Thursday, June 30, 2016

The Shroud of Turin blog topics "L"

The Shroud of Turin blog topics #6
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Topics "L"

This is the topics page "L" and part #6 of my "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series. See the Index "A-Z" for more information about this series. I will add other topics beginning with "L" in the background, working forward in time from my earlier posts.

[Above (enlarge):[2] Comparison between Leonardo's self-portrait and the face of the man of the Shroud. Note that the two faces have little in common: Leonardo's head shape is `round' and the man on the Shroud's head is `rectangular'.]

[Index #1] [Previous "E" #5] [Next "M" #7]

Leonardo da Vinci. [06Jul07] If the Shroud was forged, the forger would have to have been one of the greatest artistic geniuses ever, at least equal to Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519). The leading (if not the only) proponents of the theory that Leonardo faked the Shroud are Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. But not only is there no evidence that Leonardo forged the Shroud, it has an undisputed European history from 1355 and Leonardo was born in 1452, nearly a century later. In fact there was a public exposition of the Shroud at Germolles, France in 1452, the year that Leonardo was born[3]. So Picknett and Prince claim that there were two Shrouds: a 14th century Mk I which was transferred to the House of Savoy by Geoffroy de Charny's granddaughter Margaret de Charny in 1453; and a 15th century Mk II which Leonardo created for Pope Innocent VIII (1484-92) in 1492[4] and after the latter's death was given to the House of Savoy in 1494[5]. They ignore the overwhelming evidence that the Shroud we now have is authentic and therefore 1st century, and also they are at odds with the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[6], which they admit[7]. Even leading Shroud sceptic Joe Nickell regards their "claim that Leonardo had created the Shroud of Turin ... a century before the birth of Leonardo" as a "foray into nonsense"![8]. Picknett and Prince claim that they were told by a "Giovanni"[9] [see 14Jul09], a high ranking member of the "Priory of Sion"[10], that Leonardo had faked the Shroud in 1492[11], by inventing photography[12], crucifying a dead (or alive) man[13] and photographing his body and Leonardo's head onto the Shroud's linen[14].

Major problems for Picknett and Prince's Leonardo forged substitute Shroud theory include: ■ The Priory of Sion was a hoax[15] perpetrated by convicted fraudster Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair (1920–2000)[16]. Therefore "Giovanni" never existed and Picknett and Prince, who know about Plantard and his hoax[17], are lying[18] (or worse[19]). ■ Picknett and Prince claim that the Shroud disappeared around 1492, but as Ian Wilson documented, "In that year ... the cloth's effective control [was] in the hands of ... the Dowager Duchess Bianca [Blanche of Montferrat (1472-1519)], a very devout woman who personally exhibited the Shroud at Vercelli in 1494, and who would hardly have failed to notice had this been a different cloth from the one that she and her retinue had carried around during their travels in the preceding years"[20]. The Shroud's movements "are consistently well attested throughout this whole period, automatically reducing to fiction the ... theory that Leonardo da Vinci `invented' it" (my emphasis)[21]. While Leonardo was "in Milan for the next 18 years" from 1482-1499 in the employ of the Duke of Milan, the longest period the Shroud was not being publicly exhibited or seen privately by non-members of the House of Savoy was only ~6 years from 1488-1494[22], far too short a period for the supposed Shroud Mk. I to be out of circulation long enough (Picknett and Prince tacitly admit they need a "forty-year period of obscurity"[23]), for the members of the Savoy family and public, many of whom would have been at both the 1488 and 1494 expositions[24], to forget what it looked like, such that they would then accept without questions Leonardo's Shroud Mk. II. ■ It would have made Leonardo a criminal (and also his House of Savoy accomplices) to have crucified a dead body. And a murderer (and his Savoy accomplices accessories to murder) if the victim had been crucified alive, which Picknett and Prince don't rule out[25]. ■ It would have made Leonardo and his Savoy accomplices guilty of blasphemy, punishable by burning at the stake in 15th century Italy[25], for destroying a relic, let alone one believed to be Jesus' very burial shroud, and replacing it with a forgery. Picknett and Prince admit this, by claiming that Leonardo "... risked his life by faking the ultimate Christian relic" and so "committing ... a grave sacrilege."[26] ■ Leonardo's above crimes claimed by Picknett and Prince would have been quickly found out, because he did not work alone but, "Leonardo maintained an extensive workshop in Milan, employing apprentices and students"[27]. Also Picknett and Prince admit that "Using a camera obscura to project a life-size image ["as on the Shroud"] ... would need ... at least twenty feet of floor space"[28], so Leonardo would have had to use his workshop. Moreover, Picknett and Prince acknowledge that it would take "days" for just the image of the head to be imprinted on the cloth[29]. ■ Picknett and Prince claim that "the Savoys of the fifteenth century" replaced the Shroud because they began "to panic that the relic they owned was no longer convincing to the public of the increasingly discerning Renaissance"[30]. But not only is there is no evidence that the Shroud was not convincing to the 15th century public, it is a false premise that the House of Savoy would replace their old, believed to be genuine relic, even if it was inferior artistically, with a new, artistically superior, fake relic. That would be like a wife replacing her original but inferior quality wedding ring for a new superior quality one, and destroying the original. The whole point of a relic (and a wedding ring) is that it is original, not that it is artistically superior. Besides, Picknett and Prince contradict themselves, because they claim that "Leonardo was never paid for his work on the Turin Shroud because ... it was very disappointing."[31]. ■ Picknett and Prince admit that despite Leonardo having been "a compulsive note-maker" in his notebooks there was not "anything that refers to the Shroud"[32]. They also tacitly admit that there was nothing in Leonardo's notebooks about photography[33]. But if Leonardo did discover photography in the 15th century, "some 350 years before its known invention"[34] by Joseph Nicephore Niepce (1765-1833), in 1826[35], then why would he have used it only once to fake the Shroud? Picknett and Prince agreed that, "if Leonardo were alive today he would be a photographer."[36], but this is a `Freudian slip' which shows that they don't believe their own theory that Leonardo was a photographer then!

Other problems for Picknett and Prince's Leonardo theory include: ■ If the Shroud was a photograph taken by Leonardo it would fail the VP-8 Image Analyzer three-dimensional test as do all other photographs[37]. Picknett and Prince even admit this[38], but then they deny the VP-8 Image Analyzer (and therefore other all other evidence) that the Shroud image does contain three-dimensional information[39]. ■ There is no chemical or spectroscopic evidence of light-sensitive chemicals on the Shroud[40]. Picknett and Prince also admit this but claim that they were "washed out" removing "every trace of the original mixture"[41]. ■ In their attempt to reproduce how Leonardo could have photographed the Shroud's head image, Picknett and Prince added the blood ("theatrical blood") last[42]. They admit that STURP's Alan D. Adler (1931-2000) found that "there is no body image on the cloth underneath the bloodstains"[43] and "No forger would have applied the bloodstains first and then painted the image around them"[44]. So Picknett (a journalist) and Prince (an accountant)[45] simply deny that this is so[46]. For good measure they also deny that it is real blood on the Shroud"[47], forgetting their claim (above) that Leonardo crucified a real human body, possibly alive, for realism!■ There is no evidence of Pope Innocent VIII in Rome ever taking any interest in, or having any control over, the Shroud which was in Chambéry, France; and if the Pope had wanted a relic for a "publicity exercise"[48], he had them in Rome[49] with a then higher credibility than the Shroud[50]. ■ Any conspiracy to replace the Shroud would have had to involve Duchess Bianca of Savoy [ Blanche of Montferrat (1472–1519)], who from 1490 to 1496 was in control of of the Shroud, but it beggars belief (to put it mildly) that this deeply religious young woman would ever be involved in any such criminal and sacrilegious conspiracy[51].■ Further to their lie about "Giovanni" of the non-existent "Priory of Sion" (see above), whose claimed non-existent 13 letters to Picknett, she conveniently destroyed[52]; they claim that Giovanni could not find Ian Wilson, yet his "home address has always been freely available to people seriously interested in the Shroud," and so Giovanni, "singled out Lynn Picknett, who had no known connection with ... the Shroud ... to reveal his society's hitherto closely guarded secret to the world"[53]! Picknett and Prince claimed that Ian he could not find Ian Wilson, whose,"home address has always been freely available to people seriously interested in the Shroud," and "so he singled out Lynn Picknett, who had no known connection with ... the Shroud ... to reveal his society's hitherto closely guarded secret to the world"[53]! In their 1964 book, Picknett claimed that Ian Wilson told her of the year "1492" that, "The Shroud did disappear around then"[54]. But after Wilson in his 1998 book, pointed out, "I would never in my right senses have made this statement, as ought to be obvious from the chronologies of the Shroud set out both in my 1978 book"[55], Picknett and Prince in their 2006 second edition, simply repeated the falsehood verbatim[56]! So presumably when Wilson wrote of "...certain plausible-sounding and publicity-seeking people with absolutely no concern for truth," he was thinking of Picknett and Prince[57]!

Notes:
1. This page, and each page, in my The Shroud of Turin blog topics series, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Shroud of Turin," not the whole page "S"), provided that it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to the page it came from. [return]
2. Jamieson, A., 2009, "Was Turin Shroud faked by Leonardo da Vinci?," The Telegraph, 1 July. [return]
3. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.114. [return]
4. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 1994, "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?: The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.68, 107, 113; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, 2006, Reprinted, 2007, pp.91, 131. [return]
5. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.113; 2006, pp.91, 138. [return]
6. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
7. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.188; 2006, pp.104, 215. [return]
8. Nickell, J., 2007, "Deciphering Da Vinci’s Real Codes," Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 31, No. 3, May/ June. [return]
9. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.64,73; 2006, pp.86,96. [return]
10. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.71; 2006, p.93. [return]
11. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.68; 2006, p.91. [return]
12. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.65, 68; 2006, pp.65, 88. [return]
13. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.65, 68, 157; 2006, pp.87, 88, 91, 188. [return]
14. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.65, 68, 157; 2006, pp.86-87, 91, 188. [return]
15. "Priory of Sion," Wikipedia, 2 July 2016. [return]
16. "Pierre Plantard," Wikipedia, 21 February 2016. [return]
17. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.69, 71-72, 85; 2006, pp.92-93, 95, 109. [return]
18. Wilson, I. 1996, "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised,, pp.178-179. [return]
19. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.188; 2006, pp.210-211. [return]
20. 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.210-212. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.116. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1996, "Shroud History: Highlights of the Undisputed History," Shroud.com. [return]
23. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.110, 113; 2006, pp.134, 138. [return]
24. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.75. [return]
25. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.65; 2006, p.87. [return]
25. Wendel, F., 1963, "Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought," [1950], Mairet, P., transl., Fontana: London, Reprinted, 1965, p.96. [return]
26. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.177-178; 2006, p.225. [return]
27. "Leonardo da Vinci," Encyclopaedia Britannica online, 13 May 2015. [return]
28. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.157; 2006, p.188. [return]
29. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.157; 2006, pp.188-189. [return]
30. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.115; 2006, p.140. [return]
31. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.68; 2006, p.91. [return]
32. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.113, 177; 2006, p.138. [return]
33. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.147; 2006, pp.177-178. [return]
34. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.147; 2006, p.177. [return]
35. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.156; 2006, p.184. [return]
36. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.149; 2006, pp.179-180. [return]
37. 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, 108. [return]
38. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.140; 2006, p.170. [return]
39. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.15, 135, 140-146; 2006, pp.20, 163, 170-176. [return]
40. Adler, 1999, p.108. [return]
41. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.162; 2006, p.194. [return]
42. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.170; 2006, p.204. [return]
43. Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.21. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.210. [return]
46. Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.21. [return]
47. Picknett & Prince, 1994, pp.15-16; 2006, pp.21-22. [return]
48. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.68; 2006, p.91. [return]
49. Oxley, 2010, p.75. [return]
50. Wilson, 1998, p.212. [return]
51. Oxley, 2010, p.75. [return]
52. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.77; 2006, p.101. [return]
53. Wilson, 1998, p.211. [return]
54. Picknett & Prince, 1994, p.188. [return]
55. Wilson, 1998, p.211. [return]
56. Picknett & Prince, 2006, p.210. [return]
57. Wilson, 1996, p.178. [return]

Posted 30 June 2016. Updated 5 May 2023.

Friday, June 24, 2016

"New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person," Shroud of Turin News, May 2016

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

[Previous: May 2016, part #1] [Next: June 2016, part #1]

This is part #2 of the May 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. The article's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

"New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person," Aleteia, Kathleen Hattrup, Paraula, April 11, 2016. Researcher finds complete correspondence in the points where blood flow started. This further confirms what was already

[Above (enlarge): "Transparency acetate on three-dimensional model used in the investigation of Juan Manuel Miñarro. LINTEUM"]

known, that there is a an exact correspondence between blood and lung fluid stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo and the face of the Shroud of Turin (see my 25May16):

"The most striking thing about all the stains [on the face of the Sudarium] is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud."[2]

The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo "almost certainly covered the cadaver of the same person." Considering that both the Shroud and Sudarium covered the dead body of the same person, yet the first undisputed appearance of the Shroud was in ~1355 at Lirey, France[3] and the Sudarium has been in Spain since ~616[4], it is impossible that the Shroud can be a 13th/14th century forgery, and so this is yet more evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... 1260-1390"[5] was wrong!

This is the conclusion from an investigation that has compared the two relics using forensics and geometry. The article does not say what this "forensics and geometry" was. But from the photo above presumably it involved Prof. Miñarro sculpting a head and face of the man on the Shroud, from the three-dimensional information in his image, overlaying a transparency of the Sudarium on that sculpture's face and head, and then noting the "points that demonstrate the compatibility between both cloths" (see below).

The research was done by Dr. Juan Manuel Miñarro, a sculpture professor at the University of Seville, as part of a project sponsored by the Valencia-based Centro Español de Sindonología (CES) (The Spanish Center of Sindonology). Miñarro's work for the CES is a continuation of the latter's previous artistic and photographic comparisons of the Sudarium and the Shroud face, as evident in the photo below which has "© C.E.S." on it.

[Above (enlarge): "Comparison of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin. A clotted flow of blood appears on the right side of both linens, extending the length of the beard. It is post-mortem blood on both cloths, with a very similar morphology, measured at 1,310 mm² on the Shroud and 1,980 mm² on the Sudarium."[6].]

The study thus supports what tradition has held for more than two millennia: that the two cloths came from the same historical person, who, according to this tradition, was Jesus of Nazareth. It is not only "tradition." Leading Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell have admitted 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[7] and Stevenson and Habermas[8] 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)[9]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'" (my emphasis)[10]

But if the Shroud were a forgery, then so would the Sudarium have to be, with their exact correspondence between blood and lung fluid stains (see above). But then both would have had to have been forged before 616. Then Shroud sceptics would have to abandon the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as being more than six centuries out; and also that Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (†1377-1395) was wrong in his 1389 Memorandum's claim that the image on the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" and one of his Bishop of Troyes predecessors, Henry de Poitiers (†1354-1370), had "discovered ... the artist who had painted it"[11]. Then the problem would be even greater to account for the anatomical accuracy of the Shroud man's wounds and bloodstains[12] and the forger's artistic ability being equal or greater than Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)[13], before the seventh century! Then there is the problem of why a forger would have created the Sudarium with no image on it[14]. On the principle of Ockham's Razor, by far the the simplest and therefore to be preferred explanation[15] is that Jesus of Nazareth is the dead person which both the Sudarium and the Shroud had covered!

The Shroud of Turin would have been the linen that covered that body of Jesus when he was placed in the tomb, while the Sudarium would have been the cloth used to cover his face on the cross after he died. Yes. The word translated "shroud" in:

Mt 27:59: "And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud";
Mk 15:46: And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him [Jesus] down, wrapped him in the linen shroud ..."; and
Lk 23:53: "Then he took it [the body of Jesus] down and wrapped it in a linen shroud ..."

is sindon[16]:

"... a sheet or wrapping of linen ... worn by the Orientals at night (Mark 14:51, 52). Used also for wrapping dead bodies (Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53 ..." (my emphasis)[17]

Whereas the word "Sudarium" is Latin for "handkerchief" (my emphasis)[18] and is based on the Greek word soudarion, "A sweat-cloth, generally a handkerchief, napkin (Luke 19:20; John 11:44; 20:7; Acts 19:12)" (my emphasis)[19], which is the word translated "face cloth" in Jn 11:44 & 20:7[20]:

John 11:44. "The man [Lazarus] who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth ...";
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."

Both cloths would be those found by Peter and John in the tomb, as the Gospel recounts. No. Shroud pro-authenticists (including me) want the Shroud to have been found by Peter and John in the tomb, but the Gospel does not recount that. John 20:6-8 recounts that Peter and John found the linen cloths [othonia = "strips of linen" - NIV] and the "face cloth" [soudarion], but not the Shroud [sindon]:

"6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths [othonia] lying there, 7 and the face cloth soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths [othonia] but folded up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple [John], who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed"

As the Irish pro-authenticist theologian Prof. Patrick A. Beecher (1870-1940) rightly pointed out, "After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb":

"The three Synoptic Evangelists, Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke, tell us that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Our Lord in a Sindon (Matt. xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53). The Sindon was a large white linen sheet that covered the entire body. The Evangelists carefully distinguish between it and the sudarium (napkin), which latter was in shape and size like a handkerchief, and was used for the head. In addition, as we know from St. John (xix. 40), linen cloths (ta othonia) were used, with spices, according to Jewish custom. After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb. St. John tells us that Peter `saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place' (xx. 6,7). And St. Luke tells us that `Peter rising up, ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves' (xxiv. 12)" (my emphasis)[21].

This is also agreed by pro-authenticists Bulst[22], Guscin[23], and Ruffin[24], that the sindon (shroud) is not mentioned in Jn 20:4-8 as having being present in the tomb when Peter and John entered it.

And as Beecher further pointed out, that Luke in Lk 24:12 does not mention the sindon being present in the empty tomb after Jesus' resurrection, despite him having previously mentioned it in Lk 23:53 as being present in the tomb at Jesus' burial, indicates that the sindon was not in the empty tomb:

"What became of the Sindon? Saints Matthew and Mark are silent and make no reference to any cloths in the [empty] tomb. St. John still speaks of bandages and of the napkin. His silence about the Sindon would have no special significance, inasmuch as he did not refer to it before. But the fact that St. Luke does not now mention the Sindon, which had occupied his attention previously [Lk 23:53], but speaks of cloths [othonia] [25] ... instead [Lk 24:12], would indicate that the Sindon was not in the [empty] tomb"[26] (my emphasis)

Beecher regarded it as "very significant" (as I do) that the Gospel evidence (see above) which indicates that "the Sindon was not in the tomb," is consistent with a very early Christian writing, the Gospel of the Hebrews, which states that the risen Jesus took His sindon with Him out of the tomb:

"And this is very significant in connection with what St. Jerome tells us, on the authority of the Gospel to the Hebrews (a work from which he often quotes), namely, that Our Lord kept His Sindon with Him when He arose from the dead"[27].

See my 2014 series, "Servant of the priest"

The study "doesn't prove in itself that this person was Jesus Christ, This is fallacious in that it involves a physical science definition of "prove," in an experimental sense. I recently scanned to help put online an article in Shroud News, by the late Italian radiologist Luigi Malantrucco (1925-1992), in which he made this same criticism (read the whole article):

"In a recent article by Professor Luigi Gonella [a nuclear physicist] published in Collegamento Pro Sindone (March/ April 1987), once more we find, and well emphasised, this claim: `Scientists maintain that the Shroud authenticity problem is beyond the possibilities of physics since we do not have an identikit of Jesus Christ and, therefore, we could ... never say whether He is the Man of the Shroud.' ... We ought to make it clear, however, that the eventual impossibility is evidently referred to physical sciences (the so-call[ed] quantitative or hard sciences) ... But anyone who has a minimum of experience in forensic medicine knows that very often quantitative sciences are not very useful for identifying corpses. Most useful, and often determinative, are accurate necroscopic analyses, pointing out meaningful details such as scars, tattoos, the outcome of earlier operations or traumatic injuries, marks of prostheses, or even mutilations, small or severe, or marks of known unhealthy processes. And this is often sufficient to give a name to corpses otherwise unrecognisable even by their closest relatives."[28]

But suspects are convicted of crimes every day on far less forensic science evidence than that which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus. See above where even leading Shroud anti-authenticists Schafersman and Nickell concede that either the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" or "the image is that of Jesus."

but it does clearly advance us along the path of being able to indisputably demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium were wrapped around the head of the same cadaver," Miñarro explained to Paraula. Agreed, but what would be the point of that if it could never "prove ... that this person was Jesus Christ"?

Blood stains In fact, the investigation has found a number of correlations between the two relics that "far exceeds the minimum number of proofs or significant points required by most judicial systems around the world to identify a person, which is between eight and 12, while our study has demonstrated more than 20." So how much evidence does Miñarro need, for him to be able to state that, `This study alone proves beyond reasonable doubt "that this person was Jesus Christ"? The same Jesus who warned in Matthew 10:32-33:

"So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

may not be pleased with scientists who are endlessly discovering evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but who never personally state publicly that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus!

Specifically, the research has discovered "very important coincidences" in the principal morphological characteristics (type, size and distances of the markings), the number and distribution of the blood stains, the unique markings from some of the wounds reflected on both of the cloths or the deformed surfaces. Ditto. To the end of the article, Miñarro does not state that the "same person" whom the Shroud and Sudarium covered, was Jesus. If Miñarro was reported correctly (and has not stated it elsewhere), this seems to me to be a form of academic cowardice! (read STURP's Ken Stevenson's "My White Linen-White Paper" where he criticises the same problem with his fellow STURP scientists).

Indeed, the agnostic Yves Delage (1854-1920) puts these presumed Christian scientists to shame, because he declared before the French Academy of Sciences in 1902, that based on his and Paul Vignon's study of Secondo Pia's 1898 Shroud photographs, "The man of the shroud was the Christ":

"Pausing, he [Delage] looked round. `Must I speak of the identification of the person whose image appears on the shroud?' he asked. ... The truth could be reached, he continued, along two separate lines of inquiry. On the one hand, there was the Shroud telling plainly of a victim who had been crucified, flogged, pierced in the side and crowned with thorns. On the other hand, there was the story of Christ's Passion, telling just as plainly of a man who had suffered those very punishments. `Is it not natural to bring these two parallel series together and tie them to the same object?' ... `Let us add to this, that, in order for the image to have formed itself without being ultimately destroyed, it was necessary that the corpse remain in the shroud at least twenty-four hours, the amount of time needed for the formation of the image, and at the most several days, after which a putrefaction sets in which destroys the image and finally the shroud.' ... `Tradition-more or less apocryphal, I would say-tells us that this is precisely what happened to Christ; dead on Friday and-disappeared-on Sunday.' Then, gravely, Delage made his affirmation: `The man of the shroud was the Christ.'"[29]

There are "points that demonstrate the compatibility between both cloths" in the area of the forehead, where there are remains of blood, as well as at the back of the nose, the right cheekbone and the chin, which "present different wounds." And ...?

Regarding the blood stains, Miñarro explained that the marks found on the two cloths have morphological differences, but that "what seems unquestionable is that the sources, the points from which blood began to flow, correspond entirely." And therefore ...?

The variations could be explained by the fact that "the contact with the [cloths] was different" in regard to duration, placement and intensity of the contact of the head with each of the cloths, as well as the "elasticity of the weave of each linen." Agreed that since, even though the Shroud and Sudarium did both cover the face of Jesus, they have different textures and had different histories. So there does not have to be a perfect match of each and every blood and lung fluid stain for them to have covered the face of the same person, namely Jesus.

Certainly, the coincidences demonstrated on the two cloths "are such that now it is very difficult to think that they came from different people," according to Jorge Manuel Rodríguez, president of the CES. And therefore ...?

In the light of this investigation, he said, "we have come to a point where it seems absurd to suggest that `by happenstance' all of the wounds, lesions and swelling coincides on both cloths. ... Logic requires that we conclude that we are speaking of the same person." Agreed. And that "person" is ...?

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Luke 8:17 Disappointingly this article contradicts that. If Miñarro and Rodríguez have been correctly reported, evidently there is something "hidden that will not be disclosed" and something "concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open," by the scientists of the Centro Español de Sindonología (CES), namely that based on their own massive accumulation of forensic evidence that the Shroud and Sudarium covered the face "of the same person," they refuse to state publicly (unless they have said it elsewhere), that that same person was Jesus!

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. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.27). [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.19; 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.278; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.4, 52; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.222-223. [return]
4. Guscin, 1998, pp.14-15; 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.28-31; 194; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.42; Oxley, 2010, p.182-183. [return]
5. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
6. Bennett, 2001, p.122. [return]
7. 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]
8. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.121-129. [return]
9. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
10. 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]
11. Wilson, 1979, pp.266-267. [return]
12. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.32-33; Wilson, 1979, pp.34-35; Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, pp.78,127,156; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311,284,294; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.70; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.22,24-25,30. [return]
13. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.78; Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.155; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.69; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.31; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.139; Wilson, 1998, p.201. [return]
14. 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, 312; Guscin, 1998, p.9; Iannone, 1998,p.91; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, pp.56-57; 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; Bennett, 2001, p.13; Guerrera, 2001, p.41. [return]
15. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.208; Oxley, 2010, pp.242-243. [return]
16. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Second edition, pp.766, 785, 816. [return]
17. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, pp.1290-1291. [return]
18. Kidd, D.A., 1995, "Collins Paperback Latin Dictionary," HarperCollins: London, Latin-English p.210. [return]
19. Zodhiates, 1992, p.1300. [return]
20. Green, 1986, pp.831, 839. [return]
21. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.16. [return]
22. Bulst, 1957, pp.99-100,142. [return]
23. Guscin, 1998, p.10. [return]
24. Ruffin, 1999, p.46. [return]
25. Beecher has "(linteamina)" which is the Latin Vulgate's translation of othonia in Jn 20:5-7. Feuillet, A., 1982, "The Identification & Disposition of the Funerary Linens of Jesus' Burial According to the Fourth Gospel," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #4, September, pp.13-23, p.16. [return]
26. Beecher, 1928, pp.16-17. [return]
27. Beecher, 1928, p.17. [return]
28. Malantrucco, L., 1987, "The Identikit of Jesus," Shroud News, October, No. 43, pp.3-5, 3. [return]
29. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.100-101. [return]

Posted: 24 June 2016. Updated: 5 February 2022.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

The Shroud of Turin blog topics "E"

The Shroud of Turin blog topics #5
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Topics "E"

This is the topics page "E" and part #5 of my "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series. See the Index "A-Z" for more information about this series. I will add other topics beginning with "E" in the background as I come to them, working forward in time from my earlier posts.

[Above (enlarge): ENEA's Hercules-L XeCl excimer laser: ENEA FIS-ACC Excimer Laboratory Annual Report 2000-2001. Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development (ENEA) found that it would require a battery of excimer ultraviolet lasers drawing a total power of 34 billion watts to recreate the total Shroud image[2]. It goes without saying that this is beyond medieval technology and may even be beyond 21st century technology! This will be a future "E" topic.]

[Index #1] [Previous "N" #4] [Next "L" #6]

Evolution. The authenticity of the Turin Shroud has the highest relevance to the creation/evolution controversy, because "evolution," in the all-important "standard scientific theory" sense of the word, assumes that Naturalism (see Naturalism) is true, that `nature is all there is' and therefore there is no supernatural, including God. And because there is no God, according to Naturalism, Naturalistic Evolution claims that, "God had no part in this process" (my emphasis) of bringing human beings and everything else into existence. Atheist Michael Shermer in 2002 lamented that only "a paltry 12 percent" of Americans in 2001 accepted the "standard scientific theory" of evolution that "God had no part in this process":

"Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'"[3] (my emphasis).

But if Christianity (see Christianity) is true then Naturalism is false. The Shroud of Turin is empirical evidence that Christianity is true[4] and therefore that Naturalism is false. And if Naturalism is false, then there is no reason to think that Naturalistic Evolution is true, that "God had no part in this process" [30Jun07].

Posted 23 June 2016. Updated 6 November 2023.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

The Shroud of Turin blog topics "N"

The Shroud of Turin blog topics #4
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Topics "N"

This is the topics page "N" and part #4 of my "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series. See the Index "A-Z" for more information about this series. I will add other topics beginning with "n" in the background as I come to them, working forward in time from my earlier posts.

[Above (enlarge): Entombment of Jesus, 1181, by Nicholas of Verdun (1130–1205), Klosterneuburg Abbey, Vienna. See BSTS Newsletter, No. 67, June 2008. This will be a future "N" topic. As Ian Wilson pointed out:

"... a champlevé enamel panel that forms part of the decoration of a magnificent twelfth-century pulpit preserved at Klosterneuberg, near Vienna, a work that is known to have been completed by master decorator Nicholas of Verdun no later than 1181 ... As an otherwise inexplicable innovation in art, we see in some of the examples Christ's body depicted in a very stiff attitude, the hands crossed over the loins in the same so-called `modesty pose' visible on the Shroud. Worthy of note is not only the `pose' itself, but that the right arm is over the left, with an awkward crossing point at the wrists, exactly as on the Shroud." (my emphasis)[2]

This is further proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud existed long before its earliest 1260[3] radiocarbon date of "... mediaeval ... 1260-1390" and therefore, again, that that radiocarbon dating was wrong!]

[Index #1] [Previous "C" #3] [Next "E" #5]

Naturalism is the philosophy that `nature is all there is'. That is, there is no supernatural, including God. Naturalism dominates science and our secular Western society generally. But if Christianity (see Christianity) is true then Naturalism is false. The Shroud is empirical evidence that Christianity is true[4] and therefore that Naturalism is false [30Jun07]. See future "Evolution."

Posted 22 June 2016. Updated 6 November 2023.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

The Shroud of Turin blog topics "C"

The Shroud of Turin blog topics #3
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Topics "C"

This is the topics page "C" and part #3 of my "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series. See the Index "A-Z" for more information about this series. I will add other topics beginning with "c" in the background as I come to them, working forward in time from my earlier posts.

[Right (enlarge): "Anatomy of the Shroud"[2], showing wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud man's image which match those in the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' sufferings and death]

[Index #1] [Previous "J" #2] [Next "N" #4]

Christianity. The wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud man's body match the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' sufferings and death (see above) and so the Shroud provides empirical, extra-Biblical, evidence that Christianity is true[3]. [30Jun07].

Posted 21 June 2016. Updated 9 December 2022.

Monday, June 20, 2016

The Shroud of Turin blog topics "J"

The Shroud of Turin blog topics #2
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Topics "J"

This is the sub-index of topics with the first letter "J" and part #2 of my "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series. See the Main Index "A-Z" and sub-index "M" for more information about this series.

[Right (enlarge): Front negative image of the the man on the Shroud of Turin (colour enhanced)[2]. My first photo posted on this blog.]

[Main index] [Previous: Main index] [Next: "C"]

[Jones, Stephen E.]

Notes:
1. This page, and each page, in my The Shroud of Turin blog topics series, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from any part of this page (but not the whole page), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Fortean Picture Library (no longer online). [return]

Posted 20 June 2016. Updated 6 November 2023.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

The Shroud of Turin blog topics Index "A-Z"

The Shroud of Turin blog topics #1
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Index "A-Z"

I have finally realised that topics series' are too time-consuming, so I have abandoned this my third and last topics series!

This is the Index "A-Z" and part #1 of my "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series. This series replaces my "Topic index: The Shroud of Turin blog" which proved too time-consuming. It also replaces my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia" and my "Turin Shroud Dictionary." This

[Above (enlarge): Giuseppe Enrie's 1931 sepia negative photograph of the face of the man on the Shroud of Turin[2].]

index will now be linked to sub-index pages of the first letter of each topics in alphabetic order (see sub-index "M"). Each sub-index page will then be linked to those topics themselves which were in my posts to this blog, starting with the first and working forward in time. In

[A][B][C][D][E][F][G][H][I][J][K][L][M][N][O][P][Q][R][S][T][U][V][W][X][Y][Z][Next "J" #2]

those topic pages there will be a coverage of each topic, usually without references, and a link to each original post, in the form 30Jun07, in which that topic appeared. Once a topic page is posted it won't appear again, but it will be updated in the background. I will mention, with links, those updated topics pages in the "Editorial' of of my Shroud of Turin News for that month.

Notes:
1. This page, and each page, of my "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Shroud of Turin," not the whole page "S"), provided that it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to the page it came from. [return]
2. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]

Posted 19 June 2016. Updated 24 October 2024.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index S-Z

This is my alphabetical index, "S-Z" to where mentions of "forger," "forgery," etc, occur in Shroud literature on my system. This index had been split into "A-F," "G-M" and "N-Z" when each page grew too long. Now "N-Z" has been split into "N-R" and "S-Z" (this post). See "A-F" for more information. See also Problems of the forgery theory A-Z" in my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series.

[Above (enlarge): Three-dimensional `relief map' of an Enrie 1931 photograph of the Shroud face displayed on a VP-8 Image Analyzer[BE81p22], showing that unlike normal photographs the Shroud image has three-dimensional information encoded within it.].

science Scientific testing could readily establish if Shroud were a forgery, e.g., a painting [HA81p36]. The Shroud has been studied and tested to a greater degree than any art object or archaeological artifact[MR86p16]. Yet science does not know "how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man [on the Shroud] was made"[BP05]. Nor does science know "the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth"[BP08p349].

scourged Forger would have had to encode intricate details, some invisible, on each of the 100-120 scourge marks[AM00p77]. If he had got just one of these scourge marks wrong, it would have betrayed his work as a forgery[AM00p77]. Some of the scourge marks are visible only under ultraviolet light, so a forger would have to `paint' them invisible to his naked eye, so they could only be seen with ultraviolet equipment to be invented ~650 years later[CT96p40].

Shroud The body of Jesus enfolded in a simple linen cloth passing lengthwise over the head and covering the whole body back and front is not what any medieval forger would have thought of[RJ77p25].

skeptics Skeptics who deny the authenticity of the Shroud are often atheists who deny the possibility of the supernatural and find it easier to dismiss the Shroud as a forgery, even when it flies in the face of the evidence[MJ11p272]. An authentic Shroud scares them as they know it would put their atheism on shaky ground[MJ11p272]. Although sceptics claim the Shroud is a mediaeval forgery, none has been able to produce a workable hypothesis that stands up to scientific scrutiny as to how the image was created by a mediaeval forger[OM10p254].

style Every artist is identifiable by his style, but the Shroud image has no style as a photograph doesn't[CT99p291-2].

Sudarium of Oviedo There is an evident correspondence between patches of blood on the face of the Shroud and those on the Sudarium of Oviedo[RG81p138]. There is also a remarkable agreement between much of the anatomical data on both[RG81p138]. Some of the drops and clots of blood on the face of the Shroud and the Sudarium are identical in shape and position[RG81p138]. But the Sudarium came from the East about four centuries before the Shroud appeared in the West, so they could not have been compared by a medieval forger[RG81p138].

three-dimensional In 1977 it was discovered that the Shroud man's image is three-dimensional[JJ77p74-9]. An artist or forger living in the 14th century would not have been able to encode three dimensional information into the Shroud image by adjusting the intensity levels of his work to everywhere correspond to actual cloth-body separations[JJ77p85]. How could [and why would] a medieval forger have encoded three-dimensional information into the Shroud image, when that was only recently [at least 6 centuries later] discovered by scientists[IJ98p44]? Skeptic Joe Nickell claimed to have replicated the Shroud by brushing a dry powder over a bas-relief, but it was found that his image was not three-dimensional[SH81p108].

thumbs. The Shroud man's thumbs are not visible[WI79p41]. Dr Pierre Barbet found that when he drove a nail through the wrists of freshly amputated arms, the grazed median nerve caused each thumb to contract into the palm of the hand[WI79p41]. "Could a forger have imagined this?" he asked himself[WI79p41]. [see "hands"].

unknown Forger's knowledge of human anatomy rivals that of Leonardo and Michelangelo-why have we never heard of him[CN88p31]?

Vignon, Paul Paul Vignon (1865-1943), was a French artist and biologist[BR78pp35-6]. He was confident that he would demonstrate how a forger had created the Shroud[BR78p36]. But after studying the Shroud photographs taken in 1898 by Secondo Pia (1855–1941) and interviewing Pia in Turin, Vignon accepted that Pia's photographs were genuine and that Shroud image was a photographic negative (see "negative")[BR78p36]. Vignon then realised that a forger could not have painted the image in negative as he would not have been able to see what he was doing to include so much fine detail[BR78p36]. From further study of Pia's photographs, Vignon asserted that no forger could have produced such a complex network of injuries[BR78p40]. Vignon also realised that no forger in the fourteenth century would have depicted Jesus nude[BR78p40]. Moreover, there were no signs of decomposition on the Shroud image, meaning that the body had been in the Shroud only a few days[BR78p40]. This and other details of the Shroud image matched the Bible story of Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection![BR78p40-1]. Based on Vignon's researches, his supervisor at the Sorbonne, Prof. Yves Delage (1854–1920), an agnostic, presented a paper in 1902 to the French Academy of Sciences, in which Delage concluded, "The man of the Shroud is the Christ!"[BR78p41].

wounds Medieval forger would have drawn wounds carefully, showing them in circular form, that they should be easily recognized in their traditional positions, as all artists have always accentuated Jesus' wounds[VP02p33]. But on the right foot the principal blood clot is shown under the heel itself, covering the place where the nail had entered[VP02p33]. The extreme naturalness and exactness of the wounds on the Shroud are beyond human skill[VP02p43].

To be continued in the background.

REFERENCES [top]
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
BP05. Ball, P., 2005, "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January.
BP08. Ball, P., 2008, "Material witness: Shrouded in mystery," Nature Materials, Vol. 7, No. 5, May, p.349.
BR78. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, pp.36-37.
BE81. Brooks, E.H., II., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., 1981, "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," ["The Silver Book"], Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago IL.
CT99. Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY.
CT96. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH.
CN88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
HA81. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.34-57.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
JJ77. Jackson, J., et al., "The Three Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.74-94.
MR86. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY.
MJ11. Marino, J.G., 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion," Cradle Press: St. Louis MO.
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
RG81. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI.
RJ77. Robinson, J.A.T., " The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in Stevenson, 1977, pp.23-30.
SH81. 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.
VP02. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
[top]

Posted 18 June 2016. Updated 6 March 2023.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

No outline #14: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

This is part #14, "The man on the Shroud: No outline," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Non-traditional #13] [Next: No paint, etc. #15]

The man on the Shroud #8

No outline #14

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud has no outline[2].

[Above (enlarge)[3]: Extract of front trunk and thighs area of the Shroud man's image (Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical). As can be seen there is no outline of the image. Readers can verify this for themselves by clicking on this (or any) image area of Shroud Scope and continually enlarging it by clicking on that part of the image, until maximum magnification is reached. They will find that as the image is enlarged it becomes more diffuse and no outline ever appears - because there isn't one!]

No outline. A unique feature of the Shroud man's image is a total lack of outline[4]. Painters outline a figure before painting it[5], but there is no outline on the Shroud[6]. All medieval artists used outlines[7] and it was not until the nineteenth century Impressionists that artists began to rely less on outlines to give shape to their works[8]. Yet even the Pointillists, the most extreme branch of Impressionism, used outlines to indicate where they should place their dots of colour[9]. The legs on the frontal image and the greater part of the dorsal image are indefinite and fade away in a blur, unlike any painting[10]. All paintings reveal indications of the artist's technique, such as brush strokes, sketched outlines, corrections and layers of colors, but even under magnification, no evidence of these can be detected[11]. All human paintings show outline and shading, and even if deceives the unaided eye, it becomes evident under the microscope[12]. But the image on the Shroud has no outline nor shading, even under a microscope[13]. Infrared thermographs of the Shroud taken by STURP in 1978 did not detect evidence of any underlying paint structures nor outline[14], as would be expected if the Shroud image were a painting[15].

Historical. In 1201 the Overseer of Constantinople's relic collection, Nicholas Mesarites (c. 1163-1216), delivered a speech in which he stated that among those relics were:

"`The funerary sheets [sindones] of Christ' which had `wrapped the un-outlined [Greek aperilepton], dead, naked ... body ... after the Passion'"[16].

That Mesarites was referring to the Shroud is evident from his calling it the sindones in which Jesus' dead body had been "wrapped ... naked"[17]. It is not known why Mesarites used the plural sindones "shrouds"[18], except that he also mentioned a towel (cheiromaktron) in the relic collection which supposedly bore an image of Jesus "not wrought by hand"[19]. So it seems that by "sindones" Mesarites was including other claimed burial cloths of Jesus that were in Constantinople's relic collection. But the adjective aperilepton [Greek a "not" + peri "around" + lepton "thin"[20] - compare aperitmeton "uncircumcised"[21] (Acts 7:51)], means "un-outlined"[22], "un-outlined"[23] or "uncircumscribed"[24]. This can only be the Shroud man's image which uniquely (at least before the 19th century) has no outline[25]. So this is further proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud was in Constantinople by at least 1201, more than a half-century before its earliest possible 1260 radiocarbon date[26]!

Problems for the forgery theory. (see first and previous three: #11, #12 & #13). Impossible to paint the Shroud man's image on linen without an outline. Paul Vignon (1865-1943), a French Professor of Biology and an artist[27], tried to paint an image on linen as faint and devoid of outline, as the man on the Shroud is and failed[28]. In 1967, Leo Vala, a professional photographer and an agnostic[29] made the first three-dimensional reproduction of the Shroud face by projecting a Shroud negative photograph onto a lump of clay and sculpting it[30].

[Above (enlarge): "British photographer Leo Vala displays the photographic representation he has produced of the face of Christ. He used a unique process to develop the Turin Shroud's imprint into a three-dimensional picture. (Photo by Douglas Miller/Keystone/Getty Images). 23rd January 1967"[31].]

Vala published his experiment in the March 8, 1967 issue of Amateur Photographer, stating in the article:

"I've been involved in the invention of many complicated visual processes, and I can tell you that no one could have faked that image. No one could do it today with all the technology we have. It's a perfect negative. It has a photographic quality that is extremely precise." (my emphasis)[32]

Vala became a critic of anyone who thought the image could have been produced by human hands[33]. For a forger to have created the Shroud image without outlines and in negative, "boggles the mind"[34]!

Radiation caused the Shroud man's un-outlined image. In 1998 Dr August Accetta injected himself with the medical radioactive isotope Technetium-99 (Tc-99][35] and then his body was scanned by nuclear radiation imaging[36].

[Right (enlarge): Nuclear radiation image of Dr. August Accetta[37]. The `V' shape over Accetta's genitals is a protective shield and the projections from his abdomen and chest are some of his internal organs, which absorbed more of the Tc-99[38]. As can be seen, Accetta's radiation image has no outline, like the Shroud image[39].]

The result was a full-body radiation image, which shared characteristics of the Shroud man's image, including having no outline[40]. Accetta does not claim that the Shroud man's image was necessarily the result of nuclear radiation, nor that it reproduced exact characteristics of the Shroud image, just that the human radiation model generated a number of characteristics which parallel the image on the Shroud[41]. This indicates that some type of radiation was the cause of the Shroud man's outline-less image[42] (as we will also see in "X-ray" #20). But since "... radiation of wavelengths other than visible light were [sic] discovered in the early 19th century" (my emphasis)[43], a medieval or earlier forger could not have created by electromagnetic or nuclear radiation the man's image on the Shroud[44].

Radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... 1260-1390" was wrong. That the Shroud was in Constantinople by at least 1201 is further evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[45] was wrong. And if wrong, then

[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!"[46].]

fraudulent[47]. That is because 1260-1390 is 1325 ± 65 years[48], the mid-point of which, 1325[49], is a mere ~30 years[50], before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in ~1355[51]. Shroud sceptics seized on 1325 as the date of the Shroud[52]. They were certain that the Shroud had to be a medieval fake because the improbability would be "astronomical"[53], "one in a thousand trillion"[54] and indeed "totally impossible"[55] that the Shroud could be first-century yet have a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date, let alone the `bull's-eye' date of 1325[56]. But the flip-side is that since the Shroud is authentic (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates)[57], and therefore first century, then the improbability would be "astronomical," "one in a thousand trillion" and indeed "totally impossible" that the Shroud could have a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date!

Attempts by pro-authenticists to reconcile the Shroud's first century actual date with the claimed 1260-1390 radiocarbon date, are understandable, but as I showed in part #1 of my series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking," conventional explanations of the discrepancy, i.e. carbon contamination, bioplastic coating, invisible repair, neutron flux, all fail. Similarly, as I also showed in that part #1, accusations of conventional fraud (e.g. sample-switching) also fail.

Agnostic pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow considers fraud in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating to be a real possibility (albeit by sample-swapping), because of the "1325 ± 65 years" date:

"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated, that genuine Shroud samples were deliberately swapped with cloth of a later date ... Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible. Some, like Ian Wilson, refuse to contemplate such `unworthy' accusations. However, scientific fraud is by no means unknown, as the editors of science journals are well aware. ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve" (my emphasis)[58].

But as I pointed out near the end of that part #1:

"... there is another type of fraud that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating process[59] was vulnerable to, and which was rife in the 1980s [see part #2], namely computer hacking!"

Continued in part #15 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.71, 156; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.38-39. [return]
3. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
4. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.33; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.12. [return]
5. Iannone, 1998, p.6. [return]
6. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.16; Iannone, 1998, p.177; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.3. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.23; Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, p.52. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.22; Iannone, 1998, p.6; 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.21; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.39; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.11. [return]
9. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.39. [return]
10. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.33; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.12. [return]
11. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.31. [return]
12. Barnes, 1934, p.14. [return]
13. Barnes, 1934, p.14. [return]
14. Adler, A.D., 2000b, "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.17. [return]
15. Adler, A.D., 2000a, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.132-133. [return]
16. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.176; Scavone, D., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, pp.320-321; Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145. [return]
17. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.176-177. [return]
18. Wilson, 1998, pp.145, 225 n.2; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
19. Scavone, 1989, p.321. [return]
20. Abbott-Smith, G., "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, 1937, Reprinted, 1956, pp.2, 354, 267. [return]
21. Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.46. [return]
22. de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
23. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145. [return]
24. Scavone, 1989, p.321; Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.272. [return]
25. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
26. de Wesselow, 2012, p.176; Wilson, 1991, p.3; Wilson, 1998, pp.125, 141; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.113; Wilson, 2010, p.108. [return]
27. Shepard, L., 1970, in Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, p.vii.; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.15, 57; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.72. [return]
28. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.36. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, p.19; Wilson, 2010, p.21. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, p.34-35; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.128-129; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.254. [return]
31. "Simply Some Photos," Avax News, 1 October 2011. [return]
32. Vala, L., 1967, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Amateur Photographer, March 8, pp.332-335, in Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, pp.130-131 & Wilson, 2010, p.21. [return]
33. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, pp.130-131. [return]
34. Wilson, 1998, p.24. [return]
35. Accetta, A.D., Lyons, K. & Jackson, J., 1999, "Nuclear Medicine and its Relevance to the Shroud Of Turin," in Walsh, B.J., ed., "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, 2000, pp.3-8, 3. [return]
36. Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.181. [return]
37. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.131. [return]
38. Ibid. [return]
39. Accetta, 1999, p.4; Whiting, 2006, pp.181-182. [return]
40. Accetta, 1999, p.4; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.130; Whiting, 2006, p.182. [return]
41. Accetta, 1999, p.4. [return]
42. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.212. [return]
43. "Radiation: Discovery," Wikipedia, 8 June 2016. [return]
44. Antonacci, 2000, p.213. [return]
45. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
46. Wilson, 1998, p.7 & pl.3b. [return]
47. Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
48. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; Wilson, 1998, p.7; Oxley, 2010, p.87; de Wesselow, 2012, p.171. [return]
49. Tribbe, 2006, p.169; Tipler, F.J., 2007, "The Physics of Christianity," Doubleday: New York NY, p.177. [return]
50. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.264, 300; Milne, L., 2005, "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, p.93. [return]
51. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 174; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, pp.222-223. [return]
52. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.xxiii, xx, 247; Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2; Dutton, D., 2005, "Postscript: Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review 23, 1984, pp.243-55; Gove, 1996, p.293. [return]
53. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
54. Gove, 1996, p.303. [return]
55. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. [return]
56. Meacham, W., 1986, "On Carbon Dating the Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 14, September, pp.4-15, 10; Meacham, W., 1986, "On Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 19, June, pp.15-25, 20; Nickell, J., 2013, "Another Easter for the Turin `Shroud'," Investigative Briefs with Joe Nickell, Center For Inquiry, March 28. [return]
57. Morgan, 1980, p.116; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.86; Minor, M., 1990, "Shroud of Turin Manuscript Discovered By Texas Member," [originally "A Lawyer Argues for Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin"], The Manuscript Society News, Vol. XI, No. 4, Fall, pp.117-122, 122; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, pp.60; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.26; Antonacci, 2000, p.6; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.110-111. [return]
58. de Wesselow, 2012, p.170. [return]
59. Gove, 1996, p.264; Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147. [return]

Posted 11 June 2016. Updated 20 August 2024.