to time with great ceremony, bells ringing, amidst thick clouds of incense. Most of them are tiny pieces of relic, no bigger than a splinter. At a parish in the north of England I did handle the complete dessicated hand of St Nicholas somebody-or-other, a local saint. And at Santiago de Compostella I believe the entire remains of St James are reputed to be in the little box in the crypt, but you're only allowed to look at the box - I don't think they ever open it.

I guess I was referring to my experience with the Buddha relics,
which was exactly like that, versus seeing similar relics (the bones of Peter) proffered in a museum setting.

A different experience, neither one transformative in any way,
but certainly different.

I've certainly been in many cathedrals and places of worship wherein
relics and such are being venerated in my presence, as opposed to
merely being observed by the curious. The best I can say is
that it's "a different vibe". For them, that is. I'm just merely
curious.

A minor quibble: the sort of claim that if you, say, added together all of the alleged splinters of the True Cross, you would exceed all of the wood in twelve actual crosses, all the wood in Noah's Ark, all of the timber in Oregon, etc., etc. was an accusation made by Calvin and Luther in the 16th century. (They didn't like relics.) I'm pretty sure it's never been tested. I'm also almost certain it is false...

The Wikipedia article claims someone has tried to assess it, and the extant claimed fragments only amount to about 1/3 of what a cross would be. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross).

It's clear the Latin sack of Constantinople did a lot of the division. Robert of Clari says he saw two pieces "as thick as a man's leg and a fathom in length." He's not a very reliable witness—I mean, he didn't lie, but he also got taken in by a lot of "tourist tales." But it seems reasonable to think he understood what was going on here. And compared to the specks you have now-wow.

Personally, I find it rather cool that the Chosroes took a big chunk of it when he captured Jerusalem. The Byzantines got it back, or so they said. Basically, a big piece of it was safeguarded by Zoroastrians for a while, so the provenance of a major Christian relic depends in part on the testimony of Zoroastrians...

Very nice.

I tend to hit the carriage return (!!) even when I don't have to.
I don't know why, but I can't just let the end of my lines be
subject to the whims of preprogrammed formatting.

I do suppose it's a poetic timing

thing.

Giving large hunks of wood to a Zoroastrian for safe keeping? Isn't that akin to having the fox secure the chickens? It's a miracle they didn't feed the Sacred Wood to the Sacred Fire.

Not anymore. Indian vulture populations have almost been extinguished by an anti-inflammatory drug (Diclofenac Sodium) in the food chain, which for some reason kills vultures. It's like if global warming made it impossible for Irish people to have wakes.

What biologists can learn from ancient gospels, medieval manuscripts:

Goats, bookworms, a monk’s kiss: Biologists reveal the hidden history of ancient gospels
Ann Gibbons | Jul. 25, 2017

...Medieval manuscripts represent a relatively untapped store of biological information," says biochemist Matthew Collins, whose team has studied this Gospel of Luke (~1120 CE) over the past 5 years. Parchment alone is a "rich palimpsest of molecular data," notes Collins, who has a joint appointment at the University of York in the United Kingdom and the University of Copenhagen.

In May, he shared new ways of analyzing ancient books at an unusual symposium at the Bodleian, which brought together biologists, librarians, medievalists, and even a modern scribe. They explored how biological clues can reveal hidden aspects of medieval life, from husbandry and economics to disease. As this new field of research cracks open, researchers hope to expose "the whole bustling medieval world of monks, scribes, readers, poets, country gentlemen" who touched books over the centuries, says Timothy Stinson, a medieval poetry scholar at North Carolina State University in Raleigh...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/goats-bookworms-monk-s-kiss-biologists-re...

Interesting! Forensic scientists' best approximation of Jesus's appearance:

The Real Face Of Jesus
Advances in forensic science reveal the most famous face in history.
Mike Fillon | Jan 23, 2015

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/

>23 Guanhumara: There seem to have been some rather odd assumptions in their methodology.

It is clear that his features were typical of Galilean Semites of his era. And so the first step for Neave and his research team was to acquire skulls from near Jerusalem, the region where Jesus lived and preached.
That doesn't make sense. Since Jesus was repeatedly referred to as Galilean, because Galileans were considered distinct from other Jews, surely the reconstruction should be of Galilean physiognomy, rather than based on skulls selected from southern Judea?

>23 Guanhumara: Good question. I assume Neave used skulls that were available--maybe none were available from Galilee? Or maybe Galileans were culturally, but not physically distinct?

I was impressed that forensic scientist caught the hint from Paul on length of hair, and the need for Judas to point out Jesus from others in Gethsemane--not necessary if Jesus looked like our representations of him! So, must be good reason for choice of skulls? (No opportunity at link to ask.)

Regardless, as Alison Galloway, professor of anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz observed, "This is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great masters."

>24 margd: maybe Galileans were culturally, but not physically distinct?
This article quotes the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia to say that:
The population of Galilee was composed of strangely mingled elements-Aramaean, Iturean, Phoenician and Greek
http://www.travelujah.com/articles/entry/Who-were-the-Galileans-in-the-Days-of-J...

Most of Jesus' disciples were also Galilean, and he had to be pointed out from among them; that doesn't necessarily imply that he looked like the local Jews.

The comment on hair length is a good one, but I'm a little wary. St. Paul was (probably) criticizing the Nazirites, who never cut their hair; so, in comparison to them, how short is short? We think of shoulder-length hair on a man as "long", but to a Sikh (for example) that would be "short" (since it has been cut).

"This is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great masters."

Of course! But has anybody seriously claimed that Jesus was a blond, white man?

Right from the earliest depictions, the iconographic convention has always to portray Jesus as "one of us"; with features typical of the worshippers for whom the picture was intended. Hence in the catacombs he was depicted as clean-shaven youth in a chiton, by artists who were close enough to his time to know that he would have worn neither.

The same traditional continues on through mediaeval artists to the 'great masters'. Jesus is given the features of his audience, just as Pilate's soldiers are given armour and weaponry contemporaneous with the artist, not that of Roman legionnaries.

The purpose of devotional art was to bring biblical events alive for their viewer, and so relevance and analogy were emphasized. It is only once religious art stopped having a primarily devotional purpose, at the Reformation, that there started to be any interest in making it representational.

>25 Guanhumara: The purpose of devotional art was to bring biblical events alive for their viewer

And still is for many people, I would say. It's very common now to see Jesus and all the other figures in the bible portrayed as Africans. At one level perhaps it is a reaction against the pictures of Jesus as a long-haired white man which the early European missionaries brought. At a deeper theological level it emphasises the incarnation of the Christ into all cultures and times, and the theology of inculturation.

>25 Guanhumara: Thanks for reference on Galilee. Fascinating what's being learned these days about the BCE movements of people (and other hominids!). Sounds like still some debate on Galilean heritage in Jesus's time, though? ("...the archaeological research of recent decades now shows that the Galilean population of Jesus' time were descendants of Judean immigrants of a century or so earlier.")

>25 Guanhumara: I agree completely. I didn't mean to imply that art for devotional purposes was obsolete, simply that when that was the primary purpose of mainstream art, nobody would have made the mistake of treating it as representational.

I understand that in South-East Asian churches too Jesus is usually portrayed with an indigenous appearance. How best to represent Him for a multi-cultural society is, of course, a thornier problem.

But I think the lack of physical description in the Gospels was quite deliberate. The writers were interested in the inclusivity implied by the Incarnation; not the particular details of a Jewish male in a particular historical circumstance. (Although the emphasis on his being a Galilean may be an emphasis on 'outsider' status that is lost on many modern readers.)

I am curious (of course), as to what Jesus actually looked like. But too much emphasis on his appearance rather misses the point.

too much emphasis on his appearance rather misses the point.

And yet very many put the greatest emphasis on "his" genitals. I'd say missing the point on the subject is quite deliberate.

>22 margd:

Off topic, but it nags at me--I could swear that reconstruction is far older than two years--I'm 99% sure someone used it as their avatar back on the long-defunct WorldCrossing forums (at least nine-eight years ago).

Even shallow googling brings up a post with the picture from 2003:

http://www.desertpastor.com/paradoxology/2003/09/move_over_euroj.html

Just curious why it seems to have popped up in the news cycle again.

>28 Guanhumara: emphasis on appearance...Now I'm wondering if other faith traditions describe more of their leaders' appearances. Muslims aren't even supposed to portray Mohamed--does the Koran describe his appearance, I wonder? Buddha is depicted with large ear (lobes) and a bit chubby; the latte is instructional as he was rejecting ascetism of holy men of his day? He was a nobleman, so difficult to escape some info on his appearance, and thus big ears would have caught attention of artists of his day?

>29 LolaWalser: why popped up in the news cycle again. Good question. Maybe all the recent news stories rethinking Neanderthal appearance brought article on Jesus to attention of readers again through those auto-generated "you may likes"? Wouldn't hurt some folks to consider that if Jesus, as he really looked, appeared at their church door, they might chase him back to (Mexico?). :-(

(My guys are out walking the dog. Time to stir the gravy! Finish setting the table. My second Thanksgiving this year as we always have a roast chicken at least for Cdn Thanksgiving in October. :-)

>25 Guanhumara: The purpose of devotional art was to bring biblical events alive for their viewer, and so relevance and analogy were emphasized. It is only once religious art stopped having a primarily devotional purpose, at the Reformation, that there started to be any interest in making it representational.

Maybe artistic intent was devotion, but effect in the pews of pale Jesus might be to confirm any suspicions we might harbor of racial supremacy? (Or gender for that matter, but I'll leave that argument to Lola for now. ;-) I'm thinking of all the fair girls chosen to play Mary in Nativity plays, etc. I don't think such decisions are necessarily conscious ones, though.

For example, after I sent an "attagirl" to religious director who chose a dark-skinned south Asian to portray Jesus during an Easter Mass, a local church went out of its way, it seemed, to choose an Asian adoptee to portray the Baby Jesus in Nativity and to celebrate various cultural crafts and foods the following Christmas. (The best potluck EVER!) I suspect not all people were pleased with the new direction, though: the music director chose boys of color (but not musical training :-) to play the Wise Men in the school Nativity. Off-key though they were, I thought they were adorable!

That said, I like the old plaster statues (warehouses of them from closed churches, I understand) better than two of the clunky new representations of Mary and Holy Family a couple local churches have commissioned recently. What I grew up with?

People like me can observe gender discrimination in religion but we are not the ones to combat it (besides, personally, organised religion can't break its filthy criminal neck fast enough for me.)

If religious women are happy to believe they are inferior, impure and defiling beings created as servants to the dick and can therefore never "incarnate" Christ (who is in this view clearly all about dick), that's their choice.

Rather more relevant to the issue than my opinions:

Church of Sweden to stop referring to God as 'he' or 'Lord'

>32 LolaWalser:

Lola, just to let you know that there are a hell of a lot of religious women who don't believe those things about themselves - I feel privileged to call many of them friends and colleagues. They haven't changed the high-level institution yet, but in their own lives and the lives of women and men whom they touch, they are making an incremental difference. That's not in any way to disagree with you nor to play down the massive injustices still being perpetuated in the name of organised religion.

>33 John5918:

The collaborators outnumber any putative resisters by orders of magnitude and always have. Women propping up the major institution that kept them down, uneducated, disenfranchised, subservient, and despised in every way--there's no more dismal spectacle and you can see it everywhere; in Europe, there'd be no religion without women--and yet these same women tolerate having the all-dickhead all-the-time boys' gaggle in the Vatican convening on family planning and the role of women in society. Being preached at by the demographic committing more sexual offences against children than any other, the demographic the women are told they can't access constitutionally, being filthy dickless beings--nothing like those holy men.

Being told humility and self-effacement is their duty, and endless suffering their well-deserved lot.

Nice tight setup--no wonder it works.

>34 LolaWalser:

Thanks, Lola. Of course you're right about the scale, and I respect your view. It is refreshing though to work amongst religious women who believe differently and who live out their beliefs in their own lives and work.

>35 John5918:

Hang out with any female priests, bishops, ever been to a Mass officiated by a woman, ever received communion from a woman's hand--in your own church? If not, then allow me not to value overmuch your declaration about what these women believe and feel.

>36 LolaWalser:

Thanks, Lola. Once again I respect your view. I report what I have heard and seen, but it's not for me to judge the lens through which people view things, either your lens or theirs.

And of course my own church is not the only one which has religious women. Yes, I have hung out with female priests and bishops, been to mass officiated by a woman and received communion from a woman's hand (the latter, incidentally, even in my own church, where laywomen and laymen equally are ministers of the Eucharist who hand out communion).

>37 John5918:

And of course my own church is not the only one which has religious women. Yes, I have hung out with female priests and bishops, been to mass officiated by a woman and received communion from a woman's hand (the latter, incidentally, even in my own church, where laywomen and laymen equally are ministers of the Eucharist who hand out communion).

But I specifically asked you about YOUR church. YOUR church has no credit whatsoever in whatever other religions do to promote non-misogynistic versions of Christianity.

In fact YOUR church is a magnet for converts from other religions who wish to continue to uphold the most misogynistic version of Christianity there is.

>38 LolaWalser:

Yes, I agree. My church at the higher level institution has no credit in promoting non-misogynistic versions of Christianity, and sadly it is indeed a magnet for misogynist converts from other versions of Christianity. But then I never claimed otherwise, and I specifically acknowledged that we have not made much progress at the higher levels of the institution. I simply pointed out that there are a hell of a lot of religious women (and I did not specify Catholic religious women, although many of those I'm thinking of are Catholic) who do not fit the mould that you describe, and which you correctly attribute to arguably a majority of Christian / Catholic women.

So what are we actually disagreeing about?

>39 John5918:

Nothing, just keeping things clear. To listen to you, one would have no idea what an obstacle to progress is most institutional religion, and the RCC in particular. No offence--I can imagine you're in a tight spot. Only not as bad as the women in your church!

But, anyway, in better news, those Swedes, eh?

>40 LolaWalser:

Good news indeed. I personally have chosen not to use gender-specfic masculine terms for God for a number of years, as have many other Christians. And it's not only about gender - for us Britons with our history of dysfunctional nobility and aristocracy and our unelected House of Lords, 'Lord' is hardly a term which brings up happy images of God.

I've not had much contact with the Swedish church, but I've done a fair bit of work with Norwegian Lutherans and some with the Danes, and their attitudes are very refreshing.

>40 LolaWalser: May I recommend you take a look at Faith and Freedom by Teresa Forcades i Vila? She is a (Roman Catholic) Benedictine nun, whose feminism preceded and informs her Catholicism.

For many women, the Church has been an empowering force, in contrast to the misogyny that they experience in their lives - as indeed it has been at other times in history. You insult them to suggest that they seek subservience in following a faith that proclaims that all men and women are created equal (however imperfectly its organisation currently implements this teaching!)

The fact that the contributions of powerful women within the Church are less discussed is as much a reflection of the bias of reporters and historians as much as it is indicative of any attempt at marginalization from within the Church.

Of course the current situation in the Catholic hierarchy is unsatisfactory neither to Teresa nor myself; but the Church exists within society, and draws its members from society. Therefore its members are influenced by the attitudes of the society around them as well as the teachings that they are supposed to be trying to follow. Existing in a misogynistic environment, is it surprising that we have still a long way to go?

And to answer the question that you asked John: I frequently receive the Eucharist from a woman, and indeed have administered it myself.

>30 margd: The Koran is meant to have been directly dictated by an angel to Mohammed, who makes a verbatim record, so it is unlikely to contain a physical description of him (would you dictate to anyone a physical description of themself?) It's been a long time since I read it, but I can't remember anything of the sort; then again, very few Suras have anything that could be described as narrative content.

However I believe that the Hadith include physical description, among other personal details.

Incidentally, Muslim depictions of Mohammed do exist. Not all branches of Islam forbid the depiction of the human form; as with the Iconoclastic controversy in Christianity, this has been the subject of violent dispute.

Since Islam vehemently rejects the idea of incarnation, it is of course completely forbidden to portray God in anthropomorphic form (no men with white beards in the sky!)

>31 margd: I'm thinking of all the fair girls chosen to play Mary in Nativity plays, etc.
I haven't personally observed any such trend (although anecdotal evidence is of limited value, naturally). I have never thought before about why I was cast as Mary in my school's nativity play, but in retrospect I wonder if I was the most Jewish-looking option (other than the actual practising Jews, of course!)
The only ethnic stereotyping that I am aware of is a tendency to try to make sure that the Three Kings (like the Caspar, Balthazar and Melchior of tradition) encompass all racial groups.

I'm uncomfortable with too much interest in a representational depiction of Jesus, because I do feel that emphasis on 'correct' race tends to go hand in hand with emphasis on his genitals, and the concept that therefore only a male can truly be in his image.

I do wonder whether the flowing-haired, rather androgynous Christ of great art was, in fact, an attempt to transcend the specifics of gender and portray an Incarnate God who is representative of all humanity.

The idea that beauty in a man and in a woman are completely different things has not held true in all eras. One has only to look at Elizabethan art to see that long hair, delicate skin, and a slender figure were the ideal for both sexes.

Fewer people work with their hands nowadays, so the current generation may have forgotten, but the artists would have been well aware that people who live by manual labour, such as carpenters, tend to have a more weather-beaten appearance. (And, since they came from great trading nations, they would also be aware what Middle Easterners tend to look like.) The androgynous portrayal is unlikely to be from ignorance; it is a design choice to represent a concept. I think we are not giving these artists enough credit. Where they depart from representational accuracy, they seem to be doing it for sound theological reasons.

>43 Guanhumara: ...the artists would have been well aware that people who live by manual labour, such as carpenters, tend to have a more weather-beaten appearance. (And, since they came from great trading nations, they would also be aware what Middle Easterners tend to look like.) The androgynous portrayal is unlikely to be from ignorance; it is a design choice to represent a concept. I think we are not giving these artists enough credit. Where they depart from representational accuracy, they seem to be doing it for sound theological reasons.

Or because Jews weren't their patrons' favorite people... :-(

ETA: Wikipedia (depiction of Jesus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

>44 margd: Or because Jews weren't their patrons' favorite people... :-(

A very valid point. I suspect a good way to test that hypothesis would be to look at how the artists portray the disciples, who are both 'ordinary people' and 'good guys'.

On that subject, the tradition that Judas had red hair is interesting - particularly since that is really rather unlikely!

#22, 30 "Wouldn't hurt some folks to consider that if Jesus, as he really looked, appeared at their church door, they might chase him back to (Mexico?)."

Yesterday, Rev. Chuck Currie tweeted forensic approximation of Jesus's appearance to rebut appropriation of cross for 'It's okay to be white': "This was Jesus. He was Jewish. A refugee. Living in occupied territory. He preached liberation from oppression. The racism and bigotry you Tweet is incompatible with Christianity. This might be your Savior, Mr. Nehlen, but you have yet to follow him." https://twitter.com/RevChuckCurrie/status/946087037622300672

Yes, years ago there was a showing of numerous relics here in Rome and the Holy Prepuce was among the many objects on view. There was a container of the Virgin's milk and many other wonders all enclosed in intricate silver and gold work. I wish I could remember where the Holy Relic was housed. The show was something to remember.

A "Jesus" of color--John Legend.

'Jesus Christ Superstar' Brings Strong Voices To A Familiar Story (review)
Linda Holmes | April 2, 2018

There is a fundamental audacity to Jesus Christ Superstar, which was staged as a live "concert" performance on NBC on Sunday night. First released as a concept album in 1970, the work by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice not only imagines a very human story behind the final days in the life of Jesus, but it focuses on that story even when it involves ugliness, vanity, and conflict. It posits that Jesus felt not only frustration, but even resentment and ambivalence — not only about his faith, but about his own followers. On the one hand, it's kind of an obvious choice for Easter. On the other hand, maybe not. (There have been Christians who have found it blasphemous for a variety of reasons.)

...This seemed like a very successful experiment, in the end. The strength of the performances, the smartly controlled staging, the quality of the music (which was produced in a way that respected its 1970 birthdate without screaming I AM AVAILABLE ON EIGHT-TRACK), and the mix of Broadway and album-cutting talent worked well. As always seems to happen in these productions, there were periodic issues with the sound, but everybody watching — maybe everybody on Earth — heard Dixon just fine when he shimmied out late in the show in a silver get-up for the final "Superstar" sequence*. Never has a man looked so good wearing so much silver... (30 pieces?)

https://www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2018/04/02/598732076/jesus-christ-superst...
___________________________________________________________

*"Superstar": Brandon Victor Dixon - Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert
NBC | April 1, 2018
Brandon Victor Dixon steps into the spotlight for "Superstar" in Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yleuZbY8rKk
___________________________________________________________

The Cast Kicks Off the Show - Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert
NBC | Apr 1, 2018
John Legend and the rest of the cast kick off Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd_NGdjK3Ps

"Hosanna": John Legend & Norm Lewis - Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert
NBC | Apr 1, 2018
John Legend and Norm Lewis join together for "Hosanna" in Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjE5FhDjF1k
___________________________________________________________

About the Show

From executive producers Andrew Lloyd Webber, Tim Rice, Marc Platt, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron comes NBC's next live musical spectacular, the groundbreaking rock opera "Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert," starring John Legend, Alice Cooper and Sara Bareilles.

Set during the final week of Jesus' life, the story is told from the perspective of infamous betrayer Judas Iscariot. As more and more followers flock to Jesus, Judas grows concerned that Jesus is becoming arrogant and losing sight of his principles. So when Jesus attacks the money changers in a temple, Judas finally turns on his teacher, setting both on a path to tragedy. Originally conceived as a concept album that hit No. 1 on the Billboard charts, the show eventually made its way to the stage in 1971 and garnered five Tony nominations in addition to winning a Drama Desk Award for Andrew Lloyd Webber. Now this globally celebrated classic comes to NBC in 2018 for a one-of-a-kind live staging on Easter Sunday that's sure to amaze with jaw-dropping spectacle and an all-star cast of beloved recording artists. The special will air from 8-10:15pm ET/PT.

Studio
Universal Television, The Really Useful Group, Marc Platt Productions, Storyline Entertainment

Executive Producers
Andrew Lloyd Webber, Tim Rice, Marc Platt, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron

(28 clips)

https://www.nbc.com/jesus-christ-superstar?nbc=1

Q. What is the difference between jesus and the shroud of Turin?

A. The shroud is only a seven hundred year old hoax - jesus is a two thousand year old hoax. lol.