I hadn’t even heard of the Pray Codex until recently. Whoever came up with the idea that the Turin Shroud could be seen in it? Where might the Shroud have been seen and why would it not have been copied directly in the pictures?. This just seems to be a poor piece of medieval art which is drawing on conventions from more sophisticated works. Christ is just being shown buried in a way that Christians were buried in the Middle Ages and the pattern on the tomb has nothing to do with the weave of the cloth and why would you want to venerate the weave and not the image which could have been put there if the artist had wanted to. It is amazing how some people see things the rest of us can’t!
This is after David Mo finds many differences between the shroud and the codex illustration, which Colin Berry thinks is a “masterly demolition” of a “fatuous comparison” by Stephen E. Jones. All these comments are at Jones on the Hungarian Pray Manuscript Codex as discussed in Wikipedia « Shroud of Turin Blog.
Maybe it is amazing but I do see what LyFe doesn’t. And so do many medievalists, historians and art scholars. So maybe it is one of those things, like so many things in the shroud world, that is and will always be interpretation. That is why I don’t think we can say that the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, alone, is proof that the carbon dating is wrong,