Monday, June 20, 2022

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twentieth century (4)

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
TWENTIETH CENTURY (4)
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the tenth installment of part #28, "Twentieth century" (4) of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see the Index #1. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. This page was initially based on Ian Wilson's 1996, "Highlights of the Undisputed History: 1900."

[Index #1] [Previous: 20th century (3) #27] [Next: 21st century #29]


20th century (4) (1978-2000).

[Above (enlarge)[2]: Dr. John Jackson (left foreground) about to begin STURP's five-day examination of the Shroud, from 8th to 13th October, 1978 (see below)]

1978a 20 January. Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-89), the Archbishop of Turin, announces that the Shroud is to be publicly exhibited from 27 August to 8 October of this year, with an International Congress to be held in Turin on the last two days[3].

1978b March. Publication of the first, Doubleday, edition of Ian Wilson's book, "The Turin Shroud"[4]. In the book Wilson

[Right[5]: Ian Wilson's 1978 first book on the Shroud. Although published over 40 years ago, it is still, in my opinion, the most important book on the Shroud ever written. Primarily because in it Wilson showed that the 6th century Image of Edesssa / Mandylion and the Shroud were one and the same (see below)!]

showed that the 6th-10th century Image of Edesssa / Mandylion, was the Shroud, folded in eight, with the face one-eighth of the Shroud being the face of Jesus in the Image of Edessa, in landscape aspect (see my "Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin")!

"The consistent appearance of the head in this manner [in ... landscape aspect] on artists' copies of the Mandylion therefore suggests one thing-that the artists were deliberately trying to reproduce a curiosity of the original. If the Shroud was the Mandylion, was this the manner in which it appeared in the early centuries? This speculation takes on more credibility in the light of a piece of information gleaned from a text of the sixth century, the period when the Mandylion first came to light in Edessa. The text gives a description of how the image was thought by those of the time to have been created by Jesus on the linen of a cloth he had used to dry his face. This text, as translated in Roberts and Donaldson's voluminous Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, at first sight seems totally uninformative:
And he ... asked to wash himself, and a towel was given to him; and when he had washed himself he wiped his face with it. And his image having been imprinted upon the linen ...[6]
But, as a footnote reveals, one word in the passage gave the translators some difficulty. In order to convey the sense evident from the description, they used the word `towel.' But they were careful to point out that this is not the literal meaning of the strange Greek word used in the original text. The actual meaning is `doubled in four.' [tetradiplon][7]. The discovery is intriguing. Could the sixth-century writer have been trying to convey that the cloth he saw was literally `doubled in four' - i.e., that it was a substantially larger cloth, the folds perhaps being actually countable at the edges but otherwise inaccessible? The only logical test is to try to `double in four' the Turin Shroud to see what effect is achieved. This is not a difficult task. One simply takes a full-length print of the cloth, doubles it, then doubles it twice again, producing a cloth `doubled in four' sections. The head of Christ appears on the uppermost section, curiously disembodied, exactly as on artists' copies of the Mandylion. Furthermore, it appears on the cloth in landscape aspect, again exactly as on artists' copies of the Mandylion"[8].
1978c April. The Turin authorities approve in principle the testing that had been requested by the American scientists in September 1977 (see "1977f"), to immediately follow the public exposition in October[9].

1978d. May. Nuclear physicist Thomas (Tom) F. d'Muhala (1940-),

[Left (enlarge): Tom d'Muhala at the 2005 Dallas Shroud Conference, ©2005 Barrie M. Schwortz Collection, STERA, Inc[10]. d'Muhala who at 82 is still alive (as far as I know), is an unsung hero of STURP's 1978 examination of the Shroud[11]. As both a nuclear physicist and a businessman[12], d'Muhala registered "The Shroud of Turin Research Project," as a non-profit corporation and coined the acronym "STURP"[13], He was President of STURP[14] and its "administrator, findraiser, coordinator" and "expedition leader"[15]. A "great bear of a man"[16] who admitted that originally "science was my God"[17], d'Muhala became a Christian through the Shroud and in 2007 produced a video, "The Case for Christ's Resurrection." d'Muhala never lost faith in the Shroud after the "1260-1390" radiocarbon dating, as at least one STURP member did - see his address, "Where Do We Go From Here?" at the 1996 Esopus Conference.]

President of Nuclear Technologies Corporation of Amston, Connecticut, names and incorporates"The Shroud of Turin Research Project," with the acronym "STURP"[18].

1978e 3-4 June. In Colorado Springs, STURP meets for the first time in a a conference to plan their scientific testing of the Shroud[19].

1978f 6 August. Death of Pope Paul VI (r. 1963-78), who had been expected to visit Turin to view the Shroud during the period of the expositions[20]. He is succeeded on 26 August by Pope John Paul I (r. 1978) who, however, died 33 days later[21].

1978g 26 August. The Shroud is exhibited at an inaugural Mass on the

[Right (enlarge)[22]: Turin's Cathedral of St. John the Baptist during the 1978 exhibition.]

first day of a five-week-long period of expositions, until 8 October[23], commemorating the 400th anniversary of the Shroud in Turin[24]. It

Left (enlarge)[25]: The Shroud displayed in its bullet-proof glass, inert gas filled, temperature and humidity controlled, container, above the high altar in Turin Cathedral during the 1978 exposition[26].]

is the first public exposition of the Shroud since 1933[27]. During the five weeks the Shroud is publicly displayed, more than 3.5 million visitors view the cloth[28].

1978h 1 September. Among the pilgrims who view the Shroud on this day is Karol, Cardinal Wojtyla of Poland (1920-2005), shortly to become Pope John Paul II (r. 1978-2005)[29].

1978i 2-3 September. STURP meets in Amston, Connecticut, to finalize their plans, after Turin had agreed to a twenty-four hour test period on 9 October[30]. This meeting would become known as the "Dry Run" and was the first time that the entire team had assembled together[31]. They review their planned experiments and test their equipment, including a special table designed to hold the Shroud[32]. They each sign a confidentiality agreement, insisted on by Turin, to formally become a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)[33]. After the meeting, the equipment is packed into 72 crates, weighing about 4 tons, and air-freighted to Turin via Milan[34].

1978j 28 September. Sudden death of Pope John Paul I (r. 26 August-28 September 1978)[35]. He was rumored to have been intending a private visit to the exposition before its close[36].

1978k 29 September. The STURP team departs the United States for Turin under a cloud of doubt, concerned that the death of the Pope John Paul I the night before might cause the cancellation of their testing[37].

1978l 30 September. The STURP team arrives in Turin and is told that their 24 hours to examine the Shroud had been extended to 120 hours[38]. But some of their luggage is lost and Italian Customs authorities hold all their test equipment, refusing to release it[39]. One particularly delicate piece of x-ray equipment needs to be filled with liquid nitrogen or it will be damaged beyond repair[40]. The problem was that the crates containing STURP's test equipment were consigned to the care of STURP's interpreter Fr. Peter Rinaldi (1910-93) in Turin[41]. He was born in Turin and it was felt that this would be a convenient way of handling the consignment[42]. But Fr Rinaldi had since 1935 been a Pastor of Corpus Christi Church, Port Chester, USA[43], so he did not qualify as an Italian resident[44]. Through Fr Rinaldi STURP was told that their equipment would have to be impounded in Milan for 90 days before it could be released[45]!

1978m Early October. En route to Turin to take part in the Second International Symposium on the Shroud (see below), Harry E. Gove (1922-2009) stops off in Oxford to inform Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) of Oxford about the possibility of radiocarbon dating the Shroud[46]. Although Hall does not yet have an AMS facility, he expresses himself and his colleagues as being very enthusiastic to 'get in on the act'[47].

1978n 1-5 October. The STURP team, originally planning to use the week to set up and test their equipment, spends their time holding planning meetings three times a day[48]. Fr Rinaldi appealed to the Minister of Commerce in Rome and secured the transfer of the equipment from Milan to Turin[49]. But the Customs Department in Turin demanded a substantial bond to be posted before they would release the equipment[50]. Cardinal Ballestrero then guaranteed the bond from Turin Cathedral funds and at last STURP's equipment was released[51]!

1978o 5 October. The truck bearing the 72 crates of STURP's equipment [Right (enlarge)[52].] finally enters the courtyard of the Royal Palace[53]. The team begins the task of unloading the truck and moving the crates of instruments into the Royal Palace's Hall of Visiting Princes, five days behind schedule[54]. The first piece of equipment opened by the STURP team is the delicate x-ray device requiring liquid nitrogen and to everyone's amazement, there is just enough of the cold liquid remaining in the device to keep the delicate tube functioning, days beyond its rated capacity[55]!

1978p 6-7 October. The STURP team works around the clock to prepare the palace and unpack and setup their equipment[56]. A number of team members leave the palace to attend the Symposium (see below)[57].

1978q 7-8 October Second International Symposium on the Shroud is held at the Istituto Bancario (Banker's Institute) San Paolo, Turin[58]. Papers are presented by Ian Wilson, Dr Robert Bucklin (1916-2001), Jackson and Jumper, Max Frei (1913-83), amongst others[59]. Papers by Gove on his new AMS method and Walter McCrone (1916-2002), are included in the Proceedings but not presented[60].

1978r 8 October. The Shroud is removed from public display and

[Left (enlarge)[61]: The Shroud is unwrapped on STURP's table in Turin's Royal Palace so that STURP can begin its 120 hours of intensive scientific examination.]

taken through the Guarini Chapel into the Hall of Visiting Princes within Turin's Royal Palace[62]. Thus begins a five-day period of examination, photography and sample taking by STURP[63]. Max Frei, Giovanni Riggi (1935-2008), Prof. Pierluigi Baima-Bollone (1937-) and others carry out independent research programs in parallel[64]. During this time the Shroud is lengthily submitted to photographic floodlighting, to low-power X-rays and to narrow band ultraviolet light[65]. Dozens of pieces of sticky tape are pressed onto its surface and removed[66]. A side edge is unstitched and an apparatus

[Right (enlarge). ©1978 Barrie M. Schwortz Collection, STERA, Inc.[67]. STURP's Ray Rogers (1927–2005) (left) and John Jackson (centre) look at the underside of the Shroud, after the backing cloth sewn on in 1534 had just been unstitched by Giovanni Riggi (right).]

inserted between the Shroud and its backing cloth to examine the underside, which has not been seen in over 400 years[68]. The bottom edge (at the foot of the frontal image) is also unstitched and examined[69]. On the night of 9 October Baima Bollone obtains sample of Shroud bloodstain by mechanically disentangling warp and weft threads in the area of the 'small of the back' bloodstain on the Shroud's dorsal image[70]. He would later confirm that he had detected the presence of blood preserved unaltered (see future). Through ultraviolet fluorescence photography the scourge marks were observed to contain many finely spaced lines or scratches, consistent with a flogging of real human skin[71]. On the dorsal foot imprint STURP's examination discovered an abundance of microscopic dust or dirt, atypical of the rest of the image, which was likely transferred to the Shroud from the feet of a barefoot man[72]. These subliminal details cannot reasonably be ascribed to a hypothetical forger because he himself could not see them and there was no reason to put them there since no one else could see them either[73]! In June 1982 (see

[Left (enlarge). Max Frei (independent from STURP) taking sticky-tape samples from the Shroud at the start of the STURP scientific examination in 1978, with STURP's Ray Rogers looking on[74]:

future) Max Frei would publish the results of his identification of pollen taken by tape uplift (which he pioneered) from the Shroud in 1973 [see 1973a & 1973d] and 1978. As summarised by Bulst, "Pollens from 58 species of plants have been found on the Shroud [by Frei]. But only 17 of these, i.e., less than one-third, grow in France or Italy"[75]!

1978s 8-12 October. STURP continues its around-the-clock examination of the Shroud, performing dozens of tests, taking thousands of photographs, photomicrographs, x-rays and spectra[76]. A total of 120 continuous hours of testing is done, with team members working on different parts of the Shroud simultaneously[77]. This is the most in-depth series of tests ever performed on the Shroud[78].

1978t 13 October. STURP completes its scientific work during the evening of this day[79]. The Shroud is returned to its casket the following morning[80].

1978u 15 December. McCrone visits Ray Rogers at Los Alamos and Rogers trustingly loans McCrone all 32 of the sticky tape samples that Rogers had taken from the Shroud[81], on the condition that McCrone would only cut small sections of the tapes for microscopy[82].

To be continued in the eleventh installment 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]
2. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.47. [return]
3. 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.303. [return]
4. Email from Ian Wilson to S.E. Jones, "RE: What was the month of publication of your book, `The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?,' Doubleday & Company, 1978?" 25 June 2022, 6:41 am. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Victor Gollancz: London, front cover. [return]
6. Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J., eds, 1951, "The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325," Vol. VIII: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted 1974, p.558. [return]
7. Roberts & Donaldson, 1951, p.558.n4. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Victor Gollancz: London, pp.99-100. [return]
9. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.130. [return]
10. Email from Barrie Schwortz, "RE: Could you email me the original photograph of Tom d'Muhala?," 22 June 2022, 2:29 am. [return]
11. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.55-67. [return]
12. Heller, 1983, pp.55, 62. [return]
13. Heller, 1983, pp.61-62, 76. [return]
14. d'Muhala, T., 1996, "Where Do We Go From Here?" The 1996 Esopus Conference, August 23rd-25th, 1996, Esopus, New York; "Shroud of Turin Research Project," Wikipedia, 26 September 2021. [return]
15. Heller, 1983, p.56. [return]
16. Heller, 1983, p.55. [return]
17. Heller, 1983, p.55. [return]
18. Heller, 1983, pp.61-62, 76. [return]
19. Wilson, 1998, p.303; Tribbe, 2006, p.130. [return]
20. Wilson, 1998, p.303. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.303; Guerrera, 2001, p.60. [return]
22. Brooks, E.H., II., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., 1981, "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago IL, p.2. [return]
23. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 21; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.12, 184; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.60; Tribbe, 2006, p.10. [return]
24. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.235; Borkan, 1995, p.21; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.184; Wilson, 1998, p.303; Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.35; Guerrera, 2001, p.60; Tribbe, 2006, p.8. [return]
25. Brooks, Miller & Schwortz, 1981, p.3. [return]
26. Wilson, 1979, p.237; Heller, 1983, p.79; Borkan, 1995, p.21. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, p.303; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.6. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, p.303. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, pp.303-304; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.278. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
31. Wilson, 1979, p.239; Wilson, 1998, p.304; Tribbe, 2006, p.131. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
33. Heller, 1983, p.78; Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
34. Wilson, 1979, p.239; Brooks, Miller & Schwortz, 1981, p.4; Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous - the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-65, 50; Heller, 1983, p.79; Antonacci, 2000, p.47; Guerrera, 2001, p.60; Tribbe, 2006, pp.131-132; Wilson, 2010, p.55. [return]
35. Wilson, 1979, p.237; Heller, 1983, p.94; Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
36. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
38. Heller, 1983, p.94; Oxley, 2010, p.209. [return]
39. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
40. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
41. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.208. [return]
42. Oxley, 2010, p.208. [return]
43. Wilson, I., 1993, "Obituary: Father Peter Rinaldi, S.D.B.," Shroud.com. [return]
44. Oxley, 2010, p.208. [return]
45. Oxley, 2010, p.208. [return]
46. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.26-27; Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
47. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
48. Wilson, I., 1996, "Highlights of the Undisputed History: 1900," Shroud.com. [return]
49. Oxley, 2010, p.208. [return]
50. Oxley, 2010, p.208. [return]
51. Oxley, 2010, pp.208-209. [return]
52. Brooks, Miller & Schwortz, 1981, p.4. [return]
53. Wilson, 1996. [return]
54. Wilson, 1996. [return]
55. Wilson, 1996. [return]
56. Wilson, 1996. [return]
57. Wilson, 1996. [return]
58. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
59. Gove, 1996, pp.31-32; Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
60. Gove, 1996, pp.31-32; Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
61. Brooks, Miller & Schwortz, 1981, p.7. [return]
62. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
63. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
64. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
65. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
66. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
67. Email 30 June 2020 2:45 am, from Barrie Schwortz to S.E. Jones, "RE: Could you email me the original of the photo of Ray Rogers, John Jackson and Giovanni Riggi looking at the underside of the Shroud?" [return]
68. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
69. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
70. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
71. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," 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.325-344, 328. [return]
72. Jackson, 1991, p.328. [return]
73. Jackson, 1991, p.328. [return]
74. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.80-81. [return]
75. Bulst, W., 1984, "The Pollen Grains on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 10, March, pp.20-28, 24. [return]
76. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
77. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
78. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
79. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
80. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
80. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.78. [return]
82. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.23. [return]

Posted 20 June 2022. Updated 2 July 2022.

Sunday, June 5, 2022

The Shroudman and Jesus were crucified #39: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

THE SHROUDMAN AND JESUS WERE CRUCIFIED #39
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #39, "The Shroudman and Jesus were crucified," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus'burial sheet!." Formerly "... is authentic," which is unclear. I will go back and replace "authentic" with "Jesus' burial sheet" in the title of all 38 of my previous posts in this series. For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." See also "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: The Shroud man and Jesus were crowned with thorns #38] [Next: The Shroud man and Jesus died on a cross #40]


  1. The Bible and the Shroud #33
    1. The Shroud man and Jesus were crucified #39

The Shroudman and Jesus were crucified. Both the man on the

[Above: "Crucifixion," sculpture in wood by Giulio Ricci (1913-95), based on his intensive study of the Shroud[2].]

Shroud[3] and Jesus (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:25; Lk 23:33 & Jn 19:18)[4] were crucified[5].

The Shroud man and Jesus carried a cross Jesus carried a cross (Jn 19:17)[6], part of the way to the site of His crucifixion[7] (see below). It was an integral part of Roman crucifixion that the condemned man carried his own cross to the site of his execution (Mt 10:38; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23; 14:27)[8]. It could not have been the full cross that was carried, as depicted in Christian art, because that would have been too heavy, but rather it was the crossbeam only, called in Latin the patibulum[9], to which the victim's outstretched arms were bound[10]. At the site of crucifixion the patibulum, bearing the nailed or tied victim, was attached to the much heavier, upright, stipes[11]. It was also part of Roman crucifixion that the victim was made to carry his cross naked through the streets to the site of his execution[12], but as a concession to Jewish morality, Jesus was given back his clothes after being scourged (Mt 27:31; Mk 15:20)[13].

The man on the Shroud carried a cross[14]. He has abrasions on his

[Above (enlarge)[15]: Shoulder blades of the man on the Shroud, rotated 180°, showing the blurring of the scourge marks, evidently due to him carrying across his upper back, over his clothes (Mt 27:31; Mk 15:20) a heavy object, such as a crossbeam, illustrated by the parallel lines from the man's higher right to lower left.]

shoulders[16], comsistent with him having carried across his back a heavy object[17], such as the transverse beam of a cross[18]. This must have occurred after he was scourged because the scourge wounds are underneath the shoulder abrasions[19]. But if the crossbeam had been in direct contact with his scourged shoulders, the lacerations would have widened, but on the Shroud, they have kept their shape[20]. This is consistent with the man on the Shroud carrying his cross under which was a garment protecting his scourged shoulders[21], as the gospels recorded of Jesus (Mt 27:31 & Mk 15:20).

The Shroudman and Jesus fell. The man on the Shroud fell. He

[Above (enlarge): [22]. Knees of the Shroudman, showing that both knees (see contextspear-wound in the side bloodstain is on the man's right side), and the left knee (left - apparent right because of lateral inversion[23]) in particular, has a circular piece of the kneecap missing[24].]

has cuts to both knees, especially to his left knee, indicating an unprotected fall onto a hard surface[25]. A Roman crucifixion victim (crucarius[26]) was made to carry the horizontal crossbeam tied to his outstretched arms and placed across the back of his neck[27]. Which meant that he frequently stumbled and fell in his scourged-weakened condition under the heavy weight of the crossbeam[28]. And when fell, he could not protect his face from the impact of the fall[29]. This explains why the man on the Shroud's nose is swollen, displaced and had been bleeding[30]. It also explains why the nose and knees areas of the Shroud have a high concentration of dirt particles[31].

Jesus fell. The gospels don't record that Jesus fell carrying the crossbeam[32]. However three of the gospels say that that a passerby named Simon of Cyrene was compelled by the Romans to carry Jesus' cross for Him (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26)[33], and this implies that Jesus, weakened by his unusually severe scourging (see "The Shroud man and Jesus were scourged #37"), was unable to carry the crossbeam all the way to the place of His crucifixion[34]. It is therefore likely that it was Jesus' repeated stumbling and falling under the weight of the crossbeam which prompted his executioners to compel Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross for Him[35].

The Shroudman and Jesus were crucified. The man of the Shroud was crucified. He had been nailed to a cross[36]. He has a bloodstain on the back of his left hand, which overlays his right hand,

[Right (enlarge)[37]: Nail exit wound in the Shroudman's left wrist (which appears to be right because of lateral inversion - see above). Only one nail wound is visible because the man's left hand covers his right wrist[38]. But a similar nail wound in the hidden right wrist can be inferred from the identical pattern of bloodstains along the right arm to those along the left arm, when he hung from the nails in his wrists affixed to the crossbeam (see below)[39]. The man's fingers seem too long because they are x-rays of his finger and hand bones under his skin[40]! (see 20Apr17b)]

showing that his hands were pierced by nails through his wrists, not

[Left (enlarge): Bloodflows on the left arm of the man on the Shroud[41], flipped horizontally and then rotated 90 degrees, showing how the blood dripped off the arm vertically under gravity.]

through his palms[42]. This is anatomically accurate as French surgeon Dr. Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) demonstrated, that nails through the palms would tear through by the weight of a man's body on a cross[43]. The man's

[Above (enlarge)[44]: The dorsal (back) feet bloodstains on the Shroud (see context). The larger stain is a complete imprint from the nail wound in the man's right foot[45]. The square hole made by the Roman nail can be seen slightly below centre above (enlarged)[46]. The smaller stain is an incomplete imprint of the heel and middle of the man's left foot[47], which had been nailed to the cross by a single nail through it and the right foot[48].

left foot appears to have been forced over his right foot and both fixed to the cross by a single nail driven through the insteps[49].

Jesus was crucified. All four Gospels record that "they crucified him" (Mt 27:31-38; Mk 15:20-27; Lk 23:24-33; Jn 19:16-20)[50]. There was no need for the Gospel writers to describe details of Jesus' crucifixion[51] since these were common knowledge, as the Romans carried out their crucifixions along public thoroughfares so that the greatest number could watch and be deterred[52]. Jesus was nailed to the cross[53] (tying with rope was an option)[54]. To prove that He had risen bodily from the dead, Jesus showed the disciples (absent the Apostle Thomas) the wounds in "his hands and his side" (Jn 20:20)[55], and later Jesus invited Thomas to put his finger in the nail wounds in His hands and side (Jn 20:25,27)[56]. Earlier, to two disciples on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, the risen Jesus had said, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself" (Lk 24:39-40)[57], which can only mean that Jesus had nail wounds in both hands and both feet[58].

The Shroudman and Jesus died on a cross The man on the Shroud died on a cross. He is dead[59]. He has a swollen abdomen which indicates that he died of asphyxiation, the way crucifixion victims died[60]. Also, the body of the man on the Shroud is in a state of rigor mortis, in which the muscles stiffen, keeping the body in the position it was immediately prior to death[61]. Signs of rigor mortis on the Shroud man include: his head is bent forward, the chest and abdomen are `frozen', and his whole body is rigid and stiff, occupying some of the positions it did on the cross (see above), especially his left leg[62]. Further evidence that the man on the Shroud was dead is the post-mortem blood flows, especially from the speared in the side wound (see below)[63]. If the man's heart had been beating the blood would have spurted out onto the cloth, instead of oozing out as it did[64].

Jesus died on a cross. All four gospels record that Jesus died on a cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30)[65]. The gospels of Mark and Luke explicitly state that Jesus "breathed his last" on the cross (Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46)[66]. The Roman centurion in charge of Jesus' crucifixion confirmed to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate that Jesus, who was then still on the cross, was dead (Mk 15:44-45)[67].

The Shroudman's and Jesus' legs were not broken The Shroudman's legs were not broken[68]. This is despite the crurifragium, the breaking of a crucifixion victim's lower leg-bones with a heavy mallet[69], to hasten his death[70], because he then would be

[Right (enlarge)[71]: As can be seen, the legs of the man on the Shroud are not broken.

unable to use his legs to raise himself up to breathe[72], being the norm in Roman crucifixions[73]. The Gospel of John records that the Roman soldiers broke the legs of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, to bring about their immediate deaths (Jn 19:31-32)[74].

Jesus' legs were not broken. The Roman soldiers, having broken the legs of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, when they came to Jesus they saw that he was already dead, and so they did not break His legs (Jn 19:32-33)[75]. Despite breaking of the legs of crucifixion victims being the norm in Roman crucifixions, neither the man on the Shroud nor Jesus had their legs broken, which is further evidence that the man on the Shroud is Jesus[76]!

The man on the Shroud and Jesus were speared in the side. The man on the Shroud was speared in his right side[77]. Clearly visible on the Shroud is a lance stab wound in the man's right side together with an effusion of blood and clear fluid[78]. The wound is on the left-hand side of the Shroud image but because of mirror reversal it was in the right side of the man of the Shroud[79]. The wound and its bloodstain is immediately adjacent to one of the triangular-shaped burn marks from the fire of 1532[80] (see "part #27"), yet miraculously[81] was not consumed by it[82]. The origin of the flow of

[Above (enlarge)[83]: The wound on the right side of the man on the Shroud (on our left because the Shroud is, like a plaster cast, a mirror image[84]). Note the wound (circled in red) which corresponds to the incision of a Roman lancea and the light and dark stains corresponding to blood and lung cavity fluid.]

blood and fluid is an elliptical wound at its top edge[85] about 4.4 cm long by 1.1 cm wide (1.75 x 0.44 inches)[86]. The size and shape of the wound in cross-section[87] conforms perfectly to a Roman lancea (Greek λογχη - logche)[88]. The wound is in the intercostal space between the right fifth and sixth ribs[89]. From below this is directly in line with the right auricle of the heart which fills with blood after death[90]. From the angle of flow[91] the body must have been erect and leaning forward when the side was pierced, for the blood and the fluid flowed downwards and frontwards from the wound[92].

There was a post-mortem flow of blood and fluid from the wound in the side across the small of the back (see below), evidently from when the body was laid on the Shroud[93].

[Above (enlarge)[94.]: The post-mortem flow of blood across the small of the back from the wound in the side.]

Jesus was speared in the side. As we saw above, the Roman executioners did not break Jesus' legs because they could see that he was dead. But to make absolutely certain that Jesus was dead[95], one of the soldiers speared him in the side with a lance, and immediately there came out blood and water (Jn 19:32-34)[96]. The Greek word logche), for the Roman lancea, was the very word used in John 19:34 to describe the weapon used by the Roman soldier to check that Jesus was dead[97].]

This eyewitness testimony of the Apostle John (Jn 19:34-35; 21:24)[98] of "blood and water" flowing from the lance-wound in the dead Jesus' side, matches the blood and fluid on the right side, under the heart, of the man on the Shroud[99](see above). Most medical specialists agree that the "water" was probably fluid that had steadily accumulated in Jesus' lung cavity as a result of the unusually brutal scourging (see "The Shroud man and Jesus were scourged" part 37) that He was subjected to[100]. The lance then released this watery type fluid from the lung cavity followed by blood from the perforated heart[101]. A mixture of blood and lung fluid is also the basis of the stains around the nasal area of the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is more evidence that both it and the Shroud once covered the same body[102]. But the Sudarium of Oviedo has been in Spain since the 6th century[103]. This will be covered in a future "10. The Sudarium of Oviedo."

Problems for the forgery theory:
• Christian art has consistently depicted Jesus as having been nailed through His palms, even though, as we saw above, medical experiments have shown that nails through the palms could not support the weight of a man's body[104]. But it would be unlikely that a medieval forger would have known this and even if he had, he would have conformed to prevailing Christian tradition and depicted the nail wounds in Jesus' palms[105].

• Crucifixion was outlawed by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 337[106] and was not practiced since then in the Western world[107]. Yet a medieval forger of the Shroud would have to know a lot about crucifixion to produce such an anatomically and historically accurate representation[108].

• A medieval or earlier forger would have been most unlikely to have gone to the trouble of depicting the man on the Shroud's nose as swollen, displaced and bleeding, let alone added ground particles and dust to his nasal area, consistent with his having fallen on his face while carrying his crossbeam (see above), given that the Gospels do not explicitly mention those[109].

• A medieval or earlier forger is unlikely to have been able to depict the convincing medical detail of the lance wound in the side of the man on the Shroud, given that none of the many depictions of that lance wound in Jesus' side in mediaeval or earlier art do so[110].

• The Gospels do not tell us in which side (right or left) Jesus was pierced by a Roman soldier's lance, so a medieval forger would most likely assume it was the left side, as he would be unlikely to realise that the last beat of a heart empties its left ventricle of blood while the right auricle fills with blood after death[111].

• That the Sudarium of Oviedo has blood and lung fluid stains around its nasal area, indicating that both it and the Shroud once covered the same crucifixion victim's body (see above), yet the Sudarium has been in Spain since the 6th century, means that either there were two forgers, separated by centuries and thousands of kilometres/miles, yet the two forgeries matched their blood and fluid stains exactly, or a single forger would have had to forge both the Shroud and the Sudarium in or before the 6th century[112]!

Conclusion. There is an amazing correspondence between the details that are observed on the Shroud, and the description of Jesus's crucifixion as narrated in gospels, given that each crucifixion was `personalized' according to the victim executed, the crime committed[113] and the whims of the executioners[114]. The Shroud supplements the Gospels as a photograph supplements a verbal description[115]:

"The Gospels say only that Christ carried His cross. The Shroud depicts Him bent under the transverse beam lying across the shoulders, with His outstretched arms bound to the instrument of His death. And there are the excoriations on the shoulder-blades, the oozing and the aggravated wounds of the scourging. He was crucified, is all the Evangelists say of the awful climax of the drama. The Shroud re-enacts the scene. It raises the arms of Christ to the angle at which they were extended on the cross. It shows the point where the hands were pierced, and how the fingers and thumbs responded to the pressure on the median nerve. It crosses the feet and shows how they were pierced with a single nail through the insteps, how the wounds bled at the beginning of the crucifixion, how they bled again when the nail was extracted. It reconstructs the position in which the body was left by death, because the body grew rigid on the cross and remained so while impressing its image on the Shroud. There is also the final outrage committed upon that sacred Body. The Shroud evokes the vision of the soldier plunging his spear into the right side between the fifth and the sixth rib. It shows us the very wound into which Thomas was invited to thrust his hand, and it almost analyses the issue of blood and water which was such a marvel to John"[116].
"In summary, the man of the Shroud was crucified the way Jesus was. The comparison of the New Testament and the Shroud image lines up at every point"[117].

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Ricci, G., 1978, "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1982, p.61. [return]
3. Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous - the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-68, 57; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 25; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.33; 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, p.85. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.52; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.44; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.86; Bennett, 2001, p.125. [return]
5. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.87. [return]
6. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, pp.42-43; Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.44; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.55; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.38. [return]
7. Robinson, J.A.T., 1978, "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.78. [return]
8. Torrance, J.B., "Cross, Crucifixion," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., 1982, "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1988, pp.253. [return]
9. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.42-43. [return]
10. Wuenschel, 1954, p.42. [return]
11. Borkan, 1995, p.25. [return]
12. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.45. [return]
13. 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, p.125. [return]
14. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.43; Guerrera, 2001, p.39. [return]
15. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical (rotated 180°)," auto corrected Sindonology.org. [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, pp.38-39; Bucklin, R., 1997, "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
17. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.44; Bucklin, 1997; Antonacci, 2000, p.120. [return]
18. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
19. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.44. [return]
20. Ricci, G., 1977, "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.69. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical. (auto corrected)," Sindonology.org. [return]
23. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.64; Bucklin, R., 1970, "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and the Law, January; Wilson, 1979, p.30; Borkan, 1995, p.42; Antonacci, 2000, p.189. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.39; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 285; Iannone, 1998, p.56; Guerrera, 2001, p.65. [return]
25. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Cruz, 1984, p.51. [return]
26. Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.19; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.122. [return]
27. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.28. [return]
28. Antonacci, 2000, p.33; Oxley, 2010, p.165. [return]
29. Guscin, 1998, p.28; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. Bucklin, R., 1982, "The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 5, December, pp.3-10, 8; Guscin, 1998, p.28; Antonacci, 2000, pp.32-33, 100. [return]
32. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.86; Iannone, 1998, p.56. [return]
33. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.44. [return]
34. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
35. Ibid. [return]
36. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
37. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
38. Bucklin, 1970. [return]
39. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.165. [return]
40. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.431-433; Borkan, 1995, p.42; 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.29; Ruffin, 1999, pp.150-151; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.37-38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
41. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
42. Wuenschel, 1954, p.44; Barbet, 1953, p.109; . [return]
43. Wuenschel, 1954, p.44; Barbet, 1953, p.117; Borkan, 1995, p.24. [return]
44. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical (auto corrected)," Sindonology.org. [return]
45. Barbet, P., 1952, "The Five Wounds of Christ," Apraxine, M., transl., Clonmore & Reynolds: Dublin, p.32; Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, p.121. [return]
46. Barbet, 1952, p.35; Barbet, 1953, p.125. [return]
47. Barbet, 1952, p.32; Barbet, 1953, p.121. [return]
48. Barbet, 1952, p.37; Barbet, 1953, p.128; Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.46; Wilson, 1979, p.42; Morgan, 1980, p.103; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson, 2010, p.48; de Wesselow, 2012, p.145. [return]
49. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.43-44; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.76. [return]
50. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43; McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.23; Petrosill & Marinelli, 1996, p.229; Ruffin, 1999, p.43; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.57. [return]
51. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
52. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.62. [return]
53. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Borkan, 1995, p.24. [return]
54. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.90. [return]
55. Iannone, 1998, p.57. [return]
56. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.52-53; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Iannone, 1998, p.57; Ruffin, 1999, p.43; Wilson, 2010, p.47. [return]
57. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43; Iannone, 1998, p.57. [return]
58. Bulst, 1957, p.48; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.86-87; Guerrera, 2001, p.39. [return]
59. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
60. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
61. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.112-113. [return]
62. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
63. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
64. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
65. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
66. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
67. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
68. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
69. McNair, 1978, p.24. [return]
70. Antonacci, 2000, p.120. [return]
71. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," (auto corrected)," Sindonology.org. [return]
72. Wilson, 1979, p.42. [return]
73. McNair, 1978, p.24. [return]
74. Robinson, 1978, p.78. [return]
75. Ibid. [return]
76. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.90-91. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
78. Robinson, 1978, p.78. [return]
79. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
80. Wilson, 1986, pp.24,26. [return]
81. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
82. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
83. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
84. Antonacci, 2000, p.33. [return]
85. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.63 [return]
86. Wilson, 1979, p.48. [return]
87. Wilson, 1986, p.34. [return]
88. Ibid. [return]
89. Wilson, 1986, p.26. [return]
90. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
91. 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.37. [return]
92. Wuenschel, 1954, p.46. [return]
93. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
94. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," (flipped vertically & auto corrected)," Sindonology.org. [return]
95. Ruffin, 1999, p.44. [return]
96. Wuenschel, 1954, p.45. [return]
97. Wilson, 1979, p.49. [return]
98. Wilson, 1996, pp.132,133. [return]
99. Robinson, 1978, p.78. [return]
100. Wilson, 1996, pp.132,133. [return]
101. Bucklin, 1997. [return]
102. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.78. [return]
103. Guscin, 1998, p.31. [return]
104. Robinson, 1978, p.77. [return]
105. Ibid. [return]
106. Crucifixion:Ancient Rome," Wikipedia, 18 June 2022. [return]
107. Iannone, 1998, p.69. [return]
108. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, p.238. [return]
109. Iannone, 1998, p.44. [return]
110. Wilson, 1998, p.38. [return]
111. Oxley, 2010, p.167. [return]
112, Bennett, 2001, p.89. [return]
113. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.229. [return]
114. Bulst, 1957, p.49. [return]
115. Wuenschel, 1954, p.55. [return]
116. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.55-56. [return]
117. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]

Posted 5 June 2022. Updated 26 June 2022.

Sunday, May 29, 2022

Ashe, Geoffrey. Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Ashe, Geoffrey #15

This is "Ashe, Geoffrey," part #15 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. See also 11Febr22. For more information about this series, see part #1 and part #2. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: Barbet, Pierre #14] [Next: bas relief #16]


Geoffrey Ashe (1923-2022) was a British cultural historian whose

[Right (enlarge)[2]: "Geoffrey Ashe, b. 1923 ... Ashe was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1963."]

specialty was the legendary King Arthur[3].

In 1961 Ashe tested his theory that the Shroud image was a scorch, by placing a white handkerchief over of a heated small medallion that bore a carving of a horse[4] (see below). However,

[Above (enlarge)[5]: Ashe's brass horse ornament, 3½ inches (about 9 cm.) across[6], which, when heated and a white handerchief placed over it for a few seconds, a "scorch-picture" formed[7] (see [positive and negative image below).]

it was not until 1966 that Ashe published his scorch theory and experiment in the Italian Shroud journal Sindon[8]. In favour of Ashe's scorch theory is that his scorch images do have some of the properties of the Shroud[9]. The colour of Ashe's scorch image was sepia, the same colour as the Shroud image[10]. In the positive of Ashe's scorch image below, small features such as the horse's fore-hoof are reprod-

[Above (enlarge)[11]: Positive image formed by a scorch on a white handerchief placed over the heated brass horse ornament above.]

uced, which in the ornament is only 1/8 inch (about 3 mm.) across[12]. The image is three-dimensional in that, the front of the horse's body, which is the highest part of the ornament, is the most heavily scorched and whitest in the negative (see below), with gradually decreasing

[Above (enlarge)[13]: Negative of the positive image above. As with the Shroud, the negative is more life-like than the positive[14].]

scorching toward the outer and lower parts[15].

Ashe's crtitics missed his point by assuming that he was claiming that the Shroud image was a heat scorch[16], and then they pointed out the problems of heat scorches, including that they fluoresce but the Shroud image doesn't fluoresce[17]. But Ashe wasn't a sceptic, like Joe Nickell, proposing that the Shroud image was a scorch from a heated bas relief[18]. Rather, Ashe was a Christiian[19] and a member of the International Centre of Sindonology[20].

In fact, Ashe argued against the Shroud image being a heat scorch[21]! He questioned "whether fabrication by scorching could have been executed at all"[22]. In particular, Ashe pointed out the immense difficulties of evenly scorching a linen cloth as large as the Shroud with the ordinary fire heat sources available in the Middle Ages:

"Ordinary heat would have been a medieval artist's only resource. There could be no question of any other sort of radiation. He would have had to make life-size metal reliefs of the front and back, heat these evenly to a high temperature in a horizontal position, and lower the enormous cloth neatly on to them, without pressure or sagging, and for just the right time to imprint the picture without actually burning holes. Or could he have heated the metal gradually with the Shroud already there, lifting it off when the marks were brown enough? In either case the task would have been immensely hazardous, calling for a great deal of previous experiment, and faultless team-work by the assistants holding the cloth and stoking the fire"[23].
And why would a forger go to all the trouble, expense and risk to make a metal or stone statue or bas relief just to heat it so that it could scorch its image on a rare and expensive large sheet of fine linen?:
"And why should any artist do it? ... Why take so much trouble, with a frightful risk of accidentally ruining" a precious cloth[24]?
Finally, the parts of the cloth that had been scorched by heat would be weakened and wouldn't have survived the handling that the Shroud has had down through the centuries:
"One further objection has been urged to such a fabrication, an objection which may well be fatal. Scorching by heat might not have made actual holes, but it would have weakened the fabric to a point here it would probably have fallen apart with handling through the centuries"[25].
Ashe was proposing that the Shroud image was the result of "the physical change of the body [of Jesus] at the Resurrection [which] may have released a brief and violent burst of some other radiation than heat" (my emphasis):
"Secondly then, on the assumption of authenticity, let us inquire whether a `scorch-picture' could have been formed by the veritable body of Christ. An ordinary corpse could not do so, since it would never generate heat or any other radiation at the required intensity. But the Christian Creed has always affirmed that Our Lord underwent an unparalleled transformation in the tomb: his case is exceptional, and here perhaps is the key. It is at least intelligible (and has indeed been suggested several times) that the physical change of the body at the Resurrection may have released a brief and violent burst of some other radiation than heat — perhaps scientifically identifiable, perhaps not — which scorched the cloth. In this case the Shroud is a quasi-photograph of Christ returning to life, produced by a kind of radiance or `incandescence, partially analogous to heat in its effects"[26].
Ashe's theory was confirmed true when in 2011 Shroud scientists, under the auspices of ENEA (the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development), using a vacuum ultraviolet excimer laser, succeeded in producing on linen the closest characteristics of the Shroud image yet (see 22Dec11 & 06Jan12), and ENEA laser's ultraviolet light scorch on linen did not fluoresce:
"Instead, the results of ENEA `show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence'" (my emphasis)[27]!

Ashe's conclusion in 1966, fifty-six years ago, is still true today (and will be true for all time):"The Shroud is explicable if it once enwrapped a human body [i.e. Jesus'] to which something extraordinary happened. It is not explicable otherwise"[28].

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Geoffrey Ashe," The Royal Society of Literature, 24 August 2017. [return]
3. "Geoffrey Ashe," Wikipedia, 25 May 2022. [return]
4. Ashe, G., 1966, "What Sort of Picture?" Sindon, No. 10, April, pp.15-19, 16; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.70; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.77. [return]
5. Ashe, 1966, p.16a & Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.125. [return]
6. Ashe, 1966, p.16. [return]
7. Ashe, 1966, p.17. [return]
8. Ashe, 1966, pp.15-19; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.74. [return]
9. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, pp.197-198; Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.25; Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.204. [return]
11. Ashe, 1966, p.16c & Wilcox, 1977, p.124. [return]
12. Ashe, 1966, p.17; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.18. [return]
13. Ashe, 1966, p.16b. [return]
14. Drews, 1984, p.18. [return]
15. Ashe, 1966, p.17. [return]
16. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.25; Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
17. Guerrera., 2001, p.75. [return]
18. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.122; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.216; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.136; Antonacci, 2000, p.76; "Joe Nickell: The Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 28 April 2022. [return]
19. Humber, 1978, p.199. [return]
20. Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.100. [return]
21. Ashe, 1966, pp.17-18. [return]
22. Ashe, 1966, p.17. [return]
23. Ashe, 1966, pp.17-18. [return]
24. Ashe, 1966, p.18. [return]
25. Ibid. [return]
26. Ibid. [return]
27. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," The Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
28. Ashe, 1966, p.18. [return]

Posted 29 May 2022. Updated 12 June 2022.