This is my alphabetical index, "G-M," to where mentions of "forger," "forgery," etc, occur in Shroud literature on my system. This index has now been split into "A-F," "G-M" (this post), "N-R" 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.
© Stephen E. Jones
Gospels Shroud is compatible with the Gospels but no forger starting from them would have created the Shroud we have[RJ78p69]. Hence the image on the Shroud is not what one would expect a forger to create so as to ensure its acceptance[WI79p61].
[Right (enlarge): "Anatomy of the Shroud"[WK80p.736-7], showing that the wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud match those in the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' sufferings and death. But no forger would or could forge even the over 100 scourge marks which perfectly match a Roman flagrum.]
For example,we cannot be sure from the scriptural evidence that the Shroud was among the linen cloths found by the Apostles Peter and John in the empty tomb[WI79p61]. There are numerous similarities between the Gospel accounts of Jesus' suffering and death and the man on the Shroud[SH90p84]. A forger could have attempted a duplication, but if there are many similarities, including some a forger would likely miss or be unable to reproduce, and if there are no differences, then the probability that Jesus is the man on the Shroud increases dramatically[SH90p84].
hands Thumbs are not visible on the Shroud[BP53p119]. Surgeon Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) found that when a nail passes through Destot's place in the wrist, the median nerve is injured and causes the thumb to contract into the palm[BP53p118-9]. But a forger would not have known this[BR78p44] nor portray it even if he did[BP53p119]. [see "thumbs"]
historical Necessary to trace Shroud's history because those who declare it to be a forgery claim that it was manufactured by or for Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56) about 1350[CN88p46]? Nicolas Mesarites (c. 1163-1216) was the overseer of the relics collection in Constantinople's Pharos Chapel[WI98p145]. In 1201 he mentioned that the collection contained the "funerary sheets [sindones] of Christ" which had "wrapped the un-outlined [aperilepton], dead, naked" and body of Christ "after the Passion"[DT12p176]. Lack of outline and nakedness are major characteristics of the Shroud image[WI98p144]. There could not be stronger proof that the Constantinople Shroud is the Turin Shroud, yet those who insist that the Shroud is a medieval forgery, ignore this evidence[HR51p31]. Gaps in the Shroud's documented history does not make it a medieval forgery[DT12p184]. It is a common experience for museum curators to be confronted with genuinely ancient objects of unknown provenance and history, e.g. the Portland Vase has a 1,600-year gap in its history[DT12p184]. Gap of 151 years between Shroud's disappearance in sack of Constantinople in 1204 and its reappearance at Lirey, France in 1355, is simply explained by the fact that if Geoffroy de Charny I stated that the Shroud had been looted from Constantinople, then the Byzantine Empire (which existed until 1453) would demand it be returned[OM10p110].
how Despite hundreds of tests no one has been able to successfully explain how the mysterious image of a crucified man could have been produced by a medieval artist on the surface fibers of this linen cloth[JG99p113]
human body "We have certainly reached the point of absolutely excluding the work of a painter forger or a plagiarist of experiments, since it is a question of [a real human body] a real scourging, a real crowning with thorns, a real thrust of a lance in the side of a corpse." [RG77p73].
impossible "A forger could have obtained a Middle Eastern cloth, could have used some primate blood (and serum), and could have depicted the body in flawless anatomical detail, and the pigment could have disappeared, leaving a faint dehydration image - but that all of these unprecedented circumstances should have coalesced in the production of a single relic is virtually impossible to imagine"[MW83p308]
Leonardo da Vinci The forger would have been a genius as great as Leonardo[BR78p78] or Michelangelo[CN84p155]. Forger's knowledge of human anatomy rivals Leonardo's and Michelangelo's[CN88p31]. Conspiracy theorists Picknett and Prince claim that Leonardo faked the Shroud using photography, which was not invented until the 1820s. But the Shroud had already appeared in at Lirey, France in 1355, many decades before Leonardo (1452–1519) and Michelangelo (1475-1564) were born[WI98p200]. There is no mention in any of Leonardo's notebooks, in which he wrote everything he planned or did, even a word about the Shroud[RC99p141].
linen cloth That a medieval forger went to the trouble of procuring a piece of ancient eastern linen cloth to make his forgery as realistic as possible does not fit in with the medieval mentality, to which historical realism considerations were foreign[BW57p29].
Mandylion (aka "Image (or Cloth) of Edessa") That Geoffrey de Charny came into possession of a relic that had been unknown to history for some thirteen centuries can be discounted as extremely unlikely ... There was only one relic known to history that resembled de Charny's Shroud; that was the Cloth of Edessa which disappeared from Constantinople in 1204[OM10p86]. The Shroud is not a medieval forgery because it existed as the Mandylion of Byzantium[DR84p32-3].
medieval If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, the wounds in the feet and hands would have been clearly marked since in the Middle Ages Christ's wounds were considered profoundly meaningful and a focus of devotion[DT12p121]. A medieval artist would have drawn the marks of the nails as circular and in the traditional positions[DT12p121-2]. A fourteenth century European would have placed nail wounds in the hands of Jesus[DR84p28]. And the technique which produced the Shroud would have been much too valuable in the fourteenth century to lapse into oblivion[DR84p28].
miracle If the Shroud was the work of a forger, its creation would be more miraculous than if was the actual burial cloth of Jesus[IJ98p9].
missing parts The Shroud man has body parts either missing or so dim they can scarcely be seen, e.g. on the frontal view the feet and lower half of the shins[BW57p32]. The dorsal view is clearer but if the Shroud were the work of a forger, this would be hard to conceive, especially since the missing parts are supplied in medieval copies of the Shroud[BW57p32].
mites Turin microanalyst Giovanni Riggi (1935-2008), vacuumed between the Shroud and its backing cloth in 1978 and in the vacuumed dust he found mites which were very similar to those from ancient Egyptian burial fabrics[IJ98p21]. If the Shroud was a creation of the Middle Ages, then its forger must have ordered the mites (and [pollen) to go with it[SH90p65]!
To be continued in the background.
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," , Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963.
BR78. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London.
BW57. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI.
CN84. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK.
CN88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
DR84. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD.
HR51. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," , Sheed & Ward: London
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
JG99. Jeffrey, G.R., 1999, "Jesus: The Great Debate," Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON, Canada.
MW83. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311.
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
RG77. Ricci, G., "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.58-73.
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.
RC99. 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
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
WK80. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve ... The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June. [return]
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," , Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI98.Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.
Posted: 20 January 2016. Updated: 24 January 2017.