I have dubbed you “Angry.” My tone in this response is not my way with strangers. It is an attempt to stay with the tone of your “greeting” to me on Dan Porter’s blog page. You will have to work at fixing the points below before receiving any gesture of warmth from any bona fide historians.
Perhaps I should have taken Ian’s advice just to ignore you, since your complaints “are not worth the time” – not my words.
I challenge you to show us documentary PROOF (Don’t be even more stupid–NOT DNA) of the existence of some ancestor of yours, say, from 200-300 years ago, for whom not a single document remains. I do not ask the impossible: only that you provide a single document from some earlier time. I won’t require any written PROOF, e.g., before the printing press and further on back to the time of the Roman Empire. (This is what you have demanded of the Shroud. )
Of course, your ancestors are many. And they did exist. But where’s your PROOF.
You wrote that you have “looked everywhere” in order to disprove the Abgar account of Ian Wilson. You will be sorry for that claim, for now your omissions must be recognized by all as deliberate and insincere and self-serving. That is, now we know that though you “have looked everywhere,” you will say anything that you think helps your argument and omit anything that will surely crush you.
I also now point out some examples of inaccurate (i.e., terrible) history on your part. These can no longer accepted as simply “overlooked,” because you have shown us that you are capable of deceit.
First: two documents — one from the 6th c. and one by a Byzantine emperor from the 10th c.– actually describe the faint moist image on the face of the Shroud man. The eyewitness (sic) account of the emperor agrees fully with the description given in the 6th – century text, so that we (YOU) must accept the latter as eyewitness as well. Both texts refer the image back to Wilson’s brilliant insights about the Shroud ion Edessa. Both texts!!! This is not an hypothesis, but FACT.
Why would you omit mentioning such texts as these ? ? ?
Moreover, the 6th-century document refers to the Edessan cloth as a sindon tetradiplon. Can you translate these words? Did you NOT see them when you were “looking everywhere”??? They mean a burial shroud folded four times so that the face alone of Jesus was exposed to view. So, emphatically, NO, the Shroud and the mandylion are NOT two separate objects. I will try to keep it simple for you: When folded in this manner and placed in a frame or box (as often documented, as you should know) with only the face visible, people thought the image was that of a face only mandylion. For your information, there NEVER WAS a mandylion as such. It was always already the folded Shroud.
One of your “finest untrue facts” is that the Mandylion was probably destroyed by the French revolutionaries in 1792. I won’t waste my time explaining this. Everyone who read your blog [comment] and who reads this will know how gingerly –wrong – you are. Oh, and did I read the word “PROBABLY” in your “factual” revelation? Sorry, but you have just presented us all with an HYPOTHESIS based upon an untrue premise, and not a fact or even an unhistorical “fact.”
I have been long in communication with both Ian Wilson and Fr. Maurus—who accepted fully the Abgar/Edessa insight of Wilson. Fr. Maurus had agreed to serve as Wilson’s friendly sounding board. Fr. Maurus’ words, as quoted by you, were thus spoken as friendly advice in advance , early on in his and Wilson’s relationship. They were NOT AT ALL a condemnation of Wilson’s final publication as you have tried to make us believe.
I could go on and on about your apparent total ignorance of historiographical propriety. Indeed your bombast and deceitfulness have provided a lesson for young history students on how NOT to do history.
Professor of History Emeritus,
University of Southern Indiana,