The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #7

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Index: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #10 & #11]

Introduction. This is part #7 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, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6. I will link the main headings in these posts back to my previous, "My theory ..." posts on those topics. It is my emphasis below unless otherwise indicated. The next post in this series is part #8.

[Above: Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) control console computer terminal[5] just before, or just after, it had on 6 May 1988 displayed the alleged hacker's bogus radiocarbon age of the Shroud, "640 years"[6], which was then calibrated to "1350 AD"[7]. Dr. (now Prof.) Timothy Jull is in the green jumper, and the alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is in the black shirt[8].]

■ Responses by Professors Jull and Ramsey are evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the hacker [#10(8) & #7]

• The AMS computer at Arizona was a "DEC computer system." In the previously cited 1986 Radiocarbon journal paper, Linick stated that Arizona's AMS computer was a "DEC computer system" which "largely controls the ... calculation of results for each 15-minute run":

"The DEC computer system largely controls the cycling of isotopes, accumulation of data, and calculation of results for each 15-minute run"[9]

This is consistent with the terminal in the photo above, from page 176H of Prof. Harry Gove's book, of what appears to be a DEC VT-100 , which were typically networked to a DEC

[Right: A DEC VT-100 terminal[10].]

minicomputer (i.e. a mini-mainframe-computer). "DEC" stands for Digital Equipment Corporation, the maker of the powerful PDP-11 and VAX-11 mini- computers which were popular in science laboratories in the 1980s.

• Arizona's Prof. Jull's surprising, misleading and false response to my hacking proposal. A copy of comments I made when I was on Dan Porter's blog, proposing that the radiocarbon dating laboratories may have been duped by a computer hacker (at that early stage I did not claim it was a theory) was sent by Hugh Farey, the anti-authenticist Editor of the BSTS Newsletter[11], to Prof. A.J. Timothy Jull, Director of the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory,

[Left: Prof. A.J.T. Jull: Hungarian Academy of Sciences[12]. Prof. Jull was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper[13] and is in Prof. Gove's photo above of those present at Arizona's first dating of the Shroud.]

and to Oxford's Prof. Christopher Ramsey (see next). Both Profs. Jull and Ramsey, surprisingly replied, and Porter posted those replies to his blog[14].

Prof. Jull's reply to Farey (as copied to my blog [15]) was as follows:

"This is impossible. In our case, the software for the calculations is offline. In any case, the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph, as I recall. Indeed, in 1988 the internet (as we know it today) didn't exist – there was a pre-existing network run by the US government which was quite restricted. Anyway, the machine we used at that time couldn't have been attached to it, and that one still isn't."

First I was (and still am) surprised (indeed amazed) that two Professors, who are Directors of major radiocarbon laboratories, would bother responding to anonymous (Farey said he did not give them my name) blog comments. That itself is evidence that they may have been aware (or suspected), following Linick's assumed suicide (see part #6), that their laboratories' AMS computers may have been hacked by Linick in their 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud.

I don't know what Farey prefaced my comments with, but as I pointed out in my response when I was on Porter's blog (copied to my blog[16]), I said nothing about "the Internet" and Prof. Jull's "the software for the calculations is offline ... the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph" (his emphasis) is not only self-contradictory (if the "calculation does NOT require software," why is "the software for the calculations ... offline"?), it is misleading, and even false. As we saw above, in a 1986 Radiocarbon journal paper, the first author of which was "T.W. Linick" and its second author, "A.J.T. Jull" (see reference [9] below), while the final calibration was "done offline and plotted on a graph," as I did in part #4, the actual "calculation of results for each 15-minute run" was done by the "DEC computer system."

This was confirmed by Prof. Gove's eyewitness account of Arizona's first Shroud dating run, published in 1996:

"The first sample run was OX1 [an 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"[17].

and by David Sox in 1988, presumably obtained from Gove, since Sox wasn't there:

"The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction [the calibration] was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested."[18]

Prof. Jull must have known this, so his reply to Farey that "the software for the calculations is offline ... the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph" (his emphasis) is not only self-contradictory, but misleading and false.

However, from Prof. Ramsey's reply to Farey (see next), where he wrote, "Age calculation was done offline ...," I will charitably assume that by "calculations," Prof. Jull was referring not to the computer's calculation that Gove and Sox wrote about, but to the "offline" further processing, including calibration, of those computer calculations. If so, then while what Prof. Jull wrote in his reply above would not be deliberately false, it would still be difficult not to conclude that Jull was being deliberately misleading. That is because Prof. Jull must have known that it was "the calculations produced by the computer" which I was alleging had been hacked, not the further processing "offline" of those computer "calculations."

In which case this would itself be further evidence for my theory that the the radiocarbon laboratories were duped by a computer hacker (allegedly Timothy W. Linick). That is, following Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989, a little over three months after the 16 February 1989 Nature paper which claimed that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[19] appeared, Arizona laboratory leaders (of which Prof. Jull was not then one) may have discovered evidence that Linick had hacked Arizona's dating. If so, they would presumably not have been able to explain how Linick could have also hacked Zurich's and Oxford's datings. Which would in turn explain why Jull (and Ramsey-see next) emphasised that none of the three laboratories' AMS computers were online via "the Internet," which I hadn't mentioned. In which case the laboratories may have assumed that the Shroud was medieval after all and Linick's hacking of Arizona's dating made no difference to the final result. What other explanation is there for Prof. Jull's (and Prof. Ramsey's - see next) strange defensiveness, replying (and promptly at that) to an anonymous blogger's comments, misleadingly referring to "calculations ... offline," which are clearly irrelevant to my hacker claim, and going on at length about "the Internet" about which I said nothing?

• Oxford's Prof. Ramsey's surprising, misleading and false response to my hacking proposal. My surprise that Prof. Jull had responded to an anonymous (to him) comment of mine on Dan Porter's blog turned to amazement when my further reading of those comments revealed that the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating

[Right: Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey[20, 21], who as "C.R. Bronk" (for his original name Christopher Ramsey Bronk[22]) was also one of the signatories to the 1989 Nature paper[23].]

laboratory, Prof. Christopher Ramsey, had also responded to my comment sent to him by Farey, as follows:

"Yes – I agree with all that Tim [Jull] says. This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s. In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections). The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS"[24]

The first question is, how did Ramsey know "all that Tim [Jull] says"? Did Farey, having received Jull's response, email it to Ramsey for his added response? Or did Farey send my comments to both Jull and Ramsey separately at the same time and one of them contacted the other to present a united front?

Ramsey states that he agrees "with all that Tim [Jull] says," despite Jull's "...the software for the calculations is offline. ... the calculation does NOT require software" being at least self-contradictory and misleading (see above).

Like Jull, Ramsey also strangely (if not suspiciously) downplayed the role of the AMS computer. Indeed some on Porter's blog (including Porter himself) took Prof. Ramsey to be claiming that the AMS computer was little better than a calculator, and Porter even questioned whether it was "programmable"! When, as we have seen, both Jull and Ramsey knew that it was a "DEC computer system," probably either a PDP-11[left][25], or more likely a VAX-11 [below right][26], both of which were powerful, programmable, and therefore hackable computers! In fact as we shall see in the next part #8, some versions of VMS, the operating system of DEC PDP-11/VAX-11 computers, had a bug which made them vulnerable to hacking, and in fact many were hacked.

Moreover, in his reply above, Prof. Ramsey's, "This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s" is not only false, it is again difficult not to conclude that it is deliberately false, given that Ramsey, like Jull, knew that the AMS computer was a very powerful "DEC computer system." In fact, as I pointed out in my reply to Ramsey's response on Porter's blog, copied to my blog[27], far from me being "someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s":

"I was one of the first to have a personal computer in 1980. I pioneered the introduction of computers into Health Department of WA [Western Australia] hospitals in the mid-to late 1980s and in the late 1980s/early 1990s, I was the Systems Administrator of a network of 7 hospitals' UNIX systems."

Prof. Ramsey's ad hominem response cannot be explained by a lack of computer literacy, since he is the author of OxCal, a radiocarbon dating calibration computer program[28]. So, knowing that the AMS computers at the three laboratories were very powerful DEC minicomputers, what was Ramsey's point in claiming, falsely, that I was "someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s"? It is difficult not to conclude that Prof. Ramsey was deliberately trying to hide the fact that the AMS computers were indeed hackable. Which would be further evidence that after Linick's `suicide,' Arizona laboratory may have discovered evidence that its AMS computer, and hence its dating, had been hacked, and also that Zurich and Oxford's AMS computers may have been hacked.

Prof. Ramsey's "The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured" confirms my key point that there was "software" between the Shroud samples and the "outputting counts of 14C" displayed on the AMS computer's control console terminal. And being "software" it was hackable. That the "software was very simple" is irrelevant, so why mention it? Again Prof. Ramsey's defensiveness suggests that he has something to hide.

As we saw above Prof. Ramsey's "Age calculation was done offline" clarified what Prof. Jull probably meant by "calculation." But as with Jull, it is irrelevant that the "counts of 14C" were further processed "offline". Prof. Ramsey, like Prof. Jull, must be highly intelligent, and so they would surely know that if there was a hacking it would be in those "counts of 14C" before they were further processed offline. Indeed, Prof. Ramsey's "...a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS," tacitly admits that the "numbers from the AMS" are from which the dating follows. If the Shroud samples' "numbers from the AMS" had been hacked, the further offline processing would inevitably reflect that hacked dating.

Nevertheless I did accept Profs. Jull and Ramsey's assurance that the AMS computers at Arizona and Oxford (and presumably also at Zurich) were never online. This however was not a problem for my theory because I had previously stated that if those computers never were online, they could still have been hacked manually and locally. Which in fact had been an alternative from the outset (see 22Feb14 and 07Mar14).

Continued in part #8 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, 27 February 2016. [return]
5. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
7. Ibid. [return]
8. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
9. T.W., Linick, A.J.T. Jull, L.J. Toolin, and D.J. Donahue, 1986, "Operation of the NSF-Arizona accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis and results from selected collaborative research projects," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, No. 2a, pp.522-533, p.524. [return]
10. "VT100," Wikipedia, 16 January 2016. [return]
11. Farey, H., 2013, "Editorial - by Hugh Farey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 78, December. [return]
12. "Prominent guest researchers arrive in Hungary," Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2013 (no longer online). [return]
13. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
14. "Comment Promoted: On the Hacking Hypothesis," Shroud of Turin Blog, March 9, 2014. [return]
15. Jones, S.E., 2014, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," The Shroud of Turin blog, March 13. [return]
16. Jones, 2014. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
18. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]
19. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
20. "Professor Christopher Ramsey" Merton College, Oxford, 2014. [return]
21. "Christopher Bronk Ramsey," Wikipedia, 25 December 2015. [return]
22. Bronk, C.R., 1987, "Accelerator Mass Spectrometry for Radiocarbon Dating: Advances in Theory and Practice," PhD Dissertation University of Oxford. [return]
23. Damon, 1989, p. 611. [return]
24. Jones, 2014. [return]
25. "PDP-11," Wikipedia, 21 March 2016. [return]
26. "VAX," Wikipedia, 31 March 2016. [return]
27. Jones, 2014. [return]
28. Ramsey, C.B., 2014, "OxCal," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 24 May. [return]

Posted 29 March 2016. Updated 27 February 2024.

Colour #12: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

COLOUR #12

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #12, "The man on the Shroud: Colour," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Faint #11] [Next: Non-traditional #13]

---

2. The man on the Shroud #8
4. Colour #12

Introduction. The colour of the image of the man on the Shroud is a uniform straw-yellow[2].

[Above (enlarge): "Micrograph taken at the image area of the right eye at 32x magnification."[3]. As can be seen, the straw-yellow image colour is uniform against the lighter flax fibril background.]

Uniform. The body image lies only on the very top of those Shroud fibres it has modified[4] (see future part "superficial"). All the image portions of the fibres show a uniform straw-yellow coloration[5]. The colour is that of dehydrated oxidised cellulose in linen fibres[6]. Microdensitometric measurements of Shroud color photomicrographs found that the yellowing of any given fibril was the same of any other yellowed fibril on the Shroud[7]. That is, body image fibrils over the entire Shroud are basically identical to each other in their straw-yellow color[8]. Each yellowed fibre is yellowed to the same extent as any other image fibre[9]. There was no graduating difference in yellowness of the image fibres[10]. Each image fibre held the same quantity of yellowness[11].

Areal density image. If every topmost fiber of yellowed threads contained the same shade of yellow, then what caused the difference in the shading of the image[12]? The difference in the shading of

[Above (enlarge):

"areal density. The elements that make up the shroud image are all the same color. Like a halftone image all the `dots are the same color, more where its darker and less where its lighter. In the case of the Shroud the fibers are a uniform yellow of oxidized cellulose."[13].]

yellow from one area of the image to another was dependent on the number of yellowed fibers in each area[14]. If one image area was darker than the other, that area would contain more yellowed fibers[15]. It is similar to the half-tone prints in newspaper photos, where black is made by black ink dots bunched together, and gray is made by black ink dots interspersed with white areas[16]. The darker an area, the more dots in it[17]. This shows that the image seen at the macroscopic level is an areal density image and not a pigment concentration image[18]. Shading is not accomplished by varying the color but by varying the number of colored fibers per unit area at the microlevel[19]. The darker portions of the image were not due to a variation of the degree of the yellowing of the fibrils, but rather to the presence of more yellowed fibrils per unit area[20]. Any differences in intensity between different parts of the body image are due solely to the number of yellow-colored fibrils concentrated in a given area[21]. Although parts of the body image may appear to be darker, it is not due to them having a darker yellow coloring, but rather they have a greater number of uniformly colored fibrils in those locations[22].

Digital. All the colored fibers are uniformly colored, that is, an exposed fiber is either colored or not colored[23]. Yellowed image fibers lie alongside white non-image fibers[24]. The Shroud image colour information is therefore digital, with only two states: on-off[25], as in modern computer technology. Not analogue[26], with continuously varying information, as in a painting. Optical engineer, Kevin Moran examined by microscope Shroud fibres attached to the 27 sticky tapes which Max Frei (1913–83 had pressed into the Shroud in 1978[27]. Moran dubbed the Shroud's image fibres, "pixels, similar to a TV screen. ... darker and lighter shades are not the result of more or less `paint but rather a greater concentration of dehydrated fibers, ie. Pixelization"[28]:

"Because of my interest in how the image was formed, I have examined the image-forming pixels or segments of the fibre that have the darker yellowing. I have dubbed the elements 'pixels' to draw attention to the fact that they are optically terminated. They are very sharply defined at their ends. They are not diffused spots that would be seen if they were dyed or chemically reacted, or a thermal burn. They are most certainly not made by pigment contact"[29]

Moran further noted that under the microscope, "where the ... image ...

[Above (enlarge): Photomicrograph taken by Kevin Moran of 15 micron (15 thousandth of a millimetre) diameter Shroud fibres attached to one of Max Frei's sticky tapes[30]. As can be seen, the boundaries between the image (yellow) and non-image fibres are sharp, about 1 micron wide. Note that the image fibres are uniformly yellow, even at this microscopic scale. Note also that where a non-image fibre crossed over an image fibre, the non-image fibre became the same uniform yellow image colouring.]

fibre meets the ... nonimage ... fibre looks like a precision line formed on a modern semiconductor":

"Since the linen fibres are some 10 to 30 microns in diameter and appear as smooth fibre optics, the section where the darkened [i.e. image] fibre meets the clear [i.e. nonimage] fibre looks like a precision line formed on a modern semiconductor."[31]

As Ian Wilson commented, "This is something completely outside any conceivable technology, medieval or modern"[32]. While Wilson may be overstating it that this is outside of modern technology, it certainly is completely outside of 14th century technology, when the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355, at Lirey, France.

Problem for the forgery theory. (see previous three: #9, #10 & #11) . The uniformity of color of the body image fibers is further evidence against the body image being a painting[33]. To provide variation in colour an artist varies the concentration of an applied pigment, that is, a pigment concentration gradient[34]. But the Shroud's image's uniform straw-yellow colour means it not a pigment concentration gradient but an areal density image[35]. An artist would have to monitor the number of fibers he paints per unit area of his painting while visualizing in his mind's eye the macroscopic image he is trying to create[36]. A single fiber on the Shroud is about half the thickness of an average human hair, putting severe restrictions on the size of the artist's brush and the time required to produce the finished painting[37]. Because the many fibrils that make up a single thread are too fine to be distinguished by an unaided human eye, and because each fibril has been individually encoded with color, to see them a painter would need a microscope, several centuries before that instrument was invented[38]. Nor is the uniform straw-yellow colour of the Shroud image evidence for a dry powder contact transfer process[39]. There is no evidence on the Shroud of the powder particulates required to produce the image[40]. Moreover, the Shroud contains, conservatively, thousands (if not millions) of individual body-image fibrils, and each fibril is encoded with a uniform intensity of color[41] Someone applying powdered pigment onto a cloth with a hand-held dauber and/or rubbing powder on woven linen could never achieve this uniform intensity on all individual image fibrils[42]. In fact, experiments involving powder rubbing have shown that a uniform application of powder cannot be obtained on even one fibril[43]. Let alone with the precision of a "line formed on a modern semiconductor" (see above). It goes without saying that a medieval forger could not by any technology of his time selectively colour individual linen fibres with a precision of 1 micron! Therefore, by this evidence alone, all Shroud medieval forgery theories are rendered false!

Conclusion. So even the colour of the image of the man on the Shroud is part of the overwhelming evidence that the Turin Shroud is authentic! That the `terminator' line where the image part of a fibril meets the non-image part of the same fibril "looks like a precision line formed on a modern semiconductor," is alone proof beyond

[Above: Close-up of a photomicrograph of the ~1 micron wide `terminator' line between the image and non-image part of the same fibril from the Shroud[44], showing that where a different non-image fibril crossed an image fibril, it was coated with the image!]

reasonable doubt that the Shroud is not a medieval, or earlier, forgery, because before the microscope was invented in the 1600s, no one could even see linen fibrils, let alone colour them. But as leading anti-authenticists Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) and Steven D. Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell), have stated, either the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" or "the image is that of Jesus":

"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)[45]

"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[46] and Stevenson and Habermas[47] 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)[48]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'" (my emphasis)[49]

And since no medieval human artificer could have even seen linen fibrils on the Shroud which are ~15 microns (15/1000ths of a millimetre) in diameter, let alone selectively colour thousands of them, the Shroud is not "a product of human artifice." Therefore, "the image is that of Jesus"!

Continued in part #13 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. Adler, A.D., 2000a, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.11-27, 15; Adler, 2000b, p.116. [return]
3. Lavoie, G.R., 2000, "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," [1998], Thomas More: Allen TX, p.58. [return]
4. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.103-112, 105; Adler, 2000a, p.15; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113, 116; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.36; Lavoie, 2000, p.62; Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.10; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.74. [return]
5. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.425-446, 428; Adler, 1999, pp.104-105; Adler, 2000a, p.15; Adler, 2000b, p.116; Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
6. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.199; Adler, 1999, p.105. [return]
7. Jumper, E.J., Adler, A.D., Jackson, J.P., Pellicori, S.F., Heller, J.H., Druzik, J.R., in Lambert, 1984, "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin," pp.447-476, 451; Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
8. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
9. Lavoie, 2000, p.63. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Lavoie, 2000, pp.63-64. [return]
13. Schneider, R., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin an Enduring Mystery – Part 4: Skeptics & Image Formation," Slide 13. [return]
14. Lavoie, 2000, p.64. [return]
15. Lavoie, 2000, p.64. [return]
16. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.22. [return]
17. Lavoie, 2000, p.64. [return]
18. Adler, 1999, p.105. [return]
19. Ibid; Adler, 2000a, p.15. [return]
20. Jumper, et al., in Lambert, 1984, p.451. [return]
21. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
22. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
23. Adler, 1999, p.105. [return]
24. Lavoie, 2000, p.63. [return]
25. "Digital data," Wikipedia, 24 March 2016. [return]
26. "Analog signal," Wikipedia, 5 March 2016. [return]
27. Moran, K.E., 1995, "Observations by Microscopy of the Sticky Tape Samples Taken from the Shroud by Dr. Max Frei in 1978," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 41, September, pp.12-13. [return]
28. "Department of Physics," Shroud of Turin Education Project, 2000. [return]
29. Moran, K., 1995, "Observations by Microscopy of the Sticky Tape Samples Taken from the Shroud by Dr. Max Frei in 1978," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 41, September, pp.12-13. [return]
30. Moran, K.E., 1999, "Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples," Shroud.com, pp.1-10, 8. [return]
31. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.74; Moran, 1995, p.14. [return]
32. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.74. [return]
33. Adler, 2000a, p.15. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
35. Adler, 2000b, p.113. [return]
36. Adler, 2000a, p.15. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
39. Adler, 2000a, p.15. [return]
40. Ibid. [return]
41. Antonacci, 2000, p.74. [return]
42. Ibid. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Moran, 1999, p.8. [return]
45. 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]
46. Wilson, 1979, pp.51-53. [return]
47. 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]
48. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
49. 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]

Posted 23 March 2016. Updated 7 April 2024.

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: 31-176

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: 31-176," which is part #2 of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" series. See the Index, part #1 for more information about this series. These parts of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" series are a work in progress. It will take a lot of time researching and writing each part, so after I have posted it, I will continue updating it in the background and report the updates in the Editorials of my Shroud of Turin News.

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

[Index] [Previous: AD 30] [Next: 177-]

---

c. 31 Healing and conversion of King Abgar V of Edessa. According to the early church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–340), Edessa's King Abgar (whom he calls Prince Agbarus), heard of Jesus' healing miracles and sent Him a letter by a courier, Ananias, asking to be healed of an incurable, wasting disease[2]. According to Eusebius, Jesus replied by letter carried back by Ananias, saying that He could not come but after His resurrection and ascension, He would send one of His disciples to heal Abgar and bring eternal life to him and his subjects[3]. After Jesus' resurrection and ascension in AD 30 (see part #1), the Apostle Thomas sent Thaddeus, one of the seventy (Lk 10:1-20) to Abgar in Edessa and through him Abgar was healed and converted to Christianity, along with many Edessans[4].

[Above (enlarge)[5]: King Abgar V (c.25 BC-AD 50) of Edessa is depicted in this 10th century icon at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai[6], receiving the Image of Edessa/Mandylion (the Shroud "four-doubled" (tetradiplon)) from Jesus' disciple Thaddeus[7]. Abgar's face is that of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913-959)[8], to commemorate the arrival of the Mandylion/Image of Edessa (Shroud) in Constantinople on 15 August 944[9].]

Writing in about AD 325[10], Eusebius stated that he had read in Edessa's archives Abgar's letter to Jesus and Jesus' reply letter to Abgar, written in Syriac (i.e. Aramaic)[11]. But Eusebius did not mention anything about Abgar seeing or receiving an image of Jesus from Ananias or Thaddeus[12]. And as we shall see in a future part, while Abgar V may have been healed and converted to Christianity through the preaching of Thaddeus (Addai in Syriac[13]), the Abgar-Jesus correspondence may have been a pious fraud[14] inserted into Edessa's archives during the reign of Abgar VIII (177-212)[15].

c. 42 Apostle John left Jerusalem. Paul mentions in Galatians 2:9 that he met with the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church which included the Apostles Peter and John. That was probably Paul's first meeting with the Jerusalem church leadership mentioned briefly in Acts 11:30[16], which was before the death in 44 of Herod Agrippa I (11BC–44AD) (Acts 12:20-23). Due to the severe persecution by Agrippa in which John's brother James was executed (Acts 12:1-3), the Apostles had left Jerusalem by 44[17]. Neither Peter or John are mentioned in Paul's second meeting with the Jerusalem church leaders in Acts 15, which was in 48-49[18], indicating that they had left Jerusalem by then[19]. On the assumption that the Apostle John was "the servant of the priest" to whom Jesus gave His Shroud after His resurrection (see part #1), I assume that John took the Shroud with him out from Jerusalem in about 42.

50 Death of Abgar V. Abgar V died in 50[20]. He was succeeded by his infant son Ma'nu V (50-57)[21], who was in turn succeeded by another of Abgar's sons, Ma'nu VI (57–71)[22]. Ma'nu VI reverted to paganism[23] and persecuted the Edessan Christians[24]. According to Ian Wilson's reconstruction (which I don't accept), the Image of Edesss/Mandylion (Shroud) was then hidden with a tile later called the Keramion[25], in a niche in the wall above Edessa's west gate[26], where according to the tenth century "Story of the Image of Edessa"[27], it was rediscovered in 525 (see future parts) after a major flood of Edessa's river Daisan uncovered its hiding place[28].

c. 60 Apostle John in Ephesus. According to early church tradition, the apostle John wrote his Gospel while residing in Ephesus[28]. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) wrote that the Apostle John returned to Ephesus after the death of the Emperor Domitian (81–96)[29]. Irenaeus (c. 130-202) wrote that John remained at Ephesus until the time of Emperor Trajan (r. 98-117)[30]. There is no information about when John first took up residence in Ephesus[31]. However, there is evidence that the Gospel of John was written in the 60s[32]. The earliest known portion of the New Testament, papyrus p52, is a fragment containing Jn 18:31–33[33]. As with the other gospels, there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, indicating they either were all written before AD 70, or long afterward[34]. But John 5:2 refers to "the Sheep Gate" and the "pool ... called Bethesda" in Jerusalem as presently existing:

"Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades." (my emphasis).

The natural way to understand this is that they were still existing when John wrote his gospel[35]. But they were not existing after AD 70: the five porches were found in the 1960s by archaeologists, buried beneath the rubble of Jerusalem's destruction[36]. Eusebius recorded that, "the whom Jesus loved, apostle alike and evangelist, even John" lived on in Asia, "directing the churches there"[37]. A Bishop of Ephesus, Polycrates (c. 130–196), wrote that John died in Ephesus[38], and according to Irenaeus it was during the reign of Trajan (see above), that is about the year 100. I assume that John had the Shroud with him at Ephesus from c. 60. I also assume it may be significant that Ephesus (near modern Selçuk, Turkey) and Edessa (modern Sanliurfa, Turkey) are only 1271 kms (789 miles) apart):

[Above (enlarge): Distance between Ephesus (near modern Selçuk) and Edessa (modern Sanliurfa)[39].]

To be continued in part #3, "177-", 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 here. [return]
2. Eusebius, c. 325, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," Book I, Chapter XIII, Cruse, C.F., transl., 1955, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing, 1966, pp.43-44. [return]
3. Eusebius, p.44. [return]
4. Eusebius, pp.44-47. [return]
5. "Image of Edessa or Holy Mandylion," Digital Journal, 28 March 2012. [return]
6. "Abgar V," Wikipedia, 31 January 2016. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 154-155. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, pp.151,154. [return]
9. Wilson, 1979, pp.116,151,255; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.148,268; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.4-5; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.24; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.165,300. [return]
10. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.133. [return]
11. Eusebius, pp.44-45, 47; Wilson, 1979, p.127. [return]
12. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.81; 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.54; Guerrera, 2001, p.2. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.128. [return]
14. Markwardt, J., 1998, "Antioch and the Shroud," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, p.94; Markwardt, J.J., 2009, "Ancient Edessa and the Shroud: History Concealed by the Discipline of the Secret," in Fanti, G., ed., "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, p.384. [return]
15. Scavone, D.C., 2010, "Edessan sources for the legend of the Holy Grail," Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Frascati, Italy, 4-6 May 2010, pp.1-6, p.1. [return]
16. Marshall, I.H., 1980, "The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1987, pp.204-205. [return]
17. Walker, W., 1959, "A History of the Christian Church," [1918], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Revised, Reprinted, 1963, p.23. [return]
18. Polhill, J.B., "Acts," in Grudem, W., ed., 2007, "The ESV Study Bible," Crossway Bibles: Wheaton IL, p.2114. [return]
19. Culpepper, R.A, 2000, "John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend," [1994], T&T Clark: Edinburgh, p49. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, p.135; Ruffin, 1999, p.54; Wilson, 2010, pp.120, 297. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, pp.134, 170; Wilson, 2010, p.120. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, pp.135, 252; Wilson, 1998, p.170; Wilson, 2010, p.120. [return]
23. Wilson, 1979, p.135; 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, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, 1991, pp.171-204, 184. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, pp.131, 135; Guerrera, 2001, p.3; Wilson, 2010, pp.132, 297. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, p.132; Wilson, 2010, pp.132-133. [return]
26. Wilson, 1979, pp.136, 138, 252; Wilson, 1998, p.162; Wilson, 2010, pp.131-132. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.138; Wilson, 2010, p.132. [return]
28. Wilson, 1979, pp.138, 254; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.33-34; Wilson, 1998, p.162; Guerrera, 2001, p.3; Wilson, 2010, pp.132, 142. [return]
28. Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, p.31. [return]
29. Kruse, 2003, p.31. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Ibid. [return]
33. Morris, L.L., 1971, "The Gospel According to John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1984, p.30; Kruse, 2003, p.31. [return]
34. Robinson, J.A.T., 1976, "Redating The New Testament," SCM Press: London, Second Impression, 1977, p.13; Morris, 1971, pp.33-34Morris, 1971, p.30; Kruse, 2003, p.31. [return]
35. Robinson, 1976, p.278; Morris, 1971, pp.33-34. [return]
36. Robinson, 1976, p.278. [return]
37. Stott, J.R.W., 1988, "The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1964], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Revised Edition, Reprinted, 2004, p.43. [return]
38. Tasker, R.V., "John," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., 1982, "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1988, p.602. [return]
39. "Distance between Selçuk and Sanliurfa," Google Maps. [return]

Posted: 18 March 2016. Updated: 21 September 2021.

"Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity": Shroud of Turin News - February 2016

Shroud of Turin News - February 2016
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: February 2016, part #1] [Next: March 2016, part #1]

This is part #2 of the February 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. The articles' words are in bold to distinguish them from mine. See also "Modern-day 'Indiana Jones' links Shroud to 1st century": Shroud of Turin News - March 2016 and My review of "The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God" (2016) by Philip E. Dayvault.

---

"Phil Dayvault Presents Major New Evidence from Early Christianity, Nickcole Watkins, Morgan James Publishing, New York. February 16, 2016, Christian Newswire. Philip E. Dayvault chronicles an epic exploration and reveals a revolutionary discovery. Words like

[Left: Dayvault's book, "The Keramion, Lost and Found" (2016): Amazon.com]

"epic" and "revolutionary" bring another word, "hype," to my mind! But presumably these are not Dayvault's words but his book's publicist's.

For millennia the world has debated over the story of Jesus Christ. His deity, resurrection, and even existence have been brought into question, and believers and nonbelievers alike have endlessly searched for definitive proof that Christ walked the earth. Only extreme atheists like Richard Dawkins deny, or question, whether Jesus existed:

"It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others, Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed ..."[2]

Dawkins omits to inform his readers that "Professor G. A. Wells" is a "Professor of German"[3]! Professional historians, like Prof. Michael Grant (1914–2004), who while not a Christian (he described himself as "an unbeliever"[4]), not only accepted that Jesus existed because:

"... if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned" (my emphasis)[5]

Grant rightly regarded Jesus as," The most potent figure ... in world history":

"The most potent figure, not only in the history of religion, but in world history as a whole, is Jesus Christ: the maker of one of the few revolutions which have lasted. Millions of men and women for century after century have found his life and teaching overwhelmingly significant and moving. And there is ample reason, as this book will endeavour to show, in this later twentieth century why this should still be so."[6]

After years of investigation and research, former FBI Special Agent and longtime Shroud investigator Phil Dayvault has compiled his studies and findings into his revealing narrative, The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God. Dayvault is (or was) the Director of Dr Alan and Mary Whanger's Council for the Study of the Shroud of Turin (CSST)[7]. I don't have this book but I have recently ordered it. When I get it I will report on it in a future Shroud of Turin News.

Having been long accepted among Christians as the greatest physical evidence for Christ's life, passion and death, many still question the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the traditional burial cloth of Jesus. The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is authentic! That is, the very burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of His beaten (Mt 26:67-68; 27:30; Lk 22:64; Jn 18:22; 19:3), scourged (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:16; Jn 19:1), crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5), crucified (Mt 27:35,38,44; Mk 15:24-27,32; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:16-18), dead (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37,39; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30), legs not broken (Jn 19:32-33), speared in the side (Jn 19:34), wrapped in a linen shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:40), buried in a rock tomb (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:38-42) and resurrected (Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 24:1-6; Jn 20:1-9) body!

But now, after a quest to find ancient oil lamps in Turkey, Phil Dayvault has discovered what he believes to be the truth about the Shroud of Turin. I hope Dayvault did not write this but his over-enthusiastic publicist, because it implies that no one else but Dayvault knows "the truth about the Shroud of Turin," which is clearly false!

With a compilation of vivid historical writing, photographs of ancient sites and sacred arts, and the discovery of a small mosaic which actually depicts an image of Jesus Christ, From Googling "Keramion" and selecting "images" this evidently is the

[Above (enlarge): "ISA Mosaic Tile - Sanliurfa Turkey": Dayvault's 2002 photo on his website[8].]

same mosaic face of the Image of Edessa in Ian Wilson's 2010 book, "The Shroud" (see below). Wilson and Mark Guscin visited Sanliurfa (ancient Edessa) in 2008[9]. A local archaeologist and museum

[Above (enlarge): "Mosaic face of Jesus, sixth century. Fragment from an unidentified location in Sanliurfa"[10].

As can be seen, the Sanliurfa mosaic has the following "Vignon markings" (see 11Feb12) evident on the Shroud face below

(enlarge)[11]: "(2) three-sided `square' between brows" (a rectangle of dark tiles joining the eyebrows), "(6) accentuated left cheek," "(7) accentuated right cheek." "(8) enlarged left nostril," "(9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip," "(11) hairless area between lower lip and beard,", "(12) forked beard," "(14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes," and "(15) two strands of hair" (two unusually shaped light tiles) [12]. In addition, the Shroud has two vertical darker areas joining the right eye to the upper right cheek, and the Sanliurfa mosaic has two dark lines of mosaic tiles starting in the right eye as a "Y" shape and becoming one line of tiles joining the upper right cheek. That is at least nine (9) Vignon markings plus one that is not a Vignon marking but is a feature on the Shroud face! This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Sanliurfa mosaic, dating from "between the sixth and seventh centuries" (see next) ultimately derived from the Shroud! And since the Sanliurfa mosaic is a copy of the Image of Edessa (see next), that is also further proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion was the Shroud four-doubled (tetradiplon) - see my "Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin."]

director showed the mosaic to Wilson and Guscin, telling them that it had been "hacked ... out" of a Sanliurfan house, and they recognised it as dating from "between the sixth and seventh centuries":

"DR MEHMET ONAL sipped a glass of tea as we looked out over his excavation site. `I have a surprise for you both,' he said. `We have a mosaic of your "Image of Edessa" here in Sanliurfa.' ... As Sanliurfa's museum director Erman Bediz explained to us, it was just a six-inch-by-eight-inch fragment some local citizen had found while making structural alterations to his house. He had hacked it out then sold it to the museum on a no-questions- asked basis. It was not even on public display, kept hidden away in one of the museum's storerooms. Even so, as the very Islamic Dr Onal and his companions had already perceived, this was quite unmistakably some early mosaicist's interpretation of the prophet Jesus's face as imprinted on this city's one-time 'Image of Edessa' ... The point also immediately apparent to Mark Guscin and me, from our familiarity with depictions of the Image of Edessa to be found elsewhere, was that stylistically this unique Sanliurfan example dated somewhere between the sixth and seventh centuries. It was therefore not only the earliest- known such depiction; it came from the very city from which the legend of this mysterious cloth had originated"[13].

Wilson and Guscin were not at that time permitted to photograph the mosaic, but they found a high-quality photo of it (above) in a Turkish journal[14].

The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God ties together a fascinating and factual defense for the authenticity of the famous Shroud. Dayvault claims that this Sanliurfa mosaic IS "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion":

"While conducting ancient oil lamp research in museum depots in Turkey during May 2002, Philip E. Dayvault, of Raleigh, NC, discovered a mosaic which depicts the Face of Christ and is remarkably derived from the Shroud of Turin, the traditional burial cloth of Jesus Christ. By comparing its image with various ancient Christological depictions, i.e., paintings, Icons, frescoes, and mosaics, he subsequently determined this mosaic to be the prototype of numerous Christological depictions; and also, the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion"[15]

But the Sanliurfa mosaic is only "a six-inch-by-eight-inch [~15 x ~20 cms] fragment" (see above), not a "roof-tile" onto which "the image of Jesus' face on the cloth" had "miraculously copied itself":

"The following is from a précis of the longer source known as the `Festival Sermon', and it describes the legendary origin of the Keramion: `8-9. On his way to Edessa, Ananias (Hanan) spent a night in the city of Mabbog, in the yard of a factory where roof-tiles were made, and hid the cloth under a stack of newly made tiles. During the night there was a great fire, during which the image of Jesus' face on the cloth miraculously copied itself onto one of the tiles."[16]

Even credulous early century Edessans would know that a mosaic was not a single image but a lot of tiny tiles which together form a composite image. Also the fragment had been "hacked ... out" of a Sanliurfan house (mentioned by Dayvault in his 2011 article"[17]) and dated by Wilson and Guscin to "between the sixth and seventh centuries" (see above). Dayvault may not have known this, but should have, because Wilson's 2010 book was published before Dayvault's 2011 article.

And as I wrote in my comment under this post to Dayvault himself:

"If Wilson and Guscin are right that the date of the mosaic is `between the sixth and seventh centuries' (see above), and I assume that they are, since they (particularly Guscin) are world authorities on the Mandylion/Image of Edessa, then it cannot be THE Keramion, because that was `mid first century':

"Accordingly, it would have been this same ceramic, or tile, version of Jesus's face, rather than the Image itself, as described in the Story [of the Image of Edessa], which Abgar's second son ordered to be removed from above the gate when he reverted to paganism and began persecuting Edessa's Christians. Whoever carried out this removal may have simply turned the tile around so that its 'face' side was turned inwards to the cavity behind. The clay oil lamp reportedly found in the same cavity suggests that this operation was carried out at night. And someone seems to have had the idea of using this same cavity to hide the Image/Shroud until the persecutions of Edessa's Christian community had blown over. By daybreak the gateway's brickwork would have been sealed up with mortar, no evidence of any Christ portrait remaining. If this was indeed how and where the Shroud lay hidden between the mid first century and some time in the first half of the sixth century, it would certainly have enjoyed near hermetically sealed conditions' throughout."[18]

In this new nonfiction, readers are ushered in to join Dayvault and his guide and translator Hafize on his exciting adventure and to experience illuminating new discoveries right along with him. Even though Dayvault is evidently wrong about this Sanliurfa mosaic being "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion," as I also wrote in my comment to him, he deserves credit for discovering this important, earliest known copy of the Image of Edessa, which Guscin acknowledged in 2015:

"I later came across an unpublished and decidedly non-scholarly article on Internet entitled ‘Face of the God Man’, by Philip Dayvault, at http://www.datument.com/article-face-of-the-god-man.html (last accessed: 15 July 2014). The article claims a first or second-century date for the mosaic. The author saw the mosaic in the museum of Urfa [Sanliurfa] in 2002, and reproduces low-quality photographs of the same from the back too. The measurements are approximately 18 x 15 cm, and it was apparently torn out of a wall. No justification is given for such an early dating. The article ends with a request for financial aid to self-publish a book on the subject."[19]

Presumably Wilson also was unaware in 2010 that Dayvault had discovered and photographed the mosaic in 2002. It would be a pity if Dayvault had sat on his important discovery for nine years (2002-2011) and only published it in 2011 after Wilson had beaten him to it in his 2010 book. It is a further pity that Dayvault has detracted from the importance of his discovery in its own right by making the grandiose (and evidently false) claim that this Sanliurfa mosaic is "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion."

The Keramion, Lost and Found brings history to life and leaves readers feeling enlightened and satisfied. Since Dayvault's central claim is evidently false that this mosaic is "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion," then if Dayvault's readers believe that, they will be deceived rather than "enlightened." As I wrote above, I will report on Dayvault's book in a future Shroud of Turin News. I am open to Dayvault overcoming Guscin and Wilson's "between the sixth and seventh centuries" dating and proving that this Sanliurfa mosaic is "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion." However, I have just re-read Dayvault's 33-page PDF 2011 Shroud University article but despite it being later than Wilson's 2010 book, there is no reference to the latter nor any mention, as far as I can see, of what Wilson wrote in his book about the mosaic. Much of the article is fallacious in claiming that because the Sanliurfa mosaic is based on the Shroud (on which we agree), other early depictions of Jesus must be based on the mosaic! There is a critical lateral inversion error on page 25, which if it is repeated in Dayvault's book, will further invalidate his claim that this Sanliurfan mosaic is THE Keramion!

This real life journey leaves no stone unturned, and no questions hanging in the balance. I look forward to reading in his book how Dayvault justifies his claim that this Sanliurfa mosaic is "the actual, historical 1st Century Keramion."

The truth is out there, and The Keramion, Lost and Found: A Journey to the Face of God has found it! See above on "hype"!

---

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 it. [return]
2. Dawkins, R., 2006, "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, p.97. [return]
3. "George Albert Wells," Wikipedia, 7 March 2016. [return]
4. Grant, M., 1977, "Jesus," Rigel: London, 2004, reprint, p.198. [return]
5. Grant, 1977, pp.199-200. My emphasis. [return]
6. Grant, 1977, p.1. [return]
7. Dayvault, P.E., "CSST-An Overview," 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.145. [return]
8. Dayvault, P.E., 2011, "`FACE of the GOD-man': A Quest for Ancient Oil Lamps Leads to the Prototype of Sacred Art...and MORE!," Shroud University, May 11. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.1. [return]
10. Wilson, 2010, plate 19a. [return]
11. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82E. [return]
13. Wilson, 2010, p.2. [return]
14. Wilson, 2010, p.296; Guscin, M., 2015, "MARK GUSCIN PhD THESIS 05.03.15," Royal Holloway, University of London, p.275. [return]
15. Dayvault, P.E., 2011, "Face of the God-man: A Quest for Ancient Oil Lamps Leads to the Prototype of Sacred Art...and MORE," Christian Newswire, May 17. [return]
16. Dayvault, 2011, p.5. [return]
17. Dayvault, 2011, p.7. [return]
18. Wilson, 2010, pp.132-133. [return]
19. Guscin, 2015, p.276 n.546. The link to Dayvault's article that Guscin cites is now password protected. But it evidently is the article at reference 8 above. [return]

Posted: 13 March 2016. Updated: 2 May 2021.

Faint #11: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

FAINT #11

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #11, "The man on the Shroud: Faint," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Double image #10] [Next: Colour #12]

---

2. The man on the Shroud #8
3. Faint #11

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud is extremely faint[2]. In fact the body image is so faint that only the face is readily discernible[3].

[Right (enlarge): Full-length faint double image of the man on the Shroud after the 2002 restoration[5], showing that the image is very faint (and photographs enhance the image[6]).]

Faint. The image is so faint that it appears ghostlike[7], like a shadow cast on the cloth[8]. Since the image lacks boundaries and is so faint, the eye and brain cannot compose a picture of it until the observer moves some distance away[9]. The faintness of the image is due to it being extremely superficial, residing only on the peaks of the linen fibres and does not consist of artists' pigments[10].

Historical. When the Mandylion / Image of Edessa was brought to Constantinople from Edessa in August 944[11], Byzantine historian Symeon Metaphrastes, who was present, recorded that the sons of the Emperor Romanus Lecapenus (c.870-948) were only able to distinguish a faint image of a face on the cloth[12], not the eyes and ears[13], indicating that the image was faint and indistinct[14]. This is a common reaction of those seeing the Shroud for the first time[15]. The future Emperor, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905-59), who also saw the Mandylion up close at that time, was able to see faint facial details[16], including the eyes and ears[17], and described it as a "moist secretion without colors or the art of a painting[18]. This also precisely describes the extremely faint[19] image on the Shroud[20]. Nicholas Mesarites (c. 1163-1216) was the overseer of the imperial relic collection in Constantinople's Pharos Chapel[21]. In 1201 Nicholas described the "funerary sheets [sindones] of Christ" that were then in the Chapel as having "wrapped the un-outlined [aperilepton], dead, naked" dead body of Jesus "after the Passion"[22]. The descriptors "naked" and "un-outlined" can only refer to the image of the man on the Shroud which uniquely is fully naked and has no outline[23]. And this was in Constantinople 59 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[24]! Moreover, the Greek word aperilepton, which can also be translated "indefinable"[25], or "uncircumscribed"[26], implies that the image was very faint[27].

Problem for the forgery theory. (see previous three: #7, #9 & #10) Paul Vignon (1865-1943), who was an artist before he became a biologist[28], tried to paint an image on linen as faint as that on the Shroud, first with oil paints and then with water colours, but he found it to be almost impossible to paint even the crudest approximation of the Shroud's image and when he had done so, when the cloth was folded, the image peeled away[29]. Because the Shroud image is so faint it cannot be seen close up[30] (see above), and at touching distance the image "melts away like mist"[31], an artist would have had to stand 2 metres (~6.6 feet) or more[32] from the cloth to see what he was doing[33]. STURP chemist Alan D. Adler (1931-2000) and biophysicist John H. Heller (1921-95) conducted a gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) to think through how an artist could paint the Shroud's extremely faint image:

"... Adler and I began a gedankenexperiment to see what would be required of an artist. As mentioned earlier, you cannot see the man in the Shroud unless you are one or two meters away. An artist cannot paint if he cannot see what effect his brush is producing. Our putative artist, then, must have had a paintbrush one to two meters long. It must have consisted of a single bristle, since it painted single fibrils that were 10 to 15 microns in diameter. The finest paintbrush bristles I know of are sable, and a sable hair is vast in diameter compared with a linen fibril. In addition, the artist would have had to figure out a paint medium that had no oil or water, because there were no indications of capillarity. Now, to see what he was painting he would have needed a microscope with an enormous focal length that would permit the brush to operate under it. The physics of optics preclude such a device, unless it is attached to a television set. In this case, it would have had to be a color TV, for the straw-yellow is too faint to register on black and white. Another constraint the artist must have-dealt with is the limit of the human nervous system. No one can hold so long a brush steady enough to paint the top of a fibril. One would need a twentieth-century micromanipulator, which would have to work hydraulically at a distance of one to two meters. It would have to be rigged to a device called a waldo, which is an invention of the atomic era. Also, the artist would have to know how many fibrils to paint quantitatively, and do the whole thing in reverse, like a negative."[34]

Conclusion. From the above, an artist-forger could not have created the extremely faint image on the Shroud. And even if he could have, he would not have created an image that was so faint, it could not be seen close-up. As the Irish theologian Alfred O'Rahilly (1884-1969) pointed out:

"Even forgery, being a business, must supply in accordance with demand, it must give customers what they want ..."[35]

An artist would know that a forgery of Jesus' dead body on His burial Shroud, that was so faint it could not be seen close-up, would fetch a far lower price than one on which Jesus' body that could be clearly seen. So even the extreme faintness of the image of the man on the Shroud is part of the overwhelming evidence that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

Ccontinued in part #12 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. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.6; Scavone, D.C., "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.311-329, 314; Scavone, D.C., 2002, "Joseph of Arimathea, the Holy Grail and the Edessa Icon," Collegamento pro Sindone, October, pp.1-25, p.2; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.13. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1974, "The Shroud in history," The Tablet, 13th April, p.12. [return]
5. "Image of Full 2002 Restored Shroud," High Resolution Imagery, Shroud University, 2014. [return]
6. Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.48. [return]
7. Scavone, 1989, p.20. [return]
8. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, pp.4-5; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.3. [return]
9. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.37. [return]
10. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.114. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.116, 151; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.92; 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, 190; Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.314; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.148-149; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.4-5; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.24-25; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.167. [return]
12. Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.316; Guerrera, 2001, p.5. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.116. [return]
14. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.48-49. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, p.116. [return]
16. 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.58. [return]
17. Scavone, 1989, p.86. [return]
18. Ruffin, 1999, p.58; Guerrera, 2001, p.5; Scavone, 2002, p.2; de Wesselow, 2012, p.185. [return]
19. Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.314. [return]
20. Scavone, 1989, p.105. [return]
21. de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
22. de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
23. Wilson, 1998, p.145; de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
24. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.3; Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
25. Scavone, 1989, p.89. [return]
26. Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.321; Wilson, 1991, p.155. [return]
27. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, p.6; Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.321; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.8. [return]
28. Shepard, L., "New Foreword," Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.vii. [return]
29. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, pp.36-37. [return]
30. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.2. [return]
31. Wilson, 1979, p.21; Wilson, 1998, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.7. [return]
32. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.6; Scavone, 1989, p.85. [return]
33. Heller, 1983, p.202; Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.6; Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
34. Heller, 1983, p.203. [return]
35. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, p.52. [return]

Posted 8 March 2016. Updated 14 July 2024.