The Shroud of Turin: 2.1. A linen sheet

Here is part 7, "2.1. A linen sheet" in my series, The Shroud of Turin The previous page was part 6, "2. What is the Shroud of Turin?" See part 1, the main Contents page, for more information about this series .

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.1. A LINEN SHEET
© Stephen E. Jones

Dimensions. As previously mentioned , the Shroud of Turin is a rectangular sheet of fine linen[1], yellowed with age[2], 4.4 long by 1.1 metres wide[3] or 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches[4]. These unusual dimensions correspond very closely to 8 by 2 Assyrian cubits of 21.4 inches[5], which was the standard Jewish cubit in Jesus' day[6]. So even the dimensions of the Shroud are a major problem for the forgery theory[§1] of the Shroud's origin![7]!

[Above (enlarge): The Shroud laid out flat, presumably after the 2002 restoration]

Side strip. The Shroud is a single cloth apart from a strip about 8 cms (3½ inches) wide along its left-hand side (looking at the Shroud with its frontal image in the lower half and upright) and joined by a single seam[8]. The strip is incomplete at its ends, with 14 cms (5½ inches) and 36 cms (14 inches) missing at the bottom and top left hand corners respectively[9]. This side strip is made from the same piece of cloth as the Shroud, since unique irregularities in the weave of the main body of the Shroud extend across the side strip[10]. The outer long edges of the main body of the Shroud and the side strip have a selvedge, a weaver-finished edge[11]. This indicates that the Shroud was originally woven on a wide loom, and the side strip was cut lengthwise and joined to the main body of the Shroud to give it a selvedge on both long edges[12]. Weaving on extra-wide looms is known from antiquity, particularly in ancient Egypt, but it is not known from the Middle Ages[13]. Moreover, the hand-stitching of the seam joining the two inner edges of the side strip and the main Shroud is known only from textiles excavated from the first-century Jewish fortress at Masada, near the Dead Sea[14]. This is more evidence for Shroud's authenticity and further problems for the forgery theory[§2].

[Above (enlarge): Side strip (left) and seam (centre) near the bottom right hand (i.e. frontal image feet end) corner of the Shroud: ShroudScope]

[Above (enlarge): "How the shroud was originally woven much wider than its present width. Reconstruction of the likely size of the bolt of cloth of which the two lengths of the Shroud (shaded) formed part. This wider cloth was very expertly cut lengthwise, then the raw (i.e. non-selvedge) edges of the shaded segments joined together by a very professional seam to form the Shroud we know today."[15]]

Weave. The cloth's weave is known as "3 to 1 twill" because each transversal weft thread passes alternatively over three and under one of the longitudinal warp threads[16]. This gives the weave the appearance of diagonal lines which reverse direction at regular intervals to create a herringbone pattern[17]. Such complex herringbone three to one twill weaves are known from antiquity, for example, from Egypt and Syria, but they are not known from the Middle Ages.[18]

Yarn. In 1973, textile expert Prof. Gilbert Raes was given four samples from the Shroud's bottom left-hand corner: a 12 mm long weft thread, a 13 mm long warp thread, a 10 x 40 mm piece from the side strip and a 13 x 40 mm piece from the adjacent main Shroud [19] Raes confirmed that the threads and the pieces were linen from common flax plant Linum usitatissium[20]. The flax yarn in the two pieces had what is known as a Z-twist, from the spindle having been rotated clockwise, whereas the yarn in the threads was the more unsual S-twist[21]. Raes also found traces of cotton, of the Middle Eastern species Gossypium herbaceum, in the piece from the main body of the Shroud but not in the piece from the side strip.[22]. This is very significant as we will see when we consider the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in "6. Science and the Shroud."

NOTES
1. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, p.11; Danin, A., 2010, "Botany of the Shroud: The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin," Danin Publishing: Jerusalem, Israel, p.7 [return]
2. Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.212. [return]
3. The Shroud was precisely measured by textile expert Dr. Flury-Lemberg prior to the 1998 exposition and found to be 437 cm long by 111 cm wide. (British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June 2000 [PDF]). [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.69. [return]
5. 8 x 21.4 inches = 171.2 inches and 2 x 21.4 inches = 42.8 inches. The Shroud is 172.0 x 43.7 inches. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.181. [return]
7. Wilson, 1991, p.181. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, p.21. [return]
9. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162. [return]
10. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, p.42. [return]
11. Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, 2010, p.72 [return]
12. Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
13. Wilson, 2010, pp.74-76. [return]
14. Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
15. Wilson, 2010, p.73. Upper case heading reduced. [return]
16. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.161. [return]
17. Wilson, 1979, p.69. [return]
18. Wilson, 2010, pp.74-76. [return]
19. Antonacci, 2000, p.98. [return]
20. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.74. [return]
21. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.36. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, pp.70-71. [return]
§1, §2. I have created a section "9. Problems of the Forgery Theory" and I will keep a progressively numbered total of all the problems of the forgery theory encountered along the way, so they can all be brought together and discussed in that section.[return]

---

Continued in part 8, "2.2. The Shroud's location".

Posted 31 October 2012. Updated 4 August 2024.

The Shroud of Turin: 2. What is the Shroud of Turin?

This is part 6, "2. What is the Shroud of Turin?" a sub-contents page in my series, "The Shroud of Turin." The series was originally titled, "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have changed it to "The Shroud of Turin," so that posts in the series are more easily found using a search engine. Each contents topic below will be linked to a page with that heading. The previous page was part 5, "1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud." For more information about this series see the main Contents page, part 1.

[Above (enlarge): "Descent from the Cross with the Holy Shroud," by Giovanni Battista della Rovere (c. 1575-c. 1640) or Giulio Clovio (1498–1578): Wikipedia. This aquatint print accurately[1] depicts from the information on the Shroud of Turin how Jesus' body was laid on the bottom half of the Shroud and then the top half was taken over His head and overlapped at His feet. See above the front and back, head to head, image on the Shroud held by angels, with the anachronistic burn marks from a fire in 1532]

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
CONTENTS
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
© Stephen E. Jones

1. A linen sheet
2. The Shroud's location
3. The man on the Shroud
4. The wounds
5. The bloodstains
6. The other marks:
   • Burns and water stains (1)
   • Poker holes (2)
   • Dirt on foot and limestone (3)
   • Plant images (4)
   • Coins over eyes (5)
   • Writing (6)

NOTES
1. Except that it wrongly shows Jesus' right hand on top of His left. (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.137).

---

Continued in part 7, "2.1 A linen sheet."

Posted 21 October 2012. Updated: 28 August 2023.

The Shroud of Turin: 1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud

Here is part 5, "1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud." The previous post in this series, "The Shroud of Turin" was part 4, "1.2 The Shroud and me."

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.3 THE CENTRAL DILEMMA OF THE SHROUD
© Stephen E. Jones

The central dilemma of the Shroud is this: either the Shroud is a work of human art, deliberately designed to depict Jesus' burial Shroud with the imprint of His flogged, crowned with thorns, crucified by nails, dead, speared in the side, legs not broken,

[Left: Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY.]

buried in a tomb, and resurrected body on it; or it is authentic, the very burial sheet of Jesus! There is no third alternative, because no other person would have had the same set of injuries (particularly having been crowned with thorns) which the Gospels record that Jesus had, nor would their burial shroud have survived intact to this day. Therefore, if the Shroud is not a work of human art, then it must be the burial sheet of Jesus!

Perhaps the most well-known statement of this dilemma was by writer John Evangelist Walsh, who stated it in the preface of his 1963 book, "Shroud" (my emphasis on each quote below):

"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground."[1]

One of the earliest statements of this dilemma was by Jesuit historian Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856-1939), an implacable opponent of the Shroud's authenticity, who admitted in 1903:

"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 in spite of the darkening of the whole fabric. If this is not the impression of the Body of Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other personage since the world began could these details be verified."[2]

Pro-authenticists Ken Stevenson and Gary Habermas in 1981 stated one arm of the dilemma quantitatively by conservatively estimating the probability that the image on the Shroud was "someone other than Jesus" was "nearly 83 million to 1":

"The gospels say that these eight irregularities were present in Jesus' death and burial. The Shroud evidence says they were also present in the death and burial of the man of the Shroud. We have estimated the probability that they happened to someone other than Jesus, deliberately using skeptical and conservative estimates. Yet, multiplying these probabilities, we have 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus. This ratio of nearly 83 million to 1 is almost meaningless to many of us. Yet consider this practical illustration. 82,944,000 dollar bills laid end-to-end would stretch from New York to San Francisco more than three times. Suppose one of these bills is marked, and a blindfolded person is given one chance to find it. The odds that he will succeed are 1 in 82,944,000. These are the odds that the man buried in the Shroud is someone other than Jesus Christ. There is a chance that the man of the Shroud is someone else, just as there is a chance that the blindfolded person would find the marked bill. But the odds are practically infinitesimal. There is no practical probability that someone other than Jesus Christ was buried in the Shroud of Turin."[3]

Microanalyist Dr Walter McCrone (1916-2002), also a leading opponent of the Shroud's authenticity, stated the dilemma in 1982:

"Finally, I can see no possible mechanism by which the shroud image could have been produced except as the work of an artist. The faithful representation of all of the anatomical and pathological markings, so well described in the New Testament, would be difficult to produce except by an artist. They are totally without distortion and, indeed, look exactly the way we would like to have them look."[4]

Two other leading anti-authenticists, Steven Schafersman, and Joe Nickell quoting him approvingly, actually agree with Stevenson and Habermas' estimate of "the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ" and state the dilemma clearly, "there are only two choices: If the shroud is authentic [i.e. not "a product of human artifice"], the image is that of Jesus" and there is "[no possible third hypothesis":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[5] and Stevenson and Habermas[3] 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). I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'[6]"[7]

In a follow-up 1990 book, Stevenson & Habermas pointed out that if "human artifice" has been "virtually ruled out" as an explanation of the Shroud's image, then it is not "crazy or unscholarly or unscientific to suggest the image is likely that of Jesus":

"Oddly enough, the Shroud opponents have actually helped to make our case. Certainly the need to resort to a denigration of the scientists on the basis of their religious preferences shows a decided bias on their part. In addition, if critics feel the need to declare Jesus a myth, are they not actually suggesting that the Shroud evidence indeed matches the Gospel narratives of Christ's passion and death? At least a few of them are willing to admit this in print. For example, Schafersman states, `Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man of the shroud is not Jesus Christ ... a very conservative estimate'[3]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus. Otherwise, it's an artist's representation..."[6] The bottom line then is that either the image is that of Jesus of Nazareth or it was intended by its creator to portray Jesus. Since we've virtually ruled out human artifice, are we crazy or unscholarly or unscientific to suggest the image is likely that of Jesus?"[8]

Since both Shroud anti- and pro-authenticists agree that there are only two realistic alternatives: 1. either the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus; or 2. it the work of a human artist intending to depict the image of Jesus; then the less likely the image on the Shroud is the work of a human artist, the more likely the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus!

NOTES
1. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud: The Authoritative, Comprehensive and Concise Report on the Single Most Fascinating Artifact in the Christian World," Random House: New York NY, pp.xi-xii. [return]
2. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.40. [return]
3. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.127-128. [return]
4. McCrone W.C., "Shroud image is the work of an artist," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp. 35-36, p.36.[return]
5. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
6. 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. [return]
7. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
8. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R. , 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.196. [return]

---

Continued in part 6, "2.What is the Shroud of Turin?"

Last updated: 27 February, 2013.

The Shroud of Turin: 1.2 The Shroud and me

I will here in this part 4 of my new series, "The Shroud of Turin" briefly disclose who I am and what is my position on the Shroud of Turin. The previous post in this series was part 3, "1.1 Overview of the Shroud of Turin." For more details about this series, see part 1, the "Contents" page.

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.2 THE SHROUD AND ME
© Stephen E. Jones

Some readers, to help them evaluate what I write in this series, might want to know who I am and what is my position on the Shroud of Turin.

As I stated in my first post to this blog, I am an Australian protestant evangelical Christian, in my 60s. I have a Bachelor of Science (Biology) degree and am a casual relief teacher in Western Australian high schools.

For nearly 40 years, to the extent I thought about it at all, I dismissed the Shroud of Turin as just another fake Roman Catholic relic.

[Right: Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud" (1981).]

But as I posted in January 2005 to my now closed-down (by me) Yahoo CreationEvolutionDesign discussion group:

"I am a Protestant and my attitude to the Shroud of Turin was until recently that it was probably a fake. But I saw [and bought] a secondhand book coauthored by Protestant Christian philosopher Gary Habermas ... called "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1981). I have only dipped into it, but I was astonished for the evidence that points to it being the burial shroud that covered the crucified Jesus and through which he was resurrected ... If the new radiocarbon date `is up to 3000 years old' then, based on the evidence that Stevenson & Habermas present, I provionally accept that the Turin shroud is the actual burial shroud of Jesus and the unique nature of the image, is indeed additional `Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ'!"

By the time I started this blog in June 2007, after much further reading of the evidence for and against the Shroud being authentic, I stated in its masthead what still is my current position on the Shroud:

"I am persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ and bears His crucified and resurrected image."

Or as I put it in comment under one of my posts:

"Previously I believed Jesus rose from the dead but now I know that He has, in the same way that the Apostle John "saw the linen cloths lying there ... and believed":

Jn 20:3-8. 3So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. 4Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. 8Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;

However, having said that, as I also commented under another post:

"I myself have stated many times that I was a Christian for nearly 40 years before I accepted that the Shroud was authentic. So if the Shroud was shown to be a fake, then I would still be the same Christian that I have now been for over 40 years."

Finally, I have not yet seen the Shroud in Turin Cathedral, but I hope to do so one day.

---

Continued in part 5, "1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud."

Last updated: 15 July, 2013.

The Shroud of Turin: 1.1 Overview

Here is part 3, "1.1 Overview of the Shroud of Turin", being my first topic page in my series, "The Shroud of Turin" The previous part 2 was "The Shroud of Turin: 1. Introduction". See part 1, the "Contents" page for more details.

[Right (click to enlarge): The full-length Shroud of Turin after its 2002 restoration: ShroudScope: Durante 2002 Vertical]

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN
© Stephen E. Jones

Linen sheet. The Shroud of Turin[1] is a rectangular linen sheet[2], yellowed with age[3], about 4.4 long by 1.1 metres wide[4](~14.3 x 3.6 feet).

History. The Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France, about 1355[5]. Since 1578, except for short periods during expositions and in times of war, the Shroud has been held in St. John the Baptist Cathedral, Turin, Italy[6].

Image. The cloth bears the faint image of a naked man[7], front and back[8], head to head[9], who has wounds and bloodstains[10] which match the Gospels' description of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus Christ[11].

Major characteristics of the Shroud's image include: photographic negativity[12], three dimensionality[13], extreme superficiality[14], non-directionality[15], no pigments, paint or dye comprise it[16], and nontraditionality[17]. There is no image under the bloodstains, which means the blood was on the cloth before the image[18]. Any viable explanation of the formation of the Shroud's image, and any claimed reproduction of it, must include all of these[19].

Science unable to explain. Yet, despite the Shroud being the most intensively studied artifact in history, with the best analytical tools available[20], science is still unable to explain naturalistically how the Shroud's image was formed[21].

Radiocarbon dating. In 1988 a tiny postage stamp sized sample was taken from the Shroud, divided among three laboratories: Tucson, Oxford and Zurich[22] and radiocarbon-dated to between AD 1260-1390[23]. But there is no adequate explanation of how an unknown medieval artist could have created the image on the Shroud[24] and modern artists have been unable to reproduce it[25]. The Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, Dr. Christopher Ramsey, who was himself involved in that 1988 radiocarbon dating[26], has admitted that:

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed." (my emphasis)[27]

NOTES
1. Also known in Italy as Santa Sindone, "the Holy Shroud" (Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.13). [return]
2. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, p.11. [return]
3. Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.212. [return]
4. More precisely the cloth is "437 cm long by 111 cm wide" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.18). [return]
5. Wilson, 1979, p.91. [return]
6. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.3. [return]
7. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.7-8. [return]
8. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.4. [return]
9. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.12. [return]
10. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.1,3-5. [return]
11. 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.122-124. [return]
12. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.131. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.229. [return]
14. Danin, et al., 1999, p.8. [return]
15. Habermas, G.R., in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.119. [return]
16. Habermas, 1987, p.119. [return]
17. Wilcox, 1977, p.171. [return]
18. Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," Souvenir Press: London, p.51. [return]
19. Antonacci, 2000, p.60. [return]
20. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.219. [return]
21. Philip Ball, an editor for physical sciences at Nature, one of the world's leading science journals, admitted in 2005:

"And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made. It does not seem to have been painted, at least with any known historical pigments." (Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005. [PDF]);

and again in 2008:

"It's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling." (Ball, P., "Material witness: Shrouded in mystery," Nature Materials, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 2008, p.349). [return]

22. 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.189. [return]
23. Damon, P.E., et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, pp.611-615. [return]
24. De Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.167. [return]
25. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.29. [return]
26. He is "C.R. Bronk," i.e. Christopher Ramsey Bronk, listed as one of the contributors to the 1989 Nature paper (Damon, 1989, p.611). [return]
27. Ramsey, C.B., "Shroud of Turin Version 77," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March, 2008. [return]

---

Continued in part 4, "1.2 The Shroud and me."

Last updated: 27 February, 2013.

The Shroud of Turin: 1. Introduction

This is part 2, the "1. Introduction," sub-contents page in my series, "The Shroud of Turin." Each contents topic will be linked to a page with that heading about that topic. . The series was originally titled: "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have changed it to "The Shroud of Turin" so that posts in the series are more easily found using a search engine. See part 1, the Contents page, for more details.

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Shroud of Turin: modern photo of the face, positive left, negative right. Negative has been contrast enhanced": Wikipedia. Note that the photographic negative of the Shroud's image (right) is a photographic positive. Therefore the Shroud's image (left) is actually a type of photographic negative! But even the concept of a photographic negative was unknown until the early 19th century!]

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
© Stephen E. Jones

1. Overview of the Shroud of Turin
2. The Shroud and me
3. The central dilemma of the Shroud

---

Continued in part 3, "1.1 Overview of the Shroud of Turin."

Last updated: 27 February, 2013.

The Shroud of Turin: Contents

This series has been superseded by my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

This is part 1, the main Contents page, of a new series on the Shroud of Turin, in which I will present the evidence both for and against it being the burial sheet of Jesus Christ, so the reader can make up his/her own mind. The series was originally titled: "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have changed it to "The Shroud of Turin" so that posts in the series are more easily found using a search engine. I myself am persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus.

[Above (enlarge): The Face on the Shroud: ShroudScope: Durante 2002 Face Only Vertical

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.189).]

Yes!

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
CONTENTS
© Stephen E. Jones

1. Introduction
2. What is the Shroud of Turin?
3. The Bible and the Shroud
4. History of the Shroud
5. Art and the Shroud
6. Science and the Shroud
7. The Sudarium of Oviedo
8. Major features of the Shroud's Image
9. Problems of the forgery theory
10. How was the Image Formed?
11. Is the image Jesus?
12. Objections
13. Questions
14. Conclusion

---

Each topic above will be linked to a sub-contents page with that topic as its heading, and each topic on that sub-contents page will be linked to a page about that topic. I will continue to add topics as they occur to me. Past pages I will update as further thoughts occur to me, but it will not be practical for me to mention those updates. I will however indicate at the end of each page when it was last updated. It is probable that some pages will be out of logical order as new topics occur to me, but the contents pages will show their logical, if not chronological, order.

As this will now be my primary focus on this blog, I will not continue my critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa."

Continued in part 2, The Shroud of Turin: 1. Introduction

Posted 11 October 2012. Updated 17 March 2024.