You might be interested in a new book I just published on lulu.com about the Shroud of Besançon. The book is in French, but it may interest many of your readers, at least Andrea Nicolotti….
Thanks, yes. I wish I could read French. But, yes, this blog has many people who read French in addition to Andrea.
On his website, Sindonology, Mario tells us about the book:
Do you know the Shroud of Besançon? It was as popular as the Shroud of Turin for almost three centuries. It disappeared in 1794 during the French Revolution.
Do you know the 18th century manuscrit (known as Ms 826) containing two dissertations on that Shroud? One dissertation is for its authenticity, whereas the second one is against it. The first dissertation has a proof of the origin of the Shroud of Besançon from Constantinople. So it says. But that proof has been shown to be somewhat dubious. Yet, this dissertation, and its proof, was cited numerous times by scholars and historians on the Shroud of Turin. Discover this proof by reading the manuscrit, and the comments presenting it, in the following book, just published on lulu.com.
Mario goes on to tell us that his book will be available on Amazon and from other distributors in France in the near future. Moreover, an e-book is in the works.
Gosh, I wish I could read French. Maybe when the e-book comes along I can figure out how to feed it into Google or Bing.
And in a note of interest on his Sindonology home page, Mario tells us that Andrea Nicolotti and Cécile Brudieu will also be publishing a book on the 18th century manuscript. In French, I imagine?
Some details on Mario’s Book, now available at Lulu:
- ISBN: 9781312942714
- Copyright: Mario Latendresse (Standard Copyright License)
- Edition: Première Édition
- Publisher: Mario Latendresse
- Published: February 24, 2015
- Language: French
- Pages: 134
- Binding: Perfect-bound Paperback
BING: My iPhone binged in the night to let me know an email I was waiting for had just arrived. Amazon was letting me know that the book I had pre-ordered, Finding Jesus: Faith. Fact. Forgery.: Six Holy Objects That Tell the Remarkable Story of the Gospels, had arrived on 1) my laptop, 2) my iPhone and 3) my Kindle reader at 12:13 am on the very day the book was released. This is the book that is a companion to the upcoming CNN special.
If you haven’t ordered it yet, you can do so now and be reading the book in a matter of minutes. Your laptop is all you need though I prefer an iPad. In the U.S. the price is $12.99.*
I immediately turned to the last chapter of the book. It pertains to the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium. There are three major parts to the chapter:
- The Man of the Shroud,
- The Shroud of History and
- The Shroud of Science.
After 3 cups of way-too-early-in-the-morning strong coffee, I’m happy with what I read. It dovetails nicely, though not in every detail, with what I think is true about the shroud.
The authors even discussed one of my favorite elements of history, a third-century bit of Gnostic poetry from the Gospel of Thomas known as the Hymn of the Pearl (or the Hymn of the Soul). I quote from the book:
… but suddenly, [when] I saw the garment made like unto me as it had been in a mirror. And I beheld upon it all myself (or saw it wholly in myself) and I knew and saw myself through it, that we were divided asunder, being of one; and again were one in one shape.”
The last paragraph of the last chapter of the book reads:
Both the scientist and the cleric come to the same conclusion about where the Shroud fits in the story of mankind. “Personally, from my involvement in research on the shroud for almost forty years,” says physicist John Jackson,
“and the wealth of scientific data that we did acquire, I do think that this is the historical burial cloth of Jesus.” Fr. James Martin says, “When we look at the authenticity of the shroud, my gut tells me that it’s real.” At the same time, he ventures that the story will continue: “It is a relic that produces more questions than answers … I don’t think we’ll ever get to the heart of the mystery of the Shroud of Turin.”
ANOTHER BING: Another email. The audio version just arrived from Audible.com at 4:33 am. Perfect. I have a dental appointment later this morning and so I’ll put some ear buds in my ears and start listening to the book from the beginning.
* BTW: If you haven’t ordered John Klotz’ The Coming of the Quantum Christ: The Shroud of Turin and the Apocalypse of Selfishness, do that while ordering Finding Jesus. It will only set you back another ten bucks. John will thank you and you will thank me for recommending it.
Here, in the low country of South Carolina, some of the best game fishing requires you to kayak or wade into the isolated murky salt water marshes. There, you will find the great and tasty Redfish that only sportsmen are allowed to pursue. Sometimes, searching through blogs for the best material seems similar. You must walk in, slog about, cast here and there, until you get a bite.
In this blog, Charles Freeman had commented that his hypothesis “is a plausible hypothesis and so needs to be tested out, just as the Oxford lab tested out John Jackson’ s hypothesis about carbon monoxide affecting the radiocarbon date and finding that it did not” and that “… the artist WAS trying to create a mirror image but that the apparent negative image is what is left when the pigments came off …”
Moreover, Charles had explained that this negative image came from shadows that remained when the pigment flaked away. Shadows? Shadows that remained?
It was in his own blog, deep in a posting on another subject, that Colin Berry chose to reply to Charles:
You may consider it a plausible hypothesis Charles. However, your plausible hypothesis required your making late-in-the-day qualifying assumptions, not only about total detachment of pigment leaving no traces for STURP to detect by microchemical testing. It now involves some wild speculation about pigment leaving shadows (why? how? what?). As if that were not stretching credulity enough we’re now told that thick paint leaves light shadows and thin paint leaves dark. "Plausible hypothesis" you say Charles, when it involves your building a house of cards, making qualifying assumptions that no one, least of all yourself, would have dreamed up that rider unless or until, er, painted into a corner. Last but not least you are looking to art technologists and historians to verify your hypothesis rather than physicists and chemists. Do you have these people at your beck and call, or will there be more who fail to answer your emails?
This not science. It is not even vaguely scientific. It’s an attempt to dress up a dud hypothesis with ever increasing layers of fantasy.
Give it up Charles. This is getting you nowhere, and for the rest of us is a serious distraction from the real business of getting to the bottom of that iconic negative image.
I knew you would want to see this.
Disclaimer: I have not read the book.
Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello has begged me to announce it. The Shroud Guild’s Facebook page, which welcomes comments from members, beat me to it. There, on Facebook, Ruello tells us that he has published a Kindle book entitled The Second Shroud Discovered: Includes Author Autobiography. He writes:
The book is a Novella, 60 page true autobiographical, supernatural drama of my life leading into the discovery. I believe a little book will help me promote the discovery. Am now commencing to contact Hollywood,wish me luck.
In this true novella’s preface we read:
Never since the discovery of the images of the Shroud of Turin by Secondo Pia in 1898 has the world seen such images. The discovery of the Second Shroud photographic images in 2011 from another Holy and precious cloth which have been hidden for nearly 2000 years will leave you breathless. Journey through the life of a man who was tortured and abused as a child by the system that has been protecting this cloth and shrouding it in total mystery and secrecy, until now, when by chance and fate, the hand of God decided to act with an inspirational new form of infrared image processing technique that has now revealed the once hidden Holy face of Gods’ Witness the survival of a stricken soul, transformed into a courageous and enlightened being, fighting for the TRUTH to be told as he battles the prejudices and political clouds of disbelief and apathy now raging our humanity. The Second Shroud Discovered will turn your life upside down and rip apart your heart, mind and soul.
Apparently, by tilting the screen of his laptop computer and photographing it with a handheld digital camera, Ruello is able, in what are perhaps reflections, interference patterns or generated noise, new images that to his way of thinking reveal important information. You can preview some of this material at his website: The Rome Veronica Veil And The Second Face Shroud Back Processed And Decoded (www.veronica-veil.com/)
Note: more on Ruello in this blog
As everyone awaits new CNN documentary series, meanwhile I would like to turn attention to another, seemingly forgotten Canadian series about relics "In search of Holy Treasure" (trailer). . . .
. . . I watched this about two years ago on (now defunct) Religia.tv channell, and I must say I enjoyed it very much (I recorded them on DVD for future watch, of course). It was very well made, presented really balanced view (compared to other documentaries) and provided a lot of otherwise little known infomration. The list of episodes (at least in polish edition):
1. The Shroud of Turin
2. The Holy Grail
3. The Tomb of Jesus
4. The Holy Spear
5. The True Cross
6. The Sudarium of Oviedo.
7. The Crown of Thorns
8. Marian apparitions.
9. The Noah’s Ark
10. The cloths of Jesus (Trier, Argenteuil, Prum, Cahors)
11. The Ark of Covenant
12. The Blood Miracle of Saint Janurius
I have no profit at all for promoting this series.
In my arguments with Charles Freeman, I contended, as I have for a long time, that it is near impossible to paint a negative image. I repeated the claim today. Hugh Farey showed me that I was wrong. It is a short, very disturbing video.
Last November, I had written:
Show me one example of someone painting a negative image in the medieval or anytime in history. Find me an artist anywhere in the world who can do so. I’m sure it is possible. So, too, I imagine is patting your head, rubbing your stomach, jumping rope and singing the Halleluiah Chorus backwards all at the same time. Try it. No, I mean try painting a negative without a negative to copy. Try it.
But Charles, I still would like to see a medieval example and find out why a medieval artist would do this.
The literature in this area is vast, ranging from the statement
that the Shroud is painted a self-portrait of Leonardo,
that it is the work of a medieval forger who used techniques not known to us,
that which makes the Shroud ‘ scientific proof of the resurrection ‘, or
… a radiation characteristic … as if the resurrection itself was a natural event….
MUST READ: It isn’t easy with a Google translation. Organize a workshop around the Shroud: Interview with Bruno Barberis, President of the International Center of Sindonology Turin, however, is important.
Here is one example:
[The Question] The debate around the Shroud at that point has arrived and what is your opinion on the debate in recent decades?
[Barberis’ Answer] In recent years there has been a lively debate considerably around the Shroud, perhaps as never before in the past, facilitated, without a doubt, an exceptional sounding board provided by modern means of communication. This debate was triggered mainly (but not only) by the now famous radiocarbon dating of the Shroud cloth made in 1988, the result of which (medieval dating of the Shroud) sparked a confrontation not only between scientists and scholars, but also in public opinion. The scientific debate was to take place, as is right and logical, exclusively within those research groups who have decided to grapple with the complex and thorny issue of evaluating the date of the Shroud cloth, with the opportunity to make known experimental results and related theoretical considerations at meetings or scientific congresses. In fact it did not happen, because the debate became incorporated arguments often anything but scientific. Also the media have certainly facilitated the work, as they are often spoken extensively on news of minor and have been silent instead those series, looking almost exclusively of the sensational news. In fact, below that there is another question of far greater thickness and oldest: the controversy between the two opposites ‘fundamentalisms Shroud’, the advocate of absolute certainty the identity of the Shroud and burial cloth of Jesus, and what he believes that the two objects lacking any correlation. It is obvious that everyone is free to propose and defend their thesis, but it is also equally natural that such a defense must respect the logical criteria of modern science. There has however a number of statements and debates in which often start from absolutely arbitrary assumptions and preconceived, using arguments that go against the most elementary rules of logic and therefore leads to conclusions absolutely unprovable. The literature in this area is vast, ranging from the statement that the Shroud is painted a self-portrait of Leonardo, that it is the work of a medieval forger who used techniques not known to us, that which makes the Shroud ‘ scientific proof of the resurrection ‘, or the result of a radiation characteristic of the resurrection, as if the resurrection itself was a natural event, repeatable laboratory and therefore reviewable by scientific methods. And the list could go on much longer. Force the hand of the scientific evidence, or neglect them completely and start from assumptions absolutely baseless, equivalent to damage and discredit the meaning and message of the Shroud that make a unique object in the world. The scholar serious and correct detests the Crusades or against the authenticity of the Shroud image, made just to convince more people of their convictions, without wearing a shred of evidence, or by arguing that struggle with most basic rationality. Starting from the assumption that ‘the shroud is the burial cloth of Christ’ and try to prove it at all costs without bothering to give reasons and objective series or to assume that ‘the Shroud is the work of a medieval forger’ and do the same tantamount not only to perform a scientifically incorrect, but also to tease all those who, eager to learn more, to take good similar conclusions. The only serious and honest behavior is that of someone who, wanting only to know the truth, stands humbly to his research, without claiming to want to demonstrate any preconceived thesis, and, indeed, rejecting everything that can not be seriously and scientifically proven . On this subject, it is expressed very clearly Saint John Paul II in his speech in front of the Shroud May 24, 1998: "The Church urges [scientists] to face the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted that these results do not they are; invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers. " On that occasion the Pope, very effectively, called the Shroud ‘a challenge to our intelligence’. The discussion on the Shroud often degenerates because the Shroud is not a neutral object, it involves both the reflection of historical-scientific, is that kind of religious creed. If it were a sheet in which you think has been wrapped any other historical figure, all these discussions are not met. Therefore only keeping separate the scientific approach and the religious (both basic and complementary) you can think of to deal with a serious study on the Shroud and honest.
Another example is the question and answer that just preceded the one above:
[The Question] Professor Luigi Campanella has developed methods that could perhaps give a measure of the pollution of the Shroud. Because these methods are not used because they do not realize other analyzes on the Shroud? -because the Shroud remains inaccessible to scientists?
[Barberis’ Answer] . . . It is not true that the Shroud is inaccessible to scientists. Personally I am absolutely conducive to the holding of new direct studies on the Shroud provided, however, that it is non-destructive testing: we can not treat the Shroud as a lab rat, especially considering that it is a unique object. Current technology allows you to make meaningful analysis of fibers with a thickness of a few micrometers which therefore require withdrawals nondestructive. A new campaign of direct studies on the cloth should aim to collect more data to form a complete map of the physical, chemical and biological properties of the entire Shroud, to be made available to scholars so that they can work and confront on accurate, reliable. To do this it would be necessary to organize a program of analysis using modern and sophisticated equipment: a real laboratory for the Shroud. The costs of such a complex operation would certainly very consistent. Only after an analysis and a detailed study of the Shroud could possibly make sense to program a new dating of the cloth.