Here is the Bibliography "I" page 
for authors' surnames beginning with "I" of
[Left: John C. Iannone's, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence" (1998), Amazon.com. See `tagline' quotes below from Iannone's book (bold emphases mine).]
books (at present only this one book) that I will refer to in my book outline, "The Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus?"
© Stephen E. Jones
BIBLIOGRAPHY "I"
Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blog: CreationEvolutionDesign
"What is the Shroud of Turin? ... The Shroud, often called the `Holy Shroud,' is most commonly referred to as the Shroud of Turin because it has been physically located in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy for over 400 years. This precious cloth is considered by millions of Christians throughout the world to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ - a direct witness to His passion, death and resurrection 2,000 years ago. The Shroud is the holiest relic in Christianity. Physically, the Shroud is a remarkably well-preserved oblong piece of linen cloth 14'3" long (4.36 meters) and 3'7" wide (1.1 meters), weighing approximately 5 1/2 lbs. (2.45 kgs.) . The linen fibers are woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill with a Z-twist and consist of a fairly heavy yarn (34/100 of a millimeter thick) of Near Eastern or Mediterranean basin flax. Down the left side of the Shroud is a border approximately 3 1/2 inches wide (8 centimeters from the edge) running the full length of the linen cloth. Once thought to be a side-strip sewn onto the main cloth, it has now been determined to be a selvedge, that is, a piece of cloth woven into the main cloth so that it will not unravel. It is done in such a manner as to require no hem. The reason for adding the selvedge is not known for certain. However, historian and renowned English sindonologist Ian Wilson speculates that the selvedge may have been added at a later date perhaps to center the image on the cloth for viewing. He considers this the most logical explanation and points out that the selvedge was added at the same time as the fringe and gold covering, the overall purpose being to transform the cloth from a shroud to what seems to have been some sort of `portrait.'" (Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.1-2. Italics original).
"The body in the Shroud had to have been set at a slight angle, the head raised by some pillow-type support, the arms drawn very stiffly over the pelvis - left hand over right- the right shoulder set lower than the left, the legs decisively flexed at the knee and the left foot partly over the right. As Wilson remarked, `If the Shroud is a forgery, the care with which even the post crucifixion lie of the body has been thought out is quite remarkable.' [Wilson, I., "The Mysterious Shroud," Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, 1986, p.16] The body is clearly laid out in an attitude of death. It would appear, then, that the Man of the Shroud was of Jewish origin and that the bloodstains and wounds studied by forensic pathologists in their careful examination of the Shroud are remarkably coordinated with the testimony of the Gospels relative to the Roman crucifixion weapons and procedures regarding the passion, death and resurrection of the historical Jesus Christ. His burial is consistent with Jewish burial practices of the day as outlined in the Mishnah which contains interpretations of scriptural ordinances as compiled by the Rabbis in the first and second centuries. ... More recent investigations of the Shroud by Dr. Alan Whanger, Professor Emeritus of Duke University in North Carolina, utilizing modern scientific instrumentation such as the polarized image overlay technique, appear to reveal the presence of a tephillin- a Jewish phylactery or prayer box that contains a portion of Scripture - attached to the forehead and the right arm. [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, p.67] In addition to the possible phylactery, previous investigations of the Shroud point to the presence of Roman coins over the eyes (identified by some as leptons or widow's mites minted during the administration of Pontius Pilate), pollen from the ancient Near East, calcium carbonate (limestone) dust from the cave-tombs of Jerusalem, mites from the ancient Near East as well as possible floral images around the head area. Such findings ... confirm the longevity and antiquity of this cloth. As several authors point out, if the Shroud was the work of a forger, its creation would be more `miraculous' than if it were the actual burial cloth of Jesus." (Iannone, 1998, pp.8-9. Italics original).
"Some consider the images to have been formed by some as yet unknown `natural phenomena.' However, as Stevenson rightly points out, `If this type of body-on-cloth is natural, why are there so many burial garments that have no images of the person buried in them?' [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, p.127] Sindonologist Robert Wilcox states that `even if (researchers) come up with some `natural' process, the failure, so far, to find anything like the Shroud amongst the world's body cloths and artifacts leaves them with the further problem of why the process occurred only once in the history of the world, so far as is yet known.' [Wilcox, R.K., "Half of Shroud Scientists Say Image Is Authentic," The Voice, 5 Mar. 1982, p.13] The late Dr. John Heller, who was a research scientist at the New England Institute and author of the book Report on the Shroud of Turin, commented: `We do know, however, that there are thousands on thousands of pieces of funerary linens going back to millennia before Christ, and another huge number of linens of Coptic Christian burials. On none of these is there any image of any kind.' [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.220]" (Iannone, 1998, p.10).
"Later, in 1973, French scholar, Professor Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium, was permitted to join the team to carefully examine two small linen samples (one 13 x 40 millimeters, the other 10 x 40 millimeters) from the Shroud. .... Dr. Raes reported that the Shroud was indeed woven of linen with a three-to-one herringbone twill with a Z-twist and that it is sewn with linen thread (all the warp, weft and sewing threads of the Shroud are of linen). He noted that the yarn was indicative of a good-quality workmanship and the weave density an average of a little over thirty-five threads per centimeter, corresponding favorably with the thirty thread per centimeter average of the finest Egyptian mummy fabrics. The normal weave in Palestinian, Roman and Egyptian loom-technology was a one-over-one. The three-to-one herringbone twill was a more refined weave. It would have been an expensive piece of cloth for the first century. However, we know from the Gospels that Joseph of Arimathea was a rich man and it was he who provided the Shroud used to bury Jesus (Mt 27:57-61). During the radiocarbon analysis done at Oxford in 1988, cotton fibers were found on the Shroud. ? Dr. Raes, using polarized light for microscopic viewing, had also identified traces of cotton fibers (fibrils) that he classified as of the Gossypium herbaceum type, a cotton that existed in the Middle East of the first century. [Raes, G., "Rapport d'Analise," La S. Sindone, supplement to Rivisita Diocesana Torinese, January 1976, pp.79-83] Professor Philip McNair of Birmingham University, England, supports these finds and points out that the ... Gossypium herbaceum type ... was cultivated in the Middle East during the first century, but was not known in Europe during the period when possible faking of the Shroud could have occurred. The cotton traces indicated that the Shroud was woven on a loom that had been used previously to weave cotton cloth. Paul Maloney, a research archaeologist and sindonologist from Pennsylvania, notes that cotton was actually a part of the linen thread. Dr. Raes says that these findings support the contention that the Shroud linen was woven in the Middle East, since raw cotton was unknown in Europe until the ninth century when it was first planted in Spain by the Moors. Cotton was first woven in Venice and Milan in the fourteenth century and cotton cloth was not even seen in England until the fifteenth century. Cotton was grown in China and India in antiquity and was expertly woven in India several centuries before the Christian era. By the first century it was grown extensively in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Wilson notes that cotton is also known to have been introduced to the Middle East by the monarch Sennacherib during the seventh century B.C. By the time of Christ it would certainly have been established in the environs of Palestine, and therefore offers no difficulty to the authenticity of the Shroud. Dr. Raes concluded that this piece of linen could have been manufactured in the first century. He could not say with certainty that it was. The late John Tyrer, a chartered textile technologist who worked in the field for twenty-five years as an associate of the Textile Institute of Manchester, England, discovered that while Middle East linens similar to the Shroud exist as far back as 3600 B.C., not much medieval linen has survived. He states that `it would be reasonable to conclude that linen textiles with Z-twist yarns and woven 3-1 reversing twill similar to the Turin Shroud could have been produced in the first-century Syria-Palestine.' [Tyrer, J., "Looking At the Turin Shroud as a Textile," Shroud Spectrum, 6, 1983, pp.68-69]" (Iannone, 1998, pp.13-14).
"In 1978 the S.T.U.R.P. team with over 40 scientists conducted a thorough scientific investigation of the Shroud using the latest equipment. The group determined that the actual image was created by a phenomenon (as yet unknown) or a momentous event that caused a rapid cellulose degradation (aging) of the linen fibers, that is, an accelerated dehydration and oxidation of the very top linen fibrils of the cellulose fibers of the Shroud, thereby creating a sepia or straw -yellow colored image similar to that of a scorch. Whatever precipitated this rapid aging affected only the very top fibrils of the fibers of the linen. As noted previously, the images are a surface phenomenon. Most scientists compare it to a light scorch such as might be created if an iron touched a handkerchief for too long a period. What caused this to happen? This is a central part of the mystery of the Shroud. No one has yet been able to provide a comprehensive explanation ... . Those who believe in the Resurrection of Jesus believe that something startling occurred at the moment of the Resurrection - some phenomenon as yet not understood by science that left its mark on the Shroud - a photo of the Resurrection for people of all eras to ponder. Many call the Shroud the `silent witness' for this reason and claim that the Shroud is a modern witness to the Resurrection." (Iannone, 1998, p.15. Italics original).
"Ancient Pollen on the Shroud? The late Protestant Swiss botanist and criminologist Dr. Max Frei was permitted in 1973 and 1978 as part of the S.T.U.R.P. team to take sticky-tape samples of pollen grains directly from the Shroud. ... Before his death in 1983, Dr. Frei had identified fifty-eight different types of pollen on the sticky tapes and further demonstrated that some of this grouping came from Jerusalem ... some from Eastern Turkey and some from Europe, the final resting place of the Shroud. With regard to Turkey, Dr. Frei was certain that the Shroud had been in the area he describes as the Anatolian steppe, which he qualifies as a phytogeographical term for the region of the towns of Bitlis, Diyarbakir, Mardin, Urfa, Gaziantep and Malatya. Urfa is the modern Turkish name for the former Byzantine city of Edessa, believed to have been home to the Shroud until 944. At the time of his death, Frei was seeking to identify nineteen other pollens which would have brought the number to seventy-seven. ... Aharon Horowitz, an illustrious Israeli palynologist ... noted that the pollens found on the Shroud can be compared to pollens found in Palestine but not in North Africa. Avinoam Danin, the chief expert in Israeli desert flora, agrees with him and adds that it is possible to demonstrate, on the basis of the pollens present on the Shroud, an itinerary across the Negev to the highlands of Lebanon. Some critics have proposed that pollen could have been airborne from the Middle East to Europe and made their way to the Shroud. However, Dr. Frei, responding to this claim stated: Groups A, B, and C of plants on the Shroud from Palestine and Anatolia are so numerous, compared to the species from Europe, that a casual contamination or a pollen-transport from the Near East by storms in different seasons cannot be responsible for their presence... the predominance of these pollen must be the result of the Shroud's stay in such countries." (Iannone, 1998, pp.19-21. Italics original).
"The Presence of Mites on the Shroud Dr. Frei concluded that many pollen matched species found `almost exclusively' in halophyte fossils from the Dead Sea. To Frei's mind, the weight of evidence mitigated against a medieval fraud. Stevenson further points out that this was Dr. Frei's field of expertise and his work has been confirmed by Turin microbiologist Dr. Giovanni Riggi Di Numana, who also found samples of mites or `minute animal forms extremely similar in their aspects and dimension to those from Egyptian burial fabrics.' [Riggi Di Numana, G., "Rapporto Sindone 1978-1987," 3M Edizioni: Milan, Italy, 1988] During Dr. Riggi's analysis of samples vacuumed from between the Shroud and its backing cloth in 1978, he isolated and identified a mite peculiar to ancient burial linens, specifically Egyptian mummy wrappings. As Stevenson points out: `If the Shroud was a creation of the Middle Ages, then its forger must have ordered the mites (and pollen) to go with it.' [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1989, p.65] In addition, the work of Oswald Scheuermann and Dr. Alan Whanger ... further confirms the work of Dr. Frei since the [images of] flowers they identified are consistent with the pollen identified by Dr. Frei. Renowned archaeologist William Meacham further stated that `pollen... is empirical data... ipso facto evidence of exposure to the air in those regions.' [Meacham, W., interview with Rev. Kenneth Stevenson, Tarrytown NY, July 15, 1988]" (Iannone, 1998, p.21. Italics original).
"Floral Images on the Shroud? During his studies in 1983, Oswald Scheuermann made an observation that there seemed to be flowerlike patterns around the face of the Man of the Shroud. Two years later, Dr. Alan Whanger, while examining photographs of the Shroud with a magnifying lens, suddenly saw out of the corner of his eye the image of a large chrysanthemum-like flower on the anatomic left side about fifteen centimeters lateral to and six centimeters above the midline top of the head. [Whanger, A. & M., "Floral Coin and Other Non-Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," Duke University: Durham NC, 1989] Dr. Whanger and Oswald Scheuermann collaborated in further studies. Dr. Whanger utilized many life-size second generation photos of parts of the Shroud as well as the full length images from the Giuseppe Enrie negatives of 1931. These were processed and enlarged by Gamma Photographic Laboratories of Chicago, Illinois. Some were processed with the specific request to maximize the detail in the off-body area. By standing some distance away from the photographs and looking at the off-body areas, definite patterns became apparent to Dr. Whanger. He secured the definitive set of volumes of Flora Palaestina by Michael Zohary and reviewed drawings of the 1,900 plants depicted therein. Whanger worked with flowers, buds, stems, leaves and fruits that are reasonably clear. He did side-by-side comparisons of images - and polarized image overlay comparisons in a number of instances - to show reasonable compatibility of the drawings of the plants from Flora Palaestina with what is seen on the Shroud. While there are vague or partial images of many flowers on the Shroud, Dr. Whanger and Oswald Scheuermann believe that they have tentatively identified twenty- eight plants whose images are sufficiently clear on the Shroud to make a good comparison and to be compatible with the drawings in Flora Palaestina . Of the twenty-eight plants identified on the Shroud, twenty-three are flowers, three are small bushes and two are thorns. All twenty-eight plants grow in Israel and twenty grow in Jerusalem itself (i.e., the Judean mountains). The other eight plants grew either in the Judean desert or the Dead Sea area or in both. Hence, these plants or flowers would have been available in Jerusalem's market in a fresh state. [Whanger, ibid]. They noted that a rather high percentage of the flower images identified have corresponding pollen found on the Shroud by Dr. Max Frei. Of the twenty-eight plants whose images they believe they have identified, Dr. Frei had already identified the pollen of twenty- five of them. In addition, they noted with great interest that twenty-seven of the twenty-eight plants bloom during March and April, which would correspond to the time of Passover and of the Crucifixion. Dr. Whanger also states that the age of the flowers between the time they were picked and the time that the image was formed can be reasonably determined. He notes that the evidence indicates that the image of the body was formed (mysteriously) in a very brief time by some type of high energy process sometime between twenty-four and forty hours after death when decomposition (not seen on the Shroud image) would have begun to be apparent. Whanger believes that most of the flowers whose images are on the Shroud would be between twenty-four and thirty-six hours old after picking. He notes that the image formation of the flowers and other non-body objects may not be from the same mechanism that formed the body image." (Iannone, 1998, pp.25-26. Italics original).
"The Vignon-Markings Wilson's theory linking the Image of Edessa with the Shroud receives strong support from the work done previously by the famous sindonologist Paul Vignon in the 1930's. Vignon pointed out that, among the family of post-sixth century portraits of Christ, there was a recurrence of certain unusual markings seemingly derived from the Shroud. Tribbe notes that `in each of these cases, the artist, wishing to be totally faithful to the original, incorporated these oddities even though they are irrelevant to or detract from the naturalness of the face.' He goes on to say that `all these artists must have copied from the same original, and all of them misunderstood the nature of these imperfections.' However, because of the sacred status of the acheiropoietas it was very important that every detail, even if odd or unusual, be faithfully duplicated by the Byzantine artists. [Tribbe, F.C., "Portrait of Jesus?," Stein & Day: New York NY, 1983, p.239] Wilson, following Vignon, cites fifteen such oddities or anomalies which have come to be known as the Vignon- Markings: Starkly geometric topless square (3-sided) visible between the eyebrows on the Shroud image. 1. Starkly geometric topless square (3-sided) visible between the eyebrows on the Shroud image. 2. V-shape visible at the bridge of the nose. 3. A transverse streak across the forehead. 4. A second V-shape inside the topless square. 5. A raised right eyebrow. 6. An accentuated left cheek. 7. An accentuated right cheek. 8. An enlarged left nostril. 9. An accentuated line between the nose and upper lip. 10. A heavy line under the lower lip. 11. A hairless area between the lip and beard. 12. The fork in the beard. 13. A transverse line across the throat. 14. The heavily accentuated `owlish eyes.' 15. Two loose strands of hair falling from the apex of the forehead.' [Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin," Doubleday & Co: New York NY, 1979, pp.104-105]" (Iannone, 1998, pp.151-152. Italics original. List numbers mine).
"The Polarized Image Overlay Former Professor of Psychiatry and long-time sindonologist Dr. Alan Whanger of Duke University developed the technique, noted earlier, called the Polarized Image Over lay, to point out these many oddities and anomalies relating the Shroud with post-sixth century Christian art. The technique basically utilized two polarized filters at right angles to each other and enabled Whanger to superimpose two images over each other and shift back and forth to discover similarities or anomalies. He discovered that many images of later (post-sixth century) art must have been made directly from the Shroud or a copy of it based on the high number of congruencies between the images. He studied many portraits, mosaics, frescoes and coins and compared them, via the Polarized Image Overlay, to the Shroud images. He concludes that a consistent, shroud-like, long-haired, fork-bearded, front facing likeness of Christ can be traced back through numerous works in the Byzantine tradition dating many centuries before the time of Geoffrey de Charny (1357). [Wilson, I., "The Mysterious Shroud," Doubleday & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.105] Wilson had noted the same thing, citing as an example the Christ Pantocrator ... from Cefalu, Sicily. He also notes, a century earlier, the Pantocrator of the Dome of the Church of Daphni, near Athens (a city that once served as the temporary home of the Shroud from 1204-1207); 
the "Christ Enthroned" in the church of St. Angelo in Formis, near Capua, Italy in the tenth century;
[Right: "Christ Enthroned," tenth century, Church of St. Angelo in Formis, Capua, Italy, Wikipedia]
and a similar Christ portrait from the eighth century found in the depths of the Pontianus Catacomb near Rome. In the sixth century, the Christ portrait appears on a silver vase found at Homs, in present-day Syria and on the beautiful icon of Christ Pantocrator from the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai desert. As Wilson states: `Despite stylistic variations, each of these works seems inspired by the same tradition of Jesus' earthly appearance. And each has a strong resemblance to the face visible on the Shroud.' [Wilson, 1986, p.105] We can add to this list the seventh-century coins, the tremisses and solidus coins, minted by Justinian II [669-711] with shroud-like images; the Spas Nereditsa fresco (Savior of Neredica) in 1199 and the icon in the Church of St. Bartholomew of Armenia in Genoa, Italy." (Iannone, 1998, pp.153-154. Italics original).
"The Epitaphioi - Embroidered Cloths 
In the tenth and eleventh centuries there developed the epitaphioi in Byzantine art.
[Left: Epitaphios of King Stefan Uroš II Milutin, Serbia, ca. 1300.]
These are large embroidered cloths used in the Good Friday liturgy explicitly symbolic of the Shroud. The body of Jesus is depicted frontally with hands crossed such as the epitaphioi of King Uros Milutin. All of these seem to point to the rediscovery of the full-length of the Shroud in Constantinople in the tenth and eleventh centuries." (Iannone, 1998, p.154. Italics original).
"The Hungarian Pray Manuscript: Four Fingers and Four Circles On the Shroud today one notes that, in addition to the distinctive marks of the 1532 fire, there are four sets of triple burn holes that are the result of some incident previous to the famous fire that damaged the Shroud. This prior existence is known because a painting of 1516 from the Church of Saint Gommaire, in Lierre, Belgium, clearly shows the four sets of triple holes. In 1986, the French Dominican Father A.M. Dubarle, corresponding on the subject of the Shroud-like figure on the Hungarian Pray Manuscript (1192-1195), had his attention drawn to some curious holes noted on the Shroud in the illustration. Wilson points out that `clearly visible on the sarcophagus in the scene of the three Marys visiting the empty tomb was a line of three holes, with an extra one offset to one side.' [Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.160] Even more curious, though almost vanishingly tiny, was a similar set of three holes to be seen on the Shroud or napkin-like cloth depicted rolled up on the sarcophagus. It appears that the artist of 1192 who illustrated the Hungarian Pray Manuscript was aware of the "burn-holes" on the Shroud in his day. If correct, it would set the Shroud's date nearly a hundred years earlier than the very earliest date allowed by Carbon-14 dating. Significantly, Jesus is depicted as naked and laid on a Shroud. His arms are crossed, with the right hand placed over the left, and the hands show only four fingers. There is a herring-bone weave in the lower illustration. There is an imprint of a body on the inside and not on the outside of the Shroud. However, on the illustration there are four circles that appear to be burn holes on the Shroud. The othonia (other burial cloths) are rolled up separately. The appearance of only four fingers and four circles on the illustration and matching the same on the Shroud is highly significant. Pathologists studying the Shroud noted that only four fingers appear to the viewer, and the thumb is not seen, as we noted earlier. Moreover, the four burn holes seen in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript correlate to four holes found in the corresponding area of the Shroud and predate the fire of 1532." (Iannone 1998, pp.154-155. Italics original).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment