David Rolfe, some hip dude in England

Bailey Packard, who prepared this great 23 minute video, writes in Shroud of Turin: Faith, Science, & History Come Together on a Piece of Cloth:

Probably the newest and coolest Shroud website with lots of great videos – The Enigma of the Shroud of Turin done by some hip dudes in England.

Hat tip to Joe Marino for providing information about this video

59 thoughts on “David Rolfe, some hip dude in England”

  1. Wow…and she is a teenager! There is hope for world afterall. She did a fantastic job…I have a feeling her dad is in the video production business…very well done.

    1. Yannick, If you didn’t want to try it with the family cat, you could maybe hunt out a few mink, beaver, even a fox or two or possibly a lynx, from up Ungava way. ;-))

  2. It’s interesting to note that, in this video, the girl said (while quoting M. Di Lazzaro) “that the most advanced technology available today is unable to replicate all the characteristics of the Shroud’s image.”

    And what about the idea of “using” a real scourged and crucified body that would stay for some 36 hours inside a linen cloth made with the antique technology described by Rogers (i.e. that would present a thin layer of impurities on the surface) in order to replicate the Shroud’s image? Who knows if such a “biological test” could not give a result much closer than “the most advanced technology available today”??? ;-)

    1. Yannick, can I suggest that, for the sake of brevity, in future, you could encapsulate the above as ‘The Smudge Theory’. It seems to be a good pithy description.
      Yours, David ‘cool dude’ Rolfe.

    2. What I describe is, by far, the most rational scenario of what happened to the Shroud that eventually lead to the formation of a very faint body image on it.

      Of course, M. Rolfe, Latendresse and most of the other “shroudies” prefer to believe it is a direct product of the Resurrection and have a hard time to admit that the Shroud is most probably an image of a dead man which comes from a biological source…

      Bravo for your very “scientific” way of thinking! The world of the Shroud is proud of you! Keep on that way and the rest of the scientific community will keep on laughing at you behind your back! It is surely with men like you that Shroud science will get his credibility back… (SIC).

      In French, my way of thinking is called “le gros bon sens” (Latendresse will understand) and such a way of thinking is at the heart of any good science except Shroud science, UFO science, Ghost science and any other crap like that.

      1. Yannick, please do not presume to know what I believe. I just do not think that “The Smudge Theory” is consistent with what we can all see.

      2. I don’t even know what the “smudge theory” is! On the contrary, what I know is that you don’t want to hear anything concerning a natural formation of the image, just like 99% of the supernatural clique. I’m always amazed to see how people who believe the image is a direct product of the Resurrection always try hard to hide it, like if that kind of belief would be some kind of bad disease (which I think it is in a sense!!!) while people rational like me who respect science and knows how to always keep separated science and faith never have any fear to put their cards on the table and openly admit that we believe the image is the product of a natural phenomenon most probably related to the corpse that was present inside the cloth for less than 72 hours…

        And concerning you personally M. Rolfe, if my guess is incorrect, than I’m sorry and I hope you will share with me your real belief regarding the Shroud. And if I’m right, then why don’t you openly admit that you believe the Shroud’s image to be a physical proof of the Resurrection?

      3. Sorry, but please do not claim to know what I think or believe. To ascribe to me some unscientific way to study the Shroud is very ironic given the fact that you recently went on a rent about my posting regarding Lavoie’s hypothesis which is based on a supernatural event. You are missing the big picture about the paper I presented at Dallas in 2005, since it prominently shows that there is no such need for a supernatural event to get proper images on the Shroud and have bloodstains being transferred. Can you pinpoint some unscientific way to study the Shroud in that paper?

      4. Mario, sorry to say that but, in my mind, you misunderstood some important aspects of the bloodstain problem in your paper (which was a very good paper nevertheless). And concerning the unscientific aspect of your paper, I see at least one thing: You agreed in that paper with Jackson’s ludicrous hypothesis that pretend that some blood clots on the skin of the Shroud man have projected themselves at a distance and have left their images on the Shroud! Sorry but blood don’t project itself in the air!!! It’s scientifically impossible.

        The truth is this: All the bloodstains on the Shroud came from DIRECT CONTACT and this is a scientific fact my friend that you don’t seem to understand. And when someone understand that FACT, he also understand that, in order to get so many bloodstains on the cloth in so many places, you must have a very tight compression of the cloth on the corpse. And here’s another truth: The undistorted image that we see on the Shroud is TOTALLY INCONSISTENT with this kind of tight compression position of the cloth around the body! If the Shroud would have stayed that way around the body until the image formation process began, it’s obvious that the resulting image would have been seriously distorted, especially laterally. Consequently, a change of position from a tight compression position to a more looser and natural position MUST have occurred. But you’re right about the fact that there is no need to call for a miraculous intervention concerning such a change of position! All you have to do is understand that the body wasn’t placed in the Shroud in his final resting place inside the tomb (a stone bench), but was most probably placed inside the cloth in a central room (the tradition of the Holy Sepulchre call it the stone of the anointing). That mean there was at least one transfer done with the enshrouded body from that central place to the stone bench and it is easy to assume that such a manual transfer would have placed the shroud very close and tight with the body, which would have caused the formation of many of the bloodstains we see on the Shroud (including some located in places where there is no body image at all!). Then, you just have to assume that after the enshrouded body had been placed in his final resting place inside the tomb, the Shroud would have been replaced in a more natural and loose position by the people in charge of the burial. And only after this had been done, the image formation process really became active. Unlike Lavoie, such a rational scenario would not call for any divine intervention but nevertheless, I have to agree with this medecine expert that in order to get the bloodstains we see on the Shroud AND a undistorted body image, a change of position of the cloth MUST have occurred!!!

        Finally, concerning your belief versus the Shroud, no offense but I remember that, in one exchange of emails you did with me some years ago, you really seemed to favored some supernatural process to explain the image… I remember this because hearing that from a scientist like you was a shocker! But if my memory is wrong about that, then I will say the same thing I said to M. Rolfe: I’m sorry and I hope you will share with me your real belief regarding the Shroud.

      5. You misunderstood (comment #11) what was written in my paper. Unfortunately, you (Yannick) do not quote my paper. So we have to read your interpretation of it, not my original writing.

        Obviously, bloodstains on the Shroud are due to contact with blood! Stating otherwise would be idiotic. By definition, a bloodstain is due to contact with blood! Nowhere in my paper do I state that bloodstains are not due to contact. So, I do not understand why you are stating otherwise. On the contrary, my paper says that the bloodstains prove that the Shroud cannot have undergone a complete loosening or flattening during image formation after being in contact with the blood on the corpse, since that would create major incorrect vertical alignments of the bloodstains vs the images. That’s the main point. All the details are in the paper.

        There are many other points which you are quite wrong in the interpretation of Lavoie’s published work. For example, Lavoie never used the argument that the blood cannot come from the hair due to a lack of pressure. Indeed such an argument would be expected, but he did not use it.

        Can you provide a quote from Lavoie’s papers (Shroud Spectrum or the Frascati conference), on the subject of the bloodstains around the face, that states that you need a significant amount of pressure to transfer the blood from the hair to the cloth?

        In essence, Lavoie does not prove that the bloodstains cannot come from the hair, he proves that they can come from the face. This is quite different. But to do so, he does not analyze the problem of the vertical alignments of the bloodstains vs the images and at the end has to rely on a supernatural flattening of the Shroud to “explain” the phenomenon because indeed it no longer makes geometrical sense.

      6. To continue my answer to comment #11, you wrote “you really seemed to favored some supernatural process to explain the image”.

        I think this is a contradiction of terms. I do not see how you can “explain” a phenomenon by relying on a supernatural process. By definition, a supernatural process has no explanation attach to it, since if you had an explanation of that process it could not be called “supernatural”.

        In any case, I will try to explain what I think of Shroud research.

        Essentially, the artifacts (images, bloodstains, water stains, etc.) found on the Shroud can be studied in very precise terms. And you can formulate some possible explanations about their formation. You could say for example: “this image is created by the deformation of the linen fibrils”, or “this image is created by biochemical reaction X on compounds Y and Z found on top of the linen fibrils”, or “it is possible, by using a laser of frequency X at energy level Y to modify the linen fibrils as found on the Shroud”. But in all cases it may not be possible to state more precisely how these phenomenon did happen in the context of the Shroud covering a corpse in a tomb.

        All scientific theories have limits in their power to explain and predict. It is true for General Relativity (it does not work at the nuclear level), for the Big Bang theory (where does the energy of the Big Bang comes from?), evolution (how did the first bacteria originated, was DNA or RNA from out of space?), and so on.

        This is going to be the same for the Shroud and its images.

        Late in his life, when Rogers worked on formulating a theory to explain the images on the Shroud, he relied on the Maillard reaction. This was for a good reason since the coloration of the impurities he found on the fibrils were similar to the products of a Maillard reaction and such a reaction could occur at low temperature given enough time. On the other hand, he was aware of the limitation of that theory since it was difficult to explain how to form precise images based on heat convection. This is the limit of that theory. It explains some observations, but not some others. We could simply say “the color observed on the fibrils is very similar to the color we would find if a Maillard reaction occurred on the impurities that were detected”. And that’s quite interesting in itself. But some other researchers are not so convinced that there is not a better explanation. They try other experiments to show that other type of physical phenomenon could create a similar color on fibrils. This is research: You try different routes so that you might actually go as far as possible in covering the observations. In some cases, these experiments are done to simply show that the coloring is possible despite what some other researchers have written. I think this is the case of Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at ENEA: I think Rogers stated that a laser could not produce such a coloring without destroying the fibrils. They wanted to show otherwise. And I think they succeeded for that specific goal. (Of course, the media got into it and turned things around completely, creating a huge confusion.) In the case of Giulio Fanti, his corona discharge experiments were also to show that a similar coloring is possible. This is research.

        But to remain coherent, we also have to admit that the phenomenon and circumstances that created the Shroud images are quite unique and probably very difficult to reproduce, if reproducible. This is so since we essentially have only one (recorded) such shroud in the history of mankind. If the phenomenon we are proposing occurs frequently, then it is suspicious that this phenomenon is the right one since we should have more shrouds like the Shroud of Turin. On the other hand if we propose an experiment that we cannot (ethically or otherwise) reproduce, that cannot be useful. That’s the dichotomy of the Shroud.

        In essence, Shroud research is quite uncharacteristic compared to many other fields since you have to find some phenomenon that cannot happen on a regular basis but also that you could reproduce.

        I hope my answer was not too convoluted!

        And I hope to see real research around the Shroud, not continuous bickering and personal attacks.

  3. Just watched the video. Brilliant 23 minute video on Shroud of Turin, by teenager Bailey Packard, in search of evidence for the Resurrection. good objective reporting, some fascinating animations of classic art pictures, well-presented, good close-ups of Shroud details, science reasonably adequate, with only a little speculation. We need more teenagers like her! Note Consultants included Barrie Schwortz!

  4. Exegetically speaking, the video is just brilliantly desinformative as far as the empty tomb scene is concerned (Bailey should read Augustine of Hippo’s for a change of perspective). Besides the video just does ignore a possible key approach to solve the TS image formation enigma namely the ritualisic approach as she is agenda driven (the TS image as proof of the resurrection).

    Archmiraculists (and archfraudulists as well) JUST keep ignoring/overlooking the fact Yeshu’a’s corpse was honoured by being subjected to a specific burial rite (not unlike that for a rich man, an outstanding figure or a king; see Chronicle 2). Most sadly, it is currently and most wrongly thought or implied on tis very blog, Yeshu’a’s body was half buried in haste (when the true fact is only the anointing procedure to prevent bad smell was postponed to the third day) or the sindon was left behind in the empty tomb, which is far from being proven.

  5. My ignorance of St Augustine’s exegesis humbles me beyond description. Can you give us the essence of his ideas, or better still, a reference wherein one might read the great man’s own words?

  6. In Joannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV) Augustine of Hippo wrote:

    “And he saw, and believed.” Here some, by not giving due attention, suppose that John believed that Jesus had risen again; but there is no indication of this from the words that follow. For what does he mean by immediately adding, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead”? He could not then have believed that He had risen again, when he did not know that it behoved Him to rise again. What then did he see? what was it that he believed? What but this, that he saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said, that He had been taken away from the tomb?

    …and further on in the following tractate:

    Mary Magdalene had brought the news to His disciples, Peter and John, that the Lord was taken away from the sepulchre; and they, when they came thither, found only the linen clothes wherewith the body had been shrouded; and what else could they believe but what she had told them, and what she had herself also believed?

    (As early as 1994 and as far as the empty tomb scene exegesis is concerned, I came to the same conclusion as Augustine of Hippo’s without even having previously heard of it. So did William Meacham, see http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wmeacham/ton)

  7. According to the Gospels, Yeshu’a had to open his disciples’ mind to the scriptures… AFTER his death.

  8. (Even if the latter might well be Lazarus himself under a new given name to abide by an old Judean tradition to give a new name to “survivers”).

  9. Intersting comment by Max re Augustine’s interpretation of John 20:9, which seems at vairance with the common, but possibly mistaken view that from that moment John believed in the Resurrection, However, I think it possible that either view may be tenable i.e. ‘either he now believed the women, or he believed in the Resurrection’. Jerusalem Bible (English translation from French text of JB) has an interesting translation of succeeding v.10: “Till this moment (c.f. ‘as yet’) they had failed to understand the teaching of scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” ‘Till this moment’ suggests that from that moment they did believe in the Resurrection.

    However we are talking about the merits of a video compiled by a reasonably well-informed teen-ager, not discussing a thesis by a Stage III Religious Studies student, and the video is well-done and a marvellous effort.

    Re the Meacham URL quoted by Max, I went looking for it but the page has since been removed.

    Concernng his oft-repeated assertion that the body of Jesus was honoured by some kind of special ritual, and that the evangelist or disciple John was actualy Lazarus revived, I think I would invoke J P Meier’s criterion: “What can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.” Max may believe these to be the case, but I see no solid grounds for either assertion – they remain merely some interesting speculations,

  10. Further comment to mine above re Augustine’s exegesis of John 20:9:-

    Augustine did not know about the image on the burial cloths – he has been quoted as saying that no-one knew the physical appearance of Jesus. A more comprehensive expansion of the text [Jn 20:5-9] follows, and may give yet another perspective: [USCCB translation]:

    “5. he bent down and saw the burial cloths there, but did not go in. 6 When Simon Peter arrived after him, he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths* there, 7 and the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place. 8Then the other disciple also went in, the one who had arrived at the tomb first, and he saw and believed. 9 For they did not yet understand the scripture that he had to rise from the dead”

    If at this time, the image had fully developed and was then visible (which could be arguable if the imaging process was better understood), then the sight of the image would certainly cause the disciple to wonder, and come to some understanding of the meaning of “rising from the dead”. This view is of course part of Wesselow’s thesis.

    For general information, the USCCB text can be found at: http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/20

    Those interested in making a point that it was women who first discovered the empty tomb, might be more intrigued by Augustine’s exegesis of v.9.

    1. Wesselow’s thesis = CRAP. In fact, this is one, if not the most ludicrous hypothesis associated with the Shroud I have ever read in my life. But of course, crap like that always sells well. That’s why we will surely see other crazyness like that in the future in association with the Shroud. It’s like a bottomless pit. That’s all I have to say about that.

    2. I agree with Daveb that the video’s production warrants some merit, although some details need tweeking, i.e; ‘clothes’ instead of ‘strips’ etc. But all in all a very good production and one that may catch the eye of young students, and cause that they atleast study the Shroud further. Daveb also has a point in that either scenario may be tenable when it comes to the tomb narrative. Translation of the scriptures is a sticky point when dealing in such matters. I tend to disagree with Augustine’s interpretation and feel it tends to run along the lines that the apostles or in this case in particular, John, were idiots. To me, John at that precise moment, after viewing the status of the burial cloths knew exactly what had occured and as Jesus had told them he would rise again on the third day. The other apostles still hiding were not prevy to this knowledge and possibly didn’t believe John either when he got back and told them. It is quite reasonable to assert that when Jesus appeared to the disciples in the room that evening, John was already fully aware and a believer of Jesus’s resurrection, yet not the others.
      I have an issue with Davebs’ assertion, in the possiblility of the image being ‘noticed’ in the tomb on that Easter morning, as the image would have been on the inside of the Shroud (if the Shroud was left exactly as before), and not noticeable at that particular time. Not until the the Shroud had been retrieved and spread open in proper light, would the image have been noticable.

      R

      1. I should have added, that it was exactly the ‘placement’ of the burial cloths which had caused John to ‘believe’. That the clothes had not been disturbed whatsoever, and lay still as when they wrapped the body of Jesus. TO me that is a practical assertion.

      2. Ron wrote: “It is quite reasonable to assert that when Jesus appeared to the disciples in the room that evening, John was already fully aware and a believer of Jesus’s resurrection, yet not the others.”

        My opinion: Oh I’m far from being sure of that Ron. You look at it with your eyes of modern faithful who had time to assimilate the concept of the Resurrection of Christ… On Easter morning, when the tomb (and the Shroud) was found empty, I’m not sure that there was even one disciple to believe in Jesus Resurrection before he appeared to them and they could see him alive again (even though what they saw was surely a bit different than the image of the dead Jesus we can see on the Shroud, since they had trouble to recognize him).

        But in the end, who knows? Maybe John was much more clairvoyant than the rest of the group… It is possible but, in the face of the rest of the Gospel stories related to Jesus Resurrection, I have a serious doubt about that. Surely, Thomas was not the only one who needed to see in order to believe… This is part of human nature I guess.

  11. I agree with Augustine’s interpretation of that part of St John’s Gospel because it is the interpretation that makes the most common sense with the next few lines of that Gospel.

    And concerning Max’s personal hypothesis, I wonder what he make of these particular observations and conclusions coming from Rogers (you can find them in my recent paper in #8 through 11):

    #8: “No fibers in a pure image area were cemented together by any foreign material, and there were no liquid meniscus marks. These facts seemed to eliminate any image-formation hypothesis that was based solely on the flow of a liquid into the cloth. This also suggests that, if a body was involved in image formation, it was dry at the time the color formed.”

    #9: “Body fluids (other than blood) did not percolate into the cloth.”

    #10: “All of the observational methods agreed that no pigments, normal painting vehicles, or natural exudations (other than the blood) had been added to the cloth after its production.”

    #11: “Neither aloes or myrrh could be detected on the cloth.”

    I’m not aware of all the details of Max’s hypothesis, but I have a sense that these particular observations and conclusions does not necessarily fit with his hypothesis… Of course, I might be wrong… Max will surely told me what he think of these particular quotes of Rogers.

  12. Just the empty tomb, the burial cloth and the women who first reached the tomb would not convince anyone about the Resurrection. It was the post-Easter appearances in general that were decisive. The problem with de Wesselow is that although his book called attention to the unique image on the TS he did not seem to understand that for the Palestinian Jewish-Christians who formed the Jesus movement resurrection meant bodily resurrection and not the Greek philosophical dichotomy of body/soul. He therefore dismisses many of the Gospel accounts as “fantasies.”

    There is another problem, and that is with J.P. Meier, whose series will end without the Resurrection because he thinks that that is beyond the scope of the historian. It is like judging what is less historical to be beyond the purview of the historian. So he simply says that “Jesus rose in the fullness of his humanity into the full presence of God.” That is fine for him as a Catholic priest, in fact a monsignor, who believes in the Resurrection, and who also says mass and preaches at a parish in New York.

    Benedict XVI, whose book “Jesus of Nazareth” has also been appreciated by important Protestant scholars, and is a theologian and no historian, puts it more succinctly: “The Resurrection is not above and beyond history. It points beyond history but has left footprints in history.” Shroud studies will have to determine if the relic is ONE of those footprints.

  13. Yannick Clément :Ron wrote: “It is quite reasonable to assert that when Jesus appeared to the disciples in the room that evening, John was already fully aware and a believer of Jesus’s resurrection, yet not the others.”
    My opinion: Oh I’m far from being sure of that Ron. You look at it with your eyes of modern faithful who had time to assimilate the concept of the Resurrection of Christ… On Easter morning, when the tomb (and the Shroud) was found empty, I’m not sure that there was even one disciple to believe in Jesus Resurrection before he appeared to them and they could see him alive again (even though what they saw was surely a bit different than the image of the dead Jesus we can see on the Shroud, since they had trouble to recognize him).
    But in the end, who knows? Maybe John was much more clairvoyant than the rest of the group… It is possible but, in the face of the rest of the Gospel stories related to Jesus Resurrection, I have a serious doubt about that. Surely, Thomas was not the only one who needed to see in order to believe… This is part of human nature I guess.

    I think careful reading of the scriptures is warranted and that YOUR commonsense is waining.,The Apostles had no problem whatsoever ‘recognizing’ Jesus in the room that evening, no mention of such or during the other visit with doubting Thomas and many others. It is also not a case of ‘clairvoyance’ in John’s believing, but is a simple case of DEDUCTION, Yannick…you know what deduction is right? You accuse me of looking thru the eyes of the modern faithful, I say you are completely wrong, as I have tried to put myself in the mind of the apostle John, one who had in most likelyhood witnessed Jesus death and burial and knew exactly how the tomb was left when it was sealed.

    1. And if Augustine’s interpretation is correct Ron, then that would mean your assumption concerning John or any other disciple would completely lack of litterary basis. But as I also said: who knows? And if you’re right about John, then can we agree on a good mix of logical deduction, along with a good intuition? Some persons have pretty good antenas for those kind of things… Let’s call this a 6th sense.

    2. Oh, by the way, the account of John’s Gospel you refer to really seem to suggest that Jesus had to show his crucifixion wounds to the disciples BEFORE they could finally recognize him. Read again the text carefully… This account really look like the account of Thomas. It said: ” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.” This part of the text really seem to suggest that the disciple only became happy AFTER Jesus show them his side and hands so they could finally recognize him, which is exactly what happened to Thomas…

      And this incapacity to recognize the Resurrected Christ can be found in almost every single Resurrection account, from the apparition to Mary Magdalen in St John to the apparition to the disciples of Emaus in St Luke to the final apparition near the lake in St John, etc., etc. Someone who don’t understand from all these texts that the glorious body of Jesus was not exactly the same as it was during his lifetime (i.e. the same as we can see on the Shroud) has a MAJOR PROBLEM of understanding. In Quebec, we call those persons : BOUCHÉS DES DEUX BOUTTES!!! Translation: Sealed at both ends!!!! I hope you got the picture. :-)

      1. LOL, Your interpretation of what happened in the room is laughable. It does not ‘suggest’ anything other then disbelief by the Apostles that Jesus could be standing before them. Hense he shows them and offers to them to touch him as he said he is not a ghost. Absolutely no suggestion that the Apostles did not recognise him for who he was. I don’t believe it is I, who should read the passages carefully here and honestly I could care less about ‘sayings’ from Quebec.

  14. In answer to Yannick’s request I am happy to declare what I believe. The Shroud image is a mystery in much the same way the Big Bang is. Science is, as yet, unable to give us an answer to both. I do know the universe was not made in six days and I do know the Shroud is not a painting or, for that matter, the result of a series of random effusions. Sorry Yannick, but a theory that can account for a smudge cannot be extrapolated indefinitely to explain the Shroud image. It’s homogeneity over distance and on opposing plains puts that beyond reason. It is perfectly scientific to say “I have no idea”. That is what makes studying the Shroud so interesting.

  15. YC you wrote:
    “And concerning Max’s personal hypothesis, I wonder what he make of these particular observations and conclusions coming from Rogers (you can find them in my recent paper in #8 through 11):
    #8: “No fibers in a pure image area were cemented together by any foreign material, and there were no liquid meniscus marks. These facts seemed to eliminate any image-formation hypothesis that was based solely on the flow of a liquid into the cloth. This also suggests that, if a body was involved in image formation, it was dry at the time the color formed.”
    #9: “Body fluids (other than blood) did not percolate into the cloth.”
    #10: “All of the observational methods agreed that no pigments, normal painting vehicles, or natural exudations (other than the blood) had been added to the cloth after its production.”
    #11: “Neither aloes or myrrh could be detected on the cloth.”

    Shall I endlessly repeat what I wrote on August 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm | #35?
    Ray Rogers was neither a Second Temple period archaeologist nor an archaeocryptologist. He never even thought the TSM could have been subjected to any specific burial ritual. What he coud at best thought is the TSM could have been subjected to the 1st c. CE Jerusalem cave-tomb temperature early in Spring. He totally overlooked/ignored (at least) two possible archaeological parameters/scenarios that just cannot be totally ruled out here namely a purifying and drying-out ritual implying the use of a fumigation (the Sindon being used as a long INNER burial cloth) and/or a corpse buried still in hyperthermia. Hence archaeo(crypto)logically speaking, his observations either could be or are biased. The true fact is Ray Rogers never explored 3-4 possible archaeological scenarios (fumigation of a tightly wrapped up corpse; corpse in hyperthermia; corpse fumigation associated with hyperthermia) through state of the art experimental archaeology. Actually, the ritualistic approach is the only one left totally unexplored so far.

  16. BTW my reconstruction of the TSM’ burial DOES NOT contradict at all Ray Roger’s opinion: “This also suggests that, if a body was involved in image formation, it was dry at the time the color formed.”

  17. BTW YC, do you really know what a purifying and DRYING-OUT ritual is all about?

  18. YC, actually, it is not so much Ray Rogers’ opinion/observations that is/are biased but the way you interpret it/them as far as my reconstruction is concerned.

  19. Reminder ;-): Looking for a full body silicone medical mannequin realistic replica of the Sindon Man with water chamber (to be filled with heated water to simulate body and body hyperthermia temperatures) and fully jointed neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, knees, and ankles (to provide a deathlike range of similar rigor mortis positions) + 3-4 sets of ad hoc linen cloths (both medieval and late antique replicas) so that the Sindon’s Man specific burial could be reconstructed.

  20. Second reminder: According to my thesis, the Sindon Image is a cryptovolumetric bloody-body-cloth-CONTACT-AND-GRADUAL-LOSS-OF-CONTACT 2D to 3D IMAGE resulting from a collimated/auto-regulated light (or pre-)mordanting of a thin carbohydrate layer of impurities. My thesis neither include nor preclude the TSM’s resurrection or coming back to life.

  21. …and is consistent with Augustine of Hippo’s exegesis of the empty tomb evangelical scene.

  22. My contention: Augustine of Hippo was right contrary to all the Archmiraculists’ manyfold exegesis of the empty tomb scene. The appearances of Yeshu’a after his death on the cross and the way he open their mind to the scripture he was to rise from the dead are the true facts that really led the disciples to believe in his resurrection.

    1. More typo (sorry): …The appearances of Yeshu’a to his disiciples after his death on the cross…

    2. Reminder: Yeshua gave one of his disciples his burial sindon on one of his appearances.

      1. BTW the information comes from the Gospel of the Ebionites/Hebrews that iS NOT an apocryphal BUT a lost (non-apocryphal) gospel from the 1st c. CE.

  23. DWNZ most gratuitously wrote: ”

    “Concerning his (Max’s) oft-repeated assertion that the body of Jesus was honoured by some kind of special ritual, and that the evangelist or disciple John was actualy Lazarus revived, I think I would invoke J P Meier’s criterion: “What can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.””

    The true fact is I am not asserting John and Lazarus are one and the samme person (I wrote ‘Even if he might well be’/’most likely’). Has DWNZ ever heard of the old Judean tradition to give a new name to ‘revivers”? I’ll bet my house, he never has before I’ve mentioned it.

    As to my assertion that Yeshu’a’s body was honoured and not half buried in half-an-hour time, it is NOT gratuitous at all. It is based on solid ground such as the Gospel Greek terminology, the Hebrew time markers, Archaeoastronomy, Archaeobotany, Archaeological Palynology, Ancient Textiles Archaeology, Archaeological Blood Pattern Analysis, Image Analysis, Forensic Paleopathology, Thanatology, Second Temple period Archaeology and History, Rabbinic literature and the Hebrew Bible.

    1. DWNZ, these are telling examples you’re not ‘giving due attention’ (as Augustine of Hippo would have put it) to what is written in this blog.

      1. DWNZ, you most unkindly referred to my thesis as ‘a thesis by a Stage III Religious Studies student’. Can you tell me exactly what is your level in Jewish Religious studies? What do you REALLY know about the Hebrew and/or Aramaic possible/original substratum of the koine Greek version of the 4 Gospels?

      2. Max, you have misunderstood my meaning and unduly taken offence when none was intended. The video by Bailey Packard is in my view an excellent effort for a person of her tender years. But one ought not to subject it to the same degree of criticism as one might to a senior student specialising in RS. The points you made might well be valid if her work merited judgment by this more severe criterion. I was certainly not making any comparison with your own comments as that of an under-graduate, if that was the meaning you wrongly assumed.

      3. Dave, sorry if I “unduly (and only very slightly) took offence when none was inttented”.

  24. Ron you wrote Augustine of Hippo’s exegesis of the empty tomb evangelical scene “is not (correct)”.

    Firstly, could you tell me on which objective criteria you decide an exegesis is correct or not?
    Secondly, could you tell me which exegesis among all the archmiraculists’ is THE one to be ‘correct’?
    Thirdly, can you demonstrate it?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: