![]() ![]() The main conclusions are then considered, including possible explanations of the alleged inconsistencies. The general problems with this type of analysis and the specific problems with the experimental procedures in Ref. Several elements are included in this evaluation. This paper on BPA of the Shroud is evaluated to determine the soundness of its methods and conclusions. A “BPA” is a bloodstain pattern analysis. The paper is titled “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin” by Matteo Borrini, Ph.D., and Luigi Garlaschelli, M. This is an evaluation of a paper published July 10, 2018, in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. For that reason, I have not listed many of the pro-authenticity books in Part I. Many of the entries in those bibliographies, whether books or articles, do support the position that evidence points toward the Shroud being authentic. I have previously authored on various bibliography articles concerning important aspects of Shroud research. The latter generally analyze more aspects of Shroud research and may or may not directly address the challenges that an artist would face. The former generally address a limited number of aspects that they feel discredits the Shroud and then proffer a hypothesis of how it was forged. ![]() The approaches taken by anti-authenticity authors versus pro-authenticity authors differ somewhat. ![]() There are several instances where such highlights and comments are not added because the title is self-explanatory and/or there is additional information in other entries. Since it would be difficult to synthesize all the material out there, I decided that the best format for this article is, chronologically in each part: 1) list a source 2) list highlights (summary or excerpts) and 3) make comments where appropriate. I will make a few final comments at the end. There are, of course, many pro and con Shroud websites, but I have limited the entries to these two. Part IV will list entries for two websites, both of which purport to show ways the Shroud could have been forged. Part III will consist of authors who presented data showing the Shroud is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. Part II will list authors who presented both authenticity and forgery data. This article will be divided into four Parts: Part I will consist of authors whose writings promote evidence indicating it’s the burial cloth of Jesus. Position 3): a) forgery using a pigment b) forgery using photography c) produced as a liturgical aid, not as a forger shroud, though it later came to to be considered as the latter Many or most people who fit in the first position tend to believe it would be virtually impossible for a medieval artist to have been talented enough to produce the image on the Shroud. Position 2): a) ancient crucifixion b) medieval crucifixion. Several of the positions have sub-categories: Position 1): a) formed supernaturally in conjunction with the Resurrection b) formed in a way from a dead body c) formed in a way from a live body d) formed in a way possibly with or without the Resurrection. Clearly, the first and third categories are the most common. Most people take one of four positions: 1) that it's the authentic burial cloth of Jesus 2) that it's an authentic burial cloth but not necessarily of Jesus 3) that it's a medieval forgery designed to look like Jesus and 4) that it’s a forgery but post-New Testament times and pre-medieval times. Debate continues to rage about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |