So
I'm sure that everyone who keeps up to date on the Shroud has heard
about the recent experiments by ENEA which were able to reproduce the
superficiality of the Shroud image using bursts of light. My point in
writing this though is to show the blatant fallacious writings of
skeptic Joe Nickell, who is repeating the same false facts that I
heard far too many Shroud skeptics tout:
“Given the tremendous evidence against the 'shroud' — its incompatibility with Jewish burial practices, lack of historical record, bishop's report of the forger’s confession, the still-bright-red 'blood' which failed forensic serological tests, the presence of pigments and paints throughout the image, three laboratories' radiocarbon dating of the cloth to the time of the confession (1260–1390), and much additional evidence — it would seem that Di Lazzaro is straining at a gnat and attempting to swallow a camel. Let him produce a shroudlike image according to whatever theory he can muster, and we'll talk again.”
Let's
break this down line by line.
“Its
incompatibility with Jewish burial practices” is patently false.
Ian Wilson shows in his book how the word the synoptic writers (Mark,
Matthew, and Luke) use – sindon
– refers not to a burial cloth but just a general linen cloth.
Furthermore, even though John said he saw 'the soudarion
which had been over His head', the word he used for over – epi
– doesn't
necessarily mean that it had to cover only Christ's head, but that it
could have covered His entire body as well (which is reinforced with
what Jewish law mandated: that one who had blood pour forth from
wounds would be wrapped in a sovev,
a
cloth that would wrap an entire body in the same way that a soudarion
could).1
While
the “lack of historical record” is true in
a sense,
the history of the Shroud has been reconstructed through various
hints in records, alluding to an image of the Savior being venerated.
We know of this happening in Constantinople all the way back to
Edessa since the Shroud is probably what we knew as the Image of
Edessa.2
The
“bishop's report of the forger's confession” has long been seen
as suspect because of power struggles surrounding the parties.
People, unfortunately, can lie.3
“The
still-bright-red 'blood' which failed forensic serological tests”
has been shown to be utterly false by the works of Adler and Heller,
and can be read about in the article by David Ford that I posted on
this blog earlier.
“The
presence of pigments and paints [found] throughout the image” has
also shown to be false. See the above mentioned article.
The
“three laboratories' radiocarbon dating of the cloth to the time of
the confession (1260–1390)” are useless once we factor in that
the piece that they tested was most likely a re-weave.
…Whelp.
2cf.
the above or Robert K. Wilcox's The Truth About the Shroud of
Turin
3cf.
the above mentioned
Ah, what would the world do without the ignorant? Like I said, aren't apologies--especially the short and sweet ones--so very fun?
ReplyDeleteFun, yes. But also annoying since I see so many atheists tout this information constantly. It bothers me since I know that the new atheist movement puts such a high standard on science and the peer-review process -- if you try to pull a fast one on them with bogus-science they'll know it in a second (and that's a good thing). But whenever it's on the Shroud there seems to be a complete 180.
ReplyDelete