Saturday, May 13, 2017

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Tenth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
TENTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the fourteenth (and an update of the thirteenth) installment of part #10, "Tenth century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 9th century #9] [Next: 11th century #11]


10th century (901-1000)

[Above (enlarge)[2]: King Abgar V (c.25 BC-AD 50) of Edessa is depicted in this 10th century icon at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai[3], receiving the Image of Edessa (the Shroud "four-doubled" - tetradiplon) from Jesus' disciple Thaddeus[4] [see "50"]. Abgar's face is that of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913-959)[5], to commemorate the arrival of the Image of Edessa/Shroud in Constantinople on 15 August 944[6] [see below].]

943 In the Spring of 943, Byzantine usurper Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–944)[7] sends an army led by his best general, John Curcuas (fl. 915–946)[8], to Edessa to negotiate with its Muslim emir ruler for possession of the Edessa cloth[9], to add to his collection of Christian relics[10]. In exchange for the Cloth, Curcuas offered on behalf of the Emperor, a guarantee of perpetual immunity of Edessa from Byzantine attack, 12,000 pieces of silver and the release of 200 Muslim prisoners[11].

944a After lengthy consultations with his superiors in Baghdad[12], in the Summer of 944[13], Edessa's emir accepts Curcuas' terms and Bishop Abraham of nearby Samosata[14], enters Edessa to receive the cloth, and despite the resistance of Edessa's Christians[15], he is

[Above (enlarge): "The surrender of the Holy Mandylion (the `Image of Edessa'), bearing the face of Christ [and behind it the full-length Shroud!], by the inhabitants of Edessa in Mesopotamia to the Byzantines in 944," by John Skylitzes (c. 1040s – aft. 1101)[16] [see future "c. 1070"]. Note that in the 11th century Skylitzes depicted the Image of Edessa/Mandylion, at the time of its transfer from Edessa to Constantinople, as known to be full-length[17]! This occasion is usually assumed by pro-authenticists to be the arrival of the Image in Constantinople in 944[18]. But not only does its Wikipedia title contradict that, the persons on the left appear to be wearing red turbans and hence are Islamic/Eastern, and also the buildings on their side have no Christian crosses. However, that the buildings on the right have Christian crosses suggests that by artistic license Skylitzes depicted both the Image being handed over in Edessa and its arrival in Constantinople!]

satisfied that he has the original, as well as two copies of the Image[19] and Abgar V's (spurious [see "50"]) letter from Jesus[20]. After a short stay in Samosata[21], the bishop travels with the Image, escorted by Curcuas' army[22] across Anatolia back to Constantinople[23].

944b On Thursday 15 August 944 the Image of Edessa arrives in Constantinople[24]. It is carried in its framed portrait, fastened to a board and embellished with gold[25], through the streets of the city amidst great celebration[26]. The Image is then taken to the church of St Mary at Blachernae[27], where it is viewed by members of the imperial family[28]. Romanos' two sons Stephen and Constantine find the face blurred and cannot distinguish its features[29] (further evidence that this was the Shroud: its image is faint and difficult to see close-up[30]). But the legitimate Emperor, Constantine VII, son of the late Emperor Leo VI (r. 886–912), was artistic and readily discerns them[31]. The Image of Edessa/Shroud is then taken to the Imperial (Boucoleon) Palace where it is placed overnight in the Pharos chapel[32].

944c The next day, 16 August 944, the Image is carried around the walls of Constantinople[33], thereby establishing it as the city's new palladium (guarantee of a city's Divine protection)[34]. The Image is then taken to Constantinople's Hagia Sophia cathedral[35], where it is placed on the "throne of mercy"[36]. During that enthronement of the Image ceremony[37], Gregory Referendarius (overseer of relationships between the Patriarch and the Emperor[38]), Archdeacon of Hagia Sophia[39], an eyewitness of these events[40], delivers a sermon[41] in which he says that the Cloth bears not only "the sweat from the face of the ruler of life, falling like drops of blood" but also "drops from his own side ... [of] blood and water":

"This reflection, however - may everyone be inspired with the explanation - has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the ruler of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are indeed the beauties that have coloured the true imprint of Christ, because that from which they dripped was also embellished by drops from his own side. Both are highly instructive - blood and water there, here sweat and image. O equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side"[42].
By "the sweat from the face of [Christ] ... falling like drops of blood" Gregory refers to Lk 22:44:
"And being in agony he [Jesus] prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground."
which occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36; Mk 14:32)[43]. But the "drops from his own side ... [of] blood and water" refers to Jn 19:33-34 which was after Jesus' death on the cross:
"But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water."
Clearly the face-only Image of Edessa does not show the blood-stained wound in Jesus' side that is on the Shroud[44]. But Gregory could not have made that reference unless he had been aware of the wound in the side of the image and of bloodstains in the area of that wound[45], and hence knew that the Cloth was full-length rather than merely a face-cloth[46]. And to know that, Gregory must have seen that under the Image of Edessa face was a full-length, bloodstained, body image of Jesus[47]. This is a further corroboration of Ian Wilson's insight that the Image of Edessa was the Shroud ("four-doubled" - tetradiplon)[48]!

944d In December 944, the co-Emperor sons of Romanos I, Stephen and Constantine, fearing their ~74 year-old father was going to confirm Constantine VII as his successor[49], forced him to abdicate[50].

945a On 27 January 945, with the help of his wife, Romanos I's daughter Helena Lekapene (c. 910–961), Constantine VII exiled Stephen and Constantine (Helena's brothers!) and became sole emperor at the age of 39[51]. Within weeks of his accession, Constantine VII had a new gold solidus coin struck[52], bearing

[Above (enlarge): "Coin ... [a gold solidus] minted in 945 under the reign of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII. On the obverse, a bust of Christ similar to the Shroud face image; on the reverse, Constantine VII ... Notice ... the overall similarity of the facial representation with the face on the Shroud ... the left cheek of Christ, that is, the cheek that appears on our right, shows a clear protuberance, which is also on the Shroud. The beard and hair are also similar to the Shroud. Note the very peculiar lock of hair on the forehead. This is similar to the inverted '3' shape as seen on the forehead on the Shroud"[53].]

a very Shroud-like Christ 'Rex Regnantium' (King of Kings) portrait, inspired by the recently arrived cloth of Edessa[54]. Note also the `pellets' within Jesus' halo above, two groups of four each forming an

[Above (enlarge)[55]: Two sets of L-shaped `poker holes' on the Shroud man's dorsal image and two sets of three in a line on the frontal image.]

L-shape and the other two groups of three each in a line, match the so-called 'poker holes' on the Shroud (see above), as pointed out by Ian Wilson[56].

945b On 16 August 945, the anniversary of the solemn exposition of the cloth in Hagia Sophia cathedral, Constantine VII proclaimed 16 August as the Feast of the Holy Mandylion in the Eastern Orthodox church calendar[57], which it continues to celebrate to this very day, even though the Image has been lost to them since 1204[58]!

945c Soon after becoming sole Emperor, Constantine VII commissioned[59] an official history of the Image of Edessa[60], the "Narratio de imagine Edessena"[61], or "Story of the Image of Edessa"[62]. Indeed it may have been written by Constantine himself[63]! The Story is actually a sermon to be read to Eastern Orthodox congregations on each 16 August Feast of the Holy Mandylion, starting in 946[64], hence it is also known as the "Festival Sermon"[65]. Fastened to a board The Official History states that the Image of Edessa "now to be seen" in Constantinople in 944, had in Edessa been fastened to a board and embellished with gold by Abgar V:

"Abgar ... set up this likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand, fastening it to a board and embellishing it with the gold which is now to be seen, inscribing these words on the gold: `Christ the God, he who hopes in thee is never disappointed'"[66].
This fits Ian Wilson's theory that the Shroud was folded and mounted in such a way ("four-doubled" - tetradiplon) that only the facial area was visible and accessible, so "every description of the Image of Edessa during the period in question is compatible with a viewing of the Shroud"[67]. Two alternative versions of the origin of the image The Official History gives two mutually exclusive versions of the origin of Jesus' image on the cloth[68]. The first version is the traditional explanation since the sixth century[68a], that Jesus washed his face in water, wiped it on a towel, and his likeness was impressed on the towel, which he then gave to Abgar V's servant Ananias, who in turn gave it to Abgar V[69]. The second version is that:
"... when Christ was about to go voluntarily to death ... he ... pray[ed] ... sweat dropped from him like drops of blood ... he took this piece of cloth which we see now from one of the disciples and wiped off the drops of sweat on it ... the still-visible impression of that divine face was produced. Jesus gave the cloth to Thomas, and instructed him that after Jesus had ascended into heaven, he should send Thaddaeus with it to Abgar ... Thomas gave the divine portrait of Christ's face to Thaddaeus and sent him to Abgar"[70].
That is, the image was formed during Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane when His "sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Lk 22:44)[71]. See also Gregory Referendarius' sermon above. This second version would be inexplicable unless dripping blood could be seen on the face of the Image of Edessa[72], as it is on the Shroud face[73], but which could not be explained by the first version[74]. This second version may be the parent of the tradition of Veronica's veil[75] - or it may be the other way around [see 06Mar17 and future "1011"]. Moist secretion The Official History described the Image as "a moist secretion without coloring or painter's art"[76], "it did not consist of earthly colors ... and ... was due to sweat, not pigments"[77]. This fits the Shroud image which is extremely faint[78]. It also explains why some thought the Image had been made in the Garden of Gethsemane when Christ's face was covered in sweat "like great drops of blood"[79]. Wilson, who has seen the Shroud many times, agrees that these "water/sweat details" sound "uncannily like the characteristics of the Shroud's image"[80]. Wilson also points out of

[Above (enlarge): The Image of Edessa (late 10th-early 11th century), Sakli church, Goreme, Turkey[81].]

the late 10th/early 11th century copy of the Edessa cloth, painted above an arch in the Sakli church in the Goreme region of central Turkey, that:

"... its general resemblance to the facial portion on the Shroud is really quite remarkable. There is the same sepia-coloured, disembodied, rigidly frontal face on the same landscape cloth. ... And when we know, as we do from the Official History, that this same Edessa cloth's imprint had the appearance of `a moist secretion without colouring or painter's art', then can we really believe that this could not have been our Shroud[82]?
In his insistence that the Image was "... without coloring or painter's art," "did not consist of earthly colors" and "was [not] due to ... pigments," the author of the Official History "anticipat[ed] twentieth-century science by a full millennium"[83], in that the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), after an exhaustive series of scientific tests on the Shroud, found that: "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils"[84] (i.e. which form the image).

945d Soon after he became sole Emperor in January 945[85], Constantine VII commissioned a painting, now at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mt Sinai, depicting Abgar V holding the Edessa cloth, which had been handed to him by Thaddeus (see above)[86]. That icon survives as the top right-hand quarter of a diptych[87] (see below). It

[Above (enlarge)[88]: The Abgar V icon (see above) in its surviving diptych context.]

originally was a triptych with an icon of the Image of Edessa in the centre panel but only the two wings have survived[89].

946 On 16 August 946, the first anniversary of the Image's enthronement ceremony in Hagia Sophia (see above) the "Monthly Lection" for that day, and on that day in each year thereafter, was a text that recounted the full history of the Image of Edessa[90]. This particular lection was prepared soon after the Image's arrival in time for this first anniversary festival[91]. In describing the Image's origins, the "Monthly Lection" stated that after Jesus had washed:

"...there was given to him a piece of cloth folded four times [rhakos tetradiplon]. And after washing, he imprinted on it his undefiled and divine face."[92]
Note: Prof. Robert Drews' "folded four times" above is inexact. The Greek compound word "tetradiplon" means "doubled four times": tetra = "four" and diplon = "doubled" (see my 15Sep12). Indeed Prof. Drews on the next facing page acknowledges this:
"What exactly the authors meant by a cloth `folded four times' may be debated, but a reasonable guess is that in a slightly expanded form the cloth was arranged something like this: [right] The Mandylion [Image of Edessa], then, was an ivory-colored linen, bearing a blurred and dim image, the image being described as `not made by human hands' and resembling, in the artists' copies of the Mandylion, the face of the Man of the Shroud. The Mandylion was considerably wider than one would expect as backdrop for a portrait of a face, and was apparently far longer than the height of the exposed cloth. The bulk of the cloth seems to have been folded, in seven folds, behind an exposed, eighth panel. That the seven other folds were nothing but blank linen, carefully concealed but carefully preserved for over a thousand years, is manifestly improbable. If the Shroud does carry, as it seems to, the vera imago of Jesus, then what is now known as the Shroud of Turin was in the Middle Ages the Mandylion of Edessa and Constantinople"[93]!

To be continued in the fifteenth installment of this part #10 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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].
2. "Image of Edessa or Holy Mandylion," Digital Journal, 28 March 2012. [return]
3. "Abgar V," Wikipedia, 12 May 2017. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 154-155. [return]
5. Wilson, 1979, pp.151,154. [return]
6. Wilson, 1979, pp.116,151,255; 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.148,268; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.4-5; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.24; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.165, 300. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.255; Wilson, 1998, p.267; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.31. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, p.148; Wilson, 1998, p.148. [return]
9. Scavone, D.C., 1989a, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.84; Oxley, 2010, p.31. [return]
10. Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.36; Scavone, 1989a, p.84; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.4. [return]
11. Morgan, 1980, p.36; Wilson, 1998, pp.267-268; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.130; Guerrera, 2001, p.4; Tribbe, 2006, p.24; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
12. Wilson, 1998, p.148; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; Tribbe, 2006, p.24; Oxley, 2010, p.31; Wilson, 2010, p.158. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.255; Tribbe, 2006, p.24. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, pp.149, 255; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; Tribbe, 2006, p.24; Oxley, 2010, p.32; Wilson, 2010, p.159. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, pp.149-150, 255; Oxley, 2010, p.32; Wilson, 2010, pp.159-160. [return]
16. "Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 131a, Madrid National Library, in "File:Surrender of the Mandylion to the Byzantines.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 20 December 2012. [return]
17. 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, 193-194; Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in Tribbe, 2006, p.xxvii. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 1990, "Correspondence," BSTS Newsletter, No. 25, April/May 1990, p.10; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, pp.54-55. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.255; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24, 39. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, pp.286-287; Oxley, 2010, p.32; Wilson, 2010, pp.159-160. [return]
21. Wilson, 1979, p.255; Tribbe, 2006, p.24. [return]
22. Wilson, 1998, p.148; Wilson, 2010, p.159. [return]
23. Wilson, 1979, pp.149, 255; Tribbe, 2006, pp.24, 39; Oxley, 2010, p.32; Wilson, 2010, p.159. [return]
24. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.92; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Guerrera, 2001, p.4. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, pp.282; Drews, 1984, pp.35, 57; Scavone, 1989a, p.84; Antonacci, 2000, p.131. [return]
26. Scavone, 1989a, p.84; Scavone, 1991, p.194; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, pp.148-149, 268; Guerrera, 2001, pp.4-5. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
29. Wilson, 1979, p.116; Maher, 1986, p.92; Scavone, 1991, p.192; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; Tribbe, 2006, p.25. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, pp.116, 122; Scavone, 1991, p.192; Antonacci, 2000, p.130. [return]
31. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.94; Scavone, 1991, p.192; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Tribbe, 2006, p.25; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.256; Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
34. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.57; Wilson, 1998, p.149. [return]
35. Wilson, 1979, p.256; Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.256; Maher, 1986, p.92; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.57; Wilson, 1998, pp.149, 268. [return]
37. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.58. [return]
38. Guscin, M., 2009, "The Image of Edessa," Brill: Leiden, Netherlands & Boston MA, p.4. [return]
39. Scavone, 1991, p.192; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.143; Oxley, 2010, p.13. [return]
40. Scavone, 1991, p.192; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.185. [return]
41. Scavone, 1991, p.192; Wilson, 1991, p.143; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.115; Oxley, 2010, pp.13, 36; de Wesselow, 2012, p.185; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.56. [return]
42. Guscin, 2009, p.85; Oxley, 2010, p.36. [return]
43. Wilson, 1998, p.268. [return]
44. Scavone, 1991, p.192. [return]
45. Oxley, 2010, p.36. [return]
46. Iannone, 1998, p.115; Ruffin, 1999, p.58; Oxley, 2010, p.36. [return]
47. Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.58-70, 63; Wilson, 1998, p.268. [return]
48. Scavone, 1991, p.192; Guerrera, 2001, pp.5-6; Scavone, 2006, p.xxvii. [return]
49. "Romanos I Lekapenos: End of the reign," Wikipedia, 4 November 2016. [return]
50. Maher, 1986, p.92. [return]
51. "Constantine VII: Reign," Wikipedia, 15 March 2017; Wilson, 1979, p.154; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Wilson, 2010, pp.166-167. [return]
52. Wilson, 1979, p.154; Maher, 1986, p.92; Tribbe, 2006, p.164; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
53. Latendresse, M., 2007, "The Shroud of Turin and Byzantine Coins," Sindonology.org. [return]
54. Wilson, 1998, p.268. [return]
55. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
56. Wilson, 1998, p.268. [return]
57. Wilson, 1979, p.256; Maher, 1986, p.92; Wilson, 1998, p.149; Guerrera, 2001, p.6; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
58. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.113; Wilson, 2010, p.167. [return]
59. Wilson, 1979, pp.116-117; Wilson, 2010, pp.167, 174. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, p.272; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.112; Wilson, 1998, pp.151, 268; Oxley, 2010, p.34. [return]
61. Wilcox, 1977, p.95; Wilson, 1998, pp.256, 268 [return]
62. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.207; Antonacci, 2000, p.130; de Wesselow, 2012, p.185. [return]
63. Wilson, 2010, pp.167, 174. [return]
64. Wilson, 1979, p.155; Antonacci, 2000, p.130. [return]
65. Drews, 1984, p.115. [return]
66. Wilson, 1979, p.280; Oxley, 2010, p.34. [return]
67. Wilson, 1986, p.112; Wilson, 1998, pp.152-153; Oxley, 2010, p.34; Wilson, 2010, pp.140, 174. [return]
68. Wilson, 1979, pp.117, 256; Wilson, 1998, pp.150, 268; Wilson, 2010, p.174-175. [return]
68a. de Wesselow, 2012, p.185. [return]
69. Wilson, 1979, pp.117, 276-277; Drews, 1984, pp.35, 56; Wilson, 1998, pp.150, 268; Wilson, 2010, pp.174-175; de Wesselow, 2012, p185. [return]
70. Wilson, 1979, pp.117, 277-278; Wilson, 2010, p.175. [return]
71. Wilson, 1979, pp.117, 123; Drews, 1984, pp.35, 57; Scavone, 1991, p.190; Wilson, 1998, pp.150, 153, 268; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.111; Wilson, 2010, p.175. [return]
72. Wilson, 1979, p.123; Drews, 1984, pp.35; Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989b, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, pp.311-329, 315; Scavone, 1991, p.190; de Wesselow, 2012, pp185-186. [return]
73. Drews, 1984, pp.35. [return]
74. Scavone, 1989b, p.315. [return]
75. Wilson, 1979, p.117; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.25; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.59. [return]
76. Wilcox, 1977, p.95; Wilson, 1979, pp.115, 255, 273; Scavone, 1991, p.192; de Wesselow, 2012, p185. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, pp.115, 279; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.111. [return]
78. Scavone, 1989b, p.315. [return]
79. de Wesselow, 2012, p.187 [return]
80. Wilson, 1998, p.150. [return]
81. Wilson, , 2010, plate 22b. [return]
82. Wilson, 1998, p.151. [return]
83. Tribbe, 2006, p.25 . [return]
84. "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October 1981, Shroud.com. [return]
85. Wilson, 1979, p.154; Pfeiffer, H., 1983, "The Shroud of Turin and the Face of Christ in Paleochristian, Byzantine and Western Medieval Art: Part I," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #9, December, pp.7-20, 8. [return]
86. Wilson, 1979, p.154; Scavone, 1989a, p.88; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.5. [return]
87. Wilson, 1986, pp.110E, 118. [return]
88. "Two Wings of a Triptych: Saint Thaddeus, Saint Paul of Thebes, Saint Anthony; King Abgarus, Saint Basil, and Saint Ephraem," The Icons of Sinai, Princeton University, 2017. [return]
89. Wilson, 1979, p.154; Wilson, 1991, p.175; Dreisbach, K., 1995, "Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, translated by Edmund Jepthcott, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1994," in "Recent Publications - Book reviews by Ian Wilson, Rev. Albert Kim Dreisbach and Dr. Michael Clift," BSTS Newsletter, No. 39, January. [return]
90. Drews, 1984, p.40. [return]
91. Drews, 1984, p.40. [return]
92. Drews, 1984, p.40; Iannone, 1998, p.105. [return]
93. Drews, 1984, p.41. [return]

Posted: 13 May 2017. Updated: 27 May 2017.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Dr Jull's and Prof. Ramsey's prompt, misleading and false replies: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #7

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #7, "Dr Jull's and Prof. Ramsey's prompt, misleading and false replies," in my "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "Hacking an explanation & Index." References "[A]", etc., will be to that part of my original post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory #6] [Next: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1" #8]

Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my hacker theory in my early 2014 posts: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)," "(2)," "(3)," "Summary" and now "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey."

My reply to Dr. Timothy Jull's email On Dan Porter's now closed blog he posted on 9 March 2014, under the heading "Comment Promoted: On the Hacking Hypothesis," a reply email that the anti-authenticist Editor of the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, Hugh Farey, had received from Dr. Timothy Jull [Right[2]], Director of the University of Arizona's radiocarbon dating laboratory and a signatory to the the 1989 Nature paper, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," which claimed that the linen on the Shroud was "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[3].

■ Here is Dr. Jull's email, as posted on Porter's blog and copied in my post of 13 March 2014:

"This is impossible. In our case, the software for the calculations is offline. In any case, the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph, as I recall.

Indeed, in 1988 the internet (as we know it today) didn't exist – there was a pre-existing network run by the US government which was quite restricted.

Anyway, the machine we used at that time couldn't have been attached to it, and that one still isn't."[A]

I later realised [see 05Jul14] that the response (and prompt at that by Dr Jull - and Prof. Ramsey - see below) was itself evidence for my theory. Since when do two nuclear physicists who are Directors of major radiocarbon dating laboratories deign to respond to a mere blogger's post? Only if they knew (or suspected) that that blogger was right, that their 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud had been hacked, and they wanted to quickly discredit him!

And also that what Jull wrote above is self-contradictory ("... the software for the calculations is offline. In any case, the calculation does NOT require software ...") [see 27Apr15], misleading, and false. And what's more, Jull must know it to be false. Jull was there at that first dating of the Shroud at Arizona and he would know that, as Gove described it:

"All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue"[4].
the "calculations" were produced by the AMS computer and the "calibration" (for past fluctuations in atmospheric carbon-14) of those calculations was what was "plotted on a graph."

■ My reply to Dr. Jull's email on Porter's blog, lightly edited, was as follows (emphases in capitals replaced by italics):

No, Jull's email does not refute my hacking hypothesis, First, it is clear from my quote of Gove, the final calibration was done offline by Donahue: "The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue."

But it was the computer at the end of the AMS C-14 dating system that supplied the "OX sample"'s raw years which Donahue calibrated.

[Note: I didn't then know that the "OX sample" is an oxalic acid standard. See the above quote by Gove. The "ratio" was the "carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio" (see below). So the what I should have written was, "... it was the computer at the end of the AMS C-14 dating system that supplied the "measurements'" raw years which Donahue calibrated."]

I allowed for that: "... a KGB agent hacked into the AMS system control console computer at each of the three C-14 labs and inserted a program which, when each test was run, replaced the Shroud's 1st or early century c-14 date, with dates which when calibrated, would yield years clustering around AD 1325, just before the Shroud's appearance in undisputed history in the 1350s."

Second, Jull's "... in 1988 the internet (as we know it today) didn't exist – there was a pre-existing network run by the US government which was quite restricted." I did not say it was the "Internet". What I said was: "... in the 1980s university computers were all interconnected by ARPANET, the precursor to the internet ..."

Jull's "quite restricted" does not mention that Arpanet was originally restricted but was expanded to universities, and in particular to "research laboratories in the US":

"ARPANET ... was one of the world's first operational packet switching networks, the first network to implement TCP/IP, and the progenitor of what was to become the global Internet. The network was initially funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, later DARPA) within the U.S. Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US." (ARPANET," Wikipedia, 6 March 2014. Emphasis mine).
A Google search of "Arpanet" and "University of Arizona" shows that Arpanet was at the University of Arizona by 1984.

Jull's "Anyway, the machine we used at that time couldn't have been attached to it, and that one still isn't", is ambiguous. If he means by "machine" the AMS machine itself, I don't claim that machine was attached to Arpanet. But if Jull means by "machine" the computer which processed the data coming from the AMS machine, then I doubt that is true, although Jull may believe it to be true. Stoll's book makes clear that all university computers in the 1980s were connectable to Arpanet, and most were, especially laboratories.

[Note: I did later accept Dr Jull and Prof. Ramsey's statements that the AMS computers at Arizona and Oxford (and presumably Zurich) were never online - see 05Jul14.]

But if it can be proven that Arizona, Zurich and Oxford's AMS control console computers were not ever connected to Arpanet, then that does not mean that a hacker could not have inserted a program into those computers, as he could have done it manually. Stoll's book (and he did his PhD at the University of Arizona) makes it clear that physical security at universities in the 1980s was also poor. You and your commenters may scoff at the idea that the KGB would have as one of its goals to discredit the Shroud, but you fail to consider what a perceived threat it would be to the Soviet Union if the Shroud was dated to the first or early centuries.

Dan, your commenters, and you ... are not facing up to the fact that if the Shroud is authentic (as all the evidence apart from the C-14 dating indicates), then it would be "a remarkable coincidence" (to put it mildly) that its C-14 date was 1325 +/- 65 years, just before "the Shroud's historical debut", as the agnostic Thomas de Wesselow saw clearly:

"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 [of] ... 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." (de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," p.170).
My bottom line is that, since the Shroud is authentic, there had to be some form of fraud to convert a 1st century actual date of the Shroud into the `too good to be true' 1325 ± 65 years date. Harry Grove's worries before the test that at least one of the AMS labs would return an outlier date, and the 1989 Intercomparison Test in which the AMS labs fared badly, makes it difficult to believe (again to put it mildly) that all three AMS labs independently dated the Shroud "flawlessly," as Gove later assumed they would have to have done, to date the Shroud so accurately, to within 25-30 years of the Shroud's appearance at Lirey in the 1350s.

My proposal that the labs were duped by a computer hacker fits all the facts (Jull's ambiguous email notwithstanding), and it allows for Ian Wilson's assurance that the lab leaders were basically honest. I am hopeful that now my proposal is in the public domain, it will eventually be confirmed by someone in a position to know.[B]

My reply to Prof. Christopher Ramsey's email I must say I was surprised that Farey had made Dr. Jull aware of my proposal and that Jull had responded to it. That surprise became even greater when further reading of the comments under Porter's post

[Left: Prof. Christopher Ramsey: Merton College, Oxford]

revealed another comment by Hugh Farey which contained a response from Prof. Christopher Ramsey, Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, and also a signatory to that 1989 Nature paper:

"Yes – I agree with all that Tim says. This would seem to be a suggestion from someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s.

In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections). The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS."

■ My reply to Prof. Ramsey's email on Porter's blog, with comments from Hugh Farey omitted, but otherwise lightly edited, was as follows (again my emphases in capitals replaced by italics):
No. I was one of the first to have a personal computer in 1980. I pioneered the introduction of computers into Health Department of WA [Western Australia] hospitals in the mid-to late 1980s and in the late 1980s/early 1990s, I was the Systems Administrator of a network of 7 hospitals' UNIX systems.

And also I have read Clifford Stoll’s 1989 book, "The Cuckoo’s Egg" which relates how easy it was to hack into university computers in the 1980s.

>In the case of Oxford the AMS had no connection to any network (and indeed even today our AMS control computers have no network connections).

Thanks to Prof. Ramsey for this unambiguous statement.

>The software was very simple just outputting counts of 14C and currents measured. Age calculation was done offline and could just be done with a calculator, or by a simple program into which you typed the numbers from the AMS."

Nevertheless, it was "software" on each lab’s AMS control computer, which outputted "counts of 14C" which were, according to Gove’s eyewitness account, displayed on the AMS control computer’s screen:

"The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue ... At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. ... Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ’s burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began." (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," p.264).
It is those "calculations produced by the computer" which when calibrated, yielded a date of "1350 AD". So all that a hacker would have to do is modify the program which displayed those "counts of 14C", to replace those coming from the Shroud samples, with bogus "counts of 14C" which when calibrated, yielded the too good to be true date of "1350 AD".
I am now going to post a revised version of my proposal, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1," based on the information contained in Dr. Jull's and Prof. Ramsey's emails.[C]

See above on my later realisation that the prompt responses by Dr Jull - and Prof. Ramsey to my mere blogger's post was itself evidence for my theory. And especially Prof. Ramsey's attempt to discredit me by claiming falsely that I was "someone who does not know what computers were like in the 1980s" when the very opposite is true! I later discovered that the AMS computer was a very powerful DEC PDP-11 or VAX-11 - see

[Left: A DEC PDP-11[5]. The AMS computer was one of these, or the more advanced VAX-11. Yet Dr Jull and Prof. Ramsey downplayed it as no better than a "calculator." Why would they both do this, if it was not to hide that they knew, or suspected, that Arizona's AMS computer (at least) had been hacked?]

31Mar14. See also 05Jul14 where I wrote:

"Prof. Ramsey's response was also misleading in that like Jull, he also strangely, and suspiciously, downplayed the role of the AMS control computer. Indeed some on Porter's blog (including Porter himself) took Prof. Ramsey to be claiming that the AMS computer was little better than a calculator, and Porter even questioned whether it was `programmable'! When as we have seen, both Jull and Ramsey knew it was a `DEC computer system', probably either a PDP-11, or more likely a VAX-11, both of which were very powerful, programmable, and therefore hackable computers!"
Both Jull and Ramsey's prompt, misleading and false responses to my hacker proposal, and especially Ramsey's attempt to discredit me personally, strongly suggests that they have something to hide, namely that they know (or at least suspect) that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" was the result of a computer hacking!

To be continued in part #8 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]
2. "Prominent guest researchers arrive in Hungary," Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2013 (no longer online). [return]
3. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
5. "PDP-11," Wikipedia, 4 May 2017. [return]

Posted: 10 May 2017. Updated: 17 May 2017.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, April 2017

Shroud of Turin News - April 2017
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: March 2017, part #1] [Next: April 2017, part #2]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the April 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I may comment on Shroud-related April 2017 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. From now on I am going to list some linked articles about the Shroud as a service to readers, without necessarily commenting on them. If I do comment on an article in a separate post, I will add after it "- see Month year, part #n".

Contents:
Editorial
"Modern Science Can't Duplicate Image on Shroud of Turin," Church Militant, Bradley Eli, April 4, 2017.
"Easter and the Shroud of Turin: `Nothing Is Impossible with God'," National Review, Myra Adams, April 15, 2017.
"Are you related to Jesus?," The Sun, Mark Hodge, 18th April 2017.
"Shroud of Turin coins may finally have been identified," Aleteia, Daniel Esparza, April 26, 2017.


Editorial

Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of the 118 issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in April up to issue #74, December 1992 [Right (enlarge)]. Issues in that archive are up to #66, August 1991.

Posts: In April I blogged 4 new posts (latest uppermost): "X-rays #22: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 20th; "`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'" - 19th; "Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #6" - 11th; "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, March 2017" - 9th.

Updates From memory I did not update any of my posts in the background in April.

Comments: In April I received (amongst others) a comment from a W. Pinson who correctly pointed out that:

"... there are considerations and error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material ... It is ... very likely, that the Shroud is much, much older than the carbon dating, because of the affects of the much higher C14 content of the backing and patches."
In my reply via a separate post, "`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'," I made the following points: ■ Contamination with younger carbon which cannot be removed by pre-treatment ... would have explained why the 1st-century Shroud did not have a 1st-century, but an early century (e.g. 4th-5th century) radiocarbon date, if the Shroud samples had been radiocarbon-dated in 1988. ■ But they were not and instead the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking. ■ Contamination with younger carbon cannot plausibly explain why the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. Because that would require a level of contamination sufficient to shift the Shroud's radiocarbon date 12-13 centuries into the future. And to do that would require the Shroud sample to have been 60% or more contamination! That also applies to the invisible repair/patch theories. See my "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail." ■ But that is obviously not the case with the Shroud, as such a huge level of contamination would be clearly visible, but isn't. See the photomicrograph [Right (enlarge)], taken by pro-authenticist photographer Barrie Schwortz, of a piece of Arizona laboratory's original Shroud sample that was never dated. As can be seen, the Arizona sub-sample is not mostly contamination. Oxford estimated that their sample (which was cut from the same larger sample as Arizona's), was less than 0.1% contamination. ■ The evidence (apart from the radiocarbon dating) is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic and therefore first-century or earlier. However pro-authenticist arguments that rely on contamination, invisible repair patching, neutron flux, etc, all fail (see above) because they accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ± 65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud as correct and then try reconcile that with the Shroud’s 1st century date. ■ But as the pro-authenticist physicist Frank Tipler pointed out, it would be a "miracle" (he believes it was!) for the 1st century Shroud to have precisely the right level of contamination to shift the Shroud’s radiocarbon date to 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years, a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355 ■ But that would make God a deceiver! Few, if any, pro-authenticists would accept Tipler's deceiver-God reconciliation of the 1st century Shroud with its 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date. But that is implicit in all pro-authenticist explanations which accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud and then try to reconcile that to the Shroud's actual 1st century date, by contamination, invisible repairs, neutron flux, etc. ■ The laboratories have stated that the improbability of the Shroud being 1st century yet having a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date is "astronomical" (Tite), "one in a thousand trillion" (Gove), and "totally impossible" (Hall-his emphasis). ■ But since the Shroud is authentic, and therefore 1st century or earlier, the improbability that it has a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date must be "astronomical," "one in a thousand trillion" and indeed "totally impossible"! ■ The only viable explanation that fits all the facts is that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating of the 1st century Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" is that it was the result of a computer hacking! Remember:
"... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, in April I blogged two posts about my hacker theory: "`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'" and "Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #6."

My book: In April I began writing a book, The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! Unlike my previous attempt to write a book about the Shroud [06Aug07], I won't progressively post it here on my blog in parallel. At this early stage I intend to make the first edition of the book available as a free PDF, and then later self-publish an expanded second edition at a minimal price. My aim is for the book to have the widest possible distribution. I was not going to mention my book here again until it is finished (or abandoned - Lk 14:28-30!), but on second thoughts it would help its eventual distribution if I gave brief progress reports here in my Editorials.

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 April, Google Analytics [below enlarge] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 735,259. This compares with 524,526 (up 210,733 or 40.2%) in my April 2016 Editorial. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified.," Dec 2, 2013 - 224; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Ninth century" Mar 25, 2017 - 167; "Superficial #18: The man on the Shroud ... ," Nov 11, 2016 - 138; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 135 and "`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'," Apr 19, 2017 - 106. Again it is fascinating to see two of my 2013 posts being among the most viewed!


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]

Posted: 9 May 2017. Updated: 9 May 2017.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

X-rays #22: 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
X-RAYS #22
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #22, "The man on the Shroud: X-rays," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "The man on the Shroud #8." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: No decomposition #21] [Next: Real human blood #23]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. X-rays #22

Introduction The frontal image of the man on the Shroud includes under-the-skin x-ray images of his skull[2], cheekbones[3], teeth[4], finger bones[5], hand bones[6] and the dorsal image his spine[7]. See also 10Dec15.

[Above (enlarge)[8]: A Polarized Image Overlay[9] photograph showing the Shroud face (left) compared to an x-ray image of a human skull (right). As can be seen, the Shroud image contains teeth and skull bone structures that are beneath the man's skin, which are only seen in x-ray radiographs or other modern imaging techniques.]

The Shroud man's finger and hand bones are x-ray images Sceptics had claimed that the Shroud was a medieval forgery because the man's "hands and fingers [were] unnaturally long and spidery"[10]. However in 1984, Giles F. Carter (1930-2010), a Professor of

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a positive photograph of the Shroud showing the finger (phalanges) and the hand (metacarpals) bones beneath the skin[11] - see below.]

Chemistry at Eastern Michigan University, who for 15 years had specialised in x-ray fluorescence analysis[12], proposed that parts of the Shroud man's image were the result of:

"... x-rays emanating from the bones of the man in the Shroud ... absorbed by elements (e.g., sodium, silicon, phosphorus, potassium, calcium) at the surface of the body, which would then fluoresce and emit secondary x-rays of relatively long wavelength"[13].
Carter noted that the fingers in the Shroud image "are extremely long for a man of 1.73-1.78 m (5'8" - 5'10") height" and "the probability is very small that a man of this height would have such long fingers"[14]. After considering other explanations of the Shroud man's too-long fingers, Carter proposed that, "the finger images may be due at least in part to x-rays emanating from the bones in the body":
"...the finger images may be due at least in part to x-rays emanating from the bones in the body. Finger bones continue throughout much of the hand, and they could cause the fingers to look too long. In normal bodies, the ratio of the distance from the middle fingertip to the base of the finger divided by the distance from the middle fingertip to the wrist (wound area) is about 0.5. This compares with a ratio of about 0.6 for the image on the Shroud, meaning that the fingers are unusually long and the rest of the hand is grotesquely small. The probability for this to have occurred must be small"[15].
In 1992, Dr Alan Whanger, using his Polarized Image Overlay technique, was studying both positive and negative photographs of the Shroud man's hands when he realised that he was "clearly seeing the bones in the fingers and the palm of the hand (the phalanges and the metacarpals)" - see above:
"It was immediately apparent to me that I was clearly seeing the bones in the fingers and the palm of the hand (the phalanges and the metacarpals). I have had considerable clinical experience in reading x-rays, but I took a photograph of this to a professor of skeletal radiology who agreed that indeed the bones are visible. I got x-rays of my own hands in the same position as those on the Shroud, and it became readily apparent that we were seeing the knuckles and the base of the thumb on the Shroud image"[16].
Whanger's identification of "the metacarpal bones and the three phalange bones of each finger" was confirmed correct by "Michael Blunt, Challis Professor of Anatomy at the University of Sydney"[17].

The man's left thumb bones are visible under his left hand The man's curved and inverted left thumb bones are visible under his left palm[18]. His right thumb bones may also be visible flexed under

[Above (enlarge)[19]: Enrie 1931 negative photograph showing the man's left curved thumb bones (pointed to by the red arrow) visible through the flesh of his left hand.]

the palm of his right hand[20].

The Shroud man's teeth are visible through his closed mouth Carter tentatively identified "in the mouth area ... eight or more objects, two rows of four or six" as "teeth images":

"A second curious part of the Shroud image is the mouth area. Close inspection ... shows the presence of what appear to be eight or more objects, two rows of four or six ... Perhaps these could be teeth images ... Because the lips probably covered the teeth of the body of the Shroud, any images of teeth may indicate that x-rays have been involved in the formation of the Shroud image ..."[21].
[Above (enlarge)[22]: Extract from Shroud Scope of a close-up positive photograph of the Shroud man's mouth area. As can be seen, under the skin of the man's upper and lower lips are at least 4 pairs of upper and lower teeth with a bite line between them.]

Using his Polarized Image Overlay technique, Whanger was able to identify "teeth with their roots" and other beneath-the-skin skull bone features (see above), the "teeth images" in particular being "evidence of X-radiation from the depth of the body"[23]. Whanger also pointed out these beneath-the-skin x-ray images of the Shroud man's teeth explains why the artist who painted the sixth-century Christ Pantocrator icon at St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, depicted Jesus' lips as chapped[24].

[Above (enlarge)[25]: Close-up of the lips of Jesus depicted in the sixth-century Christ Pantocrator icon at St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai. As can be seen the artist depicted Jesus' lips as chapped, which is inexplicable unless the artist saw the x-ray images of Jesus' teeth on the Image of Edessa/Shroud and interpreted them as chapped lips.]

Which is further evidence that the Shroud existed in the sixth century [see "c.550"], as the Image of Edessa, doubled-in-four (tetradiplon) - seven centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!

Parts of the Shroud man's skull bones are visible Parts of the man's skull bones that are visible under his skin include those of his

[Above (enlarge)[26]: Enrie 1931 negative photograph of the man in the Shroud's head showing parts of his skull are visible under the skin, including his forehead, eye socket (supraorbital ridge or brow ridge), cheekbones and teeth.]

forehead[27], eye sockets[28] and cheekbones[29].

Part of the man's spinal column is visible in the dorsal imageCarter noted that, "Part of the backbone may be visible on the dorsal image ..."[30]. This was subsequently confirmed by

[Right (enlarge)[31]: Positive photograph of the Shroud's dorsal image, rotated with head uppermost, showing the spinal column (red arrow), vertebrae (yellow arrow) and termination at the pelvis (blue arrow).]

other investigators[32], including two chiropractic physicians who "were able to specifically identify numerous vertebrae in the neck and backbone"[33].

The man's left femur is visible As can be seen below, the Shroudman's left femur (thigh bone) is also visible[34].

[Below (enlarge)[35]: Enrie negative photograph showing the man's left femur bone is visible (red arrow) compared to that of the right leg, but the lower bones on both legs are also visible.]

Nuclear medicine experiments A Californian urogynecologist Dr August Accetta, founder of the Shroud Center of Southern California, injected himself with a solution of methylene diphosphate which contained radioactive technetium-99m, a radioisotope with a short half life[36]. The technetium-99 is absorbed by the body's bones and tissues and then emits gamma radiation which can be photographed[37]. However, only about 50% of the technetium-99 binds to bone, with the rest binding to protein and red blood cells, which adversely affects the quality of the bone scan[38]. Accetta, et al., do not claim that their human radiation experiment "reproduced any of the exact characteristics of the Shroud image", but they do claim that it "generated a number of characteristics which parallel the image on the

[Above (enlarge): "A nuclear radiation image produced by Dr August Accetta [left]... after injecting himself with a weak radioactive substance. The `V' shape in the genital area is a protective shield. The image has convincing VP-8 three-dimensionality, thereby replicating the Shroud [centre]. And particularly striking is the image of the hands [right top and bottom] ... compared to those on the Shroud, seen between them. Unlike in the case of the Shroud, the process showed up Dr Accetta's internal organs. Conceivably, therefore, the Shroud process was similar, though a mainly surface phenomenon only"[39].]

Turin Shroud"[40] and "those characteristics which are similar can potentially help to explain better those seen on the Shroud as well as point to the probable general origin of its image"[41]. Wilson listed those similarities between Accetta, et al.'s results and the Shroud:

"First, it was conclusively demonstrated that a full-body radiation image could be produced by this means, without the application of any paints or dyes, which replicated all the Shroud image's monochromatic characteristics. Second, the image had the same collimated, or straight-up, straight-down character as that of the Shroud's imprint, though in fairness it should be said that a collimator in the set-up ensured this, since otherwise the radiation would have spilled out at all sides. Third, apart from its being slightly more distinct against its background, the image had the same lack of outline as that on the Shroud. Fourth, the image shared the Shroud's otherwise seemingly unique lack of any light focus. Fifth, the Shroud's X-ray properties were strikingly replicated, spectacularly in the case of the hands, in which the metacarpal bones and phalange or finger bones could clearly be distinguished with a most compelling similarity to these same bones on the Shroud. Sixth, when viewed via the VP-8 Image Analyzer, Accetta's body exhibited the same three-dimensional properties as that on the Shroud imprint, the limbs being particularly similar"[42].

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #19, #20 and #21). So, far from the Shroud man's "unnaturally long and spidery" hands and fingers being evidence that the Shroud was a medieval forgery (see above), they along with the other parts of the man's image where his underlying bones are visible, are yet another problem (to put it mildly) for the forgery theory! That is because x-rays were first generated and detected by Fernando Sanford (1854–1948) in 1891[43] and first studied and named by Wilhelm Röntgen (1845–1923) in 1895[44]. Therefore a medieval or earlier forger would not have known about x-ray images, let alone depicted them![45].

Resurrection! After considering naturalistic alternatives (which don't fit the evidence and are so fantastic that it is highly unlikely that any Shroud sceptic would endorse them), Carter proposed that the Shroud is that of Jesus Christ, and the energy released by His resurrection "was partly in the form of x-rays, which then reacted with the linen":

"Another explanation, which should not be automatically rejected by scientists, is that perhaps the Shroud of Turin is in reality the Shroud of Jesus Christ, and perhaps some unknown process resulted in the resurrection, and the energy released by this process was partly in the form of x-rays, which then reacted with the linen Shroud as described above"[46]
Of course scientists should not "automatically reject..." any theory that fits the evidence, but modern science is dominated by the unproven and unprovable philosophy of Naturalism, which holds that `nature is all there is - there is no supernatural'[47]. Even pro-authenticist scientists (who are not necessarily Christians - the late Alan D. Adler (1931-2000) was evidently not, being Jewish), can be unwittingly captive to Naturalism (Col 2:8), so they balk at the resurrection of Jesus as an explanation of the image of the man on the Shroud. For example, Adler dismissed Carter's x-ray theory as:
"... fine chemically, fine physically, yet bizarre biologically ... the man would have been so radioactive that he glowed in the dark. Not to mention he would have been dead long ago from the radioactivity"[48]
But the fallacies in Adler's rejection of Carter's resurrection explanation are: 1) Jesus was already dead - that's what "resurrection" means; 2) x-rays are electromagnetic, not nuclear, radiation, so there would have been minimal radioactivity (Accetta did not die); and 3) from a naturalistic perspective, the resurrection of Jesus, in which His body was transformed into a "glorious body" (Php 3:21; 1Cor 15:51-53), is "bizarre biologically"!

Given that: 1) "the odds [are conservatively] ... 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ" [11Nov16]; 2) Jesus' apostles and over 500 of His disciples saw and heard the Jesus they knew resurrected after His death (1Cor 15:3-8; Mt 28:16-20, etc); and 3) as we saw in this series it is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus in that the image of the man on the Shroud: has "No style" #16; is "Non-directional" #17; is a "Negative" #19; is "Three-dimensional" #20; and in this part #22 it contains X-ray images; and as we shall see in "Blood clots intact" #24 and "No image under blood" #25. So the evidence is overwhelming that the image of the man on the Shroud is, as Wilson put it, "a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection" of Jesus:

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... its image ... becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection"[49]!

To be continued in #23 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.425-446, 433; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.117; 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.29; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.213-214; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.38; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.241. [return]
3. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29. [return]
4. Carter, 1982, p.433; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117; 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; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.37-38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
5. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.151; Antonacci, 2000, p.213. [return]
6. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
7. Carter, 1982, p.433; Antonacci, 2000, p.214. [return]
8. Prather, J., 2015, "Autoradiography - Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin," August 29; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117. [return]
9. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.116-117. [return]
10. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review, 23, pp.243-55; Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the Public, and the Shroud of Turin, The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. VI, No. 3, Spring, pp.44-45, 45; Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.70; Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2. [return]
11. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
12. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.131. [return]
13. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, p.42; Carter, 1982, pp.425, 433; Ruffin, 1999, p.151. [return]
14. Carter, 1982, p.430. [return]
15. Carter, 1982, p.430; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.36. [return]
16. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.184-189, 187; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
17. Wilson, 1998, p.29. [return]
18. Whanger, 1998, p.187; Accetta, et al., 1999, p.3; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
19. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
20. Accetta, et al., 1999, p.3; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
21. Carter, 1982, p.433. [return]
22. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
23. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.116-117; Accetta, et al., 1999, p.3. [return]
24. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117. [return]
25. "Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)," Wikipedia, 6 February 2017. [return]
26. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
27. Antonacci, 2000, p.213. [return]
28. Borkan, 1995, p.42; Accetta, et al., 1999, p.3; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
29. Carter, 1982, p.432; Borkan, 1995, p.42; Accetta, et al., 1999, p.3; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.37-38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
30. Carter, 1982, p.433; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.131; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Oxley, 2010, p.242. [return]
31. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
32. Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Oxley, 2010, p.242. [return]
33. Antonacci, 2000, p.214. [return]
34. Accetta, et al., 1999, p.3; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
35. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Horizontal (rotated left 90 degrees)," Sindonology.org. [return]
36. Accetta, et al., 1999, p.3; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.130; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.181; Martindale, S., 2007, "H.B. doctor submits Shroud of Turin to scientific method," Orange County Register, October 19; "The Shroud of Turin proves the Resurrection," Free Christian Teaching TV, n.d., Accessed May 6, 2017. [return]
37. Accetta, et al., 1999, pp.3-4. [return]
38. Accetta, et al., 1999, p.4. [return]
39. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.131. [return]
40. Accetta, et al., 1999, p.4. [return]
41. Accetta, et al., 1999, p.4. [return]
42. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.130. [return]
43. "X-ray: Discovery," Wikipedia, 1 May 2017. [return]
44. Ibid. [return]
45. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38. [return]
46. Carter, 1982, pp.445-446. [return]
47. "Naturalism (philosophy)," Wikipedia, 22 April 2017. [return]
48. Zurer, P., 1983, "Archaeological Chemistry," Chemical & Engineering News, 21 February, p.35, in Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.40-41. [return]
49. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251; 264-265; Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]

Posted: 20 April 2017. Updated: 26 May 2017.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

W. Pinson

This is my reply in this separate post to your comment under my post, "Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory ...#6." Your words are in bold and prefaced by `greater than' brackets ">" to distinguish them from mine. It is my emphasis unless otherwise indicated.

[Above (enlarge): Photomicrograph taken by pro-authenticist STURP photographer Barrie Schwortz in 2012, of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample[2]. As can be seen it is obviously not 60% or more contaminated with younger carbon (see below), which it would have had to have been to shift the 1st century Shroud 12-13 centuries into the future to have a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date.]

>A review of Radiocarbon Dating (Wikipedia article), there are considerations and error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material. Contamination with younger carbon which cannot be removed by pre-treatment:

"In 1532 the Shroud was being kept inside a silver casket stored in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, when a fire nearly destroyed the building. The intense heat melted a corner of the casket, scorching the folded linen within, and producing the now familiar scorch marks on the Shroud. Since silver melts only at 960 degrees centigrade, the heat inside the casket must have been intense. In these circumstances moisture in the Shroud would turn to steam, probably at superheat, trapped in the folds and layers of the Shroud. Any contaminants on the cloth would be dissolved by the steam and forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the flax fibres' very lumen and molecular structure. ... contaminants would have become part of the chemistry of the flax fibres themselves and would be impossible to remove satisfactorily by surface actants and ultrasonic cleaning. More drastic treatments to destroy the contaminants would inevitably damage the flax fibres themselves"[3].
would have explained why the 1st-century Shroud did not have a 1st-century, but an early century (e.g. 4th-5th century[4]) radiocarbon date, if the Shroud samples had been radiocarbon-dated in 1988. But they were not and instead the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking.

Contamination with younger carbon cannot plausibly explain why the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. Because that would require a level of contamination sufficient to shift the Shroud's radiocarbon date 12-13 centuries into the future.

And to do that would require the Shroud sample to have been 60% or more contamination! That also applies to the invisible repair/patch theories. See my "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail."

But that is obviously not the case with the Shroud, as such a huge level of contamination would be clearly visible, but isn't.

See the above photomicrograph, taken by pro-authenticist photographer Barrie Schwortz, of a piece of Arizona laboratory's original Shroud sample that was never dated (radiocarbon dating requires a sample to be destroyed by burning it down to its basic carbon). As can be seen, the Arizona sub-sample is not mostly contamination. Oxford estimated that their sample (which was cut from the same larger sample as Arizona's), was less than 0.1% contamination:

"... these and similar contamination arguments has been fiercely contested by Professor Edward Hall, the recently-retired director of the Oxford laboratory. He has argued:
`Calculations show that a modern contamination amounting to 65 per cent of the mass of the shroud would be necessary to give a date of 1350 to a fabric originally dating from the time of Christ ... We believe that any such contamination would have been less than 0.1 per cent'"[5].
>Since the Shroud of Turin had been in immediate contact with its backing and patches for 450 years prior to the dating in 1988, that should have been considered in the dating, but it doesn't seem to have been. The radiocarbon dating laboratories would have considered that (see the 1989 Nature paper for details of the laboratories' extensive pre-treatment of the Shroud samples to remove carbon contamination), but because the midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years, which was close to "the time its historic record began" i.e. c. 1355:
"Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began"[6]
they assumed that their pre-treatment cleaning must have removed all non-original carbon. They took the Shroud's 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date as confirmation that the dating must have been carried out "flawlessly":
"My main concern was that this highly public application of the AMS technique, which I had played a major role in inventing and developing, be successful. The new procedures seemed to me to be fraught with peril. If one of the three laboratories obtained an outlier result as one did in the British Museum interlaboratory comparisons it would be impossible statistically to identify it and the three measurements would all have to be included in the average thereby producing an incorrect result. The inclusion of the other laboratories would have obviated this potential risk. As it turned out my fears were not realized. The three laboratories performed their measurements flawlessly and the final result is a public triumph for AMS if not for the `true believers'. That the shroud's age is the historic one is the dullest result one could have wished for"[7].
>It is very possible, and very likely, that the Shroud is much, much older than the carbon dating, because of the affects of the much higher C14 content of the backing and patches. The evidence (apart from the radiocarbon dating) is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic and therefore first-century or earlier. However pro-authenticist arguments that rely on contamination, invisible repair patching, neutron flux, etc, all fail (see above) because they accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ± 65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud as correct and then try reconcile that with the Shroud’s 1st century date. But as the pro-authenticist physicist Frank Tipler pointed out, it would be a "miracle" (he believes it was!) for the 1st century Shroud to have precisely the right level of contamination to shift the Shroud’s radiocarbon date to 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years, a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355:
"This could be an explanation for the error made in 1988 on the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. What originally convinced me that the Shroud was a fake was the fact that the date obtained was precisely that expected if the Shroud were a medieval forgery. The Shroud first appeared in France in 1355, and the Arizona laboratory obtained a radiocarbon date of 1350. It seems incredible that later contamination came in exactly the right amount to give an exactly incorrect date. Unless the contamination was adjusted (by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, acting through the laws of physics) .... Unless, that is, the contamination were a miracle"[8].
But that would make God a deceiver! Few, if any, pro-authenticists would accept Tipler's deceiver-God reconciliation of the 1st century Shroud with its 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date. But that is implicit in all pro-authenticist explanations which accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud and then try to reconcile that to the Shroud's actual 1st century date, by contamination, invisible repairs, neutron flux, etc.

The laboratories have stated that the improbability of the Shroud being 1st century yet having a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date is "astronomical" (Tite)[9], "one in a thousand trillion" (Gove)[10], "totally impossible" (Hall-his emphasis)[11]. But since the Shroud is authentic, and therefore 1st century or earlier, the improbability that it has a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date must be "astronomical," "one in a thousand trillion" and indeed "totally impossible"!

The only viable explanation that fits all the facts is that the fully computerised AMS[12] radiocarbon dating of the 1st century Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[13] was the result of a computer hacking!

Remember:

"... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"[14]!

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]
2. Schwortz, B.M., 2012, "New Photographs of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21. [return]
3. Tyrer, J., in Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]
4. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.87. [return]
5. Hall, E.T., 1990, "Letter to Textile Horizons, January 1990, in Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.177. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
7. Gove, H.E., 1989, "Letter To The Editor: The Turin Shroud," Archaeometry, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.235-237, 237. [return]
8. Tipler, F.J., 2007, "The Physics of Christianity," Doubleday: New York NY, pp.216-217. [return]
9. 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.6-7. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.303. [return]
11. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
13. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
14. Doyle, A.C., 2001, "The Sign of Four," Penguin: London, pp.42-43. [return]

Posted: 19 April 2017. Updated: 11 May 2017.