Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[zooterkin]

Well, I'm with Popper. And I'd like Jabba to learn how to present his evidence.

Wouldn't he need to have some, first?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Solid for whom? There are many for whom the radiocarbon results are wholly unreliable. I would confidently put money on a 13th/14th century date for any new test, but I know of plenty of people who would happily take me on, knowing I would lose.

There are lots of people to whom reality is unreliable.

I don't want to change your minds. I agree with you. I want to change Jabba's mind, and working with his style of discussion is far more likely to achieve that than demanding what you know you won't get.

Good luck with changing Jabba's mind.

If anybody here has actually read any of my posts, they will know that the idea that Jabba and I are working in concert is farcical.

I dunno. Your posts are wordy and ... fuzzy. I'm sure you are not exactly on Jabba's side, but I'm not sure exactly what side you're on.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

Solid for whom? There are many for whom the radiocarbon results are wholly unreliable.

For what reason?

Remember: "it doesn't agree with the date I want it to agree with" us not a valid reason.

 

[hugh farey]

There is something wrong with proposing to be a centrist, yet employing a distinctly one-sided method.

One-sided? Have you read anything I've written? If I have supported any one of Jabba's propositions regarding the Shroud, do point it out. I did agree that circumstantial evidence can sway people's opinions in the face of logical arguments to the contrary, but I did not agree that his particular sindonological example was a good illustration.

Explain how questioning his critics' motives and methods accomplishes that.

I have not questioned anybody's motives, although I may do shortly. I did question what those motives were, which is quite a different thing. It's not very important to me personally, but I thought that perhaps if Jabba knew why you continuously demand evidence you continuously insist he doesn't have, he may be able to word his own comments more appropriately.

The cloth is dated conclusively to the 13th century. Any theory for how the image got there must account for that fact.

There you go again! A lot of people do not agree that the Shroud is so conclusively dated. Insisting that it is is preaching to the converted, not educating the merely ignorant, or converting those of a determinedly opposite opinion.

Again, you seem to take great delight in exposing the sins of Jabba's critics, if only the naive ones, but you seem to disregard his best critics, and you seem reluctant to, put bluntly, call Jabba himself on his crap.

Over the years several people have clearly and patiently explained the authenticist position, and I do not blame them for now having reduced their attempts to a bald list, much of which would need to be explained in detail to be conclusive. The last time this was done was when I decided to take a more active part in this thread. On the whole the points made were reasonable, although a careless slip regarding the D'arcis memorandum needed some rectification. Similarly, Jabba has not put forward much from his side recently, apart from his idea that establishing that there was blood on the Shroud would support authenticity better than non-authenticity. I disagreed with him, and explained, at length, why.

One wonders how you plan to correct his approach if you never correct his approach. And yes, your favoritism is suspicious. That's not to say you're lying or that you're a closet sindonist. It's to say it's raising eyebrows about your motives for entering the debate.

I begin by making sure that everything I say is polite and clearly explained. I do not demand evidence which I insist does not exist. I do not favour Jabba, although I cannot but feel some sympathy for him in the face of such an illogical approach from so many opponents (although of course there are exceptions; I do not make the mistake of thinking that the views of one are necessarily the views of all). My motives were originally to stimulate some discussion about the where, when and how of the manufacture of the Shroud of Turin, thinking that this forum might be an appropriate place. I'm still hoping, and in the meanwhile I am interested, as I say, in the nature of this stand-off, but if nothing much changes, I may drift away again, leaving the trenches in much the same position as they were two or three years ago.

You're getting a lot of mileage out of quoting me on that point. You questioned people's motives based on the apparent presumption that the discussion mattered only to you and Jabba. You insinuated that since you had already made up your mind, and that Jabba was failing to make his point, our continued criticism must have some other, possibly sinister motive. I was simply saying it's not all about you. Taking it beyond that is a stretch.

Yes, I thought it probably was, but I was hoping 'other people' might have included random visitors to the thread as well.

Requiring a new argument for authenticity to explain clear, extant evidence of forgery is not at all presuppositional.

It is if the requirement is coupled to a definitive announcement that there are no new arguments. You must allow for the possibility of some new argument, or you are asking for something which doesn't exist.

A line of reasoning that fails to account for contrary evidence is insufficient and therefore fails.

It is the firmly and repeatedly expressed opinion of many here that there is no 'line of reasoning' contrary to the evidence. No wonder this non-existent line of reasoning fails.

Nothing personal, I assure you.

That's quite OK; no offence. Do I have to stand outside with a dunce's cap or something?

But that's not the situation we are presented with. What we are presented with is a well done carbon dating of the cloth by three labs who gave us consistent dates. Why do more destructive testing when you have such solid results?

There we go again. There is no point in repeating any of the 'evidence to the contrary' for anybody who thinks their position irrefutable. There is no 'evidence to the contrary' to be repeated. However, it could be useful for those who haven't made up their mind, or who think that their opinion, however firmly held, may not be irrefutable.

The results are solid for people who study past human physical culture.

I don't know what this means. Lots of people don't think the radiocarbon results are solid. I am not one of them.

Do you appreciate how rare it is for an artifact to be carbon dated by more than one lab? Artifacts aren't generally dated with control subjects either. This isn't exactly unproven technology we are talking about here.

Yes, I know.

Incidentally, would I be stirring too much if I were to ask any of you why you think the radiocarbon dates are solid? Why can't they be wrong? There could be any number of reasons! How much of the 'evidence' to the contrary have you actually studied - or are even aware of?
The Bruno Bonnet-Eymard switched samples hypothesis?
The Stephen E. Jones KGB hacker hypothesis?
The Benford-Marino patch hypothesis?
The amended Benford-Marino invisible mending hypothesis?
The quad mosaic chemical composition evidence?
The Rogers vanillin evidence?
The Rogers and Moon madder dye hypothesis
The Raes/Rogers/Heimburger/Fanti cotton hypotheses
The Villarreal splice hypothesis
The Ray Schneider 99% correlation between radiocarbon date and the surface composition hypothesis?
The Jackson carbon monoxide hypothesis?
The Fleming uranium hypothesis?
The de Liso xenon/radon hypothesis?
There may be others that don't immediately spring to mind.

Why do I ask? Because I have investigated every single one of these, to the extent of communicating with their exponents, carrying out my own experiments, and commissioning some invisible weaving for myself, and I have explained, in detail, at shroudstory.com and in papers in the BSTS newsletter (not peer-reviewed of course) why they are inadequate challenges to the medieval date. Almost everybody on this thread 'knows' that the radiocarbon date is 'solid'. But I bet I'm the only one who knows exactly how solid.

 

[Sideroxylon]

There are plenty of people who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old almost none of them are experts and none have a coherent argument that addresses anywhere near all the facts of the matter.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I bet most or all of those hypotheses against the radiocarbon dating have been addressed but let's bring them on parade and see how they pass muster.

 

[JayUtah]

One-sided? Have you read anything I've written? If I have supported any one of Jabba's propositions regarding the Shroud, do point it out.

Straw man. You go after Jabba's critics, but you do not criticize him in the same way . Lack of support isn't enough. Further, you make the same kinds of arguments against his critics that he does -- relying for example on hypotheticals. You support his method.

I have not questioned anybody's motives...

Hogwash. You questioned mine, and have repeatedly used several of the statements I made in response to that to imply things I never intended.

...he may be able to word his own comments more appropriately.

No. Questioning his critics' propriety in insisting on evidence for claims does not help Jabba. If Jabba continues to repeat the claims, the request for evidence will be repeated. Do not continue to blame his critics alone for the cyclical nature of the argument.

There you go again! A lot of people do not agree that the Shroud is so conclusively dated.

There you go again, referring vaguely to people who are merely convinced of a certain thing. Where is their evidence? Where is their successful appeal to the scientific community at large?

I begin by making sure that everything I say is polite and clearly explained.

Being polite is not the same thing as directing comments in a way that nearly everyone here seems to think is contrary to your stated intent.

...in the face of such an illogical approach from so many opponents...

Same straw man, Hugh. Jabba's method is steeped in illogic. You do not criticize him; you explicitly empower him in it.

 

[JayUtah]

There could be any number of reasons! How much of the 'evidence' to the contrary have you actually studied - or are even aware of?

Hypotheticals again.

The Bruno Bonnet-Eymard switched samples hypothesis?
The Stephen E. Jones KGB hacker hypothesis?
The Benford-Marino patch hypothesis?
The amended Benford-Marino invisible mending hypothesis?
The quad mosaic chemical composition evidence?
The Rogers vanillin evidence?
The Rogers and Moon madder dye hypothesis
The Raes/Rogers/Heimburger/Fanti cotton hypotheses
The Villarreal splice hypothesis
The Ray Schneider 99% correlation between radiocarbon date and the surface composition hypothesis?
The Jackson carbon monoxide hypothesis?
The Fleming uranium hypothesis?
The de Liso xenon/radon hypothesis?

There you go again. Hypotheses are not equivalent to evidence. We know this, which is why we don't consider them serious challenges to the radiocarbon dating.

There may be others that don't immediately spring to mind.

I'm sure the faithful can imagine quite a bit. Come back when there is actual science, then criticize your critics for not knowing it.

But I bet I'm the only one who knows exactly how solid.

How very presumptuous of you. How does that reconcile with your criticism that we reject claims for authenticity that can't explain the radiocarbon dating?

 

[John Jones]

You seem to have understood my statement in mostly the way I intended it. You were asking why we were still putting Jabba to the test when it was widely admitted he was intractable. But notably absent in your approach is why you aren't asking Jabba why he's still plugging away when it's painfully obvious his critics are similarly intractable.

One of the tactics of metadebate in fringe argumentation is shaming one's critics away from replying.



He is in no way correct, and neither are you.

This isn't the first time he's tried this same approach he's using now. He's not even using different material. He's simply replaying the same pat presentation for what he suspects is a new crop of critics. This is why skepticism must persist: because fringe thinking persists. When faced with reason, it runs away and hides for a time and then comes back out when the coast is clear to deploy the same old broken arguments all over again.

And no, he is doing a horrible, piss-poor job of explaining how circumstantial evidence can be convincing. First, because he has no evidence -- circumstantial or otherwise. What he mistakenly calls "circumstantial evidence" is nothing more than conjecture and wishful thinking. Second, because he's not testing the evidence. He -- with your help -- is ignoring the evidence and trying to find some circuitous, illogical, misguided method for making statements that seem convincing but which have no probative value whatsoever. One of the tactics of metadebate in fringe argumentation is defining how the debate "must" proceed, ostensibly in order to provide fresh perspective but really to avoid any meaningful scrutiny.

This is a great example of interlocution. It keeps me coming back.

 

[John Jones]

You really must try to read more than just the first line of my comments if you are to understand them enough to be able to comment. Jabba is correct in that information which supports the possibility of one argument rather than another can be, and often is, used to persuade people of the truth of the matter. I do not believe he has discussed this as a concept before. He has said many times, to your considerable frustration, that he thinks some information or other (in this case the determination that the blood actually is blood) has a bearing on his belief in authenticity, but I do not recall him saying why. In this particular case, of course, as I said, the mere appearance of blood on the Shroud does not favour one explanation over another. If it could be confirmed that it was 1st century blood, then it would certainly favour authenticity; if medieval, then the matter would rest as it does now. With respect, I must decline John Jones' somewhat peremptory command. If this thread is ever to rise above its normal tedious and monotonous repetition of the same remarks by Jabba and his detractors, a little more understanding and exploration of the "phenomenon of how otherwise seemingly rational people go about justifying patently illogical beliefs" seems to me worthwhile.

Didiforgettopointoutthatwallsofwordsarenotconducivetodiscussion?

 

[ComfySlippers]

Is that supposed to be "vicious" or "viscous" (the latter seems particularly appropriate to this thread)?

Ooops
I must remember to share my coffee with auto-correct next time.
I blame the fact that my coffee is older than the cup in which it resides.

 

[John Jones]

nvw

 

[John Jones]

I think you're right. However, imagine, for a moment, an exactly similar scenario to the 1988 sampling of the Shroud, perhaps with Professors Jull and Ramsey and any others of the original team still active, this time working on fresh samples, extracted, as were Perluigi Baima Bollone's in 1978, from a 'blood-soaked' area of the Shroud. Imagine, with rather more sophisticated techniques, that minute flakes of this 'blood' were radiocarbon dated, by the same three laboratories, and that the dates were as convincingly 1st century as the previous ones were 14th century. That would cause a bit of head-scratching. Without knowing which date was wrong, authenticists and non-authenticists would have to fall back on the other evidence to make up their minds as objectively as they could. What fun that would be!

What?

 

[John Jones]

nvm

 

[John Jones]

One-sided? [...]Almost everybody on this thread 'knows' that the radiocarbon date is 'solid'. But I bet I'm the only one who knows exactly how solid.

Did you have some other, less obvious point?

 

[Craig4]

One-sided? Have you read anything I've written? If I have supported any one of Jabba's propositions regarding the Shroud, do point it out. I did agree that circumstantial evidence can sway people's opinions in the face of logical arguments to the contrary, but I did not agree that his particular sindonological example was a good illustration.
I have not questioned anybody's motives, although I may do shortly. I did question what those motives were, which is quite a different thing. It's not very important to me personally, but I thought that perhaps if Jabba knew why you continuously demand evidence you continuously insist he doesn't have, he may be able to word his own comments more appropriately.
There you go again! A lot of people do not agree that the Shroud is so conclusively dated. Insisting that it is is preaching to the converted, not educating the merely ignorant, or converting those of a determinedly opposite opinion.
Over the years several people have clearly and patiently explained the authenticist position, and I do not blame them for now having reduced their attempts to a bald list, much of which would need to be explained in detail to be conclusive. The last time this was done was when I decided to take a more active part in this thread. On the whole the points made were reasonable, although a careless slip regarding the D'arcis memorandum needed some rectification. Similarly, Jabba has not put forward much from his side recently, apart from his idea that establishing that there was blood on the Shroud would support authenticity better than non-authenticity. I disagreed with him, and explained, at length, why.

I begin by making sure that everything I say is polite and clearly explained. I do not demand evidence which I insist does not exist. I do not favour Jabba, although I cannot but feel some sympathy for him in the face of such an illogical approach from so many opponents (although of course there are exceptions; I do not make the mistake of thinking that the views of one are necessarily the views of all). My motives were originally to stimulate some discussion about the where, when and how of the manufacture of the Shroud of Turin, thinking that this forum might be an appropriate place. I'm still hoping, and in the meanwhile I am interested, as I say, in the nature of this stand-off, but if nothing much changes, I may drift away again, leaving the trenches in much the same position as they were two or three years ago.
Yes, I thought it probably was, but I was hoping 'other people' might have included random visitors to the thread as well.
It is if the requirement is coupled to a definitive announcement that there are no new arguments. You must allow for the possibility of some new argument, or you are asking for something which doesn't exist.
It is the firmly and repeatedly expressed opinion of many here that there is no 'line of reasoning' contrary to the evidence. No wonder this non-existent line of reasoning fails.

That's quite OK; no offence. Do I have to stand outside with a dunce's cap or something?

There we go again. There is no point in repeating any of the 'evidence to the contrary' for anybody who thinks their position irrefutable. There is no 'evidence to the contrary' to be repeated. However, it could be useful for those who haven't made up their mind, or who think that their opinion, however firmly held, may not be irrefutable.

I don't know what this means. Lots of people don't think the radiocarbon results are solid. I am not one of them.
Yes, I know.

Incidentally, would I be stirring too much if I were to ask any of you why you think the radiocarbon dates are solid? Why can't they be wrong? There could be any number of reasons! How much of the 'evidence' to the contrary have you actually studied - or are even aware of?
The Bruno Bonnet-Eymard switched samples hypothesis?
The Stephen E. Jones KGB hacker hypothesis?
The Benford-Marino patch hypothesis?
The amended Benford-Marino invisible mending hypothesis?
The quad mosaic chemical composition evidence?
The Rogers vanillin evidence?
The Rogers and Moon madder dye hypothesis
The Raes/Rogers/Heimburger/Fanti cotton hypotheses
The Villarreal splice hypothesis
The Ray Schneider 99% correlation between radiocarbon date and the surface composition hypothesis?
The Jackson carbon monoxide hypothesis?
The Fleming uranium hypothesis?
The de Liso xenon/radon hypothesis?
There may be others that don't immediately spring to mind.

Why do I ask? Because I have investigated every single one of these, to the extent of communicating with their exponents, carrying out my own experiments, and commissioning some invisible weaving for myself, and I have explained, in detail, at shroudstory.com and in papers in the BSTS newsletter (not peer-reviewed of course) why they are inadequate challenges to the medieval date. Almost everybody on this thread 'knows' that the radiocarbon date is 'solid'. But I bet I'm the only one who knows exactly how solid.

Have you not read the thread? Everyone of these except the KGB hack has been addressed previously. As to that one, show me evidence the KGB hacked the results or I can't be bothered.

 

[JayUtah]

Have you not read the thread? Everyone of these except the KGB hack has been addressed previously. As to that one, show me evidence the KGB hacked the results or I can't be bothered.

Hugh says he's investigated all these and found them to be without substance. So asking him for evidence in the KGB case is likely to result in his agreeing with you and me that there isn't any.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Snip to remove text encroaching on Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, that's better.

My Dear Mr. Farey:

Condescend much?

In the context of the Shroud, I shall continue to use the term non-authenticist. Realist, it is true, is shorter, but a bit vague (is the Shroud not real?) and as I use the term non-authenticist in other forums, I shall maintain it for consistency, in case anybody follows me from one site to another.

Your continued use of an epithet, objections to which have been raised on several grounds, is, at best, uncivil; more, it seems boorish. I am not an "anti-authenticist"; there is no demonstration of "authenticity" to oppose. Any further use of the term to apply to me is, simply, dishonest, not to mention careless, or a sly attempt to get away with reversing the burden of proof, or both.

I'm sorry you thought my comments about your selectivity with bible texts facile.

What was facile was your assumption that I was depending on, or even referencing, the KJV. You should know better.

What is still facile is that you are misrepresenting the nature of the word used.

You must know that Matthew, Mark and Luke do not use the word 'othonia' (which usually means bandages)...

It is difficult, given your modus, to tell is this is careless, or disingenuous, or dishonest; or if, in fact, you are simply woefully underprepared.

The 'god'spiel attributed to "Matthew" does not use the term, ὀθόνιον, because the book does not, in fact, refer to any kind of "shroud" or "wrapping" at all.

Further, the 'god'spiel attributed to "Mark" does not use the term, ὀθόνιον, either, because the book does not, in fact, refer to any kind of "shroud" or "wrapping" at all.

You are wrong about the 'god'spiel attributed to "Luke", which does, in fact, use the term, ὀθόνιον (NB: not, as you would have it, ὀθόνια) to refer to the strips of linen "left in the tomb" (Luke 24:12). You must know that ὀθόνιον is the plural diminutive of ὀθόνη, and means, by its very construction, "little cloths" (not "sheets").

And, of course, the 'god'spiel attributed to "John" also uses the term, ὀθόνιον (that is, little cloths, or "strips"). (John 19:40.)

Consider again the meaning of the plural, diminutive form of the word that would, in fact, indicate "sheet".

...and you must know that John's gospel is usually thought of as being the last to written, and you probably know that such archaeological and literary evidence as we have does not support the use of bandages in 1st century Jewish burials. You chose John's 'othonia' in support of your case without considering the alternative evidence. "The discovery of instances which confirm a theory means very little if we have not tried, and failed, to discover refutations," as Sideroxylon quoted from Popper.

The only reason to consider the 'god'spiel legends of the criucifiction at all is that they are the only record of the magical process through which an HJ became the 'god'-man MJ.

One of the sidonists' repeated claims is that the cartoon on the CIQ shows impossible faithfulness to the "record". That "record" uses the term for "strips" (not "sheets") and the verb for "wound", not "stretched out flat in an anti-gravity dimensional warp by a transmogrifying burst of resurrection energy".

I did not "choose" "John's" term (which you once again render in a way to disguise the plural, diminutive). The editors and redactors of the 'god'spiel attributed to "John" "chose" the word, or chose not to remove the word, and it stands as one of the only remotely contemporary accounts of the creation of the MJ, and one of two that mention in what the HJ was buried. No "shroud" to be found.

I did not "choose" "Luke's" term (the one you claim "Luke" did not use; the same one which you render in a way to disguise the plural, diminutive). The editors and redactors of the 'god'spiel attributed to "Luke" "chose" the word, or chose not to remove the word, and it stands as one of the only remotely contemporary accounts of the creation of the MJ; and the other one to mention in what the HJ was buried. Again (you guessed it), no "shroud".

I, on the other hand, tried to understand why John might have used a term different from the others.

Actually, you, on the other hand, persist in error. "John" (and "Luke") use the same word; the other two 'god'spiels do not mention the cloths, or a "shroud", at all.

Perhaps the tradition from which his gospel derived was more accurate that those of the others, but it seems unlikely in view of the archaeological evidence, meagre though it be. Perhaps his own culture did use bandages, and he did not realise that Jesus's culture didn't. Or perhaps he was trying to describe a long thin sheet rather than a short wide one. I've no idea, but I am at least considering all the possibilities. You did not respond to that post.

In what way do unsupported conjecture and speculation merit response?

<snip of contention well-handled by others>

Through it all, I remain,

Somewhat pedantically yours &ct. (but not an "anti-authenticist")

 

[hugh farey]

Matthew 27:59 - καὶ λαβὼν τὸ σῶμα ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι καθαρᾷ
Mark 15:46 - καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας, καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.
Luke 23:52 - καὶ καθελὼν ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι, καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνήματι λαξευτῷ οὗ οὐκ ἦν οὐδεὶς οὔπω κείμενος.
Luke 24:12 - Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἀναστὰς ἔδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον· καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια μόνα· καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὑτὸν θαυμάζων τὸ γεγονός.

I'm so sorry you find me boorish, but I shall continue to describe myself as a non-authenticist. I do not find your alternative adequate, as I have explained. Where I need a term to describe other people who do not think the Shroud is authentic, I shall refer to them similarly. I do not refer to them, or myself, as anti-authenticists, as it suggests a hostility towards those of the opposite opinion which I do not wish to imply.

I'm not sure that you are doing your own research into the Gospels. As you can see from my quotations above, Matthew, Mark and Luke all refer to the Shroud as a sindon (inflected as σινδόνι). However, I do apologise; you are perfectly correct that Luke also refers to othonia. (ὀθόνια, notice). You seem a little confused about the derivation of the word from ὀθόν. Both ὀθόνια and ὀθόνιον are diminutives, but one is plural, one is singular.

With the greatest of respect, you are, no doubt unintentionally, misreading my use of the word 'choose'. Of the words used by the four evangelists to describe the cloth or cloths associated with the burial of Jesus, you decided to describe early Christian attitudes to these cloths by using only the gospel of John, and ignoring the synoptics. Now you claim that the synoptics do not refer to the shroud at all. The Septuagint is readily available on the internet, and can be checked if you need. You have also selected to ignore such archaeological and literary sources as we have, suggesting that strips of cloth were not used in 1st century Jewish burials. Some authenticists have suggested that Luke's, and possibly John's, reference to othonia was to describe strips of cloth used to tie the shroud more closely around the body. This is not very satisfactory.

In what way do unsupported conjecture and speculation merit response?

I do not judge their merit. Please respond or not as you feel appropriate.

 

[abaddon]

Matthew 27:59 - καὶ λαβὼν τὸ σῶμα ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι καθαρᾷ
Mark 15:46 - καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας, καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.
Luke 23:52 - καὶ καθελὼν ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι, καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνήματι λαξευτῷ οὗ οὐκ ἦν οὐδεὶς οὔπω κείμενος.
Luke 24:12 - Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἀναστὰς ἔδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον· καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια μόνα· καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὑτὸν θαυμάζων τὸ γεγονός.

I'm so sorry you find me boorish, but I shall continue to describe myself as a non-authenticist.I do not find your alternative adequate, as I have explained. Where I need a term to describe other people who do not think the Shroud is authentic, I shall refer to them similarly. I do not refer to them, or myself, as anti-authenticists, as it suggests a hostility towards those of the opposite opinion which I do not wish to imply.

And there is the ambiguity problem. In a single paragraph you have self described as an "anti-authenticist" and repudiated the term "anti-authenticist" as a self descriptor. You cannot have it both ways. And please do not attempt the semantic quibble of "non" versus "anti".

I'm not sure that you are doing your own research into the Gospels. As you can see from my quotations above, Matthew, Mark and Luke all refer to the Shroud as a sindon (inflected as σινδόνι).

I'm not sure that works of fiction count as evidence of anything.

However, I do apologise; you are perfectly correct that Luke also refers to othonia. (ὀθόνια, notice). You seem a little confused about the derivation of the word from ὀθόν. Both ὀθόνια and ὀθόνιον are diminutives, but one is plural, one is singular.

I don't much care. It remains not evidence for the CIQ. You seem to think it is. I don't know why.

With the greatest of respect, you are, no doubt unintentionally, misreading my use of the word 'choose'. Of the words used by the four evangelists to describe the cloth or cloths associated with the burial of Jesus, you decided to describe early Christian attitudes to these cloths by using only the gospel of John, and ignoring the synoptics. Now you claim that the synoptics do not refer to the shroud at all.

One is free to interpret fiction however one wants. It remains fiction.

The Septuagint is readily available on the internet, and can be checked if you need. You have also selected to ignore such archaeological and literary sources as we have, suggesting that strips of cloth were not used in 1st century Jewish burials.

The Septuagint? How is that even vaguely relevant. That is pure red herring.

Some authenticists have suggested that Luke's, and possibly John's, reference to othonia was to describe strips of cloth used to tie the shroud more closely around the body. This is not very satisfactory.

They can suggest that unicorns dunnit for all I care. Does not make it true.

I do not judge their merit.

Perhaps you should consider so doing.

Please respond or not as you feel appropriate.

Just to forestall your inevitable evasion. You addressed this post to anyone for response, not to any individual. Now that you have a response, you will decline to respond on the basis that you intended it for some other member despite the fact that you declined to direct it to any member at all. Please don't do that.