Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (4)

This part "#2 The Vignon markings (4)" is a continuation from my part #2 (3), of my series "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!"

Continuing with further examples of 6th to 12th century artistic representations of Christ's face which bear the Vignon markings found on the Shroud, including:

Christ Pantocrator in the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome (7th-8th century)

[Above: Bust of Christ from the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome: Catacomba di Ponziano, Wikipedia, 31 January 2012. Note in particular the Vignon marking on this 7-8th century mosaic: "(2) three-sided [topless] `square' between brows (see below).]

This Christ Pantocrator fresco in the Catacomb of St. Pontianus (or St. Ponziano), Rome, dates from the end of the seventh [1] or eighth century. [2] It can scarcely be later than the eighth century because the catacomb was closed down in AD 820 and only reopened in 1852. [3] The face of Christ is so close iconographically to the coins of Justinian II (see part #2 (3)) that its date is probably the same - the end of the seventh century.[3]

In the 1930s, artist and biologist Paul Vignon began his study of sixth to twelfth century Byzantine faces of Christ which had certain peculiar markings that are also found on the Shroud. [4] He paid special attention to this Christ Pantocrator in the catacomb of St. Pontianus near Rome, and in particular to a topless square shape on the forehead between the eyebrows. [4] Artistically it made no sense, but there was on the equivalent point on the Shroud face the same feature [4], which was merely a flaw in the weave. [5] Of the hundreds of Byzantine icons Vignon examined, 80 percent had this particular identifying mark between the eyes.[6]

[Above (click to enlarge): The Shroud face clearly showing the "topless square" (amongst other Vignon markings) between the Man on the Shroud's eyebrows: ShroudScope. As can be seen, this is just a flaw or crease in the Shroud's weave. It therefore alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt the Shroud is the original from which these sixth to twelfth century icons are copies:

"An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof `beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. A charming example is an intrusive colon within a phrase in two fourteenth-century texts of Euripides: one colon turned out to be a scrap of straw embedded in the paper, proving that the other text was a later copy." [7]]

There are at least eight of these Vignon markings on this fresco. [8] Indeed, as can be seen above, it has at least eleven of the fifteen Vignon markings:

"(1) Transverse streak across forehead, (2) three-sided `square' between brows, ... (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, ... (12) forked beard, (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair. [9] (see part #2 (1)).

There probably would also be two more: "(10) heavy line under lower lip" and "(11) hairless area between lower lip and beard" but that area of the fresco is missing.

As Ian Wilson has pointed out:

"Just as the viewing of a single footprint on fresh sand provided for Robinson Crusoe the conclusive evidence that there was another human being (later revealed as Man Friday) on his island, so the presence of this topless square on an indisputably seventh/eighth-century fresco virtually demands that the Shroud must have been around, somewhere, in some form at this early date." [3]

The only reasonable explanation of these distinctive Vignon markings which are all found on the Shroud, is that the Shroud was in existence as early as the sixth century, and therefore they conclusively refute the radiocarbon-dating of the Shroud to the 13th-14th century! [2]

Continued with "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (5)."

References
[1] Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.167-168. [return]
[2] Scavone, D.C., 1991, "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, p.189. [return]
[3] Wilson, 1991, p.168. [return]
[4] Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.84. return]
[5] Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.142. [return]
[6] Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.85. [return]
[7] Patterson, C., 1999, "Evolution," Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, p.117. [return]
[8] Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY. [return]
[9] Wilson, 1978, p.82e]. [return]

Posted 18 March 2012. Updated 18 March 2024.