My critique of Sarzeaud, N., 2025, "Further evidence suggests Jesus was not wrapped in 'Shroud of Turin'," Scimex, 29 Aug 2025

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Newcomers start with: "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell"

This is the seventh instalment of My critique of Sarzeaud, N., 2025, "Further evidence suggests Jesus was not wrapped in 'Shroud of Turin'," Scimex, 29 Aug 2025. It was originally an item of my Shroud of Turin News, but I realised it would be too long for that. My words will be in [bold square brackets] to distinguish them from those of the article's.

---

"Further evidence suggests Jesus was not wrapped in 'Shroud of Turin',"Scimex, 29 August 2025.

[Right (enlarge): Full-length negative image of the Shroud (Wikipedia)[STW]. Could an unknown medieval forger really have created this? Or does Naturalism's Emperor have no clothes?]

[Today (10 October 2025) I discovered the media release that all the news articles about medieval philosopher Nicole Oresme (1325-82)'s rejection of the Shroud are based on, so I will start again and respond to that.]

A newly uncovered Medieval document has added further evidence to suggest that the famous Shroud of Turin was not authentic.

[This latest "evidence ... that the Shroud ... is not authentic" is a mere footnote (see below)! Nicole Oresme, a 14th century philosopher who had never seen the Shroud (because for ~30 years from 1359 to 1389, following the widowed Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428)'s marriage to Aymon IV of Geneva, the Shroud had been taken to Anthon in High Savoy[13Apr18] and even Bishop d'Arcis did not know where it was[27Dec14] until after Oresme had died in 1382), in a footnote wrote:

"I do not need to believe those who say: 'So-and-so performed this or that miracle for me,' because in this way many clerics deceive others, inducing them to bring offerings to their churches. This is clear from the example of the church in Champagne, where it was said that it was the Shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ, and from the seemingly endless number of others who have invented this or that"[PA25].

That's it! In the above footnote, Oresme does not dispute that the Shroud exhibited at "the church in Champagne" (i.e. the Church of St Mary, Lirey, France[13Aprl8]) was "the Shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ." His topic is not the Shroud but the claim by "clerics" that their relics worked miracles, deceiving their followers and "inducing them to bring offerings to their churches." Oresme's example of "the church in Champagne" is evidently based on the rumour ("it is said"), later made explicit by the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-95) in his 1389 Memorandum, about the Shroud's 1356 exposition, that because "from all parts people came together to view" the Shroud, the de Charny's and/or the Lirey church canons must have made a lot of money from it:

"This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, through out the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to be the shroud of our Lord"[WI79, 267].

But as I pointed out in my post of 16Dec24:

• The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is "the shroud of our Lord." So it is possible that there were real miracles of healing associated with that first undisputed exposition of the Shroud. • Neither Geoffroy I de Charny's widow, Jeanne de Vergy, nor the Lirey church, were wealthy after the c. 1355 exposition. Following her husband's 1356 death, Jeanne had to appeal to the young future king Charles V (r. 1364-80) for her infant son Geoffroy II (1352-98) to be granted the two houses in Paris that Charles' captured father, King John II (r. 1350-64) had promised Geoffroy I (c. 1306-56) ... • And the small wooden Lirey church fell into disrepair ... until it was replaced in stone over 170 years later in 1526 ... [which d'Arcis knew up to 1395, when he ceased being the Bishop of Troyes, because Lirey is only ~12 miles (~20 km) from Troyes[13Apr18].]. • Yet according to d'Arcis ... Jeanne de Vergy, and/or the Lirey church, would have been fabulously wealthy from all that "money" they allegedly had "cunningly ... wrung from" the "multitude"! • I could have added that "Simony ... the act of selling church offices and roles or sacred things" was a major crime in the Middle Ages and d'Arcis or his predecessor Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–70), would have prosecuted Jeanne de Vergy and/or the Lirey church canons if they had made a lot of money from exhibiting the Shroud. • This is ... evidence that d'Arcis was not simply mistaken, but was actually lying in his Memorandum!]

The linen cloth, which many believe was used to wrap the crucified body of Jesus, is called into question in this new document, which is described as the first-ever written, ‘official’ and highly respected rejection of the Shroud presented to-date. [It is laughable that Sarzeaud thinks that the overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet could be "called into question" by a mere footnote (see above), by Oreseme, a 14th century philosopher, who had never seen the Shroud (see above), and who in his footnote did not dispute that the Shroud exhibited at the church in Champagne was the Shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ (see above). And it is not a "document" but a footnote (see above)! And while it is "the first-ever written ... rejection of the Shroud" by a named Shroud sceptic that has survived, it is hardly "‘official’ and highly respected," since, as Sarzeaud says in in this media release (see future below), it was only recently discovered by "historians Alain Boureau [1946-] and Béatrice Delaurenti [1972-]."

Also, in 1978, ~47 years ago, Ian Wilson (1941-) published an English translation of the 1389 Memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, in which d'Arcis stated:

"For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time"[WI78, 230].

So there were many Shroud sceptics in d'Arcis' and Oresme's day. That is understandable because it was not until Secondo Pia (1855-1941) photographed the Shroud in 1898[05Jun21], more than 500 years after Oresme's footnote, and discovered that the Shroudman's image was a photographic negative (see above)[22Dec16; 05Jun21], that scientists and the general public began to take the Shroud seriously as possibly Jesus' burial sheet.]

The statement was written by Norman theologian Nicole Oresme, who later became the Bishop of Lisieux in France. [Oresme was not a "theologian." Wikipedia says he was "a French philosopher of the later Middle Ages ... [who] wrote influential works on economics, mathematics, physics, astrology, astronomy, philosophy, and theology"[ONW]. Nicolas Sarzeaud (1992-) boosts Oresme, such that it is more about what Sarzeaud thinks about the Shroud than what Oresme thought about it! It reminds me of the joke about the lawyer's courtroom note which said, "argument weak here - shout"!]

His opinion is particularly useful, according to the researchers, because he was well known for working to provide rational explanations for unexplained phenomena (rather than interpreting them as divine or demonic), and he was not personally involved in the dispute – so had no interest in supporting his own position. [See above that Oresme did not express an opinion on the Shroud. And if he had, it would have been worthless, since, as we saw above, Orasme had never seen the Shroud. And as for it being "useful ... to provide rational explanations for unexplained phenomena (rather than interpreting them as divine ...)," that would only be true, in the case of the Shroud, if Naturalism, the philosophy that nature is all there is, there is no supernatural, including God, were true. But the Shroud is scientific evidence that Jesus was raised supernaturally from death by the power of God (1Cor 6:14; Col 2:12) (see 03Aug24), and therefore that Naturalism is not true!]

[...]

Was Jesus’ crucified body wrapped in the Shroud of Turin? A newly discovered Medieval document is the earliest written evidence to suggest not.[Again, see above that it was not a "document" but a mere footnote. And in that footnote, Oresme, who had never seen the Shroud (see above) does not dispute that the Shroud exhibited at "the church in Champagne" was "the Shroud of the Lord Jesus Christ." (see above).]

World-leading Shroud of Turin expert says findings are "further historical evidence that even in the Middle Ages, they knew that the Shroud was not authentic" [This "World-leading Shroud of Turin expert" is revealed (see future below) as Professor Andrea Nicolotti (1974-). But Nicolotti is an embodiment of "The invincible ignorance fallacy":

"The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, anecdotal, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objections fit these terms"[IIW].]

Two Shroudie reviews of Nicolotti's book (which I own), "The Shroud of Turin - The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic" (2019), by Emanuela Marinelli and Ian Wilson support this:

"Anyone who has already read other books by Nicolotti knows, however, his destructive attitude: his interpretation of the sources is always contrary to the authenticity of the Shroud and the denial of any possibility that the relic is the funeral sheet of Christ is continually repeated. He is anxious to turn off any light, so that the darkness could be total. Nicolotti operates a systematic exaltation of the scholars who believe the Shroud to be false, people he presents as reliable, and an equally systematic denigration of those who consider it authentic, branded as sindonologists who make pseudoscience"[ME22].

"Superficially, Nicolotti’s book presents as an authoritative, well-researched account of everything that is worth knowing about the Turin cloth’s history ... despite which high standing and convenient location he appears never to have examined the cloth itself at close quarters ... reasonably high-resolution digital photographs have been available since 2008, yet Nicolotti turns a surprisingly blind eye to the imagery that has so astonished many, providing scant description of it, and seeing no problem to it being accepted as the work of a medieval artist. The book’s ... illustrations lack any close-up views of its imagery’s characteristics, and there is no in-depth textual discussion of these ... denying their medical convincingness (in the teeth of some serious professional opinion to the contrary), and downplaying their famous `negative' properties"[WI22]

As for this footnote being "further historical evidence that even in the Middle Ages, they knew that the Shroud was not authentic" is obviously false. The Shroud first appeared in undisputed history late in the Middle Ages (AD 500-1500) at a brief exposition at Lirey, France in 1355[13Apr18]. It was displayed on a high platform and the public below could not touch the Shroud, let alone examine it[24Nov15]. Soon afterwards the Shroud disappeared until a second brief exposition at Lirey in 1389[03Jul18]. At no time in the Middle Ages could anyone know that the Shroud was "not authentic." Oresme couldn't know it because he never saw the Shroud[see above]! It was not until 1978 when STURP examined the Shroud for five days around the clock with a battery of scientific tests[20Jun22] , that it could be known that the Shroud was not a painting[08Dec22] and therefore it could reasonably be inferred that the Shroud was authentic, that is, Jesus' burial sheet[HG87, 28; SH90, 12; IJ98, 118; DT12, 26]. Today, The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet! And the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been the result of a computer hacking[08Jul15; 14Jun25]!

Newly uncovered medieval evidence is the latest to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the linen cloth many believe was used to wrap the crucified body of Jesus. [See above here and here]. Sarzeaud is deceiving himself. To cast doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud, he would need to 1) plausibly explain all the Shroud's major features, including: • photographic negativity (see above)[22Dec16]; • three-dimensionallity[05Feb17]; • extreme superficiality[11Nov16]; • non-directionality[29Oct16]; • no outline[11Jun16]; • no style[05Sep16]; • x-rays of hand bones and teeth (x-rays discovered

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a positive photograph of the Shroud on Shroud Scope, showing the finger (phalanges) and the hand (metacarpals) bones beneath the skin[April 20, 2017]. X-rays are invisible, but when they are absorbed by calcium in bones, the calcium fluoresces[RTB]. Dead bodies don't emit x-rays but the Transfiguration says that Jesus' body emitted intense light[RTB], which includes x-rays[RTB], as a prefiguration of his resurrection[RTB]! So this x-ray photograph of the Shroudman's hand is alone (and it is not alone) proof beyond reasonable doubt that the man on the Shroud is Jesus, photographed (written by light) at the instant of his resurrection[RTB]! So, to paraphrase Hebrews 2:3, how shall sceptics escape if they ignore such great evidence?]

1895)[20Apr17]; • real human blood[03Jun17]; • blood clots intact[04Sep17]; blood was on cloth before the image[05Nov17]; • blood clot serum retraction halos [27Dec21](visible in ultraviolet light - discovered 1801)]; • distinction between arterial and venous blood flows (discovered 1628)[27Dec21]. And 2) plausibly explain away: • the historical[04Jul25], and • artistic[04Jul25] evidence that the Shroud existed seven centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud[21Aug18].]

To be continued in the eighth instalment of this post.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Bibliography
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
HG87. Habermas, G.R., 1987, "Affirmative Statement: Gary R. Habermas," in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA.
IIW. "Invincible ignorance fallacy," Wikipedia, 5 May 2024.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
ME22. Marinelli, E., 2022, "The Desire for Total Darkness: Review of Andrea Nicolotti’s The Shroud of Turin - The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic," Shroud.com.
STW. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 8 October 2025.
ONW. "Nicole Oresme," Wikipedia, 8 October 2025.
PA25. Piana, A., 2025, "Shroud, A Rumor in a Medieval Document Peddled as Proof," UCCR, 29 Aug 2025.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
STW. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 8 October 2025.
WI78. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI22. Wilson, I., 2022, "Is the Shroud of Turin a Fake?: Ian Wilson’s Critique of Andrea Nicolotti’s Study," The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 108, No. 2, Spring, 391-404.

Posted 10 October 2025. Updated 16 October 2025.

Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (3): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (3)

This is my "Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (3)," part #44 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. For more information about this series see "Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (1)."

Newcomers start with: "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell"

[Index #1] [Previous: Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (2) #43] [Next: "Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (4)" #45].

First, I have updated "Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (1)" with "Evidence that the Shroud is older than 1260," "Historical evidence that the Shroud is older than 1260," and "Artistic evidence that the Shroud is older than 1260."

■ 1260-1390! On 13 October 1988, the coordinator of the laboratories' radiocarbon dating, the British Museum's Michael Tite (1938-), flanked by Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) and its chief technician Robert Hedges (1944-), at a press conference in the British Museum, London, announced that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was 1260-1390[24May14]. On a blackboard behind them Tite had written "1260-1390!"[21Jun20; 25Aug24].

[Right (enlarge): From left to right, Prof. Edward Hall (Oxford), Michael Tite (British Museum) and Robert Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated "1260-1390!"[24May14].]

■ Exclamation mark In 1990, ~2 years after the press conference, when asked who wrote the exclamation mark on the blackboard, Tite answered "I can't remember who did that"[21Jun20]. Yet in 2020, ~12 years after the press conference, Tite admitted that it was he who did it[21Jun20]. This shows that Tite is not a scrupulous truth-teller but can tell lies about the Shroud when when it suits him[28Jan25]. Previously we saw that Tite was an extreme Shroud sceptic[31Jul25, who along with McCrone and Linick, would not accept that the Shroud was Jesus' even if its radiocarbon date was first-century[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 15Aug17]. The Vatican was naive, in entrusting the dating of the Shroud to this group of non-Christians, with no Christian oversight. It should have insisted that, as the Shroud was the Church's artifact, the laboratories were required to send the result to it for consideration before it was announced publicly[07May16].

■ "one in a thousand trillion" Prof. Harry Gove asked and answered:

"The other question that has been asked is: if the statistical probability that the shroud dates between 1260 and 1390 is 95%, what is the probability that it could date to the first century? The answer is about one in a thousand trillion, i.e. vanishingly small"[20Feb14; 24May14; 23Jul15; 09Mar17; 28Feb25].

Tite added that the odds were "astronomical" that the Shroud could be first-century and have a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date[24May14; 23Jul15; 28Feb25] and Hall wrote that it was "totally impossible"[24May14; 23Jul15; 28Feb25].

But the flip-side is that since the Shroud is first-century, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates, it is the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud which the probability against is "one in a thousand trillion," "astronomical" and "totally impossible"[23Jul15; 11Jun16; 20Dec14; 09Jan21]!

■ 1989 Nature article On 16 February 1989, an article, "Radiocarbon Dating the Shroud of Turin," was published in the British science journal Nature[17Feb19; 21Mar23]. It claimed that, "The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence"[17Feb19; 29May19; 06Nov20]. Those dates are a statistically manipulated combined average of the dates of each laboratory[17Feb19; 29May19; 13Mar21; 22Jan25; 28Jan25]. The "1390" and "95%" are fraudulent (see here and here).

• Not peer-reviewed? Tite, the author of the Nature article, did not mention that it had been peer-reviewed, in his rush to have it published[28Jan25]:

"T: I wrote the article. I was the person who put it together and circulated it to the labs and they added their bit. In our lab we did the statistical analysis"[MP89, 10]

although he implied that it was[MP89, 10]. However, Casabianca, et al., mention, "As suggested one of the referees ..."[CT19]. But such is the shambles of the three laboratories' radiocarbon dating revealed in their raw data that Casabianca, et al. exposed[29May19], the question then is: did Tite take any notice of the peer-reviewers comments? There were only 66 days between the last laboratory, Oxford, submitting its results to Tite on Monday 8 August 1988[08Dec22], and the press conference announcing the 1260-1390 results of the dating on Thursday, 13 October 1988[08Dec22]. And as we saw above, Tite did not even mention peer review in his explanation of why he chose Nature rather than a specialist radiocarbon dating journal to publish the article (see below). Tite would have had to submit the three laboratories' results, as well as the British Museum's statistical analysis, to a panel of peer-reviewers. They would have needed many weeks, if not months, to review the results and return their comments and questions to Tite. Tite would then need to send the reviewers' comments and questions to the three laboratories and receive back from them their answers. Only then could Tite write the article. That Tite does not even mention such a large amount of time that peer-review of the laboratories' results and the British Museum's statistical analysis would take, indicates that, if it happened, Tite ignored it. That the article contains an elementary rounding error to the nearest 10 years from 1384 to 1390[22Jan25; 28Jan25], when it should have been 1380[28Jan25; 22Jan25], which peer-reviewers would surely have required to be corrected, indicates that Tite ignored what peer-review of the article there was.

Hall's retirement The article was not submitted to a specialist, peer-reviewed radiocarbon dating journal, such as Radiocarbon or Archaeometry, because, according to Tite, "Nature is published more rapidly, comes out once a week and is accepted for immediate results"[MP89, 9]. But that is not a valid scientific reason. The need for rapid publication was that Oxford Radiocarbon Dating laboratory was founded and largely funded privately by the wealthy Prof. Edward Hall[27Aug15; WI01; 28Jan25], but under Oxford University's then mandatory retirement at age 65 policy, Hall had to retire on 10 May 1989[28Jan25]. Hall had 45 "rich friends" who would fund an endowed chair of archeological science at Oxford (the Edward Hall Chair of Archaeological Science)[17Feb19; 21Jun20; 21Mar23], if the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was a `success'[22Jan25]. And Tite was the first occupant of that chair[17Feb19; 22Jan25; 28Jan25]! Hall, being a Trustee of the Bristish Museum, was effectively Tite's boss[17Feb19], and it would be naive not to think that Hall, with £1M funding of his Oxford laboratory depending on a medieval radiocarbon date of the Shroud, did not say to Tite, words to the effect,`get it right Michael and the job (Director of Oxford Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory and the Chair of Archaeological Science) is yours'[21Mar23]!

Evidence that the article's radiocarbon dates are computer-generated include:

• Fig. 1 shows no overlap between Arizona and Oxford's dates of

[Left: Fig. 1 Mean radiocarbon dates with ±1 standard deviation errors bars, of Sample 1 (the Shroud) and the three control samples[28Jan25].]

Sample 1 (the Shroud), and almost no overlap of Oxford and Zurich's dates. Arizona's oldest date is 1249 and Oxford's youngest date is 1220. And Zurich and Oxford only overlap by 3 years: Zurich's oldest date is 1217 and again Oxford's youngest date is 1220[28Jan25]. Yet there was overlap between the control samples 2, 3 and 4, of all three laboratories[28Jan25], which were not computer-generated.

• Table 1 lists the mean dates of each laboratory's dating runs of

[Right (enlarge): Extract of Table 1 of the Nature article[23Jun18; 28Jan25]. "Sample 1" is the Shroud with the dating runs of each laboratory[28Jan25]. Years are before 1950[13Jun14; 17Feb19; 28Jan25], after which atmosheric nuclear testing added man-made carbon-14 into the atmosphere[17Feb19; 22Jan25; 28Jan25]. So Arizona's first listed run was 591 ± 30, i.e. 1950-591 = 1359 ± 30. Oxford's first listed run was 795 ± 65, i.e. 1950-795 = 1155 ± 65. And Zurich's first listed run was 733 ± 61, i.e. 1950-733 = 1217 ± 61].

Sample 1 (the Shroud). But Arizona's 4 listed runs were actually 8 runs[12Feb08; 17Feb19; 29May19], which were combined and averaged, with no explanatory footnote, and falsely headed "individual measurements"[17Feb19; 29May19; 28Jan25]. Hence Arizona's first listed run appears as "1359" when it actually was "1350"[23Jun18; 08Dec22]. Converted to calendar years (before 1950), the mean date of Arizona's first listed run, 1359, was the most recent (youngest) of all three laboratories' 12 listed dating runs[23Jun18; 03Aug19; 13Mar21; 21Mar23; 22Jan25; 28Jan25]. The mean date of Oxford's first listed run, 1155, was the least recent (oldest) of all three laboratories' listed dating runs[22Jan25; 28Jan25]. And the mean listed date of Zurich's first listed run, 1217, was the least recent (oldest) of Zurich's 5 dating runs[22Jan25; 28Jan25].

I had thought that the probability of this pattern occurring by chance would be 1/4 x 1/3 × 1/5 = 1/60[22Jan25; 28Jan25]. But then I realised that within each laboratory its dates could be in any order. I rediscovered what I once knew as a maths and science teacher almost a decade ago, that the number of permutations of n distinct objects is n factorial, usually written as n!. Therefore the number of permutations of Arizona's four dates is factorial 4, i.e. 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24; that of Oxford's 3 dates is factorial 3, i.e. 3 x 2 x 1 = 6; and the permutations of Zurich's 5 dates is factorial 5, i.e. 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 120. So the probability of this pattern occurring by chance across the three laboratories was not 1/4 x 1/3 × 1/5 = 1/60, but 1/24 x 1/6 x 1/120 = 1/17,280! When I thought the probabilty of this pattern occurring by chance was 1/60, I tried to demonstrate it on a spreadsheet, but even then it became too difficult, and it would have be too wide or long to fit into a blog post.

A Shroud sceptic might argue that the probability of any permutation of those dates, occurring by chance, would be 1 in 17,280. This may be true (I am no mathematician), but presumably only a tiny minority of those would form a meaningful pattern. And among that tiny minority of those that did form a meaningful pattern, some (e.g. the pattern of all the dates in perfect chronological order from Arizona's first to Oxford's last, or its reverse), would likely have invalidated that dating, because of suspected fraud. That is because the dates would be expected to form no pattern, but be randomly distributed across all three laboratories. There is no scientific reason why these dates, from three different laboratories, in three different countries, and generated at three different times, would show any pattern.

In particular, there is no scientific reason why the very first dating run of all three laboratories, contained in Arizona's "1359," should be the `psychological hammer blow' "1350"[22Jan25; 04Jul25] which instantly convinced Gove and all others present at Arizona's first dating on 6 May 1988 that, after this one dating run in one laboratory, that "the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD ... It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth":

"At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue. ... At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first ... Based on these 10 one minute runs, ... the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began[08Jun14; 22Sep15; 10Feb18; 03Aug19] ... I remember Donahue saying that he did not care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age"[08Jun14; 22Sep15; 10Feb18; 03Aug19]

Gove even quoted with approval Donahue saying above that he "did not care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age"! They all ignored Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman (1918-88)'s First Principle, "you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool (my emphasis)"

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that"[22Jul12; 27Aug15; 18Nov15]

And that "1350," date was then leaked by Arizona physicist Timothy Linick (1946-89)[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 08Dec22; 07Apr25] (the hacker whose program generated it[05Jul14; 29Mar16; 07Apr25]) to Shroud sceptic David Sox (1936-2016)[24Jun14; 05Mar15; 30Dec15; 15Aug17], through Linick's half-brother Anthony Linick (1938-), who worked with Sox for at least 11 years from 1982 to 1993, at the same American School in London[22Feb16; 15Aug17]. And Sox leaked that "1350" date to the media through his friend Richard Luckett (1945-2020)[24Jun14]. Linick leaked the "1350" date to create a climate of expectation[24Jun14; 22Sep15; 10Mar17; 15Aug17; 03Aug19; 21Mar23], such that, as Oxford's Prof. Hall recalled: "Everyone was resigned to it being a fake long before the announcement" (my emphasis).

"So it was `leaked' by the press ... in the States long before the newspaper stories started here [sic] ... Everyone was resigned to it being a fake long before the announcement. In this sense it was out of the bag from the very beginning"[21Mar23; 31Jul25].

The final element of this unique, meaningful, probability 1 in 17,280, pattern of Shroud dating runs in Table 1 of the 1989 Nature article, is that when the dates of Sample 1, the Shroud, were combined and averaged, with the fraudulent help of Tite[22Jan25; 28Jan25; 04Jul25], it produced a radiocarbon date of the Shroud of 1260-1390, the mid-point of which is 1325, which `just happens' to be exactly 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in 1355[18Feb14; 24May14; 21Jun17]!

The range of the dates [see 28Jan25], in years before 1950 (see above) from the oldest 1155 (Oxford), to the youngest 1359 (Arizona), is 204 years[23Jun18; 28Jan25]! Within each laboratory the range was also wide. Arizona's maximum mean was 701 and its minimum 591, a range of 110 years! Oxford's mean maximum was 795 and its minimum 730, a range of 65 years. Zurich's maximum was 733 and its minimum 635, a range of 98 years! Yet the laboratories' Shroud samples were cut from the one Shroud sample ~10 mm x 70 mm (or ~0.4 x 2.75 in.), according to the Nature article[DP89, 612]. However, according to Wilson the

[Above (enlarge): Drawing of the approximately 1.2 cm x 8 cm sample area, from A1 (Arizona 1), O (Oxford), Z (Zurich) to A (Arizona), with a photo of the 1.2 cm x 8 cm Shroud sample superimposed on the bottom right hand side[13Jun14]. The actual samples that were dated (A1 was not [13Jun14]) are outlined in red. That shrinks the length of the samples dated from 8cm to 4.5 cm. (as measured by me.) Clearly there can be no significant difference in radiocarbon dates between samples from such a tiny area. That is, if they were real dates and not computer-generated!]

sample's dimensions are 1.2 x 8 cm[13Jun14] i.e 120 x 80 mm. I assume this is correct because it is ~9 years later.

• Table 2 shows that the Shroud sample had an "X² value (2 d.f.)" of "6.4"[17Feb19; 29May19; 28Jan25]. This is the Chi-squared test (Χ²)

[Above: Extract from Table 2 of the 1989 Nature article. As can be seen, the Chi-squared value of sample 1 (the Shroud) contrasts markedly with those of the linen control samples 2 (0.1), 3 (1.3) and 4 (2.4)[17Feb19; 29May19; 28Jan25]. The whole point of having control samples of known date[DP89, 612] is that if the test date result varies significantly from that of the control dates, then the something must have gone wrong with the experiment and the test result must be rejected. But there is no reason why the Shroud sample date should have varied so significantly from the control dates, if the Shroud sample dates were real and not computer-generated[29May19]!

of homogeneneity, where the upper limit of 2 degrees of freedom at a 95% significance level is 5.99[17Feb19; 29May19; 28Jan25]. This renders the "with at least 95% confidence" both false[29May19; 28Jan25] and fraudulent (because Tite and the British Museum's statistician Morven Leese) must have known it was false)[17Feb19].

Under Table 2, the article admitted:

"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [controls] is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted"[13Jun14; 18Nov15; 26May18; 17Feb19; 28Jan25]!

But this is impossible if the Shroud dates were real and not computer-generated by a hacker's program[13Jun14; 18Nov15; 17Feb19; 28Jan25]: 
• The three laboratories' `postage stamp' size Shroud samples were all sub-divided from the same ~1.2 x 8 cm (~0.47 x 3.15 in.) sample cut from the Shroud[13Jun14; 18Nov15; 17Feb19].
• All were dated by the same AMS method[13Jun14].
• The Shroud and the control samples were, at each laboratory, together on a carousel which was a little larger than a British two pence coin, which is about 26 mm (~1 inch) in diameter[13Jun14; 03Jun15; 18Nov15].
• In each 10-minute dating run the Shroud and control samples were together rotated through the one caesium ion beam for one minute, 10 times[13Jun14; 03Jun15; 18Nov15].
• If there was something technically wrong with the dating process at a laboratory, the controls and Shroud samples at that laboratory would wrongly agree, and disagree with the controls and Shroud samples of the other two laboratories[03Jun15; 18Nov15; 17Feb19]. But that the agreement across the three laboratories in the dates of the control samples was "exceptionally good" shows that there was nothing technically wrong with the dating itself, which means that the Shroud samples' dates were not real but computer-generated[RTB]

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page.

Bibliography
CT19. Casabianca, T., et al., 2019, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data," Archaeometry, 22 March, 1-9.
DP89. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 611-615.
MP89. Marinelli, E. & Petrosillo, O., 1989, "The 1988 Shroud Samples: An interview with Dr Michael Tite," Paris Symposium 1989, Shroud News, No 81, February 1994, 10.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
WI01. Wilson, I., 2001, "Obituary: Professor Edward Hall, CBE, FBA," BSTS Newsletter, No. 54, November.

Posted 7 September 2025. Updated 15 October 2025.

Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (2): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (2)

This is "Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (2)," part #43 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. In keeping with its purpose to "help me answer questions about my Hacker Theory in any future online interviews" and "Graphics will be `flashcards' which I may hold up to the camera to illustrate a point" (04Jul25), I won't normally include graphics, which will keep this dot points format as brief as possible. For more information see "Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (1)." Again, if a reference looks the same as another (e.g. "08Dec22"), when it is clicked it will open at the correct place.

Newcomers start with: "The Turin Shroud in a nutshell"

[Index #1] [Previous: Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (1): #42] [Next: "Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (3)" #44].

■ Leaks In early July 1988, after Arizona laboratory had completed its dating[08Dec22], Zurich was mid-way through its[08Dec22], but before Oxford had started its dating[24Jun14], leaks about the Shroud's radiocarbon-dating results began to appear in English newspapers[24Jun14].

■ Kenneth Rose "medieval" On 3 July 1988, biographer Kenneth Rose (1924-2014), in his column in the London Sunday Telegraph, wrote of the Shroud's ongoing radiocarbon dating: "In spite of the intense secrecy surrounding the investigation I hear signs that the linen cloth has been proved to be mediaeval"[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 15Aug17; 06Aug18]. This leak was from Zurich laboratory's Director Willy Wölfli (1930–2014)[07Apr25].

■ Richard Luckett "1350" Then on 26 August the London Evening Standard quoted a Cambridge University librarian, Richard Luckett (1945-2020), who stated of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating that, "a probable date of about 1350 looks likely" and that "laboratories are rather leaky institutions"[24Jun14; 15Oct15; 30Dec15; 15Aug17; 08Dec22]. Luckett was unknown in radiocarbon dating circles[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 03Aug19], but it was assumed that the leak came from Oxford[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 15Aug17; 12Feb08]. However, on 9 July Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) and Robert Hedges (1944-) in a letter to The Times stated that Oxford had not yet started its dating[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 15Aug17]. In an Associated Press story of 9 September 1988, Luckett clarified: "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford"[24Jun14; 15Aug17; 12Feb08].This leak was from the hacker, Arizona physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) (see future below).

■ David Sox Harold David Sox (1936-2016) was a former Secretary of the British Society for the Turin Shroud (BSTS), turned Shroud sceptic[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 15Aug17]. On 23 September 1988, in a special newsletter to BSTS members, Ian Wilson (1941-) publicly concluded that Sox was the source of Rose's and Luckett's leaks to the media[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 30Dec15; 15Aug17]. The connection between Rose, Luckett and Sox is that evidently they were members of an informal network of homosexuals[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 15Aug17]. Sox later admitted he was the source of the leaks but that he was not solely to blame[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 15Aug17].

■ Linick was quoted in Sox's book Linick was quoted in Sox's August 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked," as anti-Shroud, in the context of its radiocarbon dating:

"Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'"[24Jun14; 30Dec15; 15Aug17].

[Above: Quote of Linick on page 147 of Sox's 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked."]

This was despite Linick having signed a confidentiality agreement, along with all present at Arizona's first dating, "not to communicate the results to anyone ... until that time when results are generally available to the public"[24Jun14; 30Dec15]. How would Sox know that Linick existed, unless Linick contacted Sox? Linick was not a laboratory leader, but an ordinary `back room' Arizona laboratory scientist[24Jun14; 30Dec15]. The above quote of Linick on page 147 of Sox's book is opposite Sox's description of the Shroud's AMS radiocarbon dating on page 146. So Linick's Arizona laboratory's leaders would surely have read it and concluded that Linick was the leaker to Sox of Arizona's "1350" date[30Dec15].

That Rochester radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) realised that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first run "1350" date to Sox is evident from: 1) this quote from Gove's 1996 book:

"I must say I wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988. Of course, it also corresponds very closely to the shroud's known historic date. However, I still assumed Luckett had said he got the number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" (as Linick was - my emphasis)[24Jun14; 06Aug18; 08Dec22].

and 2) Gove's photo in his 1996 book of "Those present at the Arizona AMS carbon dating facility at 9:50 am on 6 May 1988 when the age of the shroud was determined"[22Feb16; 25Mar18; 23Jun18; 08Dec22] (below), shows Linick standing in front of his Arizona laboratory leaders and colleagues in this historic group photograph of the very

[Above (enlarge): Photo at page 176H of Gove's 1996 book, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud." But tellingly, Gove barely mentions Linick in his book, but he could not take him out of this photo![25Mar18].]

first "1350 AD" dating of the Shroud, which can only mean that Linick was in charge of the AMS computerised dating process at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that"[25Mar18; 07Apr25]. When Gove and Arizona laboratory leaders and staff read Luckett's 26 August "a probable date of about 1350 looks likely" (above) they must have worried that there was a leaker in their midst. But when they read Linick's quote in Sox's book, published in October 1988[24Jun14], they would have put two and two together and realised that it was Linick who had leaked Arizona's first-run "1350" date to Sox!

■ The laboratories did not realise that they had been hacked Recently, in considering what Gove wrote after my quote of him above:

"However, it did not really matter now since all three labs had submitted their results to the British Museum and so none of them could be influenced by this real or imagined leak"[19Jan16].

Apart from Gove's "imagined leak," which is at best self-deception, or at worst, a lie, because Luckett had said (see above), "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories ..." (my emphasis), Gove's "since all three labs had submitted their results to the British Museum and so none of them could be influenced..." shows no consciousness by him, ~8 years later, that Arizona's and the other two laboratories' Shroud dates were the result of Linick's hacking.

Ironically it was the Shroud sceptic Hugh Farey (1956-) who first alerted Arizona's Prof. Tim Jull (1951-) and Oxford's Prof. Christopher Ramsey (1962-) to my early posts in my "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" series. (Thanks Hugh, "... you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" - Gn 50:20)! See my "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey (5)." This evidently came as `a bolt from the blue' to Jull and Ramsey because to my amazement they responded to my anonymous (to them)[05July14] blog posts. As I later wrote:

"Since when do Professors of Physics, let alone Directors of two of the world's leading radiocarbon dating laboratories, Arizona and Oxford, deign to respond to a mere blogger's post? If Jull and Ramsey knew that there was no truth in my hacker theory, they would have simply ignored it"[22Nov16].

So, I no longer claim that the laboratories knew that they had been hacked by Linick, but Jull and Ramsey's "prompt, misleading and false replies"[10May17] to my early hacker posts (before I called it a theory), shows that it was feasible, at least for Arizona (they probably could not conceive how Zurich and Oxford, not being online, were hacked).

■ Anthony Linick Sox worked with Linick's half-brother Anthony Linick (1938-) as teachers at the American School in London for at least 11 years from 1982 to 1993, which included 1988[22Feb16; 15Aug17; 07Apr25]. My email correspondence with Anthony included many implausibilities by him, and at least one lie that he only met Sox "once or twice"[22Feb16]. Anthony was unaware that I had worked as a relief (substitute, supply) teacher in 12 diferent Western Australian high schools for 6 years between 2009 and 2015[22Feb16]. And in my experience it simply is not credible that two teachers can work in the same school (indeed the same middle school) and only "meet ... once or twice" in 11 years[22Feb16]! As expatriate Americans in London, teachers at the ASL would presumably know each other socially more than teachers in their own country. Indeed, I posted a 2011 article in which Anthony and Sox were in the same room of an English pub at an ASL reunion[03Aug19]! So in view of his many implausibilities, including at least one lie, I concluded that Anthony had an active role in leaking Arizona's "1350" date, as the go-between his half-brother Timothy Linick and Sox[07Apr25]!

■ Climate of expectation The "1350" leak by Linick was necessary to create a climate of expectation[24Jun14; 15Aug17; 03Aug19; 21Mar23] that the Shroud would date close before its first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in 1355[30Jan15; 22Sep15]. This was so that Linick's computer-generated 1260-1390 date of the Shroud would be accepted without question[24Jun14; 31Mar15; 22Feb16; 10Mar17; 30Dec15; 15Aug17; 03Aug19]. Which it was. After Arizona's first dating run returned the date of "1350," Gove declared:

"At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! ... the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began"[22Feb14; 22Sep15; 23Jun18; 07Apr25]

So, after only one dating run lasting only one minute, there was no need for further dating runs by Arizona, Zurich, and Oxford[23Jun18; 07Apr25]!

Oxford's Prof. Hall confirmed the "medieval" and "1350" leaks' effect, that "Everyone was resigned to it being a fake long before the announcement" (on 13 October 1988):

"So it was `leaked' by the press ... long before ... Everyone was resigned to it being a fake long before the announcement ... it was out of the bag from the very beginning"[21Mar23; 07Apr25]!

■ Shroud was exhibited in 1355 So powerful was Linick's "1350" psychological hammer blow[22Jan25] in overriding the scientists' critical faculties[03Aug19, 07Apr25], that there was no thought by them about how could the Shroud's flax have been harvested in 1350, and then the Shroud was exhibited only 5 years later in in 1355[07Mar14; 08Jun14; 22Sep15; 23Jun18]? Because, for the "1350" date to be true, the Shroud's flax would have been been harvested in 1350[08Jun14; 22Sep15; 28Jan25]; retted under water to separate the flax's cellulose fibres from the rest of the flax plant, which could have taken months[30Jan15; 22Sep15; 20Oct15; 23Jun18]. The flax fibres would then have been spun into linen threads[08Jun14; 30Jan15; 22Sep15]; the linen threads would then have been woven on a loom[07Mar14; 30Jan15; 22Sep15], resulting in a ~4.42 x 1.13. metres (~14.4 x ~3.6 foot) linen cloth[10Jul15; 08Apr20]. Then, an unknown medieval forger[20Jun24] depicted Jesus' crucified body on the cloth[29May23]; by unknown means - it wasn't painted[11Jul16]; such that his image is a photographic negative[22Dec16]; three-dimensional[05Feb17]; extremely superficial[11Nov16]; non-directional[29Oct16]; and shows x-ray images of Jesus' teeth[20Apr17] and bones in his hands, teeth, skull and legs[20Apr17]. But X-rays were

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a positive photograph of the Shroud showing the finger (phalanges) and the hand (metacarpals) bones beneath the man's skin[20Apr17].]

discovered in 1895 by Wilhelm Röntgen (1845-1923), 540 years after 1355! And the Shroud acquired such a widespread reputation so that when it was exhibited in 1355, "from all parts people came together to view it"[13Apr18; 19Oct22]! All in the 5 years between 1350 and 1355!

■ Extra-wide loom and cloth Let alone that the Shroud was originally part of a much wider linen cloth which had been woven on an extra-wide loom[08Oct16; 24May20; 20Jun24], up to 3.5 metres (~11.5 feet) wide[22Jan15; 08Oct16; 24May 20]. The extra-wide cloth was cut lengthwise into three or more pieces, one ~105 cm wide along one side, and another ~8 cm wide along the other side, each with selvedge (a woven edge)[22Jan15; 11Sep15], which became, respectively, the main body of the Shroud and the sidestrip[22Jan15; 24Aug15; 11Sep15]. Extra-wide

[Above (enlarge): "How the shroud was originally woven much wider than its present width. Reconstruction of the likely size of the bolt of cloth of which the two lengths of the Shroud (shaded) formed part. This wider cloth was very expertly cut lengthwise, then the raw (i.e. non-selvedge) edges of the shaded segments joined together by a very professional seam to form the Shroud we know today."[22Jan15; 11Sep15; 08Oct16; 24May 20].]

looms did not exist in medieval Europe[11Sep15; 08Oct16] but they did exist in the Roman Era[11Sep15; 08Oct16], which included the first century. The two side pieces with selvedge were joined by a seam down their inside cut edges[26Oct14; 22Jan15], forming a cloth ~14.4 feet long and ~3.6 feet wide (see above), which became the Shroud[22Jan15].

■ Shroud's dimensions are 8 by 2 Assyrian Standard Cubits The Shroud's dimensions are ~4.42 by 1.13 metres (14.5 feet by 3.7 feet)[10Jul15; 20Jun24; 03Aug24]. These are not based on medieval European units of measurement[MWW]. But they are very close to the Assyrian Standard Cubit of 21.6 inches[04Feb15; 10Jul15; 08Sep14; 08Apr20]. Which was the common unit of lineal measurement in Jesus' day[10Jul15; 24May 20; 21Mar23; 20Jun24; 03Aug24].The Assyrian Standard Cubit was derived by Egyptologist Matthew Petrie (1853-1942) and Assyriologist Julius Oppert (1825-1905)'s measurements of structures in the ruins

[Right: Shroud photograph with an 8 x 2 grid overlay showing that the Shroud divides evenly into 16 squares, each 442/8 = 55.25 cm = ~21.75 in. long by 113.35/2 = 56.7 cm = ~22.3 in. wide. That is, the length of each square, ~21.75, is only 0.15 in. more than the Standard Assyrian cubit of ~21.6 in. And the width of each square, ~22.3 in. is only ~0.7 in. more than that Assyrian cubit. Note that the face two squares, being 2 x 1 cubits, and one-eighth of the Shroud, show the man's head in landscape aspect, exactly as depicted in the Image of Edessa[15Sep12; 18May14; 20Jan17]!].

of ancient Babylon[04Feb15; 08Sep14; 04Feb15]. The Shroud's length of 14.5 feet is 174 inches. 174 divided by 21.6 = ~8.06 in. The Shroud's width of 3.7 feet is 44.4 inches. 44.4 divided by 21.6 = 2.06 in. That is, the Shroud's dimensions are 8 by 2 Assyrian Standard Cubits of 21.6 inches plus 6 hundredths of an inch! These measurement agreements between the Shroud and the Assyrian Standard Cubit of 21.6 inches are too many, too close, and in two directions[10Jul15; 24May 20; 09Sep20], to be coincidental[08Apr20; 21Mar23; 20Jun24; 03Aug24]. The only reasonable conclusion is that the Shroud is the "linen cloth" which the Gospels record that Jesus was buried in[Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53].

I have ordered Petrie's "Inductive Metrology" (1877) from an Australian bookseller, so I should have it in the near future. See my quote from it in [08Sep14; 04Feb15 & 10Jul15] where it only mentions the "Assyrian cubit" of "21.6 inches," not the "Assyrian Standard Cubit." The "cubit of the market place .... the cubit that is known as the Assyrian cubit: the widely used, indeed, international standard of that time for merchants of the Near East"[08Sep14] appears to have been made up by Ian Dickinson (1942-2015) (but see below). None of my seven Bible dictionaries mention the Assyrian cubit, even though they mention the cubit, and four of them cover the cubit extensively, and among them mention the Babylonian, Egyptian and Hebrew cubit. If the "Assyrian cubit was ... the international standard of that time for merchants of the Near East,"it would surely have been mentioned in at least one of them. However, one of my Bible dictionaries does mention that there was a "`common’ or standard cubit used in ordinary commerce [which] was 52 cm. (20.5 in.)’," and that there was a "`royal’ cubit [of] about 54 cm. (21.7 in.)":

"Since the size of people's bodies varies, the cubit could be only an approximate measure. The Babylonian common cubit measured approximately 49.5 cm. (19.5 in). The Egyptian cubit varied by as much as 2.5 cm. (1 in.); the `common’ or standard cubit used in ordinary commerce was 52 cm. (20.5 in.) and the `royal’ cubit about 54 cm. (21.7 in.). The `long’ cubits mentioned at Ezek. 40:5 could have been these royal cubits, whereas that cited at Deut. 3:11 may be the `common’ cubit" (my emphasis)[MA87, 247]

So there was "a standard cubit used in ordinary commerce" of "20.5 in." And there was a "`royal’ cubit [of] about 54 cm. (21.7 in."! Since the "Neo-Assyrian Empire of 911 BC–609 BC ... grew to dominate the ancient Near East and parts of South Caucasus, North Africa and East Mediterranean throughout much of the 9th to 7th centuries BC, becoming the largest empire in history up to that point"[NSW], it is likely that the "standard cubit used in ordinary commerce" of "20.5 in." and the "royal cubit [of] ... 21.7 in" were originally based on the Assyrian cubit of 21.6 inches!

This means that the Shroud likely originated in the Roman province of Syria! Here are quotes which support that the Shroud originated in Syria:

"The Shroud, on the other hand, is a more expensive cloth that probably came from Syria, specifically from the oasis around the city of Palmyra, and was the type of weave used for the shrouding of the diseased"[BJ01, 84]

"The woven material and the make-up of the Shroud of Turin are such that there cannot be any doubt about its production by professionals. It certainly has not been woven on a domestic loom, neither was the needlework done by an untrained hand. What we have in front of us is a valuable linen cloth which was most probably tailored out of the wider woven material from a bolt of fabric, which might have been imported from Egypt or Syria, the weaving mills of which were superior to those of Palestine in classical antique times"[FM01, 58-59].

"The Shroud is linen with a herringbone weave ... The herringbone weave was much more expensive than anything to be found in Jerusalem. It normally came from Syria, more specifically from the oases around the city of Palmyra, as we were told at the Rockefeller Institute of Jerusalem"[MG98].

"Curto, however, distinguishes between the weaves of the textile. Egyptian cloth is always orthogonal `plain woven'; the `herring-bone weave', on the other hand, originated from Mesopotamia or Syria. The herring-bone weaves, which makes the cloth more close and resistant to use, was already known in the Middle East in the time of Christ and was commonly used in Syria. The cloth of the Shroud must therefore have arrived in Palestine from a neighbouring country such as Syria or Mesopotamia. Indeed, pieces of silk of the third century AD, with a three to one weave, were discovered at Palmyra, in modern Syria; other similar cloths, dating back to the Greco-Roman period, were found at Dura Europos, also in Syria "[PM96, 198].

"This [Shroud] cloth is a twill and therefore is different from Egyptian cloth, known as plain weave (one thread over, and one under), of the first century. The three-to-one twill weave with herringbone pattern has been found in fabrics of the Middle East dated to the first three centuries of the Christian era, but it was more common in silk than in linen. This weave was unknown in France even in the fourteenth century. It was the consensus of the [1973] commission that twill weave originated in either Syria or Mesopotamia. British textile expert Elisabeth Crowfoot ... placed the Shroud linen as of Syrian origin, according to historian Ian Wilson[TF06, 110-111].

"Similarly, development of the three-to-one herringbone twill weave of which the Shroud cloth was made occurred in the Middle or Near East (India-Mesopotamia-Syria) in the millennium preceding Jesus' birth, and it was available in Palestine in Jesus' time. This piece of cloth was probably made in adjoining Syria ... Linen with such a weave would not have been available in France until considerably after the crucial date of 1357. So, again, this piece of cloth could have been in Palestine in Jesus' time and probably was" (emphasis original)[TF06, 112].

"Although for Dr Flury-Lemberg the sheer professionalism of how the Shroud was made suggests that it was manufactured in a Roman-period Egyptian (or possibly Syrian) textile `factory' and imported into Judaea, this is the closest that anyone of real authority has come to pin-pointing the Shroud textile characteristics-wise as deriving from a period so close to Jesus' lifetime” [WS00, 41]

■ Sceptics' fall-back position Given that, for the above reasons, the Shroud's radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 is hopelessly wrong, as I wrote to Oxford's Prof. Christopher Ramsey:

"No amount of `further research' or statistical manipulation can reconcile a gap of 316 years (1260-944) between the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud and the Shroud's documented existence in Constantinople from 944-1204, let alone 716 years (1260-544) between the Image of Edessa/Shroud's documented existence in Edessa from at least 544"[04Oct18].

which he tacitly admitted by not replying to challenge any of my points. Sceptics had long ago prepared a fall-back position, if the Shroud's radiocarbon date was first century, that, "a first century cloth could have been found and used by a 14th century artist to paint the image" (McCrone):

"A carbon-dating test would be final if it led to a date significantly later than the early first century. A first century date, on the other hand, would remove almost all obstacles to universal acceptance of the `Shroud' as authentic. Only the careful objective scientist might still point out that a first century cloth could have been found and used by a 14th century artist to paint the image"[24Aug15; 11Sep15; 20Oct15; 08Apr20; 24May20; 09Sep20; 20Jun24].

Or "it could still be a 12th Century forgery using a 0 aged cloth" (Tite):

"... there is no way I can see that the Vatican real interest to have it [the Shroud] authenticated at all really. Well I can't see the interest of the Vatican and Turin particularly to have it done. Well I mean you can't authenticate it. All you can do it's prove it is a fake ... there is only one wrong date, it's the one which is 'not 0' because the other one doesn't prove anything ... it could still be a 12th Century forgery using a 0 aged cloth"[01Jun16].

But problems with that include: • It would be admitting that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[24Aug15; 11Sep15; 20Oct15; 08Apr20; 24May20; 09Sep20; 20Jun24] was wrong. • It would also be admitting that Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-95) was wrong in his claim that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" by a confessed forger in the time of one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–70)[08Apr20; 09Sep20; 20Jun24]. • How could and why would an unknown 14th century forger obtain a rare and expensive 8 x 2 Assyrian cubits, herringbone twill, fine linen sheet, on which to commit his forgery of the crucified Jesus in his tomb[11Sep15; 08Apr20; 24May20; 20Jun24]?

To be continued in "Dot points summary of my Hacker Theory (3)" #44.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page.

Bibliography
BJ01. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA.
FM01. Flury-Lemberg, M., 2001, "The Linen Cloth of the Turin Shroud: Some Observations of its Technical Aspects," Sindon, New series, No. 16, December.
MA87. Myers A.C., ed., "Cubit," in "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary," [1987], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI., 2000, reprint.
MG98. Moreno, G.H., et al., 1998, "Comparative Study of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin," III Congresso Internazionale di Studi Sulla Sindone Turin, 5th to 7th June 1998," Centro Espaol de Sindonologa.
MWW. "Medieval weights and measures,", Wikipedia, 26 July 2025.
NSW. "Neo-Assyrian Empire," Wikipedia, 1 July 2025.
PM96. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
WS00. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books.

Posted 31 July 2025. Updated 3 October 2025.