If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone
PRAY MANUSCRIPT/HUNGARIAN CODEX - EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF
The Turin Shroud has been shown by carbon dating to date from a time long after Jesus died. It does not stop believers wanting to show that the carbon dating is wrong. The shroudies want to believe the Carbon 14 test was inaccurate but if they are right what if it was only wrong by 68 years? Remember, even if the test is wrong it is not likely to be extremely wrong. It can’t err by as much as 1260 years. Why 68 years? Because that is when an image believers say is a picture of the Shroud was created! If the image is of the Shroud then possibly it was made soon after the Shroud.
Science in terms of evidence strongly shows the shroud is fake. Believers then, despite knowing that science is the best test, continue to look for evidence that makes it look like science is wrong.
The Hungarian Codex dating from 1192-5 has a picture of Jesus being prepared for burial in the Holy Shroud. And another one where the angel holds the Shroud which has mysterious holes like the Turin Shroud's poker holes. It supposedly depicts a cloth with the same weave as the shroud.
We are told by people like Ian Wilson that it seems to prove the carbon dating which makes the Shroud no older than 1260 wrong. So the dating is said to be wrong for the Shroud must have been seen by the artist who made the picture in the codex. This is sheer speculation. (By the way there is a reproduction of the Hungarian Codex picture in Ian Wilson’s book, Holy Faces, Secret Places (page 209). Typical shroud devotee - he tells lies about the picture and still has the nerve to let people see it! And that despite the fact that your eyes contradict what he says!)
Please have a look at the picture and note how it has two parts - essentially a picture above and a picture below
The top part shows Jesus being anointed for burial and there is nothing suggesting that the cloth he lies on is the same item as the Turin shroud. It is too small and short to be the Turin Shroud. If artistic licence, and it is, is involved then the picture cannot prove much.
The picture below shows an angel, announcing the resurrection to and greeting the three Marys to the empty tomb. The plain cloth is bunched up and rather than holes in it, it has three xs not holes. The cloth seems small but some say it could still be the much larger Turin Shroud and it is just the way it is bunched up and it could be a lot bigger. But it looks as if its not very bunched up! The angel is holding a cloth similar to the one Jesus was laid on in the top picture. It is the same one. Two pictures shout at us: the shroud was small!! Of course believers pay no attention to that.
To get to the (in itself unlikely and far- fetched) conclusion that the picture was made by somebody who saw the Shroud of Turin, believers presume that the item in the second picture is the Turin Shroud though it cannot be. The shroud is lying on top of it messed up and held by the angel.
Believers pretend the lid is the shroud!!
There is an item that seems to be a clumsy drawing of a lid and it is rigid. There is no blood on it or even on the cloth held by the angel. The Turin Shroud's main feature is its "blood". We see it is a lid and the believers disregard their own eyes and say it is the Turin Shroud.
The lid has what looks like holes. That does not make it the shroud which has holes. Holes are depicted on the sarcophagus too.
The stepped pattern on the lid is just a pattern and yet they say it is the herringbone pattern of the Shroud. What a stretch! It only extremely superficially looks like the Shroud pattern. Most would say there is no resemblance.
The lid of the sarcophagus is what has the alleged herringbone pattern. It is not a cloth which is plain from the way it is depicted as rigid and the shroud lies on top of it.
Do not forget that the artist liked patterns and the pattern is just a pattern. It is a stretch to imagine that what is seen is the herringbone.
For the sake of argument, say the picture shows the herringbone pattern. Believers like to say it was not known in the time the Shroud was allegedly forged but fits the first century so the Shroud is probably real. If the carbon dating is right that the Shroud is a medieval fake, then the herringbone pattern was well known before the Shroud was forged as the artist’s work shows. It is too much to believe that this artist knew of the Shroud pattern when nobody else seems to have known of it. If he did then it is more likely that he was the inspiration for the Shroud or that he knew of the pattern from people who had been to Palestine.
Despite recent attempts to prove that the herringbone pattern of the Shroud was used in first century Palestine the fact remains that the pattern was common in the middle ages and no evidence that it was indeed used in Palestine has come up. The Jesus Conspiracy, in a futile attempt to prove that the carbon dating of pieces of the Shroud was a hoax claiming that pieces of another cloth with herringbone pattern were used instead at least showed that the pattern wasn’t unique to the Shroud (page 78, The Jesus Conspiracy).
No Jesus picture!
There is no image of Jesus imprinted.
The Jesus in the picture has a smaller beard than the Shoudman. The wounds are entirely omitted. His wrists are crossed like in the Shroud only the right hand is very obviously stretched over to cover the genitals while the left lies on the thigh which does not match the Shroud at all. Even more telling the loincloth lies opened up between the linen and the man’s buttocks while we can see the Shroud man’s buttocks. In the picture Jesus is laid out on a plain white shroud. It is only for lying on and not for wrapping him up in. The artist did not know that Jesus was meant to be covered by the cloth.
The picture is not meant to be taken too seriously as there would have been no crosses on Jesus's tomb as there is in the picture.
Jesus in the picture above it lies in a tiny shroud and has no blood. There is more reason to deny that there is any link to the Shroud than to say there is.
The lid has the holes and there is a slab below it which has the holes as well. They are just holes not poker holes. This strongly suggests that whoever created the Shroud MISUNDERSTOOD the picture or MISREMEMBERED it. It certainly does not suggest that the Shroud was known in those days. Overall the picture refutes the Shroud and with so many imaginary pictures of the Shroud from the period you wouldn’t be surprised for at least one to have some similarities with the Turin one. But not one of them really matches up. Period.
In the lower picture, the shroud cloth is bunched up and has xs in it not holes at all. What has the holes is the lid of the sarcophagus which has an edge jutting out to indicate that it is a solid object. These holes match the Turin Shroud holes exactly. And the slab composing it also has holes too. The holes are just a pattern. It is a stretch to imagine that they depict the poker holes of the Turin Shroud.
The shroud believers seem to want us to think the poker holes were put in the fresh shroud according to the Hungarian codex. Why would anybody put a hot poker in a new Shroud? Whoever forged the Shroud may have gotten the idea of the poker holes from the picture. But he misunderstood what the artist understood by them indicating that the Shroud came AFTER the codex not before.
So the picture is inconsistent with the idea that the holes signify the poker holes of the Turin Shroud. My theory is that the triple holes in the picture, on the lid, are markers of the Trinity and not poker holes. There are three holes in a line and one hole beside them. So you have three and then there is a hole then on its own near them to indicate the oneness of the Trinity.
The holes in the lid could be just for spying on the corpse in case it would arise. Ian Wilson says the picture authenticates the Shroud and he has no right to. It is the wishful thinking to which we are accustomed in him. He even thinks that a picture of Jesus lying in a Shroud from the eighth century called the Byzantine umbella shows the Shroud image was known then (page 202, Holy Faces, Secret Places) though the Jesus in it has a large towel round his waist though there is no need for his hands would conceal his modesty.
We are told by people like Ian Wilson that the Hungarian Codex dating from 1192-5 has a picture of Jesus being prepared for burial in the Holy Shroud and another one where the angel holds the Shroud which has mysterious poker holes like the Turin one. That seems to prove the carbon dating which makes the Shroud no older than 1260 wrong. But when you think about what a Christian would want the Shroud to look like you realise it would be a bleeding bearded man covering his genitals with his hands for modesty you see that there would have to be images completely independent of the Shroud that would seem to have been copied from it. The Hungarian Codex would have inspired many to believe that that is what a shroud of Jesus would resemble even if there had been no Turin Shroud then. What would you expect? What other pose would an image meant to pass for the dead Jesus have?
It is interesting that like the shroud man the image shows the hands without thumbs and crossed in the same position. But why would the creator of the Hungarian picture not show the wounds and show the thumbs missing? It is totally foolish to suggest he saw the shroud for the thing that would be foremost in his mind would be the wounds.
To say the Codex has a copy of the Shroud of Turin on it is as ridiculous as saying that all the paintings of Jesus looking up to Heaven as he dies on the cross and has a nail in each foot are copied from the first painting that does this. There are many depictions of the Shroud and the Cross so coincidences have to be expected and in the Shroud even more so than the crucifixion. Yet people argue that there are ancient icons of Jesus which have too much in common with the face on the Shroud to mean anything other than that the Shroud inspired and influenced the pictures! But there are thousands of icons so it is only natural that some would look a fair bit like the Shroud man. And the Shroud man’s features are not as plain as an ordinary photograph so anybody that couldn’t have the negative image which was plainer would have found it difficult to render a very accurate likeness.
Did the Image inspire the Shroud Forger?
It odd to argue that the picture shows the Shroud is not disproven by the carbon dating and thus may be real when in fact the forger could have copied the picture when he made the image on the Shroud. Did the Hungarian manuscript influence the Shroud forgery?
The pictures indicate that the Shroudmaker may have copied the holes from the picture indicating that the Shroud was a forgery. He thought they were poker holes because he did not look carefully enough. He even mistook the lid which has a herringbone pattern and the four holes for the burial cloth which contains both these features! The item containing the pattern and the holes is stiff and looks like a something rigid like a huge plank of wood or a big flat rectangular slab of stone, the lid of the sarcophagus. Jesus in the shroud on the picture is smeared with ointment contradicting the shroud image which doesn’t show such smears and doesn’t have blood smeared as you would expect from rubbing the body of a man covered in blood. And we cannot doubt that the cloth he is lying on is the Shroud for the body and the people depicted are shown anointing the body inside the tomb or cave. They wouldn’t have been anointing him outside anyway.
The forger of the Shroud might have put poker holes in his creation to make it seem older than it was just because he saw holes in the Hungarian Codex picture. Every forger needs some evidence manufactured to pull his hoax off.
The picture cannot be taken too seriously because it shows the inside of the sarcophagus being full of crosses. But nevertheless it seems to have inspired the creator of the cloth. Whatever the picture indicates about the Turin Shroud one thing it can’t be used for is showing the cloth existed before the dates given by the carbon dating.
The Hungarian Manuscript does not prove the Shroud to be genuine even if it is true that it depicts the Shroud of Turin.
The man in the Codex has the much the same pose as the Shroud man. But when you think about what a Christian would want the Shroud to look like you realise it would be a bleeding bearded man covering his genitals with his hands for modesty you see that there would have to be images completely independent of the Shroud that would seem to have been copied from it. It is one of those things that people have to think of independently. The Hungarian Codex would have inspired many to believe that that is what a shroud of Jesus would resemble even if there had been no Turin Shroud then. And it didn't need to inspire. Jesus' privates being covered on the Shroud is a reason not to believe in the Shroud. When he was buried, nobody intended to pave the way for him to leave an impression on the cloth that people would see. They didn't have to worry about his modesty.
The Jesus in the picture has a smaller beard than the Shoudman. The wounds are entirely omitted. His wrists are crossed like in the Shroud only the right hand is very obviously stretched over to cover the genitals while the left lies on the thigh which does not match the Shroud at all. Even more telling the loincloth lies opened up between the linen and the man’s buttocks while we can see the Shroud man’s buttocks. In the picture Jesus is laid out on a plain white shroud. It is only for lying on and not for wrapping him up in.
It is interesting that like the shroud man the image shows the hands without thumbs and crossed in the same position. But why would the creator of the Hungarian picture not show the wounds and show the thumbs missing? It is totally foolish to suggest he seen the shroud for the thing that would be foremost in his mind would be the wounds. Also, it is very hard to see that the thumbs are hidden on the Shroud if you look at it the way it is. The hidden thumbs were not seen until Pia did his work a hundred years ago. Unseen thumbs on the Turin Shroud only mean they did not appear not that they were in spasm and positioned along the palms.
There is no evidence at all that the image on the Shroud of Turin predated the carbon dating. Or even that the cloth did! We must remember that some scientists who must be getting money out of their shroud "science" start the rubbish about the Hungarian Manuscript and other things that only fuel the delusions of the believers. What kind of scientist would show such a dreadful loss of reason?
Free Inquiry, Spring 1998, Vol 18, No 2, Article by Joe Nickell, Council for Secular Humanism, Amherst New York
Holy Faces, Secret Places, Ian Wilson, Corgi, London, 1992
Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1987
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, New York, 1993
The Blood and The Shroud, Ian Wilson, Orion, London, 1999
The Divine Deception, Keith Laidler, Headline, London, 2000
The DNA of God?, Leoncio A Garza-Valdes, Doubleday, 1999
The Holy Shroud and Four Visions, Rev Patrick O Connell and Rev Charles Carty, TAN, Illinois, 1974
The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta, Msgr Vincenzo Celli, Kolbe Publications Inc., Sheerbrooke, California, 1994
The Image on the Shroud, Nello Ballosino, St Paul’s, London, 1998
The Jesus Conspiracy, Holger Kersten amd Elmar R Gruber, Element, Dorset, 1995
The Jesus Relics, From the Holy Grail to the Turin Shroud, Joe Nickell, The History Press, Gloucestershire, 2008
The Second Messiah, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, Arrow, London, 1998
The Skeptic’s Guide to the Paranormal, Lynne Kelly, Allen & Unwin, Australia, 2004
The Shroud, The 2000 Year Old Mystery Solved, Ian Wilson, Bantam Press, London, 2010
The Turin Shroud is Genuine, Rodney Hoare, Souvenir Press, London, 1998
The Turin Shroud, Ian Wilson, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1979
Turin Shroud, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, BCA, London, 1994
Verdict on the Shroud, Kenneth E Stevenson and Gary R Habermas, Servant Publications, Ann Arbour, Michigan, 1981