Nevertheless, the images are real enough!

Louis is not a scientist, but a journalist, and I don’t believe he fully understands the complex scientific issues involved. Padre Pio’s image of his face on a handkerchief is unlikely to have much to do with the Shroud image unless both occurred as divinely directed miracles. Louis may believe that the Shroud image was such a miracle, and this may be correct. However others prefer to explore scientific explanations first, if only to exclude them before coming to such a conclusion.

His comment that De Liso’s work can only apply if the Shroud is a forgery is in fact what makes no sense at all. Are we to expect that a medieval forger would be aware that seismic events had the potential to create such images, and then would wait several years before exactly the right conditions came along before he could produce such an image? It is preposterous.

De Liso’s experimental work only followed on from a theoretical hypothesis by Lattarulo, and until then no-one had even considered the possibility of a seismic origin of the image. Her work was directed at ascertaining the possibility of a naturalistic explanation of the origin of an image within a 1st century tomb, not at whether the idea might have occurred to a medieval forger. She makes the explicit point that such imagery was only ever obtained under certain very specific conditions and was not merely the usual expected product of every general seismic event during her 12 years of field experiments.

It may just be conceivable that such imagery might have occurred with dozens of burial cloths in 1st century Jerusalem, but by the time anyone ever thought to unwrap a shroud to place the bones in an ossuary, any such imagery would have been long defaced by corruption. This could not happen with the Shroud of Jesus, because of the fact of his resurrection, and a decision to vacate his linen wrapping within days of his death.

All four gospels mention an earthquake following the crucifixion, Matthew even attributing an after-shock to the moving of the entrance stone. This suggests that it was a real event and not merely a literary device of the evangelists.

A critic would see some shortcomings and unfortunate omissions in De Liso’s paper, and there is much more about her experiments that would be good to know. Unfortunately, there seems to have been little follow-up or development of her work, and those who may have been associated with it seem to have gone off on tangents with their lasers, corona discharges, bodily emission of neutrons and other miraculist theories.

As wise men have often observed, it is the most difficult thing in the world to get a new idea accepted, and the pedestrian preference is to cling to familiar paths even when well-worn or else to venture into the speculative or outlandish. Such seems to be the case with the apparent lack of follow-up to De Liso’s seismic investigations into Shroud-like imagery. But it might just yield an answer lying dormant and waiting to be discovered.

“I have yet to see an adequate explanation for them as a result of seismic activity.”

That is what exactly I have been saying right from the beginning!
Religious journalism also requires some grounding in science, as for instance when writing on Parapsychological phenomena, Archaeology and Science-Theology dialogue and I have written on these topics. Engineers who have done a course on Bible are not exactly qualified to write on religion.

Daveb began the personal attacks on this thread and now he resorts to insults. He is not a scientist and went along the wrong track. Instead of admitting that both M. Bella and myself showed him how he was wrong he continues with his attacks. We do need these kind of people in the Shroud “crowd”.
Well, as I said more than once here, he does not learn from mistakes.

Louis persists with his obsessive personal vendetta against myself. Much as I might be tempted to respond in kind, no difficult task, I prefer to refrain from doing so. However I shall not let pass his comments on a technical matter, viz:-

“Not long ago he claimed that the gospel of Matthew was written for gentiles and when I had to show him that he was wrong he took my comments, rehashed them and posted it immediately in the same thread, trying to pass them off as his own research. That was when I had to tell him what he was doing.” Louis, Nov 16, 8:06 am above.

I certainly had no cause to rehash any such of his comments, but the technical aspect is far more complex. Thus Encyclopedia Britannica for instance notes that in may ways, Matthew’s is the most Jewish of the gospels, but it identifies the target audience as Greek-speaking gentile Christians.

Thus on the gospel’s origin:
“The Gospel grew out of a “school” led by a man with considerable knowledge of Jewish ways of teaching and interpretation. This is suggested by the many ways in which Matthew is related to Judaism. It is in some ways the most “Jewish” Gospel. Striking are 11 “formula quotations” (“This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet . . .”) claiming the fulfilment of Old Testament messianic prophecies.” (Etc)

However on the Matthean church it comments:
“Matthew is not only an original Greek document, but its addressees are Greek-speaking Gentile Christians. By the time of the Gospel According to Matthew, there had been a relatively smooth and mild transition into a Gentile Christian milieu. The setting could be Syria, but hardly Antioch, where the Pauline mission had sharpened the theological issues far beyond what seems to be the case in Matthew.” … …

“For Matthew, there had already been a separation of Christianity from its Jewish matrix. When he speaks about the “scribes and the Pharisees,” he thinks of the synagogue “across the street” from the now primarily Gentile church. Christianity is presented as superior to Judaism even in regard to the Law and its ethical demands.”

“The Matthean church is conscious of its Jewish origins but also of a great difference in that it is permeated with an eschatological perspective, seeing itself not only as participating in the suffering of Christ (as in Mark) but also as functioning even in the face of persecution while patiently—but eagerly—awaiting the Parousia. ” Etc.

This is clearly no rehash of Louis’ comments but is a particular view expressed in a highly reputable reference source. Clearly also, not all Biblical scholars might agree with this particular view. For them they may consider it is indeed addressed to a church of Jewish Christians, because of the Jewish flavour of the text. But that does not seem to be the view of the majority.

Biblical scholarship is a hotly debated discipline, even among the best of its scholars. so clearly discerning unanimity is a difficult matter. It is certainly more complex than Louis might prefer to believe. His persistent obsessive carping against myself I shall let pass, considering it for the most part to be trivia, preferring instead to deal with issues rather than personalities. And there, I think I shall let it rest.