Picture for Today: Cameroon 2010 1000 francs coin

with embedded hologram of the Shroud of Turin face, available on ebay for $150.00 until June 11, 2014. There are no bids.


Were both ventral and dorsal corners of the Shroud rewoven?

imageA guest posting in PDF form by O.K.  It begins:

In one of the recent posts on shroudstory.com1 Joe Marino published several interesting excerpts from Carlos Evaristo book The Untold Story of the Holy Shroud. The book claims to contain unpublished information from the Savoy family archives. The most interesting quote goes as follow:

“Another fact confirmed by His Majesty [King Umberto II] was that it was traditionally affirmed, that at one point in the past, he edges of the Lenzuoli (Sheet) had become so tattered as to cause embarrassment or criticism of the Custodians, and those areas were repaired and rewoven using identical techniques, but obviously with similar, yet newer, materials containing dyes and other medieval manufacturing ingredients, in an attempt to better blend the new sections in, as best possible, with the original fabric.”

What’s fascinating is that in the alleged quote, king Umberto speaks of the plural edges, suggesting there were more than just a single repair. If genuine, this could be extremely intriguing, because it may be related to what I considered as one of the weaker points in Benford & Marino argumentation –the spectral quad mosaic.

Read  the PFD file. CLICK HERE or click the page image above. A PDF file affords larger images and the ability to print this with logical pagination.  Return here to comment if you wish.


Bradley Bowen: Craig knows better than to put the Shroud of Turin forward as historical evidence

in the Atheist Channel of Patheos . . . 

imageToday in his blog, The Secular Outpost, Bradley Bowen dissects a book by William Lane Craig, a leading Evangelical apologist and theologian (pictured) on the historical evidence for the Resurrection:

Although Christian apologists bear the burden of proof to show that ‘Jesus actually died on the cross’, William Craig usually ignores this issue in his books, articles, and debates defending the resurrection of Jesus. In my previous post, I pointed out that there is at least one book in which Craig does make a case for the claim that ‘Jesus actually died on the cross.’ Craig makes a very brief attempt at this in The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (hereafter: TSR).

His case is made in just five paragraphs, in a little more than two pages of text. The first paragraph is the longest. We saw previously that Craig makes about 30 different historical claims in the first paragraph, but provides zero historical evidence in support of those claims.

The second paragraph is much shorter than the first, just two sentences:

The Shroud of Turin, whether it is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus or not, illustrates graphically the extent of Jesus’ physical suffering. The image of the man on the cloth is covered front and back with wounds from head to foot, where the flagrum, a multi-thonged Roman whip with metal or bone, had torn apart his flesh, furnishing us a grisly picture of what Jesus must have looked like when He was laid on the cross. (TSR, p.37-38)

Craig knows better than to put the Shroud of Turin forward as historical evidence for the death of Jesus, so he does not do so. Instead, he states that it “illustrates graphically” the wounds that Jesus had “when He was laid on the cross.” So, once again, Craig puts forward some historical claims, with no historical evidence to support those claims. By my count he makes five historical claims (about Jesus) in [that paragraph].

What are the five claims:

1. The front of Jesus’ body was covered with wounds from head to foot, just before he was crucified.
2. The back of Jesus’ body was covered with wounds from head to foot, just before he was crucified.
3. A flagrum is a multi-thonged Roman whip with metal or bone.
4. Some of the wounds on Jesus’ body that resulted from being whipped were deep and serious wounds (“had torn apart his flesh”).
5. The wounds on the front and back of Jesus’ body just prior to his crucifixion, were caused by being whipped with a flagrum.

Talk about overlap and redundancy! Bowen is nit-picking.

Anyways. You might want to read the entire article in three posts:

Why does Craig know better than to put the Shroud of Turin forward as historical evidence for the death of Jesus?

The Collapse of the Fraud Theory

imageI think we now have Stephen Jones’ whole theory of fraud wrapped up in one single neat paragraph:

2. FRAUD THE ONLY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION As we saw in my part #1: 1) the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic; 2) but the improbability that the Shroud being first century, yet it had a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 (1325 ±65)[3] was "astronomical"[4], "about one in a thousand trillion"[5]; 3) and conventional explanations for the discrepancy, such as contamination with younger carbon[6], and invisible rewoven repairs with cotton[7], don’t work. 4) Therefore, absent fraud, even if only "making results appear just a little … more definitive than they really are, or selecting just the `best’ data for publication and ignoring those that don’t fit"[8], it would be a miracle if the Shroud being first century `just happened’, by a combination of chance factors, like contamination and medieval repairs, etc, to have a radiocarbon date of 1325 +/- 65, which `just happened’ to be only 25-30 years before the Shroud’s first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France in the 1350s[9].

The only problem is it isn’t true.

1.  When Stephen says that invisible rewoven repairs don’t work he cites a letter written by Teddy Hall in 1990 that really has no real bearing on the subject of repairs as proposed by Benford, Marino and later Rogers more than a decade later. Hall was talking about small amounts of contamination; Benford, Marino and Rogers were talking about massive new material intrusion from repairs.

2.  Beginning with the phrase containing the word miracle, Stephen is restating an absurdity he has stated before. He cannot logically or statistically establish that the statement is true. It has no basis in fact. It is, in fact, certainly false. As I see it, his entire fraud argument collapses if this isn’t true. And it is not.

Today, May 30th, is the last day . . . Well No. Make that tomorrow.

I have corrected the date in the title. I had written June 30th.

And then Joe wrote in saying: “I also just realized that May has 31 days, so anyone can get the early registration discount through the end of Saturday.”

I think I should have stayed in bed. Just register and be done with it.

Today Tomorrow is the last day to register for the St. Louis Shroud of Turin Conference for $120 USD. After today tomorrow, the price increases to $150. The exception is student tickets which are $50 at all times.



Note that costs for hotel accomodations are in addition to the confernce registration fee. For more information visit https://stlshroudconference.worldsecuresystems.com/ or click on the image below.


Available for Pre-Order

imageAt Amazon: From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin: The Metamorphosis and Manipulation of a Legend (Art and Material Culture in Medieval and Renaissance Europe), Hardcover, by Andrea Nicolotti. The list price is $142.00 USD but you can pre-order it now for only $134.90 and Amazon will guarantee the price through September when the book will ship.

I imagine this is the English version of Dal Mandylion di Edessa alla Sindone di Torino. Metamorfosi di una leggenda (pictured) that has been available since January of 2011.

The Challenge for Stephen Now

imageHugh Farey shows why Stephen Jones and a reader of this blog who agrees with Stephen are wrong:

Let’s define terms then, shall we? The Shroud was made in AD25, and some random quantity of patching was added in 1535. What are the chances that the resultant date would be between 1260 and 1390? Is that the question? The answer (easily calculable using Christopher Ramsey’s OxCal and an online carbon dating calculator) is about 1/10. I’m happy to agree that a probability of 0.1 means that an event is unusual certainly, but a miracle? Astronomical? No, it’s not obvious. People should try some calculations before they jump to conclusions.

However another reader – let’s call him reader #2 – writes:

Mr Jones argues that it would be a miracle if a combination of 1st Century linen threads and contamination including medieval repair threads could produce a date of 1325 plus or minus 65 years. Why is it not like mixing black paint into white paint to make a certain shade of gray? It is only a question of how much black paint. The odds are 100% that the right amount exists.

But Stephen qualifies himself by saying what are the chances given a combination of chance factors. So it is not 100%. It is probably, as Hugh states, about 10%. Ignoring Hughes advice about doing the math, I decided to trust his statistical efforts. What Hugh calculates is about like rolling 5 (or 9) with a pair of dice, hardly the stuff of miracles. Without his improbability claim, Stephen just doesn’t have much left by which to refute the repair hypothesis first put forth by Benford and Marino.

Stephen for years has done an outstanding job of examining, quoting and citing historical evidence of all sorts. So I must ask, now that we have been focusing on The Untold Story of the Holy Shroud by Carlos Evaristo, doesn’t the repair theory suddenly seem much more probable? The challenge for Stephen will be to convince us that computer hackers employed by the KGB seems more probable.