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.
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…