"The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus": Shroud of Turin News - April 2016

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

[Previous: April 2016, part #3] [Next: May 2016, part #1]

This is part #4 of the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus," Ancient Origins, 2 April, 2016, Natalia Klimczak. ... The Sudarium of Oviedo, also known as the Shroud of Oviedo is

[Above (enlarge): "Perfect fit of Sudarium of Oviedo (right) to the face on the Shroud of Turin (left)." The article wrongly referenced this back to Dan Porter's now closed "Shroud Story" blog, when it was just another case of Porter routinely pirating without proper attribution the work of others, in this case me. As is evident (but not evident enough for this Ancient Origins journalist), if one follows the link within "Shroud Story" one arrives at Porter's 2012 post, "How good is the match up between the Sudarium and the Shroud?." At the top of that post there is a link within the words, "Stephen Jones ... critique of Charles Freeman’s `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey'." If that link is clicked one arrives at my 2012 post, "My critique of Charles Freeman's `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey,' part 4 ..." It can then be seen that both the image and the words are mine, the former scanned by me from the book, Bennett, J., "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image," 2001, plate 20. I have submitted a comment under the article requesting that this error be corrected and to Ancient Origins' credit it has been corrected and now says "The Shroud of Turin". Because these links to the Ancient Origins article are slow to load, I have substituted them with the originals.]

one of the most important relics of Christianity. Next to the Shroud, the Sudarium of Oviedo is the most important relics of Christianity, because the Sudarium is the "face cloth" [Greek soudarion in John 20:7, "which had been on Jesus head," and found in the Empty Tomb by the Apostles Peter and John:

John 20:7 "and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."

See my posts 09May15, 06Nov14, 21Sep14, 28Jul12, 04Jun10 & 26Jun08.

It is believed to be a cloth which was wrapped around Jesus' head after his death. The Sudarium of Oveido, which measures 85.5 x 52.6 cms = 33.7 x 20.7 in.)[2] would have been wrapped around

[Above (enlarge): "The Sudarium of Oviedo. (Mark Guscin)." This link in "Mark Guscin" is also to my post "My critique of Charles Freeman's ...."]

Jesus' head to cover His disfigured face until He was covered by the Shroud[3].

Evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo is the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus' head after his death on the cross[4], and was found by Peter and John in Jesus' tomb (John 20:6-7)[5], includes: ■ Vatican archivist Giulio Ricci (c.1913-95) in 1965 and 1979 examined the Sudarium and found that the bloodstain patterns on it closely resembles those on the head area of Shroud[6]. Dr Alan Whanger using his polarized image overlay technique examined Ricci's photographs of the Sudarium and found 130 congruent blood stains between the Sudarium and the Shroud face[7]. ■ Since these are complex patterns, their congruence cannot be coincidental[8]. ■ As these are both marks of real blood, both cloths must have been in contact with the same body at the same time[9]. ■ In 1979 pioneer forensic scientist Max Frei (1913–83) took pollen samples from the Sudarium[10], and these were found to include Gundelia tournefortii a Middle-Eastern thorn plant the pollen of which also occurs on the Shroud[11]. Frei also found pollen on the Sudarium consistent with it its route from Jerusalem to Spain via North Africa[12] but no pollen on it from Turkey, France or Italy[13]

Evidence against the Sudarium being a medieval forgery includes: ■ The Sudarium can be traced historically from Jerusalem[14], through Africa[15] to Spain in the 7th century[16], in the Asturias region around Oviedo since the ninth century[17] and indisputably in Oviedo since the 11th century[18]. This provides further evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[19] was wrong[20]. ■ There is no image on the Sudarium[21]. ■ There has been no attempt to advertise the Sudarium, apart from a benediction given with the cloth three times a year but only in recent centuries[22], and so even few Spaniards know of its existence[23]. ■ Claims that the Sudarium had been radiocarbon dated to around 700 AD are false[24].

The shroud It is unnecessarily confusing and just plain wrong to call the Sudarium a "shroud." A shroud is a sheet which covers the whole body: "shroud, ... a cloth or sheet in which a corpse is wrapped for burial" (my emphasis)[25]; "a cloth that is used to wrap a dead body" (my emphasis)[26]; "A cloth used to wrap a body for burial; a winding sheetl" (my emphasis)[27]. In the New Testament the same Greek word soudarion which is translated "face cloth" in Jn 20:7, and in Jn 11:44 of Lazarus "his face wrapped with a cloth" (my emphasis), is elsewhere translated "handkerchief(s)" in Lk 19:2 & Acts 19:12. is currently the greatest treasure in a cathedral of Oviedo, Spain. The Sudarium, and the Shroud, are the greatest treasures in the entire world! Because they both have on them the very blood of Jesus. As I wrote in previous posts:

[23Jun15] "Most accounts of seeing the Shroud, talk about the image. But to me the blood on the Shroud would be the most significant, since it actually is Jesus' blood! The very `precious blood of Christ' which `ransomed' me:

1Pet 1:18-19. 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."

[23Jun15] "As a Christian first and a Shroud pro-authenticist second, I believe that the blood on the Shroud is `the precious blood of Christ" [1Pet 1:18-19] and indeed in that sense it is `the blood of God':

Acts 20:28: "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood."

Therefore I believe that the blood on the Shroud, being Christ's blood, is more precious (perhaps even infinitely so) than His image which is on the linen."

The Shroud of Oviedo is located in the chapel of St. Michael, also known as the Holy chamber of Oviedo, which nowadays belongs to the city's cathedral. The Holy chamber of Oviedo, is known in Spanish as Camara Santa (see below). In the early

[Above (enlarge): "The Camara Santa, or Holy Chamber, of the Cathedral of Oviedo, built in the 9th century by Alfonso II [c. 760–842] for the holy chest of relics."[28], which can be seen past the metal bars in the centre background.]

medieval period it was a separate pre-Romanesque church located next to the Tower of San Miguel. The Oviedo Cathedral was built in front of the 9th century church (below) within which is the

[Above (enlarge)[29]: The 9th century church built under King Alfonso II of Asturias, to house the Holy Chest (see below) which contained the Sudarium[30].]

Camara Santa, the Holy Chest and the Sudarium. The chamber, which was built in the times of the fall of the Visigothic kingdom, The Visigoths were the western branches of tribes of nomadic Germanic peoples, who had invaded the Roman Empire in 376[31]. The Visigothic Kingdom occupied southwestern France and the Iberian Peninsula from the 5th to the 8th centuries[32]. However in 711 a Muslim invasion defeated the Visigoths and by 725 most of the Iberian Peninsula was under Islamic rule[33]. However in Asturias, a mountainous region in Spain's north-west, a Visigothic nobleman named Pelagius or Pelayo (c. 685–737) revolted in 718 and defeated the Muslims at the battle of Covadonga[34]. Pelagius founded the Christian Kingdom of Asturias, ruling it from 718 until his death in 737[35]. Oviedo is the capital of Asturias[36]. became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in December 1998.

The chamber was built during the 9th century as a palace chapel for King Alfonso II of Asturias. Alfonso II built the chapel in 812 to house the Holy Chest (or Arca Santa)[37] (below) within

[Above (enlarge)[38]: The Holy Chest (or Arca Santa).]

which the Sudarium was transported from Jerusalem in 614[39], via Alexandria[40], to Cartagena and Seville in Spain in 616[42]; taken to the Monastery of San Vicente near Oviedo in 761[43], deposited in the Holy Chamber (Camara Santa) within the chapel by King Alfonso II in c.812[44], opened by Bishop Ponce (1025–1028) in 1030[45] and again opened by King Alfonso IV (1040–1109) in 1075[46].]

It was destroyed in the 14th century and then replaced with the present day Gothic Cathedral of Oviedo. This is misleading. Neither the chapel nor the chamber (Camera Santa) were destroyed in the 14th century, although they were severely damaged by a terrorist bomb in 1934[47]. The Cathedral was "destroyed" in the 14th century, in the words of a tourist guide, but that is referring not to a natural or human disaster but to a rebuilding project[48].

The Cloth of Jesus Christ The Sudarium of Oviedo is a piece of cloth measuring 84 x 53 cm (33 x 21 inches). This is slightly wrong. The Sudarium's dimensions are 85.5 x 52.6 cms = 33.7 x 20.7 in. (see above), or approx 85 x 53 cms = 34 x 21 in. According to the Bible (John 20:6-7), it's a piece which was wrapped around the head of Jesus. No! The Greek preposition in Jn 20:7, "and the face cloth that had been on [epi] his head" is epi = "on" not peri "around."[49, 50]. And there is a space between the frontal and dorsal head images wide enough to allow for the soudarion to have been on the crown or top of the Shroud man's head, since there no image

[Above (enlarge)[51]: Gap of about 6½ inches (~16.5 cms) (see below) between the front and back head images, where the bloodstained "face cloth [soudarion] which had been on [epi] Jesus' head", but the image being vertically collimated[52], i.e. straight up and down from the body[53], no image would have been formed there.]

would have formed:

"Still more interesting, there is no imprint of the crown of the head between the forehead and the dorsal view. If the sweat cloth [soudarion] was tied above, no imprint could be formed there on the Shroud. The space between the frontal and dorsal view is wide enough to allow for the sweat cloth, especially if we suppose that the Shroud was not loosely laid, but drawn quite taut over the head"[54]

Agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow, agrees (albeit arguing for a chin-band which I don't) that "something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head":

"There is, in fact, clear evidence that such a band covered the crown of the head: the gap between the frontal and dorsal images. If the Shroud had lain directly on the man's crown, the body-image would have formed here as elsewhere, joining the two figures via a long, sausage-shaped head. The length of the gap, roughly 6½ inches, is too short to allow the cloth to have been raised beyond the range of the image-forming process (somewhere in the order of 2 inches). Therefore, something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head, preventing the imprint forming on the Shroud."[55]

But a chin-band would have been "around" [peri] Jesus' head and it is not mentioned in the Gospels. The "face cloth [soudarion, which had been on [epi] his [Jesus'] head, not lying with the linen cloths [strips] but folded up in a place by itself" (Jn 20:7) is mentioned in John's gospel, it is thin and so would have easily fitted in the gap on [epi] the top of the Shroud man's head, and unlike a chin-band it was not part of the othonia] from which it is distinguished.

Simon Peter, following him, also came up, went into the tomb, saw the linen cloth lying on the ground, This is a misquotation. It evidently is of Jn 20:5 from the Catholic Online Bible, which has "linen cloths" plural. The Greek is othonia[56], which is a plural diminutive[57], hence "linen strips"[58]. So the Shroud was not there, having been taken by Jesus out of the tomb and given by Him to the Apostle John (see my "Servant of the priest (1)" and "(2)"). and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. Continuing the misquotation. However, despite the errors, this is a comprehensive article on the Sudarium of Oviedo, which taught me a lot in responding to it.

This concludes the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. But I will continue to add in the background evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo is the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus' head, evidence against the Sudarium being a medieval forgery, and references.

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. 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.54; Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pp.13,67. [return]
3. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.11. [return]
4. 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.47; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.41. [return]
5. Guerrera, 2001, p.41. [return]
6. Whanger, A.D. & M.W., "A Quantitative Optical Technique for Analyzing and Authenticating the Images on the Shroud of Turin," 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.303-324, p.312; Ruffin, 1999, p.47. [return]
7. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, pp.312-313; Ruffin, 1999, p.48; Adler, A.D., 2000, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," 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.113-127, 124. [return]
8. Adler, 2000, p124. [return]
9. Ruffin, 1999, p.48; Adler, 2000, p124. [return]
10. Danin, et al., 1999, p.11. [return]
11. Danin, et al., 1999, p.23. [return]
12. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.22; Guerrera, 2001, p.44. [return]
13. Guscin, 1998, p.22; Guerrera, 2001, p.44. [return]
14. Bennett, 2001, pp.28, 194. [return]
15. Bennett, 2001, pp.29, 194; Guerrera, 2001, p.42. [return]
16. Adler, 2000, p124; Bennett, 2001, p.13; Guerrera, 2001, pp.41-42. [return]
17. Bennett, 2001, p.13; Guerrera, 2001, p.43. [return]
18. Bennett, 2001, p.79. [return]
19. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
20. Adler, 2000, p124. [return]
21. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.312; ; Guerrera, 2001, p.41. [return]
22. Bennett, 2001, p.14. [return]
23. Bennett, 2001, p.14. [return]
24. Guscin, 1998, pp.76-78; Bennett, 2001, pp.78-79; "Sudarium of Oviedo," Wikipedia, 16 May 2016. [return]
25 "Shroud," Dictionary.com, 2010. [return]
26. "Shroud," Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d. [return]
27. "shroud," The Free Dictionary, 2016. [return]
28. Bennett, 2001, pl.3. [return]
29. Ho Diéguez, C.V., 2011, "Patrimonio Ibérico – Monumentos de Oviedo y el Reino de Asturias," ("Iberian heritage - Monuments of Oviedo and the Kingdom of Asturias" - Google Translate), 26 May. [return]
30. "Cámara Santa," Wikipedia, 29 February 2016. [return]
31. "Visigoths," Wikipedia, 20 May 2016. [return]
32. "Visigothic Kingdom," Wikipedia, 24 April 2016. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
35. "Pelagius of Asturias," Wikipedia, 13 May 2016. [return]
36. Ibid. [return]
37. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
38. "Arca Santa," Wikipedia, 30 June 2015. I used the Wikipedia image of the Arca Santa, instead of the one in the article because it is the unacknowledged original. [return]
39. Bennett, 2001, p.194. [return]
40. Bennett, 2001, p.194. [return]
41. Bennett, 2001, p.196. [return]
42. Bennett, 2001, p.194. [return]
43. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
44. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
45. Bennett, 2001, pp.195-196. [return]
46. Bennett, 2001, p.196. [return]
47. Bennett, 2001, p.196. [return]
48. "Oviedo Cathedral de San Salvador," Asturias Tourist Guide, 21 October 2011. [return]
49. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA., Second edition, p.839. [return]
50. Thayer, 1901, p.231, 501; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, pp.166, 231; Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, pp.285-286; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.51. [return]
51. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
52. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," 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, pp.184-189, p.188; Adler, A.D., "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, p.18. [return]
53. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.118; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.35, 130. [return]
54. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.95-96. [return]
55. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.147-148. [return]
56. Green, 1986, p.839. [return]
57. Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.311; Bauer, et al., 1979, p.555; Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.1028. [return]
58. Thayer, 1901, p.439; Zodhiates, 1992, p.855. [return]

Posted: 25 May 2016. Updated: 2 May 2021.

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (2): Shroud of Turin News - April 2016

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

[Previous: April 2016, part #2] [Next: April 2016, part #4]

This is part #3 of the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News, being a continuation of part #2. I have spent too much time on this article and need to move on to another April news article before my May Shroud News in June! So those points I have not yet addressed, I have supplied links to my previous posts and footnoted others with "Reference(s) to be provided," in the faint hope that I will find time to complete them. The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?," Church Militant, Ryan Fitzgerald, March 27, 2016. ... There's still no known way of reproducing the image on the cloth using medieval technology. In fact there is no way of reproducing the image on the cloth using modern technology. Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development (ENEA)

[Above (enlarge): ENEA's Hercules-L XeCl excimer laser: ENEA FIS-ACC Excimer Laboratory Annual Report 2000-2001]

found that it would require a battery of excimer ultraviolet lasers powered by a total of 34 billion watts to recreate the total Shroud image:

"However, Enea [sic ENEA] scientists warn, `it should be noted that the total power of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts)'"[2] See also my 22Dec11.

But that hasn't been shown to be practically feasible, let alone considering what such a battery of lasers would do to the bloodstains which were on the Shroud before its image[3].

It couldn't have been painted, as the fibers on the cloth are not stuck together by any sort of paint. It was already known by at least the 1930s that the Shroud's image was not painted:

"The whole force of the case against the authenticity of the Shroud which was brought by Canon Chevalier [Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923)] and so widely accepted, depended ... upon the assertion that the figures upon it were only paintings executed by a known artist of the fourteenth century. But it is abundantly clear, as soon as the Shroud itself is examined that they are nothing of the kind. There are at least five reasons which prove this ... They are as follows 1. The process of painting on a fabric at that time involved the deposit of solid particles of colouring matter upon the threads, so that these latter would become partially or entirely hidden. But in the case of the Shroud every thread is visible, and no trace of solid extraneous colouring matter can be detected even by microscopic examination. ... 2. Human work, however minute, necessarily shows outline and shading. It may be so fine as completely to deceive the unaided eye, but its nature at once becomes manifest when it is put under the microscope. But these figures on the Shroud have no outline and no trace of shading. ... 3. In the fourteenth century, in France, anatomy was very little understood and nothing was known of the laws of the circulation of the blood. But here the anatomical detail and proportion is exact, the behaviour of blood flowing from a wound is true to nature, and the contrast between living blood and dead blood is duly preserved. ... 4. The ... figures upon the Shroud are shown reversed in light and shade, something after the manner of a photographic negative. ... But no human being, even now, could paint in this way, not even if he were an expert retoucher of photographs, accustomed to work upon negatives. ... If that is so even to-day ... how much more was it so in the fourteenth century, when the very idea had not as yet occurred to men's minds. Nor ... could there have been any conceivable motive which would have led a painter to ... make his work so hard for others to understand. 5. ... We know well the limitations of the art of the fourteenth century, and France at that date was far behind Italy in such matters. Who was this unknown artist, a couple of centuries before his time, who was able to paint pictures anatomically correct and in a style completely true to nature? Such a picture, if it could be assigned with certainty to that date and country, would revolutionize all the history of art."[4].

But as leading anti-authenticist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) pointed out, painting was the simplest way a medieval artist would have forged the Shroud's image:

"I realize that there are still, perhaps, a majority of people convinced by the carbon-dating that the `Shroud' is medieval, who are still looking for an answer as to how the `Shroud' was produced. Many mechanisms have already been proposed. Some say it was draped wet over a bas-relief to which it was shaped then dabbed with powder or a paint. Some say a painting was prepared and transferred to a cloth in contact with it by pressure. However, I see no reason to doubt that an artist ... simply took up his brush and a dilute red ochre watercolor paint based on scraps of parchment as the vehicle and proceeded to paint the `Shroud.' Why go to all the work of preparing a statue or bas-relief or making a transfer of the image from a primary artist's rendering? A direct approach to painting a dilute watercolor image on a canvas of the proper size is a common sense assumption ..." (my emphasis)[5]

However, in 1978 and its aftermath, after a battery of different scientific tests, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) established that:

"There is no paint, dye, powder, or other foreign substance on the image fibrils that could account for the image"[6]

The coloration on the cloth is actually a change in shading on the fibers themselves. That is, it is not something added to the image fibres but water molecules lost from them, driven out of their inner structure by energy[7], a process called dehydrative oxidation of cellulose[8] or cellulose oxidation[9] (see below).

[Above (original): Extract of a diagram of the dehydrative oxidation of cellulose[10]. As can be seen, a molecule of cellulose C₆H₁₀O₆ (left), loses water H₂O (middle) with two cellulose variant results C₆H₄O₅ and C₆H₂O₅. In both there is a loss of hydrogen leaving higher relative proportions of oxygen and carbon. The loss of water is what is meant by "dehydrative"[11] the higher relative proportion of oxygen causes new oxidation reactions, hence "oxidised"[12] The higher relative proportion of carbon results in two double carbon bonds in each image cellulose molecule, which is termed "conjugated carbonyl"[13]. It is the double carbon bonds which give the image fibres their distinctive yellow colour[14].]

Embalming methods have similarly been discredited as possible ways the image. The Jews didn't embalm their dead, that is, remove their internal organs and pickle their body to preserve it intact[15], but the Egyptians did[16], and of the countless Egyptian human mummies, none has an image of its dead body on its mummy cloths[17]. The Jews buried their dead whole under a simple shroud[18], that decomposed with the body[19], which is why, apart from the Shroud, only fragments of Jewish shrouds have been found[20].

Further, the image contains three-dimensional properties in the varying intensities of its shading. Jackson, et al. discovered this in 1977, when they placed a 1931 Enrie photograph of the Shroud under a VP-8 Image Analyzer[21]. The VP-8 is a computer which converts degrees of brightness into three-dimensional relief maps[22], for example, photographs of weather systems[23]. It has often been stated that the VP-8 was used by NASA and/or the USA's Space Program[24], but it never was[25]. The degrees of brightness in ordinary photographs are not caused by distance from the camera, so they don't have three-dimensional information encoded in them and appear distorted in the VP-8[26]. But photographs of the Shroud image do appear in three-dimensional relief on the VP-8, showing that its degrees of brightness are caused by cloth/body distance[27], that is, distance of points on the body from the `camera' which is the Shroud acting as a `photographic film'[28]. This cloth/body distance is in turn explained by STURP physicist John P. Jackson's Cloth Collapse theory[29].

As Nello Balossino of the University of Turin explains, "The image on the Shroud contains this information, which is codified in a series of nuances. Presumably by "nuances" Prof. Balossino means `pixels' (see 23Mar16) containing three-dimensional

[Above (enlarge): "Professor Nello Balossino explains his work that allows the blind to `see' the Shroud"[30].]

information on the distance between each point on the body and the linen cloth over that point. Clearly a medieval forger could not have encoded three-dimensional information (in negative) within Jesus' image on the Shroud[31]!

In other words, what we have before us is an image formed through a three-dimensional process, which cannot yet be explained and simulated in practice in order to obtain replica images of the Shroud." What Shroud scholar Ian Wilson wrote in 1998 is still true today, ~18 years later:

"Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen."[32]

And that necessarily includes a replication of the full Shroud image, including every major feature (photographic negative, three-dimensional, no paint or other added colouring matter but dehydrative oxidation of image fibres, etc), using pre-1350s technology. Even if the Shroud image

In addition, soil and pollen specific to Jerusalem have been detected on the cloth of the Shroud, even though it hasn't been to that area in its known history. On "soil" see "travertine aragonite" in 20Jan16, 11Aug15, 12Jun15, 30Mar15 & 22Mar13. On "pollen specific to Jerusalem have been detected on the cloth of the Shroud," I will eventually cover all these key items of evidence for the Shroud's authenticity in my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series.

There's also evidence in art and devotional history of Christians being aware of the Shroud prior to the radiocarbon dating of the 13th century, as documented in this BBC documentary. See my previous post on the Holy Face of Laon and the Pray Codex.

And what about the dating tests conducted on the cloth that assign its origins to the late medieval years? Some experts on the Shroud believe the results could have been skewed by the fact that scientists tested only the edge of the corner of the cloth. Doing so could have produced a sample that was part of a medieval repair to the cloth, or that was contaminated by bacteria or carbon monoxide. No. As I wrote in my comment under this post (with minor corrections):

>It seems like Farey [Hugh Farey, the anti-authenticist editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter] kept banging home that Whanger doesn't want to deal with the fact that if there was a research that there would need 2/3 Of the sample taken would have to be not original for it to date from the 13th or 14th century" [typos corrected]

Sorry, but Farey is right on that. See my `Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail' in my `The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1.'

The ONLY viable explanation of why the authentic 1st century Shroud had radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, the midpoint of which is 1325 ±65, which `just happens' to be ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in 1355, was because the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon process was hacked. Allegedly by Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick, aided by German hacker Karl Koch on behalf of the KGB. See my series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."

The Shroud pro-authenticity community is going to continue to lose this debate with anti-authenticists by claiming that the radiocarbon date of the 1st century Shroud was shifted ~13 centuries into the future, by carbon contamination/bioplastic coating/invisible repair/neutron flux (take your pick!), to 1325 which `just happened' to be ~30 years before 1355, when the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France; until it adopts the TRUE explanation that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."

More recent tests have also been performed that date the Shroud to a period well before the 13th century. Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua, led a team of researchers through three tests of Shroud fibers that were in the piece of cloth used in the 1988 radiocarbon tests. The tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy as well as a way of analyzing mechanical parameters related to voltage. The tests' conclusion dated the Shroud to some time between 300 BC and 400 AD. See my 21Apr13, 02Apr13 and 27Mar13

The new body of evidence in favor of the Shroud of Turin, while not enough to convince hardened skeptics, has at least been sufficient to keep the question alive. Merely "... sufficient to keep the question alive"? See my previous post on, "If this is the `Church Militant' I would hate to see the `Church Pacifist'!" After presenting such compelling evidence of the Shroud's authenticity, to finish with "at least been sufficient to keep the question alive" is a letdown. As I pointed out in previous posts (10Dec15 & 07May16) since the Shroud is authentic, as the evidence overwhelming indicates, it is a miraculous work of Jesus[35]. So non-Christian "hardened skeptics," who know the overwhelming evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuse to accept it, and Him, are in the same position as the residents of those towns in Israel which witnessed Jesus' miraculous works but refused to accept them and Him:

Mt 11:20-22. "20 Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you."

Lk 10:13-15. 13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades."

That is, on the principle which in that context Jesus stated:

"Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required ..." (Lk 12:48)

those "hardened skeptics" to whom "much was given" in evidence that the Shroud is authentic (and therefore Christianity is true), will be subject to a more severe judgment by Jesus (Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5), the Man on the Shroud:

[Above (enlarge): The Face of the Man on the Shroud[33]

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'"[34].]

than those who rejected Jesus' but did not know His miraculous work in the Shroud.

Continued in part #4 of this April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.

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. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," The Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
3. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.203; 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.88-89; Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112, 104-105; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138, 129; Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.36. [return]
4. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, pp.14-15. [return]
5. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.122. [return]
6. Habermas G.R., "Discussion: Antony G. N. Flew, Gary R. Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas G.R., Flew A.G.N. & Miethe T.L., ed. , 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.119. See also STURP, 1981, "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 25; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113-127, 122; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.139-140. [return]
7. Weisberg, L., 1987, "Shroud Splits Scientists," The Scientist, Vol. 1, No. 17, 13 July, p.1; Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2001, "Finding the Shroud in the 21st Century," Collegamento pro Sindone Internet, December. [return]
8. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.43; 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 DC, pp.425-446, 427,428; Adler, 1999, p.105; Adler, A.D. & Schwalbe, L.A., 1993, "Conservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, p.73; Adler, 2000c, pp.22,25; Adler, 2000a, p.113. [return]
9. Dinegar, R.H., 1982, "The 1978 Scientific Study of the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 4, September, pp.3-12, 3; 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.44; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, pp.27-29, 38; Adler, A.D., 1991, "Conservation and Preservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.67-71, 70; Adler, A.D., 1996, "Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.81-86, 84-85; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.66. [return]
10. Murra, D., Di Lazzaro, P., Santoni, A. & Baldacchini, G., 2012, "Shroud-like coloration of linen by nanosecond laser pulses in the vacuum ultraviolet," Research Gate, September. [return]
11. "Dehydration reaction," Wikipedia, 20 February 2016. [return]
12. "Redox," Wikipedia, 13 May 2016. [return]
13. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
14. Murra, D., et al., 2012, Figure 14. [return]
15. Sartoris, L., 1985, "The Embalmment [sic] of Corpses as Practiced by the Egyptians and by the Hebrews," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 16, September, pp.17-22, 17; "Making an Ancient Egyptian Mummy," Eyewitness to history.com, 1 November 2010. [return]
16. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.83. [return]
17. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, No. 3, Autumn, pp.319-345; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.14. [return]
18. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
19. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
20. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
21. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
22. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
23. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
24. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
25. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
26. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
27. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
28. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
29. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
30. "Shroud Exposition Opens In Turin," Shroud.com, 2000 [return]
31. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.235. [return]
33. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]
34. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]
35. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.174-177. [return]

Posted 19 May 2016. Updated 24 October 2024.

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (1): Shroud of Turin News - April 2016

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

[Previous: April 2016, part #1] [Next: April 2016, part #3]

This is part #2 of the April 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. This post had become too long, so I renamed it "Has Science Proven ... (1)" and will continue my comments on this article in part #3, which will be titled "Has Science Proven ... (2)." The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?," Church Militant, Ryan Fitzgerald, March 27, 2016. Despite what skeptics insist, its authenticity remains scientifically tenable

[Above (enlarge): Positive [left] (as seen with the naked eye) and enhanced negative[right] photographs of the Shroud face. Source: article]

For a site which claims it represents the "Church Militant," that is, "The Church ... engaged in ... an incessant warfare against the hostile world ... and against all the spiritual forces of darkness":

"The Church in the present dispensation is a militant Church, that is, she is called unto, and is actually engaged in, a holy warfare. This, of course, does not mean that she must spend her strength in self-destroying internecine struggles, but that she is duty bound to carry on an incessant warfare against the hostile world in every form in which it reveals itself, whether in the Church or outside of it, and against all the spiritual forces of darkness. The Church may not spend all her time in prayer and meditation, however necessary and important these may be, nor may she rest on her oars in the peaceful enjoyment of her spiritual heritage. She must be engaged with all her might in the battles of her Lord, fighting in a war that is both offensive and defensive. If the Church on earth is the militant Church, the Church in heaven is the triumphant Church. There the sword is exchanged for the palm of victory, the battle-cries are turned into songs of triumph, and the cross is replaced by the crown. The strife is over, the battle is won, and the saints reign with Christ forever and ever. In these two stages of her existence the Church reflects the humiliation and exaltation of her heavenly Lord"[2].

this is unnecessarily feeble. The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic! Therefore the Shroud's authenticity is not only "scientifically tenable" it is scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt[3]!

The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth bearing an uncanny, blood-stained image of what appears to be Jesus Christ, The image on the Shroud not only appears to be Jesus Christ, it is Jesus Christ!

[Right (original): "A photo negative of the Shroud of Turin." Source: article]

Leading Shroud anti- authenticist Steven D. Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell), has stated that either the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" or "the image is that of Jesus," and there is no "possible third hypothesis":

"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[4] and Stevenson and Habermas[5] 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)[6]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'" (my emphasis)[7]

And the Shroud man's image is not "a product of human artifice," that is, a forgery (see my Problems of the Forgery Theory).

is held as an object of devotion by Christians worldwide. That the Shroud uniquely transcends all Christian denominational divisions (I myself am a Protestant evangelical Christian) is itself powerful evidence that the Shroud is authentic. The Holy Spirit, who bears witness to Jesus (John 15:26), bears witness with the spirits of those Christians (Rom 8:16; Heb 10:15) who are open to receive it, that the Shroud of Turin is indeed Jesus' burial shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53)!

For centuries, countless Christians have considered it the authentic historical burial shroud of Our Lord, Indeed! See above. out of which He rose from the dead some 2,000 years ago. Not "out of which" but through which. See STURP physicist John Jackson's `cloth collapse' theory. Today it resides at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. The Church has never declared it to be the real burial shroud of Christ, although it does take the mysterious image to be worthy of Christian devotion. See my previous criticism (latest first 23Jun15, 17Apr15, 01Mar14, 14Feb14, 06Oct13) of the Vatican's policy of neither confirming nor denying that the Shroud is authentic, as "duplicitous," i.e. "two-faced." Because by its actions of spending the equivalent of many millions of dollars preserving the Shroud and exhibiting it to millions of people as though it is authentic, the Vatican clearly does believe that the Shroud is authentic, so ordinary honesty requires that it should say so. Shroud anti-authenticists cite the Vatican's refusal to state that the Shroud is authentic as evidence that it is not. And as devout Roman Catholic Donald M. Smith pointed out in his 1983 book, "The Letter," which was in the form of a letter to Pope John Paul II, 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 (see 25Oct15). And for the Vatican to exhibit that, would show it has the same "the end justifies the means' ... principles of ... Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler":

"[If the Shroud is not authentic] ... 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 ... It is not right to venerate an object if that object was created by evil means" (my emphasis)[8].

As with any allegedly miraculous religious artifact, the Shroud is subject to a high degree of both faith and doubt. Rubbish! If this is the "Church Militant" I would hate to see the "Church Pacifist"! It takes more faith to believe the Shroud is not authentic than that it is authentic. As Fr Peter Rinaldi (1910-93) rightly said:

"Were the Shroud a forgery, it would be a greater miracle than if it were the actual cloth of Christ."[9].

In fact, as I have previously posted, based on Jesus' warning to those towns in Israel which witnessed His miraculous works but rejected them and Him, that they will be subject to a more severe judgment than those towns which rejected Jesus but did not witness His miraculous works(Mt 11:20-22; Lk 10:13-15); and on the principle which in that context Jesus laid down, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required ..." (Lk 12:48); those non-Christians who know the overwhelming evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud, which means it a miraculous work of Jesus[10], but refuse to accept it, will be judged by Jesus (Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5) more severely than they otherwise will be, if they were ignorant of that evidence.

The image clearly seems to depict Christ, as the body is that of a man wrapped in linen after being scourged, crucified, stabbed in his side and made to wear something like a crown of thorns. Only "seems to depict Christ"? See above on "Church Pacifist"! And see above what leading anti-authenticists Steven D. Schafersman and Joe Nickell stated, that either the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" (which it isn't) or "the image is that of Jesus." And also what another leading Shroud anti-authenticist, the late Roman Catholic Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) admitted, "In no other person [than Christ] ... could these details [on the Shroud] be verified":

"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)[11]

In addition, the origin of the image itself is scientifically inexplicable. Indeed! And what other medieval forgery has withstood over a century (since 1898) of scientific investigation, and yet still remains "scientifically inexplicable"? None! By the corollary of the Argument from Ignorance, that "if a certain event had occurred [the Shroud was forged in the Middle Ages], evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators," in which case "the absence of proof of" the Shroud having been forged in the Middle Ages is "positive proof" that the Shroud was not forged in the Middle Ages!:

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) ... A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators. In such a case it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence."[12]

It manifests on the shroud in the form of a photo negative, yet it's been known to exist since about 1360 at the latest, It was 1355 actually. It sounds like this writer for Church Militant, was thrown into the deep end by his editor, not knowing much about his topic, as another young writer for Church Militant was. long before producing photo negative images was understood. See the above negative photograph of the Shroud, which is a photographic positive, thus proving the Shroud image is a photographic negative[13].

[Above (enlarge): The negative plate of one of Secondo Pia's (1855–1941) photographs of the Shroud in 1898, including the altar in Turin Cathedral where it was displayed[14]. As can be seen, on Pia's negative the Shroud image is positive, while everything else is photographically negative[15].]

It was in 1816, over 460 years after the Shroud's first undisputed appearance in history at Lirey, France in 1355, that the first photographic negative was produced and with it the very concept[16] of photographic negativity:

"In 1816 Nicéphore Niépce, using paper coated with silver chloride, succeeded in photographing the images formed in a small camera, but the photographs were negatives, darkest where the camera image was lightest and vice versa, and they were not permanent in the sense of being reasonably light-fast; like earlier experimenters, Niépce could find no way to prevent the coating from darkening all over when it was exposed to light for viewing."[17]

And, since the very "concept of negativity... came into the range of human knowledge only when photography was invented in ... the nineteenth century" it "was clearly impossible" for "a medieval forger ... to conceive a negative image" let alone depict one:

"Vignon considered the possibility of a medieval forger being able to conceive a negative image. This was clearly impossible; the whole concept of negativity was something which came into the range of human knowledge only when photography was invented in the middle of the nineteenth century. And suppose a medieval forger had been able to conceive such a thing what would be the point in painting a negative image on the cloth in the first place? Even given the improbable fact that first our medieval painter could have thought it out and second he had a reason for doing so, how could he have had the skill to actually paint the thing in negative colour values? It was clearly a ridiculous possibility" (my emphasis)[18].

The Shroud has come to be regarded with its most severe doubts in the last few decades. The last few decades are (if this decade the 2010s is not counted), the 2000s, 1990s and 1980s. That was true of the late 1980s/early 1990s after the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud declared:

"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. ... The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390"[19]

[Above (enlarge): From left to right, Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr R. Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[20].]

But it has been downhill ever since for that radiocarbon dating result, with increasing acceptance of the Shroud's authenticity, as: 1) problems of radiocarbon dating in general became more widely known, which showed that anomalous dates were common; 2) problems of that particular radiocarbon dating of the Shroud became apparent; and 3) there is evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud had existed long before its earliest possible 1260 radiocarbon date (see below).

In the 1980s, Church authorities gave permission to a team of scientists to test a piece of the cloth with radiocarbon dating techniques. The key words are, "Church authorities gave permission to a team of scientists to test." The Vatican handled this very badly, indeed ineptly. It allowed the laboratories to be both the client and the tester, with itself the owner of the artefact to be dated, being relegated to a mere passive spectator:

"Among the many anomalies of the affair that were more or less influential on its correct conduct, the unusual initiative of the laboratories should be noted. It had never happened before that the investigating laboratories themselves had asked to date a specimen or that there should be so many, all seven of them, who wanted to carry out parallel investigations. Normally it is a scholar, in the role of a submitter, who presents the specimen to the laboratories and asks for their response. `But this time,' Gonella states, `the laboratories that specialized in Carbon 14 dating wanted to act as their own submitters ... they insisted on being present, at all costs, during the cutting operation because they did not trust the officials of the Church ... `Since when,' Gonella wonders, `has a dating laboratory wanted to be present during an excavation because it did not trust the archaeologist who was excavating the specimens? Since when have laboratories refused to collaborate?'"[21].

In this the Vatican made a huge tactical mistake. It should have insisted that it was the client, paid for the testing, chosen its own laboratories to do the dating, insisted on double-blind testing, insisted on receiving the test results from the laboratories, and announcing them to the public. The Vatican should also have stated upfront, as a not-negotiable condition of dating the Shroud, that like any other radiocarbon dating client, it was free to reject the date if it did not agree with all the other evidence about the Shroud.

When the scientists announced the results, they rather triumphantly declared that its history goes back only to medieval times, from between 1260 and 1390 AD. On "triumphantly" note the most unscientific exclamation mark[22] after the 1390 on the blackboard above. This shows that these non-Christian scientists wanted the Shroud to be a medieval fake[23], as was candidly admitted by Oxford's Prof. Edward Hall (1924–2001):

"The Holy Shroud of Turin - revered by Catholics for centuries - is a piece of linen woven between AD1260 and 1390. Therefore the image it bears cannot be the imprint of the bloodstained body of the crucified Jesus Christ ... Professor Hall, who heads the Oxford research laboratory in archaeology and the history of art, said he was not disappointed in the result. 'I have to admit I am an agnostic and I don't want at my time of life to have to change my ideas.'" (my emphasis)[24]

and so were easily duped by a computer hacker, allegedly Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) - see my series "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking."

And yet the shroud remains an object of devotion, The Shroud itself should not be "an object of devotion" because that would be idolatry. It is only Jesus, the Man on the Shroud, who is God in human flesh (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20), who is rightly "an object of devotion."

particularly because the radiocarbon dating leaves so much unanswered about the enigmatic Christian icon. One of the key unanswered questions about the 1988 radiocarbon dating, that "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390," is, as mentioned above, that there is evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud had existed long before its earliest possible 1260 radiocarbon date[25]. This included: 1) numerous Byzantine icons with up to fifteen odd features called "Vignon markings," which have no artistic merit, but all fifteen oddities are found on the Shroud, some of which are just quirks in the weave (see 14Apr14, 11Feb12).

For example, the Sainte Face de Laon (Holy Face of Laon) was painted

[Above (enlarge): "The Holy Face of Laon," c. 12th-13th century[27], now in the Cathedral of Laon, Picardy, France[28].]

c. 1200-17[26], and was purchased in 1249 by Jacques Pantaleon (c. 1195–1264), archdeacon of the cathedral of Laon, who became Pope Urban IV[29]. The icon has an inscription in Old Slavonic (9th–11th century) by the artist, which reads, "Obraz Gospodin na Ubruzje" ("The Lord's picture on the Cloth")[30]. From the language of the inscription the icon has been dated between 1200 and 1217[31], and likely painted at Constantinople before 1204[32] by a monk from the Benedictine monastery of Szavaszentdemeter[33], near modern Nova Gradiska[34], in Srem, which was then Hungary. The icon has thirteen out of the fifteen Vignon markings[35], more than any other known icon[36], yet it actually is a copy of the Mandylion/Image of Edessa[37] (the Shroud four-doubled [tetradiplon])[38]. That and the inscription indicates that the Laon face was copied directly from the Mandylion/Shroud[39]. The Laon face cannot date from after 1249, yet that is already more than a decade before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[40]. And the Mandylion/Shroud that the Laon face was copied from must have existed long before 1249[41]. But the Holy Face of Laon is only one of the "lot of other evidence that" the Director of Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, Prof. Christopher Ramsey, who was involved in the 1988 radiocarbon dating and was a signatory to the 1989 Nature article, admitted, "suggests ... that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow":

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information"[42]

Another example of the "lot of other evidence that suggests ... the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow" is the Hungarian Pray Manuscript or Codex. The Codex was prepared in the ancient

[Above (enlarge): Plate III, "Entombment" (upper) and "Visit to the Sepulchre" (lower), one of three miniature ink drawings in the Hungarian Pray Codex (1192-1195)[43]. It was named after György Pray (1723-1801), a Hungarian librarian who discovered it in 1770[44]. As can be seen, Jesus is depicted nude with His hands crossing awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, to cover His genitals, exactly as on the Shroud[45]! The agnostic art historian, Thomas de Wesselow, "identified eight telling correspondences between the Shroud and the drawings on a [this] single page of the Pray Codex" (my emphasis)[46]!]

Benedictine monastery at Boldva, Hungary[47] and is now kept in the National Library of Budapest[48] . The Codex contains a Funeral Oration which is the earliest written work in the Hungarian language[49], and is dated between 1192 and 1195[50]. Hungary was then ruled by King Bela III (c. 1148–1196), who was an ally of the Byzantine Empire[51] and had lived at the Imperial Court in Constantinople from 1163-72[52]. It is likely that during that period the artist saw the Shroud in Constantinople and depicted it in the three drawings now in the Pray Codex[53].

There are at least sixteen (16) unusual or unique features shared in common between the Shroud and three of the Pray Codex drawings. In the "Entombment" (Berkovits, Plate III (upper)): 1) Jesus is completely nude[54] (unique in the 12th century). 2) He is laid on a shroud[55]. 3) His hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists to cover His genital area[56]. 4) Jesus' right hand is over His left[57]. 5) Jesus' fingers are abnormally long[58]. 6) His thumbs are not visible[59], when at least His left hand thumb should be[60]. 7) There is a mark above Jesus' right eye corresponding to the reversed `3' bloodstain on the Shroud[61] (see 27May12). 8) Jesus' shroud is more than twice His body's length[62] (it is draped over the Apostle John on the right and Nicodemus on the left - see 27May12). 9) The end of Jesus' shroud below His feet has a ragged end (see 27May12) which corresponds with the Shroud's[63] (before the latter's missing corner was removed). In "Visit to the Sepulchre" (Berkovits, Plate III (lower)): 10) Jesus' sarcophagus lid has a herringbone weave pattern[64]. 11) The sarcophagus lid has red zig-zag blood patterns corresponding to the blood trickles down the the Shroud man's arms[65]. 12) The sarcophagus and its lid both have L-shaped patterns of tiny circles corresponding to the `poker holes' on the Shroud[66] (see 27May12). In "Christ Enthroned" (Berkovits, plate IV): 13) There is a nail

[Above (enlarge): "Christ Enthroned," Berkovits, 1969, plate IV.]

bloodstain on Jesus' right wrist (uniquely for the Middle Ages), as on the Shroud and another nail bloodstain in Jesus' left palm[67] which is hidden on the Shroud. This is very significant because it shows that the nail wound in the right wrist, being non-traditional, was forced on the artist by what he saw on the Shroud. 14) There is a elliptical bloodstain on Jesus' right chest corresponding to the spear wound bloodstain on the Shroud[68]. 15) Jesus is wearing a long robe, one end of which resembles the Shroud's ragged end in 9) above. 16) The ends of Jesus' feet are indistinct as are the man on the Shroud's[69]. This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Pray Codex artist saw the Shroud before 1192-95[70], sixty-five years before the earliest possible 1260 radiocarbon date[71], and most likely in Constantinople in 1163-72[72]. The Pray Codex alone proves that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390" was wrong! See also my 11Jan10 and 27Dec15, 15Oct15, 23Jul15, 02Dec14, 26Oct14 & 27May12. I will continue providing references about the Pray Codex in the background.

Continued in part #3, "Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (2).

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. Berkhof, L., 1958, "Systematic Theology," [1932], Banner of Truth: London, British Edition, Third printing, 1966, p.565. [return]
3. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.125; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.90; Minor, M., 1990, "Shroud of Turin Manuscript Discovered By Texas Member," The Manuscript Society News, Vol. XI, No. 4, Fall, pp.117-122, 122; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.71. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
5. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.121-129. [return]
6. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
7. 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]
8. Smith, D.M., 1983, "The Letter," DMS Publishing Co: Rancho Palos Verdes CA, pp.24-25. [return]
9. Rinaldi, P.M., 1996, "For the Holy Shroud, a Crucial Hour: An interview with Peter M. Rinaldi, S.D.B.," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 21, December, pp.16-20, 19; Rinaldi, P.M., 1987, "For the Holy Shroud, the Hour of Truth," Shroud News, No. 39, February, pp.13-17, 16. [return]
10. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.174-177. [return]
11. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wilson, 1979, p.52. [return]
12. Copi, I.M., 1953, "Introduction to Logic," Macmillan: New York NY, Seventh Edition, 1986, pp.94-95. [return]
13. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.16; Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.26-27; Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J. & Mottern, R.W., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.74; Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.4; 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, pp.26-27; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.56; Rinaldi, P.M., 1983, "I Saw the Holy Shroud," Don Bosco Publications: New Rochelle NY, p.18; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, p.3; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.10; Iannone, 1998, pp.5,66; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.8; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.18; Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.26; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.35; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.29-30; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.5-6; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.18-19. [return]
14. Moretto, 1999, p.26. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Morgan, 1980, pp.64-65; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.57; O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, pp.46-47; Antonacci, 2000, pp.35-36. [return]
17. "History of photography: Development of chemical photography," Wikipedia, 8 May 2016. [return]
18. Morgan, 1980, pp.64-65. [return]
19. Damon, P.E., et al., 1988, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp. 611-615, 611. [return]
20. Wilson, 1998, p.7 & pl.3b. [return]
21. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E. 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.115 (footnotes omitted). [return]
22. Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.12; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.108; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.133. [return]
23. Oxley, 2010, pp.86-87; Marino, J.G., 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion," Cradle Press: St. Louis MO, p.272. [return]
24. Radford, T., 1988, "Shroud dating leaves 'forgery' debate raging," The Guardian, October 14. [return]
25. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.3; Wilson, 1998, pp.125,141; Wilson, I., 1996, "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, p.134; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.108. [return]
26. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.21; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.45; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.56-57. [return]
27. Wilson, 1991, p.78; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.56; de Riedmatten, P., 2008, "The Holy Face of Laon," BSTS Newsletter, No. 68, December; Oxley, 2010, p.108. [return]
28. "File:Icône Sainte Face Laon 150808.jpg," Wikipedia, 7 October 2015. Google translated from French. [return]
29. Currer-Briggs, 1984, pp.21, 85; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.157; "File:Icône Sainte Face Laon 150808.jpg," Wikipedia, 2015; Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
30. Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.21; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.58; Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
31. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.157. [return]
32. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.58-59. [return]
33. Wilson, I., 1983, "Some Recent Society Meetings," BSTS Newsletter, No. 6, September/December, p.13; Currer-Briggs, 1984, pp.22, 84. [return]
34. Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.158; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.157. [return]
35. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.58. [return]
36. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.67. [return]
37. Wilson, 1983, p.13; Wilson, 1998, pp.150-151. [return]
38. References to be provided. [return]
39. Wuenschel, 1954, p.59; Wilcox, 1977, p.97; Currer-Briggs, 1984, pp.21-22, 158. [return]
40. Currer-Briggs, 1995, pp.56-57. [return]
41. Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.57. [return]
42. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March, Version 152, Issued 16 June 2015. [return]
43. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, pl. III. [return]
44. Guerrera, 2001, p.104; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 14 March 2015. [return]
45. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178-179. [return]
46. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
47. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson, 1991, p.151. [return]
48. 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.59; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
49. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
50. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson, 1986, p.114; Wilson, 1991, p.151; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
51. de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
52. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 5 May 2016. [return]
53. Guerrera, 2001, p.106; de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
54. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Wilson, 1998, pp.146,271; Guerrera, 2001, pp.104-105; 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.xxvi; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson, 2010, pp.183,301; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178-179. [return]
55. Iannone, 1998, p.155. [return]
56. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 1991, pp.150-151; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.164-165; Iannone, 1998, p.154; Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, 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.63; Wilson, 2010, pp.183, 301; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
57. Iannone, 1998, p.155; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. On the Shroud it is actually the man's left hand over his right because the Shroud is analogous to a plaster cast. [return]
58. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
59. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.155; Scavone, 1998, p.63; Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
60. de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
61. Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
61. Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
62. Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
63. Jones, S.E., 2012, "My critique of "The Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 1 May 2011," May 27 [return]
64. Iannone, 1998, p.155; Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Marino, 2011, p.53; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
65. Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, et al., 2002, p.33; Scavone, 1998, p.64; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
66. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.163-164; Iannone, 1998, pp.154-155; Scavone, 1998, p.64; Ruffin, 1999, p.60; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; Marino, 2011, p.53; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
67. Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
68. References to be provided. [return]
69. References to be provided. [return]
70. Guerrera, 2001, p.106; de Wesselow, 2012, p.180. [return]
71. Iannone, 1998, p.155; Maloney, 1998, p.33; Marino, 2011, p.53. [return]
72. Scavone, 1998, p.64; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.181, 183. [return]

Posted 7 May 2016. Updated 15 August 2024.