Last week and article by Mike L Anderson appeared in Articlesbase, Shroud of Turin: shroud of Christ? It begins:
"In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerializes, dissolved perhaps by the flash, while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal ‘snapshot’ of the Resurrection" (1).
In such soul-stirring tones, Ian Wilson provides a popular explanation for the haunting image on the most famous cloth in history – the Shroud of Turin. The alleged burial cloth of Christ captivates. Theologian, Robert Perry says the "Shroud is intentionally produced by Jesus as his own record for posterity, as his own gospel"(emphasis his) (2). Artist and theoretical physicist Isobel (sic) Piczek calls it the "… only window on the future in the cosmos, on the cosmos" (3).
Perhaps one day the Father will exact an answer from many to this question: "How is it that you tried to shroud the glorified One in a medieval cloth? (26). (emphasis mine)
Annette Cloutier, a reader of this blog corrects Anderson’s article:
These very misleading/mal-assertions by Anderson need to be carefully addressed one by one:
To quote McCrone is to be on the side of conning the public for self aggrandizement. (I didn’t think McCrone was actually a member of STURP. He certainly didn’t go to Italy to study the Shroud in Turin in 1978. But he managed to con away the tapes containing particles of blood, pollen and other Shroud surface material from Ray Rogers a valid member of Turin. He kept those tapes for over a year, long enough to deprive others, such as Dr. John Heller (another valid member of STURP) from making a timelier, honest, and carefully scientifically scrutinized evaluation. McCrone got to the press first. Heller’s book didn’t get the press it deserved because of McCrone’s cronyism to anyone who was anti-STURP. (Boy, does the Divider ever have a legion.)
It is most imperative to note that John’s Gospel is not writing fact… the tons of spices to anoint the Body of Christ is comparable to the tons of water converted to wine at the wedding feast of Cana. It has to do with competing with the Hellenistic gods of wine/this life (Dionysus) and embalming spices/afterlife (Persephone)… a great exaggeration to get the reader convinced that Jesus the Christ is greater than Dionysus the god of wine (Wedding Feast of Cana), and Persephone the goddess of the eternal spring/resurrection (the entombment/the spices).
The two cloths John mentions seems to be the Sudarium and the Shroud which Anderson will not even mention (the Sudarium) as being so similar to the Shroud in material and in blood-stain formation.
Bishop D’Arcie’s accusation of calling the Shroud a painting has been already addressed by Antonacci and others that the so-called painting was a quick-lived substitute commissioned perhaps by the de Vergy family to be displayed at Besançon, France (1349) after the 1347 fire at the Cathedral of St. Etienne. But it didn’t stay in circulation long. The display of the genuine Shroud at St. Mary’s Lirey France took place after the death of Geoffoy de Charny on 19 September 1356, which gave Jeanne de Vergy the necessary funds to continue on after her husband’s death defending King John the Good (Hundred Years’ War).
No prior history of the Shroud before the 14th century???? Look at the detailed drawing of the Shroud in the 1192 Hungarian Pray Manuscript… Then there was the peaceful transfer the the Shroud to the kingdom of Constantinople from the city of Edessa in 944. All the kingdom of Constantinople wanted from Edessa, in lieu of war, was the Shroud. How it was so well venerated in Constantinople thereafter: even Robert de Clari wrote in his journal (1203) of how the Shroud was displayed at St. Mary’s Blachernae (or some say he meant to say at the Pharos Palace Cathedral) every Friday. Pro-Shroud theory says that there was a solemn parade that took place every Friday in moving the Shroud from the Pharos Palace Cathedral to St. Mary’s Blachernae. Anti-Shroud theorists say that deClari was confused.
Anderson’s so-called art historian(s), who claim the Shroud is of 13th or 14th century iconography, need a lesson in art history. They should begin with the artwork of the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, 1192, which graphically depicts the Shroud and its formation.
As far as those rascally labs are concerned anyone familiar with the testing of the Shroud will know that none of these "scientists" behaved in a scientific way: they did not research the work prior done a decade or more prior to their tests. They did not even read Dr. Gilbert Raes’ (Ghent Institute) work done in 1969 to 1973 specifically on this corrupted corner. Dr. Raes said that under the microscope fibers of cotton could be seen mixed with the old waxed linen fibers, and there was dye and glue to boot. No, these "scientists" from the three faulty Carbon 14 labs did not even do research on the onsite scientific examination of the Shroud done by STURP. These lab scientists, as you say, Joe, were paid to confound the real science done by STURP John Heller and Alan Adler in 1979-1980. But ignorance loves ignorance just as money loves money.
“But ignorance loves ignorance just as money loves money”…How true and well said, and I must agree with most all of Annette’s rebuttal….One wonders though how all these sceptics of the Shroud can be so ignorant of the facts, do they not read? Do they not research the topic at hand, fully? and if they do, why are they so blind to the truth? …It’s a mystery too me, more so then the Shroud can ever be.
It may be that they arrived at the answer they had striven for.
>Perhaps one day the Father will exact an answer from many to this question: “How is it that you tried to shroud the glorified One in a medieval cloth? (26). (emphasis mine)
The point is that we who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud are merely accepting the evidence that God the Father has provided us.
Especially evangelical Protestant Christians like me, who believe in the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone), and have an inherent distrust of Roman Catholic relics, have every reason to reject the Shroud.
The only reason I came to accept the authenticity of the Shroud is that in 2005, after nearly 40 years a Christian, and to the extent I thought about the Shroud at all, I assumed it was just another fake medieval relic, I became aware of the evidence for its authenticity in Stevenson & Habermas’ book, Verdict on the Shroud (1981), that I bought for $3.00 in a second-hand bookstore. I only bought the book because: 1) it was co-authored by evangelical theologian Gary Habermas whose writings I was familiar with as sound and evidence-based; and 2) it cost only $3.00.
I note that Anderson has a PhD Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology. He should then appreciate that if the Shroud is a fake, yet God has allowed it to come into existence, complete with all the evidence for its authenticity, then God would be a “cosmic deceiver.”
And then Anderson could not logically reject the extreme Young-Earth Creationist “Appearance of Age” argument that God allowed the Universe to come into existence, complete with a fake history of it being billions of years old, when in reality it is only tens of thousands of years old.
Comments are closed.