Thursday, December 18, 2014

Entry number index: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Entry number index

This the Entry Number Index page, and entry #10, of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." It will enable readers to click on and read any

[Above: The Face of the Man on the Shroud[2].]

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'"[3].]

entry in this Turin Shroud Encyclopedia by number, and it will also help me to keep track of entry numbers. I will add his Entry Number index next to the Main Index as "Entry index" on each Encyclopedia entry page. I will also update this page with each new Encyclopedia entry after I post it.

[Main index] [Previous #9(3)] [Next #11]


2014: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]

Created: 18 December, 2014. Updated: 18 December 2014.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (3)

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction This is the fourth and final installment of part #10, Summary (3), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. My next post in this series will be the first installment of part #10, Summary (4). See the previous parts #10(1) and #10(2). Other previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5, part #6, part #7, part #8 and part #9, which this part #10 will summarise. To keep this summary from becoming too long, I will not usually post full quotes supporting my points but will provide a reference and link back to the original post in this series where that particular quote appears. It is my emphasis below in quotes unless otherwise indicated.

Computer hacking was rife in the 1980s. [#3] As can be seen below, 1988, the year the Shroud of Turin was radiocarbon dated as

[Above: Extract of the year 1988 from Wikipedia's "Timeline of computer security hacker history"[2]. ]

"mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[3], was also a peak year for early computer hacking against poorly secured, online computer systems.

In his book,"The Cuckoo's Egg" (1989), Clifford Stoll, an astronomer redeployed in 1986 to a position as a Computer Systems Manager at

[Right: Clifford Stoll[4].]

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), documented that both computer and physical security was poor at universities in the 1980s[5]. In his book Stoll, who earned his PhD at Arizona University (at which was one of the three radiocarbon dating laboratories that dated the Shroud)[6], explained from personal experience (which must include Arizona University) how lax was the computer security at universities in the 1980s:
"Our laboratory's computers connect to thousands of other systems over a dozen networks. Any of our scientists can log into our computers, and then connect to a distant computer ... the only thing protecting the networked computer is the password, since account names are easy to figure out ... most people use their names..."[7].

Stoll recounts that it was easy to hack into computers at "universities where no security was needed" (both computer and physical):

" ... it's easy to muck around computers at universities where no security was needed. After all, colleges seldom even lock the doors to their buildings"[8].

The German hacker ring. Stoll detected and helped catch a German hacker Markus Hess (alias Urmel) [9]. Hess was in dialing in through a pre-Internet network called Tymnet to the USA[10], from where

[Left: Markus Hess in 2013[11]. ]

he could hop from universities to military networks[12], due to their lax security in the 1980s [13]. Hess hacked into about "400 U.S. military computers"[14]. He had for several years been "selling the results of his hacking to the Soviet KGB"[15]. Hess was an associate of Karl Koch (alias Hagbard

[Right: Karl Koch. "He was involved with the KGB scandal that involved hackers being bought by drugs in exchange for breaking into key NATO and corporate installations ... Koch, of Hanover, West Germany, died Friday, June 3 [1989]"[16].]

Celine), who was also "involved in selling hacked information from United States military computers to the KGB"[17]. Hess, Koch and another hacker, Hans Heinrich Hübner (alias Pengo), were key members of a hacker ring loosely affiliated with the Chaos Computer Club[18]. Hübner

[Left: Hans Heinrich Hübner (Pengo) in 2011[19].]

and Koch later came forward in mid-1988 and confessed their hacking for the KGB to the West German authorities [20] under an espionage amnesty, which protected them from being prosecuted if they cooperated fully[21].

Karl Koch's `suicide'. Koch, however a year later, "was found burned to death" in a simulated suicide, presumably by the KGB (or the East German Stasi[22] on the KGB's behalf), "in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities," while neither Hübner, who also had confessed, nor any of the others in the KGB hacker ring, were harmed:

"Koch was found burned to death with gasoline in a forest near Celle, Germany. The death was officially claimed to be a suicide. However, some believe there is little evidence supporting suicide and many believe that Koch was killed in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities. Why Koch would be targeted, and not Pengo [Hübner] and Urmel [Hess], is unknown. Koch left his workplace in his car to go for lunch; he had not returned by late afternoon and so his employer reported him as a missing person. Meanwhile, German police were alerted of an abandoned car in a forest near Celle. When they went to investigate, they found an abandoned car, that looked like it had been there for years, as it was covered in dust. Near to the car they found a burned corpse (Koch). His shoes were missing and have never been found. There was a patch of burned ground around him, which although it had not rained in some time and the grass was perfectly dry, was controlled in a small circle around the corpse. It is thought to be highly unlikely that this type of controlled burning could have been achieved by Koch himself which leads many to believe that his death was not suicide."[23]

But there was nothing more for Koch to confess regarding the ring's hacking of computers for the KGB[24], and both Hess[25] and Hübner's[26] hacked information was regarded by the Soviets as more valuable than Koch's[27]. Moreover, the KGB had no reason to care if the secrets of others were revealed by its sponsored hacking. Only if its own secrets were about to be revealed (e.g. its hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating) would the KGB have a motive to silence Koch and Linick. Chaos Computer Club member Steffen Wernery who was wrongly imprisoned in France for one of Koch's hackings, regards it as "unbelievable" that Koch committed suicide:

"Steffen Wernery ... is calm about the man whose activities caused him to spend sixty-six days in a French prison. His ire is reserved for the French authorities .... he doesn't blame Koch, he says. And he doesn't believe he committed suicide either: Suicide did not make sense. did not make sense. It was unbelievable. Karl Koch had disclosed himself to the authorities and had co-operated fully. He had provided them with some good information and they had found him accommodation and a job with the Christian Democratic Party. He was also getting help with his drug dependency and seemed on his way to rehabilitation. Murder seemed much more likely than suicide. ... There is the evidence the missing shoes, the controlled fire - that suggests another party was involved in Koch's death. Then there is motive. Koch had little reason to kill himself. He had a job; he was getting treatment for his drug problem. He was in no danger of being prosecuted for his part in the 'Soviet hacker' affair: like Pengo, Koch would have been a witness for the prosecution, protected from punishment by the terms of the amnesty provision. After the trial he would have resumed his life (like Pengo, now married and living in Vienna)"[28].

Neither Koch nor the KGB are essential to my theory. As previously stated in part #1, my theory is that:

"...Linick was allegedly the primary hacker and Koch's role was only secondary, to allegedly physically access the Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories' AMS control console computers and run a program supplied by Linick. And also, Koch's role is not essential to my theory. If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have personally travelled to Zurich and Oxford to access their radiocarbon laboratories computers, it would not falsify my theory. My theory includes Koch because of the striking coincidence that they were both allegedly hackers working for the KGB and both allegedly committed suicide within days of each other ...."
See also #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 where I repeated this in various ways. My theory has always been that Arizona Laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick was allegedly the primary hacker, and Koch's role was only secondary, to install Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford Laboratories' AMS computers. Which is why I have always called it, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" (singular). Koch may not even have known what program he was installing and even that it was Zurich and Oxford's radiocarbon dating laboratories he was installing it in. Therefore I reiterate that KOCH IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MY THEORY, as it is conceivable that Linick could have installed his program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers himself, or had it installed some other way (e.g. as a "software update" sent by him to those two laboratories for them to install). And therefore, although I may not previously have stated it, THE KGB IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MY THEORY either. As we saw in #6, Linick was an extreme anti-authenticist and it is conceivable that he acted alone, without the KGB's involvement, for no other reason than to ensure the Shroud was discredited, and his `suicide' only days after Koch's `suicide' may have been just a coincidence.

What IS essential to my theory is that a hacker, whom I allege to be Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick, wrote an unauthorised program and installed it on Arizona laboratory's AMS system computer, that substituted the Shroud's radiocarbon dates with random number dates, within limits, which when calibrated and averaged across all three laboratories, would cluster around 1325, which was shortly before the Shroud appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in about 1355. Linick then also had his program installed (or installed it himself) on Zurich and Oxford laboratories' AMS computers, with similar results to Arizona's. Again, I have included Koch and the KGB in my theory because of the striking coincidence of both Koch and Linick having died of suspicious `suicides' only a few days apart, and because Koch did have expertise that Linick may have lacked in getting past the login ID and password security systems on the DEC computer systems running the VMS operating system that the Zurich and Oxford AMS laboratories had (as we shall see).

It is therefore incorrect (and indeed dishonest and/or self-deceived), to dismiss my theory as merely a `KGB conspiracy theory,' without dealing with its ESSENTIAL elements. Anyone who has a criticism of my theory is welcome to post it as a comment under the relevant post on my blog, provided it is not "off-topic, offensive or sub-standard," as per my stated policies, and I will respond to that criticism. I will not respond to criticisms of my theory on other blogs, and indeed I don't even read them anymore, because in my experience they are largely a waste of time, due to their predominance of ill-informed comments and personal attacks.

To be continued in the first installment of part #10 Summary (4).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. "Timeline of computer security hacker history: 1980s," Wikipedia, 13 December 2014 . [return]
3. Damon, P. E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp. 611-615, p. 611. [return]
4. "Clifford Stoll and The Cuckoo's Egg," David Bolton Strikes Again, 6 July 2007. [return]
5. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991. [return]
6. Stoll, 1989, p.ii. [return]
7. Stoll, 1989, p.8. [return]
8. Stoll, 1989, p.12. [return]
9. "Markus Hess," Wikipedia, 4 November 2014. [return]
10. Stoll, 1989, pp.27-28. [return]
11. Jangra, A., 2013, "Famous Hacks that made Headlines," 20 August. [return]
12. Hafner, K. & Markoff, J., 1991, "Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier," Corgi: London, reprinted, 1993, p.221. [return]
13. Stoll, 1989, pp.50-51. [return]
14. "Markus Hess," Wikipedia, 2013. [return]
15. "The Cuckoo's Egg," Wikipedia, 19 November 2014. [return]
16. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
17. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 11 October 2014. [return]
18. Ibid. [return]
19. Guasch, J.A., 2011, "Interview with Hans Hübner (Pengo)," February 18. (See English translation following the Spanish original). [return]
20. Clough, B. & Mungo, P., 1992, "Approaching Zero: Data Crime and the Computer," Faber & Faber: London & Boston, p.183. [return]
21. "Karl Koch," Wikipedia, 2014. [return]
22. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.185. [return]
23. "Karl Koch," Wikipedia, 2014. [return]
24. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.184-185. [return]
25. Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.175. [return]
26. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, pp.239-240. [return]
27. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.254. [return]
28. Clough & Mungo, 1992, pp.184-186. [return]


Updated: 17 December, 2014.

Monday, December 8, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (2)

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. Continuing from part #10, Summary (1), this is the fourth and final installment of part #10, Summary (2), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. My next post in this series will be part #10 Summary (3). Previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5, part #6, part #7, part #8 and part #9, which this part #10 will summarise. To keep this summary from becoming too long, I will not usually post full quotes supporting my points but will provide a reference and link back to the original post in this series where that particular quote appears.

The probability that the Shroud being 1st century has a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 is "astronomical."[#1] At the press conference in the British Museum on 13 October 1988 in which the Museum's Dr Michael Tite and Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall (1924–2001) and Dr Robert Hedges announced that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated "1260-1390!" (part #10(1)), they collectively insisted that the odds against the Shroud being first century, yet having a radiocarbon date of 1325 ±65, was "astronomical" (my emphasis)[2]. This was confirmed by Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the unofficial leader of the Shroud radiocarbon dating project[3], who pointed out that the statistical probability of the Shroud having a radiocarbon date between 1260 and 1390, yet it's actual date being first century, is "about one in a thousand trillion" (my emphasis)[4]. That is the equivalent of finding by chance, at the first

[Right: Part of Victoria, Australia's Ninety Mile Beach: Holidayz.com.au. Ninety miles is 145 kms. Best of luck finding at the first try a particular grain of sand, 1 mm in diameter, on the surface of a strip of beach ~5.4 metres wide by 145 kilometres long[5], because that is the equivalent of the radiocarbon date of the Shroud being 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65, given that the Shroud is first century!]

attempt, a particular grain of sand, 1 mm in diameter[6] among a thousand trillion (1,000,000,000,000 = 1012) similar grains of sand, on the surface of a strip of beach ~5.4 metres wide by 145 kilometres long, which is about the length of the Ninety Mile (145 kms) Beach in Victoria, Australia (above). Therefore the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as, "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[7], has effectively no chance of being correct, given that the Shroud is authentic (part #10(1)), and therefore first century.

Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail. [#1] Attempts by Shroud pro-authenticists to explain by conventional means the discrepancy between the Shroud being 1st century, yet its radiocarbon date is 1260-1390, or 1325 ±65 years, all fail.

Carbon contamination. All carbon contamination explanations for why the first century Shroud has a 1325 ±65 radiocarbon date fail because "79% of the shroud [sic] would have been composed of such carbon contamination," but this "is preposterous, as anyone viewing the shroud samples before they were cleaned can attest"[8]. In fact Arizona laboratory still has part of its Shroud sample as it came from Turin, uncleaned and undated, and it has "no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants"[9](see below).

[Left (click to enlarge): Photomicrograph by pro-authenticist Barrie Schwortz in 2012 of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample, as it came cut from the Shroud, with no pretreatment[10].

Invisible reweaving repair with 16th century cotton. Similarly, Benford and Marino's invisible reweaving repair theory requires that the repair be "approximately 60 percent of the C-14 sample consisting of 16th Century threads while approximately 40 percent were 1st Century in origin"[11] Oxford laboratory did find some old cotton threads in their sample, but they were only "two or three fibres"[12]. Prof. Hall estimated that it would require "65 per cent of the mass of the shroud ... to give a date of 1350 to a fabric originally dating from the time of Christ" but there was "less than 0.1 per cent" of such contamination in the Shroud (my emphasis)[13]. Benford and Marino claimed that the green colour of the Shroud sample area in the "Blue Quad Mosaic" photograph supported their theory that the sample area was 60% 16th century cotton[14]. But as can be seen, the wrinkles

[Right (click to enlarge): "Blue quad mosaic (left) and Shroud Shroud C14 sample area (right)[15].]

in the Shroud near the radiocarbon dating sample area are the same green colour. And as Benford and Marino admitted, "it is possible that the Quad Mosaic's chemical-color signature ... may represent carbon" (my emphasis)[16]. But "carbon" includes all contamination with younger carbon, not only cotton threads. And since the wrinkles in the Shroud in the sample area are the same green colour, it is likely that both are the result of ordinary contamination by carbon-containing grime, sweat, oils, etc. Particularly since this corner is one of the most contaminated parts of the Shroud, it being one of the corners from which the cloth was held by "hundreds of sweaty hands" at Shroud expositions down through the centuries (part #10(1))[17]. Benford and Marino concluded with another frank admission that, "it is impossible to quantify the amount of surface carbon, other contaminates, and/or intruded newer material in the radiocarbon sampling area based upon the Quad Mosaic" (my emphasis)[18]. Moreover, textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg inspected the Shroud as part of its 2002 restoration[19] and she denies there is any evidence of reweaving[20].

Neutron flux at Jesus' resurrection created new carbon 14. The neutron flux argument was proposed by Harvard University physicist Thomas J Phillips in the same issue of Nature which carried the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud paper[21]. Phillips pointed out that "If the shroud of Turin is in fact the burial cloth of Christ" then the resurrection of Jesus' dead body "may also have radiated neutrons" which could "have converted enough 13C to 14C to give an apparent carbon-dated age of 670 years"[22]. In his reply in the same issue, Oxford's Dr. Robert Hedges conceded that a neutron flux could also have generated even more carbon 14 from nitrogen (14N)[23]. But Hedges also made the

[Left (click to enlarge): How neutrons from cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere are absorbed by nitrogen-14 (ordinary nitrogen) converting it into carbon-14 (a radioactive isotope of carbon-12)[24].]

point that it would be "an amazing coincidence that the neutron dose should be so exactly appropriate to give the most likely date on historical grounds" and that it "implies that the dose has been `fine-tuned' to better than one part in a hundred million" (my emphasis)[25] . Gove echoed Hedges' points and added his own "most devastating argument against Phillips' idea [which] was the fact that the samples were taken at just the right spot on the shroud [sic] to produce its historic date. A sample taken closer to the image would have produced an even more modern date-even a date into the future!" (my emphasis) [26]. This is the major flaw in the neutron flux argument: for it to convert the date of the first-century Shroud to not just any date, but to 1260-1390, or 1325 ±65, which `just happens' to be 25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in Lirey, France, in the c. 1355[27] would be a miracle. And a deceptive miracle by God at that!

Fraud is the only plausible explanation [#2] Given that: 1) the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic (part #10(1)); 2) the probability that the Shroud being first century, yet had a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, or 1325 ±65, is "astronomical", "about one in a thousand trillion"; and 3) conventional explanations of the discrepancy of how the first century Shroud can have a 13th/14th century radiocarbon date all fail; some kind of fraud is the only plausible explanation. This is just the flip-side of the laboratories'

[Right: Newspaper photo with the headline, "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," in The Independent, London, 14 October 1988[27]. The photo is of (from left) Prof. Hall, Dr. Tite and Dr Hedges, in front of the British Museum, London, after their announcement that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"]

assumption that the Shroud must be a fake because the odds against the Shroud being both authentic and radiocarbon dating to 1325 ±65 are effectively impossible. As Oxford's Prof. Hall simply assumed without any evidence: "There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it"[28]. Great improbability alone is sufficient to establish in courts of law that scientific fraud involving plagiarism has occurred[#2]. But since the Shroud is authentic (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), then it must be the radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 which was a fake, the result of scientific fraud! The question then is: "what kind of scientific fraud was it?

Accusations of conventional fraud (sample-switching) fail. Following the 16 February 1989 publication of the radiocarbon-dating laboratories' report in the scientific journal Nature which claimed to be "conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is mediaeval"[29], some Shroud pro-authenticists saw clearly that since the Shroud is authentic, then "it was the radiocarbon dating, not the Shroud, that must be the fraud"[30]. The foremost spokesman of this viewpoint was the French priest Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, of the ultra-conservative "Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twentieth [now 21st] Century"[31]. The target of Bonnet-Eymard's attack was the seemingly strange fact that although the taking

[Left: Br. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard[32].]

of samples from the Shroud on the 21st April 1988 was videotaped, the placing of the samples into their coded canisters was not[33]. To preserve the pretense of blind testing (the Shroud's distinctive weave was easily recognisable by the laboratories), Dr. Tite and the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero, took the samples into a private area, out of view of the witnesses and the camera, and put the samples into numbered cannisters which were then brought out and presented to the representatives of the three laboratories[34]. Bonnet-Eymard seized on this as evidence that Dr Tite had switched the samples, so that those which the laboratories thought were from the Shroud were actually from a medieval control sample, while those from a control sample of first-century date was in fact from the Shroud[35]. Even some leading Shroud scholars, including Prof. Werner Bulst, argued for a variant of this sample-switching fraud explanation[36]. But Ian Wilson personally knew Tite and most of the other the radiocarbon dating project leaders and he dismissed as "absurd and far-fetched as it is unworthy" accusations that "one or more of these men may have `rigged' the radiocarbon dating" by switching samples[37]. It is also highly unlikely that leaders of the radiocarbon dating project like Dr. Tite would commit major scientific fraud by switching control and Shroud samples, since they would have too much to lose if the fraud was discovered[38], as it would have been because of the Shroud's distinctive weave[39]. Besides, if they thought the Shroud was a medieval fake[40] why would they switch samples to ensure the Shroud's radiocarbon date was medieval? Nevertheless, agnostic pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow considers fraud in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating to be a real possibility (albeit by conventional sample-swapping), because of the "1325 ± 65 years" date:

"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated, that genuine Shroud samples were deliberately swapped with cloth of a later date ... Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible. Some, like Ian Wilson, refuse to contemplate such `unworthy' accusations. However, scientific fraud is by no means unknown, as the editors of science journals are well aware. ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve" (my emphasis)[41].

Those like Bonnet-Eymard who claimed that there had been fraud in the radiocarbon dating had correctly reasoned that that since the Shroud is authentic, there had to have been fraud for the first century Shroud to `just happen' to date to shortly before 1355, when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis had claimed in 1389 that the Shroud had been painted 34 years before[42] and it was later confirmed that the first appearance of the Shroud in undisputed history was at Lirey, France in 1355 (see above). But as we shall see, they were all incorrect in their assumption that the fraud had to be by conventional sample-switching[43]. No one seems to have considered that there is another type of fraud that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating process[44] was vulnerable to, and which was rife in the 1980s, namely computer hacking!

To be continued in the first installment of part #10 Summary (3).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.6-7. [return]
3. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.192. [return]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
5. By my calculations, the 1 mm diameter cross-section of a spherical grain of sand, i.e. 0.001 m. diameter, has a radius of 0.0005 m. Area of a circle = πr2, therefore the area of 1 grain of sand of 1 mm diameter is π x 0.00052 = ~ 7.854 x 10-7 m2. A thousand trillion of them has an area of ~ 7.854 x 10-7 + 12 m2. That is ~ 7.854 x 105 m2 = ~785400 m2. Now 145 km = 145,000 m. Area of a rectangle = length x width, therefore width = area/length. So the width of an area of 785,400 m2 = 785,400 m2/145,000 m = ~5.42 m. I have assumed for simplicity of calculation that the grains of sand are perfectly spherical and I have ignored the tiny gaps between the curves of each grain. [return]
6. "In terms of particle size as used by geologists, sand particles range in diameter from 0.0625 mm (or 1⁄16 mm) to 2 mm. An individual particle in this range size is termed a sand grain." ("Sand," Wikipedia, 3 December 2014). [return]
7. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
8. Gove, 1996, p.303. [return]
9. Freer-Waters, R.A. & Jull, A.J.T., 2010, "Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin," Radiocarbon, Vol 52, No 4. Note that the "dated" in the title is misleading, because to be "dated" by radiocarbon dating entails that the sample be reduced to pure carbon. What the authors presumably meant was that this undated sample is identical to a sample which was split from it and that sample was dated. [return]
10. Schwortz, B., 2012, "New Photographs of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21. [return]
11. Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin Shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol. 26, No. 4, July-August. [return]
12. "Rogue fibres found in the Shroud," Textile Horizons, December 1988, p.13. [return]
13. Hall, E.T., 1990, "Letter to Textile Horizons, January, in Wilson, 1991, p.177. [return]
14. Benford & Marino, 2008, pp.2-7. [return]
15. Benford & Marino, 2008, pp.1 & 4. Photos superimposed. [return]
16. Benford & Marino, 2008, p.7. [return]
17. Wilson, 1998, pp.191-192. [return]
18. Benford & Marino, 2008, p.22. [return]
19. Wilson, I., 2002, "The New, Restored Turin Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 56, December. [return]
20. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.169-170. [return]
21. Phillips, T.J., 1989, "Shroud irradiated with neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, p.594. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
23. Hedges, R.E.M., 1989, "Hedges replies," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, p.594. [return]
24. "Production of 14C," NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ, 28 June 2005. [return]
25. Ibid. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, pp.301-302. [return]
27. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
27. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.94. [return]
28. Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," The Independent, London, 14 October 1988, in Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
29. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Pagès, Abbé Guy, 2012, "Aux Sources du Coran par le frère Bruno Bonnet-Eymard," YouTube, November 29. [return]
33. Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
34. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.91. [return]
35. Wilson, 1998, pp.8-9. [return]
36. Wilson, 1998, p.9. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, p.11. [return]
38. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, p.13. [return]
39. Wilson, 1998, p.1. [return]
41. de Wesselow, 2012, p.170. [return]
40. Dupont, C., 1990, "An interview with Dr. Mike Tite," Radio Courtoisie, Paris, British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 25, April/May, pp.2-5. [return]
42. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
43. McDonnell, D.J., 2003, "The Great Holy Shroud Dating Fraud of 1988," 4 November. [return]
44. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]


Updated: 13 December, 2014.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (1)

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is the sixth and final installment of part #10, Summary (1), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. My next post in this part #10 Summary will be part #10(2). Previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5, part #6, part #7, part #8 and part #9, which this part #10 will summarise. To keep this summary from becoming too long, I will not usually post full quotes supporting my points but will provide a reference and link back to the original post in this series where that particular quote appears.

[Above: Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory staff and Rochester radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove (second from right) around the AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) computer's control console terminal[2], on 6 May 1988, after it had, or was about to, display the alleged hacker's first bogus radiocarbon age of the Shroud, "640 years"[3], which was then calibrated to the `too good to be true' and, as we shall see, effectively impossible "1350 AD" date that the Shroud's flax was supposedly harvested[4]. The alleged primary hacker, Timothy W. Linick (1946-1989), is the one in the black shirt standing most prominently in the foreground[5].]

In 1988 the Shroud was radiocarbon dated to 1260-1390 [part #1] On 16 February 1989, a paper in the scientific journal Nature

[Right: From left to right, Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr. M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr. R. Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 21 October 1988 that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[6].

reported that three AMS radiocarbon dating laboratories at universities in Tucson Arizona, Oxford England and Zurich Switzerland, had in 1988 dated the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[7].

• The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65. [part #1] The mid-point of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65[8], which `just happens' to be only

[Left: Pilgrim's badge depicting the Shroud, from its first public exhibition[9] in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355[10].]

25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in the 1350s[11]. Because this midpoint 1325 was so close to the Shroud's undisputed historic age[12], Shroud sceptics [13, 14, 15] and even Prof. Gove[16, [17], claimed that the year 1325 was the date of the Shroud. But as pointed out by Prof. Jacques Evin, then Director of the radiocarbon dating Laboratory at Lyon, France, who contributed a control sample to the dating[18], in the forthcoming "carbon 14 dating of the Shroud ... there can be nothing closer than a span of 200 years" and so it "will not be possible to pinpoint where the exact age of the Shroud can be situated within the span"[19].

Yet the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic[part #1]. Yet the evidence as a whole is overwhelming that the the Shroud is authentic[20]. For example, there is abundant historical and artistic

[Right (click to enlarge): The Hungarian Pray Codex[21] which has at least "eight telling correspondences" with the Shroud[22], but is dated 1192-95[23] and so is least 65 years before 1260 and 160 years before 1355! Moreover, musical notation elsewhere in the codex indicates that it originated even earlier: "no later than the middle of the twelfth century" (i.e. pre-1150)[24]. And of course the Shroud original must be even older than this copy.]

evidence that the Shroud existed well before the earliest possible radiocarbon date of 1260[25] and indeed all the way back to the first century[26]. So strong is this evidence that agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow is convinced by it that the Shroud is authentic[27]. And even Professor Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, who as "C.R. Bronk" was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper, has admitted, "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests ... that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow" (my emphasis)[28].

There were major problems with the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. The original protocol which was agreed to at a workshop in Turin in 1986, specified that seven laboratories were to radiocarbon date the Shroud[29]. Five were to use the newer AMS technique and two were to use the completely different and older small gas counter method[30]. But in 1987 this was unilaterally reduced by the Turin church authorities to only three AMS laboratories: Arizona, Oxford and Zurich[31], with Prof. Gove's more experienced Rochester AMS laboratory excluded[32]. Gove, who was a co-inventor of the AMS radiocarbon dating technique[33], was concerned that three AMS laboratories were too few to statistically identify any outlier date[34] [#4]. Indeed, so concerned was Prof. Gove that at least one of the three AMS laboratories would return an outlier date that he drafted a letter to the Pope, to be signed by the seven laboratories, recommending that if only three AMS laboratories were to date the Shroud, then "it would be better not to date the Shroud at all"[35]. But "the prize" of dating the Shroud "was too great" for the chosen three AMS laboratories and they refused to sign Gove's draft letter to the Pope[36]. The protocol workshop rejected a proposal that the dating be blind, so that the laboratories would not know which sample was from the Shroud[37]. The workshop also rejected a proposal that samples be taken from different areas of the Shroud[38]. As we shall see, the reduction from seven to three AMS laboratories and the lack of blind testing made Linick's alleged hacking feasible.

[Above (click to enlarge): Extract showing the Shroud only from a depiction of the 1684 Shroud exhibition at the wedding of Duke Vittorio Amedeus II (1666–1732) of Savoy and Anne Marie d'Orléans (1669–1728). It is an etching on silk (23 x 31 cm), c. 1690, by Pietro Antonio Boglietto[39]. The top left hand corner of the Shroud which the cleric is holding (and countless others down through the centuries) is the same corner that the sample for the 1988 radiocarbon dating was cut from. Note the two triangular patches sown over a burn area from the fire of 1532 in that same corner.]

Moreover, the ~1.2cm x 8cm sample which was cut from the Shroud's bottom left hand corner with the frontal image upright[40] on 21 April 1988 [41] was among the worst possible locations due to it being very contaminated[42]. Not only was it one of the corners from which the Shroud was held by hundreds of sweaty clerics' hands at Shroud exhibitions down through the centuries (see above)[43], it was only a few centimetres from an area that had been burnt in a 1532 fire and close to an edge stained by water used to extinguish that fire, where products of the fire had been deposited and where dirt down through the ages had accumulated[44]. Any carbon contaminants, including those forced into the flax fibres' hollow lumen by the superheated steam from the water used to dowse the 960ºC (1760ºF) molten silver fire[45], which had became part of the flax fibres' molecular structure, would be impossible to remove by pretreatment and so would return an apparently younger radiocarbon age[46]. So even if the flax of the Shroud had been harvested in 1325 or 1350[47], its radiocarbon date would have been more recent than that, unless: 1) there had been no contamination of the Shroud's flax with younger carbon; or 2) the pretreatment to remove carbon contamination had been perfect, both of which are unlikely. And as we shall see next, both before and after the Shroud dating, those three AMS laboratories were still unable to accurately date samples of known age.

The three AMS laboratories were unable to accurately date samples of known age before and after the Shroud's dating.[#4] As we saw above, Prof. Gove was so worried that at least one of the three chosen AMS laboratories would return an outlier date that he had drafted a letter to the Pope recommending that "it would be better not to date the Shroud at all." Gove had good reason to be worried. Two years years before the Shroud tests, in 1986, three British radiocarbon laboratories, including Oxford, dated Lindow man a range of 800 years apart and the discrepancy has never been resolved, with each laboratory claiming its date was the correct one[48]. Then a year after the Shroud's dating, in 1989, an intercomparison test of 38 radiocarbon dating laboratories (with Oxford abstaining!), only 7 of the 38 laboratories dated the artifacts of known date correctly, with the AMS laboratories being among the furthest out[49]. After the 1988 dating, when the three AMS laboratories claimed to have reached agreement that the Shroud was dated 1260-1390 (although as we shall see they didn't actually agree), Gove admitted that before the tests he thought the "new [AMS] procedures seemed to me to be fraught with peril" but he was relieved that the "three laboratories performed their measurements flawlessly" (my emphasis)[50]. However, as we shall see, the Nature paper itself revealed that while the three laboratories appeared to have dated the control samples of known age accurately, their dating of the Shroud samples had wide variations between each laboratory, which is inexplicable if they were based on real Shroud samples, but is explicable if they were computer-generated by a hacker's program.

Continued in part #10(2).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
3. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.7 & pl.3b. [return]
7. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp. 611-615, p. 611. [return]
8. Wilson, 1998, p.7 [return]
9. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
11. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.xxii-xxiii, 1, 178. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, p.300. [return]
13. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review 23, pp.243-255. [return]
14. McCrone, 1999, pp.xxii-xxiii. [return]
15. Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2. Reprinted 3 October 2002. [return]
16. Bradt, S., 1997, "New Book Reveals Scientific Controversy Surrounding Turin Shroud," University of Rochester News, January 31. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, p.293. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.3. [return]
19. Evin, J., 1988, "In anticipation of carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 27, June. [return]
20. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.60. [return]
21. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," plate III. [return]
22. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.178-180. [return]
23. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.114-115. [return]
24. Wilson, I., 1995, "News From Around The World: From Paris: Record attendance at CIELT's January Meeting," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 39, January, p.6. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
26. Moroni, M., "Pontius Pilate's Coin on the Right Eye of the Man in the Holy Shroud, in the Light of the New Archaeological Findings," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.275-301. [return]
27. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.191-192 [return]
28. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Version 77, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, p.9. [return]
30.Ibid. [return]
31. Gove, 1996, pp.213-215. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, p.9. [return]
33. Wilson, 1998, pp.179, 230. [return]
34. Gove, 1996, p.213. [return]
35. Gove, 1996, p.219. [return]
36. Wilson, 1998, p.184. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.154. [return]
38. Ibid. [return]
39. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.239. [return]
40. Wilson, I., 1988, "Two Recent B.B.C. Television Programmes," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.23. [return]
41. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
42. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E. 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.61. [return]
43. Wilson, 1998, pp.191-192. [return]
44. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.61-62. [return]
45. Tyrer, J., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.11-12. [return]
46. Wilson, 1991, pp.176-177. [return]
47. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
48. Wilson, 1998, p.192. [return]
49. Wilson, 1998, p.193. [return]
50. Gove, H.E., 1989, "Letter To The Editor: The Turin Shroud," Archaeometry, Vol. 31, No. 2, August, pp.235-237, p.237. [return]


Updated: 8 December, 2014.

Monday, December 1, 2014

Does the long hair of the man on the Shroud of Turin contradict 1 Corinthians 11:14?

Here is an email I received today from a Shroud pro-authenticist friend on a reason given by someone he knows for dismissing the image on the Shroud to be of Jesus because of his supposedly long hair, which appears to conflict with 1 Corinthians 11:14:

"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair [Gk. koma] it is a disgrace for him,"

[Above: Face of the Man on the Shroud showing that he had shoulder-length hair: Shroud Scope Enrie Negative Vertical.]

My friend's edited (to preserve his anonymity) words below are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

>Dear Mr. Jones,
>... I received an e-mail from a
[person] whom I have known for a number of years. In the past he totally disregarded the data one finds on the internet dealing with the Shroud, and which he dismisses ... the image to be that of our Lord due to the LONG HAIR ... From your website I have not located a refutation of this ... argument, but if you have already dealt with it would you please refer me to where I can locate it via Google by typing in your name? If not, are there websites your consider valid which do refute this ... PROOF that this is not the face of Christ? ...
>... J

J

Good to hear from you again.

I am answering your private emailed question on the Shroud publicly, less your identifying details, as per my long-standing policy stated on this blog's top page:

"Private messages I receive on Shroud of Turin related topics, I reserve the right to respond publicly via this blog, less the senders' personal identifying information."

That way others who have the same question can hopefully benefit from my answer. And in fact you requested an answer that you can locate via Google, and I have given this post a title which should help with that. As far as I am aware I have not posted on that question before, although I might have answered it briefly in a comment under one of my posts.

Stevenson and Habermas give this as one of the most frequently asked questions raised by Christian audiences after their talks on the Shroud:

"Q. Doesn't the Shroud conflict with Scripture? ... b) In 1 Corinthians 11:14, the Apostle Paul declares that long hair is a disgrace to men, yet the man of the Shroud apparently has shoulder-length hair." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," p.149

They point out that: 1) what constitutes "long hair" depends on one's own culture's subjective view; 2) Paul himself would probably have had shoulder-length hair, as that was the norm for Jewish men of his day; and 3) What Paul was speaking about is "men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women" (my emphasis):

"A. ... though the question of long hair seems overly naive, it is frequently asked. Our concept of what Paul meant by `long hair' is usually affected by our own views of what constitutes long hair. While Paul was speaking of effeminate men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women, Paul himself would probably have worn shoulder-length hair in keeping with the hairstyle of the other orthodox Jews of his day. 1 As a matter of fact, the traditional style for an orthodox Jewish man of two thousand years ago is much the same for him today: a ponytail of hair and sidelocks-precisely what we see on the Shroud." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.149-151).

In support of this, one of my commentaries on 1 Corinthians points out that, based on the original Greek, what Paul was talking about was not "hair as such" but "hairdo":

"[1 Cor] 14-15 ... Vs. 4 reads: having his head covered, lit. from the head; vs. 6 distinguishes between a not covering of the head and a cutting short of the hair, apparently assuming that even if the head is not covered the hair may still be long. The solution of this question must be sought in the two different words for hair which the Greek uses. [triches and kome] The first one means hair as such; the second, which is used here, means the hairdo, hair that is neatly held by means of ribbon or lace. That also fits the context which shows that the Corinthian women did not cut their hair short (vs. 6), but that they took it down in ecstasy." (Grosheide, F.W., 1954, "Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians," p.260. My transliteration).

This is confirmed by my Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, which shows that the words translated "a man wears long hair" (lit. "he wears his hair long") is one Greek word κομη (kome) (Marshall, A., 1966, "The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament," p.686).

This can be seen in the online Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament of 1 Corinthians 11:14, where "has long hair" is based on one Greek word "komaō," the Greek root of kome.

Another of my commentaries points out that what Paul was really concerned about was not the lengths of men's and women's hair, but "that man is to be distinguished from woman":

"[1Cor] 13-15 The final point in the passage is that man is to be distinguished from woman. Thus the Corinthians are to see that the woman should not pray with her head uncovered as the man does. They are reminded that in ordinary life man with his short hair is distinguished from woman with her long hair. If a man has long hair like a woman's, he is disgraced, but with long hair the woman gains glory in her position of subjection to man. Also long hair is actually given to her as a natural veil." (Mare, W.H., "1 Corinthians," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1978, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 10 - Romans - Galatians," p.256).

The NIV Study Bible's comment on this passage puts it succinctly, that, "Paul's point is that men should look like men in that culture, and women should look like women in that culture":

"[1Cor] 11:14 Here the word nature probably means "your natural sense of what is appropriate for men and women": it would be a disgrace for a man to look like a woman because of his hair style. Although the norms of appropriate hair style (and dress) may vary from culture to culture, Paul's point is that men should look like men in that culture, and women should look like women in that culture, rather than seeking to deny or disparage the God-given differences between the sexes." (Barker, K., et al., eds., 1985, "The NIV Study Bible," p.2207. Italics original).

The real problem is an example of the old church member's supposed rebuke to the young minister who was proposing their church switch to a modern Bible translation:
"Young man, if the King James Version was good enough for St. Paul, then it is good enough for me!"

But in fact the same applies even to modern English translations, in that they weren't what St. Paul wrote in either. If an argument is to be made, that flies in face of a lot of other evidence (in this case that the Shroud is authentic and the image on it is in fact of Jesus), on the basis of only two words "long hair" in an English translation, then a Christian runs the risk of unwittingly "fighting against God" (Acts 5:39. NIV) by failing to check what the original Greek behind those two English translation words meant to the original writer (St. Paul) and his readers (the largely Greek members of the first century church at Corinth).

Among the edited out parts of your email you implied that this person you know is highly intelligent and university educated. Such a person would presumably be appalled if one of his colleagues adopted a superficial, `near enough is good enough,' approach in their profession. You might put this to him and ask why then does he adopt this same approach in the things of God?

Finally, there are other Biblical passages which show that long hair, per se, was not a problem to God.

Indeed, in Numbers 6:1-5 God Himself instructed Moses that, if "a man or a woman makes a ... vow of a Nazirite," then amongst other things, "no razor shall touch his [or her] head" for the duration of the vow:

"6 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord, 3 he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. 4 All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins. 5 `All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.'"

Indeed, in 2 Samuel 14:25-26, King David's son Absalom was praised for his very long hair:

"25 Now in all Israel there was no one so much to be praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. 26 And when he cut the hair of his head (for at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it was heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels by the king's weight."

And Paul himself in Acts 18:18 had made a vow to "cut his hair," which would make little sense unless it was normally long:

"After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow."

Of course many (if not most) in our post-Christian Western society may disagree that "man is to be distinguished from woman" by such things as hair-style. But that is not the point, which is, "does the fact that the Man on the Shroud has long hair contradict 1 Corinthians 11:14 and/or the Bible generally?" And the answer clearly is. "No, it does not!

I hope this helps. Regards.

Stephen E. Jones

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Servant of the priest (3): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Servant of the priest (3)

This is the seventh and final installment of entry #9, part 3, of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia," about the term "servant of the priest,"

[Above: The Apostle John, depicted in the Book of Kells, c. 800[2]. It is my proposal in this post that the Apostle John was "the servant of the priest" to whom the risen Jesus gave His burial shroud [sindon], which is the Shroud of Turin.]

preserved in a fragment by St. Jerome (c.347–420), from the late first/early second century, "Gospel of the Hebrews," that "the Lord [Jesus] had given the linen cloth [sindon][3] to the servant of the priest":

"The Gospel that is called `according to the Hebrews,' which I have recently translated into both Greek and Latin, a Gospel that Origen frequently used, records the following after the Savior's resurrection: `But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went and appeared to James.' (Jerome, Illustrious Men, 2)"[4].

This entry #9(3) is a continuation of entry #9(2), "Servant of the priest (2)" in which, by way of introduction I stated:

"Several early Christian writings recorded that the resurrected Jesus gave His shroud to different individuals. The earliest and most highly regarded of these writings, the late first/early second century The Gospel of the Hebrews, recorded that after His resurrection Jesus gave his shroud [sindon] to "the servant of the priest." Since it seems unlikely that the risen Jesus would give His shroud indirectly to the High Priest, Caiaphas (r. 18–36), , who was the driving force behind Jesus' crucifixion (Mt 26:3-5,57-66; Jn 11:49-53), other explanations have been sought. It has been suggested that the original text had "Peter" but it had become corrupted by a copyist's error. Another possibility is that he was Malchus, `the servant of the High Priest,' who was in the party sent to arrest Jesus, and whose right ear Peter had cut off but Jesus had miraculously healed it (Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Lk 22:50-51; Jn 18:10), and so Malchus became a Christian. But both these possibilities have major problems."

Because of its length I had to split that entry #9 into three parts. For more information about this Encyclopedia series, see the Main Index "A-Z", and sub-indexes "S", "C," and "D."

[Main index] [Entry index] [Previous #9 (2)] [Next #10]


Introduction. A third possibility, which seems not to have been previously considered, is that "the servant of the priest" was the Apostle John, of whom there is historical and Biblical evidence that he was a priest and that he had been a servant in the High Priest's household. The High Priest was commonly called simply "the Priest." There is further Biblical evidence that John had been a servant of the High Priest. Jesus appeared to the Apostle John before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother. Therefore, this third possibility, that Jesus took His Shroud with Him out of the empty tomb and later gave it to the Apostle John, seems the most likely.

The "servant of the priest" was the Apostle John

There is historical evidence that the Apostle John was a Jewish priest. Early Church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340) quoted from a letter by Polycrates (c.130–196), a Bishop of Ephesus, who wrote that "John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate (petalon)":

"THE bishops, however, of Asia, persevering in observing the custom handed down to them from their fathers, were headed by Polycrates. He, indeed, had also set forth the tradition handed down to them, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome. `We,' said he, `therefore, observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again in the day of the Lord's appearing, in which he will come with glory from heaven, and will raise up all the saints; Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters. His other daughter, also, who having lived under the influence of the Holy Ghost, now likewise rests in Ephesus. Moreover, John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate (petalon), both a martyr and teacher. He is buried in Ephesus; also Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop and martyr'"[5]

New Testament scholar Leon Morris (1914-2006), commenting on Jn 18:15-16, that John "was known to the high priest," considers this historical evidence (and Biblical evidence that John came from a priestly family) as supporting "that John was a priest":

"John seems to have come of a priestly family. The woman Salome, who stood by the cross of Jesus, appears to have been his mother, as a comparison of Mark 15:40 and Matt. 27:56 shows. John does not mention Salome, nor his own mother specifically, but he does speak of the Virgin Mary's sister (John 19:25) in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that she is Salome. Now Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) who is called one `of the daughters of Aaron' (Luke 1:5). Salome thus had priestly connections. The conclusion is that John was of a priestly family and could well have come in contact with the high priest in connection with his priestly duties. This is supported by the passage in the letter of Polycrates (c. 190 A.D.) which says that John `was a priest wearing to petalon (Eusebius HE, III. xxxi, 3). ... Polycrates certainly supports the view that John was a priest"[6]

There would surely be no contradiction in the first century by a priest being also a fisherman. After the settlement of Canaan in the 13th century BC[7], provision was made for priests to supplement support for themselves and their families by agriculture:

"Provision for support. - This consisted - 1. Of one tenth of the tithes which the people paid to the Levites, i. e. one per cent. on the whole produce of the country. Num. 18:26-28. 2. Of a special tithe every third year. Deut. 14:28; 26:12. 3. Of the redemption money, paid at the fixed rate of five shekels a head, for the first-born of man or beast. Num. 18:14-19. 4. Of the redemption money paid in like manner for men or things specially dedicated to the Lord. Lev. 27. 5. Of spoil, captives, cattle and the like, taken in war. Num. 31:25-47. 6. Of the shewbread, the flesh of the burnt offerings, peace offerings, trespass offerings, Lev. 6:26, 29; 7:6-10; Num. 18:8-14, and in particular the heave-shoulder and the wave-breast. Lev. 10:12-15. 7. Of an undefined amount of the first-fruits of corn, wine and oil. Ex. 23:19; Lev. 2:14; Deut. 26:1-10. 8. On their settlement in Canaan the priestly families had thirteen cities assigned them, with `suburbs' or pasture-grounds for their flocks. Josh. 21:13-19. These provisions were obviously intended to secure the religion of Israel against the dangers of a caste of pauper priests, needy and dependent, and unable to bear their witness to the true faith"[8].

However by the first century, not only the huge growth in the number of priests in proportion to the population of Israel:

"Numbers. - If we may accept the numbers given by Jewish writers as at all trustworthy, the proportion of the priesthood to the population of Palestine, during the last century of their existence as an order, must have been far greater than that of the clergy has ever been in any Christian nation. Over and above those that were scattered in the country and took their turn, there were not fewer than 24,000 stationed permanently at Jerusalem, and 12,000 at Jericho"[9],

but also that Israel had been under Roman occupation since 63 BC with the Jews since then having been forced to pay heavy taxes to Rome[10], would surely mean that most priests in Jesus' day would have needed to work in secular occupations in order to survive.

There is Biblical evidence that the Apostle John was a Jewish priest. As we saw above there is Biblical evidence that the Apostle John came from a Jewish priestly family. A comparison of the Gospels' lists of women disciples standing near the Cross reveals that Jesus' "mother's sister" was "Salome," who was "the mother of the sons of Zebedee," i.e. John's mother (Mk 3:17; 10:35; Lk 5:10):

Jn 19:25Mk 15:40Mt 27:55-56
"... standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.""... women looking on ... Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.""...women ... looking on ... Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."

Mark and Mathew evidently record the three prominent women disciples standing by the Cross after Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been taken by the Apostle John (Jn 19:26-27), her nephew (see below), to his home[11]. That the remaining three women mentioned are the same group in each account is shown by Mark listing "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome" as the women who went to the tomb in the early morning after the sabbath to anoint Jesus' body (Mk 16:1).

That means that Jesus and Apostle John were first cousins:

"To the casual reader Matthew's `other Mary' [Mt 27:61; 28:1], Mark's `Salome' [Mk 15:40; 16:1] and John's `Clopas' [Jn 19:25] seem obscure and rather unimportant figures. To the careful student, however, they prove exceptionally interesting. A key to their identification is to be found in the descriptions of the women at the crucifixion given by Matthew, Mark and John. Matthew and Mark ... identify three women watching at a distance, while John mentions Jesus' mother and three other women standing by the cross. It is natural to suppose that the same three women are referred to in each case and that they came forward with the Lord's mother to support her in the final farewell. If the women are the same in each case, we get the following descriptions: 1. Mary Magdalene - so called in all three gospels. 2. One called by Matthew: `the mother of the sons of Zebedee' [Mt 27:56] by Mark: `Salome' [Mk 15:40] by John: `Jesus' mother's sister' [Jn 19:25]; 3. Mary, called by Matthew: `the mother of James and Joseph' [Mt 27:56] ... or `the other Mary'. [Mt 27:61] by Mark: `the mother of James the younger and of Joses' [Mk 15:40] or `the mother of Joses' [Mk 15:47] or `the mother of James' [Mk 16:1] by John: `the wife of Clopas' [Jn 19:25]. ... This means that Salome is, on the one hand, the sister of the Lord's mother - that is to say, Jesus' aunt; and, on the other hand, mother of the two leading disciples, James and John. This makes John first cousin to Jesus"[12].

Mary was also a "kinswoman" of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist (Lk 1:36 YLT)[13]. The Greek word for "kinswoman," sungenis, is simply the female of sungenes "a kinsman" (Mk 6:4; Lk 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Ac 10:24) including "of tribal kinship" (Rom 9:3; 16:7,11,21)[14]. Elizabeth was one of the "daughters of Aaron" (Lk 1:5), that is, she was of priestly descent and the daughter of a priest[15]. Therefore Mary, and Salome her sister, were descended from David (Lk 1:32) and so were of the tribe of Judah (Mt 1:1-6; Lk 3:30-31) and also they were descended from Aaron, and so were of the tribe of Levi (Ex 6:16-20). There is no contradiction in this, as while a priest had to be a descendent of Aaron, he was not required to take a wife from the descendants of Aaron but the only requirement was that she was an Israelite virgin (Lev 21:1,7,14)[16]. The conditions of Jesus' descent from David (Mt 1:1; Rom 1:3; 2Tim 2:8; Rev 22:16) are satisfied if at least one of Mary's parents were of Davidic decent[17].

Therefore, for the Apostle John, the son of Salome, to be a priest, it was only necessary that his father, Zebedee (Mt 4:21; 10:2; Mk 1:19; 3:17; 10:35; Lk 5:10), was of Aaronic descent and therefore was a priest[18]. And that would have been so if Mary (and Salome's) father, Heli (Lk 3:23)[19], i.e. "Eli" - a priestly name (1Sam 1:9; 2:11; 14:3), was a descendant of Aaron and therefore a priest[20]. And that would have been the case, if the father of Elisabeth, who was Mary's and Salome's kinswoman, was a brother of Zebedee, John's father. Further Biblical confirmation that John was a priest is found in Jn 20:4-8, where John reached the empty tomb first but did not enter it until after Peter went in and confirmed that Jesus' body was not there. It was forbidden for a priest to enter a tomb[21] where he might make contact with a dead body and so become "unclean" (Lev 21:1-3)[22].

• There is Biblical evidence that John had been a servant in the High Priest's household John, the "other disciple" (Jn 20:2-4,8[23, 24, 25]), twice mentioned that he was "known to the High Priest" in Jn 18:15-16:
"Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in."

The Greek word for "known" here "denotes ... personal knowledge and friendship":

"The word 'known' (gnostos ) denotes not just acquaintance but personal knowledge and friendship (cf. Luke 2:44; 23:49). The 'other disciple' must have known the high priest well to gain immediate unchallenged access to the courtyard. It was to Annas' house (and not the temple) that Jesus was taken, and the 'courtyard' would be the atrium of his house. This is confirmed by the description of the doorkeeper as 'the girl on duty' (16), rather than a temple official. If the other disciple was the beloved disciple, and if the beloved disciple is identified as John the son of Zebedee, how do we account for him, as a Galilean fisherman, being 'known' to the high priest?"[26].

The person so described, John, "was a member of the High Priest's circle, possibly a kinsman and himself of priestly birth...":

"It is now generally recognized that gnostos implies something more than mere acquaintance. It means that the person so described was a member of the High Priest's circle, possibly a kinsman and himself of priestly birth, or at any rate one who stood in intimate relations with the governing high priestly family"[27].

The "High Priest" was Annas (Jn 18:13), a previous High Priest (AD 6–15), who although he had been deposed by the Roman governor in AD 15, was still regarded by the Jews as still the only legitimate High Priest[28] (Lk 3:2; Ac 4:6), and continued to be effectively the High Priest through his five sons and son-in-law Caiaphas (Jn 18:13) as puppet High Priests[29]. So John was admitted into the courtyard of Annas' house (Jn 18:15) and not only that, after speaking with the servant girl doorkeeper, John was able to bring Peter into the courtyard (Jn 18:16). That the servant girl knew John was a follower of Jesus is evident in her question to Peter, "You also are not one of this man's disciples, are you?" (my emphasis) (Jn 18:17)[30]. John knew the name of the "servant of the High Priest" whose ear Peter had cut off was "Malchus" (Jn 18:10). John also knew that another servant of the High Priest was a relative of Malchus (Jn 18:26).

Commentators admit that, "How it was that Annas ... knew John remains a mystery"[31] and John's "acquaintance with the high priest is difficult to explain"[32]. The explanation that John knew the High Priest from selling him fish(!)[33] clearly is inadequate. Morris, however, notes that:

"It is possible to account for it, however. One line of argument is that John seems to have come of a priestly family ..."[34]
followed by the quote above. Theologian William Sanday (1843–1920) observed that:
"The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants' hall" (my emphasis)[35].
So a likely explanation of all the above, perhaps the only explanation, is that John was a priest and had been a servant of the High Priest.

The High Priest was commonly called simply "the Priest" The High Priest was commonly called "the Priest":
"The High Priest (Heb. ... kohen gadol) was the chief religious official of Israelite religion and of classical Judaism from the rise of the Israelite nation until the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem. The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron, the first high priest and elder brother of Moses. ... Aaron, though he is but rarely called "the great priest", being generally simply designated as `ha-kohen' (the priest), was the first incumbent of the office, to which he was appointed by God (Book of Exodus 28:1–2; 29:4–5)."[36]

Examples include: "Hilkiah the high priest" (2Ki 22:4,8; 23:4; 2Chr 34:9) is called simply "Hilkiah the priest" (2Ki 22:10,12,14; 23:24; 2Chr 34:14); and "Eliashib the high priest" (Neh 3:1,20; 13:28) is called "Eliashib the priest" (Neh 13:4). It was the norm that the High Priest, was not called "High Priest" in the Old Testament, but simply "the Priest." Examples of this, among a great many, include: "Aaron the priest" (Ex 31:10; Lev 1:7; Num 3:6; Josh 21:4); "Eleazar the priest" (Num 16:39; Josh 14:1); and "Phinehas the priest" (Josh 22:30). So a servant of the High Priest could be called simply a "servant of the Priest." In particular, if John had been a servant of Annas the High Priest, he could have been called simply and informally, "John, the servant of the Priest."

Further Biblical evidence that John had been a servant of the High Priest. Although John and his brother James had helped their father Zebedee in his Galilean fishing business (Mt 4:21 & Mk 1:19), John had a home in Jerusalem (Jn 19:27)[37]. John had a detailed and accurate knowledge of the geography of Judea and the features of Jerusalem (before its destruction in AD70), which one would not expect from a Galilean fisherman[38]:

"His [John's] knowledge of Palestinian topography was accurate. He distinguished between Bethany, the suburb of Jerusalem where Mary and Martha lived (11:1), and `Bethany on the other side of the Jordan,' where John the Baptist preached (1:28). Some of the sites he alluded to, such as Aenon (3:23) and Ephraim (11:54), are not described elsewhere; but, obviously, they were actual places well known to him. His description of the features of Jerusalem, such as the pool by the `Sheep Gate' (5:2), the `pool of Siloam' (9:7), the `Stone Pavement' (Gr. lithostroton, 19:13), and the varied references to the temple (2:14-16; 8:20; 10:23), show that he was familiar with the city before its destruction"[39].

The Gospel of John, much more than the other gospels, gives details of Jewish feasts and purification rites, which would have been especially important to a Jewish priest:

"... the author [John] is acquainted with ... Jewish feasts and purification-rites: the Passover: 2:13, 23; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28; perhaps also 5:1; the Feast of Tabernacles: 7:2, 37, 38; the Feast of Dedication: 10:22, 23. See also 3:25; 11:55; 12:12; 18:28, 39; 19:31"[40]

This is further Biblical evidence that John was a priest and had been based in Jerusalem, as would be the case if he had been a servant of the High Priest.

Jesus appeared to the Apostle John before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother. The Apostle Paul, quoting a list of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, stated that Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" which included John (Mt 10:2), before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19)[41].

1Cor 15:3-7. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles."

Jesus could have given His shroud to John when He appeared to the Twelve. Or, since Paul list only five of the ten recorded post-resurrection appearance of Jesus[42], and since Acts 1:3 states that Jesus appeared to His apostles after His resurrection over a space of "forty days":

"He [Jesus] presented himself alive to them [the apostle] after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God."

it is entirely possible that Jesus appeared to John alone, but unrecorded, to give His shroud to him, before He appeared James.

That Jesus took His Shroud with Him out of the empty tomb and later gave it to the Apostle John, seems the most likely. We saw in parts (1), (2), and this part (3) of entry #9, evidence that: 1) the Empty Tomb did not contain Jesus' burial shroud [sindon]; 2) the late first/early second century Gospel of the Hebrews preserved a tradition of the earliest Church which was widely believed to be true, that Jesus took His burial shroud out of the Tomb and have it to "the servant of the priest"; and 3) the Apostle John was a priest and had been a servant of the High Priest, Annas. It is therefore proposed that the term "servant of the priest" was a pseudonym of the Apostle John, and that Jesus gave St. John His burial shroud (known today as the Shroud of Turin) in one of His earlier post-resurrection appearances.

The pseudonym being necessary to preserve the security of the Shroud from the far more numerous and powerful enemies of the early Church, the Romans and the Jews, who if they knew the Shroud existed with Jesus' image on it, they would demand it be handed over to them under threat of torture and death:

"As to whether the disciples of Jesus did remove the burial wrappings from the tomb, the Gospels are indeed silent. There is evidence, described later, that they did take the Shroud. This evidence suggests they took it with them into hiding, for, as we read in the Bible, they feared for their lives. They would have known that if they `advertised' their valuable possession, it might become a target for either Romans or Jewish zealots. Those who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion seemed determined to stamp out the new Christian-sect. The Easter story shows that they would do anything to erase the memory of Jesus. They would seize and destroy the Shroud if their attention was drawn to its survival. So the Shroud was kept hidden, and the Gospel stories are silent about its removal from the tomb." (my emphasis)[43]

"It is absurd to demand a detailed documentation from Jews and Jewish Christians regarding the presence and handing down of the Holy Shroud in the period before Christianity enjoyed full freedom of expression in the Middle East, and particularly in Jerusalem, which was a troubled, much conquered city right from the beginnings of Christianity. The lack of documentation may be due to three main reactions which would have been provoked by the open showing of the shroud of a man who, from the blood marks and entire imprint, clearly died on the cross: a religious reaction concerning legal impurity, a theological reaction concerning the question of real or only apparent humanity, and a juridical reaction concerning violation of the tomb. This would have led to the immediate destruction of the shroud and severe punishment of those having it in their possession." (my emphasis)[44]

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. "John the Apostle," Wikipedia, 12 November 2014. [return]
3. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, Autumn, pp.319-345. [return]
4. Ehrman B.D., 2003, "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did not Make It into the New Testament," Oxford University Press: New York NY, p.16. [return]
5. Eusebius, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," Cruse, C.F., transl., 1955, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing, 1966, Book V, Chapter xxiv, p.208. [return]
6. Morris, L.L., 1971, "The Gospel According to John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1984, p.752. [return]
7. Holden, J.M. & Geisler, N., 2013, "The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible," Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, p.192. [return]
8. Peloubet, F.N. & M.A., eds, 1990, "Smith's Bible Dictionary," [1863], Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1987, Revised, p.533. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. "Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC)," Wikipedia, 7 November 2014. [return]
11. Edersheim, A., 1886, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," [1883], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Third Edition, Reprinted, 1988, Vol. II, p.602. [return]
12. Wenham, J.W., 1984, "Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Stories in Conflict?," Paternoster: Exeter UK, Reprinted, 1987, pp.34-35. Verses in square brackets mine. [return]
13. Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, p.15. [return]
14. Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.421. My transliteration. [return]
15. Geldenhuys, J.N., 1950, "Commentary on the Gospel of Luke," Marshall Morgan & Scott: London, Reprinted, 1961, pp.62-63. [return]
16. Morris, L.L., 1974, "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, p.68. [return]
17. Morris, 1974, pp.73-74. [return]
18. Gehman, H.S. & Davis, J.D., 1924, "The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Collins: London, Revised, 1944, pp.490-491. [return]
19. "Heli ... is the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The latter interpretation is reached by punctuating the Gr. differently and understanding Jesus as `being son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli (Luke 3:23)." Gehman & Davis, 1924, p.235. See also p.198. [return]
20. Peloubet, 1990, p.532. [return]
21. Crispino, D., 1991, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 38/39, March/June, p.368. [return]
22. Harrison, R.K., 1980, "Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Reprinted, 2006, p.209. [return]
23. Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Two Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One," [1954], Banner of Truth: London, Third edition, Vol. I, pp.18-19. [return]
24. Morris, 1971, pp.9-21. [return]
25. Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.27-28. [return]
26. Kruse, 2003, p.353. [return]
27. Dodd, C.H., 1963, "Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, pp.86f., in Morris, 1971, p.752. [return]
28. Morris, 1971, p.749. [return]
29. "Annas," Wikipedia, 29 June 2014. [return]
30. Tenney, M.C., "The Gospel of John," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1981, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9: John - Acts," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.172. [return]
31. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. II, p.390. [return]
32. Guthrie, D., "John," in Carson, D.A., et al., eds, 1994, "New Bible Commentary: 21st Century edition," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1997, pp.1060-1061. [return]
33. Kruse, 2003, p.353. [return]
34. Morris, 1971, p.752. [return]
35. Sanday, W., "Criticism of the Fourth Gospel," p.101, in Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.287. [return]
36. "High Priest of Israel," Wikipedia, 12 October 2014. [return]
37. Tenney, 1981, p.182. [return]
38. Kruse, 2003, p.30. [return]
39. Tenney, 1981, p.6. [return]
40. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. I, p.18. [return]
41. Robertson, A.T., 1931, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume IV: The Epistles of Paul," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.188. [return]
42. Robertson, 1931, pp.187-188. [return]
43. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.70-71. [return]
44. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.xxi. [return]

Created: 23 November, 2014. Updated: 18 December, 2014.