John Klotz has made an important point, one I agree with:
Critics of Rogers’ view on image formation keep rolling it into a critique of his work on he shroud samples. Rogers analysis included threads from the material held back FROM THE CARBON AREA that were retained by Luigi Gonella. His science in that regard was completely peer reviewed. He asked other scientists to double check his work. They did and they concurred.
That’s one issue.
His ideas on image formation were incomplete as even he realized.
Rogers work on the carbon test area was completely transparent. The fact is that he had a hypothesis that even he realized was incomplete when it came to the image formation problem.
It is not logical to combine the critique of his incomplete image formation hypothesis with criticism of his documented and work on the threads from the carbon test area.
It’s really depressing that people who have an argument with his image hypothesis then feel it necessary to blow smoke about his work on the carbon test site threads.
It’s apple and oranges. Logically it is self-defeating for one faction to try to discredit another faction on an issue. We should be open to multiple view points. There is no conflict between the proof that the carbon testing area was subject to repairs and that the image formation process implicates the resurrection directly. One, the carbon testing, is directly resolvable by scientific testing of the physical threads. Rogers did that. The other is still a bit over the horizon.
Is it “a bit beyond the horizon” rather than “a bit over the horizon”?
Rogers did a good job with the threads, and his hypothesis is still valid, but it must be remembered that both his peer-reviewed paper as well as Giulio Fanti’s one on the double image were rejected by Turin.
Rogers clearly understood that his image formation was incomplete, and at that point it was taken up by the people “who had an argument with his image hypothesis.”
Approaching the issue from the point of view of biblical studies, one does not have to be a scholar like Rudolf Schnackenburg to understand that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get hold of the historical Jesus. Even the liberal Protestant scholar and pastor Helmut Koester has bluntly stated that the “quests”, including the recent ones, have failed. One could say that if the previous quests were demolished by Schweitzer, Koester did the same in his own way by questioning the recent ones.
Norman Mailer understood the problem by just reading the New Testament. Jesus hovers over the narratives, the TS image is subtle….. Perhaps this may help.
I can’t see any one more qualified than Rogers on image formation, in Turin or anywhere else, but maybe i’ve missed another Valencia consensus or another urban legend.
John wrote, “His ideas on image formation were incomplete as even he realized.”
no (naturalistic) alternative.
It is evident that no dogmatic assertions can be made at this stage. We can talk about both naturalistic and supernatural explanations and much more work will be needed.
After giving the in=mage issue a good deal of thought and analysis,
Rogers wrote in a”A Chemist’s Perspetive;”
“The requirements make it apparent that no single, simple hypothesis will be
adequate to explain all of the observations made on the Shroud. The impurity/Maillard
hypothesis is proposed in an attempt to incorporate more observations into a single,
complex hypothesis for image formation. It is important to recognize that Maillard colors
will form every time amines and simple starches and/or sugars come together.”
I think that the resent state of knowledge is what Rogers ssys”no single, simple hypothesis will be adequate to explain all the observations [of the image] made on the Shroud.
My point is that when you factor in the four written accounts of the Resurrection, things begin to fall into place and at some point we shouldn’t be afraid to say so. But that is not proof of the Resurrection. Not yet anyway. That lies just beyond ther horizon, unless you define the Shroud as the horizon .
100% agreed, John. That is exactly how things stand now.
The more I read and learn on the Shroud the more I think some unexplainable supernatural phenomenon derived from the resurrection was the causative agent.
I agree with John, Louis and Thomas. The fact that that we can’t explain the image formation mechanism speaks volumes.
yes. I don’t rule out naturalistic explanation but I think it unlikely given the decided lack of progress that has come from numerous investigations and debate over the past 30 years. All theories seem to have significant problems
And its not just the lack of naturalistic explanation its a lot of other things such as important art history matters
I agree with what you are saying that you sent to Dan, John.
Comments are closed.