Wednesday, May 25, 2016

"The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus": Shroud of Turin News - April 2016

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

[Previous: April 2016, part #3] [Next: April 2016, part #5]

This is the second installment of part #4 of the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus," Ancient Origins, 2 April, 2016, Natalia Klimczak. ... The Sudarium of Oviedo, also known as the Shroud of Oviedo is

[Above (enlarge): "Perfect fit of Sudarium of Oviedo (right) to the face on the Shroud of Turin (left)." The article wrongly referenced this back to Dan Porter's now closed "Shroud Story" blog, when it was just another case of Porter routinely pirating without proper attribution the work of others, in this case me. As is evident (but not evident enough for this Ancient Origins journalist), if one follows the link within "Shroud Story" one arrives at Porter's 2012 post, "How good is the match up between the Sudarium and the Shroud?." At the top of that post there is a link within the words, "Stephen Jones ... critique of Charles Freeman’s `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey'." If that link is clicked one arrives at my 2012 post, "My critique of Charles Freeman's `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey,' part 4 ..." It can then be seen that both the image and the words are mine, the former scanned by me from the book, Bennett, J., "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image," 2001, plate 20. I have submitted a comment under the article requesting that this error be corrected and to Ancient Origins' credit it has been corrected and now says "The Shroud of Turin".]

one of the most important relics of Christianity. Next to the Shroud, the Sudarium of Oviedo is the most important relics of Christianity, because the Sudarium is the "face cloth" [Greek soudarion in John 20:7, "which had been on Jesus head," and found in the Empty Tomb by the Apostles Peter and John:

John 20:7 "and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."
See my posts 09May15, 06Nov14, 21Sep14, 28Jul12, 04Jun10 & 26Jun08.

It is believed to be a cloth which was wrapped around Jesus' head after his death. The Sudarium of Oveido, which measures ~85.5 x 52.6 cms (~33.7 x ~20.7 in.)[2] would have been wrapped

[Above (enlarge): "The Sudarium of Oviedo. (Mark Guscin)." This link in "Mark Guscin" is also to my post "My critique of Charles Freeman's ...."]

around Jesus' head to cover His disfigured face until He was covered by the Shroud[3].

Evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo is the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus' head after his death includes: ■ Italian Shroud scholar Giulio Ricci (c.1913-95) in 1965 and 1979 examined the Sudarium and found that the bloodstain patterns on the Sudarium closely resembles those on the head area of Shroud[4]. Using his polarized image overlay technique Dr Alan Whanger examined Ricci's photographs of the Sudarium and found 130 congruent blood stains between the Sudarium and the Shroud face[5]. ■ Since these are complex patterns, their congruence cannot be coincidental[6]. ■ As these are both marks of real blood, both cloths must have been covered the same body at the same time[7]. ■ In 1979 pioneer forensic scientist Max Frei (1913–83) took pollen samples from the Sudarium[8], and these were found to include Gundelia tournefortii a Middle-Eastern thorn plant the pollen of which also occurs on the Shroud[9].

Evidence against the Sudarium being a medieval forgery includes: ■ The Sudarium can be traced historically to Spain since the 7th century[10], and to Oviedo since the ninth century[11]. This provides further evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[12] was wrong[13]. ■ There is no image on the Sudarium[14]. ■ There has been no attempt to advertise the Sudarium and so even few Spaniards know of its existence[15].

To be continued in the fourth installment of this part #4 of the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. 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.54; Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pp.13,67. [return]
3. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.11. [return]
4. 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, p.312. [return]
5. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, pp.312-313; Adler, A.D., 2000, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," 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.113-127, 124. [return]
6. Adler, 2000, p124. [return]
7. Adler, 2000, p124. [return]
8. Danin, et al., 1999, p.11. [return]
9. Danin, et al., 1999, p.23. [return]
10. Adler, 2000, p124; Bennett, 2001, p.13. [return]
11. Bennett, 2001, p.13. [return]
12. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
13. Adler, 2000, p124. [return]
14. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.312. [return]
15. Bennett, 2001, p.14. [return]

Posted: 25 May 2016. Updated: 27 May 2016.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (2): Shroud of Turin News - April 2016

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

[Previous: April 2016, part #2] [Next: April 2016, part #4]

This is the fifth and final installment of part #3 of the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News, being a continuation of part #2. I have spent too much time on this article and need to move on to another April news article before my May Shroud News in June! So those points I have not yet addressed, I have supplied links to my previous posts and footnoted others with "Reference(s) to be provided," in the faint hope that I will find time to complete them. The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?," Church Militant, Ryan Fitzgerald, March 27, 2016. ... There's still no known way of reproducing the image on the cloth using medieval technology. In fact there is no way of reproducing the image on the cloth using modern technology. Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development (ENEA)

[Above (enlarge): ENEA's Hercules-L XeCl excimer laser: ENEA FIS-ACC Excimer Laboratory Annual Report 2000-2001]

found that it would require a battery of excimer ultraviolet lasers powered by a total of 34 billion watts to recreate the total Shroud image:

"However, Enea [sic ENEA] scientists warn, `it should be noted that the total power of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts)'"[2] See also my 22Dec11.
But that hasn't been shown to be practically feasible, let alone considering what such a battery of lasers would do to the bloodstains which were on the Shroud before its image[3].

It couldn't have been painted, as the fibers on the cloth are not stuck together by any sort of paint. It was already known by at least the 1930s that the Shroud's image was not painted:

"The whole force of the case against the authenticity of the Shroud which was brought by Canon Chevalier [Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923)] and so widely accepted, depended ... upon the assertion that the figures upon it were only paintings executed by a known artist of the fourteenth century. But it is abundantly clear, as soon as the Shroud itself is examined that they are nothing of the kind. There are at least five reasons which prove this ... They are as follows 1. The process of painting on a fabric at that time involved the deposit of solid particles of colouring matter upon the threads, so that these latter would become partially or entirely hidden. But in the case of the Shroud every thread is visible, and no trace of solid extraneous colouring matter can be detected even by microscopic examination. ... 2. Human work, however minute, necessarily shows outline and shading. It may be so fine as completely to deceive the unaided eye, but its nature at once becomes manifest when it is put under the microscope. But these figures on the Shroud have no outline and no trace of shading. ... 3. In the fourteenth century, in France, anatomy was very little understood and nothing was known of the laws of the circulation of the blood. But here the anatomical detail and proportion is exact, the behaviour of blood flowing from a wound is true to nature, and the contrast between living blood and dead blood is duly preserved. ... 4. The ... figures upon the Shroud are shown reversed in light and shade, something after the manner of a photographic negative. ... But no human being, even now, could paint in this way, not even if he were an expert retoucher of photographs, accustomed to work upon negatives. ... If that is so even to-day ... how much more was it so in the fourteenth century, when the very idea had not as yet occurred to men's minds. Nor ... could there have been any conceivable motive which would have led a painter to ... make his work so hard for others to understand. 5. ... We know well the limitations of the art of the fourteenth century, and France at that date was far behind Italy in such matters. Who was this unknown artist, a couple of centuries before his time, who was able to paint pictures anatomically correct and in a style completely true to nature? Such a picture, if it could be assigned with certainty to that date and country, would revolutionize all the history of art."[4].

But as leading anti-authenticist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) pointed out, painting was the simplest way a medieval artist would have forged the Shroud's image:

"I realize that there are still, perhaps, a majority of people convinced by the carbon-dating that the `Shroud' is medieval, who are still looking for an answer as to how the `Shroud' was produced. Many mechanisms have already been proposed. Some say it was draped wet over a bas-relief to which it was shaped then dabbed with powder or a paint. Some say a painting was prepared and transferred to a cloth in contact with it by pressure. However, I see no reason to doubt that an artist ... simply took up his brush and a dilute red ochre watercolor paint based on scraps of parchment as the vehicle and proceeded to paint the `Shroud.' Why go to all the work of preparing a statue or bas-relief or making a transfer of the image from a primary artist's rendering? A direct approach to painting a dilute watercolor image on a canvas of the proper size is a common sense assumption ..." (my emphasis)[5]
However, in 1978 and its aftermath, after a battery of different scientific tests, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) established that:
"There is no paint, dye, powder, or other foreign substance on the image fibrils that could account for the image"[6]
The coloration on the cloth is actually a change in shading on the fibers themselves. That is, it is not something added to the image fibres but water molecules lost from them, driven out of their inner structure by energy[7], a process called dehydrative oxidation of cellulose[8] or cellulose oxidation[9] (see below).

[Above (original): Extract of a diagram of the dehydrative oxidation of cellulose[10]. As can be seen, a molecule of cellulose C6H10O6 (left), loses water H2O (middle) with two cellulose variant results C6H4O5 and C6H2O5. In both there is a loss of hydrogen leaving higher relative proportions of oxygen and carbon. The loss of water is what is meant by "dehydrative"[11] the higher relative proportion of oxygen causes new oxidation reactions, hence "oxidised"[12] The higher relative proportion of carbon results in two double carbon bonds in each image cellulose molecule, which is termed "conjugated carbonyl"[13]. It is the double carbon bonds which give the image fibres their distinctive yellow colour[14].]

Embalming methods have similarly been discredited as possible ways the image. The Jews didn't embalm their dead, that is, remove their internal organs and pickle their body to preserve it intact[15], but the Egyptians did[16], and of the countless Egyptian human mummies, none has an image of its dead body on its mummy cloths[17]. The Jews buried their dead whole under a simple shroud[18], that decomposed with the body[19], which is why, apart from the Shroud, only fragments of Jewish shrouds have been found[20].

Further, the image contains three-dimensional properties in the varying intensities of its shading. Jackson, et al. discovered this in 1977, when they placed a 1931 Enrie photograph of the Shroud under a VP-8 Image Analyzer[21]. The VP-8 is a computer which converts degrees of brightness into three-dimensional relief maps[22], for example, photographs of weather systems[23]. It has often been stated that the VP-8 was used by NASA and/or the USA's Space Program[24], but it never was[25]. The degrees of brightness in ordinary photographs are not caused by distance from the camera, so they don't have three-dimensional information encoded in them and appear distorted in the VP-8[26]. But photographs of the Shroud image do appear in three-dimensional relief on the VP-8, showing that its degrees of brightness are caused by cloth/body distance[27], that is, distance of points on the body from the `camera' which is the Shroud acting as a `photographic film'[28]. This cloth/body distance is in turn explained by STURP physicist John P. Jackson's Cloth Collapse theory[29].

As Nello Balossino of the University of Turin explains, "The image on the Shroud contains this information, which is codified in a series of nuances. Presumably by "nuances" Prof. Balossino means `pixels' (see 23Mar16) containing three-dimensional

[Above (enlarge): "Professor Nello Balossino explains his work that allows the blind to `see' the Shroud"[30].]

information on the distance between each point on the body and the linen cloth over that point. Clearly a medieval forger could not have encoded three-dimensional information (in negative) within Jesus' image on the Shroud[31]!

In other words, what we have before us is an image formed through a three-dimensional process, which cannot yet be explained and simulated in practice in order to obtain replica images of the Shroud." What Shroud scholar Ian Wilson wrote in 1998 is still true today, ~18 years later:

"Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen."[32]
And that necessarily includes a replication of the full Shroud image, including every major feature (photographic negative, three-dimensional, no paint or other added colouring matter but dehydrative oxidation of image fibres, etc), using pre-1350s technology. Even if the Shroud image

In addition, soil and pollen specific to Jerusalem have been detected on the cloth of the Shroud, even though it hasn't been to that area in its known history. On "soil" see "travertine aragonite" in 20Jan16, 11Aug15, 12Jun15, 30Mar15 & 22Mar13. On "pollen specific to Jerusalem have been detected on the cloth of the Shroud," I will eventually cover all these key items of evidence for the Shroud's authenticity in my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series.

There's also evidence in art and devotional history of Christians being aware of the Shroud prior to the radiocarbon dating of the 13th century, as documented in this BBC documentary. See my previous post on the Holy Face of Laon and the Pray Codex.

And what about the dating tests conducted on the cloth that assign its origins to the late medieval years? Some experts on the Shroud believe the results could have been skewed by the fact that scientists tested only the edge of the corner of the cloth. Doing so could have produced a sample that was part of a medieval repair to the cloth, or that was contaminated by bacteria or carbon monoxide. No. As I wrote in my comment under this post (with minor corrections):

>It seems like Farey [Hugh Farey, the anti-authenticist editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter] kept banging home that Whanger doesn't want to deal with the fact that if there was a research that there would need 2/3 Of the sample taken would have to be not original for it to date from the 13th or 14th century" [typos corrected]

Sorry, but Farey is right on that. See my `Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail' in my `The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1.'

The ONLY viable explanation of why the authentic 1st century Shroud had radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, the midpoint of which is 1325 ±65, which `just happens' to be ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in 1355, was because the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon process was hacked. Allegedly by Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick, aided by German hacker Karl Koch on behalf of the KGB. See my series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."

The Shroud pro-authenticity community is going to continue to lose this debate with anti-authenticists by claiming that the radiocarbon date of the 1st century Shroud was shifted ~13 centuries into the future, by carbon contamination/bioplastic coating/invisible repair/neutron flux (take your pick!), to 1325 which `just happened' to be ~30 years before 1355, when the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France; until it adopts the TRUE explanation that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."

More recent tests have also been performed that date the Shroud to a period well before the 13th century. Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua, led a team of researchers through three tests of Shroud fibers that were in the piece of cloth used in the 1988 radiocarbon tests. The tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy as well as a way of analyzing mechanical parameters related to voltage. The tests' conclusion dated the Shroud to some time between 300 BC and 400 AD. See my 21Apr13, 02Apr13 and 27Mar13

The new body of evidence in favor of the Shroud of Turin, while not enough to convince hardened skeptics, has at least been sufficient to keep the question alive. Merely "... sufficient to keep the question alive"? See my previous post on, "If this is the `Church Militant' I would hate to see the `Church Pacifist'!" After presenting such compelling evidence of the Shroud's authenticity, to finish with "at least been sufficient to keep the question alive" is a letdown. As I pointed out in previous posts (10Dec15 & 07May16) since the Shroud is authentic, as the evidence overwhelming indicates, it is a miraculous work of Jesus[35]. So non-Christian "hardened skeptics," who know the overwhelming evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuse to accept it, and Him, are in the same position as the residents of those towns in Israel which witnessed Jesus' miraculous works but refused to accept them and Him:

Mt 11:20-22. "20 Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you."

Lk 10:13-15. 13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades."
That is, on the principle which in that context Jesus stated:
"Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required ..." (Lk 12:48)
those "hardened skeptics" to whom "much was given" in evidence that the Shroud is authentic (and therefore Christianity is true), will be subject to a more severe judgment by Jesus (Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5), the Man on the Shroud:

[Above (enlarge): The Face of the Man on the Shroud[33]

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'"[34].]
than those who rejected Jesus' but did not know His miraculous work in the Shroud.

To be continued in part #4 of this April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," The Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
3. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.203; 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.88-89; 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, 104-105; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138, 129; Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.36. [return]
4. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, pp.14-15. [return]
5. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.122. [return]
6. Habermas G.R., "Discussion: Antony G. N. Flew, Gary R. Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas G.R., Flew A.G.N. & Miethe T.L., ed. , 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.119. See also STURP, 1981, "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 25; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113-127, 122; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.139-140. [return]
7. Weisberg, L., 1987, "Shroud Splits Scientists," The Scientist, Vol. 1, No. 17, 13 July, p.1; Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2001, "Finding the Shroud in the 21st Century," Collegamento pro Sindone Internet, December. [return]
8. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.43; Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp.425-446, 427,428; Adler, 1999, p.105; Adler, A.D. & Schwalbe, L.A., 1993, "Conservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.73; Adler, 2000c, pp.22,25; Adler, 2000a, p.113. [return]
9. Dinegar, R.H., 1982, "The 1978 Scientific Study of the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 4, September, pp.3-12, 3; Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.44; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, pp.27-29, 38; Adler, A.D., 1991, "Conservation and Preservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.67-71, 70; Adler, A.D., 1996, "Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.81-86, 84-85; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.66. [return]
10. Murra, D., Di Lazzaro, P., Santoni, A. & Baldacchini, G., 2012, "Shroud-like coloration of linen by nanosecond laser pulses in the vacuum ultraviolet," Research Gate, September. [return]
11. "Dehydration reaction," Wikipedia, 20 February 2016. [return]
12. "Redox," Wikipedia, 13 May 2016. [return]
13. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
14. Murra, D., et al., 2012, Figure 14. [return]
15. Sartoris, L., 1985, "The Embalmment of Corpses as Practiced by the Egyptians and by the Hebrews," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 16, September, pp.17-22, 17; "Making an Ancient Egyptian Mummy," Eyewitness to history.com, 1 November 2010. [return]
16. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.83. [return]
17. 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; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.14. [return]
18. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
19. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
20. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
21. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
22. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
23. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
24. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
25. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
26. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
27. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
28. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
29. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
30. "Pinterest: Shroud of turin: Nello balossino," n.d. [return]
31. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.235. [return]
33. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]
34. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]
35. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.174-177. [return]

Posted: 19 May 2016. Updated: 24 May 2016.

Saturday, May 7, 2016

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (1): Shroud of Turin News - April 2016

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

[Previous: April 2016, part #1] [Next: April 2016, part #3]

This is part #2 of the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. This post had become too long, so I renamed it "Has Science Proven ... (1)" and will continue my comments on this article in part #3, which will be titled "Has Science Proven ... (2)." The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?," Church Militant, Ryan Fitzgerald, March 27, 2016. Despite what skeptics insist, its authenticity remains scientifically tenable

[Above (enlarge): Positive [left] (as seen with the naked eye) and enhanced negative[right] photographs of the Shroud face. Source: article]

For a site which claims it represents the "Church Militant," that is, "The Church ... engaged in ... an incessant warfare against the hostile world ... and against all the spiritual forces of darkness":

"The Church in the present dispensation is a militant Church, that is, she is called unto, and is actually engaged in, a holy warfare. This, of course, does not mean that she must spend her strength in self-destroying internecine struggles, but that she is duty bound to carry on an incessant warfare against the hostile world in every form in which it reveals itself, whether in the Church or outside of it, and against all the spiritual forces of darkness. The Church may not spend all her time in prayer and meditation, however necessary and important these may be, nor may she rest on her oars in the peaceful enjoyment of her spiritual heritage. She must be engaged with all her might in the battles of her Lord, fighting in a war that is both offensive and defensive. If the Church on earth is the militant Church, the Church in heaven is the triumphant Church. There the sword is exchanged for the palm of victory, the battle-cries are turned into songs of triumph, and the cross is replaced by the crown. The strife is over, the battle is won, and the saints reign with Christ forever and ever. In these two stages of her existence the Church reflects the humiliation and exaltation of her heavenly Lord"[2].
this is unnecessarily feeble. The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic! Therefore the Shroud's authenticity is not only "scientifically tenable" it is scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt[3]!

The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth bearing an uncanny, blood-stained image of what appears to be Jesus Christ, The image on the Shroud not only appears to be Jesus Christ, it is Jesus Christ!

[Right (original): "A photo negative of the Shroud of Turin." Source: article]

Leading Shroud anti- authenticist Steven D. Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell), has stated that either the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" or "the image is that of Jesus," and there is no "possible third hypothesis":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[4] and Stevenson and Habermas[5] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[6]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'" (my emphasis)[7]
And the Shroud man's image is not "a product of human artifice," that is, a forgery (see my Problems of the Forgery Theory).

is held as an object of devotion by Christians worldwide. That the Shroud uniquely transcends all Christian denominational divisions (I myself am a Protestant evangelical Christian) is itself powerful evidence that the Shroud is authentic. The Holy Spirit, who bears witness to Jesus (John 15:26), bears witness with the spirits of those Christians (Rom 8:16; Heb 10:15) who are open to receive it, that the Shroud of Turin is indeed Jesus' burial shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53)!

For centuries, countless Christians have considered it the authentic historical burial shroud of Our Lord, Indeed! See above. out of which He rose from the dead some 2,000 years ago. Not "out of which" but through which. See STURP physicist John Jackson's `cloth collapse' theory. Today it resides at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. The Church has never declared it to be the real burial shroud of Christ, although it does take the mysterious image to be worthy of Christian devotion. See my previous criticism (latest first 23Jun15, 17Apr15, 01Mar14, 14Feb14, 06Oct13) of the Vatican's policy of neither confirming nor denying that the Shroud is authentic, as "duplicitous," i.e. "two-faced." Because by its actions of spending the equivalent of many millions of dollars preserving the Shroud and exhibiting it to millions of people as though it is authentic, the Vatican clearly does believe that the Shroud is authentic, so ordinary honesty requires that it should say so. Shroud anti-authenticists cite the Vatican's refusal to state that the Shroud is authentic as evidence that it is not. And as devout Roman Catholic Donald M. Smith pointed out in his 1983 book, "The Letter," which was in the form of a letter to Pope John Paul II, if the Shroud is not authentic then it can only be the image of someone else tortured and crucified to make it look like Jesus (see 25Oct15). And for the Vatican to exhibit that, would show it has the same "the end justifies the means' ... principles of ... Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler":

"[If the Shroud is not authentic] ... there is another conclusion which also must follow: Sometime between 100 A.D. and 1357 A.D., an evil, cruel and sinful act occurred. A human being was actually made to go through the exact same torture and agonizing death as suffered by Jesus and as reported in the Gospels, for the sole purpose of producing a valuable relic ... If the goal of producing a likeness of the only begotten Son of God by such evil means, could in any way be condoned, then the whole principle is based on the theories that `the end justifies the means,' and that `power makes right.' These are the same set of principles of men with character the likes of Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler ... It is not right to venerate an object if that object was created by evil means" (my emphasis)[8].

As with any allegedly miraculous religious artifact, the Shroud is subject to a high degree of both faith and doubt. Rubbish! If this is the "Church Militant" I would hate to see the "Church Pacifist"! It takes more faith to believe the Shroud is not authentic than that it is authentic. As Fr Peter Rinaldi (1910-93) rightly said:

"Were the Shroud a forgery, it would be a greater miracle than if it were the actual cloth of Christ."[9].
In fact, as I have previously posted, based on Jesus' warning to those towns in Israel which witnessed His miraculous works but rejected them and Him, that they will be subject to a more severe judgment than those towns which rejected Jesus but did not witness His miraculous works(Mt 11:20-22; Lk 10:13-15); and on the principle which in that context Jesus laid down, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required ..." (Lk 12:48); those non-Christians who know the overwhelming evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud, which means it a miraculous work of Jesus[10], but refuse to accept it, will be judged by Jesus (Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5) more severely than they otherwise will be, if they were ignorant of that evidence.

The image clearly seems to depict Christ, as the body is that of a man wrapped in linen after being scourged, crucified, stabbed in his side and made to wear something like a crown of thorns. Only "seems to depict Christ"? See above on "Church Pacifist"! And see above what leading anti-authenticists Steven D. Schafersman and Joe Nickell stated, that either the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" (which it isn't) or "the image is that of Jesus." Ans also what another leading Shroud anti-authenticist, the late Roman Catholic Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) admitted, "In no other person [than Christ] ... could these details [on the Shroud] be verified":

"As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished ... If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified" (my emphasis)[11]
In addition, the origin of the image itself is scientifically inexplicable. Indeed! And what other medieval forgery has withstood over a century (since 1898) of scientific investigation, and yet still remains "scientifically inexplicable"? None! By the corollary of the Argument from Ignorance, that "if a certain event had occurred [the Shroud was forged in the Middle Ages], evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators," in which case "the absence of proof of" the Shroud having been forged in the Middle Ages is "positive proof" that the Shroud was not forged in the Middle Ages!:
"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) ... A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators. In such a case it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence."[12]
It manifests on the shroud in the form of a photo negative, yet it's been known to exist since about 1360 at the latest, It was 1355 actually. It sounds like this writer for Church Militant, was thrown into the deep end by his editor, not knowing much about his topic, as another young writer for Church Militant was. long before producing photo negative images was understood. See the above negative photograph of the Shroud, which is a photographic positive, thus proving the Shroud image is a photographic negative[13]. It was in

[Above (enlarge): The negative plate of one of Secondo Pia's (1855–1941) photographs of the Shroud in 1898, including the altar in Turin Cathedral where it was displayed[14]. As can be seen, on Pia's negative the Shroud image is positive, while everything else is photographically negative (e.g. the white wall behind the altar is dark, the dark wood altar is light, etc)[15].]

1816, over 460 years after the Shroud's first undisputed appearance in history at Lirey, France in 1355, that the first photographic negative was produced and with it the very concept[16] of photographic negativity:

"In 1816 Nicéphore Niépce, using paper coated with silver chloride, succeeded in photographing the images formed in a small camera, but the photographs were negatives, darkest where the camera image was lightest and vice versa, and they were not permanent in the sense of being reasonably light-fast; like earlier experimenters, Niépce could find no way to prevent the coating from darkening all over when it was exposed to light for viewing."[17]
And, since the very "concept of negativity... came into the range of human knowledge only when photography was invented in ... the nineteenth century" it "was clearly impossible" for "a medieval forger ... to conceive a negative image" let alone depict one:
"Vignon considered the possibility of a medieval forger being able to conceive a negative image. This was clearly impossible; the whole concept of negativity was something which came into the range of human knowledge only when photography was invented in the middle of the nineteenth century. And suppose a medieval forger had been able to conceive such a thing what would be the point in painting a negative image on the cloth in the first place? Even given the improbable fact that first our medieval painter could have thought it out and second he had a reason for doing so, how could he have had the skill to actually paint the thing in negative colour values? It was clearly a ridiculous possibility" (my emphasis)[18].
The Shroud has come to be regarded with its most severe doubts in the last few decades. The last few decades are (if this decade the 2010s is not counted), the 2000s, 1990s and 1980s. That was true of the late 1980s/early 1990s after the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud declared:
"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. ... The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390"[19]

[Above (enlarge): From right to left, Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr R. Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[20].]

But it has been downhill ever since for that radiocarbon dating result, with increasing acceptance of the Shroud's authenticity, as: 1) problems of radiocarbon dating in general became more widely known, which showed that anomalous dates were common; 2) problems of that particular radiocarbon dating of the Shroud became apparent; and 3) there is evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud had existed long before its earliest possible 1260 radiocarbon date (see below).

In the 1980s, Church authorities gave permission to a team of scientists to test a piece of the cloth with radiocarbon dating techniques. The key words are, "Church authorities gave permission to a team of scientists to test." The Vatican handled this very badly, indeed ineptly. It allowed the laboratories to be both the client and the tester, with itself the owner of the artefact to be dated, being relegated to a mere passive spectator:

"Among the many anomalies of the affair that were more or less influential on its correct conduct, the unusual initiative of the laboratories should be noted. It had never happened before that the investigating laboratories themselves had asked to date a specimen or that there should be so many, all seven of them, who wanted to carry out parallel investigations. Normally it is a scholar, in the role of a submitter, who presents the specimen to the laboratories and asks for their response. `But this time,' Gonella states, `the laboratories that specialized in Carbon 14 dating wanted to act as their own submitters ... they insisted on being present, at all costs, during the cutting operation because they did not trust the officials of the Church ... `Since when,' Gonella wonders, `has a dating laboratory wanted to be present during an excavation because it did not trust the archaeologist who was excavating the specimens? Since when have laboratories refused to collaborate?'"[21].
In this the Vatican made a huge tactical mistake. It should have insisted that it was the client, paid for the testing, chosen its own laboratories to do the dating, insisted on double-blind testing, insisted on receiving the test results from the laboratories, and announcing them to the public. The Vatican should also have stated upfront, as a not-negotiable condition of dating the Shroud, that like any other radiocarbon dating client, it was free to reject the date if it did not agree with all the other evidence about the Shroud.

When the scientists announced the results, they rather triumphantly declared that its history goes back only to medieval times, from between 1260 and 1390 AD. On "triumphantly" note the most unscientific exclamation mark[22] after the 1390 on the blackboard above. This shows that these non-Christian scientists wanted the Shroud to be a medieval fake[23], as was candidly admitted by Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall (1924–2001):

"The Holy Shroud of Turin - revered by Catholics for centuries - is a piece of linen woven between AD1260 and 1390. Therefore the image it bears cannot be the imprint of the bloodstained body of the crucified Jesus Christ ... Professor Hall, who heads the Oxford research laboratory in archaeology and the history of art, said he was not disappointed in the result. 'I have to admit I am an agnostic and I don't want at my time of life to have to change my ideas.'" (my emphasis)[24]
and so were easily duped by a computer hacker, allegedly Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) - see my series "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."

And yet the shroud remains an object of devotion, The Shroud itself should not be "an object of devotion" because that would be idolatry. It is only Jesus, the Man on the Shroud, who is God in human flesh (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20), who is rightly "an object of devotion."

particularly because the radiocarbon dating leaves so much unanswered about the enigmatic Christian icon. One of the key unanswered questions about the 1988 radiocarbon dating, that "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390," is, as mentioned above, that there is evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud had existed long before its earliest possible 1260 radiocarbon date[25]. This included: 1) numerous Byzantine icons with up to fifteen odd features called "Vignon markings," which have no artistic merit, but all fifteen oddities are found on the Shroud, some of which are just quirks in the weave (see 14Apr14, 11Feb12).

For example, the Sainte Face de Laon (Holy Face of Laon) was painted

[Above (enlarge): "The Holy Face of Laon," c. 12th-13th century[27], now in the Cathedral of Laon, Picardy, France[28].]

c. 1200-17[26], and was purchased in 1249 by Jacques Pantaleon (c. 1195–1264), archdeacon of the cathedral of Laon, who became Pope Urban IV[29]. The icon has an inscription in Old Slavonic (9th–11th century) by the artist, which reads, "Obraz Gospodin na Ubruzje" ("The Lord's picture on the Cloth")[30]. From the language of the inscription the icon has been dated between 1200 and 1217[31], and likely painted at Constantinople before 1204[32] by a monk from the Benedictine monastery of Szavaszentdemeter[33], near modern Nova Gradiska[34], in Srem, which was then Hungary. The icon has thirteen out of the fifteen Vignon markings[35], more than any other known icon[36], yet it actually is a copy of the Mandylion/Image of Edessa[37] (the Shroud four-doubled [tetradiplon])[38]. That and the inscription indicates that the Laon face was copied directly from the Mandylion/Shroud[39]. The Laon face cannot date from after 1249, yet that is already more than a decade after the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[40]. And the Mandylion/Shroud that the Laon face was copied from must have existed long before 1249[41]. But the Holy Face of Laon is only one of the "lot of other evidence that" the Director of Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Ramsey, who was involved in the 1988 radiocarbon dating and was a signatory to the 1989 Nature article, admitted, "suggests ... that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow":

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information"[42]
Another example of the "lot of other evidence that suggests ... the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow" is the Hungarian Pray Manuscript or Codex. The Codex was prepared in the ancient

[Above (enlarge): Plate III, "Entombment" (upper) and "Visit to the Sepulchre" (lower), one of three miniature ink drawings in the Hungarian Pray Codex (1192-1195)[43]. It was named after György Pray (1723-1801), a Hungarian librarian who discovered it in 1770[44]. As can be seen, Jesus is depicted nude with His hands crossing awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, to cover His genitals, exactly as on the Shroud[45]! The agnostic art historian, Thomas de Wesselow, "identified eight telling correspondences between the Shroud and the drawings on a [this] single page of the Pray Codex" (my emphasis)[46]!]

Benedictine monastery at Boldva, Hungary[47] and is now kept in the National Library of Budapest[48] . The Codex contains a Funeral Oration which is the earliest written work in the Hungarian language[49], and is dated between 1192 and 1195[50]. Hungary was then ruled by King Bela III (c. 1148–1196), who was an ally of the Byzantine Empire[51] and had lived at the Imperial Court in Constantinople from 1163-72[52]. It is likely that during that period the artist saw the Shroud in Constantinople and depicted it in the three drawings now in the Pray Codex[53].

There are at least sixteen (16) unusual or unique features shared in common between the Shroud and three of the Pray Codex drawings. In the "Entombment" (Berkovits, Plate III (upper)): 1) Jesus is completely nude[54] (unique in the 12th century). 2) He is laid on a shroud[55]. 3) His hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists to cover His genital area[56]. 4) Jesus' right hand is over His left[57]. 5) Jesus' fingers are abnormally long[58]. 6) His thumbs are not visible[59], when at least His left hand thumb should be[60]. 7) There is a mark above Jesus' right eye corresponding to the reversed `3' bloodstain on the Shroud[61] (see 27May12). 8) Jesus' shroud is more than twice His body's length[62] (it is draped over the Apostle John on the right and Nicodemus on the left - see 27May12). 9) The end of Jesus' shroud below His feet has a ragged end (see 27May12) which corresponds with the Shroud's[63] (before the latter's missing corner was removed). In "Visit to the Sepulchre" (Berkovits, Plate III (lower)): 10) Jesus' sarcophagus lid has a herringbone weave pattern[64]. 11) The sarcophagus lid has red zig-zag blood patterns corresponding to the blood trickles down the the Shroud man's arms[65]. 12) The sarcophagus and its lid both have L-shaped patterns of tiny circles corresponding to the `poker holes' on the Shroud[66] (see 27May12). In "Christ Enthroned" (Berkovits, plate IV): 13) There is a nail

[Above (enlarge): "Christ Enthroned," Berkovits, 1969, plate IV.]

bloodstain on Jesus' right wrist (uniquely for the Middle Ages), as on the Shroud and another nail bloodstain in Jesus' left palm[67] which is hidden on the Shroud. This is very significant because it shows that the nail wound in the right wrist, being non-traditional, was forced on the artist by what he saw on the Shroud. 14) There is a elliptical bloodstain on Jesus' right chest corresponding to the spear wound bloodstain on the Shroud[68]. 15) Jesus is wearing a long robe, one end of which resembles the Shroud's ragged end in 9) above. 16) The ends of Jesus' feet are indistinct as are the man on the Shroud's[69]. This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Pray Codex artist saw the Shroud before 1192-95[70], sixty-five years before the earliest possible 1260 radiocarbon date[71], and most likely in Constantinople in 1163-72[72]. The Pray Codex alone proves that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390" was wrong! See also my 11Jan10 and 27Dec15, 15Oct15, 23Jul15, 02Dec14, 26Oct14 & 27May12. I will continue providing references about the Pray Codex in the background.

Continued in part #3, "Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (2).

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Berkhof, L., 1958, "Systematic Theology," [1932], Banner of Truth: London, British Edition, Third printing, 1966, p.565. [return]
3. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.125; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.90; Minor, M., 1990, "Shroud of Turin Manuscript Discovered By Texas Member," The Manuscript Society News, Vol. XI, No. 4, Fall, pp.117-122, 122; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.71. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
5. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.121-129. [return]
6. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
7. Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp.37-56, p.42 in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
8. Smith, D.M., 1983, "The Letter," DMS Publishing Co: Rancho Palos Verdes CA, pp.24-25. [return]
9. Rinaldi, P.M., 1996, "For the Holy Shroud, a Crucial Hour: An interview with Peter M. Rinaldi, S.D.B.," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 21, December, pp.16-20, 19; Rinaldi, P.M., 1987, "For the Holy Shroud, the Hour of Truth," Shroud News, No. 39, February, pp.13-17, 16. [return]
10. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.174-177. [return]
11. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wilson, 1979, p.52. [return]
12. Copi, I.M., 1953, "Introduction to Logic," Macmillan: New York NY, Seventh Edition, 1986, pp.94-95. [return]
13. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.16; Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.26-27; Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J. & Mottern, R.W., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.74; Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.4; 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, pp.26-27; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.56; Rinaldi, P.M., 1983, "I Saw the Holy Shroud," Don Bosco Publications: New Rochelle NY, p.18; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, p.3; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.10; Iannone, 1998, pp.5,66; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.8; 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.18; Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.26; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.35; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.29-30; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.5-6; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.18-19. [return]
14. Moretto, 1999, p.26. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Morgan, 1980, pp.64-65; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.57; O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, pp.46-47; Antonacci, 2000, pp.35-36. [return]
17. "History of photography: Development of chemical photography," Wikipedia, 8 May 2016. [return]
18. Morgan, 1980, pp.64-65. [return]
19. Damon, P.E., et al., 1988, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp. 611-615, 611. [return]
20. Wilson, 1998, p.7 & pl.3b. [return]
21. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E. 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.115 (footnotes omitted). [return]
22. Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.12; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.108; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.133. [return]
23. Oxley, 2010, pp.86-87; Marino, J.G., 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion," Cradle Press: St. Louis MO, p.272. [return]
24. Radford, T., 1988, "Shroud dating leaves 'forgery' debate raging," The Guardian, October 14. [return]
25. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.3; Wilson, 1998, pp.125,141; Wilson, I., 1996, "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, p.134; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.108. [return]
26. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.21; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.45; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.56-57. [return]
27. Wilson, 1991, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.56; de Riedmatten, P., 2008, "The Holy Face of Laon," BSTS Newsletter, No. 68, December; Oxley, 2010, p.108. [return]
28. "File:Icône Sainte Face Laon 150808.jpg," Wikipedia, 7 October 2015. Google translated from French. [return]
29. Currer-Briggs, 1984, pp.21, 85; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.157; "File:Icône Sainte Face Laon 150808.jpg," Wikipedia, 2015; Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
30. Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.21; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.58; Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
31. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.157. [return]
32. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.58-59. [return]
33. Wilson, I., 1983, "Some Recent Society Meetings," BSTS Newsletter, No. 6, September/December, p.13; Currer-Briggs, 1984, pp.22, 84. [return]
34. Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.158; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.157. [return]
35. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.58. [return]
36. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.67. [return]
37. Wilson, 1983, p.13; Wilson, 1998, pp.150-151. [return]
38. References to be provided. [return]
39. Wuenschel, 1954, p.59; Wilcox, 1977, p.97; Currer-Briggs, 1984, pp.21-22, 158. [return]
40. Currer-Briggs, 1995, pp.56-57. [return]
41. Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.57. [return]
42. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March, Version 152, Issued 16 June 2015. [return]
43. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, pl. III. [return]
44. Guerrera, 2001, p.104; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 14 March 2015. [return]
45. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178-179. [return]
46. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
47. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson, 1991, p.151. [return]
48. 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.59; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
49. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
50. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson, 1986, p.114; Wilson, 1991, p.151; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
51. de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
52. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 5 May 2016. [return]
53. Guerrera, 2001, p.106; de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
54. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Wilson, 1998, pp.146,271; Guerrera, 2001, pp.104-105; Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.xxvi; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson, 2010, pp.183,301; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178-179. [return]
55. Iannone, 1998, p.155. [return]
56. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 1991, pp.150-151; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.164-165; Iannone, 1998, p.154; Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, 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, p.63; Wilson, 2010, pp.183, 301; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
57. Iannone, 1998, p.155; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. On the Shroud it is actually the man's left hand over his right because the Shroud is analogous to a plaster cast. [return]
58. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
59. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Scavone, 1998, p.63; Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
60. de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
61. Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
61. Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
62. Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
63. Jones, S.E., 2012, "My critique of "The Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 May 2011," May 27 [return]
64. Iannone, 1998, p.155; Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Marino, 2011, p.53; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
65. Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, et al., 2002, p.33; Scavone, 1998, p.64; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
66. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.163-164; Iannone, 1998, pp.154-155; Scavone, 1998, p.64; Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Marino, 2011, p.53; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
67. Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
68. References to be provided. [return]
69. References to be provided. [return]
70. Guerrera, 2001, p.106; de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
71. Iannone, 1998, p.155; Maloney, 1998, p.33; Marino, 2011, p.53. [return]
72. Scavone, 1998, p.64; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.181, 183. [return]

Posted: 7 May 2016. Updated: 19 May 2016.

Friday, May 6, 2016

Editorial and Contents: Shroud of Turin News - April 2016

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

[Previous: March 2016, part #3] [Next: April 2016, part #2]

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

Contents:
Editorial
"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery? (1)"
"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery? (2)"
"The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus"
"New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person"
"The Shroud of Turin, Authenticated Again"


Editorial. Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz for him to convert to PDF and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in April up to issue #47, June 1988. [Right (enlarge)]. It is up to issue #36, August 1986, in that archive. 1988 was the year of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud so in there is a lot on that topic coming soon!

Topic index: I continued adding my old posts to my Topic Index in April up to and including my post of 28 March 2012, but the rate has slowed to a crawl due to other priorities. In April, I blogged 7 posts: Editorial and Contents: Shroud of Turin News - March 2016 - 1st; Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index G-M - 2nd; "The Shroud of Turin": Shroud of Turin News - March 2016 - 3rd; "Modern-day 'Indiana Jones' links Shroud to 1st century": Shroud of Turin News - March 2016 - 4th; Non-traditional #13: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic - 13th; My review of "The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God" (2016) by Philip E. Dayvault - 25th.

Updates to my posts in the background in April included: "Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index A-F," "G-M" and "N-Z"; and "Is The Shroud Of Turin Genuine?": Shroud of Turin News, January 2016" (the latter is too time-consuming so I have ceased adding to it).

Pageviews: At midnight on 30th April, Google Analytics [below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 524,526 and "Pageviews last month" as 9,216. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month as: ""Modern-day 'Indiana Jones' links Shroud to 1st century ...,"Apr 4 - 143; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," Dec 2, 2013 - 119; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 108; "Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity ...," Mar 13 - 94 and "Non-traditional #13 ... ," - 91.


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]

Posted: 6 May 2016. Updated: 25 May 2016.

Monday, April 25, 2016

My review of "The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God" (2016) by Philip E. Dayvault

Philip E. Dayvault's 2016 book, "The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God" [Right: Amazon.com[1].] arrived by mail on 15th April, 2016. Because I don't have the time to read its 298 pages in one sitting, I will review it in installments. I hope this review will be found by some intending buyers of the book before they waste their money on it (unless they are into historical fiction, or rather fantasy). Here is the eighth and final (as well as an update of the seventh) installment of my review of that book, between the horizontal lines, on which will be the basis of a reader's review that I will submit to Amazon.com and other online booksellers which list and allow readers' reviews of the book. See my previous posts, "`Modern-day 'Indiana Jones' links Shroud to 1st century': Shroud of Turin News - March 2016" and "`Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity': Shroud of Turin News - February 2016." Dayvault's words are in bold and the numbers in square brackets are page numbers in the book.


Leading Shroud scholar, Ian Wilson once began a review of a much better book than this one by Philip E. Dayvault, with:

"... very sadly the subject of the Shroud needs this particular book like a hole in the head ..."[2]
And very sadly the same applies to Dayvault's book because it is so wrong that it is at best an exercise in self-delusion (as will be seen). And I write as a fellow Christian and Shroud pro-authenticist of Dayvault.

• "Upon seeing the cloth, King Abgar V was healed of leprosy and gout and converted to Christianity, as soon did the entire city." [viii]. Wrong. While Edessa's King Abgar V (r.13-50) may have been healed of leprosy by Jesus' disciple Thaddeus and then converted to Christianity, along with some of Edessa's citizens, there is no good evidence for, and much evidence against, that Abgar V saw "the cloth," i.e. the Mandylion, which was the Shroud four-doubled (tetradiplon), i.e. folded 4 x2 = 8 times[3]. In the earliest c. 325 record of Abgar V's healing and conversion, that of Eusebius (c. 260–340)[4], there is no mention of a cloth[5] or an image[6]. And some (if not most) leading Shroud scholars now regard the story of Abgar V "seeing the cloth" as a "pious fraud"[7] and accept that it was under King Abgar VIII (r. 177-212) that Edessa became a Christian city[8]. Shroud pro-authenticist historian Dan Scavone has shown that it was Abgar VIII who was the originator of the Abgar V legend and had it inserted into Edessa's royal archives[9] (unknown to Eusebius). Even Ian Wilson the leading proponent of the Abgar V theory, now concedes:

"Abgar V was part of a dynasty of rulers bearing this same name, and one successor slightly more favoured by historians as the Abgar whom Addai [Thaddeus] converted (and who therefore may have been the true recipient of the Image of Edessa/Shroud) is Abgar VIII,' who reigned from 179 [sic] to 212" (my emphasis)[10]

• "Also, according to the legend, King Abgar V displayed the cloth and had a tile bearing the same facial image of Jesus Christ placed over a Western Gate of the `City'" ... [viii]. Wrong. The 945 "Official History of the Image of Edessa" (Narratio de Imagine Edessena)[11], which is Appendix C, pages 272-290, in Ian Wilson's 1979 book, The Shroud of Turin): 1) does not say "a tile bearing the same facial image of Jesus Christ" was "placed over a Western Gate of the `City'." That "tile" (there were two) which the Official History states, had a "copy of the likeness of the divine face" which "had been transferred to the tile from the cloth" was at "Hierapolis" [Hierapolis, Syria, modern Manbij], not Edessa:

"8. Christ entrusted this letter to Ananias, and knew that the man was anxious to bring to completion the other command of his master, that he should take a likeness of Jesus' face to Abgar. The Savior then washed his face in water, wiped off the moisture that was left on the towel that was given to him, and in some divine and inexpressible manner had his own likeness impressed on it. This towel he gave to Ananias and instructed him to hand it over to Abgar ... When he was returning with these things, Ananias then hurried to the town of Hierapolis ... He lodged outside this city at a place where a heap of tiles which had been recently prepared was lying, and here Ananias hid that sacred piece of cloth. ... The Hieropolitans ... found ... [on] one of the tiles nearby, another copy of the likeness of the divine face ... the divine image had been transferred to the tile from the cloth ... they retained the tile on which the divine image had been stamped, as a sacred and highly valued treasure" (my emphasis)[12].
That tile with Jesus' image on it was transferred from Hierapolis, Syria, to Constantinople in 968/969[13], that is ~24/25 years after the Mandylion/Shroud had been transferred from Edessa to Constantinople in 944[14].

Nor does the Official History say that the Edessa tile was "placed over" a gate of the city. It states that the "the image," i.e. the image of Jesus on the "towel" (see above), "lay" in a "place" which "had the appearance of a semispherical cylinder" and "a tile," of which nothing is said about it having an image, was "placed ... on top" of the image:
"15. ... A statue of one of the notable Greek gods has been erected before the public gate of the city by the ancient citizens and settlers of Edessa to which everyone wishing to enter the city had to offer worship and customary prayers. Only then could he enter into the roads and streets of the city. Abgar then destroyed this statue and consigned it to oblivion, and in its place set up this likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand, fastening it to a board and embellishing it with the gold which is now to be seen ... And he laid down that everyone who intended to come through that gate, should-in place of that former worthless and useless statue-pay fitting reverence and due worship and honor to the very wondrous miracle-working image of Christ, and only then enter the city of Edessa. And such a monument to and offering of his piety was preserved as long as Abgar [V] and his son [Ma'nu V] were alive, his son succeeding to his father's kingdom and his piety. But their son and grandson [Ma'nu VI] succeeded to his father's and grandfather's kingdom but did not inherit their piety ... Therefore ... he wished just as his grandfather had consigned that idolatrous statue to oblivion so he would bring the same condemnation on the image of the Lord also. But this treacherous move was balked of his prey. For the bishop of the region, perceiving this beforehand, showed as much forethought as possible, and, since the place where the image lay had the appearance of a semispherical cylinder, he lit a lamp in front of the image, and placed a tile on top. Then he blocked the approach from the outside with mortar and baked bricks and reduced the wall to a level in appearance. And because the hated image was not seen, this impious man desisted from his attempt. .. Then a long interval of time elapsed and the erection of this sacred image and its concealment both disappeared from men's memories" (my emphasis)[15]
And Wilson pointed out that "a semispherical cylinder" is an apt description of "an arched vault," and "one of the four main gates of Edessa, that to the west, was specifically known in Syriac as the Kappe gate, which means gate of arches or vaults"[16]. So there is no reason to think that this undistinguished, "a tile," placed on top of the Mandylion/Shroud, in an arched vault above Edessa's "public gate of the city" (see above) the Western Gate, was: a) attached to anything; and b) had an image on it. The only tile which the 945 Official History records as having an image on it was the tile which had been in "a heap of tiles" at Hierapolis Sysria, and was still there in 945 when the Official History was written. So this Hierapolis tile, the only tile which is recorded as having an image of Jesus on it, must have been the tile which was later called "the Keramion." And that Hierapolis tile had never been at Edessa nor had anything to do with Edessa! So the answer to Dayvault's question that he asked in the Preface of his book:
"Could the small mosaic, the ISA Tile, be the actual historical and legendary Keramion?"[viii]
already is a resounding NO, and we are still only in the Preface, with still more to come in that Preface!

"... (Citadel), as a memorial to this momentous event. "[viii]. Wrong. As per my previous post, firstly, the Citadel was not the city, but a castle inside the city of Edessa[17] (see photo below). Secondly,

[Above (enlarge): Photo at page 221 of Dayvault's book of Edessa's citadel, with Dayvault's self-evidently false annotation that at the arrowed point is a "Gate" when there is no gate (see further below). But note that even Dayvault has to admit that this is only the Western end of "the Citadel" not of the city!]

the Citadel (which Dayvault on page 60 agrees was called the "Birtha") did not exist in the time of Abgar V (r.13-50) but was built by Abgar VIII (r. 177-212) in 205: "The sixth-century Syriac Chronicle of Edessa announces that `in the year 205 Abgar VIII built the Birtha."[18]. Thirdly, Dayvault is misleading his readers by a fallacious word-play between "city" and "citadel." In his online PDF, Dayvault wrote:

"Interestingly, the word, `city' derives from the Latin word, `civitas', which also can mean `citadel.'"[19]
The footnote 7 Dayvault cited, "7 http://viagabina rice.edu/oecus/oecus html, `Site 10 Villa: The Oecus Emblema', by Philip Oliver-Smith," does not have the words "civitas" or "citadel" in it. And in his book Dayvault simply asserts, with no reference:
"Civitas (Latin) means either city or citadel"[117].
But apart from that being false (my Latin-English dictionary states that the Latin "civitas" means "citizenship; community state;" and that the English "citadel" is "arx" in Latin[20]), that word-play only works in English. In Syriac the word for "citadel" is birtha[21], which Dayvault in his book even states[60] and "Edessa" in Syriac is "Orhay"[22].

And as can be seen in the photo below from page 220 of Dayvault's book, with his annotation that this is the "Western Gate of the Citadel," on that same page 220 Dayvault wrote that it was "Viewed

[Above (enlarge): Photo at page 220 of Dayvault's book of the Western end of the Citadel, with his self-evidently false (and deluded) annotation that it is the "Western Gate of the Citadel. But as can be seen in the maximum zoom Google Earth photo of the Western end of the Citadel, again there is no gate!]

from across the moat while looking eastward, the westernmost tip of the Citadel in Sanliurfa and its tunnel entrance is pictured above." As can be seen in the Google Earth photo below, that place from where

[Above (enlarge): Google Earth photo of Sanliurfa[23] showing the Western end of Edessa's Citadel. The triangular `island' (red arrow) is evidently from where Dayvault took his photo above, and the circular structure (blue arrow) is evidently what he called the "Western Gate Monument." Which is in fact the ruins of a tower/windmill (see below)!]

Dayvault evidently took his page 220 photo above, is on the triangular `island' to the upper left of the western end of the Citadel (red arrow). And the circular structure on the tip of the western end of the Citadel blue arrow) is evidently what Dayvault called the "Western Gate Monument" in his same photo above. But a photo on a "Rome Art Lover's" website identified this as the remains of a tower/windmill (see below). That is confirmed by an online tourist guide document,

[Above (enlarge): "Remains of a windmill tower at the western end of the citadel ..."[24]. See below that this windmill tower is "Byzantine and Islamic," which is 11th-12th century. How could Dayvault go to Sanliurfa, with a Turkish guide/interpreter (page 95ff), and not know that this is the remains of a windmill tower? And that it is 11th-12th century?]

"A Guide to Southeastern Anatolia," which states of "Sanliurfa": "The ruined Byzantine and Islamic structures include a windmill to the west of the citadel" (my emphasis)[25]. Note that this ruined windmill tower is "Byzantine and Islamic," but the Byzantine period in Edessa was from 1031[26] and ended with the Islamic conquest of Edessa in 1144[27]! So this windmill tower dates from between the 11th and 12th centuries, which is about a thousand years too late to be the "public gate of the city" (above) which, according to the 945 Official History (above), the Mandylion/Shroud, tile and lamp had been hidden! And therefore about a thousand years too late to be Dayvault's "Western Gate Entrance" (see below). Indeed by 1031 the Shroud and Keramion had been in Constantinople for ~87 and ~63 years respectively!

That this is the same structure which Dayvault called the "Western Gate Monument" above, but from a different angle, is confirmed by its inclusion in a triptych photo on page 222 of his book from that different angle (see below).

[Above (enlarge): Triptych photo on page 222 of Dayvault's book, being different views of what he calls, the "Western Gate Monument." The middle photo especially shows that it is in fact the windmill tower ruins in the photo above!]

Thus, all visitors to Edessa would see it and pay homage to the one true God." [viii]. Wrong. First, the Official History does not say that "all visitors to Edessa would see it" the tile "and pay homage to the one true God." It says (see above), that "everyone who intended to come through that gate ["the public gate of the city"], should ... pay fitting reverence and due worship and honor to the very wondrous miracle-working image of Christ" which "fasten[ed] ... to a board and embellish[ed] .. with ... gold," that is, the Mandylion/Shroud. As we saw above, the "tile" at Edessa had no image and its only function was to be "on top" of the Mandylion/Shroud. Why does Dayvault even want to boost this mere plain tile to the detriment of the Shroud?

Second, Dayvault (deludedly), claims that the "tunnel" in these windmill tower (see below) was "the public gate of the city" (see above)

[Above (enlarge): Photo on page 226 of Dayvault's book of the tunnel in this 11th-12th century (see above) windmill tower ruins, which Dayvault (deludedly) calls, "The Western Gate Entrance."]

within which the Mandylion/Shroud, the tile and lamp had supposedly been hidden! So incredible is this that I myself did not realise that is what Dayvault had been claiming. At page 228, Dayvault claims (or implies) that the Edessa tile was on a "single marble block" which had been in a cavity (see below) about "2 feet high by 3.5 feet wide" by "8-12 inches" deep (about 61 cms H x 107 cms W x 25 cms D):

"The opening above the Western Gate tunnel entrance measures approximately 2 feet high by 3.5 feet wide. The depth of the opening is approximately 8-12 inches. A single marble block is missing from the cavity. A block, similar in type to adjacent blocks, that would have been suitable for the accommodation of the ISA Tile with nimbus lies directly at the entrance to the tunnel."[228]
The cavity over the top of the tunnel (above) is where Dayvault claims (see future below) that the marble block on which the Sanliurfa mosaic, which he claims was the Keramion, was attached. This would have been the place in his book where Dayvault should have produced his key evidence that one of the loose blocks nearby matched the underside of the Sanliurfa mosaic, which Dayvault had claimed in his PDF, accompanied by a comparison photo (below), that he had "forensically

[Above (enlarge): Dayvault's claimed "unique features" of a stone block at what he calls the "Western Gate" of Edessa's Citadel and the underside of the Sanliurfa mosaic[28]. See my previous post where I pointed out that none of Dayvault's claimed "unique features" between the stone block and mosaic tile, match!]

determined the ISA Tile had been ... attached to the referenced stone block, thereby making it the original tile and not a copy:"

"Additional evidence was needed to associate the ISA Tile to the cavity and stone which would have been placed over the Western Gate of entranceway to the Citadel, otherwise the tile still might have been a copy of an even earlier mosaic. By examining his available photographic evidence, Dayvault noticed unique features on the large rock directly in front of the Citadel entranceway. The general characteristics were similar in configuration to the backside of the ISA Tile. Using skills from his former years of image analysis experience in the FBI Laboratory and Shroud research, he forensically determined the ISA Tile had been, in fact, at one time in its history, attached to the referenced stone block, thereby making it the original tile and not a copy[29].

But significantly, Dayvault has left that item of crucial evidence out of his book (he briefly mentions it later on pages 282-283 with only a tiny, postage stamp sized, ~3 cm x ~3.5 cm = ~ 1.2 in. x ~1.4 in. photo), presumably because he had since realised that the underside of the mosaic does not match the stone block at this so-called "Western Gate Entrance"!

Dayvault claimed on page 228 that this "tunnel" is a "cylindrical semicircle" which is "the description for the location where the Shroud, Keramion, and lamp were hidden" and "That is exactly what the tunnel entrance depicts!" (his emphasis):

"The actual tunnel opening is not visible from the top of the mound while standing next to the Western Gate Monument. This is ... where most visitors stand while observing the great view of Sanliurfa. One has to walk all the way around the monument on a narrow trail to see the tunnel entrance with the missing block over the passageway. A `cylindrical semicircle' ... is the description for the location where the Shroud, Keramion, and lamp were hidden. That is exactly what the tunnel entrance depicts! " [228. Dayvault's emphasis]
But it is not what the tunnel entrance depicts! The Official History states above that "the place where the image," tile and lamp "lay had the appearance of a semispherical cylinder" (my emphasis). The difference is that a "cylindrical semicircle" would be a cylinder which was flat at each end, and cut in half lengthwise; but a "semispherical cylinder" would be a cylinder with one end flat and the other end a half-sphere, and cut in half lengthwise. This does not fit Dayvault's tunnel so he changes the wording of the Official History! And apart from this windmill tower being "Byzantine and Islamic" and therefore 11th- 12th century (see above), as shown by Dayvault's own photo on page 226 [Right (enlarge)] this tunnel is neither a "cylindrical semicircle" nor a "semispherical cylinder," but just brick tunnel (presumably for storage of grain to be milled and flour) with a pointed apex along its length. And as Dayvault's own photo below on page 223 of the opposite side of this tunnel entrance shows, it did not go all the way through. So (apart from

[Above (enlarge): Opposite side of what Dayvault calls the "Western Gate Monument" (which is actually a 11th-12th century windmill tower - see above), showing there is no way through what Dayvault claims was the "public gate of the city" (see above).]

everything else above, this tunnel could not have been what Dayvault claims on page 230 was the Official History's "Edessa city gate," that is "the public gate of the city" (see above).

This tile is historically known as the Keramion." [viii]. Wrong. As pointed out above the only tile the 945 Official History states had an image on it, was the one at Hierapolis, Syria. That tile was never at Edessa, but was transferred from Hierapolis, Syria to Constantinople in 968/969. The Official History says nothing about the tile at Edessa having an image on it. It was therefore this tile which had been at Hierapolis, Syria, that the Official History records had a "likeness of the divine [Jesus'] face" (see above) on it, and was transferred from Hierapolis, Syria, to Constantinople in 968/969, and later became known as The Keramion[30].

Further evidence against this Sanliurfa mosaic (see below) being the Keramion includes: 1) It is a mosaic, and even credulous first century

[Above (enlarge): "Mosaic face of Jesus, sixth century. Fragment from an unidentified location in Sanliurfa"[31]. Guscin and Wilson dated this Sanliurfa mosaic "somewhere between the sixth and seventh centuries"[32]. Dayvault in 2002[280] and Wilson and Guscin in 2008 were independently told by the Director of Sanliurfa Museum that the mosaic had been cut out of the wall of a Sanliurfa house[33]. This is a higher quality photo of the Sanliurfa mosaic, which Guscin found in a Sanliurfa magazine[34], and was first published outside of Turkey in Ian Wilson's 2010 book, "The Shroud" (see reference 31), thus preempting Dayvault who evidently sat on his 2002 discovery of the mosaic for ~9 years (2002-11) (see previous). Dayvault was aware that Wilson was the first to publish outside of Turkey an account of finding this mosaic, including the above photo of it, because on page 140 Dayvault refers to what presumably is private communication between him and Wilson about the mosaic:

"... Ian Wilson has indicated the place of its [the mosaic's] supposed original discovery was in Bireçik, a small town on the banks of the Euphrates River and in the western part of Sanliurfa Provence [sic]..." (see also below).
But Dayvault does not give a reference to this communication with Wilson, and nowhere in Dayvault's book can I find (it does not have an index) where Dayvault credits Wilson or even cites his 2010 book.]

Hieropolitans would know that a mosaic was not an image but a lot of tiny tiles, none of which has an image, which together form the illusion of an image. So this Sanliurfa mosaic, Dayvault's "ISA tile," has no image, but only an illusion of an image which exists, not on the tile, but in the heads of humans looking at it. So this Sanliurfa mosaic cannot be the Keramion!

2) As pointed out in a previous post, the Greek word "keramion" is derived from keramos, which means "clay," "anything made of clay," and includes "a roofing tile"[35]. This fits with the Official History where the tile upon which the image of Jesus was transferred, which was later named "The Keramion," was one of "a heap of tiles which had been recently prepared," that is, clay roofing tiles. The exact same word keramion" occurs in Mark 14:13 and Luke 22:10 where it is translated "jar," as in a clay jar for carrying water[36]. But Dayvault described the base of the Sanliurfa mosaic, in which the mosaic tiles or tesserae were embedded, as "tufa" which is "a limestone commonly used for artwork" (my emphasis)[285]. So again, this Sanliurfa mosaic cannot be the Keramion!

3) Dayvault needs to plausibly explain how the Keramion, which disappeared during the 1204 sack of Constantinople[37] ended up in the wall of a house in Bireçik, a small town in Sanliurfa Province. He admitted in his PDF that "If his [the man who sold the mosaic to the museum] story were true, the ISA Tile would have been only a copy of an even earlier prototype" (Dayvault's emphasis)[38]. However in his book on page 280, Dayvault wrote that if this were true, it only "potentially could "preclude the possibility of its being the actual Keramion" (my emphasis). That is because Dayvault had since thought of two fantastic (as in fantasy) `explanations' of how what the man told the museum was true, yet the mosaic was the Keramion. Dayvault's first fantasy `explanation' was that because "Bireçik ... [is] about 20 miles [actually 35 miles = 56 kms] from Hierapolis, Syria, this Sanliurfa mosaic is the original Hierapolis tile and it was a copy of it which in 968 was taken to Constantinople and became known as the Keramion:

"Interestingly, Ian Wilson has indicated the place of its supposed original discovery was in Bireçik, a small town on the banks of the Euphrates River and in the western part of Sanliurfa Provence [sic], about 20 miles from Hierapolis, where the Keramion had been taken and later ordered retrieved and taken to Constantinople by Emperor Phokas in AD 966 or AD 968. Is that mere coincidence? Or, perhaps, could a copy have been sent to the emperor ... with the original remaining behind in Hierapolis (Edessa)? This would allow for the original to have been rediscovered and eventually passed on to the museum. The mosaic tile sent to Constantinople would most likely have been a copy in that the custodians would have wanted to retain the original" [140. Emphasis Dayvault's]
But apart from Wilson and Guscin, world authorities on the Image of Edessa, having dated this mosaic to "between the sixth and seventh centuries" (see above), it not being made of clay (which is what keramion means - see above), and being a mosaic having no image on it (see above), Dayvault's "Hierapolis (Edessa)" reveals his confusion of the Hierapolis tile which had an image and the Edessa tile which didn't (see above). Then there are Dayvault's problems of explaining how the Emperor's experts were fooled when they would have been intimately familiar with the Hierapolis tile, and again how the tile ended up in the wall of a house in a small town in Sanliurfa Province, with no one knowing it was there, including the owner of the house.

Dayvault's second fantasy `explanation' is that the museum misunderstood what the seller (not "donor" because he sold it to the museum) told them. What the seller really said (according to Dayvault) was that the tile had been "hacked out ... of the wall ... [of] "the `house ...' of the king ... the Citadel"!:

"However, what if the donor had actually said, `It, the mosaic, had been 'hacked' out of a 'house' during 'renovations'? ... the donor could possibly be describing exactly what happened to the ISA Tile when it was removed centuries ago. Theoretically, describing the donor's statement and possible true meaning, the tile was `hacked out' of the wall cavity over the Western Gate tunnel, removed from its display, and hidden away, circa AD 57 in a tunnel cavity (in a small niche also `hacked out' to accommodate its shape) only to be rediscovered 468 years later during `house' renovations (flood repairs) in AD 525! The `house' he was possibly referring to was the `house' of the king, the winter palace on the Citadel. Now, his statement takes on a much different and relevant meaning!"[280-281]
But where the tile had been since 525, how the seller obtained it, and how many thousands (if not millions) of US dollar equivalents he sold it for (since the seller knew it came from the Citadel) Dayvault doesn't say. Perhaps Dayvault imagines the following conversation between the seller and the Sanliurfa Museum Director:

Seller: "This mosaic tile was in AD 57 hacked out of a wall in the King's house, the Citadel, and I want one million US dollars for it."
Museum Director (hard of hearing): "You hacked it out of a wall in your house?"
Seller: "No, out of a wall in The Citadel. One of my ancestors hacked it off a stone block at the entrance of what is today the tunnel of the old windmill. The tile has been passed down through our family for 1447 years, from 525 to 1972. But I have inherited it and I want to sell it for one million dollars."
Museum Director (hearing only "I want to sell it"): "How much do you want for this mosaic tile you hacked out of a wall in your house?"
Seller (exasperated): "As I said, I want one million US dollars for it."
Museum Director (hearing only "one" and "dollar"): "It's a deal."

Dayvault's two contradictory fantasy `explanations' above just show the bankruptcy of his claim that this Sanliurfa mosaic is the Keramion. And what's more, it shows that Dayvault, at some level knows that his Keramion claim is false. As one who claims to be a Christian, Dayvault should publicly admit that his claim that this Sanliurfa mosaic is the Keramion is false, and offer to refund the money of the publisher and the purchasers of his book. I own over a hundred Shroud-related books and this book by Dayvault is easily the worst, and that includes my anti-authenticist books! If you are thinking about buying this book, I strongly recommend you don't, unless you like historical fiction/fantasy!


I will now summarise the above in a customer's review, submit it to Amazon.com and other booksellers who provide that facility, and post it here.

Notes
1. Dayvault, P.E., 2016, "The Keramion Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God," Morgan James Publishing: New York NY. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 2007, "Review of Brendan Whiting The Shroud Story, Harbour Publishing, Strathfield, New South Wales, Australia, 2006." 21 January. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1974, "The Shroud in history," The Tablet, 13th April, p.12; Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," 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.44-45; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.120, 307 n.16; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, pp.36-37, 39-40; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.112-113; Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," 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.171-204, 171, 184; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.104-105, 114-115; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.141; 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.152-153; 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.55, 57; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.132-133; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.110-111; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.2-3, 5-6; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.140-141, 148, 299, 174; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.186-187. [return]
4. Eusebius, c. 325, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," Book I, Chapter XIII, Cruse, C.F., transl., 1955, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing, 1966, pp.46-47; Wilson, 1979, pp.127-128; Antonacci, 2000, p.133; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.107; Guerrera, 2001, pp.1-2. [return]
5. Ruffin, 1999, p.54; Guerrera, 2001, p.2. [return]
6. Drews, 1984, p.62; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.80-81; Scavone, D.C., 2002, "Joseph of Arimathea, the Holy Grail and the Edessa Icon," Collegamento pro Sindone, October, pp.1-25, p.2. [return]
7. Markwardt, J.J., 1998, "Antioch and the Shroud," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.94-108, 94; Markwardt, J.J., 2009, "Ancient Edessa and the Shroud: History Concealed by the Discipline of the Secret," in Fanti, G., ed., "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.384. [return]
8. Guerrera, 2001, p.2. [return]
9. Scavone, D.C., 2010, "Edessan sources for the legend of the Holy Grail," Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Frascati, Italy, 4-6 May 2010, pp.1-6, 1. [return]
10. Wilson, 2010, p.119. [return]
11. Wilson, 1979, p.307; Wilson, 1998, pp.256, 268; Guscin, M., 2009, "The Image of Edessa," Brill: Leiden, Netherlands & Boston MA, pp.7-69; 154-157. [return]
12. "Court of Constantine Porphyrogenitus `Story of the Image of Edessa' (A.D. 945)," in Wilson, 1979, pp.272-290, 276-277. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.132; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.71; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.74; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.256. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, pp.116, 151; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, pp.92; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.36-37; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.85; Wilson, 1998, pp.148-149; Guerrera, 2001, pp.4-5; Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.xxvii; Wilson, 2010, p.165. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, pp.280-281. [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, pp.131-132; Wilson, 2010, pp.131-134. [return]
17. Wilson, 1998, p.172. [return]
18. Scavone, 2002, p.10. [return]
19. Dayvault, P.E., 2011, "`FACE of the GOD-man': A Quest for Ancient Oil Lamps Leads to the Prototype of Sacred Art...and MORE!," Shroud University, May 11, p.24. [return]
20. Kidd, D.A., 1995, "Collins Paperback Latin Dictionary," HarperCollins: London, Latin-English p.37 & English-Latin p.29. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.172; Scavone, 2010, p.1. [return]
22. "Edessa: Names," Wikipedia, 20 April 2016. [return]
23. "Sanliurfa," Google Maps: Earth, 29 April 2016. [return]
24. Piperno, R., 2011, "Sanliurfa: page one," A Rome Art Lover's Webpage. [return]
25. "A Guide to Southeastern Anatolia: Şanlıurfa Citadel, November 16, 2007. [return]
26. "Edessa: History," Wikipedia, 20 April 2016. [return]
27. "Siege of Edessa," Wikipedia, 16 February 2016. [return]
28. Dayvault, 2011, p.25. [return]
29. Ibid. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, p.132; Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.19; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.71; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.256 [return]
31. Wilson, 2010, plate 19a. [return]
32. Wilson, 2010, p.2. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Guscin, M., 2015, "MARK GUSCIN PhD THESIS 05.03.15," Royal Holloway, University of London, p.275. [return]
35. Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.344. [return]
36. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.858. [return]
37. Currer-Briggs, 1984, pp.23-24ff; Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.72-73; Wilson, 1998, p.273; Currer-Briggs, 1995, pp.73-74; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.107-108. [return]
38. Dayvault, 2011, p.7. [return]

Posted: 25 April 2016. Updated: 6 May 2016.