Saturday, May 7, 2016

"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

[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).

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: 20 November 2016.


Anonymous said...

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.

The Vatican should never have agreed to ask scientists to perform a Radiocarbon dating test in the first place.

Stephen E. Jones said...



>The Vatican should never have agreed to ask scientists to perform a Radiocarbon dating test in the first place.

The Vatican didn't ask the scientists to perform a Radiocarbon dating test. The scientist asked the Vatican to perform the test.

The Vatican was also being pressured by the Shroud pro-authenticity community to radiocarbon date the Shroud.

But I agree that in hindsight the Vatican should never have agreed to the Shroud being radiocarbon dated at all, because due to irremovable carbon, it was unlikely to date 1st century, but probably somewhere between the 1st and 5th centuries, which would still be inconclusive.

I have previously quoted extreme anti-authenticists Walter McCrone and Timothy Linick who would not accept that the Shroud was Jesus' even if it dated 1st century (30Dec15)

Here is a quote from an interview with the British Museum's Dr. Michael Tite, the coordinator of the dating, in a recently come to light 1989 Sociology PhD thesis (of which I haven't yet read all its 295 pages), by Helene Laverdiere who is now a Canadian MP, where Tite admits that there was nothing in it for the Vatican to have the Shroud dated, because even if it did date 1st century, extreme anti-authenticists like Tite would still not accept that the Shroud was authentic:

"`... there is no way I can see that the Vatican real interest to have it [the Shroud] authenticated at all really. Well I can't see the interest of the Vatican and Turin particularly to have it done. Well I mean you can't authenticate it. All you can do it's prove it is a fake... there is only one wrong date, it's the one which is 'not 0' because the other one doesn't prove anything... it could still be a 12th Century forgery using a 0 aged cloth.' (Tite, interview)" ("The Socio-Politic of a Relic: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Submitted by H. Laverdiere for the degree of PhD of the University of Bath 1989, p.27)

Stephen E. Jones
MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.