Post by bjorn on Aug 27, 2011 9:27:47 GMT
I'm in the midst of reviewing an analytical (or at least not overtly apologetic) article on the Shroud of Turin and would appreciate informed opinions (preferable negative - so come on, Tim!) on a few issues.
The first is the Hungarian Pray manuscript which some finds challenging for the C14-dating, I think the best summary on the net (the article under review is in Norwegian so I won't take the time to translate) is from www.shroudstory.com/faq-pray-manuscript.htm
” Written between 1192 and 1195, the codex includes an illustration, one of five in the manuscript, showing Jesus being placed on his burial shroud, a shroud with the identical pattern of burn holes found on the Shroud. The artist drew the very unusual herringbone weave on the shroud and a number of other graphic characteristics consistent with the Shroud. Jesus is shown naked with his arms modestly folded at the wrists, the fingers are unusually long in appearance as they are on the Shroud, and there are no visible thumbs. (There are no thumbs visible in the images of the man of the Shroud either.) Forensic pathologists tell us that this makes sense since nails driven through the wrist would likely cause the thumbs to fold into the palms. In the drawing, there is also a clear mark on Jesus' forehead where the most prominent 3-shaped bloodstain is found on the forehead of the man of the Shroud.
There can be little question that this illustrator of the Pray Codex, far removed from France, working at a time before the sacking of Constantinople by French knights, before the time given for the Shroud by carbon 14 testing, and before or the d'Arcis Memorandum, knew about the Shroud, the Holy Mandylion, the Image of Edessa.“
One good page of general debunking is at www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html, however it says puzzingly next to nothing about this manuscript:
"References to the shroud can be found prior to the Middle Ages'. This claim usually refers to the 'Image of Edessa', a holy relic allegedly found in 554 CE in Edessa. It was a square or rectangle of cloth on which it was alleged the face of Jesus was imprinted. Some try to claim that the shroud and the 'Image of Edessa' are one and the same. Yet it did not contain a full body image, only the face, and this legend actually began when Jesus was still alive, so it can't be referring to the shroud. Another image in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript is equally problematic. There are no reputable shroud references that don't conflict with what we know about the shroud, prior to 1355 CE. "
So, is there a good analysis anywhere on why the Pray manuscript can't be of the Shroud, when there (seemingly) are so many similarities?
The first is the Hungarian Pray manuscript which some finds challenging for the C14-dating, I think the best summary on the net (the article under review is in Norwegian so I won't take the time to translate) is from www.shroudstory.com/faq-pray-manuscript.htm
” Written between 1192 and 1195, the codex includes an illustration, one of five in the manuscript, showing Jesus being placed on his burial shroud, a shroud with the identical pattern of burn holes found on the Shroud. The artist drew the very unusual herringbone weave on the shroud and a number of other graphic characteristics consistent with the Shroud. Jesus is shown naked with his arms modestly folded at the wrists, the fingers are unusually long in appearance as they are on the Shroud, and there are no visible thumbs. (There are no thumbs visible in the images of the man of the Shroud either.) Forensic pathologists tell us that this makes sense since nails driven through the wrist would likely cause the thumbs to fold into the palms. In the drawing, there is also a clear mark on Jesus' forehead where the most prominent 3-shaped bloodstain is found on the forehead of the man of the Shroud.
There can be little question that this illustrator of the Pray Codex, far removed from France, working at a time before the sacking of Constantinople by French knights, before the time given for the Shroud by carbon 14 testing, and before or the d'Arcis Memorandum, knew about the Shroud, the Holy Mandylion, the Image of Edessa.“
One good page of general debunking is at www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html, however it says puzzingly next to nothing about this manuscript:
"References to the shroud can be found prior to the Middle Ages'. This claim usually refers to the 'Image of Edessa', a holy relic allegedly found in 554 CE in Edessa. It was a square or rectangle of cloth on which it was alleged the face of Jesus was imprinted. Some try to claim that the shroud and the 'Image of Edessa' are one and the same. Yet it did not contain a full body image, only the face, and this legend actually began when Jesus was still alive, so it can't be referring to the shroud. Another image in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript is equally problematic. There are no reputable shroud references that don't conflict with what we know about the shroud, prior to 1355 CE. "
So, is there a good analysis anywhere on why the Pray manuscript can't be of the Shroud, when there (seemingly) are so many similarities?