Pray Manuscript: Thank you Colin and David Mo
A reader writes:
Thank you Colin and David Mo. More has been written about the Pray Manuscript in this blog than in all the books ever written about the Shroud of Turin. Thanks to your efforts we now have so much to think about that has never been considered before. Some of it is fact, much of it is opinion, and some of it is mere speculation. Even criticisms of speculation are speculative in some cases. But all of it is a treasure for all of us, skeptic and believer alike. Only good can come from it if we want to know the truth.
I’m quite sure the Pray Manuscript shows a representation of the Shroud. I think so even more so after reading this blog. But I am enriched by the well thought out skepticism of Colin and David Mo. I can no longer say to others, “Look, see this and that.” I must now also say, “Others think this. What do you think?”
But why so even more so? Anyway, I agree. It seems so obvious. I was looking at the ocean yesterday. It was so obviously the ocean. Lacking proof, I guess I could have argued that it was maybe a mirage.
Leave a Reply
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
I do thank you too CoBerry & DMo for their learned ignorance. It just needed to be fought back by at least somebody with some professional experience in deciphering cryptic medieval miniatures and graffitis… even if you didn’t ask him to.
…It took an ocean of comments. Meguess I will finish to write away both a steganological study of the San Pudanziana mosaic (400 ca) and an iconocryptological study of the Pray Ms bifolium miniatures I started very long ago (in the 1980s) but rapidly dropped for lack of time…
Actually we should first and foremost thank Stephen Jones for launching the theme on his blog (see his 1st May correction/vcritique of the Wikipedia article on the Pray Ms) and… Dan Porter ‘s follow-up on his 24/24h open blog (even for a French bombarder’s comments)…
The anonymous reader writes: “More has been written about the Pray Manuscript in this blog than in all the books ever written about the Shroud of Turin.” Personally besides my own research and findings (in the 80′s) on the Pray Ms bifolium 5 pen & ink drawings, read nearly a dozens of comparative studies on the TS/Hungarian codex miniatures. This far exceeds one can read on this blog.
Nothing new.
Credo quia absurdum est.
Nothing new, DMo is STILL a learned ignorant in Medieval Art History…
Recently, I said to Barrie that I really believe that an exchange of ideas, like we do on this blog, if it’s done honestly, can really be a good thing sometimes, because it forces you to reflect upon some other perspectives than yours and see things from another angle. Often, something good can come out of this process, as long as you’re open enough to read an opinion that is far from yours and reflect seriously upon it.
On this blog, it just does seem that Dan et al are NOT REALLY open to see things from a different perspective ESPECIALLY mine as my opinions and facts are far from theirs…