Monday, July 11, 2016

No paint, etc. #15: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
NO PAINT, ETC. #15
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the twelfth and final installment of part #15, "The man on the Shroud: No paint, etc.," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: No outline #14] [Next: No style #16]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. No paint, etc #15

Introduction. "There is no sign of paint, dye, powder, or any other foreign substance on the cloth that can account for the image"[2] of the man on the Shroud.

[Above (enlarge): Photomicrograph taken by optical engineer Kevin Moran of 15 microns (15 thousandths of a millimetre) diameter Shroud fibres attached to one of Max Frei's Shroud sticky tapes[3]. The boundaries between the image (yellow) and non-image parts of each fibre are only about 1 micron (1 thousandth of a millimetre) wide. No human artist/forger can paint, etc., with such precision. Note that the image fibres are uniformly yellow and where a non-image fibre crosses over an image fibre, the non-image fibre has the same uniform yellow image colour. And as we saw in part #12, "Colour," the image of the man on the Shroud is made up only of these uniformly yellowed fibres, which are too thin (about half the thickness of an average human hair[4]) to be individually painted or dyed, etc, by an artist/forger!]

There is no paint, pigment, powder, etc., on the Shroud which accounts for the man's image
No applied paint, pigment, powder, etc, can account for the man's image on the Shroud. Extensive scientific examinations of the cloth by STURP in 1978 and afterward found that no paints, pigments, stains, dyes[5], nor any foreign materials of any kind applied to the body image fibres could account for the man's image on the Shroud[6].

No cementation. Under a 3.6X microscope (see 32X microphotograph of the same area below) a probing needle found no cementation of body

[Above (enlarge): "Micrograph taken at the image area of the right eye at 32Xmagnification."[7]. As can be seen, each straw-yellow colour image fibre is distinct with no cementation between them and nor is there paint or powder particles responsible for the image trapped between the image fibres.]

image fibres[8]. This is highly significant because if a liquid paint, dye, pigment, etc., had been used to create the man's image on the Shroud, the liquid would have soaked into the threads, and the fibres would have become glued together[9]. But on the Shroud each coloured image fibre is distinct and does not adhere to any other[10] (see above). In fact it was already evident in the 1930s, when Giuseppe Enrie's 1931 photographs of the Shroud were enlarged, each thread of the Shroud could be distinctly seen with nothing visible in the spaces between the fibres[11]. This absence of colouring material caught in the crevices between the threads was confirmed under microscopic examination by the Turin Commission of 1973[12].

No capillarity. Nor is there any evidence of capillarity[13], that is capillary action: "the ability of a liquid to flow in narrow spaces without the assistance of, or even in opposition to, external forces"[14]. Specifically, there is no evidence of capillary flow under the unexposed threads of the weave[15]. Linen, paper and cotton are polysaccharide fibres and liquid is drawn into them by capillary action, as ink is drawn into blotting paper[16]. So this absence of capillary action immediately rules out all liquid colourants having been applied to the Shroud[17], as even Shroud sceptic Joe Nickell admits[18].

No pigment binder. Nor did protein tests[19] detect any evidence of a medieval artist's protein-based[20] pigment binder[21], such as egg white, gelatin, milk, or oil, to enable a colourant to stick to the fabric[22]. Any of these would have changed colour (but didn't) along a heat gradient from the 1532 fire (see below). Specifically proteases (enzymes which dissolve proteins[23]), had no effect on the yellow body image fibres of the Shroud[24].

Extreme superficiality. The body image colouration does not appear under the crossing threads of the weave[25], nor penetrate the cloth[26], but is only one fibre deep into the thread[27]. Again, if a paint, dye, pigment, or any other type of liquid painting medium was used to create the man's image on the Shroud, it would have soaked into the threads and the image could not remain only on the topmost fibres of the latter[28]. The same also applies to powder pigments (see below).

Uniform colour. All image fibres have a uniform straw yellow colouration, provided by the relative number of uniformly coloured fibres per unit area, that is, it is an areal density image [see "Colour #12"], not a pigment concentration gradient as in a painting, where an artist varies the concentration of an applied pigment to create variations in colour[29]. And because each fibre is about half the diameter of a human hair (see above) and has been individually encoded with colour (with a precision of 1 thousandth of a millimetre - see above), a painter would need to use a microscope, several centuries before the instrument was invented[30]. He would also have had to use a paintbrush with a single bristle less than 15 microns wide when the finest brush hair is vast by comparison[31], and would have required the skill and time to paint each fibre separately and with the same intensity[32]. Nor can this uniformity of colour be achieved by applying powdered pigment to a cloth laid over a bas-relief or statue, and in fact experiments have shown that a uniform intensity of powder cannot be achieved on even one fibre[33]! That is, if the uniform straw yellow image colour was paint or powder, which it is not (see next).

Colour is dehydrative oxidation of cellulose. The image was produced by a dehydrative oxidative process of the cellulose structure of the linen to yield a conjugated carbonyl group as the chromophore[34]. This is similar to the way linen is discolored when scorched by a hot iron, but a heat scorch would have discoloured all the way through the thickness of the cloth, as did the 1532 fire[35] (see next).

Colour unaffected by heat. There is no evidence of any colour change of the image closest to the burn marks of the 1532 fire from those image areas farthest away[36]. This would not be so if the body image was an organic pigment[37], as artists' pigments usually were in the Middle Ages[38], or iron oxide[39]. Especially since the burns were caused by a drop of molten silver from the Shroud's casket burning through a corner of the folded Shroud inside[40] and silver melts at about 1800°F (~980°C)[41].

Colour unaffected by water. While the waterstains from the water used to extinguish the 1532 fire show chromatographic diffusion of material to the edges, the body images within the waterstains show no change in colour, indicating there are no water soluble pigments[42], again as artists' pigments usually were in the Middle Ages[43], stains, or applied powdered materials comprise the image[44].

Paint on the Shroud does not account for image. There are artists' pigments on the Shroud but not in sufficient amounts and in the appropriate locations[45], to account for the image, and are the result of painted copies of the Shroud having been laid over it to `sanctify' them[46].

Not a painting. STURP found in 1978, and its aftermath, that image of the man on the Shroud is not a painting[47]. Not only were no pigment particles found on the cloth which constitute the man's image (see above), there was no evidence of brush strokes[48]. And as we saw above, had the man's image been painted, the paint would have saturated through the cloth[49]. Moreover, the painter would have needed a paintbrush less than the size of a linen fibre, which in turn is less than half the width of a human hair[50] (see above)!

Not a powdered bas-relief or statue. That there is no powder on the Shroud which accounts for the man's image (see above), applies to powdered pigment as proposed by Joe Nickell in his dry powder bas-relief theory[51]. If the body-image was made by daubing a powdered pigment on the wet Shroud, moulded over a bas-relief[52], residues of that pigment would remain[53]. And not only on the topmost fibres but the pigment dust would have become lodged between the linen threads and discoloured fibres throughout the weave[54]. But that Nickell now argues for what he calls "the rubbing hypothesis"[55] shows that even he no longer believes that the Shroud is a painting[56]!

Conclusion. Thus the chemical investigations are in complete agreement with forensic and image studies which found that the body images are not composed of applied pigments, stains, or dyes[57], and so do not result from the application of any pigments, stains, dyes[58], dry powders, or hot surfaces to the cloth[59].

Problems for the forgery theory. (see first and previous three: #12, #13 & #14).
Bishop d'Arcis' "cunningly painted" claim was wrong. For over 70 years the anti-authenticist case had rested[60] on an unsigned[61], undated[62], unaddressed[63], draft[64] memorandum of a Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (†1377-1395). A transcript of the memorandum was published in 1899[65] by a French anti-authenticist church historian Canon Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923), who dishonestly[66] combined two documents and attached a date of 1389[67] and an address to the Avignon Pope Clement VII (1342-94)[68], to the new combined document. However there is no evidence in either the Troyes' or the Papal archives that the memorandum was ever sent[69]. However Pope Clement did reply, enjoining "perpetual silence" upon Bishop d'Arcis about this matter[70], so it is likely that d'Arcis conveyed his complaint verbally, along the lines of the memorandum, to the Papal Nuncio Cardinal de Thury[71].

Canon Chevalier's attack on the authenticity of the Shroud was taken up in England by Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) who translated Bishop d'Arcis memorandum from the Latin and published it in the the Jesuit journal The Month[72]. D'Arcis claimed that the Shroud currently being exhibited at Lirey church in c. 1389, and which had been previously exhibited at that church in c. 1355 (see next), had been "cunningly painted" (my emphasis):

"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church., to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore."[73]
D'Arcis further claimed that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (†1354–1370) had about "thirty-four years" previously (i.e. in c. 1355) "after diligent inquiry and examination he discovered ... how the said cloth had been cunningly painted" having obtained this from "the artist who had painted it" (my emphasis):
"The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. ... Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly ... he began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year."[74]
Further problems with d'Arcis' memorandum include: • Hearsay. It is mere hearsay in that d'Arcis simply asserts with no evidence that his now deceased predecessor Bishop de Poitiers, extracted from an artist a confession that he had painted the man's image on the Shroud[75]. • Unnamed artist. D'Arcis does not provide the alleged forger's name[76], which means that he did not know it[77], despite the alleged forger's confession having been only ~34 years before in ~1355, which was well within living memory. • Unknown date. D'arcis' "thirty-four years or thereabouts" shows that he, who had been a lawyer[78], did not know the date of this alleged artist's confession[79], which means that he had no documentary evidence of it[80]. • No inquiry. There is no evidence that Bishop de Poitiers conducted an inquiry into the alleged painting of the Shroud[81]. • No problem. Nor is there any evidence that de Poitiers had a problem with the ~1355 exhibition of the Shroud at Lirey church[82]. Indeed in 1356 de Poitiers wrote a letter praising and ratifying the "cult" (which presumably means the Shroud) at the Lirey church[83]. And Geoffroy II de Charny (c. 1352-98), the son of Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300–1389) who had exhibited the Shroud at Lirey in c.1355, married Marguerite de Poitiers (c. 1362–1418)[84], who was Bishop de Poitiers' niece[85]. Although their marriage in c. 1392 was after Bishop de Poitiers' death in 1370, it is most unlikely that permission would have been granted by the de Poitiers' family for Marguerite to marry into the de Charny family, if Bishop de Poitiers had found the de Charny family had been been involved in a "fraud" of such "wickedness" as claimed by d'Arcis[86]. Moreover, that the de Charny and de Poitiers families continued to be on very good terms is shown by the fact that Geoffroy II's daughter, Marguerite de Charny (c. 1392–1460), left her Lirey lands to her godson, Antoine-Guerry des Essars (c. 1408-74)[87], who was the son of Guillemette de Poitiers (1370–1450)[88], who in turn was one of four illegitimate children of Bishop de Poitiers and his nun concubine, Jeanne de Chenery (1340–)[89]. This would be best explained if when Geoffroy II de Charny died in 1398, his widow Marguerite de Poitiers and their three young daughters, Marguerite de Charny (age ~6), Henriette de Charny (age ~3) and Jeanne de Charny (age ~1) went to live with Bishop de Poitiers' widow Jeanne de Chenery and their daughter Guillemette de Poitiers!

Not painted. The final problem with Bishop d'Arcis' claim in his ~1389 memorandum that the Shroud man's image was "cunningly painted," is, as we saw above, it was not painted[90]. So Bishop d'Arcis was wrong, either through him having been misinformed at best or lying[91] at worst. This is a mortal wound to the entire forgery theory.

As leading anti-authenticist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) pointed out, painting the Shroud man's image "... is certainly the simplest and probably the only way" that it could have been done by a medieval forger:

"I realize that there are still, perhaps, a majority of people convinced by the carbon-dating that the `Shroud' is medieval, who are still looking for an answer as to how the `Shroud' was produced. Many mechanisms have already been proposed. Some say it was draped wet over a bas-relief to which it was shaped then dabbed with powder or a paint. Some say a painting was prepared and transferred to a cloth in contact with it by pressure. However, I see no reason to doubt that an artist ... simply took up his brush and a dilute red ochre watercolor paint based on scraps of parchment as the vehicle and proceeded to paint the `Shroud.' Why go to all the work of preparing a statue or bas-relief or making a transfer of the image from a primary artist's rendering? A direct approach to painting a dilute watercolor image on a canvas of the proper size is a common sense assumption; Occam's Razor applies here ... It is certainly the simplest and probably the only way an undistorted original image could be prepared. If an artist (read sculptor) has to first prepare a statue or bas-relief then decorate it he will have to be more skilled, go to more trouble and stand in greater risk of distorting the final image than if he decided, by careful study, the image he wanted to produce then proceeded to paint it on a flat canvas with materials, and, by a method, readily available to him in the 1350s. The artist requires only a dilute watercolor paint, a paint brush, canvas and the talent and skill to produce a `Shroud.'"[92]
But as mentioned above, McCrone's fellow leading Shroud sceptic, Joe Nickell, had since been forced by the evidence to abandon the painting theory:
"While we should never underestimate what an unknown, skillful artist might be capable of - and so cannot conclusively rule out freehand painting - we must add that convincing evidence for any painting medium (that is, oil, egg tempera, etc.) on shroud image fibers is lacking ... Even at 40X magnification there are no obvious encrustations and no apparent cementing between threads nor any consistent and confirmed coating of fibers to indicate the presence of a painting medium ... The superficiality of the stain - extending `only 2 or 3 fibers deep into the thread structure' - is another strong argument against painting. A fluid medium (for example, paint, dye, ink) would be expected, by capillary action, to penetrate much farther - to the depth of a full thread, or even to the reverse of the cloth. Finally, tests at several laboratories failed to detect the presence of any foreign organic substance in `body' image areas."[93].
So McCrone and Nickell are both right. McCrone was right that painting was "the only way" that a medieval artist would have forged the Shroud. And Nickell was right that the Shroud image was not painted. Therefore both are also wrong: the Shroud man's image was not forged by a medieval artist!

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 post. [return]
2. Habermas, G.R., 1984, "Turin, Shroud of ," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 1990, "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker Book House: Grand Rapids MI., Seventh printing, p.1115. [return]
3. Moran, K.E., 1999, "Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples," Shroud.com, pp.1-10, 8. [return]
4. Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.11-27, 15. [return]
5. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.198; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.156, 178; 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.152. [return]
6. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.73. [return]
7. Lavoie, G.R., 2000, "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," [1998], Thomas More: Allen TX, p.58. [return]
8. 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, 10; Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
9. 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, 332. [return]
10. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
11. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.43. [return]
12. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 288. [return]
13. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.10; Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
14. "Capillary action," Wikipedia, 13 July 2016. [return]
15. Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113-127, 113; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138, 129. [return]
16. Heller, 1983, p.113. [return]
17. Heller, 1983, pp.86, 151. [return]
18. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.100. [return]
19. Adler, 2000c, p.22. [return]
20. Ibid. [return]
21. Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
22. Heller, 1983, p.85. [return]
23. Wilson, 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.95. [return]
24. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.34-57, 40-41; Adler, 2000c, p.22; Adler, 2000a, p.113. [return]
25. Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
26. Ibid. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
29. Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
30. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
31. Heller, 1983, p.202. [return]
32. Antonacci, 2000, pp.36-37. [return]
33. Antonacci, 2000, p.74. [return]
34. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.35. [return]
35. Jackson, 1991, p.332. [return]
36. Antonacci, 2000, p.48. [return]
37. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.46; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.136. [return]
38. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.72. [return]
39. Adler, 2000c, p.16. [return]
40. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.1-2. [return]
41. Gove, 1996, p.2. [return]
42. de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
43. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.72. [return]
44. Adler, 2000c, p.16. [return]
45. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.44. [return]
46. Adler, in Case, 1996, p.53; Adler, 2000c, p.20. [return]
47. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.8. [return]
48. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.71. [return]
49. Guerrera, 2001, p.71. [return]
50. Ibid. [return]
51. Antonacci, 2000, p.73. [return]
52. Nickell, 1987, pp.101-106. [return]
53. de Wesselow, 2012, p.138. [return]
54. Ibid. [return]
55. Nickell, 1987, pp.103-105. [return]
56. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, pp.16-17. [return]
57. Adler, 2000c, p.20. [return]
58. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.35. [return]
59. Adler, 2000c, p.25. [return]
60. Drews, 1984, pp.23-24. [return]
61. 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.121; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Tribbe, 2006, p.45. [return]
62. Wilson, 1998, p.121; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15. [return]
63. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
64. Wilson, 1998, p.121; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15. [return]
65. Drews, 1984, p.3. [return]
66. "Ulysse Chevalier," Wikipedia, 2 February 2016. [return]
67. Antonacci, 2000, pp.152-153. [return]
68. Antonacci, 2000, pp.151-152 [return]
69. Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Tribbe, 2006, p.45. [return]
70. de Wesselow, 2012, p.183. [return]
71. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.41. [return]
72. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, pp.17-29. [return]
73. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.266-267. [return]
74. Wilson, 1979, p.267. [return]
75. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.15, 19; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; de Wesselow, 2012, p.182. [return]
76. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.11; Antonacci, 2000, pp.151-152. [return]
77. Guerrera, 2001, p.15 [return]
78. Bulst, 1957, p.11; Wilson, 1986, p.11; Wilson, 1998, p.121; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.231. [return]
79. Wilson, 1998, p.128. [return]
80. Bulst, 1957, p.11; Wilson, 1998, pp.121, 128. [return]
81. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
82. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
83. Wilson, 1998, p.278; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, pp.11, 14; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.50. [return]
84. Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.35, 37. [return]
85. Antonacci, 2000, p.302. [return]
86. Antonacci, 2000, p.302. [return]
87. Wilson, 1998, p.283. [return]
88. Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au (members only). [return]
89. Wilson, 1998, p.130. [return]
90. Drews, 1984, p.26; Tribbe, 2006, p.45. [return]
91. Antonacci, 2000, p.153. [return]
92. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.122-123. [return]
93. Nickell, 1987, pp.99-100. Footnotes omitted. [return]

Posted: 11 July 2016. Updated: 24 July 2016.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, June 2016

Shroud of Turin News - June 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: May 2016, part #2] [Next: June 2016, part #2]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the June 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related June 2016 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. Click on a link below to go to that article. Articles not yet linked are planned to be commented on in this issue.

Contents:
Editorial.
"5 minutes with ... The earliest painted representation of the Turin Shroud," Christie's, 7 June 2016.
"Seeing the Shroud of Turin," The Catholic Catalogue, June 13, 2016.
"Could the Shroud of Turin be Jesus' burial cloth?," Church of God News, June 17th, 2016.


Editorial. Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz for him to convert to PDF and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in June up to issue #52, April 1989 [Right (enlarge)], which was still mostly about the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" and indeed contains a copy of that Nature paper. Issues in that archive are up to #50, December 1988.

Topic index: I had not found the time to add any more of my old posts to my Topic Index in June, so it is still up to and including my post of 28 March 2012. Where it will remain because I found it was too time-consuming and so in June I replaced it with a new "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series.

Posts: In June, I blogged 11 posts (latest uppermost): "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `L'"; "New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person," "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `E'"; "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `N'"; "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `C'"; "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `J'"; "The Shroud of Turin blog topics Index `A-Z'"; "Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index S-Z"; "No outline #14: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!"; "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #8"; and "Editorial and Contents": Shroud of Turin News - May 2016.

As can be seen above, in June I started a new series, "The Shroud of Turin blog topics," which replaces my previous "Topic index" which proved to be too time-consuming (and uninteresting). As mentioned in my May 2016 "Editorial", I was working on a review of Phillip Dayvault's book, "The Keramion, Lost and Found," to be submitted on Amazon.com. But I belatedly discovered that, "The ideal length is 75 to 500 words" for an Amazon.com customer review, and my unfinished review was already many times that! So I have abandoned that review.

Comments. In June I responded to a comment under my post of 30Sep15, which claimed: 1) that the man on the Shroud was "skinny," when 2) Lk 7:34 and Mt 11:19 imply that he was "chubby"; and 3) the man on the Shroud has long hair which is forbidden by 1Cor 11:14-15. I responded: 1) The man on the Shroud is not skinny. In my post, "The Shroud of Turin: 3.2. The man on the Shroud," there is a photo of a sculpture of the Shroud man [Left (enlarge)[2].] based on his image on the Shroud, which shows that he is "powerfully built" and has a "muscular physique." 2) The Greek word for "glutton" in Lk 7:34 and Mt 11:19 is phagos, from phago "to eat," so it simply means "eater," and has no connotation about body shape. It is not the other word for "glutton," gaster = "belly," which could connote body shape. Besides, Jesus was not a glutton: that was only what His enemies claimed. 3) Paul in 1Cor 11:14-15 is not talking about men having long hair, but men wearing their hair in effeminate hair styles[3]. The ESV correctly translates the Greek word kome, "Hair ... the way that it is styled"[4] in v.14 as "wears long hair" (my emphasis). I also pointed out that Jesus had a crown of thorns placed on His head (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2), and His clothes had been taken off Him (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-25), so any hair ties He had been wearing would have disappeared long before His image was imprinted on the Shroud.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, in June I posted part #8 of my hacker theory, which was about Karl Koch. Now that Dan Porter's blog has closed, I regard myself as free from my self-imposed ban from reading Porter's blog's posts and comments, which was to prevent me from being sucked into responding to comments (mostly nasty) about me on Porter's blog. A post of Porter's which amused me was his worry that:

"The problem is that it may only be a matter of time before we read in the media that people who think the shroud is authentic believe that the carbon dating of the shroud was hacked by computer hackers."[5]

[Right: Porter's photo of the alleged hacker, Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)]

I agree with Porter, except that I expect it will be "only be a matter of time before we read in the media that ... the carbon dating of the shroud was hacked by computer hackers"! I was surprised it had not already happened, but then I realised that the anti-Christian secular media was only too happy to report when the 1988 radiocarbon dating `proved' the Shroud was a medieval fake. So they will be conversely reluctant to admit that they have all been duped these last ~28 years by a computer hacker! Nevertheless, when I have finished my current, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking" series, I plan to post here a Media Release of my hacker theory's main points and email it to major media outlets.

Updates to my posts in the background in June included: "Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index A-F," "G-M," "N-R" and "S-Z."

Pageviews: At midnight on 30th June, Google Analytics [below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 544,771 and "Pageviews last month" as 8,461. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month as: "The Shroud of Turin blog topics Index `A-Z'," Jun 19, 2016 - 78; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 71"; "The Pray Manuscript," Jan 11, 2010 - 69; "`Editorial and Contents': Shroud of Turin News - May 2016," Jun 1, 2016 - 59; and "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," Dec 2, 2013 - 54.


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.47. [return]
3. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.150-151. [return]
4. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.876. [return]
5. Porter, D., 2015, "The Hacking of the Carbon Dating, Wikipedia and the Media," July 7. [return]

Posted: 10 July 2016. Updated: 17 July 2016.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

The Shroud of Turin blog topics "L"

The Shroud of Turin blog topics #6
© Stephen E. Jones[
1]

Topics "L"

This is the seventh and final (and an update of the fourth) installment of the topics page "L" and part #6 of my "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series. See the Index "A-Z" for more information about this series. I will add other topics beginning with "L" in the background, working forward in time from my earlier posts.

[Above (enlarge):[2] Comparison between Leonardo's self-portrait and the face of the man of the Shroud. Note that the two faces have little in common: Leonardo's head shape is `round' and the man on the Shroud's head is `rectangular'.]


[Index #1] [Previous "E" #5] [Next "S" #7]

Leonardo da Vinci. [06Jul07] If the Shroud was forged, the forger would have to have been one of the greatest artistic geniuses ever, at least equal to Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519). The leading (if not the only) proponents of the theory that Leonardo faked the Shroud are Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. But not only is there no evidence that Leonardo forged the Shroud, it has an undisputed European history from 1355 and Leonardo was born in 1452, nearly a century later. In fact there was a public exposition of the Shroud at Germolles, France in 1452, the year that Leonardo was born[3]. So Picknett and Prince claim that there were two Shrouds: a 14th century Mk I which was transferred to the House of Savoy by Geoffroy de Charny's granddaughter Margaret de Charny in 1453; and a 15th century Mk II which Leonardo created for Pope Innocent VIII (1484-92) in 1492[4] and after the latter's death was given to the House of Savoy in 1494[5]. They ignore the overwhelming evidence that the Shroud we now have is authentic and therefore 1st century, and also they are at odds with the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[6], which they admit[7]. Even leading Shroud sceptic Joe Nickell regards their "claim that Leonardo had created the Shroud of Turin ... a century before the birth of Leonardo" as a "foray into nonsense"![8]. Picknett and Prince claim that they were told by a "Giovanni"[9] [see 14Jul09], a high ranking member of the "Priory of Sion"[10], that Leonardo had faked the Shroud in 1492[11], by inventing photography[12], crucifying a dead (or alive) man[13] and photographing his body and Leonardo's head onto the Shroud's linen[14].

Major problems for Picknett and Prince's Leonardo forged substitute Shroud theory include: ■ The Priory of Sion was a hoax[15] perpetrated by convicted fraudster Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair (1920–2000)[16]. Therefore "Giovanni" never existed and Picknett and Prince, who know about Plantard and his hoax[17], are lying[18] (or worse[19]). ■ Picknett and Prince claim that the Shroud disappeared around 1492, but as Ian Wilson documented, "In that year ... the cloth's effective control [was] in the hands of ... the Dowager Duchess Bianca [Blanche of Montferrat (1472-1519)], a very devout woman who personally exhibited the Shroud at Vercelli in 1494, and who would hardly have failed to notice had this been a different cloth from the one that she and her retinue had carried around during their travels in the preceding years"[20]. The Shroud's movements "are consistently well attested throughout this whole period, automatically reducing to fiction the ... theory that Leonardo da Vinci `invented' it" (my emphasis)[21]. While Leonardo was "in Milan for the next 18 years" from 1482-1499 in the employ of the Duke of Milan, the longest period the Shroud was not being publicly exhibited or seen privately by non-members of the House of Savoy was only ~6 years from 1488-1494[22], far too short a period for the supposed Shroud Mk. I to be out of circulation long enough (Picknett and Prince tacitly admit they need a "forty-year period of obscurity"[23]), for the members of the Savoy family and public, many of whom would have been at both the 1488 and 1494 expositions[24], to forget what it looked like, such that they would then accept without questions Leonardo's Shroud Mk. II. ■ It would have made Leonardo a criminal (and also his House of Savoy accomplices) to have crucified a dead body. And a murderer (and his Savoy accomplices accessories to murder) if the victim had been crucified alive, which Picknett and Prince don't rule out[25]. ■ It would have made Leonardo and his Savoy accomplices guilty of blasphemy, punishable by burning at the stake in 15th century Italy[25], for destroying a relic, let alone one believed to be Jesus' very burial shroud, and replacing it with a forgery. Picknett and Prince admit this, by claiming that Leonardo "... risked his life by faking the ultimate Christian relic" and so "committing ... a grave sacrilege."[26] ■ Leonardo's above crimes claimed by Picknett and Prince would have been quickly found out, because he did not work alone but, "Leonardo maintained an extensive workshop in Milan, employing apprentices and students"[27]. Also Picknett and Prince admit that "Using a camera obscura to project a life-size image ["as on the Shroud"] ... would need ... at least twenty feet of floor space"[28], so Leonardo would have had to use his workshop. Moreover, Picknett and Prince acknowledge that it would take "days" for just the image of the head to be imprinted on the cloth[29]. ■ Picknett and Prince claim that "the Savoys of the fifteenth century" replaced the Shroud because they began "to panic that the relic they owned was no longer convincing to the public of the increasingly discerning Renaissance"[30]. But not only is there is no evidence that the Shroud was not convincing to the 15th century public, it is a false premise that the House of Savoy would replace their old, believed to be genuine relic, even if it was inferior artistically, with a new, artistically superior, fake relic. That would be like a wife replacing her original but inferior quality wedding ring for a new superior quality one, and destroying the original. The whole point of a relic (and a wedding ring) is that it is original, not that it is artistically superior. Besides, Picknett and Prince contradict themselves, because they claim that "Leonardo was never paid for his work on the Turin Shroud because ... it was very disappointing."[31]. ■ Picknett and Prince admit that despite Leonardo having been "a compulsive note-maker" in his notebooks there was not "anything that refers to the Shroud"[32]. They also tacitly admit that there was nothing in Leonardo's notebooks about photography[33]. But if Leonardo did discover photography in the 15th century, "some 350 years before its known invention"[34] by Joseph Nicephore Niepce (1765-1833), in 1826[35], then why would he have used it only once to fake the Shroud? Picknett and Prince agreed that, "if Leonardo were alive today he would be a photographer."[36], but this is a `Freudian slip' which shows that they don't believe their own theory that Leonardo was a photographer then!

Other problems for Picknett and Prince's Leonardo theory include: ■ If the Shroud was a photograph taken by Leonardo it would fail the VP-8 Image Analyzer three-dimensional test as do all other photographs[37]. Picknett and Prince even admit this[38], but then they deny the VP-8 Image Analyzer (and therefore other all other evidence) that the Shroud image does contain three-dimensional information[39]. ■ There is no chemical or spectroscopic evidence of light-sensitive chemicals on the Shroud[40]. Picknett and Prince also admit this but claim that they were "washed out" removing "every trace of the original mixture"[41]. ■ In their attempt to reproduce how Leonardo could have photographed the Shroud's head image, Picknett and Prince added the blood ("theatrical blood") last[42]. They admit that STURP's Alan D. Adler (1931-2000) found that "there is no body image on the cloth underneath the bloodstains"[43] and "No forger would have applied the bloodstains first and then painted the image around them"[44]. So Picknett (a journalist) and Prince (an accountant)[45] simply deny that this is so[46]. For good measure they also deny that it is real blood on the Shroud"[47], forgetting their claim (above) that Leonardo crucified a real human body, possibly alive, for realism!■ There is no evidence of Pope Innocent VIII in Rome ever taking any interest in, or having any control over, the Shroud which was in Chambéry, France; and if the Pope had wanted a relic for a "publicity exercise"[48], he had them in Rome[49] with a then higher credibility than the Shroud[50]. ■ Any conspiracy to replace the Shroud would have had to involve Duchess Bianca of Savoy [ Blanche of Montferrat (1472–1519)], who from 1490 to 1496 was in control of of the Shroud, but it beggars belief (to put it mildly) that this deeply religious young woman would ever be involved in any such criminal and sacrilegious conspiracy[51].■ Further to their lie about "Giovanni" of the non-existent "Priory of Sion" (see above), whose claimed non-existent 13 letters to Picknett, she conveniently destroyed[52]; they claim that Giovanni could not find Ian Wilson, yet his "home address has always been freely available to people seriously interested in the Shroud," and so Giovanni, "singled out Lynn Picknett, who had no known connection with ... the Shroud ... to reveal his society's hitherto closely guarded secret to the world"[53]! Picknett and Prince claimed that Ian he could not find Ian Wilson, whose,"home address has always been freely available to people seriously interested in the Shroud," and "so he singled out Lynn Picknett, who had no known connection with ... the Shroud ... to reveal his society's hitherto closely guarded secret to the world"[53]! In their 1964 book, Picknett claimed that Ian Wilson told her of the year "1492" that, "The Shroud did disappear around then"[54]. But after Wilson in his 1998 book, pointed out, "I would never in my right senses have made this statement, as ought to be obvious from the chronologies of the Shroud set out both in my 1978 book"[55], Picknett and Prince in their 2006 second edition, simply repeated the falsehood verbatim[56]! So presumably when Wilson wrote of "...certain plausible-sounding and publicity-seeking people with absolutely no concern for truth," he was thinking of Picknett and Prince[57]!

Notes:
1. This page, and each page, in my The Shroud of Turin blog topics series, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Shroud of Turin," not the whole page "S"), provided that it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to the page it came from. [return]
2. Jamieson, A., 2009, "Was Turin Shroud faked by Leonardo da Vinci?," The Telegraph, 1 July. [return]
3. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.114. [return]
4. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 1994, "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?: The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.68, 107, 113; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, 2006, Reprinted, 2007, pp.91, 131. [return]
5. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.113; 2006, pp.91, 138. [return]
6. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
7. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.188; 2006, pp.104, 215. [return]
8. Nickell, J., 2007, "Deciphering Da Vinci’s Real Codes," Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 31, No. 3, May/ June. [return]
9. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.64,73; 2006, pp.86,96. [return]
10. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.71; 2006, p.93. [return]
11. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.68; 2006, p.91. [return]
12. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.65, 68; 2006, pp.65, 88. [return]
13. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.65, 68, 157; 2006, pp.87, 88, 91, 188. [return]
14. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.65, 68, 157; 2006, pp.86-87, 91, 188. [return]
15. "Priory of Sion," Wikipedia, 2 July 2016. [return]
16. "Pierre Plantard," Wikipedia, 21 February 2016. [return]
17. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.69, 71-72, 85; 2006, pp.92-93, 95, 109. [return]
18. Wilson, I. 1996, "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised,, pp.178-179. [return]
19. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.188; 2006, pp.210-211. [return]
20. 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.210-212. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.116. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1996, "Shroud History: Highlights of the Undisputed History," Shroud.com. [return]
23. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.110, 113; 2006, pp.134, 138. [return]
24. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.75. [return]
25. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.65; 2006, p.87. [return]
25. Wendel, F., 1963, "Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought," [1950], Mairet, P., transl., Fontana: London, Reprinted, 1965, p.96. [return]
26. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.177-178; 2006, p.225. [return]
27. "Leonardo da Vinci," Encyclopaedia Britannica online, 13 May 2015. [return]
28. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.157; 2006, p.188. [return]
29. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.157; 2006, pp.188-189. [return]
30. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.115; 2006, p.140. [return]
31. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.68; 2006, p.91. [return]
32. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.113, 177; 2006, p.138. [return]
33. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.147; 2006, pp.177-178. [return]
34. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.147; 2006, p.177. [return]
35. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.156; 2006, p.184. [return]
36. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.149; 2006, pp.179-180. [return]
37. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112, 108. [return]
38. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.140; 2006, p.170. [return]
39. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.15, 135, 140-146; 2006, pp.20, 163, 170-176. [return]
40. Adler, 1999, p.108. [return]
41. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.162; 2006, p.194. [return]
42. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.170; 2006, p.204. [return]
43. Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.21. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.210. [return]
46. Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.21. [return]
47. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.15-16; 2006, pp.21-22. [return]
48. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.68; 2006, p.91. [return]
49. Oxley, 2010, p.75. [return]
50. Wilson, 1998, p.212. [return]
51. Oxley, 2010, p.75. [return]
52. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.77; 2006, p.101. [return]
53. Wilson, 1998, p.211. [return]
54. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.188. [return]
55. Wilson, 1998, p.211. [return]
56. Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.210. [return]
57. Wilson, 1996, p.178. [return]

Posted: 30 June 2016. Updated: 9 July 2016.

Friday, June 24, 2016

"New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person," Shroud of Turin News, May 2016

Shroud of Turin News - May 2016
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: May 2016, part #1] [Next: June 2016, part #1]

This is part #2 of the May 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person," Aleteia, Kathleen Hattrup, Paraula, April 11, 2016. Researcher finds complete correspondence in the points where blood flow started. This further confirms what was already

[Above (enlarge): "Transparency acetate on three-dimensional model used in the investigation of Juan Manuel Miñarro. LINTEUM"]

known, that there is a an exact correspondence between blood and lung fluid stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo and the face of the Shroud of Turin (see my 25May16):

"The most striking thing about all the stains [on the face of the Sudarium] is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud."[2]
The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo "almost certainly covered the cadaver of the same person." Considering that both the Shroud and Sudarium covered the dead body of the same person, yet the first undisputed appearance of the Shroud was in ~1355 at Lirey, France[3] and the Sudarium has been in Spain since ~616[4], it is impossible that the Shroud can be a 13th/14th century forgery, and so this is yet more evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[5] was wrong!

This is the conclusion from an investigation that has compared the two relics using forensics and geometry. The article does not say what this "forensics and geometry" was. But from the photo above presumably it involved Prof. Miñarro sculpting a head and face of the man on the Shroud, from the three-dimensional information in his image, overlaying a transparency of the Sudarium on that sculpture's face and head, and then noting the "points that demonstrate the compatibility between both cloths" (see below).

The research was done by Dr. Juan Manuel Miñarro, a sculpture professor at the University of Seville, as part of a project sponsored by the Valencia-based Centro Español de Sindonología (CES) (The Spanish Center of Sindonology). Miñarro's work for the CES is a continuation of the latter's previous artistic and photographic comparisons of the Sudarium and the Shroud face, as evident in the photo below which has "© C.E.S." on it.

[Above (enlarge): "Comparison of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin. A clotted flow of blood appears on the right side of both linens, extending the length of the beard. It is post-mortem blood on both cloths, with a very similar morphology, measured at 1,310 mm2 on the Shroud and 1,980 mm2 on the Sudarium."[6].]

The study thus supports what tradition has held for more than two millennia: that the two cloths came from the same historical person, who, according to this tradition, was Jesus of Nazareth. It is not only "tradition." Leading Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell have admitted that either the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" or "the image is that of Jesus" and there is no "possible third hypothesis":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[7] and Stevenson and Habermas[8] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[9]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'" (my emphasis)[10]
But if the Shroud were a forgery, then so would the Sudarium have to be, with their exact correspondence between blood and lung fluid stains (see above). But then both would have had to have been forged before 616. Then Shroud sceptics would have to abandon the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as being more than six centuries out; and also that Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (†1377-1395) was wrong in his 1389 Memorandum's claim that the image on the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" and one of his Bishop of Troyes predecessors, Henry de Poitiers (†1354-1370), had "discovered ... the artist who had painted it"[11]. Then the problem would be even greater to account for the anatomical accuracy of the Shroud man's wounds and bloodstains[12] and the forger's artistic ability being equal or greater than Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)[13], before the seventh century! Then there is the problem of why a forger would have created the Sudarium with no image on it[14]. On the principle of Ockham's Razor, by far the the simplest and therefore to be preferred explanation[15] is that Jesus of Nazareth is the dead person which both the Sudarium and the Shroud had covered!

The Shroud of Turin would have been the linen that covered that body of Jesus when he was placed in the tomb, while the Sudarium would have been the cloth used to cover his face on the cross after he died. Yes. The word translated "shroud" in:

Mt 27:59: "And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud";
Mk 15:46: And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him [Jesus] down, wrapped him in the linen shroud ..."; and
Lk 23:53: "Then he took it [the body of Jesus] down and wrapped it in a linen shroud ..."
is sindon[16]:
"... a sheet or wrapping of linen ... worn by the Orientals at night (Mark 14:51, 52). Used also for wrapping dead bodies (Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53 ..." (my emphasis)[17]
Whereas the word "Sudarium" is Latin for "handkerchief" (my emphasis)[18] and is based on the Greek word soudarion, "A sweat-cloth, generally a handkerchief, napkin (Luke 19:20; John 11:44; 20:7; Acts 19:12)" (my emphasis)[19], which is the word translated "face cloth" in Jn 11:44 & 20:7[20]:
John 11:44. "The man [Lazarus] who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth ...";
John 20:7. "and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."
Both cloths would be those found by Peter and John in the tomb, as the Gospel recounts. No. Shroud pro-authenticists (including me) want the Shroud to have been found by Peter and John in the tomb, but the Gospel does not recount that. John 20:6-8 recounts that Peter and John found the linen cloths [othonia = "strips of linen" - NIV] and the "face cloth" [soudarion], but not the Shroud [sindon]:
"6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths [othonia] lying there, 7 and the face cloth soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths [othonia] but folded up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple [John], who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed"
As the Irish pro-authenticist theologian Prof. Patrick A. Beecher (1870-1940) rightly pointed out, "After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb":
"The three Synoptic Evangelists, Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke, tell us that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Our Lord in a Sindon (Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53). The Sindon was a large white linen sheet that covered the entire body. The Evangelists carefully distinguish between it and the sudarium (napkin), which latter was in shape and size like a handkerchief, and was used for the head. In addition, as we know from St. John (xix. 40), linen cloths (ta othonia) were used, with spices, according to Jewish custom. After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb. St. John tells us that Peter `saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place' (xx. 6,7). And St. Luke tells us that `Peter rising up, ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves' (xxiv. 12)" (my emphasis)[21].
This is also agreed by pro-authenticists Bulst[22], Guscin[23], and Ruffin[24], that the sindon (shroud) is not mentioned in Jn 20:4-8 as having being present in the tomb when Peter and John entered it.

And as Beecher further pointed out, that Luke in Lk 24:12 does not mention the sindon being present in the empty tomb after Jesus' resurrection, despite him having previously mentioned it in Lk 23:53 as being present in the tomb at Jesus' burial, indicates that the sindon was not in the empty tomb:

"What became of the Sindon? Saints Matthew and Mark are silent and make no reference to any cloths in the [empty] tomb. St. John still speaks of bandages and of the napkin. His silence about the Sindon would have no special significance, inasmuch as he did not refer to it before. But the fact that St. Luke does not now mention the Sindon, which had occupied his attention previously [Lk 23:53], but speaks of cloths [othonia] [25] ... instead [Lk 24:12], would indicate that the Sindon was not in the [empty] tomb"[26] (my emphasis)
Beecher regarded it as "very significant" (as I do) that the Gospel evidence (see above) which indicates that "the Sindon was not in the tomb," is consistent with a very early Christian writing, the Gospel of the Hebrews, which states that the risen Jesus took His sindon with Him out of the tomb:
"And this is very significant in connection with what St. Jerome tells us, on the authority of the Gospel to the Hebrews (a work from which he often quotes), namely, that Our Lord kept His Sindon with Him when He arose from the dead"[27].

See my 2014 series, "Servant of the priest"

The study "doesn't prove in itself that this person was Jesus Christ, This is fallacious in that it involves a physical science definition of "prove," in an experimental sense. I recently scanned to help put online an article in Shroud News, by the late Italian radiologist Luigi Malantrucco (1925-1992), in which he made this same criticism (read the whole article):

"In a recent article by Professor Luigi Gonella [a nuclear physicist] published in Collegamento Pro Sindone (March/ April 1987), once more we find, and well emphasised, this claim: `Scientists maintain that the Shroud authenticity problem is beyond the possibilities of physics since we do not have an identikit of Jesus Christ and, therefore, we could ... never say whether He is the Man of the Shroud.' ... We ought to make it clear, however, that the eventual impossibility is evidently referred to physical sciences (the so-call[ed] quantitative or hard sciences) ... But anyone who has a minimum of experience in forensic medicine knows that very often quantitative sciences are not very useful for identifying corpses. Most useful, and often determinative, are accurate necroscopic analyses, pointing out meaningful details such as scars, tattoos, the outcome of earlier operations or traumatic injuries, marks of prostheses, or even mutilations, small or severe, or marks of known unhealthy processes. And this is often sufficient to give a name to corpses otherwise unrecognisable even by their closest relatives."[28]
But suspects are convicted of crimes every day on far less forensic science evidence than that which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus. See above where even leading Shroud anti-authenticists Schafersman and Nickell concede that either the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" or "the image is that of Jesus."

but it does clearly advance us along the path of being able to indisputably demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium were wrapped around the head of the same cadaver," Miñarro explained to Paraula. Agreed, but what would be the point of that if it could never "prove ... that this person was Jesus Christ"?

Blood stains In fact, the investigation has found a number of correlations between the two relics that "far exceeds the minimum number of proofs or significant points required by most judicial systems around the world to identify a person, which is between eight and 12, while our study has demonstrated more than 20." So how much evidence does Miñarro need, for him to be able to state that, `This study alone proves beyond reasonable doubt "that this person was Jesus Christ"? The same Jesus who warned in Matthew 10:32-33:

"So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
may not be pleased with scientists who are endlessly discovering evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but who never personally state publicly that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus!

Specifically, the research has discovered "very important coincidences" in the principal morphological characteristics (type, size and distances of the markings), the number and distribution of the blood stains, the unique markings from some of the wounds reflected on both of the cloths or the deformed surfaces. Ditto. To the end of the article, Miñarro does not state that the "same person" whom the Shroud and Sudarium covered, was Jesus. If Miñarro was reported correctly (and has not stated it elsewhere), this seems to me to be a form of academic cowardice! (read STURP's Ken Stevenson's "My White Linen-White Paper" where he criticises the same problem with his fellow STURP scientists).

Indeed, the agnostic Yves Delage (1854-1920) puts these presumed Christian scientists to shame, because he declared before the French Academy of Sciences in 1902, that based on his and Paul Vignon's study of Secondo Pia's 1898 Shroud photographs, "The man of the shroud was the Christ":

"Pausing, he [Delage] looked round. `Must I speak of the identification of the person whose image appears on the shroud?' he asked. ... The truth could be reached, he continued, along two separate lines of inquiry. On the one hand, there was the Shroud telling plainly of a victim who had been crucified, flogged, pierced in the side and crowned with thorns. On the other hand, there was the story of Christ's Passion, telling just as plainly of a man who had suffered those very punishments. `Is it not natural to bring these two parallel series together and tie them to the same object?' ... `Let us add to this, that, in order for the image to have formed itself without being ultimately destroyed, it was necessary that the corpse remain in the shroud at least twenty-four hours, the amount of time needed for the formation of the image, and at the most several days, after which a putrefaction sets in which destroys the image and finally the shroud.' ... `Tradition-more or less apocryphal, I would say-tells us that this is precisely what happened to Christ; dead on Friday and-disappeared-on Sunday.' Then, gravely, Delage made his affirmation: `The man of the shroud was the Christ.'"[29]
There are "points that demonstrate the compatibility between both cloths" in the area of the forehead, where there are remains of blood, as well as at the back of the nose, the right cheekbone and the chin, which "present different wounds." And ...?

Regarding the blood stains, Miñarro explained that the marks found on the two cloths have morphological differences, but that "what seems unquestionable is that the sources, the points from which blood began to flow, correspond entirely." And therefore ...?

The variations could be explained by the fact that "the contact with the [cloths] was different" in regard to duration, placement and intensity of the contact of the head with each of the cloths, as well as the "elasticity of the weave of each linen." Agreed that since, even though the Shroud and Sudarium did both cover the face of Jesus, they have different textures and had different histories. So there does not have to be a perfect match of each and every blood and lung fluid stain for them to have covered the face of the same person, namely Jesus.

Certainly, the coincidences demonstrated on the two cloths "are such that now it is very difficult to think that they came from different people," according to Jorge Manuel Rodríguez, president of the CES. And therefore ...?

In the light of this investigation, he said, "we have come to a point where it seems absurd to suggest that `by happenstance' all of the wounds, lesions and swelling coincides on both cloths. ... Logic requires that we conclude that we are speaking of the same person." Agreed. And that "person" is ...?

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Luke 8:17 Disappointingly this article contradicts that. If Miñarro and Rodríguez have been correctly reported, evidently there is something "hidden that will not be disclosed" and something "concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open," by the scientists of the Centro Español de Sindonología (CES), namely that based on their own massive accumulation of forensic evidence that the Shroud and Sudarium covered the face "of the same person," they refuse to state publicly (unless they have said it elsewhere), that that same person was Jesus!

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.27). [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.19; 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.278; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.4, 52; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.222-223. [return]
4. Guscin, 1998, pp.14-15; 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, pp.28-31; 194; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.42; Oxley, 2010, p.182-183. [return]
5. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
6. Bennett, 2001, p.122. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
8. 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, pp.121-129. [return]
9. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
10. Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp.37-56, p.42 in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
11. Wilson, 1979, pp.266-267. [return]
12. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.32-33; Wilson, 1979, pp.34-35; Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, pp.78,127,156; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311,284,294; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.70; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.22,24-25,30. [return]
13. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.78; Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.155; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.69; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.31; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.139; Wilson, 1998, p.201. [return]
14. Whanger, A.D. & M.W., "A Quantitative Optical Technique for Analyzing and Authenticating the Images on the Shroud of Turin," 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.303-324, 312; Guscin, 1998, p.9; Iannone, 1998,p.91; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, pp.56-57; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.11; Bennett, 2001, p.13; Guerrera, 2001, p.41. [return]
15. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.208; Oxley, 2010, pp.242-243. [return]
16. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Second edition, pp.766, 785, 816. [return]
17. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, pp.1290-1291. [return]
18. Kidd, D.A., 1995, "Collins Paperback Latin Dictionary," HarperCollins: London, Latin-English p.210. [return]
19. Zodhiates, 1992, p.1300. [return]
20. Green, 1986, pp.831, 839. [return]
21. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.16. [return]
22. Bulst, 1957, pp.99-100,142. [return]
23. Guscin, 1998, p.10. [return]
24. Ruffin, 1999, p.46. [return]
25. Beecher has "(linteamina)" which is the Latin Vulgate's translation of othonia in Jn 20:5-7. Feuillet, A., 1982, "The Identification & Disposition of the Funerary Linens of Jesus' Burial According to the Fourth Gospel," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #4, September, pp.13-23, p.16. [return]
26. Beecher, 1928, pp.16-17. [return]
27. Beecher, 1928, p.17. [return]
28. Malantrucco, L., 1987, "The Identikit of Jesus," Shroud News, October, No. 43, pp.3-5, 3. [return]
29. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.100-101. [return]

Posted: 24 June 2016. Updated: 17 July 2016.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

The Shroud of Turin blog topics "E"

The Shroud of Turin blog topics #5
© Stephen E. Jones[
1]

Topics "E"

This is the topics page "E" and part #5 of my "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series. See the Index "A-Z" for more information about this series. I will add other topics beginning with "E" in the background as I come to them, working forward in time from my earlier posts.

[Above (enlarge): ENEA's Hercules-L XeCl excimer laser: ENEA FIS-ACC Excimer Laboratory Annual Report 2000-2001. Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development (ENEA) found that it would require a battery of excimer ultraviolet lasers drawing a total power of 34 billion watts to recreate the total Shroud image[2]. It goes without saying that this is beyond medieval technology and may even be beyond 21st century technology! This will be a future "E" topic.]


[Index #1] [Previous "N" #4] [Next "L" #6]

Evolution. The authenticity of the Turin Shroud has the highest relevance to the creation/evolution controversy, because "evolution," in the all-important "standard scientific theory" sense of the word, assumes that Naturalism (see Naturalism) is true, that `nature is all there is' and therefore there is no supernatural, including God. And because there is no God, according to Naturalism, Naturalistic Evolution claims that, "God had no part in this process" (my emphasis) of bringing human beings and everything else into existence. Atheist Michael Shermer in 2002 lamented that only "a paltry 12 percent" of Americans in 2001 accepted the "standard scientific theory" of evolution that "God had no part in this process":

"Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'"[3] (my emphasis).
But if Christianity (see Christianity) is true then Naturalism is false. The Shroud of Turin is empirical evidence that Christianity is true[4] and therefore that Naturalism is false. And if Naturalism is false, then there is no reason to think that Naturalistic Evolution is true, that "God had no part in this process" [30Jun07].

Notes:
1. This page, and each page, in my The Shroud of Turin blog topics series, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Shroud of Turin," not the whole page "S"), provided that it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to the page it came from. [return]
2. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
3. Shermer, M.B., 2002, "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February. [return]
4. Habermas, G.R., 1984, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, pp.158-159; Habermas G.R., 1987, "Affirmative Statement: Gary R. Habermas," in Habermas G.R., Flew A.G.N. & Miethe T.L., ed., "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.28. [return]

Posted: 23 June 2016. Updated: 30 June 2016.