Sunday, February 17, 2013

The Shroud of Turin: 2.5. The bloodstains

This is part 11, "2.5. The bloodstains" in my series, The Shroud of Turin My previous post in this series was part 10, "2.4. The wounds." See the Contents page (part 1) for more information.


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

Bloodstains. The Shroud has major bloodstains on the head (front and back)[1], the wrists[2], the right side[3], the small of the back[4] and the feet [5].

[Above (click to enlarge): Blood (red) on the Shroud face in fluorescent light[6].]

Blood. Many different chemical[7] and physical[8] tests have confirmed that the bloodstains on the Shroud are real blood[9]. Other tests have confirmed the blood is type AB[10], which is more frequent in Jewish people[11]. Fragments of human[12], male[13] DNA have been identified in samples from the bloodstains[14]. The bloodflows are anatomically[15] and scientifically accurate[16]. The bloodstains have serum haloes at their margins, due to the blood retracting as it dries, leaving a border of clear serum behind[17]. But since blood serum haloes are visible only in ultraviolet light[18] and ultraviolet light was first discovered in 1801 by Johann Wilhelm Ritter, no artist before the 19th century could have depicted them[19]. So this is another major problem for the forgery theory[§5]. Unlike the Shroud's image, the bloodstains are not photographically negative[20], being white on a negative of a photograph of the Shroud[21]. That the blood appears too reddish[22], unlike the brown or black of other old blood[23], is explained by the high level of bilirubin in the blood of a crucifixion victim[24]. There is no body

[Above (click to enlarge): Photomicrograph of blood particles adhering to the Shroud's linen fibres[25].]

image under the bloodstains[26], which means that the blood was on the Shroud before the image was formed on it[27]. This would be the case if the image was Jesus' and was formed by His resurrection [28]. This is another major problem for the forgery theory[§6], firstly because there is no known example of any medieval artist painting with blood[29]. And secondly the forger would have had to apply the blood first and then create the image around it[30, §7], which is the reverse of how an artist would have worked[31] and in fact all modern attempts to replicate the Shroud using blood create the image first and then apply the blood[32]. The blood clots are intact[33], not broken as they would be if the body and cloth they jointly adhered to became separated naturally[34]. This is a problem for all naturalistic theories of the formation of the Shroud's image[35].

Head. The scalp, both front and back[36], has a number of bloodstains from puncture wounds[37] corresponding to a cap of thorns[38]. These scalp bloodstains[39] and nose blood and fluid stains [40] are a perfect match of blood and fluid stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo[41] which has been in Spain since the seventh century[42] and therefore is evidence that the 13th-14th century radiocarbon date of the Shroud[43] must be wrong[44]. A blood-

[Above: The face of the Shroud showing bloodflows outlined in red (including one resembling a reversed "3") from puncture wounds in the man's scalp, corresponding to a cap of thorns. Also the bloodstains apparently in the man's hair along the sides of the face and temples were actually on the sides the face and temples of the man's body (see below): Shroudscope: Durante 2002 Vertical: Overlays: Major Bloodstains]

flow from one of the front scalp puncture wounds has trickled down the man's forehead and resembles a reversed "3"[45]. The changes of direction of this bloodflow was presumably caused by furrowing of the man's brow due to spasms of agony"[46]. These scalp puncture wound reveal an understanding to the distinction between arterial and venous blood[47], which was not known at least until 1593 when Andrea Cesalpino first proposed his theory on the circulation of blood[48]. So the medieval painting forgery theory of the Shroud's origin, championed by the late Walter McCrone[49], cannot be correct[§8]. The blood marks in the hair along the sides of the face (see above) are actually on the sides of the face and temples of the man's body[50]. That is those blood marks on the cloth are out of stereoregister with the Shroud's image of the physical face and temples upon which they were[51]. As we shall see in "10. How was the Image Formed?", this is explained by Dr. John Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory"[52].

Body. There are over 100 small dumbbell-shaped marks on the man's back, legs and chest[53] from him having been scourged by a Roman flagrum[54] (see "3.3. The man on the Shroud was scourged"). These are so geometrically perfect[55] that by tracing their angles back by goniometry it was found there were two scourgers, one taller than the other[56]. But since the first goniometer was not invented until 1780, this is more evidence against the medieval forgery theory[§9]. On the dorsal image, just below the tops of the right and left shoulders, there are abrasions superimposed over the scourging wounds, meaning they occurred after the scourging, which is consistent with the man carrying on his shoulders a heavy crossbeam[57]. The body has a large bloodstain on its right side[58] (left side on Enrie's positive photographs because of mirror reversal[59]) which corresponds to the thrust of a Roman lance[60] piercing the man's heart[61]. There are clear areas within the bloodstain which indicates the blood was mixed with a clear fluid[62]. This corresponds with the "blood and water" described in John 19:34 as coming out of the body of Jesus when a Roman soldiers pierced his side with a spear to ensure He was dead[63]. At the small of the man's back there is large bloodstain which is evidently pooled blood from the lance wound[64]. Most of the bloodstains on the Shroud are from blood which flowed while the man was still alive[65], but the bloodflow from the lance wound in the man's right side is post-mortem[66], i.e. it flowed onto the Shroud after the man's death[67].

Arms and hands. The images of the upper arms have largely been destroyed[68] by a fire in 1532[69] which caused molten silver from the Shroud's container[70] to drip onto a corner of the then folded in forty-eight cloth, burning a single large hole through all its layers[71]. However the forearm images were not affected and show

[Above: Arms and hands of the man on the Shroud, showing two different angled pairs of bloodstains along the forearms[72]. And also a bloodstain evidently from a nail wound in the left wrist[73], which is crossed over the right wrist[74], but a similar nail wound in the hidden right wrist can be inferred from the identical pattern of bloodstains along the right arm as along the left arm[75]. Note also the large bloodstain in the right ribcage[76] from a Roman lance[77]: Shroudscope: Durante 2002 Vertical]

bloodstains along their length[78]. The forearm bloodstains evidently came from the nail wounds in the wrists[79]. The blood has flowed along and off the forearms in two distinct angles about 10 degrees apart[80]. From this it can be deduced that the arms must have been raised at between 55 and 65 degrees from the vertical [81]. This corresponds to a crucifixion victim pushing himself up against the nail through his feet[82] to breath and then slumping down again due to the agony it produced[83] and the bloodflows from the nails in his hands following the course of gravity in each position[84].

Legs and feet. As with the man's chest and back, there are numerous small bloodstains on the man's buttocks and legs from him having been scourged by a Roman flagrum[85]. There are bloodstains around both feet[86], consistent with a large Roman nail having been driven through each of them[87]. But there is a clearer image of the right foot[88], presumably because the left foot was nailed over the right foot[89], and rigor mortis prevented the former from being laid out flat against the cloth[90]. As with the lance wound in the man's right side (see above), the bloodflow from the man's right ankle[91] (see below) is post-mortem, i.e. it flowed onto the Shroud when the man's dead body was laid upon it[92].

[Above: Dorsal (upside down) image's feet bloodstains: Shroudscope: Durante 2002 Vertical. The bloodstain lower right is a bloodflow from the wound in the man's right ankle which is post-mortem, i.e. it flowed onto the Shroud after the man's death (see above).

Since the bloodstains mostly correspond to the wounds on the Shroud, see previously "2.4. The wounds". And since the bloodstains on the Shroud correspond to the Gospel's description the suffering and death of Jesus Christ[93] they will be further considered in "3. The Bible and the Shroud."

NOTES
1. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.22-23. [return]
2. Wilson, 1979, p.23. [return]
3. Ibid. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Wilson, 1979, pp.41-42. [return]
6. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.14g. [return]
7. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.215-216. [return]
8. Ibid.return]
9. Heller, 1983, p.216. [return]
10. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.76. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.78. [return]
14. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.76. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, pp.34-35[return]
16. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
17. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.26-27. [return]
18. Antonacci, 2000, p.27. [return]
19. Ibid. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, pp.29-30. [return]
21. Wilson, 1979, p.30. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.23. [return]
23. Ibid. [return]
24. 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.88-89[return]
25. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.75. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, p.89. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. Wilson, 1979, p.251. [return]
29. Lavoie, G.R., 2000, "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," Thomas More: Allen TX, p.73-74. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.89. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.29. [return]
33. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.157. [return]
34. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.157. [return]
35. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.170-171. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.36-37. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Wilson, 1979, pp.37-38. [return]
39. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, pp.30-32. [return]
40. Guscin, 1998, pp.27-29. [return]
41. Guscin, 1998, pp.26-27. [return]
42. Guscin, 1998, pp.11-18. [return]
43. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615. [return]
44. Guscin, 1998, pp.64-65. [return]
45. Wilson, 1979, p.37. [return]
46. Ibid. [return]
47. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.99. [return]
48. Ibid. [return]
49. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.1. [return]
50. Lavoie, 2000, pp.114-115. [return]
51. Adler, A.D., "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, 2000, pp.51,59. [return]
52. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," 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, pp.325-344. [return]
53. Wilson, 1979, p.37. [return]
54. Wilson, 1979, pp.47-48. [return]
55. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.20. [return]
56. Wilson, 1979, p.38 [return]
57. Wilson, 1979, pp.38-39. [return]
58. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, pp.48-49. [return]
61. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
62. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
63. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
64. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
65. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.24. [return]
66. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.26. [return]
67. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
68. Wilson, 1998, p.23 [return]
69. Ibid. [return]
70. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
71. Ibid. [return]
72. Wilson, 1979, pp.39-40. [return]
73. Wilson, 1979, p.39. [return]
74. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.165. [return]
75. Ibid. [return]
76. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, pp.48-49. [return]
78. Wilson, 1979, pp.39-40. [return]
79. Wilson, 1979, p.39. [return]
80. Wilson, 1979, pp.39-40. [return]
81. Wilson, 1979, p.40. [return]
82. Ibid. [return]
83. Ibid. [return]
84. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
85. Wilson, 1998, pp.31-32. [return]
86. Wilson, 1979, pp.41-42. [return]
87. Tribbe, 2006, p.96. [return]
88. Wilson, 1979, p.42. [return]
89. Wilson, 1979, pp.41-42. [return]
90. Wilson, 2010, p.291 [return]
91. Wilson, 1979, pp.73-74. [return]
92. Wilson, 1979, pp.73-74. [return]
93. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
§5, §6, §7, §8, §9. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]


Continued in part 12, "2.6. The other marks (1)."

Last updated: 15 July, 2013.

9 comments:

Bippy123 said...

Great post yet again Stephen, especially the description of the forearm blood stains corresponding with Jesus pushing himself up in order for him to breath. This is something I didn't know about till now.

God bless
Bippy123

Stephen E. Jones said...

Bippy123

>Great post yet again Stephen,

Thanks.

>especially the description of the forearm blood stains corresponding with Jesus pushing himself up in order for him to breath. This is something I didn't know about till now.

Glad to be of service.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

bbigbee@sbcglobal.net said...

It is said that His blood was AB. In your findings, did you also come upon a blood type for Him. Thank you.

Stephen E. Jones said...

bbigbee

>It is said that His blood was AB. In your findings, did you also come upon a blood type for Him. Thank you.

As I wrote above, with a reference:

"Other tests have confirmed the blood is type AB"

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Larry Hunt said...

The evidence for The Shroud's authenticity is indeed overwhelming, but I do have a couple of questions. It seems to me that there should be a great deal more blood on the shroud than is there if it wrapped a body that had so many wounds. The back, for instance, would have been a mass of dried blood hours after the whipping. How have people explained the neatly outlined flagrum marks? And how did the marks on the small of his back encode? It seems that they would not have been in contact with the shroud. Thanks for your work. This blog is very informative.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Larry

>The evidence for The Shroud's authenticity is indeed overwhelming,

Agreed.

>but I do have a couple of questions. It seems to me that there should be a great deal more blood on the shroud than is there if it wrapped a body that had so many wounds.

There are two schools of thought on this: 1) Jesus' body was washed and new blood seeped through His washed wounds onto the Shroud; or

2) Jesus' body was not washed (my position), but:

a) given that there would have been little blood from the scourging, which used lead balls which were designed to caused internal bleeding and minimise external bleeding, so victims did not lose too much blood and then lapse into unconsciousness and die too quickly;

b) it was before "the sixth hour" (Jn 19:14) i.e. noon by John's Roman time reckoning, and therefore over 6 hours before Jesus was buried in the Shroud, so what little blood there was from the scourging (see next) would have long since dried and some flaked off;

c) after Jesus was scourged the Roman soldiers put a scarlet/purple robe on Him (Mt 27:28; Jn 19:2,5), which would have soaked up most of what blood there was on Jesus' body from the scourging;

d) then before Jesus was led away to be crucified the soldiers "stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him" (Mt 27:31; Mk 15:20) which would have further removed any blood from His scourging; and

e) when Jesus was wrapped in the Shroud He had been dead for over 3 hours, so the blood on the Shroud from Jesus' crucifixion was dried pre-mortem blood clots and fresh post-mortem blood, both of which would have been limited.

f) Crucifixion would also have been designed by the Romans to be relatively bloodless (see above on victims lapsed into unconsciousness and dying too quickly from blood loss). The nails in the hands and feet would have been positioned to avoid major blood vessels.

>The back, for instance, would have been a mass of dried blood hours after the whipping.

No. See above.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>How have people explained the neatly outlined flagrum marks?

Pro-authenticists explain them as what they appear to be: authentic Roman flagrum marks using dumbbell-shaped lead balls. Anti-authenticists claim they were painted on.

>And how did the marks on the small of his back encode?

As with the other scourge marks, they are tiny wounds which bled both blood and serum.

>It seems that they would not have been in contact with the shroud.

No. Jesus was probably laid on the Shroud, which in turn was on a stretcher of some sort for carrying His body to the tomb, when He was taken down from the cross.

The Shroud would then have been wrapped around His body (another reason why He was not washed), and His body, wrapped in the Shroud, would have been borne on the stretcher a short distance to the tomb (Jn 19:41-42).

So the wounds on His back and front would have made contact with the Shroud then. This also explains why the blood on the Shroud is not smeared, as the Shroud made contact with Jesus' body only once.

And then Jesus' body was resurrected through the Shroud (18Jan12) leaving the blood clots intact on the Shroud that had previously adhered to both the Shroud and Jesus' body!

>Thanks for your work. This blog is very informative.

Thanks. But unfortunately I don't have the time to answer too many questions, so readers will have to do their own `homework'. If they Google their questions and include "Stephen" and "Jones" in them, they will find my posts on that topic.

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
"By way of guidance as to what I mean by `offensive' and `sub-standard,' I regard comments to my blog as analogous to letters to the Editor of a newspaper. If the Editor of a newspaper would not publish a comment because it is `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' then neither will I. It does not mean that if I disagree with a comment I won't publish it. I have published anti-authenticist comments and other comments that I disagreed with, and I have deleted `offensive' and/or `sub-standard' comments that are pro-authenticist. `Sub-standard' includes attempting to use my blog as a platform to publish a block of text of the commenter's own views, and also bare links to other sites with little or no actual comments. By `off-topic' I mean if a comment has little or nothing to do with the topic(s) in the post it is under (except for the latest post-see above)." [05Jan16]

Kyle Wright said...

Hello again. Forgive me for posting on an old post of yours, but I am new to this and have been going through them. Can you please explain to me what "Ibid" is in your sourcing? I apologize if this is explained elsewhere or if I am having a momentary lapse in judgement.

Specifically, I am interested to see the data on the AB blood type being common among Jewish people.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Kyle

>Forgive me for posting on an old post of yours

Since this is indeed an "old post," i.e. 2013, I have replied to it under my latest post (see my policies below).

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.