Shroud of Turin redivivus

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Gisteron

To you it is absurd, that when an artist attempts to match in their artwork the look of another, that they would then take some care to actually reproduce that look of the other artwork in theirs. It is absurd to you, that one would copy details, when the goal is to have the same details.

Please, tell me how from this quite insignificant detail on the codex represented by these 4 little circles arranged in a L shape a forger would have thought that they represented burn holes that needed to be reproduced on the shroud. And most importantly, what gain could he have expected from it?

[Gisteron]

@Giltil

Please, tell me how from this quite insignificant detail on the codex represented by these 4 little circles arranged in a L shape a forger would have thought that they represented burn holes that needed to be reproduced on the shroud.

That, I believe, you are in a much better position to explain, since you are the one who seems to think there is a connection there. If you want to argue that it’s such a stretch to interpret the L-shaped arrangement of little circles as representing burn holes, be my guest. Have fun arguing in favour of that interpretation in your very next breath, then.

@Giltil

And most importantly, what gain could he have expected from it?

Well, if that is the correct interpretation, then the gain of reproducing the feature would have been in accurately replicating the item in question, which would have been the forger’s entire goal when crafting the thing to begin with.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

What I’m trying to convey here is the simple idea that the hypothesis that the shroud is based on the codex has no explanatory power whatsoever regarding the 6 features displayed by the codex.

Sure, if the shroud is based on the codex, then no aspect of the shroud provides an explanation for the features on the codex, as the features of the codex lie in the past relative to the shroud(the shroud doesn’t somehow magically make backwards in time causes to force the codex to have certain features)*.

The explanation for the features on the codex, then, would be artists choice to depicted naked Jesus after having been pulled down from the cross.

*While on the topic of magical explanations, if we allow these for the shroud image, couldn’t we also actually posit them for backwards-in-time-causation too? I mean if we want to keep that door open, where do we draw the line? When are we allowed to posit magical, divine, and miraculous causes as explanations and when are we not?

[Tim]

@Giltil

Please, tell me how from this quite insignificant detail on the codex represented by these 4 little circles arranged in a L shape a forger would have thought that they represented burn holes that needed to be reproduced on the shroud. And most importantly, what gain could he have expected from it?

Let me turn this around for you:

Please, tell me how from this quite insignificant detail on the [shroud constituted] by these 4 [burn holes] arranged in a L shape [an illustrator] would have thought that they [needed to be represented by circles reproduced in the illustration]. And most importantly, what gain could he have expected from it?

It is such an irrelevant detail, and the connection between the two are sufficiently tenuous, that the problem is largely symmetrical.

There seems to be no strong consensus, outside the ‘I want to believe’ shroud-authenticist echo chamber, that the codex even represents a shroud rather than a tombstone or similar.