What gives you the impression that my evaluation of the evidence is not “exceedingly careful”? Have you actually looked at the evidence? It’s astounding. How many times do I have to repeat: as a professional historian, I know of no other artifact that has undergone this degree of forensic scrutiny. It’s simply astounding. And it preponderantly points to authenticity.
It has nothing to do with the basis for my belief in Jesus as Christ. The basis for that is trusting the testimony of a chain of witnesses over the centuries, including those who wrote the New Testament.
But as a historian, it’s perfectly plausible that the burial cloths of Jesus would have been preserved as a relic by the early Christians. Since they are explicitly and ostentatiously mentioned in the four gospels, it would be very implausible if they had not been preserved. There’s a decent “custody of evidence” pedigree over the centuries until it appears in full light in the 1350s and the modern forensic tests are persuasive.
Can it be proven 100 %, no. But no artifact can be proven that way. I’m just saying that the standard of proof for artifacts we have no trouble believing in is about 300,000 times lower than the standard of proof people expect in this case. I’d just like them to admit the double standard, then treat this as an artifact with a very high degree of credibility.
That’s all.
“What gives you the impression that my evaluation of the evidence is not “exceedingly careful”?”
Nothing, and while English is not my first language, I don’t think I said it wasn’t.
I have no opinion or care about this cloth, just a general observation regarding the fraud that surround many of such objects.