Freethought & Rationalism Archive

richard2 · 06-12-2003, 09:36 PM

Greetings,

THE FOUNDING OF CHRISTENDOM by Dr. Warren H. Carroll, chapter 16, page 353, paragraph 1:

Quote:

The latest dramatic development in our unfolding knowledge of this most precious and most historically important of all Christian relics is the discovery of an imprint on the cloth, over one of the eyes of the dead Jesus, of six clearly identifiable Greek letters from a Roman coin minted by Pontius Pilate - minted only by him, only in Palestine, and only in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth years of the Emperor Tiberius (October 28-October 31 A.D.)"

This footnote accompanies the end of the above paragraph:

Quote:

Francis L. Filas, "The Dating of the Shroud of Turin from Coins of Pontius Pilate" (privately published, Youngstown AZ, 1980), together with materials supplied by Filas to the writer on June 3, 1980, and a report in the Washington Post, December 14, 1983, on the further progress of Filas' researches ("results of the first complete computer analysis show shroud imprints fitting six Greek letters of a Pontius Pilate coin from 29 A.D., shortly before Christ's crucifixion, said the Rev. Francis Filas"). Filas, a Jesuit, is Professor of Theology at Loyola University of Chicago and has been studying questions pertaining to the Holy Shroud of Turin for nearly thirty years. For the dating of the coins, Filas relies on Frederic W. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage (London, 1864), p. 149 - a still authoritative treatment of the subject. The dating of the coin which made the impression on the Shroud to the 16th, 17th, or 18th year of Tiberius - and to no other years of his reign - is obviously of the greatest importance, especially in light of the specific reference in Luke 3:1 to the beginning of the preaching of John the Baptist in the 15th year of Tiberius.

What do you guys think about this?

Richard

wade-w · 06-12-2003, 09:43 PM

What jumped out at me on reading the footnote was:

Quote:

Francis L. Filas, "The Dating of the Shroud of Turin from Coins of Pontius Pilate" (privately published, Youngstown AZ, 1980)

Private publishing is a red flag to me. Why wasn't the material peer reviewed? If it was, why did it have to be published in such a manner?

Also, if there really is such an imprint, it does not in any way prove that the shroud dates to the same time the coins were minted, it only proves that the shroud has to be the same age or younger than the coins. In other words, If we grant for the sake of argument the data on the coins origin and that there is an imprint of them, that still leaves open the question of when the imprint was made. What reason do we have to assume it was when the coins where brand new?

This looks like a better fit in BC&A. I'm going to move it over there.

Peter Kirby · 06-12-2003, 09:56 PM

It's BC&H now, Wade, BC&H.

Anyway, the word of the day is pareidolia.

best,
Peter Kirby

mfaber · 06-13-2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by richard2
Greetings,
THE FOUNDING OF CHRISTENDOM by Dr. Warren H. Carroll, chapter 16, page 353, paragraph 1:

This footnote accompanies the end of the above paragraph:

What do you guys think about this?

Not again!!!! What do I think? The Shroud is a fake and the report of Roman coins on the eyes are bunk. Why I think so (just on the coin issue, other things also indict the shroud as a fake).

Quote:

The Coin in the Eye of the Shroud of Turin

An interesting sidelight to the main investigation was a study of the claim that button-like images in the eye areas of the Shroud were lepton coins of Pontius Pilate, placed over the eyelids. This claim was made by Chicago theology professor Francis Filas, who noted that under high-magnification, the image on the right eye appeared to show the letters UCAI and a shepherd's crook, which were characteristics of a coin in existence at the time of the crucifixion. This inspired Alan and Mary Whanger (Whanger, A. D., and Whanger, M. (1985). Polarized image overlay technique: a new image comparison method and its applications. Applied Optics, 24, 766-772) to invent a technique called "Polarized Image Overlay", in which two projectors were fitted with oppositely polarized filters. One projected the image from the eye of the Shroud, and the other the image of a lepton coin. A third polarizer was used by the observer to switch from one image to the other so as to note congruencies between the coin the the image of the Shroud eye. Was this really any more than a complex Rorschach test that misinterpreted scorch marks on the cloth? The Whangers attempted to alleviate that concern by doing the image analysis of other coins and with other observers, although there is no evidence that the tests were done blind. In any event, the question of Shroud authenticity was settled by the carbon-14 dating results, so you can be the judge of the reality of the coins in the eyes of the Shroud image.
The classroom experiment can be done with two overhead projectors rather than with the 35-mm slide projectors used in the original studies. Large polarizers, available from various educational supply companies, can be used to cover the projection lenses of the overhead projectors, and small polarizers are then distributed to the class for use as analyzers. Images of various ancient coins and the image of the Shroud eye are scanned into a computer and digitally-modified to account for angular differences upon display. The experiment has been done two ways. First, the Polarized Image Overlay experiment is performed in a manner similar to the original work, except that the students are not informed which coin is the lepton of Pontius Pilate. Results from this experimental design have resulted in a chance distribution, with approximately 20% of students choosing the lepton on Pontius Pilate from a selection of 5 coins.

A more interesting way to perform the experiment is to attempt to bias the student selection by providing them with false information regarding the coin that "should" be selected.

Not surprisingly, the distribution of coin choice in this experiment tends to be biased towards the coin that "should be" but "really isn't". (emphasis added)

In other words if you think that the Shroud is authentic then you "see" the Pontius Pilate coins (see what you want to see).

Here is a close-up of the alleged "coins":

Where on earth on gets enough detail to say that is a Roman coin is beyond me. However, the phenomenon mentioned by Peter Kirkby of "seeing what you want to see" or pareidolia explains that.

Also consider that putting coins over the eyes or in the mouth is NOT part of Jewish burial preparation, but is PAGAN one as explained HERE

Quote:

Later Roman (1700-1500 years ago)

Pagan burials continue to have grave goods of a similar type to the earlier cremations - drinking and eating vessels, sometimes personal ornaments and dress accessories, coins in the mouth or on the eyes, and hobnail boots on the feet. Pagan cemeteries often include unusual burials. Most late Roman inhumations are extended on their backs (supine), but occasionally some are found in a prone (face down) position, or on their side. Decapitation with the head placed at the feet is another relatively common finding. Complete burials without a body are sometimes found in cemeteries, and these were probably cenotaphs to the memory of a lost individual.

The Romans were the only ones who did this (the above is just a single example), but the point is that this was NOT part of Jewish burial preparation

Other violations of Jewish burial practices and/or contradictions of the Biblical description of Jesus's burial are:

Instead of a single shroud, the Gospel of John mentions �strips of cloth� known as Takhirkhin (tachrichim), wrapped around the body of Jesus and a separate piece for the head. (no need for coins to keep the eyes shut with a face cloth wrapped around the head). This is one of the reasons that the Church rejected the Shroud as a forgery. Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, reported to pope Clement VII that the relic "had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed." Clement further discounted the Shroud's authenticity because it did not conform to the Biblical description of Jesus's burial accoutrements, described in John 20:1-9 (NIV).
John says that spices were placed on the body of Jesus, but none were found on the shroud.
Jewish customs required that the body be ritually washed, but the dried blood on the corpse indicate the body was not washed. Assume that the corpse was washed. A corpse does not continue to bleed post-mortem, so "riverlets of blood" as seen in perfect detail on the Shroud are impossible. Bleeding requires that the heart still be pumping. This is how one tells a post-mortem wound from one inflicted on the living. There is no blood from a wound inflicted after death (no beating heart to circulate the blood which then pools or settles at the lowest points on the corpse). But the forger of the Shroud would not have known this forensic detail. Furthermore, any blood resulting from the handling, would have smeared, blood in the hair would have matted, blood on the fabric would have smeared and soaked in. Again, a forensic detail that would have been unknown to the forger.

The Shroud is a fake based on this alone, not to mention the FACT that C-14 dating dates the Shroud to from 1260 - 1350. No record of it can be found before the 14th century, where it first appears in Lirey, France, which backs up the C-14 date.

leonarde · 06-13-2003, 09:36 AM

Previous 18 page Shroud of Turin thread is here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hroud+of+turin

Immediate followup thread is here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hroud+of+turin

There's been nothing new on Shroud authenticity in the past year, with the possible exception of the "restoration work" done last summer: the removal of the darns/stitching done after the 1532 fire damaged the Shroud. For that work see:
http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm

For commentary on same see:
http://www.shroud.com/restored.htm

Cheers!

leonarde · 06-13-2003, 09:45 AM

Partial post:

Quote:

In other words, If we grant for the sake of argument the data on the coins origin and that there is an imprint of them, that still leaves open the question of when the imprint was made. What reason do we have to assume it was when the coins where brand new?

"Brand new" as in fresh from the mint? No, but since the two big alternatives are:

1) the Shroud was made in the 14th Century/

2) the Shroud was made and the Man of the Shroud died in the first half of the 1st Century,

finding the imprints of 1st Century Roman coins is of enormous probative value.

Cheers!

Mageth · 06-13-2003, 09:54 AM

finding the imprints of 1st Century Roman coins is of enormous probative value.

1st Century Roman coins, or facsimiles thereof, didn't exist in the 14th Century?

I agree totally with mfaber:

Where on earth on gets enough detail to say that that is a Roman coin is beyond me. However, the phenomenon mentioned by Peter Kirkby of "seeing what you want to see" or pareidolia explains that.

I think the most one can say is that someone claims they have found imprints of 1st Century Roman coins.

leonarde · 06-13-2003, 10:15 AM

Partial post:

Quote:

finding the imprints of 1st Century Roman coins is of enormous probative value.

1st Century Roman coins, or facsimiles thereof, didn't exist in the 14th Century?

I'm sure that somewhere such coins existed in the Meditteranean area but numismatics as a bourgeois hobby/field of interest had to wait til the Industrial Revolution. But since there are no indications that anyone from at least 1356 to 1980 or so noticed said coin imprints(the impressions are only noticeable via enhanced photography*), the purpose of this (posited) deception is puzzling: again we have to invoke a super-prescient 14th Century agent who is evidently trying to fool late19th Century/20th Century people about the Shroud's authenticity. No 14th to 19th Century people could see the imprints/coins. Because photography did not yet exist.

* And of course even today that is the controversial part: are those real coin imprints or not? The one impressive aspect is that Filas saw a coin misspelling in the Shroud, a misspelling that was undocumented. But eventually several such coins with the exact misspelling showed up. But by that time I believe Filas was deceased.

Cheers!

Gooch's dad · 06-13-2003, 10:23 AM

Wouldn't any coin imprints on the shroud, if it were authentic, actually be mirror images of the actual coin?

Mageth · 06-13-2003, 10:26 AM

I'm sure that somewhere such coins existed in the Meditteranean area but numismatics as a bourgeois hobby/field of interest had to wait til the Industrial Revolution. But since there are no indications that anyone from at least 1356 to 1980 or so noticed said coin imprints(the impressions are only noticeable via enhanced photography*), the purpose of this (posited) deception is puzzling: again we have to invoke a super-prescient 14th Century agent who is evidently trying to fool late19th Century/20th Century people about the Shroud's authenticity. No 14th to 19th Century people could see the imprints/coins. Because photography did not yet exist.

As long as we're wildly speculating, the alleged person who allegedly used the coins in the 14th century to enhance the alleged forgery could have done so not knowing that the imprints would be undetectable except by photographic techniques.

In any case, pareidolia is a sufficient explanation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2003, 09:56 PM	#3
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	It's BC&H now, Wade, BC&H. Anyway, the word of the day is pareidolia. best, Peter Kirby

06-13-2003, 09:36 AM	#5
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Previous 18 page Shroud of Turin thread is here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hroud+of+turin Immediate followup thread is here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hroud+of+turin There's been nothing new on Shroud authenticity in the past year, with the possible exception of the "restoration work" done last summer: the removal of the darns/stitching done after the 1532 fire damaged the Shroud. For that work see: http://www.shroud.com/examine.htm For commentary on same see: http://www.shroud.com/restored.htm Cheers!

06-13-2003, 09:54 AM	#7
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	finding the imprints of 1st Century Roman coins is of enormous probative value. 1st Century Roman coins, or facsimiles thereof, didn't exist in the 14th Century? I agree totally with mfaber: Where on earth on gets enough detail to say that that is a Roman coin is beyond me. However, the phenomenon mentioned by Peter Kirkby of "seeing what you want to see" or pareidolia explains that. I think the most one can say is that someone claims they have found imprints of 1st Century Roman coins.

06-13-2003, 10:23 AM	#9
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	Wouldn't any coin imprints on the shroud, if it were authentic, actually be mirror images of the actual coin?

06-13-2003, 10:26 AM	#10
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I'm sure that somewhere such coins existed in the Meditteranean area but numismatics as a bourgeois hobby/field of interest had to wait til the Industrial Revolution. But since there are no indications that anyone from at least 1356 to 1980 or so noticed said coin imprints(the impressions are only noticeable via enhanced photography), the purpose of this (posited) deception is puzzling: again we have to invoke a super-prescient 14th Century agent who is evidently trying to fool late19th Century/20th Century people about the Shroud's authenticity. No 14th to 19th Century people could see the imprints/coins. Because photography did not yet exist. As long as we're wildly speculating, the alleged person who allegedly used the coins in the 14th century to enhance the alleged forgery could have done so not knowing* that the imprints would be undetectable except by photographic techniques. In any case, pareidolia is a sufficient explanation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.