From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin (was DOES GOD EXIST?)
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:18:59 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Paul Kominsky chastises me for declaring his motivation:

> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>> Paul Kominsky expresses doubt as to the source of the custom of putting 
>> coins on the eyes of the dead.  He does this because I pointed out that 
>> coins on the eyes in the Shroud of Turin count against its authenticity:
> 
> I read the reference to BA that you gave before, and it said that
> that the Greek custom involved a coin in the mouth.  That's why I
> doubted the source of the custom.  (And I'm very surprised that you
> make what appears to be a personal jab about my motivations.)

Apologies Paul, I meant no jab in my conclusions about your motivations. 
Further, while I honestly felt that that you made your statements for the
reasons I presented, I shouldn't have actually presented those conclusion about
your motivations as the truth of the situation.  I will make an honest effort
to refrain from such assertions in the future. 

Now you say:

> Now, regarding coins on the eyes, I'm not claiming that it ever
> was a Jewish custom for burials, nor that it was done regularly.
> The above article seems to conclude that there isn't any good
> independent supporting evidence for the custom.  
> 
> But as an argument regarding the Shroud, this is inconclusive
> unless there is strong evidence that coins on the eyes would
> be positively excluded.  I can understand why coins in the mouth
> might be excluded from a Jewish burial because of the Greek custom,
> but this doesn't apply to coins on the eyes.

That is the point I was making about the the coin on the eyes having been
descended from the Greek custom and was still laden with the symbolism given
it by the Greeks (which, according to the orthodox Jewish Rabbi's I've asked,
would in itself make the practice offensive to Jews).  Also, as I said, I can
easily call an orthodox Jewish synagogue in the area and get you a reference
to the Jewish burial practice, which will tell about the removal of all
clothing and jewelry from the body (even the wedding ring) before the strips
of winding cloth are wound around the body. 

I do though appreciate your shift in position. At first you were saying that 
the Roman coins on the eyes are evidence for the authenticity of the shroud:

> On the other hand, there is much evidence which suggests
> authenticity, from as a lack of pigments on the Shroud (so
> it's not a painting), to the medical accuracy of the image
> (rather beyond the medical knowledge of a 13th century forger).
> Computer analysis of the image even found a coin over one of 
> the eyes.  The coin was apparently identified as a lepton
> minted between 26 AD and 36 AD.

Now though you have changed that to insisting that the presence of such coins
do not prove the shroud to be a fraud:

> Well, I am not insisting on that in general.  In one specific case, 
> though, it could have happened.  I don't think the presence of coins
> has direct bearing on the status of the Shroud.  

I do though still disagree with your final thesis:

> ...if the Shroud is genuine, then for some reason Jesus' 
> followers put coins on his eyes, and it would be interesting to know
> why.

My reaction is that such speculation is useless, as there does not seem to be
any reason at present to grant authenticity to the shroud.  Such speculation
is a bit like asking whether lack of proper sacrifice is the real reason
Poseidon shipwrecked Ulysses.  The question is both meaningless and moot if
you do not grant the existence of Poseidon.  Likewise for the meaning of coins
on the shroud. 

Now if you do come by historical evidence for coins being put on the eyes of 
Jewish corpses, then I will be willing to listen.  Until then though I see no
reason to accede to your statement:

	"In one specific case, though, it could have happened."

With that sort of rationale, one can dismiss any evidence one comes up with
to refute the shroud (including radioactive dating).
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes 
    fact, not in the belief that it is a fact.
				Charles T. Sprading
				American Writer
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.discrimination,rec.scouting,alt.politics.homosexuality