Continuing from part #1, here is part #2 of my comments on the paper, Barcaccia, G., et al., 2015, "Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud," Nature, Scientific Reports 5, 5 October. The article's words are in bold.
[Above (enlarge): "An archive negative image of the Shroud of Turin (L) in full length next to one created by Luigi Garlaschelli"[1]. Except that these are not "full length," (i.e. not front and back, head to head as the Shroud is) let alone self-evidently not a true replication of the Shroud.]
This study was reported in, "Shroud of Turin Offers Some DNA," GenomeWeb, October 6, 2015. News articles (updated) on this paper include (in date order): "Shroud of Turin DNA Comes from All over World," RealClearScience, October 12, 2015; "Turin Shroud: DNA and pollen from all over the world found on cloth, new study finds," The Independent, 14 October 2015; and "Mystery of the Shroud of Turin deepens: Genetic study reveals the fabric contains DNA from plants found all over the world," Daily Mail, October 19, 2015; "Shroud Of Turin DNA Indicates Global Origins," The Huffington Post, October 19, 2015; "Shroud of Turin's DNA traced to India and plants found 'all over Earth,' new study says," Christian Today, 20 October 2015; "Here's What DNA Analysis of Dust Particles From the Shroud of Turin Found," TheBlaze, October 20, 2015; "The Shroud of Turin: Controversial Cloth Defies Explanation as Study Shows it Has DNA From Around the World," Ancient Origins, 21 October, 2015; "Mystery Engulfs Shroud of Turin: DNA Found From All Over World," The Christian Post, October 21, 2015; "Is It a Fake? DNA Testing Deepens Mystery of Shroud of Turin," LiveScience, October 23, 2015, etc. I will comment on these in my October Shroud of Turin News.
Introduction. The Turin Shroud (TS) is a linen cloth, 4.4 m long and 1.1 m wide, bearing the double image of a man ... This alone is sufficient to establish that the Shroud is authentic. No forger would even attempt to depict Jesus’ "double image" front and back, head to head, on a "4.4 m long and 1.1 m wide" fine "linen cloth". A medieval forger would only have done what Shroud sceptics who claim to have replicated the Shroud have done: depicted only the face of Jesus (Joe Nickell) or at most only the front body image (e.g. Luigi Garlaschelli - see above). Why would a medieval forger depict also a naked full rear view of Jesus?
... who suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion after being beaten, scourged and crowned with thorns1,2. It could have added that the image can only be of Jesus, either His actual body or a forged counterfeit of it. This has been conceded by leading Shroud anti-authenticists. In 1903 Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) admitted:
"As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished ... If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified" (my emphasis)[2].
And in 1982 modern day Shroud sceptics, Steven D. Schafersman (and Joe Nickell) who cited him approvingly) also conceded:
"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[3] and Stevenson and Habermas[4] 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)[5]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'" (my emphasis)[6]
TS is the most important relic of Christianity because the Catholic tradition identifies this burial cloth as that in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped before being placed in a Palestine tomb approximately 2000 years ago. "Catholic tradition" maintains that the Shroud is authentic, but the Vatican refuses to confirm (or deny) that the Shroud is authentic. But then as devout Roman Catholic Donald M. Smith pointed out in his 1983 book, "The Letter," which was actually a letter to Pope John Paul II, bound as a book, if the Shroud is not authentic then it can only be the image of someone else tortured and crucified to make it look like Jesus:
"If the carbon-14 dating test was allowed to be conducted on the Shroud of Turin and if it was actually determined that the life of the flax which was used to manufacture the linen of the Shroud was terminated after 100 AD., then two conclusions must follow: 1) The linen of the Shroud of Turin was manufactured after 33 A.D. and after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. 2) The human being whose image is shown on the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus of Nazareth. ... Your Holiness, if the Shroud was dated to an era after 100 AD., there is another conclusion which also must follow: Sometime between 100 A.D. and 1357 A.D., an evil, cruel and sinful act occurred. A human being was actually made to go through the exact same torture and agonizing death as suffered by Jesus and as reported in the GOSPELS, for the sole purpose of producing a valuable relic ... If the goal of producing a likeness of the only begotten Son of God by such evil means, could in any way be condoned, then the whole principle is based on the theories that `the end justifies the means,' and that `power makes right.' These are the same set of principles of men with character the likes of Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler. Your Holiness, I believe that it is indeed important to know if the identity of the human being whose image appears on the Shroud of Turin could in no way be that of Jesus, but was in fact a victim who was sacrificed for the sole motive of greed. How can Christians use a physical object as a vehicle to promote the teachings of God's only begotten Son when the physical object was created by evil means and motivated by greed? For we know if the linen was manufactured after the crucifixion of Jesus, there had to be a human victim other than Jesus, who was not only robbed of his life, but who was forced to undergo the agonies of crucifixion. It is not right to venerate an object if that object was created by evil means and for the motive of greed."[7] (emphasis original)Leaving aside Smith's naive view of radiocarbon dating (as the pro-authenticist archaeologist William Meacham noted, the Shroud's radiocarbon date could have been "4th or 5th centuries [AD], owing to some intractable contamination"[8] yet be authentic), Smith is morally exactly right, that if the Shroud were not authentic, then (given that its image is that of a real human body[9]), it is that of, "A human being [other than Jesus who] was actually made to go through the exact same torture and agonizing death as suffered by Jesus. For the Vatican to not care if the Shroud was the result of such "an evil, cruel and sinful act" is to operate on the "principle [of] `the end justifies the means'," which was the principle "of Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler." It definitely would "not [be morally and ethically] right to venerate an object if that object [the Shroud] was created by [such] evil means ..."!
Such a scenario is supported by numerous scholars who believe that the journey of TS began in Jerusalem in the year 30 or 33 AD3. The years AD 30 and 33 are the only two in that time period in which the Sabbath was also the Passover[10] as Jesus' death was on the eve of both (Mt 28:1; Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54; Jn 19:31 & Mt 26:2; Mk 14:1; Lk 22:1,15; Jn 18:28,39; 19:14).
After concealment for years, TS would have been first moved to Edessa (now Şanliurfa in Turkey) ... That is, according to Ian Wilson's theory that the Mandylion or Image of Edessa, was the Shroud "doubled in four" (Gk. tetradiplon)[11] which (with the possible exception of the "first" before "moved to Edessa"[12]), most Shroud pro-authenticists (including me) accept.
... and then to Constantinople (now Istanbul in Turkey) in 944 AD. That the Shroud moved from Edessa (irrespective of when it as the Mandylion/Image of Edessa first arrived in Edessa) to Constantinople in 944 is well-established by: 1) In 943 Constantinople's Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (c. 870–948) sent an army led by General John Curcuas (or) Kourkouas (fl. c. 915–946) to Edessa and laid siege to it, offering to lift the siege and to pay twelve thousand silver pieces, for "the cloth with Jesus's imprint"[13]. That the offer was reluctantly accepted is confirmed by Wikipedia:
"In 943 Kourkouas invaded northern Mesopotamia and besieged the important city of Edessa in 944. As the price for his withdrawal, Kourkouas obtained one of Byzantium's most prized relics, the Mandylion, the holy towel allegedly sent by Jesus Christ to King Abgar V of Edessa."[14]2) The day after the Mandylion/Shroud had arrived in Constantinople from Edessa on 15 August 944[15], Gregory Referendarius, the Archdeacon of Constantinople's Hagia Sophia cathedral[16], after having had the opportunity overnight to personally examine the Mandylion/Shroud close up, preached a sermon in which he said:
"But Jesus, undergoing the passion of his own free will, believing that human nature fears death – indeed death comes upon the very nature that was made to live – taking this linen cloth he wiped the sweat that was falling down his face like drops of blood in his agony. And miraculously, just as he made everything from nothing in his divine strength, he imprinted the reflection of his form on the linen. ... This reflection, however – let everyone be inspired with the explanation – has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the originator of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint of Christ, since after the drops fell, it was embellished by drops from his own side. Both are highly instructive – blood and water there, here sweat and image. Oh equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side" (My emphasis)[17].The mention by Gregory of "blood" is a significant advance on the traditional Edessan explanation of the Mandylion's image being due to Jesus' sweat having been imprinted on a towel during His ministry[18]. That night of 15 August 944, alone with the Mandylion/Shroud in Hagia Sophia cathedral, Gregory presumably noticed blood on the image's face and attempted to explain it away as having been imprinted on the cloth in the Garden of Gethsemane when "his [Jesus'] sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44)[19]. But that would not explain his reference to "drops from his own side" and "blood and water" which occurred after Jesus' death on the cross: "one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water." (John 19:34)[20]. So Gregory presumably partially undid the Mandylion's fastenings to examine it more thoroughly and discovered that behind it was at least part of the full-length Shroud? This is consistent with a depiction (below) in a work by Greek historian John Skylitzes (c. 1040s-1101) of Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos receiving the Mandylion in Constantinople, and behind it is a full-length, folded, Shroud[21]!
[Above (enlarge): "Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos accepts the Mandylion in Constantinople. A miniature from the so-called Madrid manuscript of `Synopsis of Histories' by Skylitzes"[22].]
A burial cloth, which some historians consider the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 12044. Leading art historian Hans Belting (1935-)[23] and most, if not all, pro-authenticist (including me) consider that the "sydoines [Old French for sindon] in which Our Lord had been wrapped" which crusader Robert de Clari (c. 1170-1216) saw in Constantinople in 1203:
"... there was another church which was called My Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, where was kept the sheet [sydoines] in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday rose up straight, so that one could clearly see the figure [figure] of Our Lord on it; and no one, neither Greek nor French, knew what became of this sheet after the city was taken" (emphasis original)[24]and which disappeared after the crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, was the Shroud[25]
After this event, TS would have been taken by the crusaders and transferred to Athens (Greece) ... This is the most likely explanation of the Shroud's 151 "missing years" between its disappearance from Constantinople in 1204 to its reappearance at Lirey, France in c. 1355[26]. Othon (Otto) de la Roche (c. 1170-1234)[27] was a Burgundian knight[28] and a commander in the Fourth Crusade (1202-4) which sacked Constantinople in 1204[29]. He commanded Constantinople's District of Blachernae within which was the church where the Shroud was kept[30]. Othon was later made Duke of Athens[31] by the leader of the Fourth Crusade, Boniface I, Marquess of Montferrat (c. 1150–1207)[32]. Evidence that the Shroud was taken from Constantinople to Athens includes a letter of of 1 August 1205 to Pope Innocent III (c. 1160-1216) from Theodore Komnenos Doukas (c. 1200-1253) also known as Theodore Angelus, protesting about the looting of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade[33], and in particular the "most sacred of all the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death" which was "in Athens":
"In April last year a crusading army, having falsely set out to liberate the Holy Land, instead laid waste the city of Constantine. During the sack, troops of Venice and France looted even the holy sanctuaries. The Venetians partitioned the treasures of gold, silver and ivory, while the French did the same with the relics of the saints and, most sacred of all the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death and before the resurrection. We know that the sacred objects are preserved by their predators in Venice, in France and in other places, the sacred linen in Athens. So many spoils and sacred objects should not be taken contrary to all human and divine laws, nevertheless in your name and in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, albeit against your will, the barbarians of our age have done just that" (my emphasis) [34]Theodore later became the ruler of Epirus in then northwestern Greece, a successor state of the Byzantine Empire established in the aftermath of the fall of Constantinople[35]. Theodore's statement to the Pope, only a year after the sack of Constantinople, that he knew the Shroud had been taken to Athens[36] is supported by a letter written in 1207 by Nicholas (or Nikolaos) of Otranto (c. 1155-1235), the Abbot of Casole monastery in southern Italy[37] In 1205 Nicholas, who was fluent in Latin and Greek, accompanied as his interpreter a new Papal legate, Benedict of St Susanna, through Greece to Constantinople[38]. In his 1207 letter, Nicholas wrote:
"When the city [Constantinople] was captured by the French knights, entering as thieves, even in the treasury of the Great Place where the holy objects were placed, they found among other things the precious wood, the crown of thorns, the sandals of the Saviour, the nail, and the spargana which we (later) saw with our own eyes."[39]The word spargana usually denotes the swaddling clothes of an infant (e.g. Lk 2:7,12), but it is also used of burial linen wrappings[40] and since Nicholas is listing relics of the Passion, he must mean burial linens[41]. Nicholas does not say where he had seen the spargana[42] and the word "(later)" is in Nicholas' Latin, but not in his Greek, version[43]. But in 1206 he and Benedict had traveled through Thessalonica and Athens, so his claim that "we saw with our own eyes" (plural) Jesus' burial linens would more likely apply to Nicholas and Benedict seeing the Shroud recently in Athens rather than Nicholas only seeing them years before in Constantinople[44].
... where it remained until 1225. In 1225 Othon transferred his titles and lands to his sons Guy I (c. 1205-1263) and Othon V (c. 1206-1254) and returned to Burgundy with his second wife Elisabeth de Chappes (1175-1236) and the two youngest children of Othon's first wife, Isabelle de Ray (c. 1190-1212)[45]. The simplest assumption is that Othon then took the Shroud with him to Burgundy[46], although there is a 1750 anonymous handwritten document (MS 826) which states an opinion that Othon had sent the Shroud to his father Pons I de la Roche (1145-95) in 1206, who in turn entrusted it to Amadeus de Tramelay, Archbishop of Besançon (1197–1220)[47]. But this is anachronistic because Othon's father Pons died in 1195[48], before the sack of Constantinople in 1204[49]. However, in the tenth century Ray-sur-Saône chateau in which Othon lived after his return from Athens[50], there is a 13th century wooden chest which according to de la Roche family tradition, was used to transport the Shroud from
[Above (enlarge): Wooden chest preserved in Ray-sur-Saône chateau, which is claimed to be that in which Othon V de la Roche brought the Shroud from Constantinople (see below).[51]]
Athens to France, and indeed a label on it in modern writing states the family tradition that it was used by Otho de Ray to bring the "the Shroud of Christ ... from Constantinople [in] 1206":
"13th century coffer in which was preserved at Ray Castle the Shroud of Christ brought by Otho de Ray from Constantinople. 1206"[52]However, the style of the carving is late 14th century, although the bottom of the chest may be original[53]. The inner dimensions of the chest in centimetres are ~37.5 long x 16.5 wide x 25 deep[54]. This would neatly fit the 437 x 111 cms Shroud[55], if it were folded twelve times long and eight times wide, i.e. 437/12 = 36.4 cms x 111/8 cms = 13.9 cms[56]. This twelve by eight folds is a simple and economical folding arrangement of the Shroud, and since Othon's family would be unlikely to know the true dimensions of the Shroud if they had never owned it, this ~37.5 cms long x 16.5 cms wide `floor plan' of the bottom of the Ray-sur-Saône chateau chest, which is claimed to have once held the Shroud, is strong evidence that Othon de la Roche really did bring the Shroud with him from Athens (and before that from Constantinople) to his Ray-sur-Saône chateau in Burgundy, France in 1225!
Official documents attest that it was in France at Lirey around the years 1353 to 1357 ... There is a direct ancestral link between Othon de la Roche and Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428)[57], the second wife of Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300–1356), who was the
[Above: (enlarge): Pilgrim's badge, bearing the coats of arms of Geoffroy I de Charny (left) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (right)[58], from the first undisputed exhibition of the Shroud at Lirey, France in c.1355[59].]
first undisputed owner of the Shroud. "Jeanne was ... a great-great-great-great granddaughter of Othon de La Roche (descended from the marriage of Henri de Vergy and Isobelle de La Roche, granddaughter of Othon"[60]. That direct ancestor-descendant line was as follows: Othon (Otto) IV de la Roche, Duke of Athens (1170-1234) → Othon V de La Roche-sur-L'Ognon (1206-54) (1205-63) → Isabelle (Elisabeth) de La Roche-sur-L'Ognon (1235-78) → Jean I de Vergy (1248-1310) → Guillaume III de Vergy (c. 1290-1360) → Jeanne de Vergy (c. 1332-1428)[61]. From c. 1355 Geoffroy and Jeanne exhibited the Shroud at Lirey church until Geoffroy was killed in the Battle of Poitiers on 19 September 1356[62]. Despite Geoffroy's death, Jeanne continued the first Lirey Shroud exhibition until at least 1357[63]. Following the French defeat at Poitiers, marauding bands of English soldiers formed `companies' and attacked French towns for loot, including nearby Troyes in 1358[64]. So Jeanne presumably had by then taken her young son Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–98), and the Shroud, from Lirey[65] south to the comparative safety of her castle at Montfort-en-Auxois[66]. In about 1359, Jeanne married Aymon IV of Geneva (1324-88), an uncle of Robert of Geneva (1342–94), who in 1378 became Pope Clement VII[67]. Jeanne then took Geoffroy II and the Shroud to the safety of Aymon's lands around Anthon, High Savoy, France. Following Aymon's death in 1388[68], Jeanne returned to Lirey with the Shroud where she and the now adult Geoffroy II exhibited it for a second time at Lirey from 1389[69] for an unknown period, but presumably no later than 1396 when Geoffroy II left to fight in the Battle of Nicopolis, Bulgaria, in which he was fatally wounded and died in 1398[70].
... and then was kept at Chambéry from 1502 to 1578, where passed into the hands of the Dukes of Savoy3,4,5. The Shroud already had been transferred to Duke Louis I of Savoy (1413–65) in 1453[71] by Geoffroy II's eldest child, the twice-widowed, childless and aged[72] Marguerite de Charny (c.1392-1460)[73]. The transfer took place in Geneva[74], but the Shroud would presumably have then been moved within days to the Savoy's administrative centre, Chambéry castle. In 1502 the Shroud was installed by Louis's grandson, Duke Philibert II (1480–1504), in the specially built Sainte Chapelle royal chapel in Chambéry[75].
From 1578, apart from some brief displacements in an effort to hide it during war periods, TS was kept in Turin (Italy) and later placed in the royal chapel of the city Cathedral inside a specially designed shrine where it has been permanently conserved from 1694 to the present. See my "Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471-Turin 1578," "Turin 1578-1694," "Turin 1694-1918" and "1918-Present."
To be continued in part #3 of this series.
Notes:
1. Pullella, P., 2009, "A new taint on the Shroud of Turin?," FaithWorld, October 6. [return]
2. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19 in Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.52. [return]
3. Wilson, 1979, pp.51-53. [return]
4. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.121-129. [return]
5. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
6. Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp.37-56, p.42 in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
7. Smith, D.M., 1983, "The Letter," DMS Publishing Co: Rancho Palos Verdes CA, pp.24-25. Emphasis original. Footnotes omitted. [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. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.223; 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.27; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.148. [return]
10. 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.296. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.113-114; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.141-142; Wilson, 1998, p.152; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.140-141; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.110-111. [return]
12. Markwardt, J., 1998, "The Fire and the Portrait," Shroud.com; Markwardt, J., 1999, "Antioch and the Shroud," Shroud.com. [return]
13. Wilson, 1998, p.148. [return]
14. "Romanos I Lekapenos: Campaigns in the East," Wikipedia, 21 October 2015. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, pp.148-149; Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.xxvii. [return]
16. Wilson, 1991, p.143; Scavone, in Tribbe, 2006, p.xxvii. [return]
17. Guscin, M., 2004, "The Sermon of Gregory Referendarius," Shroud.com. [return]
18. Wilson, 1991, p.143. [return]
19. Wilson, 1991, pp.143; Wilson, 1998, p.154, 268. [return]
20. Wilson, 1991, p.143; Wilson, 1998, p.154. [return]
21. Scavone, in Tribbe, 2006, p.xxvii. [return]
22. Juliusz Maszloch, nd., "The Holy Face, il Volto Santo di Manoppello." [return]
23. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.176-177. [return]
24. de Wesselow, 2012, p.175. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, pp.95-96, 168-169; Wilson, 1986, p.104; Wilson, 1991, pp.155-157; Wilson, 1998, pp.124-125, 142-143; Wilson, 2010, pp.186-187. [return]
26. Wilson, 1979, pp.172-191; Maloney, P.C., "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, p.34; Tribbe, 2006, pp.26-40, 194; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.100-114. [return]
27. Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au (members only). [return]
28. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, p.198. [return]
29. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.96. [return]
30. O'Connell, P. & Carty, C., 1974, "The Holy Shroud and Four Visions," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.7-8; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.9. [return]
31. Guerrera, 2001, pp.9-10. [return]
32. Guerrera, 2001, p.8. [return]
33. Piana, A., 2007, "The Shroud's `Missing Years'," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 66, December, pp.9-25,28-31. [return]
34. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.148. [return]
35. Oxley, 2010, p.100. [return]
36. Scavone, 1989, p.96. [return]
37. Oxley, 2010, p.101. [return]
38. Ibid. [return]
39. Oxley, 2010, pp.101-102. [return]
40. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.51. [return]
41. Scavone, D., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, p.325. [return]
42. Oxley, 2010, p.102. [return]
43. Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.325. [return]
44. Scavone, 1989, pp.96-97; Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.325; Scavone, in Berard, 1991, p.198; 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.62; Guerrera, 2001, p.10; Piana, 2007; Oxley, 2010, p.102. [return]
45. Oxley, 2010, p.104. [return]
46. Oxley, 2010, pp.104-105. [return]
47. Scavone, 1989, p.98; Ruffin, 1999, p.62. [return]
48. "Pons I Heer van La Roche-Sur-Ognon, Flagey, Maizières en Ray," Web: Netherlands, GenealogieOnline Trees Index, 1000-2015 (in Dutch)". [return]
49. Piana, A., 2010a, "`Missing years' of the Holy Shroud," Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Frascati, Italy, 4-6 May 2010. [return]
50. Piana, 2007. [return]
51. Extract from slide 25 of Piana, A., 2010b, "The `Missing Years' of the Holy Shroud," Frascati (Rome), 5th May 2010. [return]
52. Oxley, 2010, pp.105-106. [return]
53. Piana, 2010a. [return]
54. Ibid. [return]
55. 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]
56. Piana, 2010a. [return]
57. Ibid. [return]
58. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
59. Wilson, 1979, p.194; Wilson, 1986, pp.5,12; Wilson, 1991, pp.20-21; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127; Guerrera, 2001, pp.103-104; Tribbe, 2006, pp.42-43; Oxley, 2010, p.49; Wilson, 2010, pp.221-222. [return]
60. Scavone, in Berard, 1991, p.198; Oxley, 2010, p.105. [return]
61. Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.39,38, 35; Piana, 2010a. [return]
62. Ruffin, 1999, p.64; Guerrera, 2001, pp.10-11; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.14-15. [return]
63. Wilson, 1998, p.128; Guerrera, 2001, p.12; Oxley, 2010, pp.50,53. [return]
64. Wilson, 1998, p.278; Wilson, 2010, p.229. [return]
65. Wilson, 1998, pp.229,278; Wilson, 2010, p.229. [return]
66. Crispino, D.C., 1983, "The Castle of Montfort," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 8, September, pp.35-40. [return]
67. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.33; Guerrera, 2001, p.12; Wilson, 1991, p.18; Wilson, 2010, p.229. [return]
68. Wilson, 1998, p.280; Wilson, 2010, p.230. [return]
69. Wilson, 1979, p.260; Guerrera, 2001, pp.14-15; Wilson, 1998, pp.280-281; Wilson, 2010, pp.302-303. [return]
70. Wilson, I., 2007, "1: The Tombstone of Geoffrey II de Charny at Froidmont," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 66, December; Wilson, 2010, p.235. [return]
71. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.130; Wilson, 1998, p.117; Guerrera, 2001, p.16. [return]
72. Wilson, 1986, p.12; Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, p.28; Wilson, I., 2012, "Discovering more of the Shroud's Early History: A promising new approach ...," Talk for the International Congress on the Holy Shroud in Spain, Aula Magna of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 28-30 April, 2012. [return]
73. Jones, 2015. [return]
74. Wilson, 1979, p.214; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.46; Wilson, 2010, p.241. [return]
75. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.19; Ruffin, 1999, p.67; de Wesselow, 2012, p.16. [return]
Posted 25 October 2015. Updated 13 October 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment