Thursday, January 21, 2016

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the tenth (and an update of a previous) installment of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30," which is also the Main Index of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" series. This series supersedes the "Chronology of the Shroud" in my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." This chronology will be divided into a separate post for each time period, starting with AD 30 and working forwards. I have changed it from one post per century because I now realise that some centuries would be too long (like the 1st century), and other centuries would be too short, for a post. My chronology is inspired by Ian Wilson's "Highlights of the Undisputed History") but is not based on it. To save space throughout this chronology series I will assume, what the evidence overwhelmingly points to, that the man on the Turin Shroud is Jesus Christ. Some dates will necessarily be `educated guesses'.

Main Index
[AD 30] [31-]


AD 30
[Next: 31-]

AD 30 On Friday, 7th April, AD 30[2] Jesus, the man on the Turin Shroud, after having been arrested on the previous night by Jewish Temple guards (Mt 26:47-50; Mk 14:43-46; Lk 22:47-48,52-54; Jn 18:2-8,12) and while bound (Mt 27:2; Mk 15:1, Jn 18:12,24), was struck on his face and head (Mt 26:67-68,27:30; Mk 14:65; Lk 22:64; Jn 18:22; 19:3) and beaten on his body (Mk 14:65; Lk 22:63). Having been sentenced to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, led by the High Priest Caiaphas (r. 18–36), for alleged blasphemy (Mt 26:63-66; Mk 14:53,61-64; Lk 22:66-71), Jesus was then sent to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate (r. 26–36) to ratify the Sanhedrin's death

[Right (enlarge): "Anatomy of the Shroud"[3], showing the wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud match those in the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' passion and death.]

sentence (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1-2; Jn 18:24,28-32). Jesus was then scourged on Pilate's orders with a Roman flagrum (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:16; Jn 19:1) and crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5). Pilate then reluctantly sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion (Mt 27:11-26; Mk 15:2-15; Lk 23:1-5, 18-25; Jn 19:1-16). Having carried his crossbeam a short distance (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26; Jn 19:17), at the site of crucifixion Jesus was stripped of his clothes (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-24) and nailed to a cross through his hands (wrists) and feet (Lk 24:36-40; Jn 20:19-20,24-28; Col 2:14). One of Jesus' last acts while He hung in agony on the cross was to commit His mother Mary, to the care and protection of her nephew and His cousin (see below), the Apostle John (see below) (Jn 19:25-27). Jesus died on that cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30) and because He was dead, Jesus' legs were not broken (Jn 19:31-33), which was to hasten death by asphyxiation[4]. Instead Jesus was speared in the [right] side to make sure he was dead (Jn 19:34-35). Jesus was then given a hasty and incomplete burial[5] because of the impending weekly Sabbath (Mt 27:62; Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54; Jn 19:31), which was also the annual Passover (Mt 26:2,17-19; Mk 14:1,12-16; Lk 22:1,7-15; Jn 13:1;18:28,39;19:14,31), and buried in a cave tomb (Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53-55; Jn 19:41-42). Jesus was buried according to the burial custom of the Jews (Jn 19:40), therefore His hands and feet would have been bound (Jn 19:40) with strips as Lazarus' were (Jn 11:44)[6], to prevent them moving and a Pontius Pilate lepton coin was placed over each eyelid to keep it closed[7]. On the top [epi[8]] = "on, upon" - see below] of his head was a bloodstained face cloth [soudarion] (Jn 20:7; 11:44), the Sudarium of Oviedo (see below), and over all, enveloping his entire body[9], was a large linen sheet [sindon] (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Mk 14:51).

Sunday, 9th April, 30 At dawn on Sunday, three of Jesus' women disciples: Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of James the younger and Joseph; and Salome the mother of the Apostle John and sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (Mt 20:20; Mk 10:35; Mt 27:55-56; Mk 15:40; Jn 19:25)[10], went the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). They found that the large stone which Joseph of Arimathea had rolled across the entrance of the tomb (Mt 27:60; Mk 15:46;16:3) had been rolled away (Mk 16:4; Lk 24:2; Jn 20:1) by an angel (Mt 28:2-4) causing the guards who had been set on Saturday (Mt 27:62-66) to flee (Mt 28:4,11). And when the women went in to the tomb, Jesus’ body was not there (Lk 24:3). While they were in the tomb the angel(s) told them that Jesus had risen from the dead (Mt 28:5-6; Mk 16:5-6; Lk 24:4-6). The women left to tell the other disciples (Mt 28:7-8; Mk 16:7-8; Lk 24:9; Jn 20:1-2) and on the way the risen Jesus met them, spoke with them and they touched him (Mt 28:9-10; Mk 16:9; Jn 20:11-17). The women continued on to tell the other disciples that Jesus' body was not in the tomb and that He had appeared to them (Mt 28:11; Mk 16:8-11; Lk 24:10-11; Jn 20:2,18).

In response to the women's report that Jesus' body was not in the tomb (Lk 24:10-11; Jn 20:1-2; Mk 16:9-11), Peter and "the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved," i.e. John[11], ran to the tomb but John reached it before Peter (Jn 20:4). Then "stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths [othonia = "strips of linen"[12], "linen bandages"[13]] lying there, but he did not go in" (Jn 20:5) (because John was a priest - see future below). Peter then arrived at the tomb, and also "stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths [othonia "strips of linen"[14]] by themselves" (Lk 24:12). Then Peter, "went into the tomb" and "saw the linen cloths [othonia "strips of linen" NIV] lying there" (Jn 20:6). Peter also saw "the face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi "on, upon" not peri "around," "about" [15]] Jesus' head (see below), not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself." (Jn 20:7). Then "the other disciple" (John - see above), "who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed" that Jesus had risen "from the dead." (Jn 20:8-9).

There is no mention of the sindon (Shroud) having been seen by Peter and John in the empty tomb[16], which there surely would have been, because of its dominating size, if it had been there. The eminent pro-authenticist Irish theologian Patrick A. Beecher (1870-1940) in 1928 pointed out that "The Sindon was a large white linen sheet that covered the entire body" but "After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb" (my emphasis):
"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. 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53). 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 (Jn 19:40), 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' (20:6,7). And St. Luke tells us that `Peter rising up, ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves' (24:12)"[17].

And as Beecher further pointed out, that Luke in 24:12 did not mention the sindon being present in the empty tomb after Jesus' resurrection, despite 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" (my emphasis):

"What became of the Sindon? Saints Matthew and Mark are silent and make no reference to any cloths in the 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 [in Lk 24:12], which had occupied his attention previously [in Lk 23:53], but speaks of cloths (othonia) instead, would indicate that the Sindon was not in the tomb."[18].
Attempts to include the sindon in the othonia, or identify it as the soudarion, have failed. It has been claimed that othonia in Lk 24:12 and Jn 20:5 are to be understood in a collective sense as "linen cloths"[19] or "[linen] cloths in general"[20]. But my New Testament Greek lexicons are unanimous in stating that othonia is a plural of othonion, which is a diminutive of othone, "a linen cloth," hence othonion is "a small linen cloth," "a bandage," and othonia its plural, are "strips of linen," "bandages."[21]. This is clear also from the "strips of linen" [othoniois] in which the spices were bound to Jesus' body (Jn 19:40 NIV). Both othoniois and othonia denote the same thing, the only difference being that othoniois is the dative (indirect object) plural of othonion and othonia is the accusative (direct object)) plural of othonion[22].

Likewise attempts to identify the Shroud with "the face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi] Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7)[23] also fail. Again my lexicons are unanimous in stating that the soudarion, is a "face-cloth" corresponding to our "handkerchief" (Lk 19:20, Acts 19:12), and "used as a head covering for the dead" (Jn 11:44; 20:7)[24]. Moreover, the discovery in 1965 by Giulio Ricci (1913-95) that there

[Above (enlarge): "Comparison of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin"[25]. "The most striking thing about all the stains [on the Sudarium of Oviedo] is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud."[26] (my emphasis).]

was a "perfect correspondence" between the bloodstains on the face and head of the man on the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo[27],

[Above (enlarge): The Sudarium of Oviedo[28]. "It was originally a white linen cloth with a taffeta texture, now stained, dirty, and wrinkled"[29]. Its dimensions are "84 cm. x 53 cm. or 2 feet 9 inches x 1 foot 9 inches"[30]. Unlike the Shroud, the Sudarium bears no image[31], so there is no reason why such an unimpressive, bloodstained and dirty cloth would have been kept in the first place unless it was known by the earliest Christians to have been "the face cloth [soudarion] which had been on Jesus' head" and found in the empty tomb "not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself" (Jn 20:7).]

meant that both cloths covered the same face[32]. And since the Sudarium of Oviedo has been in Spain since 616, and indisputably in Oviedo since at least 1075, this is further evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[33] must be wrong[34]! Therefore, in addition to the above negative linguistic evidence that the soudarion ("face cloth") of Jn 20:7 could not have been the sindon ("shroud") of Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53[35]; the positive scientific evidence is that the Sudarium of Oviedo IS the soudarion of Jn 20:7!

Unlike the soudarion which was wrapped around [peridedeto = "bound about"[36]] Lazarus' face (Jn 11:44), Jesus' soudarion had been on His head (Jn 20:7)[37]. The Greek is epi tes kephales ="on the head of him"[38], which is identical to the placing of the crown (which was a cap[39]) of thorns on Jesus' head in Mt 27:29: "and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head" [epi tes kephales][40]. And as Prof. Werner Bulst (1913-95) pointed out (although arguing for the "sweat cloth" [soudarion] being a chin-band) there is a space between the frontal and dorsal head images wide enough to allow for the soudarion having been on the crown or top of the man on the Shroud's

[Above (enlarge)[41]: Gap of about 6½ inches (~16.5 cms) (see below) between the front and back head images, where the bloodstained "face cloth [soudarion] which had been on [epi] Jesus' head", but the image being vertically collimated[42], i.e. straight up and down from the body[43], no image would have been formed there.]

head, since there no image would have been formed:

"Still more interesting, there is no imprint of the crown of the head between the forehead and the dorsal view. If the sweat cloth was tied above, no imprint could be formed there on the Shroud. The space between the frontal and dorsal view is wide enough to allow for the sweat sweat cloth, especially if we suppose that the Shroud was not loosely laid, but drawn quite taut over the head"[44]
Agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow, also arguing for a chin-band, agrees that "something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head":
"There is, in fact, clear evidence that such a band covered the crown of the head: the gap between the frontal and dorsal images. If the Shroud had lain directly on the man's crown, the body-image would have formed here as elsewhere, joining the two figures via a long, sausage-shaped head. The length of the gap, roughly 6½ inches, is too short to allow the cloth to have been raised beyond the range of the image-forming process (somewhere in the order of 2 inches). Therefore, something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head, preventing the imprint forming on the Shroud. Given its apparent shape and the ritual requirement to bind up the jaw, this can hardly have been anything other than a bandage."[45]
However, unlike a normal Jewish death, such as that of Lazarus, "a chin band ... would have served no useful purpose, since, by virtue of the rigor mortis when Jesus was lowered from the cross, where He had remained with the head inclined on the chest, the mouth could not be open."[46]. Furthermore, as Wilson pointed out, albeit arguing wrongly (see above) that the Shroud was the soudarion ("a sweat-cloth"), Jewish law prescribed that if a Jew died a bloody death, then "any clothes, however bloodstained" were to be with the body inside "an all-enveloping ... single sheet," called a sovev, that went "right round ... the entire body":
"But why should Jesus have needed a sweat-cloth [sic] for his entire body and not Lazarus? The answer lies in the fundamentally different circumstances of the two burials. Lazarus died a natural death. ... Jesus, in contrast, died a very bloody death ... In his case Jewish law prescribed something very different. ... In these circumstances, therefore, those preparing the dead person for burial had to wrap a `sheet which is called a sovev' straight over any clothes, however bloodstained. This sovev had to be an all-enveloping cloth, that is a `single sheet ... used to go right round' the entire body. Such a sovev readily corresponds to the `over the head' characteristics of Turin's Shroud."[47]
That same Jewish law would have required the bloodstained soudarion to be inside the sovev/sindon) and in contact with Jesus' body[48], which the top of His head was. So there is no need to posit a hypothetical chin-band. The "face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi] Jesus' head" and found in the empty tomb "not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself"(Jn 20:7), that is, the Sudarium of Oviedo, fits all the evidence, Biblical, linguistic, historical, Jewish and scientific, perfectly!

Between Sundays, 23rd & 30th April, 30[49] According to the late first century/early second century[50] writing, "The Gospel of the Hebrews," preserved only in fragments in some Church Fathers, notably St Jerome (c.347–420)[51], Jesus "had given the linen cloth [sindon] to the servant of the priest" (see 06Nov14 & 15Nov14):

"The Gospel that is called `according to the Hebrews,' which I have recently translated into both Greek and Latin, a Gospel that Origen frequently used, records the following after the Savior's resurrection: `But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went and appeared to James.' (Jerome, Illustrious Men, 2)"[52]
In Jerome's Greek translation of the gospel, "linen cloth" renders sindon[53]. The Gospel of the Hebrews originated in early Judaeo-Christian circles[54]. In fact, many of the Church Fathers believed it was the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew[55]. However, since this seems to say that the risen Jesus appeared to a servant of the High Priest, Caiaphas (or Annas - Lk 3:2), who had recently sentenced Jesus to death (see above), which makes no sense[56], other explanations have been proposed. The most popular being that "servant of the priest" is a copyist error of an original "Simon Peter"[57]. In favour of this is that Peter was the first Apostle to whom Jesus appeared after His resurrection (1Cor 15:5; Lk 24:34) [58]. Jerome believed that "the priest" was James, Jesus' brother (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19)[59], to whom also Jesus did appear (1Cor 15:7). However, attempts to amend either the Greek, the Latin, or the presumed Hebrew text of the gospel have failed[60]. This passage is the first of many statements (see future "Chronology" post) in early Christian extra-biblical writings that Jesus' burial shroud (sindon) had been preserved from His empty tomb[61]

There are multiple lines of evidence that "the servant of the priest" was the Apostle John, of whom there is historical and Biblical evidence that he was a priest and that he had been a servant in the High Priest's household (see 23Nov14 for full quotes of references):

• Historical evidence that the Apostle John was a Jewish priest. Early Church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340) quoted from a letter by Polycrates (c.130–196), a Bishop of Ephesus (where John had ministered and died), who wrote that "John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate (petalon) ..."[62]

• Biblical evidence that John was a servant of the High Priest. John "was known to the high priest" (Jn 18:15-16), and was also known to the High Priest's servant girl (Jn 18:17), who let him through the door into the High Priest's courtyard (Jn 18:15), and then let him bring Peter in also (Jn 18:16). John knew the name of the High Priest's servant Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off (Jn 18:10) and Jesus had healed (Mt 26:51-52; Mk 14:47-48; Lk 22:49-51) and John also knew that one of the High Priest's servants was a relative of Malchus (Jn 18:26). This depth of detailed knowledge of the the High Priest's household is beyond what a fish supplier, or even a relative of the High Priest, would know, let alone write about. The only plausible explanation is that the Apostle John was himself a member of the the High Priest's household, that is, John was himself a servant of the High Priest./p>

• Biblical evidence that John was a priest. Kruse asks, "how do we account for him [John], as a Galilean fisherman, being 'known' to the high priest?" and his only answer is that, "Someone in the fishing industry could have friends among the chief priests"[63]. Hendriksen has no answer and says it "remains a mystery"[64]. Tenney's answer is that:

"... it may be that the [John's] family had connections with the priesthood, either by business relationships or possibly by marital ties. Salome, the mother of John, was a sister of Mary, Jesus' mother (cf. John 19:25 with Mark 15:40), and would have been equally related to Elizabeth, whose husband, Zechariah, was a priest (Luke 1:36)."[65]
Morris' answer also is that John "came from a priestly family" and he also accepts the historical evidence "that John was a priest":
"John seems to have come of a priestly family. The woman Salome, who stood by the cross of Jesus, appears to have been his mother, as a comparison of Mark 15:40 and Matt. 27:56 shows. John does not mention Salome, nor his own mother specifically, but he does speak of the Virgin Mary's sister (John 19:25) in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that she is Salome. Now Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) who is called one `of the daughters of Aaron' (Luke 1:5). Salome thus had priestly connections. The conclusion is that John was of a priestly family and could well have come in contact with the high priest in connection with his priestly duties. This is supported by the passage in the letter of Polycrates (c. 190 A.D.) which says that John `was a priest wearing to petalon (Eusebius HE, III. xxxi, 3) ... Polycrates certainly supports the view that John was a priest"[66]
• The Jewish High Priest was commonly called simply "the Priest"[67]. Examples include: Aaron, the first High Priest was called "Aaron the priest" (Ex 31:10; 35:19; 38:21, etc); "Hilkiah the high priest" (2Ki 22:4,8; 23:4; 2Chr 34:9) was called "Hilkiah the priest" (2Ki 22:10,12,14; 23:24; 2Chr 34:14). There are examples in the Bible where a High Priest is never called "High Priest" but only "the priest": Eleazar (Num 16:39; Josh 14:1); and Phinehas (Josh 22:30). So the Apostle John could have been a servant of the High Priest (either Annas or Caiaphas - Lk 3:2) and be called "the servant of the Priest."

• Further Biblical evidence that John had been a servant of the High Priest. Although John and his brother James had helped their father Zebedee in his fishing business on the Sea of Galilee, they had left it to follow Jesus (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20) and John had a home in Jerusalem (Jn 19:27)[68]. John had a detailed and accurate knowledge of the geography of Judea and the features of Jerusalem before its destruction in AD 70, which one would not expect from a Galilean fisherman[69]. The Gospel of John, much more than the other gospels, gives details of Jewish feasts and purification rites, which would have been especially important to a Jewish priest: the Passover (Jn 2:13,23; 5:1; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28); the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2, 37, 38); and the Feast of Dedication (Jn 10:22, 23)[70]. This is further Biblical evidence that John was a priest and had been based in Jerusalem, as would be the case if he had been a servant of the High Priest.

To be continued in the eleventh installment of this "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30."

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 here. [return]
2. Finegan, J., 1964, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, pp.296,300; Doig, K.F., 2015, "New Testament Chronology: Part IV, The Crucifixion of Jesus" & "The 30 CE Crucifixion," 22 April. [return]
3. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve ... The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.736-737. [return]
4. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, pp.84-87; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, pp.22-23; 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.48-49. [return]
5. Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," 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, pp.24-25; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.87-88; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.116-117,120. [return]
6. Except in Lazarus' burial the strips binding his hands and feet [Gk keiriais] were primarily bands and not necessarily linen: "a band, either for a bed-girth ... or for tying up a corpse" (Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.343); "bandage, grave-clothes" (Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, p.427). That John uses a different word "keiriais" of Lazarus' gravecloths instead of othonia which he used of Jesus' gravecloths (see above) implies that Lazarus' were not linen. [return]
7. Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J., Mottern, R.W. & Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image On Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, 1977, pp.290-291; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.38-39; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, pp.30-31; 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, pp.107-108. [return]
8. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Second edition, p839. All New Testament Greek words in this post are from Green, 1986, at the respective verses. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.45-46; Wilson, 1998, pp.54-55. [return]
10. Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Two Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One," [1959], Banner of Truth: London, Third Edition, Vol. II, p.978; Morris, L.L., 1971, "The Gospel According to John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1984, pp.810-811; Tenney, M.C., "The Gospel of John," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1981, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9: John - Acts," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.182. [return]
11. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. II, pp.23-25, 448; Tenney, 1981, pp.5-7, 188; Morris, 1971, pp.8-11; Barker, K., ed., 1985, "The NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.1591; Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.28-30, 375. [return]
12. Jn 20:5 NIV; Tenney, 1981, p.187; Kruse, 2003, p.375. [return]
13. Hendriksen, 1964, II:448. [return]
14. Lk 24:12 NIV; Liefeld, W.L., "Luke," in Gaebelein, 1984, p.1049. [return]
15. Thayer, 1901, p.231, 501; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, pp.166, 231; Bauer, et al., 1979, pp.285-286; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.51. [return]
16. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.82. [return]
17. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.16. Footnotes omitted and verse references modernised. Transliterations mine. [return]
18. Beecher, 1928, pp.16-17. Greek othonia has been substituted for Beecher's Latin "linteamina" error. [return]
19. Bulst, 1957, p.88; Ruffin, 1999, pp.46-47; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.33. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.58; Wilson, 2010, p.50. [return]
21. Bagster, S., ed., 1870, "The Analytical Greek Lexicon," Samuel Bagster and Sons: London, c. 1960, reprinted, p.283; Thayer, 1901, p.439; Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.411; Bauer, et al., 1979, p.555; Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.1028. [return]
22. Bagster, 1870, p.283. [return]
23. Wilson, 1979, pp.58,60; Wilson, 1986, p.45; Wilson, 1998, p.55; Wilson, 2010, pp.51-52, 297. [return]
24. Thayer, 1901, p.439; Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.311; Bauer, et al., 1979, p.759; Zodhiates, 1992, p.1028. [return]
25. Bennett, J., 2001, 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.122. [return]
26. Guscin, 1998, p.27. [return]
27. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.137; Bennett, 2001, p.17. [return]
28. Guscin, M., 1997, "The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin," Shroud.com. [return]
29. Bennett, 2001, p.13. [return]
30. Ricci, 1981, p.137; Guscin, M., 1996, "The Sudarium of Oviedo," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 43, June/July. [return]
31. 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, 312-313; Guscin, 1996. [return]
32. Guscin, 1998, pp.28,32,64,87; Guscin, M., 1999, "Recent Historical Investigations on the Sudarium of Oviedo," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.122-141, 124-125; Bennett, 2001, p.79. [return]
33. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, , pp.611-615, 611. [return]
34. Guscin, 1998, pp.32,64,110; Bennett, 2001, p.79. [return]
35. Bennett, 2001, pp.146-148. [return]
36. Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.207. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, p.59; Wilson, 2010, p.51. [return]
38. Robinson, 1977, p.26. [return]
39. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.35; Barbet, 1953, p.94; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.34; Wilson, 1986, p.20; Guscin, 1998, p.30; Ruffin, 1999, pp.42-43; Wilson, 2010, p.44. [return]
40. Barbet, 1953, pp.34,51. [return]
41. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
42. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.184-189, p.188; Adler, A.D., "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, p.18. [return]
43. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.118; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.35, 130. [return]
44. Bulst, 1957, pp.95-96. [return]
45. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.147-148. [return]
46. Bennett, 2001, p.150. [return]
47. Wilson, 2010, p.52. [return]
48. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.313. [return]
49. Assumed, since according to 1Cor 5:7, Jesus appeared to James, after He had "appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time" (1Cor 5:6), which presumably was His Great Commission appearance in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20. See Mt 28:7,10; Mk 14:28; 16:7); which would presumably take those in Jerusalem a week to walk there (the distance by road between Jerusalem and Capernaum being ~196 kms or ~120 miles). [return]
50. Bulst, 1957, pp.87, 144; Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, No. 3, Autumn, pp.319-345; Guscin, M., 2004, "The History of the Sudarium of Oviedo: How It Came from Jerusalem to Northern Spain in the Seventh Century A.D.," Edwin Mellen Press: Lewiston NY, p.18. [return]
51. Beecher, 1928, p.17; Barnes, 1934, p.50. [return]
52. Ehrman B.D., 2003, "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did not Make It into the New Testament," Oxford University Press: New York NY, p.16. [return]
53. Barnes, 1934, p.50; Bulst, 1957, p.87; Green, 1969; Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.69-81, 75. [return]
54. Bulst, 1957, p.142. [return]
55. Green, 1969; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.74. [return]
56. Barnes, 1934, p.50. [return]
57. Schonfield, H., "Historical Supplement," in Proszynski, K. & Schonfield, H., ed., 1932, "The Authentic Photograph of Christ: His Face, and Whole Figure as Marvellously Appearing on the Shroud which was Thrown Over His Body after the Crucifixion," The Search Publishing Co Ltd: London, pp.54-55; Barnes, 1934, p.50; Humber, 1978, p.74; Wilson, 1979, pp.92-93; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.74. [return]
58. Guscin, 200, p.18. [return]
59. Ruffin, 1999, pp.52-53. [return]
60. Guscin, 2004, pp.18-19; Fulbright, D., 2008, "A Note on `the Servant of Peter'," in Fanti, G., ed., 2009, "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, p.435. [return]
61. Scavone, 1989, p.74; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.14. [return]
62. Eusebius, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," Cruse, C.F., transl., 1955, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing, 1966, Book V, Chapter xxiv, p.208. [return]
63. Kruse, 2003, p.353. [return]
64. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. II, pp.390-391. [return]
65. Tenney, 1981, p.182. [return]
66. Morris, 1971, p.752. [return]
67. "High Priest of Israel: Biblical narrative," Wikipedia, 23 December 2015. [return]
68. Tenney, 1981, p.182. [return]
69. Kruse, 2003, p.30; Tenney, 1981, p.6. [return]
70. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. I, p.18. [return]

Posted: 21 January 2016. Updated: 8 February 2016.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index A-Z

This is my alphabetical index, A-Z, to where mentions of "forger," "forgery," etc, occur in Shroud literature on my system. This will help speed up finding references for the "Problem for the forgery theory" sections in my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series. To save space I will use an abbreviated in-line referencing format, with a link to each reference, but no return. I will progressively add to this post in the background, and when it gets too long, I will split it into A-M and N-Z, and so on. I have added this page to "My Links" (right) so interested readers can more easily find it. Entries may be incomplete and disjointed at first-this is a work in progress!

New/updated: 24Jan06 hands, Leonardo da Vinci; 25Jan06 d'Arcis, Pierre; 08Feb16: anatomical, crucifixion, faint, linen cloth, missing parts, negative, radiocarbon dating, scourged, STURP, style. These (and other posts') notices of updates in the background will be listed in each next Shroud of Turin News and then re-started.


PROBLEMS OF THE FORGERY THEORY:
INDEX A-Z
© Stephen E. Jones

[Above [enlarge) [LtnM10a]: Bloodstains on the forehead of the man on the shroud, including the "reversed `3'", which perfectly show the distinction between arterial and venous blood, discovered by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603) in 1593 [RdnS81p5]. So in addition to his many `accomplishments', the unknown medieval or earlier forger of the Shroud would have discovered the circulation of blood, at least ~238 years before Cesalpino!]


anatomical Medieval forger's understanding of anatomy would have been far in advance of that of all his contemporaries[ChlT99p291].

before 1355 Forgery would have had to be in the 14th century[BrbP53p30] before the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France, in c. 1355 [AdmF82p88].

blood
- arm There is a blood mark behind the man's right elbow but no body image[AntM00p79]. Forger would not have painted a blood mark where there is no body image[AntM00p79].
- first No image under blood, so blood was on cloth before image and prevented image forming[AdlA99p104]. Forger would have had to paint with blood around image[AdlA99p105], which was virtually impossible[AdlA00p129].
- reversed `3' A modern painter, unless he had a thorough knowledge of the physiology of coagulation, could not portray this frontal clot (above) without making a blunder [BrbP53p96-7].
- serum ring Every blood clot has a serum retraction ring, visible in ultraviolet[AdlA99p104]. Forger would have to paint a near-invisible serum ring around every clot, which he would not know was required[AdlA99p105], and was virtually impossible[AdlA00p129].
- stereoregister Blood is out of stereoregister with body image[AdlA99p104]. Forger would have to paint with blood around image out of stereoregister[AdlA99p105], which was virtually impossible[AdlA00p129].

coins over the eyes Fr Francis Filas (1915-85) identified the disk over the right eye as a lepton coin struck during the rule of Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judaea from AD 26–36 (who had Jesus crucified in AD 30), with a misspelling "U CAI" for "U KAI" in the Greek inscription "TIBERIOU KAISAROS"[IanJ98p36] (Tiberius Caesar (42BC–AD37) [AdmF82p90]. Leptons were later found with that misspelling [AdmF82p90]. Excludes forgery[AdmF82p90], as forger would have had to obtain a rare misspelled lepton and imprint its image on the Shroud. But such a coin is very unlikely to have been owned by a forger in the 13th-14th centuries[MrnM91p295]. Details on coins over eyes were only discovered by three-dimensional relief and enlargement of Shroud negatives[AntM00p108]. Impossible for forger to encode such tiny, near-invisible details over Shroud eyes[AntM00p108].

crucifixion A medieval forger would also need to have been the only human being between the time of the Emperor Constantine (c.272–337) and our own to have been completely conversant with the details of Roman crucifixion[ChlT99p292].

d'Arcis, Pierre Bishop Henri de Poitiers (1327-70) in 1356 praised the Lirey church, when a year earlier, according to the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (1300-95), de Poitiers had discovered the forger who had painted the Shroud exhibited there in 1355, which is inconceivable[AntM00p152]. And if the Shroud had been painted by a living forger, then the Lord of Lirey, Geoffroy I de Charny (1300-56) and the canons of Lirey church, would have known that [and so would the locals] and would not have exhibited the Shroud in 1355[BlstW57p13]. Nor would Pope Clement VII (1478-1534), having heard Bishop d'Arcis' objections, allowed the second exposition to comtinue in 1389[BlstW57p13].

faint How did a medieval artist know how to paint a pale, diffuse yellow image that disappears if you look at it close-up[CseT96p25]?

forger Forger would have made a blunder which would have betrayed him[BrbP53p90,97].

forgery Critics who denounce the Shroud as a forgery have been unable to agree on a method, a place, or an artist[AntM00p154]. It is impossible to forge the Shroud with today's technology, much less during medieval times[AntM00p154,234].

hands Thumbs are not visible on the Shroud[BrbP53p119]. Surgeon Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) found that when a nail passes through Destot's place in the wrist, the median nerve is injured and causes the thumb to contract into the palm[BrbP53p118-9]. But a forger would not have known this[B&R78p44] nor portray it even if he did[BrbP53p119].

Leonardo da Vinci Forger would have been a genius as great as Leonardo[B&R78p78].

linen cloth That a medieval forger went to the trouble of procuring a piece of ancient eastern linen cloth to make his forgery as realistic as possible does not fit in with the medieval mentality, to which historical realism considerations were foreign[BlstW57p29].

missing parts The Shroud man has body parts either missing or so dim they can scarcely be seen, e.g. on the frontal view the feet and lower half of the shins[BlstW57p32]. The dorsal view is clearer but if the Shroud were the work of a forger, this would be hard to conceive, especially since the missing parts are supplied in medieval copies of the Shroud[BlstW57p32].

negative Forger would have to have painted a negative image, an unimaginable conception before the invention of photography [in early 19th century] [BrbP53p30]. The forger would have to have had a grasp of the negative-positive properties of photography five centuries in advance of his time[ChlT99p291]. How did a medieval artist paint the Shroud image so that after photography was invented 600 years later, a negative of a photograph of the Shroud would be a clear, three dimensional image[CseT96p25]?

nails Entry point of nails was in wrists (above), but forger would not have known that, nor have the boldness to represent it if he did[BrbP53p117-8].

non-traditional Forger would not have contradicted all artistic traditions[BrbP53p90]. He would have conformed to tradition and depicted the nails in the palms of the hands, but it would not have supported a body's weight and torn away[BrbP53p114-5].

pollen According to forensic botanist Max Frei (1913-83), forger would have had to acquire from Palestine a sheet of linen carrying pollen of that zone [AdmF82p88]. Then forger would have had to obtain pollen from Anatolia and Constantinople [AdmF82p88-89].

radiocarbon dating In 1988 radiocarbon dating at laboratories in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford found the Shroud linen was made between 1260 and 1390, proving the Shroud was a medieval forgery, or so it seemed[CseT96p16].

science Scientific testing could readily establish if Shroud were a forgery, e.g., a painting [H&A81p36].

scourged Forger would have had to encode intricate details, some invisible, on each of the 100-120 scourge marks[AntM00p77]. If he had got just one of these scourge marks wrong, it would have betrayed his work as a forgery[AntM00p77]. Some of the scourge marks are visible only under ultraviolet light, so a forger would have to `paint' them invisible to his naked eye, so they could only be seen with ultraviolet equipment to be invented ~650 years later[CseT96p40].

STURP STURP scientists had expected in 1978 to find evidence than an artist had made the image but they could not[CseT96p15].

style Every artist is identifiable by his style, but the Shroud image has no style as a photograph doesn't[ChlT99p291-2].

Vignon, Paul Paul Vignon (1865-1943), was a French artist and biologist[B&R78pp35-6]. He was confident that he would demonstrate how a forger had created the Shroud[B&R78p36]. But after studying the Shroud photographs taken in 1898 by Secondo Pia (1855–1941) and interviewing Pia in Turin, Vignon accepted that Pia's photographs were genuine and that Shroud image was a photographic negative (above)[B&R78p36]. Vignon then realised that a forger could not have painted the image in negative as he would not have been able to see what he was doing to include so much fine detail[B&R78p36]. From further study of Pia's photographs, Vignon asserted that no forger could have produced such a complex network of injuries[B&R78p40]. Vignon also realised that no forger in the fourteenth century would have depicted Jesus nude[B&R78p40]. Moreover, there were no signs of decomposition on the Shroud image, meaning that the body had been in the Shroud only a few days[B&R78p40]. This and other details of the Shroud image matched the Bible story of Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection![B&R78p40-1]. Based on Vignon's researches, his supervisor at the Sorbonne, Prof. Yves Delage (1854–1920), an agnostic, presented a paper in 1902 to the French Academy of Sciences, in which Delage concluded, "The man of the Shroud is the Christ!"[B&R78p41].

To be continued in the background.

REFERENCES
Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
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.
Adler, A.D., 2000, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138.
Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963.
Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, pp.36-37.
Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI.
Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY.
Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH.
Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.34-57.
Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
Latendresse, M., 2010a, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org.
Moroni, M., "Pontius Pilate's Coin on the Right Eye of the Man in the Holy Shroud, in the Light of the New Archaeological Findings," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX.
Rodante, S., 1981, "The Coronation of Thorns in the Light of the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #1, December, pp.4-24.

Posted: 20 January 2016. Updated: 8 February 2016.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Summary of evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date

I was emailed on 13 January 2016 by leading pro-authenticist Joe Marino to let me know, and presumably for me to share on this blog, that he had "put online pt 1 of 3 part article dealing with the politics of the Shroud dating: http://newvistas.homestead.com/C-14PoliticsPt1.html."

[Above (enlarge): Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory staff and Rochester laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove (second from right) around the AMS computer control console terminal, after, or before it had, on 6 May 1988 displayed the alleged hacked radiocarbon age of the Shroud, "640 years", which was then calibrated to the `too good to be true' date "1350 AD" (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.176H, 264). The alleged leaker and hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is in the black shirt, most prominently in the foreground (which is presumably significant-see future part #6, "Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the hacker").]

A few hours later I emailed Joe the following reply (with my emphases and minor corrections). This was a summary of my "Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first `1350 AD' date" in my recent post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #5." I did that because, even if one does not accept my full theory that Timothy W. Linick was the alleged hacker who computer-generated the Shroud's "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date, one should at least accept that Linick was the primary leaker of Arizona's "1350" date, as that is (as can be seen below) simpler, straightforward, and free of complex `conspiracy theory' objections.

Joe emailed me back with no commitment to include it in subsequent parts of his three-part article (which is up to him and they may have already been written) but he did promise to "look closely at all the excerpts" I provided. Which is something!


Joe

Thanks. I will mention it in my January 2016 Shroud of Turin News post, in mid-February. [I later thought of instead posting it this way before then].

Are you going to mention in subsequent parts that Timothy W. Linick (whom I allege was a hacker who computer-generated the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date) was inexplicably mentioned in Sox's August 1988 book?:

"The night before the test Damon told Gove he would not be surprised to see the analysis yield a date around the fifth-century, because after that time the crucifixion was banned and a forger would not have known of the details depicted so accurately on the Shroud. Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'" (Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147)
And since Sox was undoubtedly the secondary source of the leak of Arizona's first-run "1350" date [added below in square brackets]:
"[Hardly had this wave of publicity died down before on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran as its front-page lead story `Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake'. Accompanying this was a seemingly authoritative article by librarian Dr. Richard Luckett of Magdalene College, Cambridge, cryptically remarking that `laboratories are rather leaky institutions' and `a probable date of about 1350 looks likely'. ...] On 18 September the Sunday Times carried the front page headline `Official: Turin Shroud is a Fake', accompanied inside by the Science Correspondent's full page feature `Unravelled: The Riddle of the Shroud'. This included some of the background material supplied by me, plus the new `leaked' information on the dating, which although described as `official' was backed up by no directly quoted source. Since checks with Professor Hall of Oxford and Dr. Tite of the British Museum again established that neither had been responsible, I complained to the Sunday Times Editor with particular regard to the `official' headline. This prompted a conciliatory phone call from the Science Correspondent who when challenged directly, admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. He said he had in front of him the Revd Sox's already complete book about the Shroud's mediaeval date, awaiting publication the moment this news becomes formally released. Sadly, as evident from a Daily Mail article of September 19, Professor Gonella and Cardinal Ballestrero in Turin have attributed the succession of apparent `leaks' emanating from England to malicious breaches of confidentiality on the part of the Oxford laboratory scientists and Dr. Tite. It seems clear that they have been mistaken, and that the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman whose identity will now be self-evident.' (Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [Emphases "Revd. David Sox" added])
the inference is irresistible that Linick was the original source of the leak of Arizona's first run "1350" date [to Sox].

And Gove at least (and presumably many others in the laboratories since Sox's was the first book published about the radiocarbon dating), who is mentioned in Sox's book, on that same page, as telling his partner Shirley Brignall the 1350 date:

"Donahue's wife, who believed the Shroud was genuine, was going for 2000 years. So was Shirley Brignall. She and Gove had a bet. Gove said 1000 years although he hoped for twice that age. Whoever lost was to buy the other a pair of cowboy boots. The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested. Gove would be taking cowboy boots back to Rochester." (Sox, 1988, p.147)
had to admit in his 1996 book that he had done that:
"I had a bet with Shirley on the shroud's age-she bet 2000 ±100 years old and I bet 1000 ±100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy boots. Although my guess was wrong, it was closer than Shirley's. She bought me the cowboy boots. The reader, by now, will have guessed that despite the agreement I had signed, I told Shirley the result that had been obtained that day. She and I had been associated with this shroud adventure now for almost exactly eleven years-there was no way I could not tell her. I knew she would never violate my confidence and she never did. (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.265)
must have realised that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first run "1350" date, since Gove by a process of elimination had worked out that the leaker was "someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement":
"I must say I wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988. Of course, it also corresponds very closely to the shroud's known historic date. However, I still assumed Luckett had said he got the number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement. However, it did not really matter now since all three labs had submitted their results to the British Museum and so none of them could be influenced by this real or imagined leak. Shirley convinced me that it was, in fact, a guess as Hall had stated. After all, the historic date for the shroud was circa 1353 when de Charny founded the church in Lirey, France purportedly to house the shroud. (Gove, 1996, pp.279-280)
but Gove pretended it "did not really matter" and was just "a guess."

So there must have been repercussions against Linick for breaching his signed confidentiality agreement, "not to communicate the results to anyone":

"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility. I had asked Donahue to let Shirley attend this historic event since she had been involved in the shroud dating enterprise from the beginning. He said he had been asked to allow the Bishop of Arizona to be present and had turned him down. Under these circumstances he regretted he could not make an exception for Shirley-a deep disappointment for her. I would be the only one present outside the Arizona AMS group. Doug immediately asked me to sign the following statement:`We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the results to anyone- spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public.' It had been signed by D J Donahue, Brad Gore, L J Toolin, P E Damon, Timothy Jull and Art Hatheway, all connected with the Arizona AMS facility, before I signed. My signature was followed by T W Linick and P J Sercel, also from the Arizona facility." (Gove, 1996, p.262)
which presumably contributed to Linick' suicide in 1989, mentioned in his half-brother Anthony's (they had the same father but different mothers) biography of his stepfather Ingolf Dahl):
"Ten years earlier, to follow some of the characters who peopled the early pages of this book, Dora Linick, my step-grandmother, if there is such a designation, died. Adolph Linick, my grandfather, died in 1967 at the age of 97. On my rare visits to Laurel Avenue during his old age he would always slip me a dollar bill. Once I heard him complain, in the wake of the Holocaust,`God must hate the Jews!' His son, my father Leroy, died in 1986. His son, my half-brother Timothy, took his own life at age 42 in 1989." (Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse, p.619. Emphasis original)
[Anthony Linick confirmed to me by email that this "Timothy" was indeed the Arizona radiocarbon dating physicist Timothy W. Linick. But I already knew that because the "W" stands for "Weiler" and at page 539 of the book it states that Anthony Linick's father Leroy divorced his mother Etta and married again a "Delphine Weiler" who later gave birth to Timothy Weiler Linick.].

See my recent post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #5."

Regards.

Stephen


Posted: 19 January 2016. Updated: 19 January 2016.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Double image #10: 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
DOUBLE IMAGE #10
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #10 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: Naked #9] [Next: Faint #11]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Double image #10

Introduction. The man on the Shroud is a double image[2]: front and back, head to head[3].

[Above (enlarge): "The Holy Shroud" by Giovanni Battista della Rovere (1561-1627) in the Galleria Sabauda, Turin, Italy[4]. Della Rovere showed how the double image of the man on the Shroud (held by angels) came to be imprinted on the cloth[5]. His body was first laid on one end of the cloth, then the remainder was drawn over his head and down to his feet[6].]

Front and back The double image of the man on the Shroud is of his front and back[7] (or frontal and dorsal[8]).

[Right (enlarge): 1931 negative photograph by Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961) of the man on the Shroud's double image: front and back, head to head[9]. As can be seen, at the top of the back image there is a blank space over the feet[10]. This is due to the man having been laid on the back half of the cloth with his feet too far (~8-10 cms[11]) from the edge, leaving the front half not long enough (~2.5 cms short[12]) to cover his feet[13]. So the back end was brought up over his toes to overlap the front end[14], hence the blank area. This is very significant (see below).]

Head to head. As can be seen [right], the front and back images are head to head[15], which indicates that the body was laid on one end of the cloth while the remainder was drawn over the head and down to the feet[16] (see above). There is a gap of about 6½ inches[17] (~16.5 cms) between the two head images[18], which is the top of the head[19] and which bears no image[20]. The apparent image between the front and back head images is a waterstain from extinguishing the 1532 fire[21].

The first known depiction of the Shroud's double image. The first known depiction[22] of the Shroud's double image[23], front and

[Above: (enlarge)[24]: Pilgrim's badge, found in the mud of the River Seine, Paris, in 1855[25].]

back[26], head to head[27], was on a lead badge (above), preserved in the Musée de Cluny, Paris[28], which was worn by a pilgrim[29] to or from the Shroud's to the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud in c. 1355 at Lirey, France[30].

Problem for the forgery theory. This is yet another (see previous three #6, #7 & #9) problem for the medieval forgery theory. Since the Cluny Museum's Lirey pilgrim's badge is the first known depiction of the Shroud's full-length, double body image, a medieval forger would not have had any Christian work of art on which to base his forgery of the Shroud. But then, as Paul Vignon (1865-1943) pointed out, "departure from tradition ... can never have been knowingly done by a forger, whose ... intention would have been to appeal ... to the imagination of his public":

"Now let this be well noted: every time that we find in the Holy Shroud some strangeness, some departure from tradition, we may feel assured that such strangeness, such departure, can never have been knowingly done by a forger, whose direct intention would have been to appeal forcibly to the imagination of his public."[31]
And as Alfred O'Rahilly (1884–1969) observed, the Shroud was not "in accordance with contemporary and previous portrait painting" and amongst other disadvantages, its "two full body-lengths would make exposition very difficult":
"Our difficulties continue when we come to consider the alleged anonymous painter of about 1350. Previously to 1898, a shroud more impressive to the eye, more in accordance with contemporary and previous portrait painting, would have been far more popular. What could have induced an artist to give us these obscure smudges whose details have been unravelled only in our own time? He chose a most inconvenient size; the two full body-lengths would make exposition very difficult. Five visible wounds would have better satisfied the devotional requirements of the time; yet on the shroud the wound in one hand is completely covered by the other hand, and only in our day has the wound in the right sole been located. He broke with traditional iconography; Our Lord's body was depicted nude, so copyists hastened to add a loin-cloth; the wound in the right hand is located in the wrist; the sufferings were depicted with brutal realism. Moreover, there was a waste of incredible subtlety; for all the various physiological and anatomical details, presumably inserted in defiance of current artistic procedure, remained entirely unnoticed and unknown for about 550 years."[32]
Further, as as we saw in part #4, the Shroud's weave was expensive, so a double body length sheet of it would be an unnecessary additional expense for a forger. And as Noel Currer-Briggs (1919-2004) points out by asking, "Why did he [the forger] draw Christ in this particular way - with frontal and dorsal image of the body? ... Hardly for monetary gain":
"There is simply no genius of this calibre known to art historians capable of creating such a masterpiece at this period. But that does not mean there was not such a genius; after all, he could have worked in total isolation and produced no other work of a comparable nature. So let us assume that he did live in some remote monastery or castle unknown to the rest of the world outside. Why did he draw Christ in this particular way - with frontal and dorsal image of the body? what could his reasons have been? Hardly for monetary gain. There is no record of the Shroud having been bought or sold before the mid-fifteenth century."[33]
Finally, as mentioned above as "very significant," the man was laid on the back half of the cloth with his feet too far from the edge, leaving the front half not long enough to cover his feet, so the back end was brought up over his toes to overlap the front end. As Ian Wilson points out, "this is just the sort of mistake that someone enshrouding a genuine body might easily have made" but "an artist-forger would ... have made sure he 'imprinted' ... the body's front half in full":
"No less convincing a pointer to the Shroud being genuinely an ancient Jewish grave cloth, rather than a faked semblance, is the fact that its imprints are not just a straightforward 'front-half' and `back-half' of the `sandwich-board' variety, as any artist-forger would have concocted it, and as artists indeed sometimes unthinkingly copied it during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Instead the front half, rather than, as might be expected, extending all the way down to and beyond where the man of the Shroud's toes would have been, stops at least 2.5cm short, with the recently discovered hem showing that it never had any more length in its `finished' form. Yet in the case of the back half a region of blank cloth carries on for as much as 8 or 10cm beyond where the toes can be seen. Because of this overlap, the Shroud would therefore have been turned back over the short front half in order to make a neat funerary 'parcel'. Although this is just the sort of mistake that someone enshrouding a genuine body might easily have made, since after all, they would hardly have been expecting any image to form, an artist-forger would almost certainly have made sure he 'imprinted' at least the body's front half in full, leaving any 'skimping' to the less important back half."[34].

To be continued in part #11 of this series.

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. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.2; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.12; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.2; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.7. [return]
3. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.18; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.33. [return]
4. "The Holy Shroud (oil on canvas)," by Giovanni Battista della Rovere, (1561-1627)," Bridgeman Images, Berlin, Germany. [return]
5. Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, pp.19-20; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.164; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.176. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.21; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.12; 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.12; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.169. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.113; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.1; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.3; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.3; 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.4; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.12. [return]
8. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.39; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.1; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.31; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, pp.2, 11; Adler, A.D., 1996, "Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin," 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.81-86, p.81; Baima-Bollone, P. & Zaca, S., 1998, "The Shroud Under the Microscope: Forensic Examination," Neame, A., transl., St Pauls: London, p.6; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.60; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.1. [return]
9. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Horizontal," (rotated left 90 degrees), Sindonology.org. [return]
10. Wilson, 2010, p.10. [return]
11. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B.M., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.46. [return]
12. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.46. [return]
13. 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.36. [return]
14. de Wesselow, 2012, p.13. [return]
15. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.9; Wuenschel, 1954, p.14; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.12. [return]
16. McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.23; Heller, 1983, p.vii; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.4; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.33; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.12; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.18. [return]
17. de Wesselow, 2012, p.148. [return]
18. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.12; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.37; Wilson, 1979, p.54. [return]
19. Wilson, 1986, p.4. [return]
20. Bulst, 1957, p.96; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.164. [return]
21. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve...The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-753, 740; 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.13. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.224d; Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.12. [return]
23. Foster, A., 2012, "The Pilgrim's Medallion / Amulet of Lirey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 75, June. [return]
24. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
25. Wilson, 1991, pp.21, 78C; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127. [return]
26. Adams, 1982, pp.30-31; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.97. [return]
27. Scavone, D.C., 1995. "Letter To The Editor From Professor Dan Scavone," BSTS Newsletter, No. 41, September; Tribbe, 2006, p.42. [return]
28. Wilson, 1979, pp.194, 224D; Adams, 1982, p.30; Wilson, 1979, p.194; Wilson, 1986, p.4; Wilson, 1991, p.78C; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127; Ruffin, 1999, p.64; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Oxley, 2010, pp.49, 106; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
29. Adams, 1982, p.31; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.15; Wilson, 1991, pp.20-21; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, pp.126-128; Ruffin, 1999, p.64; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Oxley, 2010, pp.49, 52, 106; Wilson, 2010, p.222; de Wesselow, 2012, p.14; Foster, 2012. [return]
31. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.32. [return]
32. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, p.53. [return]
33. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.155. [return]
34. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.45-46. See also Wilson, 1998, pp.36-37Wilson, 2010, p.10. [return]

Posted: 13 January 2016. Updated: 20 January 2016.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Shroud of Turin News - December 2015

[Previous: November 2015] [Next: January 2016]

This is the December 2015 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. See the April 2015 issue for more information about this series. Following my editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related December 2015 news articles to this post, latest uppermost, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine.

Contents (click on a link below to go to that article):
Editorial
"Reader's view: Chemical analysis debunked the legend of the Shroud of Turin"
Dan Porter's "Shroud of Turin Blog" has closed.


Dan Porter's "Shroud of Turin Blog" has closed, as probably everyone reading this already knows. Porter's final post, "Thank You, Everyone" was on 15

[Right: Looney Tunes' and Porter's sign-off.]

December 2015. I ceased being a commenter on Porter's blog in April 2014 due to the personal attacks I was subjected to (not by Porter himself), which he as Moderator did not lift a finger to protect me from. [On 21 January, Barrie Schwortz, under the heading "Dan Porter Retires His Shroud of Turin Blog!" wrote:

"I must also admit that I had somewhat of a love-hate relationship with the blog. There were many excellent articles published and archived on the blog over the years ... But there was a somewhat darker side as well, where unprovoked and unnecessary ad hominem personal attacks on unsuspecting (and often deceased) individuals were frequently permitted." (my emphasis)]
Then, following my post of 8 May 2014, I ceased reading Porter's blog and its comments (apart from a few accidents and once deliberate to copy the comments under his post, "Comment Promoted: On the Hacking Hypothesis," March 9, 2014). However, in regularly Googling "Shroud of Turin" and "Stephen Jones Shroud of Turin," I would see the title and the first few lines of Porter's posts, which often were critical of me. So I became increasingly puzzled why there seemed to be no new posts on Porter's blog, until on 2 January curiosity got the better of me and I clicked on it read Porter's more than 2 weeks old announcement that he had retired from blogging! I won't pretend that I am sorry to see the end of Porter's regular attacks on me and my posts, although I will miss the free publicity! I had expected that Porter would eventually get bored with his "Mr Facing Both Ways," `neither pro- nor anti-authenticist position:
"... I am not a pro-authenticists or an anti-authenticists [sic]; never have been and I hope I never will be" ("Of Pro-Authenticists and Anti-Authenticists: My response to Dan Porter," April 25, 2014)

By contrast I have been blogging about the Shroud longer than Porter (~8 years to his ~7, which surprised me), and my interest in it shows no sign of waning, because my position is "unequivocal pro-authenticist" (see my above post). From that perspective I cannot think of anything more significant for me to do. I hope I am still blogging about the Shroud until the day I die, or Jesus returns (Mt 16:27; 24:30; 26:64; Ac 1:11; 1 Cor. 11:26; 1Th 4:16; Heb 9:28; Rev 1:7), which I expect will be before 2037 (CED: 11Nov06, 12Jul08 & 30Nov08). My hope is that I will be among the "we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord" (1Th 4:15).

I read some of the comments under Porter's final post lamenting that they had nowhere to comment on Shroud-related matters anymore. They are welcome to comment on my blog (except for Colin Berry who is permanently banned), as long as they abide by my stated policies:

"MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts."
The "only one comment per individual under each one of my posts" is to avoid the time-wasting debates of a discussion group (which Porter's blog was). I have in the past posted approvingly as a comment, and a link to it in my post of 18 April 14, but apparently never fully in a post, the following 2004 quote (with its older terminology "Message Boards" (= discussion groups) and Weblogs (= blogs):
"What are the Differences Between Message Boards and Weblogs? Posted by: leelefever on August 23, 2004... Responses Weblogs and Message Boards both allow for responses from the community- new topics can be responded-to by others. Weblog topics have comments and message board topics have replies. This subtle difference in syntax reveals a difference in the roles. The word comment for weblogs implies that the author does not need further participation to reach a goal - comment if you want. Reply, on the other hand, implies that participation is explicitly requested by the poster. A discussion is not a discussion without a reply." (my emphasis)
By way of guidance as to what I mean by "offensive" and "sub-standard," as I have stated previously (e.g. 13Aug14), I regard comments to my blog as analogous to letters to the Editor of a newspaper. If the Editor of a newspaper would not publish a comment because it is "offensive" and/or "sub-standard" then neither will I. It does not mean that if I disagree with a comment I won't publish it. I have published anti-authenticist comments and other comments that I disagreed with, and I have deleted "offensive" and/or "sub-standard" comments that are pro-authenticist. "Sub-standard" includes attempting to use my blog as a platform to publish a block of text of the commenter's own views, and also bare links to other sites with little or no actual comments. By "off-topic" I mean if a comment has little or nothing to do with the topic(s) in the post it is under (except for the latest post-see above).

It may be just a coincidence but now that Porter's blog has closed, my blog which previously seemed to be averaging ~300-400 pageviews a day (actually 10453/31 = ~337) now seems to be averaging ~400-500 pageviews a day (actually 486,793-482,283 = 4510/12 = ~375). It's too early to say for sure, but maybe Shroud `junkies' who got their daily `fix' from Porter's blog are now getting it from mine!


Reader's view: Chemical analysis debunked the legend of the Shroud of Turin," Duluth News Tribune, Kenneth L. Johnson, December 13, 2015. On Nov. 1, the News Tribune published an article headlined, "Shroud of Turin mystery deepens." This was about the plant and human DNA found on the Shroud which came from "all over the world" including "the Middle East":

"As shown, the shroud has been contaminated with DNA from plants that can be found all over the world. Similarly, their analysis of human DNA showed haplogroups from people originating in Europe, south Asia, eastern Africa, and the Middle East."[2]
covered in my blogs of 18Oct15, 25Oct15, 10Nov15, 24Nov15, 30Nov15 & 04Dec15. It is a copy of an article in The Kansas City Star of October 20, 2015. [Below (enlarge) [3]] The mystery to me is how this

subject continues to get press coverage. This disciple of Walter McCrone (1916-2002) (see below) evidently suffers from the same Naturalistic (`nature is all there is-there is no supernatural') "invincible ignorance":

"There does remain, nonetheless, a cast of mind which seems peculiarly closed to evidence. When confronted with such a mind, one feels helpless, for no amount of evidence seems to be clinching. Frequently the facts are simply ignored or brushed aside as somehow deceptive, and the principles are reaffirmed in unshakable conviction. One seems confronted with what has been called `invincible ignorance.'" (my emphasis)[4]
selective blindness as his master!

In the 1970s, Dr. Walter McCrone examined a portion of the shroud that was purported to contain dried blood. He did not. McCrone never examined the Shroud itself directly[5]. All he examined, and only under an optical microscope, were sticky tapes that had been pressed onto the Shroud by STURP in 1978 and given to him by Ray Rogers (1927–2005). Here is Rogers' own account of McCrone's unethical, dishonest and "unconscionable" actions:

"I had known Walter since the 1950s, and I considered him to be both an ethical scientist and one of the world's best microscopists. We agreed to share the work on the tape samples. Walter ... never became a formal STURP team member. ... Walter and I had made an agreement to share uncontaminated samples before any chemistry was done on them. ... I let Walter have the box of samples and take it to his laboratory. He agreed to open the box in a clean-room, and he promised that he would do nothing but cut small sections of the tapes for microscopy. He said: `You know how little that will take.' He also promised to maintain the `chain of evidence' for the samples, allowing no unauthorized access to them. He paid no attention to his promises: He nearly destroyed the value of the carefully prepared samples. Walter McCrone took it upon himself to stick all of the samples down to microscope slides. He did not reserve any samples in a pristine state. Even worse than that, he immediately found that he could not tolerate the optical effects of a thick slide. That is amazing performance for a `great' microscopist. Consequently, he pulled the tapes off of the slides and stuck all of them down to microscope cover slips. This destroyed much of the physical evidence we had sought. Some fibers can now be seen to have been broken during these transfers, and thin coatings were often pulled off of fibers' surfaces.. This exacerbated contamination with adhesive, and it also initiated crystallization of the adhesive and amorphous tape at a higher rate than would have been necessary. The original tape is still amorphous, but the samples mishandled by McCrone are crystallizing. McCrone's failure to follow protocols and his abuse of the samples were unconscionable. Fortunately, we had chosen the adhesive to provide for quantitative removal from the samples. It required much meticulous work to get around the damage caused by McCrone, and much information was simply destroyed by his actions." (my emphasis)[6]
Nothing better illustrates McCrone's capacity for self-deception, if not outright lying, than his claim that the STURP tapes Rogers had loaned him had become "my [McCrone's] set of tapes" and "I [McCrone] was conned out of" them by "letters from STURP lawyers" and "Not being very bright, I [McCrone]... naively gave Ray my set":
"Unfortunately, my two planned formal publications outlining my work and my conclusions in 1980 were not very popular with STURP. As a result, I was conned out of my set of tapes. Ray Rogers, John Jackson and Eric Jumper visited my lab to `discuss the "Shroud" problem.' Among other things, remarks were made inferring that I had kept the best of the two sets. I immediately offered to trade sets and naively gave Ray my set saying I would pick up his set in Los Alamos in two weeks when I would be in that area. Naturally, I never was able to obtain his set and I was recipient of several letters from STURP lawyers insisting I return all slides, bits and pieces of those tape slides. Not being very bright, I did just that."[7]
This is self-evidently false. The tape samples were taken from the Shroud by Rogers in 1978 as a member of STURP and so they belonged to STURP. They were not Rogers' tapes to give to McCrone. And McCrone was both "bright" and wealthy[8] and could have afforded his own lawyers to enforce his right to keep the tapes if they really had been his.

He found no blood, Prof. Alan D. Adler (1931-2000), a blood chemist, subjected the Shroud samples on McCrone's slides that had been retrieved from him by Rogers, to a battery of 13 chemical and physical tests, and he did find that "the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!":

"We began our presentation. One by one, we gave our short talks with slides, graphs, spectra, and tried to make them intelligible to the nonscientist. .... Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone's claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ocher and vermilion. Adler flashed on the screen the following table from our paper.
Table 5 Tests confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud 1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence 2. Indicative reflection spectra 3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra 4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence 5. Positive hemochromogen tests 6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests 7. Positive detection of bile pigments 8. Positive demonstration of protein 9. Positive indication of albumin 10. Protease tests, leaving no residue 11. Positive immunological test for human albumin 12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls 13. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks.
Then, after explaining each item briefly, Al said, `That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!'" (emphasis original)[9]
The problem was McCrone's "antireligious" desire to "debunk the Shroud" and to gain "publicity" which caused him to not be "objective" and to not "test his method for false positives":
"On the basis of his work with microscopes, Walter McCrone had claimed that the image had been painted with glair (egg) and hematite. He had used an amido black reagent to detect the proteins. The amido black reagent had been developed to test paintings for the presence of glair, and it was not intended to be used on porous, adsorptive surfaces. Our tests showed that amido black did indeed give a positive test for proteins on linen: It also gave a positive test on clean, modern, commercial linen. That being the case, we studied it to determine the probability of false positive tests. ... McCrone had not followed the simplest procedures of rigorous analytical chemistry: He had not run `blanks.' He did not test his method for false positives. All he wanted was to debunk the Shroud. A rigorous scientific study requires as many independent observational methods as possible. It is as unconscionable to allow antireligious sentiments to direct science as it is to demand a specific theological answer. I was disappointed to find that Walter could not be objective when he wanted publicity." (my emphasis)[10]
Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), independently agreed, assessing McCrone as being motivated by the dream of "becoming history's greatest iconoclast" by demolishing "the authenticity of the ... Turin Shroud":
"I sometimes think that McCrone dreamed of becoming history's greatest iconoclast. Having, in his view, demolished the authenticity of the Vinland Map he saw the chance to do the same to the Turin Shroud!"[11]
but he did find red ochre He did not (see below). Red ochre is haematite, an iron oxide. McCrone's claim that "all of the red flecks in blood areas are iron oxides" was "later refuted" by "One of his own people" (see below):
"On 24 March 1979, STURP met in Santa Barbara, California. Preliminary presentations were made on all of the chemical, microscopic, and instrumental analyses. Two important claims were made by Walter McCrone. He said that all of the red flecks in blood areas are iron oxides in different degrees of hydration. One of his own people later refuted this during laser-microprobe analyses." (emphasis original)[12]
Reflectance spectrometry showed that the image, blood and Fe2O3 (haematite) spectra were different (see Fig. VIII-1 below) and therefore "hematite ... claimed by McCrone to have been used to paint the image, could not have contributed the color ... red":
"Roger and Marty Gilbert of Oriel Optical Corp. designed and built a dual-beam reflectance spectrometer that could be used on the Shroud. They recorded visible, ultraviolet, and fluorescence spectra from many areas of the cloth. ... They found ... that hematite (Fe2O3), claimed by McCrone to have been used to paint the image, could not have contributed the color (figure VIII-1). Hematite absorbs light in the blue and green, reflecting the red. Your eye sees red, and the spectrum shows a sharp cutoff. Reflectance goes from nearly zero at wavelengths below about 550 nanometers to nearly 90% above 600 nanometers (in the red). All known pigments could be rejected in the same way as hematite. The image was not painted ... The lack of detectable pigments agreed with the x-ray-fluorescence analysis and chemical tests."[13]

[Above (enlarge): Reflectance spectrometry graphs of the Shroud image, Shroud blood and hematite (Fe2O3)[14]. As can be seen, the blood and haematite curves are similar (because blood's haemoglobin contains iron oxide). But at around 600 nanometres wavelength the blood and haematite curves begin to diverge markedly. If the Shroud blood was red ochre (haematite), as claimed by McCrone, then the blood and Fe2O3 reflectance spectral curves would be identical, or at least closely similar.]

As previously mentioned, one of McCrone own people later refuted his claim that the blood on the Shroud was red ochre (haematite). This was "Mark Anderson, McCrone's MOLE [Laser Microprobe Raman Spectrometry] expert" who "observed that most of the red flecks on the Shroud `bubbled up and turned black' when he hit them with the laser beam ... an entirely different response than he got from ... hematite crystals" and "acted like an organic phase." But "McCrone refused to accept those observations ... he wanted the image to be painted with hematite" so "no conflicting observations would be allowed":

"Joan Rogers identified suitable fibers on the tape samples and prepared them for analysis. She took tapes, fibers from non-image areas, and fibers from image areas to Instruments SA, Inc., in Metuchen, N.J. in December 1979. The samples were analyzed by Dr. Fran Adar. Similar samples were analyzed by Mark Anderson, McCrone's MOLE expert in January 1980. Anderson observed that most of the red flecks on the Shroud `bubbled up and turned black' when he hit them with the laser beam. This was an entirely different response than he got from authentic hematite crystals. He said it `acted like an organic phase' (21 January 1980). Walter McCrone refused to accept those observations. If he wanted the image to be painted with hematite, no conflicting observations would be allowed." (my emphasis)[15]
Further evidence against McCrone's claim that the Shroud "image was painted with hematite" is that "pyrolysis products from the [1532] fire would reduce red hematite to black magnetite on the Shroud" but "No such effect could be observed on the Shroud":
"A large body of chemical information is available on the interactions among reactive pyrolysis products and known or suspected Shroud components. For example, McCrone claimed until his death that the image was painted with hematite. Experiments we did before 1978 proved that the pyrolysis products from the [1532] fire would reduce red hematite to black magnetite on the Shroud. No such effect could be observed on the Shroud during the hurried observations of 1978 ..."[16]

and vermilion paint particles. McCrone's scanning electron microscope (SEM) group found on one linen fibre from blood image tape (3-CB) peaks of mercury (Hg) and Sulfur (S)[17]. They also

[Above (enlarge): Map in McCrone's "Judgment Day" (1999) book[18], showing where on the Shroud tape sample 3-CB was taken. Note it is on the dorsal side (right), next to a patch covering an area burned in the 1532 fire.]

found with the mercury and sulfur small amounts of sodium, magnesium, phosphorus, aluminum, silicon, potassium, chlorine, calcium and iron[19]. However, McCrone conceded that this did not prove it was the molecular combination mercuric sulfide HgS, i.e. vermilion[20]. Yet having conceded this, on the previous page, McCrone had already called the "mercury and sulfur (vermilion)"[21]!

To determine whether the mercury and sulfur was vermilion, McCrone examined fibre(s) on that 3-CB tape by polarized light microscopy and claimed that he "recognized the tiny rod-like, high index red particles as a form of vermilion"[22]. McCrone later claimed to have found nine microscopic particles of vermilion[23]. However, we only have McCrone's word for this. He provided no microphotographs of these "tiny rod-like, high index red particles" and no independent verification of his claim. But even if it was true (which Heller and Adler doubt[24]), only nine particles of vermilion is "not enough ... to account for one painted drop of blood, let alone all the gore on the Shroud"[25]. So, far from being support for McCrone's `all the blood on the Shroud is vermilion paint' theory, it is a refutation of it! Nor did McCrone consider other explanations, such as the vermilion (if indeed it was vermilion) came from burning artworks or furnishings in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry fire of 1532, since tape 3-CB was next to a patch covering charred areas from that fire; or from artists pressing their vermilion-painted copies of the Shroud against it to `sanctify' them (see below).

One of McCrone's employees produced an x-ray diffraction analysis from tape 3-CB, which returned a result for mercury, iron and calcite[26]. Yet despite there being no sulfur, McCrone simply called the "mercury (vermilion)"[27]! Another of McCrone's employees analysed by ion microprobe "about a dozen" of what McCrone called "blood-image pigment aggregates" on tape 3-CB and found iron, mercury and other elements but again no sulfur[28]. However again McCrone just labelled this "vermilion"[29]! But then, after previously pointing out correctly that evidence of "mercury (Hg) and sulfur (S) ... does not prove a molecular combination of the two as vermilion (HgS)" and "To determine whether vermilion was really present" it was necessary to find by "light microscopy ... the tiny rod-like, high index red particles ... of vermilion[30], McCrone admitted that he was "embarrassed by the finding of vermilion [sic] by the .. electron optics group" and asked, "Why hadn't I detected vermilion by light microscopy during 1979?"[31]. The obvious answer is that it wasn't there, only separate mercury and sulfur (if even the latter)!

Then, to explain why there was so much `vermilion', McCrone added to his red ochre (haematite) painted blood theory an "epicycle," that the `blood' was painted twice, first with red ochre and second with vermilion!:

"The variable relative percentage of the two pigments is significant ... The variability in the relative percentages of red ochre and vermilion [sic] proves that the artist used separate iron earth and vermilion paints to create the image on the cloth. I am certain that the first painting of the entire `Shroud' using red ochre was followed with a vermilion watercolor paint but only in the blood-image areas. Note that when the percentage of vermilion [sic] is high ... the percentage of red ochre (Fe) is generally low and vice versa. This is not a precise relationship because the relative quantities of the two paints in each area no doubt vary ..."[32]
But why would a medieval forger go to the trouble of painting the blood twice? And remember that on McCrone's own admission, he only ever determined by light microscopy nine microscopic particles of vermilion (if even that). Also again remember that we only have McCrone's word for it: there are no photomicrographs of even one vermilion particle that McCrone claims he found on the Shroud in his "Judgment Day" book (which considering their importance there should have been if they existed) and/or independent verification of these "tiny rod-like, high index red particles." And as we saw above McCrone was capable of self-deception and/or lying to make it appear that he was right. Indeed, Wilson effectively says that McCrone was not to be trusted, because he caught McCrone out having presented in one of his in-house journal's Shroud papers, mere "estimates" as though they were "exact numbers:"
"While the layman might feel prepared to accept McCrone's microanalytical judgment on such a matter, the justification for trusting that judgment dissolves on close scrutiny of the second table in McCrone's first Microscope paper on the Shroud, showing the relative numbers of purported iron-oxide-coated fibrils to noncoated fibrils in any one sample. Puzzlingly, this shows a sample of body image (from a finger) containing as many as 72 percent `colored' fibrils, compared to a sample of blood image (from the heel) containing as little as 42 percent. Purportedly, exact numbers of fibrils are quoted. Since on McCrone's own arguments one would expect blood image to contain more coloring than body image, I questioned him on this point in personal correspondence and received a surprisingly candid reply:
I have to confess that those numbers aren't as precise as one would like to have them. They were obtained by looking at the individual tapes and judging whether the degree of yellow color of the fibers constituted yellowing over and above the amount present ... for this reason the number should not be interpreted as anything like exact. They could easily vary by 20% or 30%.
Suddenly one comes face to face with the realization that McCrone's seemingly precise statistics in support of his arguments are nothing of the kind. He has simply estimated numbers ... [which is] unacceptably unscientific." (my emphasis)[33]

Dr. McCrone, who literally wrote the book on the analysis of microscopic particles ("The Particle Atlas," published in six volumes from 1973 through 1979), was eminently qualified to conclude that the shroud was a 14th century painting. No one contests McCrone's expertise in identifying microscopic particles. But it is a non sequitur (it does not follow) fallacy to claim that made him an expert in 14th century paintings. A real expert in 14th century painting, agnostic but pro-authenticist art historian, Thomas de Wesselow, dismissed McCrone's 14th century painting argument as "baseless." Not only had artists' copies of the Shroud been "laid ... on the original in order [for them] to be sanctified" and "fragments of paint would undoubtedly have been transferred in the process" but also when STURP examined the Shroud in 1978, it was "in the Royal Palace of Turin ... in a room whose ceiling was covered in frescoes, 'from which tiny paint fragments would fall like confetti'":

"Also found on the tapes were a few particles of paint. These were seized upon by an associate of the STURP team, a microscopist called Walter McCrone, who took them as evidence that the cloth had once been in an artist's studio and was therefore a painted fake. This argument is baseless. Artists have been making copies of the Shroud since the sixteenth century, at least, and several of these are known to have been laid directly on the original in order to be sanctified. Tiny fragments of paint would undoubtedly have been transferred in the process. Other particles could easily have come from nearby paintings. For instance, when STURP examined the Shroud in the Royal Palace of Turin, they did so in a room whose ceiling was covered in frescoes, 'from which tiny paint fragments would fall like confetti as the team members worked below'[34]. McCrone's paint particles could have fetched up on the Shroud just as easily as any of the other debris."[35]

The "scientists" who refuted his work had no qualifications to perform the analyses on which they claimed to rely. By placing quotation marks around "scientists," the writer, "Kenneth L. Johnson ... a retired chemist who was trained in microscopic analysis by Dr. Walter McCrone ..." (see below) shows that he learned prejudice well from his master, McCrone! It is an indication that one's theory is weak when to defend it one has to rule its critics out of court as not even scientists! And far from them having "no qualifications to perform the analyses," Ray Rogers was a senior chemist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Alan D. Adler had a "doctorate in chemistry from the University of Pennsylvania ... specializing in porphyrins and blood chemistry"[36]. Adler's obituary in the Los Angeles Times noted that he was "a blood chemistry expert."[37]. And John H. Heller (1921-95) was a medical doctor, a biophysicist and a former Professor of Internal Medicine at Yale[38]. McCrone's qualifications by contrast, were "a bachelor's degree in chemistry (1938) and a Ph.D. in organic chemistry (1942)[39]. That's all!

Their (and others') critique of McCrone's red ochre and vermilion painting theory includes:

■ It is not enough for McCrone to demonstrate the presence of iron oxide and vermilion on the sample tapes. He must also, but has not, established that they are present in sufficient quantities and in such locations as to account for the body image and blood seen on the Shroud[40]. Heller and Adler found one vermilion particle in a different location in their examination of the same tape samples[41] and despite "a complete and exhaustive search for additional samples" on all the tapes they could not find another[42].

■ McCrone must show, but has not, that the presence of iron oxide and vermilion cannot be more simply accounted for by other means[43] (e.g. retting of flax in water and artists pressing to the Shroud their painted copies of it[44]).

■ McCrone's conclusions must be, but are not, in accord with other studies[45](e.g. the 13 different tests (above) which show that the bloodstains on the Shroud really are blood)[46].

■ Vermilion turns black when exposed to light (as the Shroud has been in open-air daylight exhibitions over many decades), as evidenced in older paintings[47]. Vermilion also darkens under high temperature[48] but the Shroud's blood colour did not change in the 1532 fire which melted its silver casket[49] (at ~961°C).

■ X-rays of the Shroud's blood areas do not show the mercury that

[Above (enlarge): Large bloodstain from the (spear) wound in the man's right side[50] (L) compared to a STURP x-radiograph of the same area[51] (R). Since mercury would show up prominently on an x-ray as a mercury amalgam dental filling does[52] (see below), this shows that little or no mercury (and therefore vermilion) is present and therefore it alone totally falsifies McCrone's `blood is vermilion paint' theory. Especially considering that this is the frontal counterpart of the dorsal bloodstain that tape 3-CB sample was taken from on which McCrone claimed he found vermilion which `proved' that the blood was vermilion!]

would be there if the blood was vermilion[53]. That is because an "x-ray image ... is an absorption image. ... The heavier the atomic weight, the more absorption and the lighter the x-ray image"[54]. If the Shroud's "blood image were the result of iron oxides and mercuric sulfide [vermilion], it would show up far more distinctly on the x-ray than the water stains, but quite the opposite is true."[55]. In fact "none of the blood marks showed up on the x-rays, while all the water marks were clearly visible"[56].

[Above: X-ray of teeth containing mercury amalgam dental fillings (white)[57]. Mercury has a high atomic mass (200.59) so it absorbs more x-rays and appears white on x-radiographs.]

■ STURP published all its Shroud findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals[58], but McCrone published his in his own in-house journal, The Microscope[59], without any peer-review at all[60].

The History Channel ran a documentary on the people "testing" the shroud, in which it was evident the channel had no interest whatsoever in accepting facts that conflicted with preconceived notions. I cannot comment on this as I have not seen this documentary since the History Channel, as far as I know, is not available in Australia, except perhaps on cable TV which I don't have. I have a vague idea I saw it on YouTube but if so I cannot remember it. Johnson's "preconceived notions" sounds like the pot calling the kettle black!

One "scientist" Again, Johnson puts quotes around "scientist." See above that ruling out of court as even scientists critics of one's position is a sign of weakness, not strength. If McCrone's critics are wrong, then Johnson should be able to state where they are wrong. seriously theorized that holy radiation from the resurrection might have transferred the image of Jesus to the cloth. Johnson, like most (if not all) atheist/agnostics (which I presume he is) is blind to his own "preconceived" atheistic/agnostic and anti-Christian "notions." But the fact is that the best (if not the only viable) explanation of the image on the Shroud is STURP physicist John P. Jackson's "cloth collapse" theory[61], that "the cloth collapsed into and through the underlying structure of the body in the Shroud" and "emitted radiation from all points within and on the surface of the body ... forming the body image":

"Dr Jackson proposed the hypothesis that, at the time that the image on the Shroud was formed, the cloth collapsed into and through the underlying structure of the body in the Shroud. ... Based on his observations of the image he further proposed that, as the body became mechanically transparent to its physical surroundings, it emitted radiation from all points within and on the surface of the body. This radiation interacted with the cloth as it fell into the mechanically transparent body, forming the body image. He also suggested that the radiation would have had to have been strongly absorbed in air. This, he suggested, could have been electromagnetic radiation in the shortwave ultra-violet region of the spectrum, which would have caused a chemical alteration of the cellulose in the cloth fibres."[62]
This agrees with "the Gospel accounts of the resurrection [of Jesus Christ] and the events that followed" in that "Jesus could ... move apparently instantaneously from place to place regardless of the physical obstacles in the way":
"At this point it is necessary to return to the supernatural and the possible link between the Shroud image and the resurrection of Jesus Christ ... the Gospel accounts of the resurrection and the events that followed can offer some clues as to how the image on the Shroud may have been formed. The Gospels suggest that the risen Jesus could teleport - in other words he could move apparently instantaneously from place to place regardless of the physical obstacles in the way ... In John 20:19 and again in John 20:26 it is recorded that Jesus appeared suddenly among his disciples in a locked room. Luke 24:31 records Jesus as vanishing from the sight of the disciples he met on the road to Emmaus. Again, in Luke 24:36 he suddenly appears among the apostles in Jerusalem. However, his body was substantive - it was not some form of energy or light. Luke 24:43 describes how the apostles gave him a piece of grilled fish and he ate it `before their eyes'. John 20:27 records how the apostle Thomas placed his finger and hand into the wounds in Jesus's hands and side. Clearly the body of the risen Jesus, as described in the Gospels, had physical properties beyond the knowledge of modern science. ... the body of the risen Jesus became `mechanically transparent'. ... The Gospel accounts give ... credence to Dr Jackson's proposed image-formation mechanism ..."[63]
As in many cases where rational thought collides with religious beliefs, truth is ignored in favor of magical thinking. This shows that Johnson has `swallowed hook, line and sinker' Naturalism's false dichotomy between "rational thought" and "religious beliefs." That his mind has been `taken captive by the philosophy' (Col 2:8) of Naturalism and is now in the grip of its "strong delusion" (2Th 2:11), such that he cannot even think that Christianity could be true and the Shroud authentic. To Johnson the supernatural can only be "magical thinking."

The age and origin of the cloth is totally irrelevant to the question. On the contrary, since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic, its "age" is ~2000 years and its "origin" was a byproduct of the resurrection of Jesus, indeed a "snapshot" of it:

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection."[64]
And on the basis of Jesus' resurrection (as proved by the Shroud scientifically beyond reasonable doubt) "God ... commands all people everywhere [including Kenneth L. Johnson] to repent [Gk. metanoia = change your mind]:
Acts 17:30-31 "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
You might better ask how red ochre and vermilion particles get on a real burial cloth. See above on there being not enough vermilion particles on the Shroud to account for its image. And likewise for "red ochre." Even the anti-authenticists Picknett & Prince admit that "McCrone was wrong" because "the number of iron oxide particles quoted by McCrone ... was so low that an image made by them would be too faint to be seen":
"Even so, it has to be admitted that his [McCrone's] work is open to serious question. To start with, McCrone produced figures showing the number of particles of iron oxide present in the image areas compared to those in the nonimage areas. They appeared to indicate that there was much more iron oxide in the image than elsewhere on the cloth, supporting the idea that it was the result of faking the image ... [but] When John Heller pointed out that the number of iron oxide particles quoted by McCrone, even on the image area, was so low that an image made by them would be too faint to be seen, McCrone's response was that, in that case, `there must be more'[65] ... The most reasonable conclusion is that McCrone was wrong."[66]
There is iron oxide on the Shroud (as well as calcium and strontium) which is a consequence of retting flax "in a natural body of water":
"Ten days later he [Adler],came to see me ... he said, `What do you know about the process of retting linen?' `Isn't that something that you do to the flax plant to get linen fibers from it?' `Yes ... in order to ret linen, you take the flax plant and soak it in a natural body of water, like a river or lake. The useless part of the flax kind of rots away, and the fibers that remain are linen, which is spun into thread. ... during the retting, the linen fibers act as an ion exchanger, and do you know what ions they take up selectively from water?' ... `Calcium, strontium, and iron!' `... That explains the X-ray fluorescence data.'"[67]
Kenneth L. Johnson [from] Cloquet. The writer is a retired chemist who was trained in microscopic analysis by Dr. Walter McCrone and his staff at the McCrone Research Institute in Chicago. Enough said! (see all the above). Tragically Johnson is yet another instance of `the blind having been led by the blind' (Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39)! [top]


Editorial. Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word- processing of Rex Morgan's Shroud News for Barrie Schwortz to convert to PDF and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in December up to issue #35, June 1986 [Right (enlarge)]. It is still only up to issue #28 on that archive, but an update is due this month. Topic index: I continued adding my old posts to my Topic Index in December up to and including my post of 11 February 2012. In December I blogged 5 posts: 04-Dec-15: News articles #3: Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud; 10-Dec-15: Shroud of Turin News - November 2015; 26-Dec-15: The man on the Shroud #8: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!; 27-Dec-15: Naked #9: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!; and 30-Dec-15: The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #5. Pageviews: At midnight on 31 December, Google Analytics gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 482,283, and "Pageviews last month" (December) as 10,453. The most viewed posts for December were: "The man on the Shroud #8: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Dec 26, 2015 - 85; "Naked #9: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Dec 27, 2015 - 55; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 36; "Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #10: The Shroud's blood and pollen closely matches the Sudarium of Oviedo's," Aug 8, 2007 - 28; and "The Pray Manuscript," Jan 11, 2010 - 28. Again, it is intriguing to see these old posts of mine (of 2007, 2010 and 2011), being among the most pageviews. I intend this blog to be a reference site for the Shroud and I am pleased that it seems to be fulfilling that function. [top]


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 this post. [return]
2. Berezow, A.B., 2015, "Shroud of Turin DNA Comes from All over World," RealClearScience, October 12. [return]
3. Gutierrez, L., 2015, "Shroud of Turin mystery deepens as DNA from `all over Earth' is found on the cloth," The Kansas City Star, October 20. Photo by Antonio Calanni/AP. Rotated left 90 degrees. [return]
4. Fearnside, W.W. & Holther, W.B., 1959, "Fallacy the Counterfeit of Argument," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 25th printing, p.113. [return]
5. 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.89. [return]
6. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, pp.23-24. [return]
7. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.123-124. [return]
8. During a lecture I attended in 2011 by one of McCrone's former students, Prof. Joel Bernstein, we were told that McCrone had made a lot of money during World War II, testing explosives for the US Government. [return]
9. Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.215-216. [return]
10. Rogers, 2008, pp.36-37. [return]
11. Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, p.19. [return]
12. Rogers, 2008, p.44. [return]
13. Rogers, 2008, pp.49-50. [return]
14. Rogers, 2008, p.50. [return]
15. Rogers, 2008, p.61. [return]
16. Rogers, 2008, p.128. [return]
17. McCrone, 1999, pp.128-129. [return]
18. McCrone, 1999, p.79. [return]
19. McCrone, 1999, p.128. [return]
20. McCrone, 1999, p.129. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. McCrone, 1999, pp.129-130. [return]
23. Heller, 1983, p.194. [return]
24. Case, 1996, p.53. [return]
25. Heller, 1983, p.194; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.121. [return]
26. McCrone, 1999, pp.134-135. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. McCrone, 1999, pp.134, 136. [return]
29. Ibid. [return]
30. McCrone, 1999, pp.129-130. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. McCrone, 1999, pp.134-135. [return]
33. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.86,88. [return]
34. 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.98. [return]
35. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.115. [return]
36. Adler, C., 2000, "6/11/00 Obituary of Alan D. Adler." [return]
37. "Obituaries: Alan D. Adler; Chemist Studied Shroud of Turin," Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2000. [return]
38. Wilson, I., 1996, "Obituaries - Dr. John Heller and Professor Werner Bulst, S.J.," BSTS Newsletter, No. 42, January, pp.12-13; Case, T.W., "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, 1996, p.47. [return]
39. "Walter McCrone," Wikipedia, 26 October 2015. [return]
40. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," 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.34-57, 47. [return]
41. Heller & Adler, 1981, pp.44,46; Case, 1996, pp.52-53. [return]
42. Heller, 1983, p.192. [return]
43. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.47. [return]
44. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.47; Case, 1996, p.53. [return]
45. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.47. [return]
46. Case, 1996, p.13 [return]
47. Adler, A.D., 1993, "Conservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.73-80, 75. [return]
48. Adler, 1993, p.77; Piczek, I., 1994, "Noted Los Angeles artist Isabel Piczek replies to the Craig Bresee Theory...," BSTS Newsletter, No. 37, March/April, pp.18-19. [return]
49. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.48. [return]
50. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
51. Extract from Wilson, 1986, p.90. [return]
52. Case, 1996, p.53. [return]
53. Wilson, 1986, p.90. [return]
54. Jumper, E.J., Adler, A.D., Jackson, J.P., Pellicori, S.F., Heller, J.H., Druzik, J.R., in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin,"Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C, pp.447-476, 468; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.70. [return]
55. Jumper, et al., 1984, p.468; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, [return]
56. Jumper, et al., 1984, pp.468, 470. [return]
57. "Removal of Amalgam Fillings," Dr. Adé Meyer, Dentistry SA, 2014. [return]
58. Heller, 1983, pp.167-168. [return]
59. Heller, 1983, p.184; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.30; 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.328-329. Case, 1996, p.13. [return]
60. Case, 1996, p.18. [return]
61. 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, p.325-344. [return]
62. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.240-241. [return]
63. Oxley, 2010, p.244. [return]
64. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251. [return]
65. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.39. [return]
66. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, p.76. [return]
67. Heller, 1983, pp.173-174. [return]

Posted: 5 January 2016. Updated: 5 February 2016.