Here is the Bibliography "S" page for authors' surnames beginning with "S" of books that
[Left: Stevenson & Habermas' "Verdict on the Shroud" (1981), which in January 2005 was the first book on the Shroud of Turin that I had ever read. However, the `tagline' quotes below (bold emphases mine) are only from Scavone's book.]
I will probably refer to in my book outline, "The Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus?"
© Stephen E. Jones
Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA.
Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam.
Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London.
Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London.
Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK.
Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY.
Stevenson, K.E., 1999, "Image of the Risen Christ: Remarkable New Evidence About the Shroud," Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON.
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.
Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN.
"What Is the Turin Shroud? In the summer of 1978 three million tourists visited Torino (Turin), Italy. They had come from all over the world to wait in line and to look upon a linen cloth which had been in Turin for more than four hundred years. They knew that the cloth had not been shown to the general public for almost fifty years and that this would likely be its only display in their lifetime. As they entered the cathedral of St. John the Baptist they could see a large, narrow cloth measuring 14.3 feet long by 3.5 feet wide. It was flood-lit and was mounted in front of the main altar at the far end of the church. Gradually, as they neared the altar, they began to notice on the cloth an extremely faint, reddish-colored, life-sized image of a bearded man. The man looked strikingly like traditional images of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the cloth known as the Shroud of Turin is thought by many people to be the actual burial wrapping of Jesus. Both the front and the back of the body can be seen on the cloth. From either end the figure appears feet-head, head-feet. This tells us that he may have been placed on one half of the cloth. The other half would then have been pulled over the front of the body. There are stains on the body that resemble blood stains from an ancient Roman scourging and crucifixion with nails. On the front, there are trickles of blood on the man's forehead, a large stain on his right side, and stains from a wound in one wrist. (The other hand cannot be seen.) Both arms show blood runoffs from the hands to the elbows. On the back can be counted about 120 small stains which conform to the shape of a Roman whip. More blood trickles are seen on the back of the head. The feet are bloodied from apparent nail wounds. In short, the wounds on the image of the Shroud conform to the story of Jesus' crucifixion as told in the Gospels." (Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.6,8. Emphasis original).
"The mystery surrounding the Shroud began in the year 1389. That year, the Bishop of Troyes in France, wrote a long letter to Pope Clement VII ... . The Bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, complained in this letter that a knight named Geoffroy de Charny (whom we will call Geoffroy II) had placed a large cloth in his local church in Lirey, France. Geoffroy II was claiming that the cloth was Jesus' burial cloth and that the image on it was that of Jesus' crucified body. Many people, d'Arcis continued, were visiting the church to see this sheet, and they were making donations. He charged that Geoffroy II was doing this for money. Though Bishop d'Arcis had not seen the cloth, he thought it could not be the actual cloth which had covered Jesus' body because the Bible does not mention an image on the shroud of Jesus. He was also angry because Geoffroy had not asked his permission to display the cloth, but had gone over his head directly to the Pope's representatives. He had gotten permission from them. The letter went on to say that `about 34 years ago' Geoffroy's father (whom we shall call Geoffroy I), had first placed the so-called Shroud in the Lirey church. `About 34 years ago' would mean about the year 1355, since Bishop d'Arcis's letter was written in 1389. ... According to d'Arcis's letter, Geoffroy I had been forced to remove his Shroud by an earlier Bishop of Troyes. His name was Henry of Poitiers. Henry had conducted an investigation around 1355, and the `artist who had cleverly painted it' had come forth and confessed. .... The busy Pope, Clement VII, regarded d'Arcis's letter as a nuisance. ... he ordered the priests at Lirey to refer to it as merely a `copy or representation' of Jesus' shroud. He then ordered Bishop d'Arcis never to speak about the matter again." (Scavone, 1989, pp.12,14).
"Did an Artist Paint the Shroud? In spite of the Pope's casual treatment of it, d'Arcis's letter raises many questions. One would think, for instance, that the artist's confession d'Arcis mentioned would have closed the book on the mystery of the Shroud of Turin. Surprisingly, however, it only adds to it: The figure of the man on the Shroud is anatomically perfect. Yet, neither doctors nor artists of the period around 1355 knew enough about the human body to represent it so perfectly. As we will see later, the flows of blood on the Shroud man are natural and accurate. From numerous paintings we know that artists of that time did not know how to depict realistic bleeding. Also, the figure is naked, but artists of that time normally did not show the human body naked. And Jesus was never depicted unclothed. Who, then, was this genius who was so original as to be the first to draw the human body nude and was so far ahead of his time in his knowledge of human anatomy? Bishop d'Arcis did not name him. Shouldn't he have been well known? Next, d'Arcis's phrase `about 34 years ago,' raises questions. Apparently he did not have an official dated document before him. His letter frequently used the expressions `it is reported' or `they say.' His information was mostly hearsay evidence. What documents, records, or other evidence do we have today of Bishop Henry's supposed investigation of 1355 ('about 34 years ago')? None. Today only one letter exists from Bishop Henry to Geoffroy I, first owner of the Shroud. In this letter Bishop Henry is not angry and he is not suspicious. Its date is May 28, 1356. So it was written just about the time when he was supposed to be accusing Geoffroy of displaying a false relic. Yet the letter praises and blesses Geoffroy I for his work in promoting the Christian faith. There is no reference at all to the Shroud or to any investigation." (Scavone, 1989, pp.14-16. Emphasis original).
"Even though the Bible is silent about what happened to the Shroud after Easter, there are other documents of an unofficial nature which do point to the Shroud's survival after Easter Sunday. In the second century (about 100-200 A.D.), several accounts were written about the life of Christ. ... The usual word for these books is `apocryphal' or `hidden' books. But because they were excluded from the Bible does not mean that they are utterly false. .... As books actually written in the second century, they are valuable source materials for that time. Most importantly, these texts say that Jesus' shroud was removed from the tomb and saved.Writers of the second century, therefore, knew of the existence of this sheet in their own day. The first of these apocryphal books is called the Gospel of the Hebrews. The author is anonymous (unknown) as is the case with all these apocryphal books. We have only fragments from it, for most of it has been lost over the centuries. One key surviving passage says, `After the Lord gave his shroud to the servant of the priest [or of Peter; the actual word is not clear], he appeared to James:' The Acts of Pilate is another apocryphal book of the second century. It states that Pilate and his wife preserved the shroud of Jesus. It suggests that they were sorry for their part in his death and were now Christians. These two books, along with the Gospel of Peter, The Acts of Nicodemus, and The Gospel of Gamaliel, show us that second century writers knew about the Shroud in their day. They disagree about who saved it from the tomb, but they agree that it had been saved. The silence of the `official' Biblical stories about the preservation of the shroud is countered by these books." (Scavone, 1989, p.74).
"The Jerusalem Documents The Shroud record is again silent for nearly two centuries. These are centuries of persecution of Christians. The earliest martyrs died for their faith during this period. The Shroud may have continued to be hidden away for its own protection. The next reference to it comes in the biography of a young girl named St. Nino. She had visited Jerusalem during the time of Constantine. Constantine (312-337 A.D.) was the first Christian to rule the Roman Empire. It was he who put an end to the religious persecution of Christians. He also decreed that death by crucifixion should be outlawed. St. Nino took a great interest in the relics of Jesus' Passion (the sad events from the Last Supper on Thursday, through Good Friday, to Easter Sunday). These relics included the nails that pierced his hands and feet, the crown of thorns, the wood of the cross, the sponge with vinegared wine, the lance point that pierced his side, and, of course, his burial sheet. Jesus' shroud, she reported, had been preserved by the wife of Pilate, who then gave it to St. Luke who hid it away. After some time, St. Peter found it and kept it. St. Nino's account is proof that in fourth-century Jerusalem people still knew of the Shroud's existence." (Scavone, 1989, p.75. Emphasis original).
"After St. Nino ... There is still more evidence for the Shroud of Jesus in Jerusalem ... 1) Around the year 570 a pilgrim to the Holy Land, Antonius of Placentia, wrote of seeing a cave on the banks of the Jordan River. In it were seven cells, or rooms. In one of the cells was found `the sudarium which was upon Jesus' head:' 2) Not much later, St. Braulion of Saragossa, Spain (585-651) also saw in Jerusalem the `linens and sudarium in which the Lord's body was wrapped.' He adds something which might be good to keep in mind: `There are events of which the Gospels do not speak ... such as preserving the burial sheet.' 3) Next comes the wording to the `Mozarabic Liturgy.' ... This text was originally written in the sixth century, so it is contemporary with Antonius and Braulion. The lines which intrigue the student of the Shroud read, `Peter ran with John to the sepulcher. He saw the linens and on them the recent traces of the death and resurrection.' Could this be the first hint that the surviving grave wrapping showed an image? 4) About a hundred years later, around 680, Arculf, a French Bishop, visited Jerusalem. He relates a story he had heard. The sudarium, sometimes called the linteamen (linen), was taken from the tomb after the resurrection by a Christian ... Arculf says that he himself had seen and kissed this linen. It was eight feet long. This is much shorter than the Turin Shroud (14.3 feet), and Arculf does not hint at any image. The only way of identifying Arculf's shroud with that in Turin is to suppose Arculf saw the cloth folded in half: Eight feet is roughly half the size of the Shroud of Turin. It is not so easy to explain the absence of imprint. Wouldn't he have mentioned it if he had seen it? The historical records placing the Shroud in Jerusalem are not very persuasive. They may refer to some cloth other than the real burial sheet of Jesus. However, they cannot be discounted completely, especially Arculf's story. They do represent part of the Shroud mystery." (Scavone, 1989, pp.76-77. Emphasis original).
"We have seen that the Shroud has been tested and studied by many different scientists and historians and still it is as much a puzzle as ever. But there was one more test that remained to be done: to attempt to learn the date of the Shroud by the Carbon-14 (C-14) method. ... Experts hoped that by performing the C-14 test on the Shroud of Turin, the test would show the age of the cloth within thirty to two hundred years. As the test was planned, some C-14 specialists were pessimistic that it could produce an accurate date. They feared that too much contamination had occurred over the centuries. In the case of the Shroud, C-14 transfers from fourteenth, fifteenth, or even twentieth century hands could spoil the reading. Other C-14 experts believed that the cloth could be cleansed of its contamination and the test would give an accurate date for the Shroud. But all agreed that C-14 was not infallible. Nevertheless, on April 21, 1988, three pieces about the size of postage stamps were cut from the Shroud. The removal was done under the authority of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome and the British Museum. The bits of Shroud material were hand-delivered to representatives of the University of Arizona, Oxford University in England, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at the University of Zurich. The labs were also given bits of material from other `dummy' cloths whose dates were known. None of the pieces was labeled so that, theoretically at least, the labs could not know which pieces were from the Shroud. In September 1988, the results were leaked to the press. The Shroud had been carbon-dated to a time around 1350. Scientists whose research had seemed to support the Shroud's authenticity immediately challenged the C-14 findings. They came up with several objections to the way the testing had been carried out. They argued that the three labs had been given pieces of cloth taken from a much handled, much contaminated corner of the Shroud. Since only threads were needed, different parts of the Shroud could and should have been included, such as the `pristine' material next to the charred areas under the patches. Another major objection was that all three labs had agreed to use the same newly developed and relatively untested cleansing solvent. Since the contamination from centuries of handling is the most important obstacle to an accurate C-14 date, this procedure seemed to critics to be extremely careless. The C-14 tests, therefore, did not put an end to the controversy over the Shroud. In fact, the mystery of the famous cloth was even more profound than be fore. As Luigi Gonella, scientific advisor to the Archbishop of Turin noted, there remained the question of how the image was formed. Also, how could one explain the numerous artistic and historical references which seemed to point to the Shroud as the genuine burial cloth of Jesus? How could one explain the fact that early portraits of Jesus seem to contain features found on the face of the man of the Shroud? How did pollens from the Holy Land get onto the Shroud? How shall we explain Constantine VII's description of the Edessa Mandylion in 944 as a `moist secretion not made with, artists' paints,' a description which precisely describes the Shroud? If the Shroud was really the burial wrapping of some person centuries later than Jesus, why has it not disintegrated as burial clothing does if left on the corpse for more than thirty-six hours? The questions surrounding Christianity's greatest relic did not end in 1988. As with all the other tests, theories, and documents, C-14 has added but one more piece to the great puzzle of the Shroud of Turin." (Scavone, 1989, pp.102-105).