Stephen Jones is on a roll knocking down Charles Freeman on the Shroud of Turin
He is now on part 5, "The Image of Edessa" of his critique of historian Charles Freeman’s, "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," See previous part 1, part 2, part 3 (was 3A) and part 4 (was 3B) first. Then read PART 5.
Jones doesn’t mince his words:
And again, all the above is in Wilson’s book, which Freeman implies that he has read. So either Freeman withheld this above important information from his readers (which would be a form of academic dishonesty); or Freeman did not read Wilson’s book thoroughly (which would be a form of academic incompetence-considering this is all in Wilson’s chapter on Edessa: Chapter 9, `Blessed City’, pp.114-126).
To be continued in part 6: "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa" (2)
This is one great serialized posting.
Note, the quote above has been changed from what was posted earlier this morning. For an explanation as to why see the comments at PART 5.
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
Dan
Sorry, but I was wrong about Freeman not getting the title right. A commenter said he had a copy of Wilson’s book with that title, “The Shroud, Fresh Light on the 2000-year-old Mystery,” even though Google, Amazon.com, ABE and Bookfinder did not list it.
So I had deleted all references in my post to Freeman not getting the title right, several hours ago.
Could you please change your post to reflect what my post now says? Thanks.
Stephen.
Done. Thanks for letting me know, Stephen.