4 ms·

Too much effort to be a joke. I see several possibilities 1. Non deliberate poisoning Meat is hard to find in war times. A diet with too much legumes or spina

Too much effort to be a joke. I see several possibilities 1. Non deliberate poisoning Meat is hard to find in war times. A diet with too much legumes or spinach is rich in vegetable toxins that the plants use as defense. Expecting humble substandard quality food seems appropriate when living in a small village vicar's house, unable to even afford accurate heating in the church. Meat is rich in zinc. If we combine a meatless diet with plant toxins that block zinc absorption and all of this with paint, we can end with paint poisoning. Calcium dust could raise the calcium intake and calcium competes with zinc absorption. Chrome salts in the paint may mess also somehow with the capability to absorb zinc. Altered levels of zinc in the blood are directly linked with schizophrenia. 2. Revenge Not the type of "you scammed and didn't pay me, so I will work for two years more in miserable conditions". Maybe a serious grunt or a strong dislike for the priest in charge would lead to a statement of "this church is not a good place and is filled with demons forever now". The higher number of demons, the better. Could be related with something that happened to him, or to his son, or with some rumors circulating about the priest . Is unclear how the priest would not notice even the bigger figures. Either the didn't, or prefer not to sue him or disclose the case, for several reasons. There are also other two hypothetical explanations, very unlikely but not impossible 3. Disguise The draw is a disguise. Maybe with the complicity of the priest. The elaborate and dense figures in some places mixed with bigger and less dense figures in other would be hiding chunks of an hypothetical previous text that could be seen as a shame, politically dangerous just before 1940, or blasphemous but without destroying it entirely for a possible historical value. Maybe a statement in jewish marking the church as a sanctuary place, or a few phrases in cyrillic, runes or other foreign language that would be not evident to spot for a non native. Some alphabet with a lot of pairs of circles that could be refactored logically as eyes. Lots and lots of them. The priest would not want it disclosed as would harm his reputation as caretaker of an historical building or reduce his income, but just painting white over the previous religious picture would guarantee a lot of undesirable interest. Claiming that they were restoring it and drawing over it to achieve a grey effect would be a "safer" compromise solution. 4. Deliberate poisoning By himself (Amanita mushrooms?) is unlikely as is an isolated case in his career and would not lead to such meticulous work. His son would have noticed also that something was not right. The figures are strange but still realistic and not distorted. If by a third part there is not an obvious reason to do it, and he would not voluntarily return to the place after this.

tokai 4y ago
>Too much effort to be a joke. This is not sound reasoning. People put immense effort into jokes.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  I could be wrong, but jokes are normally limited in scope, time and place. Nobody sane would destroy an historical artifact in a sacred place and then says "just kidding, ha-haa". This looks too much overblown just for a small private amusement. It would need a stronger motivation because the consequences are real and not negligible. Is professional suicide for a restorer.
  - tokai 4y ago
    Just the first example I can think of is this dude that spend decades of his life creating an elaborate satanic hoax. He never came clean to anybody, presumably hope the joke could go on for a long time. You also have those desert monoliths, that confused everyone recently. https://da-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Knud_Langkow?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=da&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://da-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Knud_Langkow?...
vidarh 4y ago
> or prefer not to sue him The church is/was state property. It wouldn't have been the priest who'd go after him, it'd have been the government department responsible or the police. > Maybe a statement in jewish marking the church as a sanctuary place, or a few phrases in cyrillic, runes or other foreign language that would be not evident to spot for a non native. Hebrew would be incredibly unlikely in that between the time the mural is from and 1940, there were very few Jewish people in Norway as a whole, and certainly not in some tiny village in the middle of nowhere. From 1687 to 1814 it required special dispensation from the government for Jewish people to enter Norway at all. From 1814 to 1851 Jewish people were banned from entering by the constitution. After the ban was lifted, few came due to very strict immigration policies in general. By 1940 there were only about 2100 Jewish people in Norway. Cyrillic writing would be equally unlikely. If it had been up North, maybe, but not in Telemark. Runes would be more likely to be celebrated than hidden away unless the content was very problematic, and mere references to Norse mythology would not be sufficient; the influence on pre-Christian Norse mythology on Christianity in Norway is rarely hidden away, and during that time, there had been a renewed interest in that heritage. In fact, at that time, about half of all known runic inscriptions in Norway were in churches, and many of them made by or on behalf of priests or bishops. (There was at least one "[priest] was here" type inscription in Telemark - "Áslakr prestr reit rúnar şessar", "Aslak the priest wrote these runes" - originally in Atrå church) I don't think there has ever been any find of inscriptions in runes in Norway which would have been problematic to find in a church. It's possible, of course, but I don't buy that there'd be this one huge exception, not least because most runic inscriptions are very short. > or reduce his income The priest would have been a state employee on a fixed salary. Norway had a state church until 2012, and while there had been independent churches for quite some time by then, none of the older churches like the one in Sauherad would have been. If the priest was in on something it was certainly not for fear of his personal finances.

tokai 4y ago

>Too much effort to be a joke. This is not sound reasoning. People put immense effort into jokes.

pvaldes 4y ago
I could be wrong, but jokes are normally limited in scope, time and place. Nobody sane would destroy an historical artifact in a sacred place and then says "just kidding, ha-haa". This looks too much overblown just for a small private amusement. It would need a stronger motivation because the consequences are real and not negligible. Is professional suicide for a restorer.
- tokai 4y ago
  Just the first example I can think of is this dude that spend decades of his life creating an elaborate satanic hoax. He never came clean to anybody, presumably hope the joke could go on for a long time. You also have those desert monoliths, that confused everyone recently. https://da-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Knud_Langkow?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=da&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://da-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Knud_Langkow?...

vidarh 4y ago

> or prefer not to sue him The church is/was state property. It wouldn't have been the priest who'd go after him, it'd have been the government department responsible or the police. > Maybe a statement in jewish marking the church as a sanctuary place, or a few phrases in cyrillic, runes or other foreign language that would be not evident to spot for a non native. Hebrew would be incredibly unlikely in that between the time the mural is from and 1940, there were very few Jewish people in Norway as a whole, and certainly not in some tiny village in the middle of nowhere. From 1687 to 1814 it required special dispensation from the government for Jewish people to enter Norway at all. From 1814 to 1851 Jewish people were banned from entering by the constitution. After the ban was lifted, few came due to very strict immigration policies in general. By 1940 there were only about 2100 Jewish people in Norway. Cyrillic writing would be equally unlikely. If it had been up North, maybe, but not in Telemark. Runes would be more likely to be celebrated than hidden away unless the content was very problematic, and mere references to Norse mythology would not be sufficient; the influence on pre-Christian Norse mythology on Christianity in Norway is rarely hidden away, and during that time, there had been a renewed interest in that heritage. In fact, at that time, about half of all known runic inscriptions in Norway were in churches, and many of them made by or on behalf of priests or bishops. (There was at least one "[priest] was here" type inscription in Telemark - "Áslakr prestr reit rúnar şessar", "Aslak the priest wrote these runes" - originally in Atrå church) I don't think there has ever been any find of inscriptions in runes in Norway which would have been problematic to find in a church. It's possible, of course, but I don't buy that there'd be this one huge exception, not least because most runic inscriptions are very short. > or reduce his income The priest would have been a state employee on a fixed salary. Norway had a state church until 2012, and while there had been independent churches for quite some time by then, none of the older churches like the one in Sauherad would have been. If the priest was in on something it was certainly not for fear of his personal finances.