![]() ![]() The chapter goes on to mention St Paul taking the Shroud to Rome (see 2 Timothy 2:14), more or less simultaneously St Thaddeus taking it to Edessa (the legend of Abgar), where, following Ian Wilson, it became the Mandylion, in spite of almost every pilgrim to Constantinople distinguishing clearly between the Image of Edessa and the burial cloths of Jesus. We even “know that around 1150, the emperor in Constantinople had shown the Shroud to a group of Hungarian dignitaries, one of whom made a sketch of it.” This is such sheer fantasy that we are tempted to abandon this review right here: there is nothing ‘scientific’ about this ‘Catholic scientist’ at all. A letter allegedly from Theodore Comnenus Ducas (of Constantinople) to Pope Innocent III requesting the return of the Shroud, which Verschuuren quotes verbatim, is a transparent forgery, and has been recognised as such for a hundred years. It is not long before ostensibly open queries are answered definitively by “we know that the Shroud was in Constantinople in 1204,” which we certainly don’t, and “what we do know is that the Shroud stayed in Athens until 1225,” which is nonsense, and the merest, wholly unfounded, speculation. It is significant because it shows that Verschuuren is happier to rely more on what he had read than what he can see for himself, which cannot inspire confidence in his scientific impartiality. Although the sketchiest examination shows that this is incorrect, and a detailed analysis of the folding has been published at, it has been repeated in dozens of publications from the 1970s until today. ![]() A common, wrong but significant claim is that the Shroud was folded in 48 layers during the 1532 fire. A chapter on ‘Historical Analysis’ consists largely of questions, with little serious attempt to supply answers. “What We Know About Roman Execution” is largely based on the marks on the Shroud, from the guards who stood on each side applying strokes alternately, to the helmet of thorns and the nails through the wrists. However, since the turn of the century he has concentrated on books linking Science with his Catholic faith, and, with the clouding of vision so common to the genre, his latest book is less than objective, and in spite of a preface declaring that he “will weigh the claims that science makes for and against the authenticity of the Shroud,” this book is unequivocally one-sided.īy beginning with Biblical history, it is difficult not to make the unspoken assumption that the Shroud is genuine. Gerard Verschuuren is a card-carrying biologist specialising in genetics, and must have a fine, practical working knowledge of scientific method. ![]() Published by the Sophia Institute Press, New Hampshire A Catholic Scientist Champions the Shroud of Turin ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |