Saturday, December 27, 2014

Lirey (1): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Lirey (1)

This my old Turin Shroud Encyclopedia has been superseded by my new Turin Shroud Encyclopedia.

This is entry #13(1), "Lirey (1)," of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." My next post in this series will be the first installment of entry #13(2). Because of its length, I had to split this entry #13 into two parts. I am continuing to work through the topics in entry #3, "Shroud of Turin."

[Main index] [Entry index] [Previous #12] [Next #13(2)].

Introduction. The tiny French village of Lirey is located about 100 miles (~160 kms) southeast of Paris[2] and about 12 miles (~21 kms) south of the city of Troyes[3]. Lirey has rarely ever numbered more

[Above (click to enlarge): Map showing the approximate location of Lirey, France (added in blue), in relation to Paris (top left), Troyes (above) and Turin (bottom right)[5]. Other places on the map which are part of the Shroud's history are, to Lirey's southeast, Besançon, Bourg-en-Bresse and Chambéry.]

than 100 residents[4]. The Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history was at Lirey, about 1355[6].

Lirey was the de Charny family seat. Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300-1356) was the youngest son[7] of Jean de Charny (c. 1260-1323) and Marguerite de Joinville (c. 1262-1306)[8]. Their eldest son Dreux (c. 1290-1325)[9] inherited Charny and the main Mont-Saint-Jean title[10], both of which on his death passed to his daughter Guillemette (c. 1316-1361)[11]. Geoffroy I inherited Lirey from his mother, it having been part of her dowry from her father Jean de Joinville (c. 1224-1318)[12]. The middle son, Jean II de Charny (c. 1295?-1346), married Jeanne de Frolois in 1315, receiving her de Marigny-sur-Ouche title[13], but died childless[14], leaving Lirey the de Charny family seat[15].

Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300-1356). Geoffroy I[16] had married his first wife Jeanne de Toucy (c. 1301-c.1348) in 1318[17] and they had a daughter, Charlotte (c.1319-98)[18]. But Jeanne de Toucy died about 1348, probably from the Black Death[19]. In 1337, the year the Hundred Years' War between England and France began[20],

[Right (click to enlarge): Map of English possessions in France and major battles 1339-1415, during the Hundred Years War[21].]

Geoffroy fought at Languedoc and Guyenne in southern France[22]. In 1340 he defended Tournai in the north, and in 1341 Angers in the west with the future King John II of France (1319–1364)[23]. I propose that King Philip VI (1293–1350) gave Geoffroy I the Shroud (which the King had obtained from Besançon Cathedral[24]) between 1341-1343 as a reward for protecting his son in the Battle of Angers. During the battle of Morlaix, Brittany, in 1342, Geoffroy was captured and taken prisoner to Goodrich Castle in England[25]. He was allowed to return to England to find the money for his ransom, which evidently was paid, probably by his family[26], since he did not return to England but in late 1342 he was fighting the English near Vannes, also in Brittany[27]. In 1345, during a truce between the English and the French, Geoffroy with a fellow knight, Edward de Beaujeu (1316-1351)[28], mounted a surprise attack on the Turkish-held harbour fortress of Smyrna, capturing it[29]. The next year, 1346, Geoffroy was back in south-west France, fighting the English at the siege of Aiguillon[30]. After that battle, Geoffroy was promoted to the rank of chevalier (knight), and made Captain (Governor[31]) of Saint-Omer, near Calais[32]. In 1349 Geoffroy attempted to recapture the port of Calais itself from the English, but he was double-crossed by an Aimery of Pavia and was again captured and taken prisoner to England, where this time a huge ransom of 12,000 gold ecus was posted for his return[33]. While in prison Geoffroy wrote a Book of Chivalry, setting out his views on the behaviour of the ideal knight[34]. In 1351 the ransom was paid by the new King John II, Geoffroy's former commander, and he returned to France[35]. Geoffroy then mounted a surprise night raid upon the castle of his betrayer, Aimery of Pavia, and took him back to his base at St Omer[36] where Geoffroy had all the military powers of the king[37]. There Geoffroy tortured and then decapitated his betrayer, cut his body into quarters, and hung them on the town gates[38]. Medieval military justice no doubt, but flagrant disobedience of the New Testament command for a Christian to love his enemies (Mt 5:43-44; Lk 6:27, 35) and not to take revenge but leaving that to God (Rom 12:19). For that disobedience, did Geoffroy later pay a heavy price? In 1351, King John II appointed Geoffroy the Bearer of the sacred Oriflamme of St. Denis[39]. In that year, Geoffroy and Edward de Beaujeu helped defeat a French troop at Ardres, near Calais, but Edward was killed[40]. Next year, 1352, King John II made Geoffroy a knight of the new Order of the Star[41]. In that same year he married his second wife, Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428)[42] and that same year their son, Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–1398), was born[43].

Lirey church. In early 1343, Geoffroy had applied to Philip VI for funds to build and operate a chapel in Lirey, with five

[Above: Map of Lirey, France[44], showing the Church of St. Mary (centre above the `arms' of the Y intersection[45]), which was in 1516 built in stone over the the ruins of Geoffrey I de Charny's wooden church)[46], in the grounds of which the Shroud of Turin was first exhibited in undisputed history in c.1355[47].]

chaplains[48]. Geoffroy himself would contribute his inheritance from an aunt[49], Alix de Joinville (1256-1336)[50]. In June that same year, 1343, King Philip donated land with an annual rental value of 140 livres, tax exempt, for financing the chapel[51]. A Lirey church document of January 1349 confirmed Philip's donation and Geoffroy's contribution[52]. In April 1349, in a petition to the French Pope at Avignon, Clement VI (1291–1352), Geoffroy advised that he had constructed a chapel at Lirey dedicated to Blessed Virgin Mary of the Annunciation, with five canons (priests), and requested that it be raised to collegiate church[53]. For a tiny village of 50 houses, this is evidence that Geoffroy already had the Shroud in 1349 (and indeed 1343), and was preparing to exhibit it at the Lirey church[54]. However, due to Geoffroy's imprisonment in England from January 1350 to July 1351[55], the collegiate status of the church was not proceeded with[56]. Nevertheless, according to the church's 1353 Act of Foundation, the church had six canons, one of whom was Dean, as well as three other clerics[57]. Accordingly in that same year, 1353, King John II (1319–1364) agreed to a further annual revenue increase of 62 livres[58]. In 1354, Geoffroy renewed his petition to the new Avignon Pope, Innocent IV (c. 1195-1254), asking at the same time to turn the church at Lirey into a collegiale[59]. So from a simple rural chapel in a village of 50 fifty houses, Geoffroy was preparing his Lirey church from 1343, to be a centre of pilgrimage[60]! Clearly the pilgrimages would be to see the Shroud (as happened in c. 1355[61]. So Geoffroy must have owned the Shroud from no later than 1343. And King Phillip VI must have known that Geoffroy had the Shroud from at least June 1343, for him to agree to fund a church of such disproportionate size for such a tiny village. So too must King John II have to agree to increase funding in 1353, as well as the French Avignon Pope's Clement VI and Innocent IV. This places a 1343 time constraint on theories of when and how Geoffroy de Charny obtained the Shroud (see future). Yet, despite extensive surviving documentation about the establishment of the Lirey church, there is no mention in it of the Shroud[62]. This and subsequent events indicate that the Shroud was never formally transferred by the de Charnys to the church, but retained by them as their private property.

First Lirey Shroud exposition (c. 1354-c.1357). In c.1389 the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (†1377–1395), reported in a draft memorandum[63] to the French Avignon Pope Clement VII (1342–1394)[64], that one of his predecessors, Henri de Poitiers (†1354–1370), became aware of a cloth "upon which ... was depicted the twofold image of one man ... back and front... upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour ... [was] impressed together with the wounds which He bore," which was being displayed at the "collegiate church ... Lirey" and was being declared by its Dean to be "the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb"[65]. With the result that, "not only in the kingdom of France, but ... through out the world ... from all parts people came together to view" this "exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to be the shroud of our Lord"[66]. According to d'Arcis, "Henry of Poitiers ... then

[Above: Pilgrim's lead badge preserved in the Cluny Museum in Paris[67]. It was found in the Seine river in 1855 and is presumed to have been lost by a pilgrim after he had been to the first Shroud exposition at Lirey[68]. It depicts two clerics holding what can only be the Shroud at an exhibition[69]. On the Shroud are the front and back images of a naked body, with hands crossed in front[70], laid head to head[71]. The Shroud's herringbone weave is depicted, as are a Roman flagrum, a crown of thorns, the cross and the empty tomb[72]. On either side of the tomb are the coats of arms of Geoffroy I de Charny [left] and his wife Jeanne de Vergy [right][73]. This has been taken to mean that the exposition was held only up to Geoffroy I's death on 19 September 1356[74]. But the inclusion of the coat of arms of Jeanne de Vergy, as well as a document issued from the papal court at Avignon on 5 June 1357, mentioning Jeanne de Vergy and granting indulgences for those who visit the Lirey church and its relics[75] on specified holy days[76], is evidence that Geoffroy's widow continued the exposition after his death from 1357 and possibly even up to the death of Bishop de Poitiers in 1370[77] (but see below).] It is also evidence (if not proof), that there was no scandal associated with the Shroud's origin in c.1355 as claimed by Bishop d'Arcis[78]

Bishop of Troyes" after "diligent inquiry ... discovered the ... cloth had been cunningly painted" and "the artist who had painted it"[79]. De Poitiers then, according to d'Arcis, "began to institute formal proceedings against the ... Dean and his accomplices" but "they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year"[80]. Subtracting 34 years from 1389 is 1355[81], when d'Arcis states that de Poitiers concluded his investigation. Which means the Shroud could have been being exhibited from 1354, the year that de Poitiers commenced as Bishop of Troyes[82]. Apart from d'Arcis' assertion which is based on mere hearsay[83], there is no evidence that de Poitiers had a problem with Geoffroy I's exhibition of the Shroud. Not only is there no evidence that de Poitiers carried out an investigation into the Shroud's origin[84], in a letter dated 28 May 1356, the day of the Lirey church's inauguration[85], de Poitiers wrote:

"Henri ... confirmed bishop elect of Troyes, to all those who will see this letter ... You will learn what we ourselves learned on seeing and hearing the letters of the noble knight Geoffrey de Charny, Lord of Savoy and of Lirey, to which and for which our present letters are enclosed, after scrupulous examination of these letters and more especially of the said knight's sentiments of devotion, which he has hitherto manifested for the divine cult and which he manifests ever more daily. And ourselves wishing to develop as much as possible a cult of this nature, we praise, ratify and approve the said letters in all their parts - a cult which is declared and reported to have been canonically and ritually prescribed, as we have been informed by legitimate documents. To all these, we give our assent, our authority and our decision, by faith of which we esteem it our duty to affix our seal to this present letter in perpetual memory" (my emphasis)[86].

Since there was no other "cult" (i.e. "religious practice") at the Lirey church, de Poitiers can only be referring to the Shroud[87] and its exposition which already had been occurring daily by 1356. Moreover, de Poitier's younger brother Charles (1325–1410) evidently had no problem with the de Charny family because he allowed his daughter Marguerite (c.1362-1418) to marry Geoffroy II de Charny[88] in 1392[89], only 2-3 years after the Shroud's second exposition!

Death of Geoffroy I de Charny. On 19 September 1356, Geoffroy I de Charny, bearing the Oriflamme, died in the Battle of Poitiers[90], shielding with his own body King

[Left (click to enlarge): "Battle of Poitiers," miniature by Jean Froissart (c.1337–c.1405), 1356[91].]

John II from English lances[92]. Just as Moses was not allowed by God to live to enter the Promised land, because of his disobedience (Dt 32:48-52; Num 20:11-13; 27:14), did God not allow Geoffroy I to live to see the Shroud exhibited beyond 1356, because of his disobedience in taking brutal personal revenge on Aimery of Pavia (see above)? As we saw above, there is evidence that the first Lirey exposition of the Shroud continued after Geoffroy I's death into 1357, but because of the increasing lawlessness of France after its defeat in the Battle of Poitiers, it may not have continued after 1357[93]. Bishop d'Arcis in his 1389 memorandum went on to complain to Pope Clement VII about a current exposition of the Shroud by "Geoffrey de Charny" II[94]. Leaving aside other problems of d'Arcis' memorandum for the next "Second Lirey exposition of the Shroud (c.1389-c.1390)," the value of Bishop d'Arcis' memorandum is that it is the earliest clear reference to the Shroud's first exposition at Lirey, about 1355[95].

To be continued in the first installment of entry #13(2).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from it or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one graphic) of any of my posts, provided that they include a reference to the title of, and a hyperlink to, that post from which it came. [return]
2. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.46. [return]
3. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.37. [return]
4. Jang, A.W., 2013, "Introducing... Lirey, France!," Shroud Center of Southern California. [return]
5. Extract from Google Maps, Classic View Lirey, France. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
7. Wilson, 2010, p.210. [return]
8. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.35 & "Marguerite de Joinville," Geni, November 29, 2014. [return]
9. Ibid & Dreux de Charny, II, Geni, November 29, 2014. [return]
10. 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.133. [return]
11. Crispino, D., 1990, "The Charny Genealogy," Shroud Spectrum International, #37, December, pp.19-25, p.20 & "Guillemette de Charny," Geni, November 29, 2014. [return]
12. Wilson, 1998, p.133 & Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.35. [return]
13. "Frolois, Jeanne de dame de Marigny-sur-Ouche d. 1342," Genealogy.richardremme.com, 14 Nov 2014. [return]
14. Crispino, 1990, p.20. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.86. [return]
16. Also spelled "Geoffrey," "Geoffroi" and even "Godfrey," by various Shroud authors. I am using "Geoffroy" because that is what was written in French on the tombstone of his son Geoffroy II. [return]
17. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud In Greece," British Society for the Turin Shroud, Monograph No. 1, p.10 & various online genealogies. [return]
18. Wilson, 1998, p.276; Crispino, D., "The Castle of Mont Saint Jean," Shroud Spectrum International, #28/29, September/December 1988, pp.19-24, p.20 & various online genealogies. [return]
19. Wilson, 1998, p.276. [return]
20. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.46. [return]
21. "Hundred Years' War," Filebox, Virginia Tech. [return]
22. Oxley, 2010, p.46. [return]
23. Ibid. [return]
24. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.63; Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.55; Brucker, E., 1998, "Thy Holy Face: My 39 Years of Lecturing on the Shroud of Turin," Brucker: Tucson AZ, p.16 & Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.10. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.275. [return]
26. Wilson, 1979, p.200. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, p.275. [return]
28. Wilson, I., 2012, "Discovering more of the Shroud's Early History: A promising new approach ...," Talk for the International Congress on the Holy Shroud in Spain, Aula Magna of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 28-30 April, 2012. [return]
29. Wilson, 2010, pp.215-216. [return]
30. Wilson, 2010, p.216. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, p.277. [return]
32. Wilson, 2010, p.217. [return]
33. Wilson, 1998, pp.276-277. [return]
34. Wilson, 2010, p.219. [return]
35. Wilson, 1998, p.277. [return]
36. Ibid. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, p.276. [return]
38. Oxley, 2010, pp.46-47. [return]
39. Crispino, D., 1981, "Why Did Geoffroy de Charny Change His Mind?," Shroud Spectrum International, #1, December, pp.28-34, p.29. [return]
40. Wilson, 2010, p.218. [return]
41. Wilson, 1998, p.277. [return]
42. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.35; Wilson, 1998, p.276; Tribbe, 2006, p.41 & various online genealogies. [return]
43. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.35. [return]
44. Extract from Google Maps (Earth) Classic View, search on Lirey, France, 11 January 2014. [return]
45. Verified by Google StreetView and by comparison with photographs of the church in reference LTV. [return]
46. Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
47. Wilson, 2010, pp.221-222. [return]
48. Crispino, 1981, p.30; Crispino, D., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, #28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, p.33; Tribbe, 2006, p.41. [return]
49. Crispino, 1981, p.30; Crispino, 1988, p.33. [return]
50. Crispino, D., 1990, "Kindred Questions," Shroud Spectrum International, #34, December, pp.43-44, p.43[return]
51. Crispino, 1981, p.30. [return]
52. Ibid. [return]
53. Crispino, 1981, pp.30-31; Crispino, D., 1987, "Geoffroy de Charny in Paris," Shroud Spectrum International, #24, September, pp.13-18, p.13; Wilson, 1998, p.276; Tribbe, 2006, p.41. [return]
54. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.65; Tribbe, 2006, p.41. [return]
55. Crispino, D., 1989, "Geoffroy de Charny's Second Funeral," #30, March, pp.9-13, p.10; Wilson, 1998, p.277. [return]
56. Crispino, 1981, p.30. [return]
57. Ibid; Tribbe, 2006, p.41 Wilson, 2010, p.220. [return]
58. Crispino, 1981, p.30. [return]
59. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.31. [return]
60. Crispino, 1981, p.31. [return]
61. Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
62. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.49; Wilson, 2010, p.220. [return]
63. Wilson, 1998, p.121. [return]
64. Wilson, 1979, p.266. [return]
65. Wilson, 1979, pp.266-267. [return]
66. Wilson, 1979, p.267. [return]
67. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
68. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.21. [return]
69. Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
70. Ibid. [return]
71. Tribbe, 2006, p.42. [return]
72. Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
73. Ibid. [return]
74. Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
75. Wilson, 1998, p.128. [return]
76. Oxley, 2010, pp.52-53. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, p.194. [return]
78. Wilson, 1998, p.128. [return]
79. Wilson, 1979, p.267. [return]
80. Ibid. [return]
81. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.14. [return]
82. Wilson, 2010, p.220. [return]
83. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.19; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.152-153. [return]
84. Scavone, 1989, p.15; Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
85. Wilson, 1979, p.259. [return]
86. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.10-11. [return]
87. Guerrera, 2001, p.11. [return]
88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.65; . Guerrera, 2001, p.12. [return]
89. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.35 & various online genealogies. [return]
90. Guerrera, 2001, p.12. [return]
91. "Battle of Poitiers," Wikipedia, 14 December 2014. [return]
92. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.64. [return]
93. Oxley, 2010, p.53. [return]
94. Wilson, 1979, p.267. [return]
95. 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, pp.171-204, p.174. [return]

Created: 27 December, 2014. Updated: 20 January, 2015.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Index "L": Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Index "L"

This is the index page, "L", entry #12, of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." For more information about this series, see the Main Index "A-Z", and sub-indexes "S", "C," and "D." This entry will be followed by entry #13, "Lirey," which is why I am posting this sub-index "L." Also, to make these sub-index pages interesting, I will briefly cover a topic in it, in this case lepton, which will eventually be part of a full page entry on that topic.

[Main index] [Entry index] [Previous #11] [Next #13]

[Above right[2]: A Roman minted Jewish lepton coin[3] (the "widow's mite" of Mark 12:42 & Luke 21:2 KJV[4]).]

Roman coins, including leptons, with the prominent `shepherd's crook,' called in Latin a lituus[5], were only ever minted during the rule of the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate (see Lk 3:1; Acts 4:27; 1Tim 6:13), between AD 29-32[6]. That is, covering the period of Jesus' death, which was either AD 30 or AD 33[7], but most likely AD 30[8].

[Above left. The right eye of the Man on the Shroud in the Enrie 1931 sepia print in Paul Vignon's "Le Saint Suaire de Turin"[9], scanned and then magnified[10].]

As can be seen, the image over the right eye of the Man on the Shroud clearly shows a tiny letter "A" to the left of the lituus (red arrow), and near its top. Also can be seen is the curled top of the lituus (orange arrow) and its tail (yellow arrow). The bottom half of a letter "K" above and to the right of the "A" and a letter "I" to the left and below the "A" can also be seen, each in the correct relative position to the lituus on a Pontius Pilate lepton[11]. The letters are part of the coin's original inscription, transliterated into English, "TIBERIOUKAICAROC" ("Tiberiou Kaisaros"), which is Greek for "Of Tiberius Caesar"[12]. Tiberius Caesar (42 BC–37 AD) was Roman Emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD[13]. Because Enrie's 1931 photograph is a negative, the lituus and letters and lituus are a mirror image[14] of those on the actual lepton (above right). This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Man on the Shroud died (having been flogged, crowned with thorns, crucified and speared in the side[15]) in Judea soon after AD 29, as Jesus did! In future I will post an entry on the coins over the Man on the Shroud's eyes, where I will give further evidence that He can only have been Jesus. See also my "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (5): Coins over eyes."

Click on an entry's hyperlink below to go to that entry. If an entry is not hyperlinked, it is a planned future entry in this Encyclopedia.

[lepton] [limestone] [linen] [Linick, T.W.] [Lirey]

Created: 21 December, 2014. Updated: 27 December, 2014.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

It is "totally impossible" that the Turin Shroud is authentic yet has a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 (Prof. Edward Hall)

Here is a quote to add to Prof. E. Hall (1924–2001), Dr M. Tite and Dr. R. Hedges' collective insistence that "the odds against" the Shroud

[Above: Prof. Edward T. Hall, on 13 October 1988, at a press conference in the British Museum, where it was announced that the Shroud had a radiocarbon date of "1260-1390!"]

of Turin being that "of the historical Jesus" and yet having a radiocarbon date of "1260-1390" (or 1325 ±65) "astronomical":

"Accordingly, early that Thursday afternoon [13th October 1988] I joined this gathering in a dingy, poorly lit and overcrowded basement room of the British Museum. At one end of the room had been set a low platform which three men ... Dr Michael Tite, with the Oxford radiocarbon-dating laboratory's Professor Edward Hall and Hall's chief technician, Dr Robert Hedges. ... their only `prop' was a blackboard behind them on which someone had rather crudely scrawled: `1260-1390!' ... For as Dr Tite explained, these numbers represented radiocarbon dating's calculation, to a ninety-five per cent degree of probability, of the upper and lower dates of when the Shroud's flax had been harvested. Representing an average of the laboratories' findings, which had proved in excellent agreement with each other [FALSE!-See my post of June 13, 2014] they indicated that the Shroud's raw flax had most likely been made into linen on or about the year AD 1325, give or take sixty-five years either way. ... The Shroud simply could not possibly be any true shroud of the historical Jesus. For as those on the platform collectively insisted, the odds against this were now `astronomical'. (Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," pp.6-7).

And to add the statement of Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the unofficial leader of the Shroud radiocarbon dating project, that the "probability that the shroud dates between 1260 and 1390" and yet its actual date is "first century" is "about one in a thousand trillion":

"The other question that has been asked is: if the statistical probability that the shroud dates between 1260 and 1390 is 95%, what is the probability that it could date to the first century? The answer is about one in a thousand trillion, i.e. vanishingly small." (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," p.303).

The quote is in a private letter from Prof. Hall to wavering pro-authenticist agnostic Noel Currer-Briggs (1919-2004) in the latter's book "Shroud Mafia" (1995), where Hall states that it is "totally impossible" (his emphasis) that the Shroud has a radiocarbon date of "1260-1390" and yet its actual date is "AD 100" (or less):

"Professor Edward Hall, who was responsible for the Oxford laboratory's dating, says in a letter in answer to my enquiry about these earlier dates:
`It is all a matter of statistics! There is a five per cent chance of the date lying outside the 1260-1390 bracket. 1237 (for example) would indeed be possible but only a one in fifty chance. It is when you get to dates of AD 100 where it becomes totally impossible'"
(Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. Emphasis original).

But the flip-side of this is that since the Shroud is authentic, as the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates, then according to Prof. Hall, Dr. Tite and Prof. Gove's own words, the odds are "astronomical," about "one in a thousand trillion," and indeed totally impossible," that the Shroud has a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390!

This is further evidence for my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker! I have added that quote of Prof. Hall, in whole or part, to #1, #2, #3, #4 and #10(2) of that series.

Posted 20 December 2014. Updated 5 November 2023.

Friday, December 19, 2014

Chronology of the Shroud (1): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Chronology of the Shroud (1)

This "Chronology of the Shroud" has been superseded by my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present" series.

This is entry #11(1), of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." It is my chronology of the Shroud of Turin, divided into each century and starting with the 1st century. It is similar in format to Shroud.com's "Shroud History" but not based on it. I will populate this chronology

[Above: Pilgrim's lead badge or medallion preserved in the Cluny Museum in Paris. Its dimensions are 4.5cm high and 6.2cm wide (~1.8 x ~2.4 in.). The badge is the oldest known artistic rendition of the Shroud of Turin in Europe. It was found in the Seine river, under the `Pont-au-Change' bridge, in 1855. From historical records it is known that the Shroud was in Lirey, France from 1353 to 1453, so this medallion was probably from a pilgrim who went to Lirey, to see the Shroud but lost it in the river. The reproduction of the Shroud is unmistakable as we can clearly see the frontal and dorsal of a body very similar to the Turin Shroud, along with the coats of arms of Geoffroy I de Charny [left] and his wife Jeanne de Vergy [right]. In the centre surrounded by a circle representing the Empty Tomb, are the Crown of Thorns, and Cross coming out of the tomb. Also evident is a representation of the Shroud's herringbone weave. Geoffroy I de Charny died on 19 September 1356[2], which means that this exposition was probably before that, in c. 1355, as per Bishop Pierre d'Arcis' 1989 Memorandum's "thirty four years"[3].]

with entries as they occur in my other encyclopedia entry pages and link to them (e.g. "[#3]" is entry #3. This will have the effect of making this chronology an index by year and/or century of my encyclopedia entries. When this page grows too large I will split off an entry #11(2) and so on. For more information about this series, see the Main Index "A-Z", and sub-indexes "S", "C," and "D."

[Main index] [Entry index] [Previous #10] [Next #12]

[1st] [2nd] [3rd] [4th] [5th] [6th] [7th] [8th] [9th] [10th] [11th] [12th] [13th] [14th] [15th] [16th] [17th] [18th] [19th] [20th] [21st]

1st century[return]
Image of Roman lepton coin over the right eye of the Man on the Shroud. This coin was minted only during the rule of the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, between AD 29-32, covering the period of Jesus' death, which was most likely AD 30. This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Man on the Shroud was crucified in Judea soon after AD 29, as Jesus was![#12].

2nd century[return]
c. 150. Gospel of the Hebrews. The earliest account of Jesus' sindon having been preserved is in a quotation by St. Jerome, from the now lost early second-century "Gospel of the Hebrews." According to this early Jewish-Christian writing, after his resurrection Jesus gave his burial shroud (sindon) to the "servant of the priest." This is the earliest and most respected of a number of second century apocryphal books which mention that Jesus' burial shroud was saved from the tomb[#9(1)]. The evidence points to this "servant of the priest" having been a pseudonym of John the Apostle[#9(3)].

8th century[return]
c. 710. St. John of Damascus, or John Damascene, (c.675–749), wrote of the relics associated with Jesus as including "the shrouds [tas sindonas] and the cloths of the tomb." In a sermon he used the singular, sindoni to refer to the shroud. That John knew that Jesus' sindon was the size of the Shroud of Turin is evident in that he wrote in c.730 that Jesus had impressed His image on a himation, an oblong cloth about two yards wide by three yards long (~1.8 x ~2.7 m)[#8].

10th century[return]
944. The Shroud arrived at Constantinople on August 8, 944, as the Image of Edessa/Mandylion, folded in eight (tetradiplon "four-doubled") with only the face one-eighth panel visible[#4].

c. 945. Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905–959) had himself depicted in an icon (now at St. Catherine's Monastery, Sinai), as Edessa's King Abgar V (BC 4–AD 50) receiving the Image of Edessa, with Jesus' face in landscape aspect (as it is when the Shroud is folded eight times with the man's face uppermost) from Jesus' disciple Thaddeus[#4].

958. Emperor Constantine VII sent a letter of encouragement to his troops, telling them that he was sending them holy water consecrated by relics of the Passion, including: "... the sindon which God wore [theophoron sindonos][#8].

11th century[return]
c. 1100. Mosaic of Christ Pantocrator ("ruler of all") in the dome of the church of Daphni, Greece completed. It has 13 of the 15 Vignon markings, which are found on the Shroud, and is therefore proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud existed in the 11th century[#6]

12th century[return]
1171. Historian Archbishop William of Tyre accompanied King Amaury of Jerusalem (1136-1174) in a visit to Constantinople where Byzantium emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1118-1180): "...ordered to be exposed the relics ... of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ" including the "sindon"[#8].

13th century[return]
1204. French crusader-knight Robert de Clari (c. 1170-1216) saw in a church in Constantinople a "sydoines" (sindon) "in which Our Lord had been wrapped" and "one could clearly see the figure of Our Lord on it"[#8].

1201. Nicholas Mesarites (c. 1163/4–aft. 1216), the keeper of the Imperial relic collection in Constantinople's Pharos Chapel, in 1207 wrote what in 1201 he had warned supporters of a palace revolution: "In this chapel Christ rises again, and the sindon with the burial linens is the clear proof." Mesarites' list of the relics that were in the Pharos Chapel in 1201, included: "The burial sindon of Christ: this is of linen... it wrapped the un-outlined [aperilepton], naked dead body after the Passion." This can only be the Shroud, given that the lack of an outline is a major characteristic of its image[#8].

14th century[return]
1341-43. King Philip VI (1293–1350) gave Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300-1356) the Shroud, which the king had obtained from Besançon Cathedral, as a reward for protecting his son, the future King John II (1319–1364), in the 1341 Battle of Angers (proposed)[#13(1)].
1343. Geoffroy applied to Philip VI for funds to build and operate a chapel in Lirey, with five chaplains. That year Philip donated land the rent of which was to build and operate the chapel. The disproportionate size of the clerical staff for a village of only 50 houses indicates that Geoffroy already had the Shroud and was preparing to exhibit it. Philip VI's funding of the chapel indicates he knew Geoffroy had the Shroud (see above)[#13(1)].
1349. Geoffroy petitioned the French Pope at Avignon, Clement VI (1291–1352), requesting that his already built chapel be raised to collegiate status. Further evidence that he had the Shroud and was preparing to exhibit it at Lirey church[#13(1)].
c. 1352. Marriage of Geoffroy I de Charny and Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428)[#13(1)].
1353. The Lirey church had six canons, one of whom was Dean, as well as three other clerics. In that same year, King John II agreed to a further annual revenue increase[#13(1)].
c. 1354-57. The Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, when it was exhibited by Geoffroy de Charny and his wife Jeanne de Vergy [#3, #13(1)]. In a letter of 28 May 1356, the day of the Lirey church's inauguration, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (†1354–1370), wrote: "we praise, ratify and approve" of Geoffroy de Charny's "divine cult" and "we give our assent" to it[#13(1)].
1356. Death of Geoffroy I de Charny on 19 September 1356, in the Battle of Poitiers, shielding with his own body King John II from English lances[#13(1)].

15th century[return]
1453. The Shroud was transferred by Marguerite de Charny (1390-1460), the last of the de Charny line, to Duke Louis of Savoy (1413–1465)[#3].

16th century[return]
1532. The Sainte Chapelle royal chapel in Chambéry, France, where the Shroud had been moved to in 1502, caught fire. A drop of molten silver from the Shroud's casket burnt through one corner of all 48 folds of the cloth before the fire is doused with water, but miraculously the image was preserved[#3].

1578. Duke Emmanuel Philibert (1528–80) of Savoy moved the Shroud to Turin, Italy, where, apart from brief periods in times of war, it has remained ever since[#3].

17th century[return]
1694. The Shroud was installed in the Guarini Chapel attached to Turin's Cathedral of St John the Baptist[#3].

20th century[return]
1983. Ex-King of Italy, Umberto II (1904–83), the last of the House of Savoy, died and bequeathed the Shroud to the Pope and his successors, on the condition that the Shroud remain in Turin under the custodianship of the Archbishop of Turin[#3].

1997. The Guarini Chapel was all but destroyed by a fire but the Shroud was again saved[#3].

1998. Exhibition of the Shroud from April 18 to June 14, in Turin Cathedral. Immediately prior to that exhibition, ancient textiles specialist Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg determined that the true dimensions of the Shroud are 437 cms long by 111 cms wide (~ 14 ft 4 in. by 3 ft 8 in.)[#7].

21st century[return]
2005. Following temporary accommodation in the Archbishop of Turin's residence (1997-98) and Turin Cathedral (1998-2005), the Shroud was installed in 2005 into its permanent reliquary in a side chapel of the north transept of Turin Cathedral[#3].

Created: 19 December, 2014. Updated: 19 September 2016.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Entry number index: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Entry number index

This the Entry Number Index page, and entry #10, of my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." It will enable readers to click on and read any

[Above: The Face of the Man on the Shroud[2].]

"`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?'"[3].]

entry in this Turin Shroud Encyclopedia by number, and it will also help me to keep track of entry numbers. I will add his Entry Number index next to the Main Index as "Entry index" on each Encyclopedia entry page. I will also update this page with each new Encyclopedia entry after I post it.

[Main index] [Previous #9(3)] [Next #11]

2014: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Posted 18 December 2014. Updated 23 October 2024.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (3)

Introduction This is part #10, Summary (3), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. See the previous parts #10(1) and #10(2). Other previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5, part #6, part #7, part #8 and part #9, which posts this part #10 will summarise. To keep this summary from becoming even longer, I will not usually post full quotes supporting my points but will provide a reference and link back to the original post in this series where that particular quote appears. It is my emphasis below in quotes unless otherwise indicated. See the update of this post in my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #2".

3. COMPUTER HACKING WAS RIFE IN THE 1980S. [#3] As can be seen below, 1988, the year the Shroud of Turin was radiocarbon dated as

[Above: Extract of the year 1988 from Wikipedia's "Timeline of computer security hacker history"[2]. ]

"mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[3], was also a peak year for early computer hacking against poorly secured, online computer systems.

Computer and physical security was poor at universities in the 1980s. In his book,"The Cuckoo's Egg" (1989), Clifford Stoll, an astronomer redeployed in 1986 to a position as a Computer Systems Manager at

[Right: Clifford Stoll[4].]

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), documented that both computer and physical security was poor at universities in the 1980s[5]. In his book Stoll, who earned his PhD at Arizona University (at which was one of the three radiocarbon dating laboratories that dated the Shroud)[6], explained from personal experience (which must include Arizona University) how lax was the computer security at universities in the 1980s:

"Our laboratory's computers connect to thousands of other systems over a dozen networks. Any of our scientists can log into our computers, and then connect to a distant computer ... the only thing protecting the networked computer is the password, since account names are easy to figure out ... most people use their names..."[7].

Stoll recounts that it was easy to hack into computers at "universities where no security was needed" (both computer and physical):

" ... it's easy to muck around computers at universities where no security was needed. After all, colleges seldom even lock the doors to their buildings"[8].

The German hacker ring. Stoll detected and helped catch a German hacker Markus Hess (alias Urmel) [9]. Hess was in dialing in through a pre-Internet network called Tymnet to the USA[10], from where

[Left: Markus Hess in 2013[11]. ]

he could hop from universities to military networks[12], due to their lax security in the 1980s [13]. Hess hacked into about "400 U.S. military computers"[14]. He had for several years been "selling the results of his hacking to the Soviet KGB"[15]. Hess was an associate of Karl Koch (alias Hagbard

[Right: Karl Koch. "He was involved with the KGB scandal that involved hackers being bought by drugs in exchange for breaking into key NATO and corporate installations ... Koch, of Hanover, West Germany, died Friday, June 3 [1989]"[16].]

Celine), who was also "involved in selling hacked information from United States military computers to the KGB"[17]. Hess, Koch and another hacker, Hans Heinrich Hübner (alias Pengo), were key members of a hacker ring loosely affiliated with the Chaos Computer Club[18]. Hübner

[Left: Hans Heinrich Hübner (Pengo) in 2011[19].]

and Koch later came forward in mid-1988 and confessed their hacking for the KGB to the West German authorities [20] under an espionage amnesty, which protected them from being prosecuted if they cooperated fully[21].

Karl Koch's `suicide'. Koch, however a year later, "was found burned to death" in a simulated suicide, presumably by the KGB (or the East German Stasi[22] on the KGB's behalf), "in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities," while neither Hübner, who also had confessed, nor any of the others in the KGB hacker ring, were harmed:

"Koch was found burned to death with gasoline in a forest near Celle, Germany. The death was officially claimed to be a suicide. However, some believe there is little evidence supporting suicide and many believe that Koch was killed in order to keep him from confessing more to the authorities. Why Koch would be targeted, and not Pengo [Hübner] and Urmel [Hess], is unknown. Koch left his workplace in his car to go for lunch; he had not returned by late afternoon and so his employer reported him as a missing person. Meanwhile, German police were alerted of an abandoned car in a forest near Celle. When they went to investigate, they found an abandoned car, that looked like it had been there for years, as it was covered in dust. Near to the car they found a burned corpse (Koch). His shoes were missing and have never been found. There was a patch of burned ground around him, which although it had not rained in some time and the grass was perfectly dry, was controlled in a small circle around the corpse. It is thought to be highly unlikely that this type of controlled burning could have been achieved by Koch himself which leads many to believe that his death was not suicide."[23]

But there was nothing more for Koch to confess regarding the ring's hacking of computers for the KGB[24], and both Hess[25] and Hübner's[26] hacked information was regarded by the Soviets as more valuable than Koch's[27]. Moreover, the KGB had no reason to care if the secrets of others were revealed by its sponsored hacking. Only if its own secrets were about to be revealed (e.g. its hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating) would the KGB have a motive to silence Koch and Linick. Chaos Computer Club member Steffen Wernery who was wrongly imprisoned in France for one of Koch's hackings, regards it as "unbelievable" that Koch committed suicide:

"Steffen Wernery ... is calm about the man whose activities caused him to spend sixty-six days in a French prison. His ire is reserved for the French authorities .... he doesn't blame Koch, he says. And he doesn't believe he committed suicide either: Suicide did not make sense. It was unbelievable. Karl Koch had disclosed himself to the authorities and had co-operated fully. He had provided them with some good information and they had found him accommodation and a job with the Christian Democratic Party. He was also getting help with his drug dependency and seemed on his way to rehabilitation. Murder seemed much more likely than suicide. ... There is the evidence the missing shoes, the controlled fire - that suggests another party was involved in Koch's death. Then there is motive. Koch had little reason to kill himself. He had a job; he was getting treatment for his drug problem. He was in no danger of being prosecuted for his part in the 'Soviet hacker' affair: like Pengo, Koch would have been a witness for the prosecution, protected from punishment by the terms of the amnesty provision. After the trial he would have resumed his life (like Pengo, now married and living in Vienna)"[28].

Neither Koch nor the KGB are essential to my theory. As previously stated in part #1, my theory is that:

"...Linick was allegedly the primary hacker and Koch's role was only secondary, to allegedly physically access the Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories' AMS control console computers and run a program supplied by Linick. And also, Koch's role is not essential to my theory. If it turned out that Koch could not possibly have personally travelled to Zurich and Oxford to access their radiocarbon laboratories computers, it would not falsify my theory. My theory includes Koch because of the striking coincidence that they were both allegedly hackers working for the KGB and both allegedly committed suicide within days of each other ...."

See also #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 where I repeated this in various ways. My theory has always been that Arizona Laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick was allegedly the primary hacker, and Koch's role was only secondary, to install Linick's program on Zurich and Oxford Laboratories' AMS computers. Which is why I have always called it, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" (singular). I don't claim that Koch knew what program he was installing, and even that it was Zurich and Oxford's radiocarbon dating laboratories he was installing it in. Therefore I reiterate that KOCH IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MY THEORY, as it is conceivable that Linick could have installed his program on Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers himself, or had it installed some other way (e.g. as a "software update" sent by him to those two laboratories for them to install). And therefore, although I may not previously have stated it, THE KGB IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MY THEORY either. As we saw in #6, Linick was an extreme anti-authenticist and it is conceivable that he acted alone, without the KGB's involvement, for no other reason than to ensure the Shroud was discredited, and his `suicide' only days after Koch's `suicide' may have been just a coincidence.

What IS essential to my theory is that a hacker, whom I allege to be Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick, wrote an unauthorised program and installed it on Arizona laboratory's AMS system computer, that substituted the Shroud's radiocarbon dates with random number dates, within limits, which when calibrated and averaged across all three laboratories, would cluster around 1325, which was shortly before the Shroud appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in about 1355. Linick then also had his program installed (or installed it himself) on Zurich and Oxford laboratories' AMS computers, with similar results to Arizona's. Again, I have included Koch and the KGB in my theory because of the striking coincidence of both Koch and Linick having died of suspicious `suicides' only a few days apart, and because Koch did have expertise that Linick may have lacked in getting past the login ID and password security systems on the DEC computer systems running the VMS operating system that the Zurich and Oxford AMS laboratories had (as we shall see).

It is therefore incorrect (and indeed dishonest and/or self-deceived), to dismiss my theory as merely a `KGB conspiracy theory,' without dealing with its ESSENTIAL elements. Anyone who has a criticism of my theory is welcome to post it as a comment under the relevant post on my blog, provided it is not "off-topic, offensive or sub-standard," as per my stated policies, and I will respond to that criticism. I will not respond to criticisms of my theory on other blogs, and indeed I don't even read them anymore, because in my experience they are largely a waste of time, due to their predominance of ill-informed comments and personal attacks.

Continued in part #10 Summary (4).

Posted: 13 December 2014. Updated: 7 February 2021.

Monday, December 8, 2014

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (2)

Introduction. Continuing from part #10, Summary (1), this is part #10, Summary (2), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. My next post in this series is part #10 Summary (3). Previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5, part #6, part #7, part #8 and part #9, which posts this part #10 will summarise. To keep this summary from becoming even longer, I will not usually post full quotes supporting my points but will provide a reference and link back to the original post in this series where that particular quote appears. See the update of this post in my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1".

2. THE PROBABILITY THAT THE SHROUD BEING 1ST CENTURY HAS A RADIOCARBON DATE OF 1260-1390 IS "ASTRONOMICAL."[#1] At the press conference in the British Museum on 13 October 1988 in which the Museum's Dr Michael Tite, and Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall (1924–2001) and Dr Robert Hedges announced that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated "1260-1390!" (part #10(1)), they collectively insisted that the odds against the Shroud being first century, yet having a radiocarbon date of 1325 ±65 (or 1260-1390), was "astronomical" (my emphasis)[2]. This was confirmed by Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the unofficial leader of the Shroud radiocarbon dating project[3], who pointed out that the statistical probability of the Shroud having a radiocarbon date between 1260 and 1390, yet it's actual date being first century, is "about one in a thousand trillion" (my emphasis)[4]. That is the equivalent of finding by chance,

[Right: Part of Victoria, Australia's Ninety Mile Beach: Holidayz.com.au. Ninety miles is 145 kms. Best of luck finding at the first try a particular grain of sand, 1 mm in diameter, on the surface of a strip of beach ~5.4 metres wide by 145 kilometres long[5], because that is the equivalent of the radiocarbon date of the Shroud being 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65, given that the Shroud is first century!]

at the first attempt, a particular grain of sand, 1 mm in diameter[6] among a thousand trillion (1,000,000,000,000 = 10¹²) similar grains of sand, on the surface of a strip of beach ~5.4 metres wide by 145 kilometres long, which is about the length of the Ninety Mile (145 kms) Beach in Victoria, Australia (above). Therefore the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as, "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[7], has effectively no chance of being correct, given that the Shroud is authentic (part #10(1)), and therefore first century. Indeed, Prof. Hall stated it was "totally impossible" (his emphasis) that the Shroud could have a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, yet its actual date was "AD 100" or less[8].

Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail. [#1] Attempts by Shroud pro-authenticists to explain by conventional means the discrepancy between the Shroud being 1st century, yet its radiocarbon date is 1260-1390, or 1325 ±65 years, all fail.

• Carbon contamination. All carbon contamination explanations for why the first century Shroud has a 1325 ±65 radiocarbon date fail because "79% of the shroud [sic] would have been composed of such carbon contamination," but this "is preposterous, as anyone viewing the shroud samples before they were cleaned can attest"[9]. In fact Arizona laboratory still has part of its Shroud sample as it came from Turin, uncleaned and undated, and it has "no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants"[10](see below).

[Left (click to enlarge): Photomicrograph by pro-authenticist Barrie Schwortz in 2012 of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample, as it came cut from the Shroud, with no pretreatment[11].

• Invisible reweaving repair with 16th century cotton. Similarly, Benford and Marino's invisible reweaving repair theory requires that the repair be "approximately 60 percent of the C-14 sample consisting of 16th Century threads while approximately 40 percent were 1st Century in origin"[12]. Oxford laboratory did find some old cotton threads in their sample, but they were only "two or three fibres"[13]. Prof. Hall estimated that it would require "65 per cent of the mass of the shroud ... to give a date of 1350 to a fabric originally dating from the time of Christ" but there was "less than 0.1 per cent" of such contamination in the Shroud (my emphasis)[14]. Benford and Marino claimed that the green colour of the Shroud sample area in the "Blue Quad Mosaic" photograph supported their theory that the sample area was 60% 16th century cotton[15]. But as can be seen, the wrinkles

[Right (click to enlarge): "Blue quad mosaic (left) and Shroud Shroud C14 sample area (right)[16].]

in the Shroud near the radiocarbon dating sample area are the same green colour. And as Benford and Marino admitted, "it is possible that the Quad Mosaic's chemical-color signature ... may represent carbon" (my emphasis)[17]. But "carbon" includes all contamination with younger carbon, not only cotton threads. And since the wrinkles in the Shroud in the sample area are the same green colour, it is likely that both are the result of ordinary contamination by carbon-containing grime, sweat, oils, etc. Particularly since this corner is one of the most contaminated parts of the Shroud, it being one of the corners from which the cloth was held by "hundreds of sweaty hands" at Shroud expositions down through the centuries (part #10(1))[18]. Benford and Marino concluded with another frank admission that, "it is impossible to quantify the amount of surface carbon, other contaminates, and/or intruded newer material in the radiocarbon sampling area based upon the Quad Mosaic" (my emphasis)[19]. Moreover, textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg inspected the Shroud as part of its 2002 restoration[20] and she denies there is any evidence of reweaving[21].

• Neutron flux at Jesus' resurrection created new carbon 14. The neutron flux argument was proposed by Harvard University physicist Thomas J Phillips in the same issue of Nature which carried the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud paper[22]. Phillips pointed out that "If the shroud of Turin is in fact the burial cloth of Christ" then the resurrection of Jesus' dead body "may also have radiated neutrons" which could "have converted enough ¹³C to ¹⁴C to give an apparent carbon-dated age of 670 years"[23]. In his reply in the same issue, Oxford's Dr. Robert Hedges conceded that a neutron flux could also have generated even more carbon 14 from nitrogen (¹⁴N)[24]. But Hedges also made the

[Left (enlarge): How neutrons from cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere are absorbed by nitrogen-14 (ordinary nitrogen) converting it into carbon-14 (a radioactive isotope of carbon-12)[25].]

point that it would be "an amazing coincidence that the neutron dose should be so exactly appropriate to give the most likely date on historical grounds" and that it "implies that the dose has been `fine-tuned' to better than one part in a hundred million" (my emphasis)[26] . Gove echoed Hedges' points and added his own "most devastating argument against Phillips' idea [which] was the fact that the samples were taken at just the right spot on the shroud [sic] to produce its historic date. A sample taken closer to the image would have produced an even more modern date-even a date into the future!" (my emphasis) [27]. This is the major flaw in the neutron flux argument: for it to convert the date of the first-century Shroud to not just any date, but to 1260-1390, or 1325 ±65, which `just happens' to be 25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in Lirey, France, in the c. 1355[28] would be a miracle. And a deceptive miracle by God at that!

Fraud is the only plausible explanation [#2] Given that: 1) the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic (part #10(1)); 2) the probability that the Shroud being first century, yet had a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, or 1325 ±65, is "astronomical", "about one in a thousand trillion"; and 3) conventional explanations of the discrepancy of how the first century Shroud can have a 13th/14th century radiocarbon date all fail; some kind of fraud is the only plausible explanation. This is just the flip-side of the laboratories'

[Right: Newspaper photo with the headline, "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," in The Independent, London, 14 October 1988[29]. The photo is of (from left) Prof. Hall, Dr. Tite and Dr Hedges, in front of the British Museum, London, after their announcement that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"]

assumption that the Shroud must be a fake because the odds against the Shroud being both authentic and radiocarbon dating to 1325 ±65 are effectively impossible. As Oxford's Prof. Hall simply assumed without any evidence: "There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it"[30]. Great improbability alone is sufficient to establish in courts of law that scientific fraud involving plagiarism has occurred[#2]. But since the Shroud is authentic (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), then it must be the radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 which was a fake, the result of scientific fraud! The question then is: "what kind of scientific fraud was it?

Accusations of conventional fraud (sample-switching) fail. Following the 16 February 1989 publication of the radiocarbon-dating laboratories' report in the scientific journal Nature which claimed to be "conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is mediaeval"[31], some Shroud pro-authenticists saw clearly that since the Shroud is authentic, then "it was the radiocarbon dating, not the Shroud, that must be the fraud"[32]. The foremost spokesman of this viewpoint was the French priest Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, of the ultra-conservative "Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twentieth [now 21st] Century"[33]. The target of Bonnet-Eymard's attack was the seemingly strange fact that although the taking

[Left: Br. Bruno Bonnet-Eymard[32].]

of samples from the Shroud on the 21st April 1988 was videotaped, the placing of the samples into their coded canisters was not[35]. To preserve the pretense of blind testing (the Shroud's distinctive weave was easily recognisable by the laboratories), Dr. Tite and the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero, took the samples into a private area, out of view of the witnesses and the camera, and put the samples into numbered cylinders which were then brought out and presented to the representatives of the three laboratories[36]. Bonnet-Eymard seized on this as evidence that Dr Tite had switched the samples, so that those which the laboratories thought were from the Shroud were actually from a medieval control sample, while those from a control sample of first-century date was in fact from the Shroud[37]. Even some leading Shroud scholars, including Prof. Werner Bulst, argued for a variant of this sample-switching fraud explanation[38]. But Ian Wilson personally knew Tite and most of the other the radiocarbon dating project leaders and he dismissed as "absurd and far-fetched as it is unworthy" accusations that "one or more of these men may have `rigged' the radiocarbon dating" by switching samples[39]. It is also highly unlikely that leaders of the radiocarbon dating project like Dr. Tite would commit major scientific fraud by switching control and Shroud samples, since they would have too much to lose if the fraud was discovered[40], as it would have been because of the Shroud's distinctive weave[41]. Besides, if they thought the Shroud was a medieval fake[42] why would they switch samples to ensure the Shroud's radiocarbon date was medieval?

Nevertheless, agnostic pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow considers fraud in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating to be a real possibility (albeit by conventional sample-swapping), because of the "1325 ± 65 years" date:

"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated, that genuine Shroud samples were deliberately swapped with cloth of a later date ... Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible. Some, like Ian Wilson, refuse to contemplate such `unworthy' accusations. However, scientific fraud is by no means unknown, as the editors of science journals are well aware. ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve" (my emphasis)[43].

Those like Bonnet-Eymard who claimed that there had been fraud in the radiocarbon dating had correctly reasoned that that since the Shroud is authentic, there had to have been fraud for the first century Shroud to `just happen' to date to shortly before 1355, when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis had claimed in 1389 that the Shroud had been painted 34 years before[44] and it was later confirmed that the first appearance of the Shroud in undisputed history was at Lirey, France in 1355 (see above). But as we shall see, they were all incorrect in their assumption that the fraud had to be by conventional sample-switching[45].

No one seems to have considered that there is another type of fraud that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating process[46] was vulnerable to, and which was rife in the 1980s, namely computer hacking!

Continued in part #10(3).

Notes
1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. 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.6-7. [return]
3. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.192. [return]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
5. By my calculations, the 1 mm diameter cross-section of a spherical grain of sand, i.e. 0.001 m. diameter, has a radius of 0.0005 m. Area of a circle = πr², therefore the area of 1 grain of sand of 1 mm diameter is π x 0.0005² = ~ 7.854 x 10^-7 m². A thousand trillion of them has an area of ~ 7.854 x 10^{-7 + 12} m². That is ~ 7.854 x 10⁵ m² = ~785400 m². Now 145 km = 145,000 m. Area of a rectangle = length x width, therefore width = area/length. So the width of an area of 785,400 m² = 785,400 m²/145,000 m = ~5.42 m. I have assumed for simplicity of calculation that the grains of sand are perfectly spherical and I have ignored the tiny gaps between the curves of each grain. [return]
6. "In terms of particle size as used by geologists, sand particles range in diameter from 0.0625 mm (or 1⁄16 mm) to 2 mm. An individual particle in this range size is termed a sand grain." ("Sand," Wikipedia, 3 December 2014). [return]
7. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
8. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.303. [return]
10. Freer-Waters, R.A. & Jull, A.J.T., 2010, "Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin," Radiocarbon, Vol 52, No 4. Note that the "dated" in the title is misleading, because to be "dated" by radiocarbon dating entails that the sample be reduced to pure carbon. What the authors presumably meant was that this undated sample is identical to a sample which was split from it and that sample was dated. [return]
11. Schwortz, B., 2012, "New Photographs of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21. [return]
12. Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin Shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol. 26, No. 4, July-August. [return]
13. "Rogue fibres found in the Shroud," Textile Horizons, December 1988, p.13. [return]
14. Hall, E.T., 1990, "Letter to Textile Horizons, January, in Wilson, 1991, p.177. [return]
15. Benford & Marino, 2008, pp.2-7. [return]
16. Benford & Marino, 2008, pp.1 & 4. Photos superimposed. [return]
17. Benford & Marino, 2008, p.7. [return]
18. Wilson, 1998, pp.191-192. [return]
19. Benford & Marino, 2008, p.22. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 2002, "The New, Restored Turin Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 56, December. [return]
21. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.169-170. [return]
22. Phillips, T.J., 1989, "Shroud irradiated with neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, p.594. [return]
23. Ibid. [return]
24. Hedges, R.E.M., 1989, "Hedges replies," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, p.594. [return]
25. "Production of ¹⁴C," NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ, 28 June 2005 (no longer online). [return]
26. Ibid. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, pp.301-302. [return]
28. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
29. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.94. [return]
30. Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," The Independent, London, 14 October 1988, in Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
31. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
32. Pagès, Abbé Guy, 2012, "Aux Sources du Coran par le frère Bruno Bonnet-Eymard," YouTube, November 29. [return]
35. Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
36. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.91. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, pp.8-9. [return]
38. Wilson, 1998, p.9. [return]
39. Wilson, 1998, p.11. [return]
40. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, p.13. [return]
41. Wilson, 1998, p.1. [return]
42. Dupont, C., 1990, "An interview with Dr. Mike Tite," Radio Courtoisie, Paris, British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 25, April/May, pp.2-5. [return]
43. de Wesselow, 2012, p.170. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
45. McDonnell, D.J., 2003, "The Great Holy Shroud Dating Fraud of 1988," 4 November. [return]
46. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]

Posted: 8 December 2014. Updated: 5 April 2021.