Sunday, March 6, 2016

Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index N-R

This is my alphabetical index, "N-R" to where mentions of "forger," "forgery," etc, occur in Shroud literature on my system. This index had been split into "A-F," "G-M" and "N-Z" when each page grew too long. Now "N-Z" has been split into "N-R" (this post) and "S-Z". See "A-F" for more information. Links to "New/updated" topics are listed in chronological order (most recent last) to help readers find what they hadn't yet read, will be re-started each month.

New/updated: negative.

© Stephen E. Jones

[Above (enlarge): Secondo Pia's 1898 negative photograph of the Shroud face[WP15], which because it is a photographic positive, proved that the Turin Shroud image is a photographic negative[MP78p26-7, OA85p46-7, AM00p34-5].

nails Forger would have assumed the nails in the hands would go through the palms, as Christian tradition has depicted them, but which modern medical tests have shown could not support the weight of the body[RJ78p77]. Entry point of nails was in wrists (see hands), but a forger would not have known that, nor have the boldness to represent it if he did[BP53p117-8]. The nail-wound of the left hand is in the wrist, not in the centre of the palm, as demanded by tradition[VP02p40]. To have shown only one hand and therefore only one wound also contradicted tradition[VP02p43]. In a forged relic such independence from tradition would not have been tolerated[VP02p40].

naked A medieval forger would have been burned at the stake for depicting Jesus completely naked[WR10p188]. The supposed forger must have intentionally shown scourge-marks on those parts of the body (the genital area and buttocks) which the loin-cloth would have veiled[VP02p43]. In a forged relic such independence from tradition would not have been tolerated[VP02p40].

negative When Secondo Pia photographed the Shroud in 1898 he discovered that the image of the man on the Shroud is a photographic negative (see above)[MR86p1]. Forger would have to have painted a negative image, an unimaginable conception before the invention of photography [in early 19th century] [BP53p30]. The forger would have to have had a grasp of the negative-positive properties of photography five centuries in advance of his time[CT99p291]. How did a medieval artist paint the Shroud image so that after photography was invented 600 years later, a negative of a photograph of the Shroud would be a clear, three dimensional image[CT96p25]? This was clearly impossible[MR80p64-5]. And even if a medieval forger had conceived of a negative image, what would be the point in painting it on the cloth?[MR80p65]. "Forgery, being a business ... must give customers what they want-not a negative whose existence could not even be suspected for centuries"[OA85p52]. And even if a medieval painter had conceived of a negative image and had a reason for painting it on the cloth, how could he have had the skill to paint in negative[MR80p65]? No mediaeval forger could or would have produced a negative image on a cloth that could only be seen as a positive using technology that would not be available until five hundred years in the future[OM10p250]. No one, including the artist himself, would have been able to appreciate his work until photography was invented more than 500 years later[WR10p188]. Attempts by artists to copy the Shroud have shown that no artist can convert even a human face into a negative image and so the Shroud cannot be a forgery[KW82, p395].

non-traditional Forger would not have contradicted all artistic traditions[BP53p90]. He would have conformed to tradition and depicted the nails in the palms of the hands, but it would not have supported a body's weight and torn away[BP53p114-5]. A departure from tradition would never have been done by a forger, whose intention would have been to appeal to the imagination of his public[VP02p32]. The portrayal of Jesus on the shroud is non-traditional: the cap or miter of thorns, the nails through the wrists instead of through the palms, and the nakedness of the loins would not inspire fourteenth-century Europeans[WR77p170]. The latter would have gotten the forger burned at the stake[WR77p170]!

painting In 1978 STURP scientists proved that the Shroud image is not a painting[MR86p99].

pollen Botanist and forensic scientist Max Frei (1913-83), discovered that pollen on the Shroud came from Palestine, Anatolia and Constantinople[AF82p88-89]. Among these were pollens from halophytes, plants which grow in salty soil, and are unique to desert regions near the Dead Sea[GV01p96]. A forgery, produced in France during the Middle Ages, a country lacking these halophytes, could not contain pollen grains from the desert regions of Palestine[SH90p63]. The forger would have had to acquire from Palestine a sheet of linen carrying pollen of that zone [AF82p88]. Then forger would have had to obtain pollen from Anatolia and Constantinople[AF82p88-9]. But it is doubtful that a medieval forger could have known, let alone produced, a cloth with just the right non-European pollen spread[SH90p63]. Especially since the existence of pollen grains, which are microscopic, would not be discovered for at least another six hundred years[SH90p77]. And the historical path of the Shroud from Jerusalem, through Edessa and Constantinople would not be reconstructed for nearly eight hundred years[SH90p77].

proof Despite having been examined by experts from many disciplines, no one has proved conclusively the Shroud is a forgery[CN88p31].

radiocarbon dating In 1988 radiocarbon dating at laboratories in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford found the Shroud linen was made between 1260 and 1390, proving the Shroud was a medieval forgery, or so it seemed[CT96p16]. Around the world Shroud was denounced as a `forgery' by the media"[HT97p28]. Because the 1260-1390, or 1325 ± radiocarbon date of the Shroud agreed with Bishop d'Arcis' false claim that the Shroud was painted in about 1355 (see d'Arcis, Pierre) sceptics ignored all the other evidence (including scientific studies) that the Shroud was authentic and cited this one result as "proof" that the Shroud is a mediaeval forgery[OM10p87]. See also my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking" series.

replication Those who claim the Shroud is a mediaeval forgery need to replicate it[OM10pxii] with medieval technology. Nobody has yet been able to do that with any credibility, which is evidence for the Shroud's authenticity[OM10pxii]. How could a medieval forger, with the limited science and technology of his time, produce an artifact that can still not be replicated by 21st century science[OM10pxii]? That the Shroud image has not been duplicated is a tremendous blow to the forgery thesis[SH90p93].

To be continued in the background.

AF82. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
BP05. Ball, P., 2005, "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January.
BP08. Ball, P., 2008, "Material witness: Shrouded in mystery," Nature Materials, Vol. 7, No. 5, May, p.349.
BP53. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963.
CT99. Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY.
CT96. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH.
CN88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
HA81. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.34-57.
HT97. Hulse, T.G., 1997, "The Holy Shroud," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
KW82. Keller, W., 1982, "The Bible as History: Archaeology Confirms the Book of Books," [1965], Neil, W., transl., Bantam: New York, Second revised edition.
MR86. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY.
MJ11. Marino, J.G., 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion," Cradle Press: St. Louis MO.
MP78. McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK.
MR80. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia.
OA85. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin.
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
RG81. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI.
RJ77. Robinson, J.A.T., " The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in Stevenson, 1977, pp.23-30.
RJ78. Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.69-81.
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
VP02. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970.
WP15. Wikipedia, "Holy Face of Jesus," 7 February 2015.
WR77. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY.
WR10. Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC.

Posted: 6 March 2016. Updated: 24 January 2017.

No comments: