Wednesday, June 20, 2018

`I would like to point out an important mistranslation of a French expression in your post'

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Mario, this is the first installment of my belated reply in a separate post to your comment of 14 May under my 2014 post, "Lirey (1): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." Your words (including where you quoted me) are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

Dear Stephen,

I would like to point out an important mistranslation of a French expression in your post. You wrote

"That would also explain Geoffroy II's explanation that the Shroud was "freely given" to his father and Geoffroy II's daughter Marguerite's explanation that it was "conquis par feu" ("conquered by fire"), i.e. obtained by conquest in battle, by her grandfather Geoffroy I."

The translation of "conquis par feu messire Geoffroy de Charny, mon grant père," (it is essential to gave the full quote to translate "feu" correctly) is unrelated to "fire". It is a well-known idiom in French that "feu", placed before the name of a person, is an adjective meaning "deceased". See for example http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/feu_feue_feus_feues/33448 for an explanation.

Thanks. You have explained that "feu" in this context does not mean "fire." (However see below that it could have been a deliberate double-meaning by Marguerite de Charny of "fire" and "deceased"). But you have left unexplained what she meant by "conquis." According to my wife's French-English dictionary, the "Concise Oxford Hachette French Dictionary" (2009), at page 127, "conquis" has an arrow to "conquérir," which in turn means, "to conquer," "to capture," "to win," "to win over." So the meaning is still that the deceased Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300–1356) possessed the Shroud by, or through, conquest.

The alternative, that Geoffroy I's granddaughter Marguerite de Charny (c. 1393-1460) "obtained the Shroud through the death of Geoffrey de Charny ... her grandfather":

"... the canons of the church in Lirey petitioned Marguerite to return the Shroud to them, as it belonged to them. Marguerite refused and in a deposition stated that the Shroud was "conquis par feu messier Geofroy de Charny." This is a curious phrase which has caused a degree of puzzlement to historians. An explanation has been suggested by Patrick Farrell of Rossshire in Scotland. His suggestion is that feu refers to Geoffrey de Charny and is the same as in the well-known phrase feu le roi, vive le roi, meaning `the king is dead, long live the king'. The derivative of feu in this sense is not `fire' but the Latin word fatutus meaning deceased. In this context conquis means no more than `obtained'[2]. The meaning of Marguerite's phrase would therefore seem simply to be that she obtained the Shroud through the death of Geoffrey de Charny; in other words it was hers by right of inheritance"[3].
is literally false since Marguerite did not inherit the Shroud from her grandfather, who died ~37 years before she was born. And it is meaningless if she meant that she inherited it from her father Geoffroy II, who in turn inherited it from his father Geoffroy I, since that would not have been in dispute by the canons of Lirey.

Marguerite therefore must have meant that her grandfather Geoffroy I de Charny's possession of the Shroud was his by right of conquest and therefor not something that her late husband, Humbert de Villersexel (1385–1437) could have given away to the canons of Lirey:

"Following these ructions in 1389, interest in the cloth died down until 1418. During these years France was ravaged by war and invasion, and under the circumstances the canons of Lirey decided (or were compelled) to confide their treasures, including the cloth, to Humbert de la Roche-Saint Hyppolite [Humbert de Villersexel, Marguerite's second husband] on 6 July 1418 who gave them a receipt for `ung drap ou quel est la figure ou represéntation du suaire Nostre Seigneur Jesucrist, lequel est en ung coffre armoye des armes de Charny' (A cloth on which is a figure or representation of the shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ in a chest engraved with the arms of Charny') [see below]. Humbert died twenty-five years later in 1443 [sic], before he could return the shroud to Lirey. After vainly asking his widow Marguerite de Charny to return it, the dean and canons sued her in the Parlement of Dole. She replied that her late husband's receipt for the relics did not bind her in matters concerning 'le sanct suaire, lequel piece fut conquis par feu messire Geoffroi de Charny, mon grant père', and further, the relics in question would not be safe at Lirey, because it was vulnerable in these troubled times of war"[4].

[Above (enlarge)[5]: The bottom `third' of the Lirey pilgrim's badge showing the reliquary [chest] in which the Shroud was then kept. The coat of arms shields of Geoffroy I de Charny are on the right of the reliquary and that of Jeanne de Vergy is on its left[6]. See my 13Apr18].]

I therefore agree with the late Dorothy Crispino (1916-2014) and Ian Wilson that Marguerite was being deliberately ambiguous:

"... on 19 September 1356, at the disaster of Poitiers, Geoffroy de Charny was killed, holding aloft the Oriflamme until he fell. ... That the preux chevalier did receive the Shroud in connection with a battle seems implied in the statement of his granddaughter, Marguerite de Charny, who claimed that the Shroud was `conquered' by the late messire de Charny.4 A slightly different account was recorded in a Bull of Clement VII (1390) in which Geoffroy II attests that the Shroud was given to his father sibi liberaliter oblatam; freely or generously presented to him. The statements given by Geoffroy II (1389 & 1390) and by his daughter Marguerite (1443) are not necessarily incompatible. They might both be correct, each one but a glimpse of the whole story. They do agree in this: that the Shroud was personal property, legitimately acquired, and legitimately held by Geoffroy's heirs. Neither Geoffroy II nor Marguerite makes any mention of the place, the donor, the circumstances; these are still totally unknown. ... 4. Fossati's amputated quotation, `Conquis par feu' gives the impression that the Shroud had been taken in the fire of battle. The complete phrase, given by Perret, reads that the Shroud `Fut conquis par feu messire Geoffroy de Charny;' 'feu' in French have [sic] the two meaning of 'fire' and late, lately deceased'"[7].

"As for Margaret de Charny's already quoted 'conquis par feu' remark, this seems to have been almost deliberately enigmatic, as if she was either ignorant, or unprepared to divulge what she knew, of the real truth"[8]
The real truth was that Marguerite's ancestor, Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234) had looted the Shroud during the 1204 Sack of Constantinople, and so the Shroud was the property of the Byzantine Empire (c. 330–1453), which then still existed (until 1453), and if the de Charnys admitted that truth then the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos (1332–1391), who was then living in Chambéry, France, would demand it be returned! See my [04pr16] and [15Aug17].

To be concluded in the second installment of this post

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Wilson, I, 1998, "`Conquis par feu' - Another Shroud Mystery Solved?," BSTS Newsletter No. 48, December. [return]
3. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.66. [return]
4. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.35. [return]
5. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.224D; ; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.96; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.5; 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.127; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.150; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.42; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.221. [return]
7. Crispino, D.C., 1981, "Why Did Geoffroy de Charny Change His Mind?," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 1, December, pp.28-34, 29, 34. [return]
8. Crispino, D.C., 1981, "Why Did Geoffroy de Charny Change His Mind?," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 1, December, pp.28-34, 29, 34. [return]

Posted: 20 June 2018. Updated: 20 June 2018.

The Shroud of Turin blog: Main date index

The Shroud of Turin blog
MAIN DATE INDEX
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the Main Index to all my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. I have had a recurring malware problem with my existing date index and home page on the personal webspace my ISP gave me, so I have removed links to both and will ask for the webspace to be deleted. The new link to the right, "Date index to this blog's posts" is to this post. I will over time in the background populate this Main Index with links to each year from 2007 forward in reverse date order (most recent uppermost). Each year will will be a separate sub-index page with links to my actual posts in that year.


2007

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Posted: 20 June 2018. Updated: 20 June 2018.

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Obituary (4): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the fifteenth and final installment of part #4 of my obituary of Dr. Alan D. Whanger (1930-2017). Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Previous parts in this series are part #1, part #2 and part #3. See also "Flowers and Pollens - Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin", my 2013 "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (4): Plant images" and my 2014 "Lynne Milne's `A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice' (2005)".

In 1985 Whanger noticed a flower on a Shroud photograph As previously mentioned in part #3 [see also 06Apr13], in 1985 Dr Alan

[Above (enlarge): A corona discharge image of a Chrysanthemum produced by Oswald Scheuermann (left), the image of a Palestinian Chrysanthemum coronarium flower on the Shroud (center) and a drawing of that flower on the Shroud (right)[2].]

Whanger noticed on a high-quality Shroud photograph given to them by Fr. Francis L. Filas (1915-85)[3] the image of a flower near the head of the man on the Shroud[4].

In 1983 Oswald Scheuermann wrote to Whanger about flower images near the face on the Shroud In 1983, Oswald Scheuermann [Right [5].], a German physics teacher with whom Whanger had been corresponding regarding coins over the eyes [see part #3], had mentioned in a letter to Whanger that there were flower-like patterns around the face of the man of the Shroud, but Whanger could not then seen them[6].

That first flower Whanger saw on the Shroud was a Chrysanthemum coronarium That first flower image Whanger saw on a Shroud photograph (hereafter simply "the Shroud") was (as he later identified-see below) Chrysanthemum coronarium (see above and below)[7]. Ian Wilson who is sceptical (as I am) of Whanger's

[Above (enlarge): A Chrysanthemum coronarium flower image near the head of the man on the Shroud, pointed to with my red arrow. This is on Shroud Scope[8], so readers can verify it for themselves. This is the clearest flower image on the Shroud[9] and is readily discernible with the unaided eye[10]. Chrysanthemum coronarium is a widespread Mediterranean species that grows in Israel and Jordan[11]. Also as can be seen above there are a lot of other flowers visible around the head of the man on the Shroud (see below).]

"Points of Congruence" claims [e.g. see 02Jan18] nevertheless had to admit this "flower-like shape" really was there "in the relevant sector of the Shroud":

"One `flower' ... which even I can acknowledge a flower-like shape in the relevant sector of the Shroud ... was the very first one that Alan Whanger had identified on the Shroud, the crown chrysanthemum or Chrysanthemum coronarium"[12]!
The Whangers began to see many other flower and plant images on the Shroud Once having seen this one flower image, Alan and Mary Whanger began to see a great many other flower and plant images (see below) on the Shroud[13].

[Above (enlarge): Drawings of the location of flower and plant images around the face of the man on the Shroud by Prof. Avinoam Danin (1939–2015)[14].]

In 1986 Whanger began identifying those other flower and plant images In 1986 Alan Whanger obtained a set of Michael Zohary's six-volume Flora Palaestina and began comparing its ~1900 drawings with flower and plant images he could see on the Shroud[15]. Starting with the drawings Max Frei (1913-83) had made of some of the 58 species of plants the pollen of which he had found on the Shroud[16], by 1989 the Whangers had tentatively identified from their flowers and parts 28 species of plants on the Shroud[17], including Chrysanthemum coronarium[18]:

"While there are images of hundreds of flowers on the Shroud, many are vague or incomplete. We feel Alan has identified, tentatively but with reasonable certainty, twenty-eight plants whose images are sufficiently clear and complete to make a good comparison with the drawings in Flora Palaestina. Of these twenty-eight plants, twenty-three are flowers, three are small bushes, and two are thorns. All twenty-eight grow in Israel. Twenty grow in Jerusalem itself, and the other eight grow potentially within the close vicinity of Jerusalem, either in the Judean Desert or in the Dead Sea area or in both. All twenty-eight would have been available in Jerusalem markets in a fresh state. Many would have been growing along the roadside or in nearby fields, available for the picking. A rather unique situation exists in that within Jerusalem and the surrounding twelve miles, four geographic areas exist with their differing specific climates and flora. Nowhere else are so many different types of species found so close together. Of these twenty-eight plants, Frei, working from the sticky tape slides, had previously identified the pollens of twenty-five of the same or similar plants. Twenty-seven of these twenty-eight bloom in March and April, which corresponds to the time of Passover and the Crucifixion"[19]!
In 1995 Prof. Danin saw "the flowers of Jerusalem" on the Shroud! In 1995 the Whangers visited one of Israel's leading botanists, Prof. Avinoam Danin (1939–2015) [Left (enlarge) [20].], at his home in Jerusalem[21]. They showed Danin some of their photographs of the flower images on the Shroud and within seconds of looking at them Danin exclaimed, "Those are the flowers of Jerusalem"[22]!

In 1997 Danin visited the Whangers' and agreed with most of their identifications In 1997 Danin visited the Whangers' home in Durham, North Carolina[23] and after a study of their photographs, agreed with most (22/28 = ~79%) of their Shroud plant species identifications:

"In 1997 during a visit to our home, Danin made a careful and detailed examination of our photographs and of the images on the Shroud. He stated that he agrees with confidence with twenty-two of the twenty-eight plant identifications that we had made. Of the remaining six identifications, he said that three are probably correct and the other three are possibly correct, but he could not identify them with certainty because the images are too fragmentary. In no case did he totally disagree with our original tentative identification or fail to see some imaging. Moreover, he discovered a large number of additional flower images that we had not found"[24].
By 1999 Danin had identified at least 13 species of plants on the Shroud In his 1999 "Flora of the Shroud of Turin" Danin lists 16 categories of plant-related images he found on the Shroud[25]. Below is my simplified table of 13 of them that are flowers or plants, based on Danin's Table 4[26]. Of these species Danin listed many

Images found on the Shroud of Turin
determined by A. Danin
No.FamilySpecies
1AsteraceaeChrysanthemum coronarium
2CistaceaeCistus creticus
3DipsacaceaeLomelosia (Scabiosa) prolifera
4FabaceaeHippocrepis unisiliquosa
5AnacardiaceaePistacia lentiscus
6AnacardiaceaePistacia atlantica or P. Palaestina
7ApiaceaeRidolfia segetum
8AsteraceaeGundelia tournefortii
9CapparaceaeCapparis aegyptia
10ZygophyllaceaeZygophyllum dumosum
11RhamnaceaeZiziphus spina-christi
12RanunculaceaeAnemone coronaria
13PoaceaeArundo donax

instances against some (e.g. No. 6 "Dozens"). Danin actually found "hundreds" of flower and plant images on the Shroud but he was primarily interested in those that were geographic indicators[27], i.e. found only in Israel and Jordan and especially around Jerusalem (see below).

Danin's geographic indicators Prof. Danin had already plotted in squares (quadrats) of 5 x 5 kilometres each the locations of many thousands of plant species in Israel[28]. During his 1997 visit to the Whangers' home (see above), Danin saw on their Shroud photo-graphs images of leaves of the Zygophyllum dumosum [Right (enlarge)[29].] shrub near flower images of that same species which the Whangers had correctly identified[30]. Danin realised that Z. dumosum on the

[Above (enlarge): Distribution map of the endemic species Zygophyllum dumosum which is confined to Israel, Sinai and Western Jordan[31].]

Shroud was a very important geographical indicator, because fresh leaves of that plant could only be brought to the Shroud from Israel, West Jordan, or Sinai[32].

Similarly, the thorn Gundelia tournefortii, the image of which was also found on the Shroud (see above table) has a distribution which is Middle Eastern, extending from western Turkey through Israel, Syria and northern Iraq, Iran and the southernmost fringes of the former Soviet Union[33]. The rock rose, Cistus creticus, the image of which is also on the Shroud (see table above) grows across the Mediterranean zone in western Israel with a desert boundary to the east of Jerusalem[34]. The only place on earth where people could bring

[Above (enlarge): Distribution map of the only place on earth where Gundelia tournefortii, Zygophyllum dumosum and Cistus creticus are all found growing together[35], the area around Jerusalem ("J" in green circle)[36].

fresh parts of the three species Gundelia tournefortii, Zygophyllum dumosum and Cistus creticus, is the area between Jerusalem and Hebron[37], a distance of a mere 20 miles (32 kilometres)[38]!

Danin's temporal indicators As well as being geographic indicators, some of the flower image species identified by Danin are also temporal (i.e. time of year and even time of day) indicators[39]. Below is my simplified table of the blooming months of the 8 plant species in Danin's Table 6[40].

Blooming time of Middle Eastern
species associated with the Shroud
SpeciesDecJanFebMarAprMayJun
Anemone coronaria+++++  
Capparis aegyptia+++++  
Chrys. coronarium   +++ 
Cistus creticus   ++++
Gundelia tournefortii   +++ 
Lomelosia prolifera   ++  
Ridolfia segetum   ++++
Zygophyllum dumosum+++++  

As can be seen in the above table, Zygophyllum dumosum in the stage of bloom seen on the Shroud indicates that it was cut between the months of December and April as this is the only season when both leaf types and flowers are found together on the plant[41]. The blooming time of Chrysanthemum coronarium is from March to May; that of Capparis aegyptia is between December and April; as is Zygophyllum dumosum's (as already mentioned); Cistus creticus blooms from March to June, and Gundelia tournefortii from March to May[42]. All these flowering period have in common the period between March and May, which was the very period of the year within which Jesus' Passover eve crucifixion (Mt 26:2; Jn 18:28,39; 19:14) occurred[43] (which was on 7 April 30, or 3 April 33)[44]. Capparis aegyptia is significant as an indicator for the time of day when its flowers were picked, since its flowering buds begin to open at about midday and gradually open until they are fully opened about half an hour before sunset[45]. Flowers seen as images on the Shroud correspond to them having been picked at about 3-4 pm[46], which corresponds to the time of the death of Jesus, "the ninth hour" (Mt 27:45-50; Mk 15:33-39; Lk 23:44-46), i.e. 3 pm[47].

Confirmation of Max Frei's pollen species Of the 28 species of plant images the Whangers' identified on the Shroud (see above), these were the same or similar to 25 species of pollen collected from the Shroud and identified by the pioneer Swiss forensic scientist, Max Frei (1913-83)[48]. Some of the plant images on the Shroud confirms the identification by Frei of certain Palestinian and Middle Eastern species

[Left (enlarge): Max Frei with STURP's Ray Rogers (1927–2005) looking on, using adhesive tape to take pollen samples from the Shroud in 1978[49].]

of pollen on the Shroud[50]. For example, Gundelia tournefortii was one of the more abundant pollen species that Frei identified on the Shroud and Danin and Baruch have confirmed that identification[51]. And significantly, one of Danin's Cistus creticus images occurs in the very same spot that Frei in 1973 found pollen which he identified as Cistus creticus on the Shroud[52]! Which is not to say that Frei's identification of pollens was perfect, but Whanger and Danin's flower and plant images identifications confirmed that Frei was mostly right:

"Carefully examining one of the Frei slides, researcher Paul Maloney discovered a cluster of many pollens from the same plant. These pollens were identified by palynologist Dr. A. Orville Dahl as Cistus creticus. ... Years earlier, Frei had identified pollens from this same plant on his sticky tape slides. At the time he took the sticky tape samples, he was unaware of the images of flowers on the Shroud, but it so happened that the tape Maloney was observing had been taken over the center of the same Cistus creticus flower that Alan had already identified. Thus Frei, Maloney with Dahl, and Alan, all working separately and at different times and using different methods, found the presence of Cistus creticus on the Shroud. Since Alan used Frei's pollen identification list to search for flowers bearing those pollens, most of the flowers that we identified do have pollens that were present on the Shroud. However, Alan did note some possible discrepancies between his identification by means of the images on the Shroud and Frei's identification by means of pollens. For instance, Frei identified a pollen as an Althea, but the closest match to the flower image that Alan could find was a rather similar plant named Alcea"[53].
Problems for anti-authenticism: (1) Frei was right! See above. As mentioned in my 22Aug14 post, leading anti-authenticists Steven Schafersman (quoted approvingly by the late Walter McCrone), employed the fallacy of circular reasoning to dismiss the dead Max Frei as a fraudster[53]. Because: 1) the Shroud is not authentic (they claimed); 2) Frei's Middle Eastern distribution of Shroud pollen would be strong evidence that the Shroud is authentic; 3) therefore Frei's Shroud pollen distribution must be fraudulent and Frei must be a fraudster:
"In a similar fashion, I will show that Max Frei's pollen data can be most reasonably explained by human fraud because the only other possible explanations are that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, that a miracle occurred, or both. Since we are pretty certain as scientists that the Shroud is not authentic and that miracles don't occur, human deception is the only explanation remaining"[54].
Schafersman does not consider the other explanation, namely that the "human deception" (i.e. self-deception) is on the part of him and his Shroud sceptic ilk! In particular his/their unproven and unprovable fundamental article of faith that Naturalism (`nature is all there is-there is no supernatural') is true and therefore "miracles don't occur". Helpfully, Schafersman explained why anti-authenticists must attempt to discredit Frei's Shroud pollen findings and Frei personally:
"Max Frei, a well-known forensic microscopist, was allowed to take sticky-tape samples from the Shroud of Turin in 1973. He reported his results in 1978 at the International Congress on the Turin Shroud ... Frei claims to have found the pollen of 49 different plants, 33 of which are xerophyte, halophytes, or mesophytes found in Israel (Palestine), Turkey, or both, and not in Western Europe. The remaining 16 are present in Italy and France ... Frei's pollen data, if true, would be superb evidence of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. The pollen data would demonstrate that, at the very least, the Shroud had been in Jerusalem, the Anatolian steppes, and Istanbul (many of the 33 Turkish and Palestinian plants are endemic to these three specific areas). Frei's data does not demonstrate, of course, that the Shroud is not an artifact: the blank cloth could have been transported and exposed through these regions before reaching France, or a Palestinian artist could have created the image before the journey began. However, these explanations are highly unlikely, and have no support in either history or iconography ... Frei's data is such excellent evidence because pollen almost invariably falls to the ground within 100 meters of the parent plant. This phenomenon is used in palynology and biostratigraphy ... because wind pollination is an inefficient process compared to insect pollination, and wind-transported pollen just doesn't travel very far. Therefore, finding such pollen on an object would indeed demonstrate that it was once in an area where such pollen was present ... Finally, the remarkably large number of Middle Eastern plant pollen, 33 species, appears to make it inescapable that the Shroud was once in the Middle East"[55].
But Frei was a Zwinglian Protestant[56] and therefore had no prior reason to believe that the Shroud was authentic (indeed the opposite):
"Frei, it seems, was initially sceptical of the Shroud's authenticity, as would be expected of a Zwinglian Protestant. What he saw under the microscope, though, changed his mind. As he analysed the plentiful pollen picked up by his sticky tapes, he began to realize that the Shroud could not have spent all its time in France and Italy. For, besides pollen grains from central European and Mediterranean lands, which could easily have blown onto the Shroud in the previous 600 years, he found large numbers of grains from much further afield. A significant proportion of these indicate, Frei says, that the Shroud was once kept in Turkey: 'According to the palynology, the Shroud must have been exposed to the open air also in. Turkey, since twenty of the verified species are abundant in Anatolia ... and four are abundant in the environs of Constantinople; these are completely absent from central and western Europe.' This is extremely interesting in relation to certain historical evidence, which suggests that, long before it was brought to Europe, the Shroud was kept in Constantinople and Edessa, a town in eastern Turkey. Furthermore, on the basis of finding pollen from thirteen species of halophytes - a genus specially adapted to living in salty environments, many of them exclusive to the Negev desert and Dead Sea area - Frei affirms that `in the course of its history (including its manufacture) the Shroud has been in Palestine'. Just as significant, in Frei's view, as the identification of individual species or genera is the overall proportion of Middle Eastern to European pollen grains: 'the Shroud must have stayed in Palestine or in Turkey, since plants that grow in these areas ... are dominant in the pollen spectrum'"[57].
Moreover, Frei's actions were not that of a fraudster. As I had previously [25Aug14] pointed out:
"The obvious test of Frei's integrity is that, unlike a fraudster, Frei patiently collected his data for 9 years, traveling to Palestine and Turkey several times to collect pollen to compare his Shroud pollen with, but he died before he completed his research. A fraudster would have pretended to identify his Shroud pollen quickly and published his findings early, so that he could soon gain fame and maybe fortune."
And [16May15 (footnotes added)]:
"That Frei was no fraudster is self-evident in the enormous amount of painstaking work he did over a long period of time, delaying publication for many years until he had gathered sufficient evidence. If Frei had been a fraudster he would have published quickly to enjoy the glory. Evidence that Frei was not a fraudster is evident in his admission that he had been unable to identify any pollens on the Shroud which supported its transfer from Constantinople to Europe:
`So far I have not found any evidence for the Shroud's presence in Cyprus or other regions touched during the transfer from Constantinople to France and Italy'[58].
If Frei had been a fraudster he would have manufactured that evidence. So there is no good reason to doubt Frei's main conclusion:
`The pollen-spectrum as described leaves no room for the hypothesis of a medieval fake painted in France. On the contrary, the pollen-deposits are a most valuable confirmation of the theory that the Shroud traveled from Palestine through Anatolia to Constantinople, France and Italy'"[59].

Problems for anti-authenticism: (2) A medieval forger would not not have depicted Middle Eastern flowers and plants on the Shroud Self-evidently a medieval forger would not have known about Middle Eastern flowers and plants, let alone depicted them with modern botanical accuracy and realism (even plant parts!). Nor would a medieval forger have known about the geographic distribution patterns of some of those plants around Jerusalem, nor their blooming seasons. Proof that Shroud sceptics have no good answer to this flower and plant evidence of Whanger and Danin is the misleading and even dishonest way that leading professional sceptic Joe Nickell dismisses it:

"Shroud of Rorschach. Following the suspicious pollen evidence were claims that plant images had been identified on the cloth. These were allegedly discerned from `smudgy' appearing areas in shroud photos that were subsequently enhanced. The work was done by a retired geriatric psychiatrist, Alan Whanger, and his wife Mary, former missionaries who have taken up image analysis as a hobby. They were later assisted by an Israeli botanist who looked at their photos of `flower' images (many of them `wilted' and otherwise distorted) and exclaimed, `Those are the flowers of Jerusalem!' Apparently no one has thought to see if some might match the flowers of France or Italy or even to try to prove that the images are indeed floral ..."[60].
Note that Nickell dishonestly conceals from his readers that the "Israeli botanist" was in fact Prof. Avinoam Danin (1939–2015), one of Israel's leading botanists and author of "Flora of Israel Online":
"Prof. Emeritus Avinoam Danin was a researcher and teacher in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for more than 50 years. The information accumulated in the website, as well as many of the photographs within it, were his work. During his excursions in Israel and neighboring countries he discovered 43 species and 3 subspecies new to science. Three additional species are named after him. His detailed phytosociological work is published in hundreds of articles, 7 books in English and 7 in Hebrew. On December 12, 2015, Avinoam Danin passed away at age 76 ..."[61]
But if Nickell had included Danin's name his readers could have Googled it and discovered that Nickell was misleading them. Also, Nickell's, "Apparently no one has thought to see if some might match the flowers of France or Italy or even to try to prove that the images are indeed floral" is a lie because Nickell knew that Whanger had positively identified the flower images on the Shroud as Palestinian species using Flora Palaestina (see above) and that their identifications were mostly confirmed by Prof. Danin. Indeed Nickell even quoted Danin's words, "Those are the flowers of Jerusalem!" when he saw Whanger's Shroud photographs (see above)! Nickell is thus included in the fulfillment of St. Paul's prophecy in 2 Timothy 3:13: "... impostors ... deceiving and being deceived"!

More evidence for Jesus' resurrection! For their images to be imprinted on the Shroud, the flowers and parts of plants discovered by Scheuermann, Whanger and Danin had to have been laid on the man's body under the Shroud:

"Some have wondered if perhaps the flowers may have been placed on the Shroud during its exhibitions for the public, and maybe that's where flower images and pollen came from. Indeed, flowers likely would have been placed there during showings or liturgical use. If so, certainly some of the pollen did come from those flowers. On his sticky tape samples from the Shroud, Frei found pollens which are characteristic of the areas around Edessa and Constantinople, places where the Shroud was located for hundreds of years. But ... it is not possible that large numbers of plants from Israel and other Middle East areas were brought to France and Italy in a fresh state for exhibitions there. Nor does it account for the presence of the corona discharge type images on the Shroud. It seems clear that flowers were indeed in the Shroud around the body, and that their images were imprinted on the cloth at the same time and in the same manner as the other images"[62].
While neither Whanger nor Danin (a Jew) did, as far as I am aware, claim specifically that these flower and plant images on the Shroud were produced by (and therefore evidence of) Jesus' resurrection, Scheuermann did. As previously mentioned in part #3, in proposing corona discharge to be the explanation of the Shroud's total body image (which included the flower and plant images), Scheuermann posited that the Shroud man was Jesus and the image on the Shroud was caused by His resurrection:
"Either there was a chain of coordinated processes of cause and effect due to laws that are still unknown or an inexplicable phenomenon of a supernatural kind left traces of a natural kind ... Consequently, it is high time now to completely record the primary aspect and add the phenomenon `resurrection' to the fact `corpse.' ... `Resurrection,' even if inexplicable, must not be excluded as a point of reference or an action principle ... It has to be admitted that we know hardly anything as to how that resurrection is to have taken place; but that does not exclude that it could have left palpable traces ... not only an empty tomb and all the attendant circumstances, but also a very informative image"[64].

To be continued in the next part #5 of my obituary of Dr. Alan D. Whanger.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Danin, A., 1997, "Pressed Flowers: Where Did the Shroud of Turin Originate?: A Botanical Quest," ERETZ Magazine, November/December. [return]
3. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.71; Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M.W., 2008, "Aspects of the Shroud in Botany and Related Art," in Fanti, G., ed., 2009, "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, pp.140-144, 140. [return]
4. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.25,28; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.71; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, pp.7,9; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.71; Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.7; Maloney, P.C., 1999, "A Contribution toward a History of Botanical Research on the Shroud of Turin," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.241-266, 251; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.112; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.82-83; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.149; Milne, L., 2005, "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, pp.94. [return]
5. "Oswald Scheuermann," Nuernberg Wiki, 9 November 2017. Translated by Google. [return]
6. Iannone, 1998, p.25; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.71; Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.7; Maloney, 1999, p.251; Antonacci, 2000, p.112; Guerrera, 2001, p.149; Milne, 2005, p.93; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.141. [return]
7. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.85-86; Guerrera, 2001, p.149; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.141; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.258. [return]
8. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
9. Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.16. [return]
10. Maloney, 1999, p.251. [return]
40. Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.16. [return]
12. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.85-86. [return]
13. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.71, 76; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.141. [return]
14. Danin, A., 2010, "`Holes' in the 3D-Image of the Body on the Shroud," Petrus Soons. Photo no longer online. [return]
15. Iannone, 1998, p.28; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.75-76; Guerrera, 2001, p.149; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.141; Danin, A., 2010, "Botany of the Shroud: The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin," Danin Publishing: Jerusalem, Israel, p.8. [return]
16. Iannone, 1998, p.28; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.77; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.141. [return]
17. Iannone, 1998, p.28; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.78; Antonacci, 2000, p.112; Guerrera, 2001, p.149; Milne, 2005, p.94; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.141; Danin, 2010, p.8. [return]
18. Iannone, 1998, p.27. [return]
19. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.78 (footnotes omitted). [return]
20. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.85. [return]
21. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.79. [return]
22. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.79; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.85; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.142. [return]
23. Danin, 2010, p.12. [return]
24. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.80. [return]
25. Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.17. [return]
26. Ibid. [return]
27. Danin, 2010, p.46. [return]
28. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.80. [return]
29. Danin, A., 2013, "Zygophyllum dumosum Boiss," Flora of Israel Online. [return]
30. Danin, 2010, p.12. [return]
31. Danin, A. & Baruch, U., 1998, "Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin," Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 5-7 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, pp.202-214; Milne, 2005, p.94; Danin, 2010, p.17; Oxley, 2010, p.259. [return]
32. Danin, 2010, p.12. [return]
33. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.88. [return]
34. Danin, 2010, p.17. [return]
35. Danin, 2010, p.52. [return]
36. Danin, et al., 1999, pp.21-22. [return]
37. Danin, A., 1999, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century," XVI International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, MO, Science Daily, August 3; Antonacci, 2000, p.112; Danin, 2010, p.54; Oxley, 2010, p.259. [return]
38. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.92. [return]
39. Danin, et al., 1999, p.18. [return]
40. Danin, A., et al., 1999, p.22. [return]
41. Danin, et al., 1999, p.18. [return]
42. Danin, et al., 1999, p.22. [return]
43. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.91; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.142. [return]
44. Doig, K.F., 2006, "Doig's Biblical Chronology: Part IV, The Crucifixion of Jesus." [return]
45. Danin, et al., 1999, p.22; Antonacci, 2000, p.113; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.142. [return]
46. Ibid. [return]
47. Mark 15:33-34, in Cole, R.A., 1989, "The Gospel According to Mark: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester: UK, Second edition, p.320. [return]
48. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.78; Antonacci, 2000, p.112; Whanger & Whanger, 2008, p.142. [return]
49. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.80-81. [return]
50. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.278. [return]
51. Danin & Baruch, 1998, p.209; Milne, 2005, p.94; Oxley, 2010, p.258. [return]
52. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.86. [return]
53. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.79. [return]
54. Schafersman, S., in McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 1999, p.302. [return]
55. Schafersman, 1999, pp.303-304. [return]
56. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.80; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.43; 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.75-76; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.113. [return]
57. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.113-114 (endnotes omitted). [return]
58. Frei, M., 1982, "Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 3, June, pp.2-7, 7. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Nickell, J., 2001, "Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud'," Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 25, No. 5, September, pp.17-20. [return]
61. "Avinoam Danin," Flora of Israel Online, 2015. [return]
62. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.82-83. [return]
63. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Second edition, p.839. [return]
64. Scheuermann, O., 1986, in Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.41. [return]

Posted: 5 June 2018. Updated: 19 June 2018.

Sunday, June 3, 2018

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, May 2018

Shroud of Turin News - May 2018
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: April 2018, part #1] [Next: June 2018, part #1]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1, of the May 2018 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in May as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them.

Contents:
Editorial
"Doubts about the age of the Shroud. Experts re-open case," Vatican Insider, 3 May 2018, Andrea Tornielli.
"Shroud of Turin," Encyclopaedia Britannica, May 4, 2018, The Editors.
"New study raises questions about the age of the Shroud of Turin," Aleteia, May 7, 2018, Zelda Caldwell.
"Parish turnout proves enduring fascination with Shroud of Turin," Catholic San Francisco, May 10, 2018, Christina Gray.
"Traveling exhibit features religious lesson," Monroe News, May 21, 2018, Blake Bacho.


Editorial
Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of the 118 issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert to PDFs and

[Right (enlarge). The burnt out shell of the Guarini Royal Chapel from the 12 April 1997 fire (see photo of it before the fire in my previous post). Issue #101 was mostly about that fire. See my 03Jun15 for a my brief account of that fire.]

add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in May up to issue #101, April 1997, i.e ~86% completed. Issues in the archive are still up to #93, February 1996. Barrie advised me that he expect the next update to go online on June 15th or thereabouts.

News: In May I continued preparing my previously mentioned media release, outlining my hacker theory, which I will post here when it is completed. I may then email a copy of it to news outlets in anticipation of an upsurge in media interest in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating as the thirtieth anniversary of the announcement on 13 October 1988 [see 23Jul15] that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390" draws near.

Posts: In May I blogged only 3 new posts (latest uppermost): "21 April 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," - 26th; "'you claim that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture'," - 8th & "`Editorial and Contents,' Shroud of Turin News, April 2018" - 6th.

Updates There were no significant updates in the background of past posts in May.

Comments: On 14 May I received a comment from Mario Latendresse, author of Shroud Scope under my 2014 post, "Lirey (1): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." My interim reply comment to him included:

"Thanks for your comment. Because you asked important questions in it that will be `buried' in a comment under that 2014 post, I will respond to it in a separate post. However, that might be weeks away because: 1) I have a backlog of topics I need to post on before they become `stale' ...; and 2) again [see 14Feb16 & 08May18] I am the full-time carer of my wife who is a near-quadriplegic with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and I have little time to blog until after I put her to bed at about 9:30pm each night."
In May I deleted 2 posts as sub-standard, being both one-liners. If commenters cannot bother putting their time and effort into their comments, then I cannot bother putting my time and effort into replying to such comments!

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, I did not blog specifically about my hacker theory in May. However, my media release is very much about my hacker theory and my "21 April 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" post mentioned it:

"Yet as we shall see [in future "16Feb89"] the 1989 Nature paper admitted:
"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted"[15].
But as I pointed out on 13Jun14, 11Feb15, 03Jun15, 27Aug15, 18Nov15 and 24Oct16, this is impossible if the Shroud dates were real and not computer-generated by a hacker's program."
My book: In May I had become bogged down in "Chapter 6, "History and the Shroud" of the dot-point my book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" (see previous). I

[Left (enlarge): The planned cover of my book.]

realised that at the rate I was going that that chapter alone would be half the book! So I `went back to the drawing board' and wrote out another full dot-point outline of the book (I enjoy doing that `off the top of my head'!) on my phone using Gmail and reduced that History chapter, now Chapter 7, to only 5 sections:

7. History and the Shroud
7.1 Jerusalem to Edessa AD 30-544
7.2 Edessa to Constantinople 544-944
7.3 Constantinople to Lirey 944-1355
7.4 Lirey to Turin 1355-1578
7.5 Turin to present 1578-.
I also gave some thought to finding time to write the book. On my rough calculations I will be finished scanning and word-processing Shroud News in about 7 months, i.e. in December this year! The up to an hour it takes me most mornings to do that, I will use to write my book.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 May 2018, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 900,576 (i.e. I passed 900,000 pageviews in May!). This compares with 756,030 (up 144,546 or 19.2%) from the same time in May 2017. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "Water stains #28: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Apr 5, 2018 - 89; "'you claim that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture'," May 8, 2018 - 85; "`Editorial and Contents,' Shroud of Turin News, April 2018", May 6, 2018 - 81; "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, March 2018," Apr 2, 2018 - 78 & "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," Dec 2, 2013 - 77.

Even though China is white again in the above Google Analytics' pageviews map of my blog (indicating that the atheistic Chinese government is blocking it because it is threatened by the Shroud!) the map is still dark green in Russia! I have this hope that when I get to Heaven I will be welcomed by hundreds of Russians and Chinese whose Christian faith was strengthened by reading my blog!

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Posted: 3 June 2018. Updated: 12 June 2018.

Saturday, May 26, 2018

21 April 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #10, "21 April 1988," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. I have fallen behind again. I wrongly thought the next key date in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was 21 May 1988 and only tonight (26 May 2018) realised it was 21 April 1988! So I am more than a month behind again. But as before I will catch up and then post each day in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 25Mar88 #9] [Next: 6 May88 #11]

21 April 1988 At 4:30am on Thursday, 21 April 1988 the Shroud in its casket was secretly taken down from its then resting place since 1694 over the high altar in Turin's Chapel of the Holy Shroud, which is

[Above (enlarge): Interior of the Chapel of the Holy Shroud designed by the architect Guarino Guarini (1624-83), as it had been since 1694 before it was closed for repair in 1990[2]. The Shroud in its casket was kept high in the lighted rectangular reliquary.]

between Turin Cathedral and the Savoy Royal Palace[3]. At 5am the Shroud was taken out of its casket and at 7am carried in its red silk wrapping wound around a roller[4] into Turin Cathedral's sacristy[5]. There the Shroud was unrolled and laid out on a table[6] in the presence of those assembled: the British Museum's Dr Michael Tite, the directors of the three chosen AMS radiocarbon-dating laboratories:

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a photograph[7] of some of those present at the cutting of the Shroud sample on 21 April 1988: Front from left Cardinal A. Ballestrero, M. Tite and L. Gonella. Back from left: R. Hedges, D. Donahue, E. Hall and P. Damon.]

Arizona's Douglas Donahue, Oxford's Edward Hall (1924-2001) and Zurich's Willy Wolfli[8], the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989)[9], his scientific adviser Prof. Luigi Gonella and others[10], including two textile experts, Franco Testore, Professor of Textile Technology at Turin polytechnic and Gabriel Vial, curator of the Ancient Textile Museum of Lyon, France, who were to choose the best location from which to cut the sample(s)[11].

But at 9:45am Turin's Giovanni Riggi (1935-2008), after a long argument with Gonella about from where on the Shroud the sample should be taken[12], cut a strip of about 8.1 cm long by 1.6 cm wide[13]

[Above (enlarge): "How the Shroud sample that Giovanni Riggi cut off on 21 April 1988 became apportioned"[14]. Note that the three laboratories' samples were subdivided from the same ~4 cm x ~1 cm sub-sample cut from the Shroud. Yet as we shall see [in future "16Feb89"] the 1989 Nature paper admitted:

"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted"[15].
But as I pointed out on 13Jun14, 11Feb15, 03Jun15, 27Aug15, 18Nov15 and 24Oct16, this is impossible if the Shroud dates were real and not computer-generated by a hacker's program.]

from the Shroud's heavily contaminated bottom left-hand corner[16] (see below), just above the place where Prof. Gilbert Raes (1914-2001) had taken one of his samples in 1973[16a] [see 15Aug17]. Riggi then

[Above (enlarge)[17]: The bottom left-hand corner of the Shroud from where the radiocarbon dating samples were cut. This is the same corner where, "literally hundreds of sweaty hands would have clutched ... to hold up the cloth at expositions over the centuries"[18] (see below).]

[Above (enlarge): "Ostension of the Holy Shroud" (1579) engraving by Carlo Malliano of the 1578 Exposition of the Shroud in Turin[19]. The radiocarbon dating sample came from the top left hand corner (bottom left-hand corner when the Shroud is usually displayed vertically) being held by a cleric's (one of hundreds over the centuries) "sweaty hands". This means that pre-treatment cleaning of the Shroud samples would have had to be perfect to remove all traces of carbon contamination for the Shroud to radiocarbon date 1260-1390, the mid-point of which 1325 ±65 years, is only ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355! See future "13Oct88".]

divided the sample into two, with one part ("R" above) retained by the Cardinal[20]. The other part ("O", "Z" and "A" above) was divided into three samples for each of the three laboratories (see "O", "Z" and "A" above)[21]. The sample and parts cut from it were weighed on an electronic scale by Testore[22]. However it was then found that Arizona's sample "A" weighed less than the other two samples, so a small piece ("A1") was cut from the Cardinal's reserve sample ("R") and added to Arizona's sample ("A")[23].

The laboratories' samples were then taken into an adjacent Sala Capitolare out of range of the television cameras which had been recording the proceedings[24], with only the Cardinal, Tite, Gonella and Riggi present[25]. This was done to preserve the pretense of `blind' testing [see 25Mar18] as specified in the 1986 Turin protocol[26]. But this gave rise to untenable claims by the French ultra-conservative priest, Br. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, that the Shroud sample was switched by Tite for the 13th-14th century control sample[27] (see below).

Three control samples of known age had been obtained by Tite: 1. linen from a tomb in Nubia dating from the 11th-12th century AD; 2. linen from an early 2nd century AD mummy of a Cleopatra (not Queen Cleopatra (c.69-30 BC) from Thebes; and 3. threads from the linen cope of St Louis d'Anjou (1274–1297) dated late 13th-early 14th century AD[28].

In the Sala Capitolare, with no video cameras recording, the Shroud sample and two control samples were placed by Tite in aluminum foil and then in numbered stain-

[Right: Two of Oxford laboratory's stainless steel cylinders bearing Shroud sample identification code "O1" and control sample "O3", as well as Cardinal Ballestrero's wax seal[30].]

less steel cylinders for each of the three laboratories[31]. Originally there was going to be only two control samples, but the third control sample, the threads from the cope of St. Louis d'Anjou, was handed to Tite on that morning by Gabriel Vial who was given it by Prof. Jacques Evin, the Director of the radiocarbon dating laboratory at the University of Lyon, France, and there being no time to prepare a cylinder for it, it was divided into three and given to each of the three laboratories in an envelope[32]. In a further departure from even the pretense of `blind' testing, included with each laboratory's sample was a letter from Tite telling them the age of each of the control samples![33]. Each cylinder and envelope was stamped by Riggi with Cardinal Ballestrero's wax seal[34].

The three Directors took their samples back to their laboratories[35]. Hall flew back to London on 25 April with the samples in his hand luggage and was met at the airport by a reporter from the London Independent and received a lot of publicity in the ensuing newspaper article[36]. Gove was critical of Hall for continuing "to play the 'blind measurement' game", i.e. lying to the reporter and through him the public in that article, that he had "no way of telling which" of the samples was from the Shroud, when "it would be instantly apparent to Hall which one came from the shroud":

"Professor Edward Hall, head of the Oxford University Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, is charged with the task of determining whether the Turin Shroud dates back to the first century or is an extremely clever medieval forgery. He has just collected his sample from Italy along with 2 other pieces of ancient linen. He has no way of telling which is which, they are simply numbered 1, 2 and 3. [Since the samples were not unravelled it would be instantly apparent to Hall which one came from the shroud-as he well knew. Hall continued to play the 'blind measurement' game.]"[37].
On that same day, 25 April, Prof. Garman Harbottle (1923-2016) of non-AMS Brookhaven laboratory phoned Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the unofficial leader of the radiocarbon dating laboratories[38], but whose AMS Rochester laboratory, was not chosen to date the Shroud, and told him that he had learned from Bob Otlet of non-AMS Harwell laboratory that there was no possibility of any outliers because the three chosen AMS laboratories would consult together so the answers would come out the same[39]! Gove dismissed this as either "paranoid" or "cynical" on Otlet's part[40], but he did not deny it could have happened!

But before the cutting of the samples on 21 April (above), in mid-April Gove wrote to the editor of Nature in answer to Tite's article of 7 April [see 25Mar18] which appeared in the 12 May 1988 edition[41]. Gove compared the new procedures for dating the Shroud with those of the 1986 the Turin Workshop Protocol [see 27Apr87] and he concluded with:

"All these unnecessary and unexplained changes unilaterally dictated by the Archbishop of Turin will produce an age for the Turin Shroud which will be vastly less credible than that which could have been obtained if the original Turin Workshop Protocol had been followed"[42]!

To be continued in the next part #11 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.16. [return]
3. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp.131-132; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.260; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.59; 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.308-309. [return]
4. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.7; Sox, 1988, p.132; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.5-6; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.59; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.53. [return]
5. Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.10; Wilson, 1998, p.309. [return]
6. Hoare, 1995, p.10; Gove, 1996, p.260. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.82A. [return]
8. Gove, 1996, p.252. [return]
9. Hoare, 1995, p.10; Wilson, 1998, p.309. [return]
10. Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, p.179; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.223. [return]
11. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.48. [return]
12. Hoare, 1995, p.10; Wilson, 1998, p.190; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.166. [return]
13. McDonnell, D.J., 2003, "The Great Holy Shroud Dating Fraud of 1988," 4 November; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.63; Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.179. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
15. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 613. [return]
16. de Wesselow, 2012, p.166. [return]
16a. Gove, 1996, p.261; Oxley, 2010, p.223. [return]
17. Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol 26, No. 4, July-August. [return]
18. Wilson, 1998, p.227. [return]
19. "Books," Geocities, October, 2009. [return]
20. Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.180. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.309. [return]
22. Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.24; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.65. [return]
23. Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.180. [return]
24. Hoare, 1995, p.10; Gove, 1996, p.261; Wilson, 1998, p.309; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.182. [return]
25. de Wesselow, 2012, p.166. [return]
26. Dupont, C., 1989, "Radio Courtoisie," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 32/33, September/December, pp.36-37; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.77; Wilson, I., 1996, "Reviews of New Books and Articles: Orazio Petrosillo & Emanuela Marinelli, `The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science' ...," BSTS Newsletter, No. 44, November/December. [return]
27. Wilson, 1991, pp.10-11; Gove, 1996, p.261; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.56-57, 68; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.65. [return]
28. Damon, 1989, p.612; Hoare, 1995, p.10; Guscin, 1998, pp.65-66; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.247; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.130; Oxley, 2010, p.223. [return]
30. de Castella, T., 2010, "Unshrouding the science of the Shroud," BBC News, 12 April. [return]
31. Sox, 1988, pp.134, 136-137; Damon, et al., 1989, p.612; Gove, 1996, p.261; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.67. [return]
32. Wilson, 1991, p.10; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.57, 70, 81; Guscin, 1998, p.65; Antonacci, 2000, p.182; McDonnell, 2003. [return]
33. Hoare, 1995, p.11; Antonacci, 2000, pp.181-182. [return]
34. Sox, 1988, p.134; Damon, et al., 1989, p.612; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.69; Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.179. [return]
35. Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.9; Guerrera, 2001, p.130. [return]
36. Gove, 1996, p.252. [return]
37. Schoon, N., 1988, "Analyzing the Strands of Time," The Independent, London, 25 April, in Gove, 1996, p.253. The words in square brackets are Gove's. [return]
38. Sox, 1988, p.95; Antonacci, 2000, pp.192-193. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.252. [return]
40. Ibid. [return]
41. Gove, 1996, p.251. [return]
42. Gove, 1996, pp.251-252; Gove, H.E., 1988, "Radiocarbon-dating the shroud," Nature, 12 May, Vol 333, p.110.[return]

Posted: 26 May 2018. Updated: 4 June 2018.

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

'you claim that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture'

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Bob

This is my response in a separate post to your comment under my 2015 post, "The man on the Shroud #8: The evidence is over- whelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" I had replied in an interim comment referring to my 11 July 2012 post, "`according to John chapter 20, Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural) ... If Scripture is correct ... lets throw out the shroud'" where a reader

[Right (enlarge): Photograph of the Shroud in National Geographic[2], which shows that the wounds and blood- stains on the Shroud are fully congruent with the Gospels' description of Jesus' suffering and death.]

made the same logical error as you: that if there were two (or more) cloths in the Tomb, one of them cannot be the Shroud! But as I advised in the "Comments" section of my April 2018 Shroud of Turin News, and by a further comment yesterday (7 May 2018), I had decided to respond to your comment by a post rather than a comment because: 1) your comment was long with many points; 2) it enables me to once again respond to the logically fallacious claim that, since there were two or more burial cloths in Jesus' tomb, the Shroud cannot be one of them; and 3) it allows me to post for the first time on the issue of a Christian (indeed a Christian Elder), knowing the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity (including having seen the Shroud in Turin - see below), yet rejecting it as a mere "artefact" (again see below). Your words are in bold and prefaced by "<" to distinguish them from mine. I have corrected your typos. Bible verses I quote are from the English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise indicated.

>you claim that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture No, the Shroud is fully congruent with Scripture. See photo above and my 2013 series, "The Shroud of Turin: 3.1 The Bible and the Shroud." Both Jesus and the man on the Shroud:

  1. Were struck by blows to the head and body (Mt 26:67; 27:30; Mk 14:65; 15:19; Lk 22:63; Jn 19:3) [06Aug13].
  2. Were scourged with a Roman flagrum (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:1) [15Jul13];
  3. Were crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2) [08Sep13];
  4. Carried a heavy crossbeam (Jn 19:17) [02Dec13a];
  5. Fell while carrying their crossbeam (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26) [02Dec13b];
  6. Were crucified by nails through their hands and feet (Jn 20:25-27; Col 2:14) [02Dec13c];
  7. Died on a cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30) [02Dec13d];
  8. Legs were not broken (Jn 19:31-3 [02Dec13e];
  9. Were speared in the side by a Roman lance (Jn 19:34) [02Dec13f].
  10. Were wrapped in a Jewish linen sovev i.e. sindon (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) [30Sep15];
  11. Had a hasty burial (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54; Jn 19:14,31,42; Mt 27:62) [27Feb14];
  12. Were buried in a Jerusalem rock tomb (Mt 27:60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:41-42) [22Mar13];
  13. Were resurrected within 3 days (Mt 28:1-67; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 24:17; Jn 20:1-9)! [14Mar17; 04Sep17; 05Nov17; 18Jan12 & 22Dec11].

>which surely must be the final authoritative evidence. As a Bible-believing evangelical Christian for these last ~52 years, continuously attending evangelical Christian churches over all that time, I agree. But again there is no conflict between the Bible and the Shroud (see above). So yours is a false dichotomy.

>The shroud is a complete body image, that is, in direct contact with the body... No. A a contact image of a three-dimensional body would be extremely distorted when laid out flat, as anti-authenticist Marvin M. Mueller (c.1929-2015) pointed out:

"... there is no way that an image of the quality and beauty of the Shroud image could have been produced by contact of the cloth with a full relief (body or statue) - projection distortion in mapping a full relief onto a plane alone guarantees that, as has been made manifest in several experiments. To cite an extreme example: A sheepskin laid out flat does not much resemble a sheep"[3]
And while there are points on the Shroud where it contacted the body,

[Above (enlarge): Enrie 1931 negative photograph of the Shroud face[4], showing that the image was imprinted also on low relief areas immediately adjacent to high relief areas such as the nose, eyebrows and chin. This and the sharpness of the image proves that it was not formed simply by direct contact but by some form of radiation acting over a distance.]

e.g. the high points such as the tip of the nose, chin and knees, there are points where the Shroud cannot have made contact with the body, e.g. low areas immediately adjacent to high points, yet the image is there also. As another anti-authenticist, David Sox (1936-2016), accepted that, "the image seemed to be present even where the cloth could not have touched the body", which "suggest[s] a process acting over a distance":

"Ever since Pia's 1898 photographing, it had been noted that the image darkness on the Shroud varies from point to point suggesting a process acting over a distance. Paul Vignon had observed that the image seemed to be present even where the cloth could not have touched the body"[5].
This shows the image formation process involved some kind of radiation that projected across space. Experiments under the auspices of Italy's ENEA agency have shown that the closest to the Shroud man's

[Left (enlarge): ENEA's excimer (ultraviolet) laser which produced an image on linen closest to that of the Shroud, but "the total power ... required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height ... [would be] ... 34 thousand billion watts"[6]!]

image is that produced by a high energy, high frequency, ultraviolet laser [see 22Dec11]!

>but Scripture indicates this cannot possibly be the case as the body of Jesus was wrapped in TWO separate pieces of cloth As already mentioned above, this is an example of the fallacy that because there were two (or more) burial cloths of Jesus, one of them could not have been the Shroud. But no Shroud pro-authenticist, as far as I am aware, claims that the Shroud was the only burial cloth of Jesus in the Tomb. The Gospels state that Jesus' burial cloths included (Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament): 1. a "linen shroud" [Greek sindon] (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53); 2. a facecloth [Gk soudarion] (Jn 20:7); and 3. "strips of linen" [Gk othonia] to bind His hands and feet (see keiriais Jn 11:44) and the spices (Lk 24:12; Jn 19:40; 20:5-7).

Moreover, most (if not all) Shroud pro-authenticists, as far as I am

[Above (enlarge): "Comparison of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin"[7]. "The most striking thing about all the stains [on the Sudarium of Oviedo] is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud"[8].]

aware, maintain (as I do) that the facecloth [soudarion] is the Sudarium of Oviedo (above) [see 25May16, 24Jan17, 25Mar17 & 27Jul17].

>one described as linen... You are evidently relying only on the NIV (published in 1978 - 40 years ago), which while it accurately translates othonia as "strips of linen" in Lk 24:12; Jn 19:40 and 20:5-7 (see Mounce Interlinear above), it inaccurately translates sindon as "linen cloth" in Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53 (again see Mounce Interlinear above). Since you presume to be a Christian teacher of others (including me), then you should heed Scripture's warning that teachers of Christian things will held by God to a higher standard:

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (Jas 3:1)
That means you must do your homework and buy and read books on the topic (in this case the Shroud-see my library of ~200 Shroud-related books), and when quoting Scripture you must refer to the original languages, at least in interlinear Greek-English (one of which, Mounce's, is online) or Hebrew-English translations. Especially in this case when the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence) and therefore you are "fighting against God" (Acts 5:39 NIV)! See future below on the consequences of that for Christians.

>which was wrapped around the torso & legs, No. It was "the body" of Jesus which was wrapped in a linen shroud:

"And Joseph took the body [of Jesus] and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud" (Mt 27:59); "This man [Joseph] went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud" (Lk 23:52-53)
It was "him", Jesus, who was wrapped in a linen shroud:
"And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him [Jesus] down, wrapped him in the linen shroud" (Mk 15:46).
You are an Elder of a Christian church, yet you are twisting Scripture (2Pet 3:16) to force it to fit your anti-Shroud position. By contrast, I don't need to twist Scripture to fit my pro-Shroud position-it already does!

>the other a 'cloth' wrapped around the head, according to John 20:7 (NIV) 'as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. That is a mistranslation by the NIV. The Greek rendered by it as "around" is epi "on" (e.g. "epidemic" = "on" + "the people"), not peri "around" (e.g. "perimeter" = "around" + "measure"). The ESV translates Jn 20:7 accurately by rendering it: "the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head." As does Jn 20:7 (Mounce).

>The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen Again the ESV translates this better: "...and the face cloth ... not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself" (Jn 20:7). The soudarion or facecloth (Jn 20:7), that is the Sudarium of Oviedo, was placed over Jesus' dead face while He was still on the cross (see video "Mark Guscin - Sudarium of Oviedo" and below). The soudarion was

[Above (enlarge): How the soudarion (i.e. the Sudarium of Oviedo was placed over Jesus' head after He had died hanging on the Cross[9]. See 26Jun08.]

then removed from Jesus' head when He was taken down from the Cross and enfolded in the Shroud. And then in the Tomb the soudarion was placed on the Shroud where it covered the very top of Jesus' head. There is a space between the frontal and dorsal head images wide enough to allow for the soudarion to have been on the crown or top of

[Above (enlarge)[10]: Gap of about 6½ inches (~16.5 cms) between the front and back head images, where the bloodstained "face cloth [soudarion] which had been on [epi] Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7) was, but the image being vertically collimated[11], i.e. straight up and down from the body[12], no image would have formed there. See 25May16.]

the Shroud man's head, since there no image would have formed:
"Still more interesting, there is no imprint of the crown of the head between the forehead and the dorsal view. If the sweat cloth [soudarion] was tied above, no imprint could be formed there on the Shroud. The space between the frontal and dorsal view is wide enough to allow for the sweat cloth, especially if we suppose that the Shroud was not loosely laid, but drawn quite taut over the head"[13].
>Some versions describe the body cloth as 'bandages' or strips... not one continuous piece of cloth as the shroud is. You are confusing the sindon a "linen shroud" (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53 Mounce) with the othonia "strips of linen" (Lk 24:12; Jn 19:40; 20:5-6 Mounce). In this instance the NIV translates more accurately than the ESV: Lk 24:12 (NIV) "Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves ..."; Jn 19:40 "Taking Jesus' body, the two of them [Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus] wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen ..."; Jn 20:5-6 (NIV) "He [John] bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there...". A mistake that most Shroudies have made is that they wrongly assume that the sindon (Shroud) must have been left behind in the empty tomb and therefore the Shroud must be either included in the othonia, or be the soudarion. But see my 2014 "Servant of the priest" series where I provide evidence that Jesus took the sindon with Him out of the Tomb.

>Having personally seen the shroud in Turin a few years ago As I have mentioned previously [see 14Feb16] I have never seen the Shroud (nor attended a Shroud conference, nor even met another Shroudie) because I live in a suburb of Perth, Western Australia, which is "one of the most isolated major cities in the world" (Wikipedia), and I am the full-time carer of my wife who has Multiple Sclerosis (MS) which has rendered her a near-quadriplegic. So I had assumed that I probably never would be able to see the Shroud. But recently my wife has started having blocks of 2 weeks respite care in nursing homes, so it is now feasible that I can see the Shroud at its next exposition, depending on when that will be.

>I can agree that it is a fascinating artefact. I don't agree. If the Shroud were an "artefact" (i.e. man-made) modern science would have long ago discovered that, but it hasn't. What Ian Wilson pointed out in 1998 applies even more today, 20 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"[14].
Indeed, the very existence of many, mutually exclusive, sceptical theories of how the Shroud's image was formed itself shows that all "artefact" (i.e. forgery) theories have failed! Moreover, if the Shroud were a work of human art it would be the greatest artwork of all. But instead of featuring prominently in books of the world's great artworks, the Shroud is simply ignored by the art world, as though it didn't exist!

Furthermore, there are immense problems of the forgery (i.e. artefact) theory. See my series, "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory." Also step through the "Problem for the forgery theory" sections in my, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series: #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25 & #27 ...

And as leading Shroud anti-authenticists have conceded, if the Shroud is not a work of human art, then it is authentic, there being no third alternative:

Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) - "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"[15]

Steven Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell) - "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[16] and Stevenson and Habermas[17] 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)[18]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic [i.e. not "a product of human artifice"], the image is that of Jesus'"[19].

>but NOT the shroud of Jesus... Why does one who is a Christian Elder, who claims to believe the Bible which states that Jesus was buried in "a linen shroud" (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53), dismiss out of hand that that linen shroud has survived down to this day as the Shroud of Turin? [For my answer see future below.] Even the agnostic Professor of Anatomy at the Sorbonne, Yves Delage (1854–1920), on the basis of the anatomical perfection of the man's image on Secondo Pia's 1898 negative photographs of the Shroud declared:

"I recognize Christ as a historical personage and I see no reason why anyone should be scandalized that there still exist material traces of his earthly life"[20].
>>They don't even know where the real tomb is.... That is both irrelevant and false. It is irrelevant because even if it were true it

[Above (enlarge)[21]: Cross-section showing that the Church of Holy Sepulchre was built over both the Tomb of Jesus and the site of His crucifixion (L. Calvary, Gk. Golgotha - Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Jn 19:17): "Today's Church of the Holy Sepulcher sets over two sites: Calvary and the tomb of Jesus. Both these sites were in the same garden outside the walls of Jerusalem in 30 AD, and now they are under one roof. John wrote that they were close to each other: `At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.' - John 19:41-42 [NIV]"[22].]

would not have any bearing on the authenticity of the Shroud. But it is false because there is no good reason to doubt that the Church of Holy Sepulchre was built over the site of Jesus' Tomb (and also over the site of His crucifixion-see above). The Gospels state that both Christians (Mt 27:60-61; 28:1-8; Mk 15:46-16:8; Lk 23:50-24:12; Jn 19:38-20:18) and Jews (Mt 27:62-66; 28:11-15) in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection knew where His tomb was. The early church historian Eusebius (c.260-340) recorded that there were Christians living in Jerusalem up to immediately before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70, when the Christians, warned in prophecy, left Jerusalem to live in Pella across the Jordan River:

"The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella"[23].
That Christians had returned to live in and/or around Jerusalem soon after AD 70 is evident from there having been 14 Jewish Christian Bishops of Jerusalem from 107 up to the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-136[24]. Then from 135 to 325 there were 24 Gentile Christian Bishops of Jerusalem[25]. So from 30/33-325 [see below] there never was a time when Jerusalem Christians could have forgotten where Jesus' tomb had been!

About ten years after Jesus' death, King Herod Agrippa I (r.41-44), the "Herod the King" of Acts 12:1-23, began the construction of Jerusalem's Third Wall[26], which enclosed within the city the Tomb and Golgotha, which at the time of Jesus' death were outside Jerusalem's then wall (Heb 13:12; Mk 15:20; Jn 19:17)[27]. In 130 the Roman Emperor Hadrian (r.117–138) visited the ruins of Jerusalem and decided to rebuild it as a city dedicated to the god Jupiter and renamed Aelia Capitolina[28]. Then in 136, following the crushing of the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-136, Hadrian formally reestablished Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and forbade the presence of both Jews and Christian in the new Roman city[29]. From 136–140 Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount and also a temple to Venus on the site of Golgotha/Calvary[30]. The Tomb was buried under the rubble of the ruins of Jerusalem used to level the site, but the location of nearby Golgotha was marked by the temple to Venus[31]! After Hadrian's death in 138 his successor, Emperor Antoninus Pius (138–161), relaxed the restrictions on Christians' presence in the city[32].

In 325 Macarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem (r. 312-335), at the Council of Nicaea, petitioned the Emperor Constantine I (r. 306-337) to demolish Hadrian's temple to Venus and uncover the tomb of Christ[33]. So Macarius knew, presumably from accurate but now-lost traditional sources, where the Tomb was underneath the rubble[34]. Constantine granted Macarius' petition and in 326 Constantine's mother, Empress Helena (c. 246-c. 330), travelled to Jerusalem and having been told by Macarius the exact location ofGolgotha/Calvary and Christ's tomb[35], ordered the demolition of Hadrian's Venus temple and their excavation[36]. That by 326 these sites were inside Jerusalem's wall but Scripture states that Jesus was crucified and buried outside the city's walls [see above] adds credibility to Macarius' correct identification of these sites[37]. Then in 326 Constantine ordered the construction of two churches, connected by a great basilica (the Martyrium) an enclosed colonnaded atrium (the Triportico) with the site of Golgotha in one corner, and a rotunda which contained the Aedicula (Edicule), which in turn enclosed the rock-cut Tomb that Helena and Macarius had identified as the burial site of Jesus (see above)[38]. Construction of the Church of Holy Sepulchre was completed in 335[39].

In 614 the Church was damaged by fire when the Persian king Khosrow II (r. 590-628) invaded Jerusalem [see "614"][40]. In 630, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-641) restored Jerusalem and rebuilt the Church[41]. But then in 1009 the Muslim caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (996–1021) ordered the complete destruction of the Church[42]:

"... the 'basilica of the Lord's Sepulchre [was] destroyed down to the ground'. ... everything was razed 'except those parts which were impossible to destroy or would have been too difficult to carry away' ... The Church's foundations were hacked down to bedrock. The Edicule and the east and west walls and the roof of the cut-rock tomb it encased were destroyed or damaged ... the north and south walls were likely protected by rubble from further damage. The `mighty pillars resisted destruction up to the height of the gallery pavement, and are now effectively the only remnant of the fourth-century buildings'"[43].
In 1048 partial reconstruction of the ruined Church by order of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042-1055) was completed[44]. But despite spending vast sums on the project, construction was concentrated on the rotunda and its surrounding buildings, leaving the great basilica in ruins[45]. The rebuilt Church consisted of a court open to the sky, with five small chapels attached to it[46]. In 1099 Jerusalem was recaptured by soldiers of the First Crusade [see "1095"][47]. The crusaders unified the chapels on the site by placing them all under one roof, completing their reconstruction

[Above (enlarge): The Church of the Holy Sepulchre today. The large dome on the left is over the Tomb, the smaller middle dome is over the church itself (the Katholikon) and the small dome below and to the right of the latter (not the one in the courtyard) is over the site of Golgotha/Calvary[48], i.e. the Rock of Calvary-see "8" on this plan.]

during the reign of crusader Queen of Jerusalem, Melisende (r. 1131–1153) in 1149[49] [see "c.1149"].

In 1555 Franciscan friars rebuilt the Edicule and extended it to create ante-chamber[50]. A protective marble sheath was also then installed over the Tomb[51]. A fire in 1808 caused the dome of the rotunda to collapse and smash the Edicule's exterior, but these were rebuilt in 1809–1810 by a Greek architect Nikolaos Komnenos[52]. The current

[Above (enlarge): The rotunda (which contains the Edicule, which in turn contains the Tomb of Jesus-see future below) and its ante-chamber extension, from the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre[53].]

dome of the rotunda dates from 1870 and was restored during 1994–1997, as part of extensive modern renovations to the Church[54]. During the 1970–1978 restoration works and excavations inside the building, and under the nearby Muristan, it was found that the area was originally a quarry, from which white meleke limestone was mined[55].

In 2016, restoration works were performed in the Edicule, including temporarily removing the 1555 marble cladding (see above) which

[Above (enlarge): A restorer removes debris beneath a broken marble slab to expose the original limestone rock surface of the burial bed of Jesus[56]! The Shroud has limestone dust adhering to it, particularly its underside, which matches the limestone of Jerusalem cave tombs [see 22Mar13]!]

protected the burial bed of Jesus[57]. The original limestone burial bed of Jesus was revealed intact, meaning that the Tomb location had not changed and confirming the existence of the original limestone cave walls within the Edicule[58]! The Tomb was then resealed shortly after[59].

>and NOTHING pertinent to the crucifixion or the Burial has survived. Wrong! See above that the sites of Jesus' crucifixion, Golgotha, and His burial Tomb, have survived, having been preserved, against all the odds, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. But why would one who is a Christian, let alone a Christian Elder, claim that "NOTHING" (emphatic) "pertinent to the crucifixion or the Burial has survived"? Anti-Christian atheists like Richard Dawkins:

"It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others, Professor G. A. Wells [1926–2017] of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist?. Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity"[60].
would be very happy with your claim and see it as further evidence for their position that Christianity is false and atheism is true.

>Anyway it is totally irrelevant.... I don't know you, so I can only go by your words, that "NOTHING pertinent to the crucifixion or the Burial has survived" (your emphasis) and that it is "totally irrelevant" the overwhelming evidence that Jesus, who is ruling over all (Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9) has graciously left us in the Shroud of His suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection, which has brought and kept untold millions to Christ. These words of yours tell me that your mind has been taken captive by an anti-realist, anti-historical, anti-truth and therefore anti-Christian philosophy (Col 2:8). Presumably a form of Gnosticism, with its radical dualism denying that God has any involvement in the material world.

>as the Angel said, 'He is not here...He is risen' Again you are twisting Scripture (see above). The angel also showed the women the material evidence that Jesus had risen, "the place where he [Jesus] lay":

Mt 28:5-6 "But the angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.'"

Mk 16:6 "And he said to them, 'Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.'"
And Jesus has graciously provided that twenty centuries later, we can "see the place where he lay" (see above)!

>and that in itself is far more important and relevant than any piece of cloth. The Shroud is not just "any piece of cloth". You yourself went to Turin to see it and you admitted that it is "fascinating" (see above). But the Shroud is far more than merely "fascinating". Again the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is the very burial sheet of Jesus!

>how is the Shroud in any way relevant to the Gospel.? The Shroud provides complementary, extra-Biblical confirmation to a post-Christian world that does not accept the Bible as evidence, that the Gospel accounts of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus are true. Protestant evangelical Christian apologist Gary Habermas included the Shroud in his "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus" (1984):

"The description of the man who was apparently buried in the shroud has also been enlightening. The scientific team pathologist and other medical doctors determined that the man was crucified and was dead, with his body in a state of rigor mortis. The more the wounds were studied, the more it became obvious that this man's injuries were the same as the gospel reports of Jesus' crucifixion. The most interesting facet of this study is that many unnatural things were done to Jesus and these same things appeared on the shroud. Both men suffered a series of punctures throughout the scalp from many sharp objects, a seriously bruised face, a horrible whipping (over 100 wounds from this beating have been counted on the shroud), abrasions on both shoulders from a rough, heavy object, and contusions on both knees. Both men had the more normal wounds associated with crucifixion; namely, punctured feet and wrists. Strangely, both men escaped having their ankles broken, as was normal, but both had post-mortem chest wounds instead, from which blood and watery fluid flowed. Both men were buried hastily in fine linen and were buried individually. Strong indications that the man buried in the shroud is Jesus comes from the correspondence between the two. They agree even down to the small details in about one dozen areas which were not normal crucifixion procedures. The chances are quite minimal that two men would have so many agreements, especially in points of abnormal circumstances. Also, no areas of contradiction apparently exist"[61].
For the first ~1500 years of Christianity there was no Gospel in the common people's own languages. The Image of Edessa/Shroud has had a huge role in the `icon evangelism' of Europe and Russia in that interim from the early 6th century, almost a thousand years before the written Gospel was translated beginning in the mid-16th century, from the original Greek and Hebrew into the languages of the common people :
"But thanks to a remarkable manuscript discovery made at St Catherine's Monastery in 1975, which included a cache of early Georgian manuscripts whose contents were translated only subsequent to 1994, we now know that there was in the sixth century a specific movement to disseminate this very likeness, and that this movement stemmed from Edessa and its environs. Tradition in Georgia, the former republic of the old Soviet Union, has long held that some time around the mid 530s twelve Assyrian monks left Mesopotamia and travelled north to found several monasteries in Georgia. Present-day tour groups to Georgia can follow in these missionary monks' footsteps, and in Georgia's capital Tbilisi there is a very badly worn sixth-century Chris Pantocrator icon, the Anchiskhati - an almost exact counterpart to the one at St Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai - which is thought to have been brought to Georgia by this mission ... The quite remarkable new insight from one of the recently discovered Georgian documents from Sinai is what it tells of the activities of two of these Assyrian monks, Theodosius from Edessa and Isidore from Edessa's sister city Hierapolis. Theodosius is specifically described as 'a deacon and monk [in charge] of the Image of Christ' in Edessa. As Georgian scholars recognize, this Image can be none other than our Image of Edessa ... one evidently sufficiently important to have its own `carer'. Theodosius's companion Isidore was apparently responsible for a tile image belonging to Edessa's sister city Hierapolis. Both monks travelled to Georgia specifically to paint interpretative versions of their charges for the newly founded churches there. Never before have we been afforded a glimpse of who lay behind the rash of Christ portraits that appeared in the sixth century. It is quite evident from the Georgian document that they were Assyrian artist-monks from Edessa and its environs who saw themselves as missionaries or icon evangelists for the newly revealed 'divine likeness' that had been so recently rediscovered in Edessa"[62].
My own Shroud blog has had almost 900,000 pageviews since June 2007 (an average of ~226 a day), a large percentage of them in Russia and China (see Google Analytics map of today, 23 May 2018, at 11:15 pm) [Right: enlarge], preach- ing the `fifth gospel':

"If it is authentic, the Holy Shroud is unquestionably the greatest religious relic known to Christianity and one of the most fascinating antiquities known to mankind. If it is authentic, the Shroud can rightfully take its place as `The Fifth Gospel,' for what it reveals of Jesus and his suffering far exceeds the scant Gospel words of the evangelists. If it is authentic, and if no completely satisfactory natural explanation can account for its unusual physical properties, then the Shroud is indeed the most miraculous of Holy Miracles - an enduring, self-made portrait of the man who would be called Savior by millions of Christians throughout the world"[63].
where the written Gospel is not generally available.

>Focus on Jesus. 'The Author & finisher of our Faith' That is exactly what I am doing. But it is not what you are doing, commenting on my blog against the Shroud!

>Keep the main thing.... the main thing. See above that that is exactly what I am doing but you are not!

>Blessings! BobM. Thanks.

As I mentioned at the start, one of the reasons I responded to your comment by this post was, it allowed me to post for the first time on the issue of a Christian, knowing the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, yet rejecting it as a man-made. I have posted previously [25Apr14] on the issue of non-Christians, knowing the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, yet rejecting it as a man-made:

If Christianity is true and the Shroud is authentic, then endlessly debating about the Shroud is not a neutral activity. Jesus Himself stated the principle, that the more one has been given, the more will be required:
Lk 12:48. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more" (my emphasis).
According to that principle, Jesus warned the unrepentant cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida the inhabitants of whom witnessed first-hand His miracles, but didn't believe in Him, that the judgement on those Jewish cities would be greater than that of the wicked pagan cities of Tyre and Sidon:
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.'"

Luke 10:13. "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."
If Jesus caused His scourged, crowned with thorns, and crucified and speared in the side image to be imprinted on His burial sheet and then has preserved it against all the odds down to this day, then it is highly likely (to put it mildly) that He expects those who become aware of His image on the Shroud, to repent and believe in Him and His death on the cross to pay for their sins. So those who become aware of the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, yet refuse to believe in Jesus and His death for them, will, like Chorazin and Bethsaida receive a more severe judgment than if they had never heard of the Shroud.
Also in my comment of 04Dec15, after quoting the above verses, I wrote:
By analogy this applies to those sceptics who know the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity but don't accept it. It does not apply to those who don't accept the Shroud is authentic, but are ignorant of that evidence. The former are in the same position as those residents in those towns in Israel who personally witnessed Jesus' miraculous works but didn't believe in him. The latter are in the same position as residents in other towns in Israel who did not personally witness Jesus' miraculous works. They will still be judged (if they are non-Christians), but less severely.

Jesus stated His principle: "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required." (Lk 12:48).

So Shroud sceptic, you who know the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuse to accept it, Jesus invites you to "repent" (Gk. metanoia = change your mind) and believe in Him, 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), and died a horrific death on the cross for YOUR sins (Php 2:8; Heb 12:2), so that YOU may be saved, escape God's righteous Judgment (Jn 3:16-18), and receive from Jesus eternal life (Jn 3:15-16,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; Acts 13:48; 1Tim 1:16; 1Jn 5:13).
I had previously in comments of 14Dec15 and 03Apr16 added that:
"... it occurred to me that my assumption that the refusal of Shroud sceptics to accept the overwhelming evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, will be judged most severely by Jesus (2Cor 5:10; Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5), has a Biblical basis. If the Shroud is authentic, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates, then it is a MIRACULOUS WORK of Jesus (Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle, pp.174-177). And in the Gospels Jesus called on those who witnessed His miraculous works to believe in Him on the basis of those works [Jn 10:25,37-38; 14:10-11] ... or else face a more severe judgment than they otherwise will, if they had been ordinary unbelievers ..." [followed by quotes of Mt 11:20-22 and Lk 10:13-15]
As my, "They will still be judged (if they are non-Christians)" above indicated, Jesus' judgment of Christians who know the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity but reject it, will be different from that of non-Christians who do the same. That is because although the Bible teaches that both Christians and non-Christians will appear before Jesus at the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-32; Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:11-13) Christians, unlike non-Christians (Mt 25:41-46; Rev 20:15), will survive it (Mt 25:31-34), because they had accepted Jesus' sacrifice of Himself for their sins (Mt 20:28; Jn 3:16-18; 2Cor 5:20-21; Heb 7:25-27). However Christians, while they will be saved, will receive greater or lesser rewards, depending on the quality of their works:
1Cor 3:10-15. "10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."
As the late, great, Anglican scholar Leon Morris (1914-2006) explained:
"12... "The picture is that of fire sweeping through a building. It consumes what is combustible, but leaves metal and stone. The quality of the work will be shown, for the Day will bring it to light, 'show it in its true character', 'reveal it for what it is'. The 'it' in It will be revealed may be the work, but is more probably the Day. The meaning is 'the Day reveals itself (or, is revealed) in fire' (cf. Mal. 4:1); the present tense perhaps gives a greater sense of certainty. 14-15 The test in fire will determine whether or not a man will receive a 'wage' (misthos, see on v. 8; here it is the wage of the building worker whose work is approved; cf. Lk. 19:16-19; Rev. 22:12). All those considered here are saved, for they have built on the one foundation, Jesus Christ [v11]. Even of the one whose work is burnt up it is said that he himself will be saved. The distinction is not between the lost and the saved, but among the saved between those who have built well and those who have built poorly. He will suffer loss means he will lose his wage, a workman fined for poor workmanship. Being saved 'as through fire' (RSV) may have been a proverbial expression to indicate one saved and no more (like the brand plucked from the burning, Am. 4:11; Zc. 3:2). The imagery is that of one who has to dash through the flames to escape to safety. The fire is, of course, a fire of testing, not one of purifying, and the passage lends no support to the doctrine of purgatory as some claim" (emphasis original)[64]

Since the evidence is overwhelming that Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet, Christians who oppose the Shroud are, as pointed out above, unwittingly "fighting against God (Acts 5:39 NIV)! Moreover, they must employ falsehoods to do it (as you do above Bob). A notable example was evangelical Christian apologist Josh McDowell, who in the 1980 edition of his "Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith," [Right] used the falsehoods, half-truths and lies of anti-Christian atheists/agnostics to argue against the Shroud. The result was not that sceptics were more receptive to the Christian faith, but rather at least one anti-Christian cited McDowell's arguments against the Shroud as further evidence for his position that Christianity was false! Jesus who is "the Truth" (Jn 14:6) will surely reduce the rewards of Christians (including you Bob) who employ untruths to oppose His very burial Shroud!

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve ... The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-753, 737-740. [return]
3. Mueller, M.M., in Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 299. [return]
4. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, p.99. [return]
6. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," The Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
7. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.122. [return]
8. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.17.27. [return]
9. Bennett, 2001, p.118. [return]
10. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
11. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.184-189, p.188; Adler, A.D., "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, p.18. [return]
12. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.118; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.35, 130. [return]
13. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.95-96. [return]
14. 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.235. [return]
15. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.52. [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, pp.51-53. [return]
17. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.121-129. [return]
18. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
19. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, 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]
20. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.26; Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, p.107; Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, p.235; Wilson, 1979, p.34; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 47; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.5; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.186; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.196; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.32; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.20. [return]
21. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre - Jerusalem, Israel," Steemit, 2017. [return]
22. "The Church of the Holy Sepulcher," Jerusalem 101, 2 December 2014. [return]
23. Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History," Book III:V, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1966, p.86. [return]
24. "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem: Jewish Bishops of Jerusalem," Wikipedia, 27 February 2018. [return]
25. "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem: Bishops of Aelia Capitolina," Wikipedia, 27 February 2018. [return]
26. "Walls of Jerusalem: Jewish postexilic city," Wikipedia, 21 April 2018. [return]
27. Biddle, M., 1999, "The Tomb of Christ," Sutton Publishing: Stroud UK, p.1. [return]
28. "Timeline of Jerusalem: Late Roman period (Aelia Capitolina)," Wikipedia, 15 May 2018. [return]
29. Ibid. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. Biddle, 1999, p.1. [return]
32. "Timeline of Jerusalem: Late Roman period (Aelia Capitolina)," Wikipedia, 15 May 2018. [return]
33. "The Church of the Holy Sepulcher," Jerusalem 101, 2 December 2014. [return]
34. Perkins, P., "Sepulchre, Church of the Holy," in Achtemeier, P.J., et al., eds, 1985, "Harper's Bible Dictionary," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, pp.925-926. [return]
35. "The Church of the Holy Sepulcher," Jerusalem 101, 2 December 2014. [return]
36. "Helena (empress): The `True Cross' and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre," Wikipedia, 12 May 2018. [return]
37. "The Church of the Holy Sepulcher," Jerusalem 101, 2 December 2014. [return]
38. "History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Construction," Wikipedia, 12 December 2016. [return]
39. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Construction (4th century)," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
40. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Damage and destruction (614–1009)," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
41. Ibid. [return]
42. Ibid. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Reconstruction (11th century)," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
45. Ibid. [return]
46. Ibid. [return]
47. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Crusader period (1099–1244)," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
48. Biddle, 1999, p.3. [return]
49. Ibid. [return]
50. "History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Later periods," Wikipedia, 12 December 2016; "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Ottoman and later periods," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
51. Ibid; Ibid. [return]
52. Ibid; Ibid. [return]
53. Romey, K., 2017, "Exclusive: Age of Jesus Christ's Purported Tomb Revealed," National Geographic, November 28. [return]
54. History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Later periods," Wikipedia, 12 December 2016; "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Ottoman and later periods," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
55. History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Later periods," Wikipedia, 12 December 2016. [return]
56. Romey, 2017, National Geographic, November 28. [return]
57. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Ottoman and later periods," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
58. Ibid. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Dawkins, R., 2006, "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, p.97. [return]
61. Habermas, G.R., 1984, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.158. [return]
62. Wilson, 2010, pp.135-136. [return]
63. Humber, T., 1974, "The Fifth Gospel: The Miracle of the Holy Shroud," Pocket Books: New York NY, p.12. [return]
64. Morris, L.L., 1985, "The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1958], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1987, p.66. [return]

Posted: 8 May 2018. Updated: 4 June 2018.