"Wasn't Jesus' body washed before putting it in the grave?"

Daryl

Continuing from part #2 of my response to your comment under my 2014 post, "Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?," here is part #3 of my response to your third and fourth points, "Wasn't Jesus' body washed before putting it in the grave?" and "So how is it that blood is present?" Again, your words are prefaced by ">" and in bold to distinguish them from mine.

[Right (enlarge): The Shroud, showing major bloodstains[1]. Note that the Shroud is not heavily bloodstained. This is compatible with the pro- authenticity positions of: 1) a full washing of Jesus' body and a later oozing of blood; 2) an incomplete washing due to shortness of time, leaving some blood on the Shroud; and 3) No washing due to shortness of time and Jewish law. The last is, as I understand it, the majority pro-authenticist position. It is also my position, for reasons I will give in a subsequent installment.]

>"Wasn't Jesus' body washed before putting it in the grave?" As mentioned above, there are three basic Shroud pro-authenticist positions on whether Jesus' body was washed:

1) A full washing of Jesus' body and a later oozing of blood This was the position of the late Frederick Zugibe (1928-2013), the Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York:

"The body unquestionably would have been covered with blood because the heart pumps about 4,500 gallons of blood through the more than 60,000 miles of large and small blood vessels throughout the whole body each day. Instead of the very exact imprints of the wounds, the Shroud would bear large indistinct masses of blood over the entire image, including the face, arms, hands, feet, and trunk."[2]

But then Zugibe has a problem. If Jesus' body was fully washed, how does he account for the fact that there is still blood on the Shroud? Zugibe's unconvincing and inconsistent answer is that after Jesus' body was washed, blood that was still in the wounds then oozed out onto the Shroud:

"However, if the body was washed, the dried blood around the wounds would be removed, causing an oozing of bloody material within the wounds. This should result in the production of relatively good impressions of the wound."[3]

But why would the burial party wash the dried blood from the wounds and not have also mopped up any blood that oozed from those wounds? And why would there still be blood that was not from within wounds, but had flowed a distance from them, like the reversed `3' blood trickle on the forehead from a thorn in the scalp (see photo below), and the blood trickles down the arm (see photo above), from the nails in the wrist?

Yet, despite these major (if not fatal) problems for his full-wash theory, Zugibe issued his medical opinion as an ultimatum - either he is right or the Shroud is a fake:

"Acceptance of the hypothesis that the crucified was not washed would therefore place the authenticity of the Turin Shroud in serious doubt."[4]

Zugibe based his entire argument on an assumption that the scourging of Jesus had produced "large indistinct masses of blood" (see above):

"The dumbbell-shaped markings on the Shroud may not be evidence of bruises or welts, as contended by some, but rather impressions of small breaks in the skin resulting in `patterned injuries' similar to those that we regularly see in the practice of forensic pathology" (my emphasis)[5]

But this assumption by Zugibe is a fallacious either/or, rather than a both/and. Clearly the dumbbell-shaped lead weights on the type of flagrum which matches the scourge marks on the Shroud[6] [left], brought down full-force on a victim's exposed skin would cause bleeding. Nevertheless, the self-evident

[Left (enlarge): A Roman flagrum excavated from Herculaneum, which was buried in the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD 79, with dumbbell-shaped lead weights which match the scourge marks on the Shroud[7].]

designed purpose of blunt lead balls would be "percussion":

"Of the many physicians and pathologists favouring the Shroud's authenticity, those who have studied the dumb-bell-shaped marks have unhesitatingly defined them as contusions, that is, severe swellings or bruises seemingly caused by the percussion of the whip tip with the body's surface." [8]

to induce internal bleeding[9], so that the victim suffered great pain, but did not lose consciousness and die prematurely before crucifixion from excessive blood loss. As Zugibe himself notes, there was a flagrum with pointed weights, called scorpiones which was rarely used[10], presumably because it killed crucifixion victims from blood loss too quickly.

Also, Mt 27:26-31 and Mk 15:17-20 record that after Jesus was scourged, the Roman soldiers "stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him" and then later "they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him". These two changes of garments over Jesus' scourged body would have soaked up much of whatever blood there was on it from the scourging. And as Oxley pointed out, when Jesus clothes were removed, the blood on His body, which would have become stuck to His clothes, would have been torn away, "like a giant plaster strip":

"Following the scourging and his being dressed in a purple robe for the purpose of mockery, Jesus had had his clothes restored to him. He did not make the journey to Calvary naked. This, however, must have led to another source of extreme pain. On arrival at Calvary Jesus was stripped of his clothing. His cloak or tunic would have stuck to the blood covering his body. It must have been torn off his body prior to crucifixion, like a giant plaster strip attached to his whole body"[11]

which explains why there is not much blood on Jesus' trunk (see photo above).

This false assumption of Zugibe's that the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus resulted in the Shroud bearing "large indistinct masses of blood over the entire image" (see above), is fundamental to Zugibe's entire anti-Barbet position that Jesus died from hypovolemic (low blood volume) shock, not asphyxiation[12] (see my "Why I prefer Barbet's hypotheses over Zugibe's").

Further problems (amounting to falsifications) of Zugibe's full-wash theory include:

a) The man on the Shroud has dirt on his feet, face and knees:

"Perhaps the most tantalizing glimpse of all, however, came from reflectance spectroscopy work carried out by the husband-and-wife team Roger and Marty Gilbert in the course of the 1978 STURP examination. As they ran their equipment up and down the man of the Shroud's image the spectra they obtained proved relatively regular except when they reached the sole of the foot imprint on the back-of-the-body half of the cloth. Suddenly the spectra changed dramatically. Something in the foot area, and particularly around the heel, was giving a markedly stronger signal than elsewhere, but what? When optical physicist Sam Pellicori was summoned to view the area under the portable microscope ... [he] pronounced, `It's dirt!' As might have been expected in an individual who had had even his sandals taken away from him, the man of the Shroud had dirty feet."[13]

and also around his nose and knees[14]. It can't have been a full wash if it did not include the man's feet and face!

b) The reversed `3' bloodstain on man's forehead, is not over its source

[Above (enlarge): The reversed `3' or epsilon bloodstain on the Shroud man's forehead, as well as other blood trickles from the crown of thorns punctures in the man's scalp[15]. As can be seen, these bloodstains are not directly over their source wounds, so Zugibe's explanation that the blood on the Shroud oozed out from within the wounds after the body was completely washed doesn't work. And being on the man's face, they would surely have been washed if the man's body had been washed at all. So these bloodstains alone refute Zugibe's full wash theory!]

wound in the scalp (see above), and it would certainly have been among the first blood to be washed, if the man on the Shroud had been washed at all. Moreover, it was formed when the man was still alive because it follows the furrows of his forehead as its muscles contracted in pain:

"Quite unmistakable on the Shroud's frontal image are several `blood' trickles visible at the level of the forehead, together with others extending down the hair. Most pronounced of these, as visible on the negative, is a full-bodied rivulet that begins at the apex of the forehead, trickles downwards in a `3' shape (as if it has met a couple of diversions along the way), then terminates in a final glob just above the left eyebrow. As has been pointed out by several physicians ... not only is the way that this rivulet has flowed absolutely characteristic of venous blood, but the 3 shape is consistent with where the muscles of the brow would have contracted and formed ridges under intense pain ..."[16]

Also, tellingly, in his two books on the Shroud, Zugibe ignored the problem of the shortness of time, due to the impending sabbath, for the burial party to wash Jesus' body (as we shall see). However, in a 1989 article, which was after his first 1988 book but well before his second in 2005, Zugibe merely asserts, with no supporting evidence that, "A complete washing of the body ... can be accomplished in minutes":

"However, Wilson's statement that `Only on the view that Jesus was not washed can the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin be upheld'[17] basing it on the fact that there was not enough time to perform the washing since the Sabbath was at hand is completely untenable. A complete washing of the body accompanied by a shortened ritual can be accomplished in minutes."[18]

But leaving aside if that is even true, Zugibe by his qualification, "accompanied by a shortened ritual," defeats his own argument. To devout first-century Jews, let alone members of the Sanhedrin, as the burial party of Joseph of Arimathea (Mt 27:57; Mk 15:43; Lk 23:50; Jn 19:38) and Nicodemus (Jn 3:1; 19:39) were, burying Jesus, their Master, with the full "ritual" would have been all-important. So if there was no time for the full Jewish funerary ritual (which Zugibe tacitly conceded), Joseph and Nicodemus would not have washed Jesus body at all but postponed His funeral, including washing His body (if there was to be one - see future), until after the Sabbath, which as we shall see, is what the gospels indicate. So for all the above reasons, it is Zugibe's "complete washing" of Jesus' body theory which is "completely untenable"!

2) An incomplete washing due to shortness of time, leaving some blood on the Shroud This is a possible pro-authenticist position on the washing of Jesus' body, although I don't know of anyone who has held it. But as we saw above, since there was insufficient time for the full Jewish burial rites (see below), Joseph and Nicodemus would have postponed the washing of Jesus' body (if there was to be one - see future) until after the Sabbath. And, as we saw, the bloodstains and dirt on Jesus' face were not washed, which surely they would have been, even in an incomplete washing. So this second possible pro- authenticist position on the washing of Jesus' body is also refuted by the evidence.

3) No washing due to shortness of time and Jewish law This is, as I understand it, the majority position held by Shroud pro-authenticists. As Ian Wilson in 1979 stated:

"Some have argued that washing was a prescribed ritual that would have been permissible to carry out irrespective of the sabbath. Some eminent New Testament scholars do not share such a view. Even among the best exegetes there seems little major objection to the concept that there simply was no time for Jesus' body to be washed before the Sabbath, particularly in view of the various Jewish requirements relating to this rite. When, as events proved, it was also impossible to carry out this rite after the Sabbath, one can understand a certain reluctance on the part of gospel writers to admit this directly. Only on the view that Jesus was not washed can the authenticity of the Turin Shroud be upheld."[19]

While this may seem inconsistent with my above listing of three possible pro-authenticity positions, it isn't. As we also saw above, while the first two of the three pro-authenticist positions on the washing of Jesus' body: 1) no washing and 2) incomplete washing, are possible, they are nevertheless refuted by (amongst other things) the evidence of blood on the man on the Shroud's face, which cannot be explained by Zugibe's oozing out of washed wounds, and which surely would have been removed in even an incomplete washing of the man on the Shroud's body.

Further to the above evidence that the man on the Shroud's body was not washed, other evidence that Jesus' body was not washed includes:

■ The gospels do not state that Jesus' body was washed[20]. This contrasts with Acts 9:37, which states of a disciple named Tabitha that, "... she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room"[21]. Since it is recorded of a minor disciple that her body was washed; washing a body was one of the most basic funerary services[22]; any of the four gospels could have mentioned that Jesus' body had been washed[23], the likely inference from this silence is that Jesus' body was not washed[24].

■ The full Jewish burial rites, prescribed in the Mishnah, the code of Jewish law, included that a body had to be washed seven times and the hair and beard completely shaven[25]. The fingernails were to be cut, the body anointed it with oils[26] and dressed in the person's clothes[27]. Cloths were then to be bound around the chin, wrists and feet, a clean cloth was to be placed over the head, the body was to be wrapped in a linen shroud and spices packed around it to mask the odour of decay[28]. However, Jewish law made an exception for a Jew who had died a bloody death[29], as Jesus had[30]. In such cases, so that the whole body, including its blood, should be kept together for its resurrection[31], the body should not be washed[32], but it and any of its bloodstained clothes should be wrapped together in an all-enveloping linen sheet, called a sovev[33], deriving from a Hebrew word "to surround" or "to go around"[34]. This corresponds perfectly to the all-enveloping, over-the-head, Turin Shroud[35].

■ There was insufficient time to carry out the full Jewish funeral rites on the body of Jesus. The gospels record that Jesus died on the cross at "about the ninth hour" (Mt 27:46-50; Mk 15:34-37; Lk 23:44-46), that is about 9 hours after sunrise[36] or about 3 pm[37]. The Gospels also record the following events occurred between Jesus' death and His burial:

• The soudarion or facecloth which had been on Jesus' head (Jn 20:7), that is, the Sudarium of Oviedo, was placed over Jesus' dead face while He was still on the cross (see video "Mark Guscin - Sudarium of Oviedo").
• The Jewish religious leaders asked the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, to break the legs of Jesus and the two robbers who were crucified with him (Mt 27:38; Mk 15:27) be broken so that they would die quickly and their bodies be taken away, because it was both the Sabbath and also the Passover; so soldiers came from Pilate and broke the legs of the two robbers, but since Jesus was already dead, they did not break His legs but instead speared him in the side to make sure He was dead (Jn 19:31-34).
• When it was evening, Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, a member of the Jewish council (the Sanhedrin) and a secret disciple of Jesus, went to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body (Mt 27:57-58; Mk 15:42-43; Lk 23:50-52; Jn 19:38).
• Pilate was surprised to hear from Joseph that Jesus was already dead, so he summoned the centurion, and when he came, asked him whether Jesus was dead (Mk 15:44).
• Pilate granted Jesus' body to Joseph (Mt 27:58; Mk 15:45; Jn 19:38).
• Joseph bought a linen shroud [sindon] (Mk 15:46).
• Joseph and Nicodemus took down Jesus body from the cross (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:38).
• They bound Jesus hands, feet and jaw with linen cloths to prevent them moving (Jn 20:6-7; 11:43-44).
• They then wrapped Jesus' body in the shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:38).
• They then transported Jesus' body wrapped in the shroud to Joseph' nearby, never used, rock-cut tomb (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:40-42).
• They laid Jesus enshrouded body in the tomb (Mt 27:60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:42).
• Nicodemus had brought 100 litras (~32.75 kgs or ~72.2 lb)[38] weight of myrrh and aloes (Jn 19:39). This very large quantity of spices is itself evidence that Jesus' body was not going to be washed before the sabbath (if at all), but was to prevent decomposition until Jesus' body could be anointed after the sabbath (see later below):

"There is one other suggestion that Jesus' body was not washed. This is John's statement that Jesus' body was wrapped in a large quantity of spices before burial (19:39-40). Since the women were returning to the tomb on Sunday in order to anoint the body with spices, what was the difference between the first anointing and the second? The most likely explanation is that the large quantity of spices had been packed around Jesus' body before the burial precisely because the body had not been washed. This large quantity of spices, possibly in dry form, could have been intended to serve as a disinfectant to arrest decomposition until the women could properly anoint the body after the Sabbath"[39]

• They then bound Jesus' enshrouded body in linen cloths [othoniois] i.e. not only, or even, in the shroud] with [meta "while making use of"[40]] the spices according to burial customs of the Jews (Jn 19:40).
• Joseph (and Nicodemus - Jn 19:42; 20:1) rolled a very large stone across the tomb's entrance (Mt 27:60; 28:2; Mk 15:46; 16:3-4; Lk 24:2; Jn 20:1).
• It being the Day of Preparation, the sabbath was beginning [epephosken]." (Lk 23:54; Jn 19:42). The Greek word epephosken (epi "upon" + phosko "to shine"[41]), appears to be only in Lk 23:54 in all of Greek literature[42], and may be "Jewish-Greek"[43]. It literally means "begin to dawn or give light" [44] and would presumably have been translated "was dawning" (Lk 23:54 ESV footnote) but it was evening[45]. The late Bishop John Robinson (1919–83), a New Testament Greek scholar and a founder of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, suggested epephosken may mean "lighting-up time"[46], when the lamps were lit to mark the start of the sabbath[47].

Whatever, the exact meaning of epephosken, it at least means that when Jesus' enshrouded body was placed in the tomb, the sabbath was beginning, when all work had to cease[48], including preparing a body for burial[49], so even if Jesus' body was to be washed (which having died a bloody death it wasn't - see above), there would have been insufficient time for Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus to do it:

"Several very convincing arguments refute assertions that Jesus' body was washed. In the first place, the burial that Jesus received was hurried and incomplete. It was the Day of Preparation and the Sabbath was approaching, and all work had to cease before sundown. Not only was this the Sabbath, but this particular Sabbath was also the Passover, one of the holiest of all Jewish occasions. It was already evening when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-58, Mark 15:42-43). This would have been at least a ten-minute journey (and possibly longer because of the crowds gathered for the Passover). There most likely would have been some additional delay in gaining an audience with Pilate, and even further delay as Pilate awaited confirmation of Jesus' death from the centurion (Mark 15:44-45). Since the release of the body would have involved a legal act of some importance, more than likely a document of release would have been prepared as well, especially since the Jews had sought permission a short time before to have the bodies of the crucified taken away (John 19:31). Joseph of Arimathea then had to proceed back to Golgotha, purchase a linen shroud along the way, take the body down from the cross, and transport it to the tomb. In describing Jesus' burial, Luke uses the graphic word epephosken (23:54), meaning that it was already `lighting-up time,' when lamps were lit or when the first stars became visible. Jewish law prohibited a crucifixion victim from remaining on the cross at night. The Gospel accounts clearly imply that Jesus' burial was hurried and provisional and that the Sabbath was fast approaching. Perhaps the Sabbath had already arrived by the time Jesus' body was laid in the tomb."[50]

■ Additional evidence that Jesus' body was not washed includes:

• After the sabbath, early on the first day of the week, some of Jesus' women disciples returned to the tomb with spices to anoint His body (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). They would not have done this if Jesus' burial had been completed before the sabbath:

"However, the gospels tell us that Jesus' burial was incomplete. Because the Sabbath was about to begin, he was removed from the cross and laid in the tomb rather hurriedly. This is why the women returned to the tomb on Sunday morning. They had prepared spices and ointments for Jesus' body, and they went to the tomb to apply them (Luke 23:54-56). ... At least to some degree, the anointing with spices was incomplete because the women returned to the tomb to complete the process."[51]

• Jesus predicted that His burial would never be completed when a few days before His death he stated that Mary of Bethany, in pouring an expensive ointment over His head and feet, had "anointed my body ... for burial":

"As a matter of fact none of the Gospels say anything about washing or anointing the body of Jesus. On the contrary, Mark and Matthew report the words spoken by Jesus a few days before the Passion on the occasion of the anointing by Mary of Bethany [Jn 12:3-7]. According to this, Mary had anticipated the anointing of His body for burial. `She has done me a good turn ... She has anointed my body in preparation for burial' (Mk. 14:8; Mt. 26:12)."[52]

>"So how is it that blood is present?" Jesus' body was not washed. See above.

To be continued at a later date with part #4, "He was wrapped in more than one cloths."

Notes
1. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Major bloodstains overlay.," Sindonology.org. [return]
2. Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.219. [return]
3. Zugibe, 2005, p.221. [return]
4. Zugibe, F.T., 1988, "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition.134; Zugibe, 2005, p.219 [return]
5. Zugibe, 2005, p.24. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.31. [return]
7. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.56. [return]
8. 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.32. [return]
9. Wilson, 1986, p.20. [return]
10. Zugibe, 2005, p.19. [return]
11. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.165. [return]
12. Zugibe, 2005, p.135. [return]
13. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.93. [return]
14. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.32. [return]
15. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical.," Sindonology.org. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, p.33. [return]
17. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.56. [return]
18. Zugibe, F.T., 1989, "The Man Of The Shroud Was Washed," Sindon N.S., Quad. No. 1, June. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.56. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, p.55; 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, p.51. [return]
21. Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
22. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.33. [return]
23. Antonacci, 2000, p.117. [return]
24. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.52. [return]
25. 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.45. [return]
26. Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.24. [return]
27. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.10; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.52. [return]
28. Whiting, 2006, p.24. [return]
29. Wilson, 1986, p.45. [return]
30. Wilson, 2010, p.52. [return]
31. Wilson, 1986, p.46. [return]
32. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, 44-45. [return]
33. Wilson, 1986, pp.45-46; Wilson, 1998, pp.54-55. [return]
34. Wilson, 1998, p.55. [return]
35. Ibid; Wilson, 2010, p.52. [return]
36. Finegan, J., 1964, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, p.12. [return]
37. Carson, D.A., "Matthew," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1984, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 - Matthew, Mark, Luke," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.577. [return]
38. "The litra of Jn. 12:3; 19:39 (cf. Lat. libra: `pound' - from this weight we have our abbreviation lb for pound) was a Rom. measure of weight equivalent to 327.45 gm." (Wiseman, D.J., "Weights and Measures," in Douglas J.D., et al., eds., 1982, "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1988, p.1249). Therefore 100 x 327.45 = 32745 gm = 32.75 kgs or 72.2 lb. [return]
39. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.52. [return]
40. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.94. [return]
41. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, pp.644-645. [return]
42. Arndt, W.F. & Gingrich, F.W., 1957, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Fourth edition, 1952, Revised, p.304. [return]
43. Moulton, J.H. & Milligan, G., 1930, "The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-literary Sources," Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Reprinted, 1997, p.250. [return]
44. Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, p.289. [return]
45. Ibid. [return]
46. Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.24. [return]
47. Feuillet, A., 1982, "The Identification and the Disposition of the Funerary Linens of Jesus' Burial According to the Fourth Gospel," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 4, September, pp.13-23, p.23. [return]
48. Wilson, 1979, p.56; Wilson, 1986, p.55. [return]
49. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.51. [return]
50. Antonacci, 2000, p.117. [return]
51. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.46-47. [return]
52. Bulst, 1957, p.81. [return]

Posted: 30 September 2015. Updated: 21 December 2021.

"Wasn't Jesus wrapped like a mummy like Lazarus?"

Daryl

Continuing from part #1 of my response to your comment under my 2014 post, "Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?," here is part #2

[Above (enlarge): "The Raising of Lazarus," by Duccio di Buoninsegna, 1310–11, Kimbell Art Museum. Note that this 1310–11 Christian artwork (in the 1260-1390 period that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud claimed that it was forged), reflects the traditional (but wrong - see below) understanding at that time (and today - in 2023 our Pastor preached that Lazarus was bound like a mummy!) that Lazarus was bound from head to foot in linen bandages like an Egyptian mummy. So this is further evidence that the Shroud is not a medieval forgery, because a forger, to gain acceptance of his work, would reflect the then traditional view of Lazarus' burial.]

in response to your second point, "Wasn't Jesus wrapped like a mummy like Lazarus?" Again, your words are prefaced by ">" and in bold to distinguish them from mine.

>"Wasn't Jesus wrapped like a mummy like Lazarus?" No. The account of the raising of Lazarus is in John 11:43-44, where it plainly says that Lazarus' "hands and feet [were] bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth:

"When he [Jesus] had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, `Lazarus, come out.' The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, `Unbind him, and let him go.'".

If Lazarus' whole body was bound with bandages as Egyptian mummies were, then there would be no point mentioning only Lazarus' "hands and feet" being bound. Moreover, as leading Shroud writer Ian Wilson pointed out, "Had Lazarus been swathed in bands, mummy fashion, it would have been impossible for him to move at all":

"Had Lazarus been swathed in bands, mummy fashion, it would have been impossible for him to move at all. Instead he appears to have been at least able to shuffle forward at the command `Come out,' requiring only the chin, hand, and foot bindings to be severed for him to resume normal life."[1]

The fact is that, "Jews did not wrap up their dead like mummies, but laid them in shrouds":

"Furthermore, as seen earlier, Jewish burial customs do not support the idea that John's othonia refers to the wrappings of a mummy. Jews did not wrap up their dead like mummies, but laid them in shrouds, as indicated by the Gospel of John, the Essene burial procedures, and the Code of Jewish Law."[2]

Indeed, if Lazarus' and Jesus' bodies had been buried the same way as an Egyptian mummy was, they would also have had their internal organs removed and their bodies would have been embalmed, because that is what Egyptian mummification involved:

"Some of the details visible on the Shroud are consistent with such practices. As in Jewish custom we can be reasonably sure that the man of the Shroud was laid out flat and intact in some sort of prepared tomb. While this might seem obvious, it should be borne in mind that the Romans cremated their dead, and the Egyptians disemboweled and pickled them before swathing them in bandages."[3]

The online Jewish Encyclopedia confirms that Jews were each buried in a shroud, even quoting "the New Testament" verse Mt 27:59, where "Joseph took the body [of Jesus] and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud":

"SHROUD ...Robe in which the dead are arrayed for burial. The shroud is made of white linen cloth (`sadin,' the σινδον [sindon] of the New Testament; see Matt. xxvii. 59), which is cut and sewed together with large stitches; the ends of the thread are left unknotted, the garment being intended to last only until the body has decayed. As a general rule, however, several garments are used instead of a single shroud; in the case of a man these are a cap (in the form of a miter), breeches, shirt, an over-garment somewhat similar to a surplice, and a girdle."[4]

As mentioned in the above entry, the burial shroud would normally have been over a dead Jew's clothes, which would presumably have been the case with Lazarus; but Jesus was naked, His clothes having been taken by His Roman executioners (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:24)[5].

Continued in part #3, "Wasn't Jesus' body washed before putting it in the grave?"

Notes
1. . Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.53). [return]
2. 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, p.49. [return]
3. Wilson, 1979, pp.53-54. [return]
4. Adler, C. & Eisenstein, J.D., 1906, "Shroud," The Jewish Encyclopedia. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.52. [return]

Posted 29 September 2015. Updated 15 February 2024.

"Why would Jesus have violated the 2nd commandment regarding religious images?"

Daryl

Thanks again for your comment under my 2014 post, "Shroud of Turin depicts a Y-shaped cross?." As I explained in my reply comment, "I will

[Above: The Face of the Man on the Shroud[1]

"`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?'"[2].]

respond to it in a separate post, when I have finished my current multi-installment post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #3." Here now is part #1 of my response. Your words are prefaced by ">" and in bold to distinguish them from mine.

>Why would Jesus have violated the 2nd commandment regarding religious images?

The second commandment in Ex 20:4-5:

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them ..."

and Dt 5:8-9:

"'You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them ..."

prohibited Israelites ("You") from: 1) making an "image" or "likeness" and 2) bowing down in worship and/or serving it.

Leaving aside that the Mosaic law never did apply to non-Jews (like me) (Romans 2:14); and to those (like me) under the New Covenant (Jer 31:31; Lk 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; 2Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8,13; 9:15; 12:24), to whom the Old Covenant (2Cor 3:14) is "obsolete" (Heb 8:13), having been nailed to Jesus' cross (Col 2:14-15); and that those who claim any part of the Law still applies are obliged to keep the whole Law (Jas 2:10; Gal 3:10; 5:3) with its 613 commandments. There are New Testament warnings against idolatry (1Cor 5:11; 6:9; 10:7, 14; 2Cor 6:16; Gal 5:20; Eph 5:5; Col 3:5; 1Th 1:9; 1Pet 4:3; 1Jn 5:21), but significantly, none of them cite the second commandment. However, none of this applies to the Shroud

First, the Shroud's image was not made by man. The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic and was made by God as a by-product of Him raising Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 37; Rom 10:9; 1Cor 6:14; 15:15; Gal 1:1; Col 2:12; 1Pet 1:21), i.e. a "`snapshot' of the Resurrection":

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection." (Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," p.251).

One of the earliest descriptions of Jesus' image on the Shroud was "acheiropoietos," which is Greek for "not made by hands" (Mk 14:58; 2Cor 5:1; Col 2:11).

Second, no one, as far as I am aware, bows down before the Shroud in the sense of worshiping and serving it. To the extent that those who see the Shroud directly (I haven't) bow down before it, they are doing that before the God-made imprint of the body of Jesus on the Shroud. They are therefore bowing down in worship and service to Jesus, who is the image of God (2Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). And Jesus never rebuked anyone for worshiping Him (Mt 8:2, 14:33; 28:9, 17; Lk 24:52; Jn 9:38), because He is God in human flesh (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20). And Jesus Himself said in John 5:23:

"... all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." (my emphasis)

Continued in part #2, "Wasn't Jesus wrapped like a mummy like Lazarus?"

Notes
1. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]

Posted 28 September 2015. Updated 24 October 2024.

The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #3

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Index: #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 & #11]

Introduction. This part #3 of my concluding summary of the evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[2] was the result of a computer hacking, allegedly by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[3], aided by German hacker Karl Koch (1965–89)[4], on behalf of the former Soviet Union, through its agency the KGB. Previous posts in this series were parts: #1 and #2. I will link the headings back to my previous, "My theory ..." posts on those topics. The next post in this series is part #4.

[Above (enlarge): Schematic of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating system at the University of Arizona in 2005[5]. Note the words "Control Console" at bottom left next to the photograph of a computer terminal [right (enlarge)]. This presumably is not the actual system used to radiocarbon date the Shroud in 1988, but both then and now it is the AMS computer which actually reports a sample's radiocarbon date.]

■ Arizona laboratory's dating of the Shroud to "1350 AD" [#10(4) & #4] Here again is the eyewitness account of Rochester University physicist and co-inventor of AMS radiocarbon dating[6], the late Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), of Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's very first (of all the laboratories) radiocarbon dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988:

"'The first sample run was OX1 [oxalic acid control]. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. ... everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied ... At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. It had taken me eleven years to arrange for a measurement that took only ten minutes to accomplish! Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began" (my emphasis) [7].

• "The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls ... the next sample-the Shroud of Turin"As with the "OX1" (oxalic acid 1 - see below) sample, each sample, including each of the two Shroud samples (see below) evidently had a unique identifier, since those reading the computer terminal screen knew which sample each result was from. Earlier Gove had explained what the order of the samples dated were: "Eight of the ten samples in this first historic load were OX1, OX2, blank, two shroud and three controls. ... the remaining two ... may have been some duplicate controls and/or another OX ... standard samples made from oxalic acid ..."[10].

Table 1 in the 1989 Nature paper[11] lists the unique identifiers of each of the three laboratories' Shroud sample ("Sample 1") and the other control samples:

[Above (enlarge): Table 1 in the 1989 Nature paper showing the Shroud's unique identifying code as the first letter of each laboratories' name, a dot, and then the numeral "1". A note below the table explained: "* The identification code for each measurement shows, in order, the laboratory, sample, measurement run, pre-treatment and any replication involved" [12].]

This code was allocated to each laboratory (e.g. A1, O1, Z1 for Arizona, Oxford and Zurich's Shroud samples respectively) by the

[Left: Oxford radiocarbon laboratories' Shroud sample identification code "O1," one of their control samples "O3," and their stainless steel cylinders and wax seal[13].]

British Museum's Dr Michael Tite who gave them their Shroud and control samples with those identification codes: "The representatives from the three laboratories left with their nine steel cylinders and a letter. The one to Zurich, for instance, read: `The containers labelled Z1, Z2, and Z3 ...' The Oxford samples were labelled O1, O2 and O3 and the Arizona samples T1, T2 and T3. ..."[14].

This unique identifier code for each sample was required so that there could be no confusion between the laboratories of which sample was from the Shroud and which were controls, and so that Dr Tite could collate their results[15]. But it also made it feasible for a hacker (whom I allege was Arizona physicist Timothy W. Linick) to write a program which included a test of which sample was from the Shroud, so that once installed on the AMS computers at all three laboratories, it could run automatically without further human intervention. Linick's unauthorised program, according to my theory, when installed on all three laboratories' AMS computers, substituted the Shroud's radiocarbon dates with computer-generated dates, which when calibrated and averaged across all three laboratories, would produce a combined bogus radiocarbon date of the Shroud of around 1325, which was shortly before the Shroud appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in about 1355[16].

• "the year the flax had been harvested ... was 1350 AD ... the time its historic record began" Note how uncritical Gove, and indeed all present were, including Douglas Donahue, the co-founder of Arizona laboratory[17], who is a Roman Catholic and believed that the Shroud was authentic[18]. Gove even wrote approvingly of Donahue, changing his mind and believing on the basis of one dating run, at one laboratory, that "this was the shroud's age:":

"I remember Donahue saying that he did not care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age. Although he was clearly disappointed in the result, he was justifiably confident that his AMS laboratory had produced the answer to the shroud's age"[19].

They all chose to ignore, what they must have known, that, according to Prof. Jacques Evin, then Director of the Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of Lyon, it is not possible for radiocarbon dating to be "closer than a span of 200 years":

"Many people expect the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud to be very precise. One must immediately undeceive them and make it clear that in the best of conditions and after averaging the three results given by the laboratories, there can be nothing closer than a span of 200 years. It will not be possible to pinpoint where the exact age of the Shroud can be situated within the span ... in the case of radiocarbon, one cannot really hope for an accuracy closer than two centuries."[20]

And because they were all nuclear physicists[21] they did not realise how unlikely that date of 1350 was. That is because since the Shroud is known to have existed from at least 1355[22], its flax would have had to have been harvested in 1350, retted under

[Right (enlarge): Pilgrim's badge from the Shroud's historical debut at Lirey, France in c.1355[23].]

water for an extended period of time[24], spun into linen fibre, woven into a linen cloth, and then the image imprinted on the cloth, all within ~5 years! Not to mention weaving it on an extra wide loom, which are unknown from the Middle Ages (see Selvedge #6) stitching and edging the cloth to match that which was found only at the first-century Jewish fortress of Masada (see "Sidestrip #5").

Moreover it would mean that the Arizona laboratory's pretreatment of their Shroud sample would have had to have been perfect, removing all non-original carbon. But that is highly unlikely because:

"In 1532 the Shroud was being kept inside a silver casket stored in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, when a fire nearly destroyed the building. The intense heat melted a corner of the casket, scorching the folded linen within, and producing the now familiar scorch marks on the Shroud. Since silver melts only at 960 degrees centigrade, the heat inside the casket must have been intense. In these circumstances moisture in the Shroud would turn to steam, probably at superheat, trapped in the folds and layers of the Shroud. Any contaminants on the cloth would be dissolved by the steam and forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the flax fibres' very lumen and molecular structure. ... contaminants would have become part of the chemistry of the flax fibres themselves and would be impossible to remove satisfactorily by surface actants and ultrasonic cleaning. More drastic treatments to destroy the contaminants would inevitably damage the flax fibres themselves" (my emphasis)[25].

And being all nuclear physicists, they would probably have been unaware that in 1350 the Shroud was owned by the most honourable knight in France, Geoffrey I de Charny (c. 1300-1356), "who "wore on his epaulettes the motto `honour conquers all' ... wrote deeply religious poetry ... was chosen by France's king to carry into battle his country's most sacred banner, the Oriflamme of St Denis, an honour accorded only to the very worthiest of individuals ... died a hero, defending his king with his own body in the ... battle of Poitiers" and "fourteen years after his death he was duly accorded a hero's tomb, at royal expense ..."[26]. So "It is extremely difficult [to put it mildly] to understand how such a man would have lent his name ... to ... fraud"[27].

Therefore Arizona's first run "1350 AD" date had to be wrong. But if a hacker wanted by prior leaks to the media, as Linick did (see #10(6) and future "Evidence that Linick was the leaker" in this series) to break down pro-authenticity resistance, reinforce anti-authenticity prejudice, and create a climate of expectation that subsequent datings would confirm that the Shroud was medieval, then 1350 was the date he would have used for that very first dating!

• The hacker would have known that the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in the 1350s. It was widely known that the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in the 1350s. Indeed the 1989 Nature paper stated just that: "The Shroud of Turin ... was first displayed at Lirey in France in the 1350s"[28]. Leading Shroud sceptic Denis Dutton (1944-2010) had in a 1986 review of Ian Wilson's "Evidence of the Shroud" (1986), which stated that "the Shroud [was] exhibited at Lirey, ca. 1357"[29]), "predicted that if the cloth ever were to be carbon-dated it would come in at A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years." And after the 1988 dating Dutton noted that "the collated result was A.D. 1325, plus or minus 65 years," which meant that he was only "ten years off"[30]. Another leading Shroud sceptic, microscopist Walter McCrone (1916-2002), having read Ian Wilson's first book, "The Turin Shroud" (1978), and accepting from it that, "We can be reasonably sure of its [the Shroud's] existence ... since about 1356"[31], predicted in 1981 that "the image [on the Shroud] ... was painted on the cloth .. about 1355"[32]. McCrone had then added:

"Only a carbon-dating test can now resolve the question of authenticity of the 'Shroud' of Turin. A date significantly later than the first century would be conclusive evidence the `Shroud' is not genuine. A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ, would, no doubt, be so accepted by nearly everyone."[33].

But unlike McCrone, who was "unschooled in carbon dating"[34], a hacker who was aware (as Linick would have been), that the radiocarbon date of the Shroud could only be from the time of the harvest of the flax used in making its linen[35], would know what date to give the Shroud for maximum plausibility: a few decades before 1355 or about 1325! And, as we shall see, there is evidence from McCrone's above quoted words that the Timothy Linick was familiar with McCrone's 1981, "about 1355" prediction of the eventual "carbon-dating" of the Shroud.

Continued in part #4 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
3. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 5 May 2015. [return]
5. "Basic Principles of AMS," NSF-Arizona AMS Facility, University of Arizona, 2005. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.314. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
8. 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.87. [return]
9. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, p.9. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.263. [return]
11. Damon, 1989, p.612. [return]
12. Damon, 1989, p.612. [return]
13. de Castella, T., 2010, "Unshrouding the science of the Shroud," BBC News, 12 April. [return]
14. Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.11. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1986, "Trondheim Radiocarbon Dating Conference," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 13, April, pp.5-6. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
17. "Accelerator Mass Spectrometer Group: Our Team: Douglas J. Donahue," NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory, 17 August 2004. [return]
18. 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.188. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
20. Evin, J., 1988, "In anticipation of carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 27, June. [return]
21. Wilson, I., 1990, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 26, September/October, p.18; Wilson, I., 1991, "From Professor Harry Gove," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 27, December 1990/January 1991, p.14. [return]
22. Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
23. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
24. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International," Special Issue 2002, pp.35-57, p.45. [return]
25. Tyrer, J., in Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]
26. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.21. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
29. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.5. [return]
30. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review 23, pp.243-255. [return]
31. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.140. [return]
32. McCrone, 1999, p.138. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Gove, 1996, p.49. [return]
35. Meacham, W., 1986, "On carbon dating the Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 14, September, pp.4-16, p.14. [return]

---

Posted 22 September 2015. Updated 26 February 2024.

Selvedge #6: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

SELVEDGE #6

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

Here is "Selvedge," part #6 of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!"

[Main index] [Previous: Sidestrip #5] [Next: Yarn #7]

---

1. A linen cloth #2
5. Selvedge #6

Selvedge. A selvedge is a weaver-finished edge to a piece of woven

[Above: Bottom right corner of the Shroud (looking at it with the frontal image in the lower half and the man upright), showing a section of the right side selvedge and the bottom edge hem[2]]

fabric[3] as it grows lengthwise on a loom[4]. The purpose of a selvedge is to prevent a woven fabric from fraying or unravelling. [5].

Shroud. There is a selvedge on each lengthwise side of the Shroud[6]. The Shroud consists of two sections with selvedge on one lengthwise side each: a larger (~437 x ~103 cm) section called the main body of the Shroud, and a smaller section (~397 x ~8 cm) called the sidestrip[7] (see Sidestrip #5). That the sidestrip and main body of the Shroud were once part of a larger cloth and had been expertly rejoined to match each weft or widthwise thread is evident in that radiographs reveal that banding structures continue from the main body of the Shroud, through the seam across into the sidestrip [Right (enlarge)[8]]. The combined dimensions of the two sections which together make up the Shroud, are 437 x 111 cms[9]. This equates to 8 x 2 Assyrian cubits, the standard unit of measurement in Jesus' time, even among the Jews[10] (see Dimensions #3). And since this is the overall dimensions to which the two sections which make up the Shroud were cut down to, it must have been deliberate and so reflect the historical period when the Shroud was made[11], which includes the first century!

Wide looms in antiquity. Ancient textiles conservator Mechthild Flury-Lemberg has pointed out that looms in antiquity were up to 11½ feet (3.5 metres) wide[12]. The reason for such wide looms was to produce the tunica inconsutilis, or seamless tunic, which was particularly fashionable in the Roman period[13]. Jesus Himself wore such a seamless tunic (John 19:23)[14]. Since the side strip and the main body of the Shroud were part of the same larger linen sheet (as we saw above), it would make no sense to cut an ~8.5 cm full length strip off a ~1.1 metre wide cloth and then sew the strip back on again. The most likely explanation is that of Flury-Lemberg, that the bolt of

[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].]

linen from which the Shroud and sidestrip were cut, had been woven on a loom about three times the Shroud's width (~3.5 metres)[16]. The cloth was then cut twice lengthwise, and the two sections with a selvedge, the main body of the Shroud and the sidestrip, were joined by a seam (see above) to form the cloth which became the Shroud[17]. This is supported by the fact that although the main body of the Shroud and the sidestrip share the same common weft (widthwise) threads, there are slight differences between each cloth's thread-counts and colour[18], as would be expected if they were woven at opposite sides of the same wide loom. The central section without side selvedges, would have been used for other purposes, such as a tunica inconsutilis since it would have been seamless[19].

Not Medieval. By contrast, no such wide seamless fabrics are known from the Middle Ages[20]. The widest medieval woven cloths up to the 16th century were tapestries, and they were a maximum of only 3 feet (~91 cm) wide[21]. The tunica inconsutilis was produced only in ancient times, never in the Middle Ages[22]. All known linen bed sheets in the Middle Ages are joined by a seam at their selvedges to make them wide enough for a bed[23]. This indicates that there were no wide looms in the Middle Ages[24]. Moreover, according to Flury-Lemberg, the professionalism of the Shroud's manufacture, evident in it having been woven on a very wide loom, the expert lengthwise cutting and seaming, the unusual selvedge (see also next), and the unusual and expensive style of weaving (see Weave #4), points to its production in a major, sophisticated cloth-making 'factory'[25]. Such are known to have existed in Roman-period Egypt and Syria[26] for making the large seamless garments that were then fashionable, but not in the Middle Ages[27].

Masada. As with the stitching of the seam (see Sidestrip #5) examples of the same most unusual two double thread selvedge on the Shroud[28], and the same way of binding and finishing the edges of the cloth[29], were found at the Jewish fortress at Masada near the Dead Sea[30], which was overthrown by the Romans in AD 73[31] and never occupied again[32]. These technical parallels link the Shroud to the very region and period in which Jesus died[33]!

Problem for the forgery theory. This is yet another part of the problem for the forgery theory, that the Shroud is not medieval (see #1, #3, #4, #5). As we saw above, the two selvedges running down the lengthwise borders of the Shroud prove beyond reasonable doubt that: 1) and the main body of the Shroud and the sidestrip were evidently cut lengthwise from a larger cloth and then joined to form a composite cloth which became the Shroud, with the combined dimensions of 8 x 2 Assyrian standard cubits (see also Dimensions #3); 2) the cloth that the Shroud and sidestrip were cut from had evidently been woven on a wide loom, which existed in the Roman Period but not in the Middle Ages; 3) the sophisticated weaving and tailoring of the Shroud points to it having been manufactured in a textile `factory' which are known from Roman period Egypt and Syria but not from the Middle Ages; and 4) the unusual stitching, binding and finishing of the selvedges is, like the stitching of the seam joining the sidestrip to the main body of the Shroud (see Sidestrip #5), known only from the first century Jewish fortress of Masada.

The "mediaeval" radiocarbon date was wrong. Since the Shroud is not medieval, the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was wrong that, "... the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 ..."[34]. But then since: 1) the probability that the Shroud

[Left (enlarge): Prof. E. Hall, Dr M. Tite and Dr R. Hedges announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[35].]

being first century (as the evidence overwhelming indicates[36]), has a "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date, is "astronomical"[37], "one in a thousand trillion"[38], "totally impossible"[39], and indeed "a miracle"[40]; 2) the midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65[41], which 'just happens' to be only ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c. 1355[42]; 3) conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail; therefore 4) some form of fraud is the only viable explanation. However, conventional fraud such as the laboratories switching the Shroud sample for a 13th-14th century control sample are highly implausible. Not only were the laboratory leaders honest[43], they already believed the Shroud to be medieval[44], and the Shroud's distinctive weave meant that any substitution would be readily detected[45]. But there was a form of fraud that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating process[46] was vulnerable to, and which was rife in the 1980s, namely computer hacking! See further my new series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."

As pointed out in Sidestrip #5, advocates of the medieval forgery theory can still resort to the pre-1988 fall-back position of the late leading anti-authenticist Walter McCrone (1916-2002), that "a first century cloth could have been found and used by a 14th century artist to paint the image"[47]. But, apart from the problem of how an unknown medieval forger obtained a first-century ~4.4 x 1.1 metre herringbone twill fine linen sheet, when there is only one 14th century fragment of that weave in existence (see Weave #4); that would be anti-authenticists admitting that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" was wrong all along!

Continued in part #7 "Yarn" of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
3. 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.71. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.72, 315. [return]
5. Wilson, 2010, p.315. [return]
6. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.109. [return]
7. 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]
8. Adler, A,D., Whanger, A. & Whanger, M., 1997, "Concerning the Side Strip on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud.com. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
10. Dickinson, I., 1990, "The Shroud and the Cubit Measure," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 24, January, pp.8-11. [return]
11. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.42. [return]
12. Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
13. Ibid. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Wilson, 2010, p.73. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Ibid. [return]
18. Crispino, D.C., 1990, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 37, December, p.26. [return]
19. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
20. Wilson, 2010, p.76. [return]
21. Wilson, 2010, pp.76-77. [return]
22. Wilson, 2010, p.77. [return]
23. Ibid. [return]
24. de Wesselow, 2012, p.110. [return]
25. Wilson, 2010, p.76. [return]
26. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.41. [return]
27. Wilson, 2010, pp.76-77. [return]
28. Wilson, 2010, p.74. [return]
29. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
30. Wilson, 2010, p.74. [return]
31. Wilson, 2010, p.73. [return]
32. Wilson, 2000. [return]
33. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
34. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
35. Wilson, 1998, p.7 & pl.3b. [return]
36. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.86; Rinaldi, P.M., 1988, "For the Holy Shroud, the Hour of Truth," April, in McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.243; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.60; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.27; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.76; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.6. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
38. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
39. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. [return]
40. Tipler, F.J., 2007, "The Physics of Christianity," Doubleday: New York NY, pp.178-179; 216-217. [return]
41. Wilson, 1998, p.7; McCrone, 1999, p.1. [return]
42. Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
43. Wilson, 1998, p.11. [return]
44. "An Interview with Dr. Michael Tite - by Chantal Dupont," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 25, April/May 1990. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.11; Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp.137-138. [return]
46. Gove, 1996, p.264; Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
47. McCrone, 1999, p.141. [return]

Posted 11 September 2015. Updated 18 July 2024.

Shroud of Turin News - August 2015

Shroud of Turin News - August 2015
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: July 2015] [Next: September 2015]

This is the the August 2015 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. See the April 2015 issue for more information about this series. Following

[Above (original): Rex Henry Morgan, JP, Member of the Order of Australia (AM), Member of the British Empire (MBE), etc, etc. His Shroud News is now online. See "Editorial".]

my inaugural editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related August news articles to this post, latest uppermost, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine.

Contents (click on a link below to go to that article):
"Editorial"
"`It Was the Science That Convinced Me': How a Scientist Came to Believe the Shroud"

---

"`It Was the Science That Convinced Me': How a Scientist Came to Believe the Shroud," National Catholic Register, Ann Schneible, CNA/EWTN News, August 5, 2015 ... ROME - The Shroud of Turin has different meanings for many people: some see it as an object of veneration, others a forgery, still others a medieval curiosity. The Shroud is either the burial sheet of Jesus, or it is a fake. There is no middle ground, as leading Shroud sceptics, Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell admit:

"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 and Stevenson and Habermas 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.'" (my emphasis) [19Oct12]

For one Jewish scientist, however, the evidence has led him to see it as a meeting point between science and faith. "The shroud challenges (many people's core beliefs) because there's a strong implication that there is something beyond the basic science going on here," said Barrie Schwortz [Right: Fort Wayne News-Sentinel], one of the leading scientific experts on the Shroud of Turin, in an interview with CNA. Strictly speaking, Schwortz is not a "scientist" but a "technical photographer" (see below).

Admitting that he did not know whether there was something beyond science at play, he added: "That's not what convinced me: It was the science that convinced me." Schwortz is one of the rare non-Christians who have been convinced, on the basis of the evidence, that the Shroud is authentic, and yet remain non-Christians. Other examples are: the agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow and the late Rodney Hoare, a past Chairman of the British Society for the Turin Shroud.

The Shroud of Turin is among the most well-known relics believed to be connected with Christ's passion. Venerated for centuries by Christians as the burial shroud of Jesus, it has been subject to intense scientific study to ascertain its authenticity, and the origins of the image. This alone proves that the Shroud is authentic. It is simply not possible for the Shroud to be a fake, and modern science not be able to readily discover that. This is a little-known corollary of the Argument from Ignorance, that "if a certain event had occurred [the Shroud was forged], evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators," in which case "the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence" [the Shroud was not forged]:

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) ... A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators. In such a case it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence. Of course, the proof here is not based on ignorance but on our knowledge that if it had occurred it would be known ... In some cases not to draw a conclusion is as much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to draw a mistaken conclusion."[1]

The image on the 14-feet-long, three-and-a-half-feet-wide cloth is stained with the postmortem image of a man - front and back - who has been brutally tortured and crucified. Schwortz, now a retired technical photographer and frequent lecturer on the shroud, was a member of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project, which brought prestigious scientists together to examine the ancient artifact. As a non-practicing Jew at the time, he was hesitant to be part of the team and skeptical as to the shroud's authenticity - presuming it was nothing more than an elaborate painting. Despite the false claims of Shroud sceptical propaganda, e.g.:

"While science and scholarship have demonstrated that the Shroud of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus but instead a fourteenth-century forgery, shroud devotees continue to claim otherwise. In medieval Europe alone there were more than forty `True Shrouds,' although the Turin Cloth uniquely bears the apparent imprints of a man, crucified like Jesus in the gospel narratives. Unfortunately, the alleged `relic' has not fared well in various scientific examinations--except those conducted by Shroud partisans like those of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), whose leaders served on the executive council of the pro-authenticity Holy Shroud Guild."[2]

most of the 1978 STURP team were themselves sceptical that the Shroud was authentic. Schwortz is an obvious case in point. Why would a Jew be predisposed to think that the Shroud was authentic? And why, if STURP was so "partisan," would it select as its photographer, a Jew?

Nonetheless, he was intrigued by the scientific questions raised by the image ... And Schwortz soon encountered one of the great mysteries of the image that still entrances its examiners to this day. He explained that a specific instrument used for the project was designed for evaluating x-rays, which allowed the lights and darks of an image to be vertically stretched into space, based on the lights and darks proportionately. This a VP-8 Image Analyzer, which I didn't realise was "designed for evaluating x-rays." As far as I was aware it was designed for converting shades of light and dark in planetary body 2-dimensional photographs into 3-dimensional relief.

For a normal photograph, the result would be a distorted image; with the shroud, however, the natural, 3-D relief of a human form came through. This means "there's a correlation between image density - lights and darks on the image - and cloth to body distance." And this in turn is explained by STURP physicist John Jackson's "Cloth Collapse theory":

"... I would like to develop the thesis that ... in the case of the Shroud image, the cloth did collapse into and through the underlying body structure. ... First, we must assume that the body became mechanically `transparent' to its physical surroundings and, second, that a stimulus was generated that recorded the passage of the cloth through the body region onto the cloth as an image. ... I propose that, as the Shroud collapsed through the underlying body, radiation emitted from all points within that body discolored the cloth so as to produce the observed image. ... this assumption explains the superficiality of the Shroud image and, perhaps, the differentiation in fibril coloring." [18Jan12].

And although Jackson does not state it, the dead Man in the Shroud's body becoming "mechanically `transparent' to its physical surroundings" is explained only by Jesus and His resurrection. Jesus' resurrected body was `mechanically transparent' to doors and/or walls:

John 20:19-20. "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, `Peace be with you.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. ... Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, `Peace be with you.'"

The only way that can happen is by some interaction between cloth and body," he said. "It can't be projected. It's not a photograph - photographs don't have that kind of information; artworks don't." This evidence led him to believe that the image on the shroud was produced in a way that exceeds the capacities even of modern technology. And what else could that be but a miracle, the resurrection of the Shroud Man's dead body?

"There's no way a medieval forger would have had the knowledge to create something like this, and to do so with a method that we can't figure out today - the most image-oriented era of human history." ... "The shroud has become one of the most studied artifacts in human history itself, and modern science doesn't have an explanation for how those chemical and physical properties can be made." Clearly if the Shroud had been produced by medieval technology, modern science would have taken only hours, or at most days, to work out how the Shroud's image was made. But it hasn't in 117 years (taking 1898 as the start of modern scientific study of the Shroud). And this is not pro-authenticity propaganda. Philip Ball, a former editor of the science journal Nature (the same journal which in 1989 claimed that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"), 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" (my emphasis)[3]

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" (my emphasis)[4]

While the image on the Shroud of Turin was the most convincing evidence for him, he said it was only a fraction of all the scientific data that points to it being real. "Really, it's an accumulation of thousands of little tiny bits of evidence that, when put together, are overwhelming in favor of its authenticity." Schwortz is another Shroudie who states that "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" However, I do not claim it is "thousands" of items of evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but I expect it would be in the hundreds. I will know when I have finished my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" series because I am numbering each one.

For this reason, Schwortz launched the website Shroud.com, which serves as a resource for the scientific data on the relic. Since a lot of Shroud.com's content is historical, artistic and photographic, it seems that Schwortz is using the term "scientific" broadly, to mean "factual" or "evidence-based." As we will see, this has implications for Schwortz' own position on the Shroud and his non-Christianity.

Nonetheless, he said, there are many who still question the evidence, many believing it is nothing more than an elaborate medieval painting. They are deluding themselves. Like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, they imagine that if they refuse to look at the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, then it will somehow not affect them. But if the Shroud is authentic and the man on it is the resurrected Jesus (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates) then it definitely will affect them, whether they accept it or not:

Acts 17:30-31. "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

And as Ball stated above of the image on the Shroud: "It does not seem to have been painted, at least with any known historical pigments." As STURP discovered in 1978 and published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, there are "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains," etc., on the Shroud which forms its image. The image is not added to the Shroud's linen fibres but is a physical change to the image fibres themselves:

"The chemistry of the various stains and images on the Shroud of Turin is presented. The chemical conclusions were drawn from all the data and observations, both physical and chemical, collected by direct investigation of the Shroud in 1978. The conclusions are that the body image is made up of yellowed surface fibrils of the linen that are at more advanced stages of degradation than the non-image linen. The chromophore is a conjugated carbonyl. No evidence was found in the body image of any added substances that could have contributed to the yellow color of the fibrils that form the image. The blood images on the cloth are made of blood. The data, taken together, do not support the hypothesis that the images on the Shroud are due to an artist."[5]

"I think the reason skeptics deny the science is, if they accept any of that, their core beliefs have been dramatically challenged, and they would have to go back and reconfigure who they are and what they believe in," he said. "It's much easier to reject it out of hand and not worry about it. That way they don't have to confront their own beliefs." "I think some people would rather ignore it than be challenged," he added. While a few (including presumably Schwortz-see below), can accept that the Shroud is authentic, and not take the next step and accept that the image on it is Jesus, being a "`snapshot' of [His] resurrection":

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerializes, dissolved perhaps by the flash, while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection."[6]

and therefore Christianity is true, most non-Christians sense that implication and are unwilling to face up to it. But again, their choosing not to accept that the Shroud is authentic, does not make it not authentic. If the Shroud is authentic and the image on it is the resurrected Jesus (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), then their denying it is the biggest mistake of their lives. Because they would then be rejecting Jesus' "fifth Gospel" of love to them:

"If it is authentic, the Holy Shroud is unquestionably the greatest religious relic known to Christianity and one of the most fascinating antiquities known to mankind. If it is authentic, the Shroud can rightfully take its place as "The Fifth Gospel," for what it reveals of Jesus and his suffering far exceeds the scant Gospel words of the evangelists. If it is authentic, and if no completely satisfactory natural explanation can account for its unusual physical properties, then the Shroud is indeed the most miraculous of Holy Miracles - an enduring, self-made portrait of the man who would be called Savior by millions of Christians throughout the world."[7]

with that rejection's inevitable consequences (Matthew 25:31-36, 41-46).

Schwortz emphasized that the science points to the shroud being the burial cloth belonging to a man, buried according to the Jewish tradition, after having been crucified in a way consistent with the Gospel. In which case the Shroud would not be "a product of human artifice," and therefore, as even leading Shroud sceptics Schafersman and Nickell admit above, "the image is that of Jesus". In which case Ockham's Razor (the simplest explanation which accounts for the facts is to be preferred) applies: Jesus is the only person of whom it is credibly claimed that He was resurrected. The Shroud of Turin only has an image of a body that has wounds and bloodstains consistent with the Gospels' description of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection. The simplest explanation which accounts for those facts is that the Shroud of Turin is Jesus' burial shroud and the image on it is of Jesus and caused by His resurrection!

However, he said it is not proof of the Resurrection - and this is where faith comes in. "It's a pre-Resurrection image, because if it were a post-Resurrection image, it would be a living man - not a dead man," he said, ... This is a "fallacy of false dichotomy". There are three states of Jesus' resurrection, not two: pre-resurrection, resurrection and post-resurrection. The Shroud image is of Jesus at the "instant" of His resurrection (see above on "snapshot"). If it were "pre-Resurrection" Jesus would still be dead and Schwortz would have the problem of explaining how the dead Jesus imprinted his image on His burial shroud. Besides, even on Schwortz' own admission, if the image on the Shroud were "a pre-Resurrection image" (which it isn't), then the resurrection of Jesus must have immediately followed. The only way that Schwortz could escape this inevitable logical entailment is if he denied the resurrection of Jesus altogether. Which being a non-Christian, as Schwortz often makes a point of:

"Science photographer Barrie Schwortz considers it ironic that he, an Orthodox Jew, is spending much of his time trying to convince Christians that the Turin Shroud may well be an artifact of Jesus."[8]

"Interestingly enough, one of the most visited shroud-related websites -- www.shroud.com -- was started and is run by Barrie Schwortz, who is Jewish. Schwortz was the documenting photographer on the 24-member Shroud of Turin Research Team that directly examined the shroud in 1978. Schwortz believes he has a unique role in the controversy. `I don't have a horse in the race,' he said. `I don't have that emotional tie to Jesus that Christians have. I'm an Old Testament guy.'[9]

and indeed in this article that, "He has never converted to Christianity, but remains a practicing Jew" (see future below), Schwortz presumably does deny the resurrection of Jesus. If so, he should come right out and state it unequivocally. But then what Schwortz would really mean is a non-resurrection image. Otherwise, what would Schwortz' point be in splitting hairs about "a pre-Resurrection image" if he does accept the resurrection of Jesus?

... adding that science is unable to test for the sort of images that would be produced by a human body rising from the dead. This is false. Science can and does test for evidence of Jesus' resurrection on the Shroud and has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus imprinted at the instant of His resurrection. But scientists under the thought-control of Naturalism ("nature is all there is - there is no supernatural") refuse to accept that evidence. Moreover Schwortz is employing a Fallacy of Equivocation on the word "science." He has been using the word "science" broadly, such that he (a photographer) is a "scientist" and his website Shroud.com "serves as a resource for the scientific data on the relic," yet much of its content is historical, artistic and photographic. This is just another example of Naturalism's `heads I win, tails you lose' strategy. Naturalistic science has no problem testing for the supernatural when it thinks it can disprove it. The radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" is a case in point. But as soon science discovers that the supernatural appears to be what happened, then suddenly science is `unable' to test for the supernatural, and it is relegated to "faith" not "science" (see next)!

"The shroud is a test of faith, not a test of science." See what I mean? As soon as Schwortz, unwittingly under the thought-control of Naturalism, encounters evidence on the Shroud for the supernatural resurrection of Jesus, it is relegated to "faith ... not ... science." But the Shroud is Jesus' test of Naturalistic science, and His verdict is:

"MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN ... you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting" (Daniel 5:25,27).

Philosophical naturalists (including Theistic Naturalists who don't deny that God exists but claim that He does not intervene in nature or history) don't realise that their minds have been taken captive by the "philosophy" of Naturalism:

Colossians 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

"There comes a point with the shroud where the science stops, and people have to decide for themselves. The answer to faith isn't going to be a piece of cloth. But, perhaps, the answer to faith is in the eyes and hearts of those who look upon it." The Shroud (amongst other points in science, like the origin of life, etc) is where Naturalistic science stops and true science, which is willing to "follow the evidence, wherever it leads," begins. And then discovers that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true! Nevertheless, I agree that Jesus has given people freedom of choice to "decide for themselves.” But that does not mean that the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity is not so strong that there will not be adverse consequences (to put it mildly) for those who, become aware of the evidence of the Shroud' authenticity, but choose to reject it. While respecting humans' right to choose Jesus or reject Him, nevertheless since Jesus' resurrection, God "now ... commands all people everywhere to repent":

Acts 17:30-31. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

or face the consequences of refusing the rightful claim of Jesus to reign over them (Luke 19:11-17, 27).

When it comes to testifying to this meeting point between faith and science, Schwortz is in a unique position: He has never converted to Christianity, but remains a practicing Jew. And this, he says, makes his witness as a scientist all the more credible. "I think I serve God better this way, in my involvement in the shroud, by being the last person in the world people would expect to be lecturing on what is, effectively, the ultimate Christian relic. "I think God in his infinite wisdom knew better than I did, and he put me there for a reason." See above that Schwortz, "an Old Testament guy," presumably rejects the resurrection of Jesus (but as far as I am aware, he does not disclose this to his Christian audiences). If so, like the agnostic Thomas de Wesselow, his witness to the Shroud's authenticity, is that much more impressive, since it cannot be claimed by anti-authenticists that Schwortz (or de Wesselow) are biased, being Christians. But what is not impressive is Schwortz' subtle message to his Christian audiences of his own (presumed) non-Christian view that the resurrection of Jesus did not actually happen, but is merely "faith." This is false, because as the Apostle Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17:

"... if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.

However, none of this is intended to be critical of Barrie Schwortz as a person. I count myself an Internet friend of Barrie, through hundreds of emails to and from him in scanning and putting online the BSTS Newsletter (issues 1-42), Shroud Spectrum International, and now Shroud News. I have found Barrie to be one of the kindest, friendliest and supportive persons in "Sindondom." However to me, a verse that could have been in the Bible, but isn't, is:

"Better criticism from a friend, than praise from an enemy."

although Proverbs 27:6:

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy"

comes close! I hope Barrie (in the unlikely event that he reads this), will take my criticisms as the "faithful ... wounds of a friend." If I didn't care about Barrie who, like another righteous Jew, is "not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34), but not yet in it, I would have avoided the topic. I will keep praying for him. [top]

---

Editorial. New editorial My scanning of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, which always started with an editorial from him, has given me the idea to from now on start my Shroud of Turin News with an editorial. Rex Morgan's Shroud News now online! The highlight of the month for me was receiving via Barrie Schwortz' STERA Newsletter on 16 August, the long-awaited news that, "Rex Morgan's Shroud News [is] Now Online! (18 Down, 100 To Go)" [see photo above]. I have to date scanned and emailed to Barrie up to issue 24, September 1984. Topic index. I am continuing to add past pages to my Topic Index from the beginning working forwards, and have indexed up to and including my post of 22 November 2011. It is a `trip down memory lane' for me. I had forgotten much of what I had posted and I am saving all my posted photos so that if they disappear (some of them had but I have reposted them), I can always add them back. August's posts. In August I blogged 7 posts: (1) "Topic index ... "H-M" and (2) "S-Z"; (3) "Shroud of Turin News - July 2015"; (4) physicist Frank Tipler's key question "... why the radiocarbon date is exactly what one would expect it to be if the Turin Shroud were actually a fraud"? (but isn't); (5) part #2 of my concluding summary series of my hacking theory, now expressed as a statement: "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking," (6) "Sidestrip #5" of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is the burial sheet of Jesus!", which is now a priority for me; and (7) my "Turin Shroud Dictionary" series, "H". Most pageviews in August. Google Analytics lists as my blog's pages most viewed for the month: "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 316; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," Dec 2, 2013 - 92; "Shroud of Turin News - July 2015," Aug 11, 2015 - 90; "Weave #4: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is the burial sheet of Jesus!," Jul 16, 2015 - 86; "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1," Jul 23, 2015 - 85. I have no idea why the older two were my blog's leading pageviews for August. Presumably they were/are being discussed on other forums unknown to me. [top]

---

Notes
1. Copi, I.M., 1953, "Introduction to Logic," Macmillan: New York NY, Seventh Edition, 1986, pp.94-95. [return]
2. Nickell, J., 2005, "Voice of Reason: The Truth Behind the Shroud of Turin," Skeptical Inquirer / Livescience, 18 March. [return]
3. Ball, P., 2005, "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January. [return]
4. Ball, P., 2008, "Material witness: Shrouded in mystery," Nature Materials, Vol. 7, No. 5, May, p.349. [return]
5. Jumper, E.J., Adler, A.D., Jackson, J.P., Pellicori, S.F., Heller, J.H., Druzik, J.R., in Lambert, J.B., ed., "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin," in "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., 1984, pp.447-476, p.447. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251. [return]
7. Humber, T., 1974, "The Fifth Gospel: The Miracle of the Holy Shroud," Pocket Books: New York NY, p.12. [return]
8. Siemon-Netto, U., 2005, "Jewish believer in the Shroud,"United Press International, March 18. [return]
9. Holman, J., 2007, "Like a Black Hole: Los Angeles Artist Offers Shroud of Turin Theory," Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, 10 January (no longer webbed). [return]

---

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]

Posted 1 September 2015. Updated 13 July 2024.