Saturday, July 30, 2016

The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #9

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is part #9 of my concluding summary of the evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[2] was the result of a computer hacking, allegedly by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[3], aided by German hacker Karl Koch (1965–89)[4], on behalf of the former Soviet Union, through its agency the KGB. Previous posts in this series were parts: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8. I will link the main headings in these posts back to my previous, "My theory ..." posts on those topics. The next post in this series is part #10.

[Above: "Sergei [or Sergey] Markov in February 2012"[5]. The Soviet official who the German hackers (including Koch) sold their hacked secrets to was a "Sergei Markov":

"For both Dob [Dirk-Otto Brezinski] and Carl [Peter Carl] it became apparent after an hour or so of being questioned that Pengo [Hans Heinrich Hübner] and Hagbard [Karl Koch] had gone to the authorities. Eventually, both of them confessed to espionage. But they weren't to be accorded the same leniency that Markus Hess got. ... Both were taken into custody. ... prosecutor Kohlhaas ... saw his case strengthen when, during the search of Carl's apartment, a Casio pocket calculator was found. It contained the telephone number for one Sergei Markov"[6].

The Sergey Markov in the photo above has been described as "Putin's man"[7]. In 2009 this "Sergei Markov" admitted to being behind a hacking cyber-attack on Estonia [8, 9]. While I can as yet find no evidence that this Sergey (or Sergei) Markov was a former KGB agent (he need not have been), I assume that he is the "Sergei Markov" who was the Soviet Union's point of contact with the German "KGB hackers" which included Karl Koch[10].

■ The Soviet Union had a motive to discredit the Shroud [#10(10) & #9]

• The Soviet Union was an atheist state. State atheism was an official policy in the Soviet Union[11]. The "USSR had, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion and its replacement with atheism ... `Science' was counterposed to `religious superstition' in the media and in academic writing":

"At the time of the 1917 Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church was deeply integrated into the autocratic state, enjoying official status. This was a significant factor that contributed to the Bolshevik attitude to religion and the steps they took to control it. Thus the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion and its replacement with universal atheism. The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools. ... the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. `Science' was counterposed to `religious superstition' in the media and in academic writing ..."[12]
"Anti-religious and atheistic propaganda was implemented into every portion of soviet life ... publication of religious writing was banned":
"After the Russian Civil War, anti religious movements in the Soviet Union (gosateizm) attempted to stop the spread of religious beliefs as well as remove `prerevolutionary remnants'. The Bolsheviks were particularly hostile to the Russian Orthodox Church ... organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Anti-religious and atheistic propaganda was implemented into every portion of soviet life: in schools, communist organizations ... and the media ... efforts to reorganise the week to improve worker productivity saw the introduction of the Soviet calendar, which had the side-effect that a `holiday will seldom fall on Sunday'. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution). Most seminaries were closed, and publication of religious writing was banned. The Russian Orthodox Church, which had 54,000 parishes before World War I, was reduced to 500 by 1940."[13]
The Shroud was included in this suppression of religion in the Soviet Union. Russian physicist Dr. Alexander Belyakov of the Moscow Center of Shroud Study, prefaced his address at a 1996 Shroud conference in Italy with, "In spite of the great interest in the Shroud among Christians and other people in Russia, there were no explorations of the Shroud up to now in our country ... [due to] the prevailing atheistic ideology":
"I am very grateful to the organizers of the conference for the invitation. It is a pleasure and a great honor for me to speak before you here, in Italy, where the great Christian relic - the Shroud of Jesus Christ - is stored ... In spite of the great interest in the Shroud among Christians and other people in Russia, there were no explorations of the Shroud up to now in our country. The reason is the presence of the prevailing atheistic ideology. Now the situation has changed ... ` Russia and Russian Orthodox Church there is a great interest to the Shroud of Turin'"[14]

• The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse in the 1980s. By the mid-1980's the former Soviet Union (USSR) was on the verge of collapse:

"The prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of aversion to change. The long period of Brezhnev's rule had come to be dubbed one of "standstill", with an aging and ossified top political leadership. ... In 1988, the Soviet Union abandoned its nine-year war in Afghanistan and began to withdraw its forces. ... In the late 1980s, the constituent republics of the Soviet Union started legal moves towards potentially declaring sovereignty over their territories, citing Article 72 of the USSR constitution, which stated that any constituent republic was free to secede."[15].
And in fact the USSR did collapse in late 1989, epitomised by the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989[16].

[Above: Germans on and around the Berlin Wall at the Brandenburg Gate, 10 November 1989[17].]

• A first century radiocarbon date of the Shroud would have been a threat to the atheist USSR. Yet, despite its attempts to eradicate religion since the 1917 revolution, the USSR continued to have a large Christian population[18]. In the 1980s, three Christian denominations alone, had a total of about 56.5 million adherents:
"According to both Soviet and Western sources, in the late 1980s the Russian Orthodox Church had over 50 million believers ... The Georgian Orthodox Church ... In the late 1980s ... had ... an estimated 2.5 million followers ... The Armenian Apostolic Church ... In the 1980s ... had about 4 million adherents ..." [19]

And that does not count the 5.5 million Roman Catholics mainly in the satellite republics:

"Catholics formed a substantial and active religious constituency in the Soviet Union ... The majority of the 5.5 million Roman Catholics in the Soviet Union lived in the Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Latvian republics, with a sprinkling in the Moldavian, Ukrainian, and Russian republics."[20].

Nor does that count the Roman Catholics in Poland in the 1980s, which, assuming they were 80% of the population:

"There are 44 Catholic Dioceses in Poland ... Ever since Poland officially adopted Latin Christianity in 966, the Catholic Church has played an important religious, cultural and political role in the country ... As of 2005 a majority of Poles, approximately 88%, identified themselves as Roman Catholic, and 58% said they are active practicing Catholics, according to a survey by the Centre for Public Opinion Research. ... The CIA Factbook gives a number of 87.2% belonging to the Roman Catholic Church in 2012"[21].

and given a 37.5 million population in Poland in 1987 (see graph),

[Right (enlarge): Graph showing the population in Poland was about 37.5 million in 1987[22].]

that means there were about 30 million Roman Catholics in Poland in the late 1980s.

That totals about 92 million Christians in the Soviet Union in the 1980s. And if Protestants and other Christian denominations are included, that means there could have been about 100 million Christians in the crumbling, officially atheist, Soviet Union in the 1980s!

So a first-century radiocarbon date of the Shroud of Turin would have been perceived as a huge threat by the embattled Soviet leadership.

• If Timothy W. Linick had offered the Soviets a 14th century radiocarbon date of the Shroud they would have accepted it. So if Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist, Timothy W. Linick (see part #6) had approached the Soviet Union (through for

[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that, "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..."[23]. This is consistent with my theory that the KGB executed confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch between 23 and 30 May 1989 (see part #8), and Linick on 4 June 1989[24], the day after the West German police had publicly released the identity of a burnt body as Koch's on 3 June 1989[25], to prevent Koch or Linick revealing that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1325 ±65[26] was the result of a KGB-sponsored computer hacking by Linick, aided by Koch.]

example the Soviet consulate in San Francisco):

"Since most of what they [the Soviet Union] were interested in, especially technology for advanced computing, was on a list of highly restricted technologies maintained by a consortium of Western nations known as COCOM, the Soviets had long since resorted to extralegal means of procuring hardware and software. The FBI liked to maintain that Northern California's Silicon Valley, where much of American computer innovation resided, was crawling with KGB agents. The FBI claimed that one of the primary missions of the Soviet consulate in San Francisco was to funnel U.S. technology into the Soviet Union"[27].
with an offer to guarantee that the Shroud would be radiocarbon dated to about 25-30 years before it first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in the 1350s (see part #1), the Soviets would surely have accepted that offer.

Continued in part #10 of this series.

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. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
3. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 1 April 2016. [return]
5. "Sergey Alexandrovich Markov," Wikipedia, 25 June 2016. [return]
6. Hafner, K. & Markoff, J., 1991, "Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier," Corgi: London, reprinted, 1993, pp.292-293. [return]
7. "Putin's Man Warns Finland About NATO Membership and Russophobia," Finbay, 9 June 2014. [return]
8. Coalson, R., 2009, "Russia admits to Cyber Attack on Estonia," La Russophobe, March 9. [return]
9. Leyden, J., 2009, "Russian politician: 'My assistant started Estonian cyberwar'," The Register, 10 March. [return]
10. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.293. [return]
11. "State atheism: Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 23 July 2016. [return]
12. "Religion in the Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 23 May 2016. [return]
13. "State atheism: Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 23 July 2016. [return]
14. Belyakov, A., 1996, "Prospects of Research of the Turin Shroud in Russia," [return]
15. "Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 21 July 2016. [return]
16. "Berlin Wall," Wikipedia, 9 July 2016. [return]
17. Ibid. [return]
18. "State atheism: Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 23 July 2016. [return]
19. "Religion in the Soviet Union," Wikipedia, 23 May 2016. [return]
20. Ibid. [return]
21. "Roman Catholicism in Poland," Wikipedia, 4 June 2016. [return]
22. "Demographics of Poland," Wikipedia, 10 July 2016, [return]
23. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
24. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
25. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010h; and Clough & Mungo, 1992, p.163. [return]
26. The cited radiocarbon dating range "1260-1390" of the Shroud is equivalent to "the year AD 1325, give or take sixty-five years either way." (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.7). [return]
27. Hafner & Markoff, 1991, p.226. [return]

Posted: 30 July 2016. Updated: 15 September 2016.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

"5 minutes with ... The earliest painted representation of the Turin Shroud," Shroud of Turin News, June 2016

Shroud of Turin News - June 2016
© Stephen E. Jones

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

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

"5 minutes with ... The earliest painted representation of the Turin Shroud," Christie's, 7 June 2016. Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts specialist Eugenio Donandoni explains how while looking through a series of unrecorded illuminations in a 16th-century prayerbook he made one quite startling discovery

[Above (enlarge): "The double-page depiction of the Turin Shroud in its undamaged state, held by three Bishops, is perhaps the earliest explicit painted representation of the holy relic as we know it today."]

This is not necessarily the earliest painted copy of the Shroud. The Lier copy of the Shroud, dated 1516, kept in the Church of St. Gommaire, Lier, Belgium, and attributed to Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528)[2] is generally regarded as the earliest known surviving, painted, copy of the Shroud.

[Right (enlarge)[3]. The Lier copy of 1516, showing the L-shaped `poker holes', the spear wound in the side and the shoulders and upper arms which were destroyed in the 1532 fire.]

And this article speculates (see below) that this prayerbook copy of the Shroud may have been painted after a visit in 1512 by Johann von Erlach (1474-1539) to Charles III, Duke of Savoy (1486–1553), at Chambéry, who may have given von Erlach a private viewing of the Shroud.

But there was a public exposition of the Shroud at Chambéry in 1521 and significantly the Shroud was then held "by three bishops":

"1521 ... Shroud exhibited at Chambéry ... Carried by three bishops, it is shown on the castle walls, and then for privileged observers hung over the high altar of the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry."[4]
And the background in the above Shroud copy is outdoors, with paving under the bishops' feet and green fields behind them, not of a private viewing inside Chambéry's Royal Chapel. Such open-air public expositions of the Shroud were held at Chambéry pre-1532, "from the top of the walls of the château in the direction of a certain meadow" (my emphasis):
"Early sources are frustratingly vague about the public ostensions [expositions] held at Chambéry. No detailed descriptions have been located, but we are told in a travel diary of 1517 that the public exhibition took place `from the top of the walls of the château in the direction of a certain meadow that is there outside the town for the convenience of the pilgrims.'"[5]
and they continued after the fire up to at least 1561, "facing the open fields" (my emphasis):
"In August 1561 the minutes of the Senate of Savoy record ostensions in two locations: one from a `newly made gallery' erected on the city walls facing the open fields of Verney and, two days later, another showing `en la place du Chateau.' In the latter instance the preposition `en' suggests the possibility that the display was mounted at or near the level of the square, presumably from a temporary stage."[6]
So this prayerbook copy of the Shroud, while earlier than 1532 when the Shroud was damaged by a fire in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, seems unlikely to be earlier than the Lier copy of 1516.

`What first drew me to this manuscript was the fact that it contained previously unrecorded illuminations by the Master of Claude de France,' explains Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts specialist Eugenio Donadoni. This article does not clarify that Claude de France (1499–1524), was a woman, in fact the below-mentioned, "Queen of France, wife of François I," i.e. King Francis I (1494–1547). And while I don't expect the article to have mentioned it, she was the mother of Margaret of France (1559–74), who married the very powerful and very important for Savoy and Shroud history, Duke Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy (1553–1580), and they had only one child, the also very important Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy (1562–1630), and in fact Queen Claude of France was an ancestor of all subsequent Dukes of Savoy[7].

The Master of Claude de France was `a brilliantly accomplished' anonymous artist named after two manuscripts he painted for the Queen of France, wife of François I. `That on its own is a great selling point,' confirms the specialist. While this "Master of Claude de France" is very important from an art perspective, and therefore for the "selling point" value of this prayerbook, it is irrelevant from the Shroud's perspective because, as the article later states (see below), "There is another artist at work in the manuscript - probably Swiss" and it was this unknown artist who painted the Shroud copy.

It was when the manuscript finally came into the office for Donadoni to catalogue, however, that he discovered the stories it revealed were far more compelling and fascinating than he could ever have expected. ... `First, I identified the coat of arms on the opening leaf, and consequently the armour-clad man in the portrait kneeling beside his name-saint John the Baptist,' he recalls. Presumably this should have been "name-sake"?

... There is another artist at work in the manuscript - probably Swiss - and this, says Donadoni, is `where it gets interesting'. One of the double-page illustrations by this second artist shows three bishops holding what at first glance looks like a long, unfurled banner. ... The double-page depiction of the Turin Shroud in its undamaged state, held by three Bishops, is perhaps the earliest explicit painted representation of the holy relic as we know it today See above. By "undamaged state" is meant before the fire of 1532 (see below).

`We had, at first, thought that the banner may have originally carried an inscription, now erased, but on closer inspection we noticed extremely faint - almost imperceptible - front-and-back images of a naked, bearded man with shoulder-length hair and hands folded across his groin, and what seemed like droplets of blood and a wound in his side,' the specialist recounts.

[Left (enlarge): The prayerbook copy of the Shroud, enlarged, rotated and cropped. As can be seen, the back (upper) copy depicts a pair of L-shaped `poker holes' and the pool of blood in the small of the man's back. Both front and back images show the man's shoulders and upper arms which were lost in the 1532 fire, and the front and back head images have blood from the crown (or cap) of thorns. And the front (lower) copy depicts the blood from the spear wound in the side and one of the L-shaped `poker holes'.]

`This was then clearly a unique depiction of the Shroud of Turin,' he says, ... It is trivially true that this prayerbook copy is "unique," just as every other painting is. However, if by "unique" Donadoni means that it was painted before the 1532 fire, then that is false because the 1516 Lier copy also was. ... referring to the linen cloth in which Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped and is now kept in the Royal Chapel of the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin. It sounds like Donadoni is himself a Shroud pro-authenticist because most writers of secular articles about the Shroud say something like, "The Shroud of Turin ... a length of linen cloth bearing the image of a man, is believed by some Christians to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth..."[8] not "the linen cloth in which Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped ..." (my emphasis)! But on the other hand Donadoni evidently did not know about the Lier copy (see below) so perhaps I am reading too much into his words.

The history of the Shroud in the 15th and 16th centuries is well recorded: in 1453 it was bequeathed to the House of Savoy and was stored in Chambéry, the capital of the region: `We know that in 1512 Johann von Erlach travelled on a diplomatic mission to meet Charles III, Duke of Savoy, so it is not implausible that on such an occasion he could have been shown the Shroud.' It is implausible. The Savoys did not grant private expositions of the Shroud to mere envoys on diplomatic missions. Could he have been so inspired by the visit that he had the holy relic reproduced in his prayerbook?' There is no need to speculate that von Erlach was inspired by a private viewing of the Shroud to have a miniature copy painted for his prayerbook. As pointed out above, there was a public exposition of the Shroud at Chambéry in 1521, and von Erlach could have seen the Shroud then. And he may simply have bought this painted miniature copy of the Shroud to put in his prayerbook.

`Even more fascinating is the manner in which it is depicted,' continues Donadoni. The Shroud was damaged by a fire in 1532 and somewhat clumsily repaired with patches by the Poor Clare Nuns. Calling the Poor Clare Nuns' 1534 repairs to the fire-damage Shroud, "clumsy" fails to understand that they were not professional restorers and they were no doubt under strict instructions what they could and could not do. Evidently their task was to remove burnt areas of the Shroud and then cover over with patches the unsightly charred holes that remained.

Giulio Clovio, one of the great artists of the Italian Renaissance, would paint a version of the Shroud in his 1540 Descent from the Cross [Right (enlarge): Even enlarged I cannot make out the Shroud fire damage Donadoni mentions], and that representation - as with all other surviving representations - clearly shows the damage suffered in the fire. It seems that this Christie's "Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts specialist" is not an art specialist because he evidently does not know about the 1516 Lier copy above, which does not show the damage suffered in the 1532 fire because it pre-dated it.

`The double-page depiction of the Turin Shroud in this manuscript shows it in its undamaged state,' Donadoni points out, `which means that it is therefore perhaps the earliest painted representation of the holy relic as we know it today!' No. See above. While this prayerbook copy of the Shroud is presumably pre-1532, there is no reason to think it is earlier that the 1516 Lier copy. As pointed out above, Donadoni's speculation that just because von Erlach paid a diplomatic visit to Duke Charles III of Savoy at Chambéry in 1512, that is no reason to think that von Erlach was given a private viewing of the Shroud. And as we saw, it is evident from the prayerbook painting itself that the setting of the exposition was outdoors, on a paved area with a green background representing the fields around Chambéry where there are records that public expositions of the Shroud were held before (and after) the 1532 fire.

Nevertheless, despite these unnecessary and ill-founded speculations by Donadoni, this Johann von Erlach (1474-1539) prayerbook miniature copy of the Shroud is presumably the second earliest, after the 1516 Lier copy, surviving painted copy of the Shroud!

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. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.11; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.37; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.106. [return]
3. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.18. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1996, "Shroud History: Highlights of the Undisputed History," [return]
5. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.47. [return]
6. Scott, 2003, p.47. [return]
7. Jones, S.E., 2016, "Savoy Family Tree," (members only). [return]
8. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 27 July 2016. [return]

Posted: 26 July 2016. Updated: 4 August 2016.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present: 1st century and Index

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
© Stephen E. Jones

This is part #1 of my new "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present" series which is also its index. This series supersedes my previous "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" series in which I became bogged down with too much detail. In this new series, I am going to emulate the brief format of Ian Wilson's "Highlights of the Undisputed History." Each century will have a page, and if a page becomes too long I will split it and post the split-off part. To save space I won't normally have references but rely mostly on links. Unwritten references will include Wilson's "Shroud Chronology AD 30 to 2010." Individual years can be accessed by appending "#yyyy" to the page link, e.g. "" goes to year 30, etc. After a page is posted, if I add to it in the background I will notify the updates in my Shroud of Turin News "Editorials." See updates 50, 57 and 60.

[Next: 2nd century #2]

Centuries: [1st] [2nd] [3rd] [4th] [5th] [6th] [7th] [8th] [9th] [10th] [11th] [12th] [13th] [14th] [15th] [16th] [17th] [18th] [19th] [20th] [21st]
1st century (001-100)
30 Friday, April 7, 30. Jesus was crucified (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18) and died (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30). Joseph of Arimathea bought a linen Shroud [Gk. sindon], took Jesus' body down from the cross, bound His hands and feet with linen strips [othonia] (Jn 19:40), wrapped Jesus' body in the shroud [Right: "The Holy Shroud," by G.B. della Rovere (1561-1627)] and laid Him in a cave tomb (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53).

Sunday, April 9, 30. The Apostles Peter and John enter Jesus' tomb. They find the linen strips [othonia] lying where they had been around Jesus' hands and feet (Jn 20:5-6), and the facecloth [soudarion = the Sudarium of Oviedo] which had been on [epi] the top of Jesus' head, where there is a gap between the front and back images on the Shroud, but they find no shroud [sindon]. John was immediately convinced from the pattern of the graveclothes that Jesus had risen from the dead (Jn 20:6-9), as He had predicted (Mt 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 27:63-64; Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7,46; Jn 2:19). John would have realised that graverobbers would have either taken Jesus' graveclothes and left His body, or they would have taken Jesus' body still wrapped in His graveclothes, but they would not have taken Jesus' body and left the linen strips [othonia] which had been tied around Jesus' hands and feet (Jn 11:44). Especially if those linen strips were still "looped together and knotted exactly as they had bound the hands and the feet," of Jesus' body, which having been resurrected had passed through them (Jn 20:19-29). Or rather they had passed through Jesus' "mechanically transparent" resurrected body! One of the earliest Christian writings, the Gospel of the Hebrews, recorded that Jesus took His shroud with Him out of the tomb and gave it to the "Servant of the Priest," presumably the Apostle John.

50 Death of Edessa's King Abgar V. According to the early church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340), King Abgar V (BC 4–AD 50) of Edessa had written to Jesus asking Him to come and heal him and Jesus had replied to Abgar by letter promising that after His resurrection He would send one of His disciples to Edessa to heal Abgar and preach the Gospel. According to Eusebius, Thaddeus, one of the Seventy (Lk 10:1-17), did go to Edessa, healed Abgar V [Left: 10th century depiction of Abgar V receiving the Mandylion (the Shroud four-doubled) from Thaddeus (see future "c.945")], and commenced Christianity there. While historian J.B. Segal (1912–2003), considered that this account "may well have a substratum of fact," he regarded the part of it about the exchange of letters between Abgar V and Jesus, which Eusebius had personally read in Edessa's archives [see future "325"], was a "pious fraud," which unknown to Eusebius had been inserted into Edessa's archives in the time of Abgar VIII (177 to 212), who was the first Christian king of Edessa (see "177"). But as will be seen, Eusebius' account says nothing about Abgar V being healed by an image of Jesus on a cloth, which (as we shall see, and see above) later versions of the Abgar V story do say. The pilgrim Spanish nun Egeria in c.384 recorded that she had seen the text of Jesus' letter to Abgar V affixed to Edessa' city gate [see future "c. 384"].

57 Death of Ma'nu V (r. 50–57), son of Abgar V, who had succeeded him as king of Osroene, the capital city of which was Edessa. Ma'nu V is succeeded by Ma'nu VI (r. 57–71).

c. 60 According to the 945 "Official History of the Image of Edessa" [see 25Apr16], King Ma'nu VI reverted to paganism and persecuted Edessa's Christians. To ensure the safety of "the likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand" which had been fastened to a board and embellished with gold, i.e. the Mandylion (the Shroud "four-doubled" = tetradiplon), was supposedly bricked up above the public gate of Edessa, where it had previously laid, and then was completely forgotten for almost five centuries until its discovery after another major flood in 525 [see "525"]. However, this story is most implausible (did Ma'nu VI, or none of his officials, not notice, nor suspect, that the Mandylion they were seeking to destroy, was where it had previously been but only behind fresh brickwork?), and is more likely a "pious fraud" to give the Mandylion/Shroud, which is known in Edessa only from 544 [see "544"], a false back-history to the time of Jesus.

Continued in part #2, "2nd century," of this series.

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 page. [return]

Posted: 24 July 2016. Updated: 25 February 2017.

Monday, July 11, 2016

No paint, etc. #15: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #15, "The man on the Shroud: No paint, etc.," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: No outline #14] [Next: No style #16]

  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. No paint, etc #15

Introduction. "There is no sign of paint, dye, powder, or any other foreign substance on the cloth that can account for the image"[2] of the man on the Shroud.

[Above (enlarge): Photomicrograph taken by optical engineer Kevin Moran of 15 microns (15 thousandths of a millimetre) diameter Shroud fibres attached to one of Max Frei's Shroud sticky tapes[3]. The boundaries between the image (yellow) and non-image parts of each fibre are only about 1 micron (1 thousandth of a millimetre) wide. No human artist/forger can paint, etc., with such precision. Note that the image fibres are uniformly yellow and where a non-image fibre crosses over an image fibre, the non-image fibre has the same uniform yellow image colour. And as we saw in part #12, "Colour," the image of the man on the Shroud is made up only of these uniformly yellowed fibres, which are too thin (about half the thickness of an average human hair[4]) to be individually painted or dyed, etc, by an artist/forger!]

There is no paint, pigment, powder, etc., on the Shroud which accounts for the man's image
No applied paint, pigment, powder, etc, can account for the man's image on the Shroud. Extensive scientific examinations of the cloth by STURP in 1978 and afterward found that no paints, pigments, stains, dyes[5], nor any foreign materials of any kind applied to the body image fibres could account for the man's image on the Shroud[6].

No cementation. Under a 3.6X microscope (see 32X microphotograph of the same area below) a probing needle found no cementation of body

[Above (enlarge): "Micrograph taken at the image area of the right eye at 32Xmagnification."[7]. As can be seen, each straw-yellow colour image fibre is distinct with no cementation between them and nor is there paint or powder particles responsible for the image trapped between the image fibres.]

image fibres[8]. This is highly significant because if a liquid paint, dye, pigment, etc., had been used to create the man's image on the Shroud, the liquid would have soaked into the threads, and the fibres would have become glued together[9]. But on the Shroud each coloured image fibre is distinct and does not adhere to any other[10] (see above). In fact it was already evident in the 1930s, when Giuseppe Enrie's 1931 photographs of the Shroud were enlarged, each thread of the Shroud could be distinctly seen with nothing visible in the spaces between the fibres[11]. This absence of colouring material caught in the crevices between the threads was confirmed under microscopic examination by the Turin Commission of 1973[12].

No capillarity. Nor is there any evidence of capillarity[13], that is capillary action: "the ability of a liquid to flow in narrow spaces without the assistance of, or even in opposition to, external forces"[14]. Specifically, there is no evidence of capillary flow under the unexposed threads of the weave[15]. Linen, paper and cotton are polysaccharide fibres and liquid is drawn into them by capillary action, as ink is drawn into blotting paper[16]. So this absence of capillary action immediately rules out all liquid colourants having been applied to the Shroud[17], as even Shroud sceptic Joe Nickell admits[18].

No pigment binder. Nor did protein tests[19] detect any evidence of a medieval artist's protein-based[20] pigment binder[21], such as egg white, gelatin, milk, or oil, to enable a colourant to stick to the fabric[22]. Any of these would have changed colour (but didn't) along a heat gradient from the 1532 fire (see below). Specifically proteases (enzymes which dissolve proteins[23]), had no effect on the yellow body image fibres of the Shroud[24].

Extreme superficiality. The body image colouration does not appear under the crossing threads of the weave[25], nor penetrate the cloth[26], but is only one fibre deep into the thread[27]. Again, if a paint, dye, pigment, or any other type of liquid painting medium was used to create the man's image on the Shroud, it would have soaked into the threads and the image could not remain only on the topmost fibres of the latter[28]. The same also applies to powder pigments (see below).

Uniform colour. All image fibres have a uniform straw yellow colouration, provided by the relative number of uniformly coloured fibres per unit area, that is, it is an areal density image [see "Colour #12"], not a pigment concentration gradient as in a painting, where an artist varies the concentration of an applied pigment to create variations in colour[29]. And because each fibre is about half the diameter of a human hair (see above) and has been individually encoded with colour (with a precision of 1 thousandth of a millimetre - see above), a painter would need to use a microscope, several centuries before the instrument was invented[30]. He would also have had to use a paintbrush with a single bristle less than 15 microns wide when the finest brush hair is vast by comparison[31], and would have required the skill and time to paint each fibre separately and with the same intensity[32]. Nor can this uniformity of colour be achieved by applying powdered pigment to a cloth laid over a bas-relief or statue, and in fact experiments have shown that a uniform intensity of powder cannot be achieved on even one fibre[33]! That is, if the uniform straw yellow image colour was paint or powder, which it is not (see next).

Colour is dehydrative oxidation of cellulose. The image was produced by a dehydrative oxidative process of the cellulose structure of the linen to yield a conjugated carbonyl group as the chromophore[34]. This is similar to the way linen is discolored when scorched by a hot iron, but a heat scorch would have discoloured all the way through the thickness of the cloth, as did the 1532 fire[35] (see next).

Colour unaffected by heat. There is no evidence of any colour change of the image closest to the burn marks of the 1532 fire from those image areas farthest away[36]. This would not be so if the body image was an organic pigment[37], as artists' pigments usually were in the Middle Ages[38], or iron oxide[39]. Especially since the burns were caused by a drop of molten silver from the Shroud's casket burning through a corner of the folded Shroud inside[40] and silver melts at about 1800°F (~980°C)[41].

Colour unaffected by water. While the waterstains from the water used to extinguish the 1532 fire show chromatographic diffusion of material to the edges, the body images within the waterstains show no change in colour, indicating there are no water soluble pigments[42], again as artists' pigments usually were in the Middle Ages[43], stains, or applied powdered materials comprise the image[44].

Paint on the Shroud does not account for image. There are artists' pigments on the Shroud but not in sufficient amounts and in the appropriate locations[45], to account for the image, and are the result of painted copies of the Shroud having been laid over it to `sanctify' them[46].

Not a painting. STURP found in 1978, and its aftermath, that image of the man on the Shroud is not a painting[47]. Not only were no pigment particles found on the cloth which constitute the man's image (see above), there was no evidence of brush strokes[48]. And as we saw above, had the man's image been painted, the paint would have saturated through the cloth[49]. Moreover, the painter would have needed a paintbrush less than the size of a linen fibre, which in turn is less than half the width of a human hair[50] (see above)!

Not a powdered bas-relief or statue. That there is no powder on the Shroud which accounts for the man's image (see above), applies to powdered pigment as proposed by Joe Nickell in his dry powder bas-relief theory[51]. If the body-image was made by daubing a powdered pigment on the wet Shroud, moulded over a bas-relief[52], residues of that pigment would remain[53]. And not only on the topmost fibres but the pigment dust would have become lodged between the linen threads and discoloured fibres throughout the weave[54]. But that Nickell now argues for what he calls "the rubbing hypothesis"[55] shows that even he no longer believes that the Shroud is a painting[56]!

Conclusion. Thus the chemical investigations are in complete agreement with forensic and image studies which found that the body images are not composed of applied pigments, stains, or dyes[57], and so do not result from the application of any pigments, stains, dyes[58], dry powders, or hot surfaces to the cloth[59].

Problems for the forgery theory. (see first and previous three: #12, #13 & #14).
Bishop d'Arcis' "cunningly painted" claim was wrong. For over 70 years the anti-authenticist case had rested[60] on an unsigned[61], undated[62], unaddressed[63], draft[64] memorandum of a Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (†1377-1395). A transcript of the memorandum was published in 1899[65] by a French anti-authenticist church historian Canon Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923), who dishonestly[66] combined two documents and attached a date of 1389[67] and an address to the Avignon Pope Clement VII (1342-94)[68], to the new combined document. However there is no evidence in either the Troyes' or the Papal archives that the memorandum was ever sent[69]. However Pope Clement did reply, enjoining "perpetual silence" upon Bishop d'Arcis about this matter[70], so it is likely that d'Arcis conveyed his complaint verbally, along the lines of the memorandum, to the Papal Nuncio Cardinal de Thury[71].

Canon Chevalier's attack on the authenticity of the Shroud was taken up in England by Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) who translated Bishop d'Arcis memorandum from the Latin and published it in the the Jesuit journal The Month[72]. D'Arcis claimed that the Shroud currently being exhibited at Lirey church in c. 1389, and which had been previously exhibited at that church in c. 1355 (see next), had been "cunningly painted" (my emphasis):

"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church., to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore."[73]
D'Arcis further claimed that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (†1354–1370) had about "thirty-four years" previously (i.e. in c. 1355) "after diligent inquiry and examination he discovered ... how the said cloth had been cunningly painted" having obtained this from "the artist who had painted it" (my emphasis):
"The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. ... Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly ... he began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year."[74]
Further problems with d'Arcis' memorandum include: Hearsay. It is mere hearsay in that d'Arcis simply asserts with no evidence that his now deceased predecessor Bishop de Poitiers, extracted from an artist a confession that he had painted the man's image on the Shroud[75]. Unnamed artist. D'Arcis does not provide the alleged forger's name[76], which means that he did not know it[77], despite the alleged forger's confession having been only ~34 years before in ~1355, which was well within living memory. Unknown date. D'arcis' "thirty-four years or thereabouts" shows that he, who had been a lawyer[78], did not know the date of this alleged artist's confession[79], which means that he had no documentary evidence of it[80]. No inquiry. There is no evidence that Bishop de Poitiers conducted an inquiry into the alleged painting of the Shroud[81]. No problem. Nor is there any evidence that de Poitiers had a problem with the ~1355 exhibition of the Shroud at Lirey church[82]. Indeed in 1356 de Poitiers wrote a letter praising and ratifying the "cult" (which presumably means the Shroud) at the Lirey church[83]. And Geoffroy II de Charny (c. 1352-98), the son of Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300–1389) who had exhibited the Shroud at Lirey in c.1355, married Marguerite de Poitiers (c. 1362–1418)[84], who was Bishop de Poitiers' niece[85]. Although their marriage in c. 1392 was after Bishop de Poitiers' death in 1370, it is most unlikely that permission would have been granted by the de Poitiers' family for Marguerite to marry into the de Charny family, if Bishop de Poitiers had found the de Charny family had been been involved in a "fraud" of such "wickedness" as claimed by d'Arcis[86]. Moreover, that the de Charny and de Poitiers families continued to be on very good terms is shown by the fact that Geoffroy II's daughter, Marguerite de Charny (c. 1392–1460), left her Lirey lands to her godson, Antoine-Guerry des Essars (c. 1408-74)[87], who was the son of Guillemette de Poitiers (1370–1450)[88], who in turn was one of four illegitimate children of Bishop de Poitiers and his nun concubine, Jeanne de Chenery (1340–)[89]. This would be best explained if when Geoffroy II de Charny died in 1398, his widow Marguerite de Poitiers and their three young daughters, Marguerite de Charny (age ~6), Henriette de Charny (age ~3) and Jeanne de Charny (age ~1) went to live with Bishop de Poitiers' widow Jeanne de Chenery and their daughter Guillemette de Poitiers!

Not painted. The final problem with Bishop d'Arcis' claim in his ~1389 memorandum that the Shroud man's image was "cunningly painted," is, as we saw above, it was not painted[90]. So Bishop d'Arcis was wrong, either through him having been misinformed at best or lying[91] at worst. This is a mortal wound to the entire forgery theory.

As leading anti-authenticist Walter McCrone (1916-2002) pointed out, painting the Shroud man's image "... is certainly the simplest and probably the only way" that it could have been done by a medieval forger:

"I realize that there are still, perhaps, a majority of people convinced by the carbon-dating that the `Shroud' is medieval, who are still looking for an answer as to how the `Shroud' was produced. Many mechanisms have already been proposed. Some say it was draped wet over a bas-relief to which it was shaped then dabbed with powder or a paint. Some say a painting was prepared and transferred to a cloth in contact with it by pressure. However, I see no reason to doubt that an artist ... simply took up his brush and a dilute red ochre watercolor paint based on scraps of parchment as the vehicle and proceeded to paint the `Shroud.' Why go to all the work of preparing a statue or bas-relief or making a transfer of the image from a primary artist's rendering? A direct approach to painting a dilute watercolor image on a canvas of the proper size is a common sense assumption; Occam's Razor applies here ... It is certainly the simplest and probably the only way an undistorted original image could be prepared. If an artist (read sculptor) has to first prepare a statue or bas-relief then decorate it he will have to be more skilled, go to more trouble and stand in greater risk of distorting the final image than if he decided, by careful study, the image he wanted to produce then proceeded to paint it on a flat canvas with materials, and, by a method, readily available to him in the 1350s. The artist requires only a dilute watercolor paint, a paint brush, canvas and the talent and skill to produce a `Shroud.'"[92]
But as mentioned above, McCrone's fellow leading Shroud sceptic, Joe Nickell, had since been forced by the evidence to abandon the painting theory:
"While we should never underestimate what an unknown, skillful artist might be capable of - and so cannot conclusively rule out freehand painting - we must add that convincing evidence for any painting medium (that is, oil, egg tempera, etc.) on shroud image fibers is lacking ... Even at 40X magnification there are no obvious encrustations and no apparent cementing between threads nor any consistent and confirmed coating of fibers to indicate the presence of a painting medium ... The superficiality of the stain - extending `only 2 or 3 fibers deep into the thread structure' - is another strong argument against painting. A fluid medium (for example, paint, dye, ink) would be expected, by capillary action, to penetrate much farther - to the depth of a full thread, or even to the reverse of the cloth. Finally, tests at several laboratories failed to detect the presence of any foreign organic substance in `body' image areas."[93].
So McCrone and Nickell are both right. McCrone was right that painting was "the only way" that a medieval artist would have forged the Shroud. And Nickell was right that the Shroud image was not painted. Therefore both are also wrong: the Shroud man's image was not forged by a medieval artist!

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. Habermas, G.R., 1984, "Turin, Shroud of ," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 1990, "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker Book House: Grand Rapids MI., Seventh printing, p.1115. [return]
3. Moran, K.E., 1999, "Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples,", pp.1-10, 8. [return]
4. Adler, A.D., 2000c, "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, pp.11-27, 15. [return]
5. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.198; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.156, 178; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.152. [return]
6. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.73. [return]
7. Lavoie, G.R., 2000, "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," [1998], Thomas More: Allen TX, p.58. [return]
8. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, 10; Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
9. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," 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.325-344, 332. [return]
10. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
11. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.43. [return]
12. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 288. [return]
13. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.10; Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
14. "Capillary action," Wikipedia, 13 July 2016. [return]
15. Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113-127, 113; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138, 129. [return]
16. Heller, 1983, p.113. [return]
17. Heller, 1983, pp.86, 151. [return]
18. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.100. [return]
19. Adler, 2000c, p.22. [return]
20. Ibid. [return]
21. Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
22. Heller, 1983, p.85. [return]
23. Wilson, 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.95. [return]
24. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.34-57, 40-41; Adler, 2000c, p.22; Adler, 2000a, p.113. [return]
25. Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
26. Ibid. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
29. Adler, 2000c, p.15. [return]
30. Antonacci, 2000, p.36. [return]
31. Heller, 1983, p.202. [return]
32. Antonacci, 2000, pp.36-37. [return]
33. Antonacci, 2000, p.74. [return]
34. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.35. [return]
35. Jackson, 1991, p.332. [return]
36. Antonacci, 2000, p.48. [return]
37. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.46; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.136. [return]
38. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.72. [return]
39. Adler, 2000c, p.16. [return]
40. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.1-2. [return]
41. Gove, 1996, p.2. [return]
42. de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
43. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.72. [return]
44. Adler, 2000c, p.16. [return]
45. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.44. [return]
46. Adler, in Case, 1996, p.53; Adler, 2000c, p.20. [return]
47. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.8. [return]
48. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.71. [return]
49. Guerrera, 2001, p.71. [return]
50. Ibid. [return]
51. Antonacci, 2000, p.73. [return]
52. Nickell, 1987, pp.101-106. [return]
53. de Wesselow, 2012, p.138. [return]
54. Ibid. [return]
55. Nickell, 1987, pp.103-105. [return]
56. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, pp.16-17. [return]
57. Adler, 2000c, p.20. [return]
58. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.35. [return]
59. Adler, 2000c, p.25. [return]
60. Drews, 1984, pp.23-24. [return]
61. 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.121; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Tribbe, 2006, p.45. [return]
62. Wilson, 1998, p.121; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15. [return]
63. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
64. Wilson, 1998, p.121; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15. [return]
65. Drews, 1984, p.3. [return]
66. "Ulysse Chevalier," Wikipedia, 2 February 2016. [return]
67. Antonacci, 2000, pp.152-153. [return]
68. Antonacci, 2000, pp.151-152 [return]
69. Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.15; Tribbe, 2006, p.45. [return]
70. de Wesselow, 2012, p.183. [return]
71. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.41. [return]
72. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, pp.17-29. [return]
73. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.266-267. [return]
74. Wilson, 1979, p.267. [return]
75. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.15, 19; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; de Wesselow, 2012, p.182. [return]
76. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.11; Antonacci, 2000, pp.151-152. [return]
77. Guerrera, 2001, p.15 [return]
78. Bulst, 1957, p.11; Wilson, 1986, p.11; Wilson, 1998, p.121; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.231. [return]
79. Wilson, 1998, p.128. [return]
80. Bulst, 1957, p.11; Wilson, 1998, pp.121, 128. [return]
81. Antonacci, 2000, p.152. [return]
82. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
83. Wilson, 1998, p.278; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, pp.11, 14; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.50. [return]
84. Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.35, 37. [return]
85. Antonacci, 2000, p.302. [return]
86. Antonacci, 2000, p.302. [return]
87. Wilson, 1998, p.283. [return]
88. Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," (members only). [return]
89. Wilson, 1998, p.130. [return]
90. Drews, 1984, p.26; Tribbe, 2006, p.45. [return]
91. Antonacci, 2000, p.153. [return]
92. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.122-123. [return]
93. Nickell, 1987, pp.99-100. Footnotes omitted. [return]

Posted: 11 July 2016. Updated: 29 October 2016.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, June 2016

Shroud of Turin News - June 2016
© Stephen E. Jones

[Previous: May 2016, part #2] [Next: June 2016, part #2]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the June 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related June 2016 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. Click on a link below to go to that article. Articles not yet linked are planned to be commented on in this issue.

"5 minutes with ... The earliest painted representation of the Turin Shroud," Christie's, 7 June 2016.

Editorial. Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz for him to convert to PDF and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in June up to issue #52, April 1989 [Right (enlarge)], which was still mostly about the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" and indeed contains a copy of that Nature paper. Issues in that archive are up to #50, December 1988.

Topic index: I had not found the time to add any more of my old posts to my Topic Index in June, so it is still up to and including my post of 28 March 2012. Where it will remain because I found it was too time-consuming and so in June I replaced it with a new "The Shroud of Turin blog topics" series.

Posts: In June, I blogged 11 posts (latest uppermost): "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `L'"; "New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person," "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `E'"; "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `N'"; "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `C'"; "The Shroud of Turin blog topics `J'"; "The Shroud of Turin blog topics Index `A-Z'"; "Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index S-Z"; "No outline #14: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!"; "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #8"; and "Editorial and Contents": Shroud of Turin News - May 2016.

As can be seen above, in June I started a new series, "The Shroud of Turin blog topics," which replaces my previous "Topic index" which proved to be too time-consuming (and uninteresting). As mentioned in my May 2016 "Editorial", I was working on a review of Phillip Dayvault's book, "The Keramion, Lost and Found," to be submitted on But I belatedly discovered that, "The ideal length is 75 to 500 words" for an customer review, and my unfinished review was already many times that! So I have abandoned that review.

Comments. In June I responded to a comment under my post of 30Sep15, which claimed: 1) that the man on the Shroud was "skinny," when 2) Lk 7:34 and Mt 11:19 imply that he was "chubby"; and 3) the man on the Shroud has long hair which is forbidden by 1Cor 11:14-15. I responded: 1) The man on the Shroud is not skinny. In my post, "The Shroud of Turin: 3.2. The man on the Shroud," there is a photo of a sculpture of the Shroud man [Left (enlarge)[2].] based on his image on the Shroud, which shows that he is "powerfully built" and has a "muscular physique." 2) The Greek word for "glutton" in Lk 7:34 and Mt 11:19 is phagos, from phago "to eat," so it simply means "eater," and has no connotation about body shape. It is not the other word for "glutton," gaster = "belly," which could connote body shape. Besides, Jesus was not a glutton: that was only what His enemies claimed. 3) Paul in 1Cor 11:14-15 is not talking about men having long hair, but men wearing their hair in effeminate hair styles[3]. The ESV correctly translates the Greek word kome, "Hair ... the way that it is styled"[4] in v.14 as "wears long hair" (my emphasis). I also pointed out that Jesus had a crown of thorns placed on His head (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2), and His clothes had been taken off Him (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-25), so any hair ties He had been wearing would have disappeared long before His image was imprinted on the Shroud.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, in June I posted part #8 of my hacker theory, which was about Karl Koch. Now that Dan Porter's blog has closed, I regard myself as free from my self-imposed ban from reading Porter's blog's posts and comments, which was to prevent me from being sucked into responding to comments (mostly nasty) about me on Porter's blog. A post of Porter's which amused me was his worry that:

"The problem is that it may only be a matter of time before we read in the media that people who think the shroud is authentic believe that the carbon dating of the shroud was hacked by computer hackers."[5]

[Right: Porter's photo of the alleged hacker, Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)]

I agree with Porter, except that I expect it will be "only be a matter of time before we read in the media that ... the carbon dating of the shroud was hacked by computer hackers"! I was surprised it had not already happened, but then I realised that the anti-Christian secular media was only too happy to report when the 1988 radiocarbon dating `proved' the Shroud was a medieval fake. So they will be conversely reluctant to admit that they have all been duped these last ~28 years by a computer hacker! Nevertheless, when I have finished my current, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking" series, I plan to post here a Media Release of my hacker theory's main points and email it to major media outlets.

Updates to my posts in the background in June included: "Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index A-F," "G-M," "N-R" and "S-Z."

Pageviews: At midnight on 30th June, Google Analytics [below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 544,771 and "Pageviews last month" as 8,461. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month as: "The Shroud of Turin blog topics Index `A-Z'," Jun 19, 2016 - 78; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 71"; "The Pray Manuscript," Jan 11, 2010 - 69; "`Editorial and Contents': Shroud of Turin News - May 2016," Jun 1, 2016 - 59; and "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified," Dec 2, 2013 - 54.

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. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.47. [return]
3. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.150-151. [return]
4. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.876. [return]
5. Porter, D., 2015, "The Hacking of the Carbon Dating, Wikipedia and the Media," July 7. [return]

Posted: 10 July 2016. Updated: 28 October 2016.