Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Eighth century

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

This is part #8, "Eighth century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "First century" and index.

[Index #1] [Previous: 7th century #7] [Next: 9th century #9]

---

8th century (701-800)

[Above (enlarge): Bust of Christ Pantocrator from the catacomb of Pontianus, Rome[2]. Note in particular the Vignon marking on this 8th century fresco[3]: "(2) three-sided [topless] `square' between brows." See "710" below.]

c. 710 Estimated completion during the reign of Justinian II (668–711) of the eighth century Christ Pantocrator fresco[4] (see above), in the style of Byzantine iconography[5], found in the depths of the catacomb of Pontianus, Rome[6]. That the Shroud ("doubled in four" = tetradiplon as the Image of Edessa) was the original of which this early eighth century Byzantine icon was a copy, is evident in that it has at least eight[7], and by my count eleven Vignon markings [18Mar12 & 22Sep12, 27Apr14]:

"(1) Transverse streak across forehead[8], (2) three-sided [topless] `square' between brows[9], ... (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, ... (12) forked beard, (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair[10].

out of the fifteen found on the Shroud[11]! In the 1930s French biologist Paul Vignon (1865-1943) was struck by this "topless square" and other oddities which were unnatural and had no artistic merit[12], found in Byzantine depictions of Jesus' face, which are also found in identical positions on the Shroud[13]:

"Vignon thought. If the Shroud was the progenitor of the traditional Christ, then something of the parent must have carried over into the offspring! Eventually, after a long and minute comparison of the face on the cloth with hundreds of paintings, frescoes and mosaics, he found the answer. Certain peculiarities were evident in the Shroud- peculiarities that were really accidental imperfections in the image or the fabric itself, and that served no artistic purpose. Yet, he observed jubilantly, these very oddities appeared again and again in a whole series of ancient art works, even though artistically they made no sense. Surely, this could mean only one thing: ancient artists had taken their conception of a bearded, long-haired man from the image on the Shroud, and had included the anomalies because of a feeling that they were in some mysterious way connected with the earthly appearance of Jesus. There were about twenty of these items in all [later refined by Wilson to 15[14].]; some very pronounced, some just strongly characteristic of the face on the cloth. Most arresting were such things as a small square set above the nose and open at the top, the result either of a defect in the weave or a unique, accidental stain. There was the distorted appearance of the nose, swollen at the bridge with the right nostril enlarged; the abnormal shading of the right cheek; a curved transverse stain that ran senselessly across the forehead."[15]

So these "peculiarities" became known as the "Vignon markings"[16]. But as can be seen below, this "topless square" is merely a flaw or change in the weave of the Shroud[17], which runs all the way down the

[Above (enlarge): Extract from ShroudScope "Face only Vertical" Shroud photograph showing outlined in red the `three sided' or `topless square' Vignon Marking no. 2, superimposed on the above 8th century bust of Christ in the catacomb of Pontianus, Rome: ShroudScope and Wikipedia.]

cloth (see 22Sep12), which explains its "starkly geometrical" shape[18]. Other Byzantine portraits of Christ which have the same `topless square' marking include the eleventh-century Daphni Pantocrator, the tenth-century Sant'Angelo in Formis fresco, the tenth-century Hagia Sophia narthex mosaic, and an eleventh-century portable mosaic in Berlin[19]. And since this catacomb was closed in 820 and only opened after 1854, a 14th century forger could not have known of the Vignon markings on this Pontianus fresco[20]. So as Wilson points out, just as "a single footprint on fresh sand provided for Robinson Crusoe the conclusive evidence that there was another human being ... on his island":

"Just as the viewing of a single footprint on fresh sand provided for Robinson Crusoe the conclusive evidence that there was another human being (later revealed as Man Friday) on his island, so the presence of this topless square on an indisputably seventh/eighth-century fresco virtually demands that the shroud must have been around, somewhere, in some form at this early date"[21].

so is "this topless square on an ... eighth-century fresco" (and many other Byzantine portraits of Christ) conclusive evidence that the Shroud existed in at least the eighth century! That is, six centuries before the earliest 1260 date given to it by radiocarbon dating[22]. Moreover this `footprint in the sand' is not "single" - there are fourteen other different `footprints in the sand' which prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud existed in at least the eighth century[23]!

711 Musa ibn Nusayr (640–716), the Muslim governor of North Africa, invaded Spain in 711[24] and in 718 took Toledo[25]. But in 711 the Sudarium of Oviedo [see "616"] had already been taken from Toledo[26] in its then chest to the northern Spanish kingdom of Asturias where it was kept in a cave on a mountain called Monsacro, ten kilometres (6 miles) from what was to become the city of Oviedo[27]. In 722 a small Christian resistance force under the leadership of Pelagius of Asturias (c.685–737), a Visigoth nobleman, defeated a much larger Muslim army at the Battle of Covadonga and then established the independent Christian kingdom of Asturias[27a].

723 As previously mentioned [see "550"] from 723 to 842 [see "842"]

[Right (enlarge) "A simple cross: example of eighth century iconoclast art in the Hagia Irene Church in Istanbul [Constantinople]."[28] See ["723"] below.]

was a period of iconoclasm (Gk. eikon = "image" + klastes = "breaker"[29]). In 723 the Muslim Caliph Yazid II (r. 720–724) issued an edict in Damascus ordering the destruction of all Christian icons in his Caliphate[30]. An outbreak of image-smashing ensued[31]. "For the next 120 years both the Byzantine and the Moslem empires suffer outbreaks of 'iconoclasm' in which countless icons and artistically created images of Jesus are destroyed"[32]. In 726 the Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian (r. 717–741), under pressure from Islam[33] decreed that all icons were to be destroyed as idolatrous[34]. As a result countless thousands of images of Christ were destroyed[35], which explains the paucity of visual documentation of the Image of Edessa/Shroud before the tenth century[36]. But the Cloth of Edessa (the Shroud "doubled in four" = tetradiplon), because its imprint was obviously not artistically created, survived[37]. Also the Cloth was no doubt kept hidden in faraway Muslim-controlled Edessa[38], where paradoxically it was safer than it would have been in Christian Constantinople[39]! Indeed the Edessa Image was the main argument used against the iconoclasts[40] [see ""730" below]. However, most copies of the Image of Edessa/Shroud were destroyed[41].

730 St. John of Damascus (c.675–749), aka John Damascene, in his De

[Left (enlarge): A "himation was with the ancient Greeks ... a loose robe ... worn over [clothes] ... alike for both sexes"[41a].]

Imaginibus (On Images), writing in defence of images at the outset of the Iconoclastic Controversy[42], mentioned "sindons" ("shrouds") among the relics of the Passion to be venerated on account of their connection with Jesus[43]. That John was referring to the Edessa Cloth/Shroud is evident in that he cited the Abgar V legend [see "50"] in support of its significance as an image[44]. John also referred to the Edessa image as a "himation" (see above), a Greek outer garment [imation Mt 5:40; 9:20-21; 14:36; Mk 5:27-30; Jn 19:2; Ac 12:8][45] about two yards (183 cms) wide by three yards (274 cms) long[46], which means that the full size of the Cloth was then known[47]. Finally John referred to the Edessa Image as "the miraculously imprinted image" that it "has been preserved up to the present time"[48].

731 The Venerable Bede (c.673–735) was told that in the Liber Pontificalis (Book of the Popes), Pope Eleutherus (r. 174-189)[49] had received a letter from Lucio Britannio rege, probably between 183 and 189[50], asking for Christian missionaries to be sent that he might become a Christian[51] and to help convert those within his lands to Christianity[52]. Bede wrongly interpreted this to have been a previously unknown British King Lucius[53], and wrote in his c. 731 Ecclesiastical History of the English People that Lucius was a British king and that Christianity had commenced in Britain in the second century[54]. But as the German church historian Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) wrote in 1904, the only King Lucius who converted to Christianity in the second century was Lucius Abgar VIII of Edessa[55] [see "183"], full name Lucius Aelius Septimius Megas Abgarus VIII[56], who took the forenames Lucius Aelius to honour his Roman overlord, the Emperor Lucius Aelius Commodus (r. 180-192)[57], and who lived in the time of Pope Eleutherus[58]. [see "202"]. And "Britannio" was short for "Britium Edessenorum," which in turn was the Latin rendering of the Syriac "Birtha of the Edessenes" which was the name of Agbar VIII's Edessa Citadel[59] [see "205"]. But since every subsequent British historian and clergyman read Bede[60], his non-existent King Lucius of Britain became an important `reality' as the king who brought Christianity to Britain in the second century[61]! It was due to Bede's misunderstanding[62] that the French creators of the Holy Grail legends located their stories not in France but in England[63], and the legend arose that Joseph of Arimathea had visited England and in Glastonbury from his staff miraculously a tree grew[64]!

754 A copy of the Image of Edessa/Shroud called the Acheropita, a

[Right (enlarge)[65]: "The Acheropita 'holy face' that for at least twelve hundred years has been preserved in Rome's Sancta Sanctorum chapel, originally the popes' private chapel before papal residence shifted to the Vatican. The icon's cover is thirteenth-century, and its 'face' a crude over-painting, but beneath lies an intriguing though near totally-effaced original that dates at least as far back as AD 754"[66]. Note that the head is centred in landscape aspect, exactly as it is on the Shroud[67].]

Latinization of acheiropoietos[68]("not made with hands" - Mk 14:58; 2Cor 5:1; Col 2:11) was in the Sancta Sanctorum Chapel of the Vatican's Lateran Palace by at least 754[69]. That is because when Rome was threatened by the Lombards after their capture of Ravenna in 751, Pope Stephen II (r. 752-757) in 754 personally carried this Acheropita barefoot at the head of a huge procession in Rome, praying for this icon to be instrumental in the deliverance of their city[70]. Yet it is probably much earlier than that, being reliably regarded as having been brought to Rome in the last years of the sixth century by Pope Gregory I the Great (r. 590-604)[71]. Before he became Pope, Gregory had been the papal legate in Constantinople at the court of the Byzantine Emperor Tiberius II (r. 574-582), when interest in acheiropoietic images, after the discovery of the Image of Edessa in 544[72][see "544"], was at its peak in Constantinople[73]. Tiberius II's throne had a majestic image of Christ, since destroyed, derived from the Image of Edessa, which had been set there by his predecessor, Justin II (r. 565-574)[74]. It is therefore very likely that this Acheropita icon now in the Sancta Sanctorum Chapel in Gregory's Lateran Palace in Rome, was specially commissioned by Gregory before 590 for him to take back to Rome[75]!

761 The Arca Santa (Holy Chest) containing the Sudarium of Oviedo

[Left (enlarge)[75a]: The Holy Chest (or Arca Santa).]

and other relics is placed in the primitive Monastery of San Vicente, near where the city of Oviedo was later founded[75b].

769 In his Good Friday sermon delivered in Rome at the Lateran Council of 769[76], Pope Stephen III (r. 768–772), opposing the iconoclast movement[77], spoke in favor of the use of sacred images[78]. In that sermon, Stephen referred to the Abgar V legend [see again "50"] mentioning the Edessa towel with its miraculous facial image[79]. Stephen quoted Jesus' supposed response to Abgar's request for a cure:

"Since you wish to look upon my physical face, I am sending you a likeness of my face on a cloth ..."[80]

And as we shall see in a twelfth century updated version of Stephen's 769 sermon [see "pre-1130"[81]], a copyist had interpolated a reference to Jesus' "whole body" being visible on the Edessa cloth, reflecting the later discovery in Constantinople that Jesus' body was imprinted on the Edessa Cloth/Shroud, not just His face[82].

787 The iconoclasm of Leo III was continued by his son Constantine V Coproymos (741–775)[83], and grandson Leo IV the Khazar (r. 775–780)[84]. It was only after the death of Leo IV that the first period of iconoclasm was brought to an end in 787 by the Second Council of Nicaea[85], the last of the first seven ecumenical councils of the whole Christian church, both East and West[86]. The Council debated the veneration of holy images[87] and in particular about the Image of Edessa not having been produced by the hand of man[88]. Leo, Lector (Reader) of Constantinople's Hagia Sophia Cathedral, reported to the Council that he had visited Edessa and seen there "the holy image made without hands and adored by the faithful"[89]. The Council endorsed the veneration of images[90], and in particular the Image of Edessa, the "one `not made by human hands' [acheiropoieton] that was sent to Abgar"[91]. It was the main argument used by the bishops to defend the legitimacy of the use of sacred images[92] and to which the iconoclast bishops had no reply[93].

Continued in the next part #9 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page[return].
2. "Catacomba di Ponziano," Google Translate, Wikipedia, 25 January 2016. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.105; 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, 189, 191; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.153. [return]
4. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.110. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised, p.102; "Catacomba di Ponziano," Wikipedia, 25 January 2016. [return]
6. Wilson, 1986, pp.105-106; Scavone, 1991, p.189. [return]
7. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.77. [return]
8. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.193. [return]
9. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.85; Wilson, 1986, p.107; Scavone, 1991, p.189; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.193; Wilson, & Schwortz, 2000, p.110. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82E. return]
11. Wilson, 1979, pp.104-105; Maher, 1986, p.77; Iannone, 1998, p.152; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.110. [return]
12. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.124; 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.252; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.142. [return]
13. Wilson, 1986, p.105, 107. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, pp.104-105; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.114-115; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.15-16; Tribbe, 2006, pp.249-250 [return]
15. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.156-157. Emphasis original. [return]
16. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.58. [return]
17. Scavone, 1991, p.185; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.166. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, p.103; Wilson, 1986, p.105; 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.159; Wilson, 2010, p.142. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
20. Wilson, 1998, p.159; Wilson, 1991, pp.167, 169. [return]
21. Wilson, 1991, p.168; Wilson, 2010, p.142. [return]
22. Wilson, 2010, p.142. [return]
23. Wilson, 1991, p.169; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.110. [return]
24. Guscin, M., 1999, "Recent Historical Investigations on the Sudarium of Oviedo," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.122-141, 127; Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pp.31, 195. [return]
25. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.15; Bennett, 2001, p.32. [return]
26. Bennett, 2001, p.29, 31, 195. [return]
27. Guscin, 1998, p.15; Bennett, 2001, p.32; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.43. [return]
27a. Bennett, 2001, p.194; Guscin, 1999, p.127. [return]
28. "Byzantine Iconoclasm," Wikipedia, 20 February 2017. [return]
29. "iconoclast," Vocabulary.com, nd. [return]
30. Stephenson, P., 2012, "Iconoclasm, I"; "Yazid II," Wikipedia, 2 February 2017. [return]
31. Wilson, 1979, p.254. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.267; Antonacci, 2000, p.129; Wilson, 2010, p.300. [return]
33. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.28-29. [return]
34. Scavone, 1991, p.184; Guerrera, 2001, p.4. [return]
35. Wilson, 1979, p.254; Scavone, 1991, p.184. [return]
36. Scavone, 1991, p.184. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, p.254; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.19; Wilson, 1998, p.267; Oxley, 2010, p.26. [return]
38. Oxley, 2010, p.26. [return]
39. Oxley, 2010, p.30. [return]
40. Antonacci, 2000, p.129. [return]
41. Wilson, 1979, p.36; Wilson, 1991, pp.102,135; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.193. [return]
41a. "Himation," Wikipedia (Danish), 30 November 2014. [return]
42. Oxley, 2010, pp.26, 30. [return]
43. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.146; Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.52; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.17; Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.16. [return]
44. Oxley, 2010, p.26. [return]
45. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, pp.773-774. [return]
46. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.39; Iannone, 1998, p.110; Wilson, 1998, pp.152, 266; Antonacci, 2000, p.132; Oxley, 2010, p.27; Wilson, 2010, p.153; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.186. [return]
47. Oxley, 2010, pp.27, 36. [return]
48. Drews, 1984, p.62. [return]
49. Markwardt, J.J., 2009, "Ancient Edessa and the Shroud: History Concealed by the Discipline of the Secret," in Fanti, G., ed., "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, pp.382-407, 385. [return]
50. Markwardt, 2009, p.386. [return]
51. Wilson, 1998, p.171; Scavone, D.C., 2002, "Joseph of Arimathea, The Holy Grail & the Edessa Icon," BSTS Newsletter, No. 56, December; Markwardt, 2009, p.385. [return]
52. Wilson, I., 1996, "Joseph of Arimathea, the Holy Grail and the Edessa Icon," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 44, November/December; Scavone, 2002; Markwardt, 2009, p, 385; Scavone, D.C., 2010, "Edessan sources for the legend of the Holy Grail," Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Frascati, Italy, 4-6 May 2010, pp.1-6, 3. [return]
53. Wilson, 1996; Scavone, 2010, p.3. [return]
54. Wilson, 1998, pp.171, 267; Scavone, 2010, p.3. [return]
55. Wilson, 1998, pp.171-172; Markwardt, 2009, p, 385; Scavone, 2010, p.3. [return]
56. Crispino, D.C., 1991, "A Unique Manuscript on the Image of Edessa," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 40, December, pp.20-36, 26; Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, p.264; Markwardt, 2009, p, 385. [return]
57. Wilson, 1996. [return]
58. Scavone, 2010, p.3. [return]
59. Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, pp.171-172; Markwardt, 2009, p, 385; Scavone, 2010, p.4. [return]
60. Scavone, 2002; Scavone, 2010, p.4. [return]
61. Wilson, 1996; Scavone, 2010, p.3. [return]
62. Wilson, 1998, p.172. [return]
63. Scavone, 2010, p.4. [return]
64. Wilson, 1996; Scavone, 2002; Scavone, 2010, p.4. [return]
65. Wilson, 1991, p.46C. [return]
66. Wilson, 1991, p.46C. [return]
67. Wilson, 1979, p.120; Wilson, 1991, p.141; Wilson, 1998, p.152; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.111; Wilson, 2010, p.140. [return]
68. Wilson, 1991, p.143. [return]
69. Wilson, 1991, p.162. [return]
70. Wilson, 1979, p.144. [return]
71. Wilson, 1991, p.143. [return]
72. Wilson, 1991, p.140. [return]
73. Wilson, 1991, p.143. [return]
74. Wilson, 1991, p.143. [return]
75. Wilson, 1991, p.144. [return]
75a. Rojo, M., 2021, "Una crónica oculta detalla la llegada del Arca Santa a Oviedo y el nacimiento del Camino de Santiago [A hidden chronicle details the arrival of the Holy Ark to Oviedo and the birth of the Way of Saintt James]," El Comercio, 1 August. [return]
75b. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
76. Iannone, 1998, p.110; Scavone, 2002; Oxley, 2010, p.27. [return]
77. Scavone, D., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989a, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, p.311-329, p.318. [return]
78. Guerrera, 2001, p.4; Scavone, 2002. [return]
79. Scavone, D.C., 1989b, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.88; Savone, 2002. [return]
80. Scavone, 1989a, p.318. [return]
81. Wilson, 1998, p.270. [return]
82. Wilcox, 1977, p.94; Scavone, 1989b, p.88. [return]
83. Crispino, D.C., 1982, "The `Crucifixion' of Santa Maria Antiqua," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 5, December, pp.22-29, 27. [return]
84. Oxley, 2010, p.30. [return]
85. Oxley, 2010, p.30. [return]
86. "Second Council of Nicaea," Wikipedia, 23 February 2017. [return]
87. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.54. [return]
88. Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.54. [return]
89. Wilson, 1998, p.267; Oxley, 2010, pp.27,30; Wilson, 2010, p.154. [return]
90. Guerrera, 2001, p.4. [return]
91. Iannone, 1998, p.111; Guerrera, 2001, p.4; Oxley, 2010, p.30. [return]
92. Guerrera, 2001, p.4. [return]
93. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, No. 3, Autumn, pp.319-345. [return]

Posted 24 February 2017. Updated 4 April 2024.

Fraud a real possibility: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #2

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #2, "Fraud a real possibility," of my "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory" series. In this series I will set out in chronological order the key steps in the development of my theory that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[2] was the result of a computer hacking. For more information about this series see part #1, "Hacking an explanation & Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: Hacking an explanation & Index #1] [Next: My first use of the term "hacker" #3]

Fraud a real possibility On 9 January 2014, six and a half years

[Right (enlarge)[3]: The agnostic but pro- authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow's 2012 book on the Shroud, which pointed out that fraud was a real possibility in the 1260-1390 = 1325 ± 65 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud because, "Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve." (see below). ]

after it first occurred to me in June 2007 that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating of the Shroud could have been the result of a computer hacking, I began what was to be a 7-part series entitled, "The case for fraud in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." Part 6 was to be, "Possible fraud scenarios in the dating of the Shroud," under which I would have included hacking of the AMS computers radiocarbon dating the Shroud at the three laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford.

As my post of 9 January 2014 states, "I had for a long time been thinking of posting on this topic [the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating was the result of fraud, and in particular computer hacking fraud], and was prompted to do so by reading recently what the agnostic Shroud pro-authenticist, art historian Thomas de Wesselow, wrote":

"The third possibility [why `the 1988 result ... conflicts with all the evidence that points to the Shroud having been in existence long before 1260'] is that a fraud was perpetrated ... Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible ... However, scientific fraud is by no means unknown, as the editors of science journals are well aware ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years'[4] is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve"[5].

Between "plainly incredible" and "However, scientific fraud" in the above quote was, "Some, like Ian Wilson, refuse to contemplate such `unworthy' accusations." It was the influential Wilson's blanket refusal to consider fraud as an explanation of how the 1st century Shroud had a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date:

"For during both the preliminaries to and the immediate aftermath of the Shroud radiocarbon dating I struck up a moderate acquaintance with the British Museum's Dr Tite, the Oxford laboratory's Professor Hall and the Arizona laboratory's Professor Damon, from which experience I can say with some confidence that any scenario suggesting that one or more of these men may have `rigged' the radiocarbon dating ... may be judged as absurd and far-fetched as it is unworthy."[6]

(when it had to have been fraud of some kind) because those proposing fraud in the radiocarbon dating, including de Wesselow above, could only think of sample-switching, which is "incredible" [see 23Jul15], that made it hard for me to propose fraud by computer hacking. But it was my reading in early January 2014 the above serious consideration of fraud in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud by de Wesselow, because of the `too good to be true' "1325 ± 65 years" radiocarbon date, that encouraged me to start a series presenting "The case for fraud in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," at the end of which I would propose fraud by computer hacking.

But as the note above my 9 January 2014 post says, I had (in late January 2014): "realised that this topic is going to require a lot of research, which will distract me" from other topics I wanted to post on, so I "put... it on the backburner."

Then in late March 2014, I added a later note: "PS: Further to the above, see my series, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?": part 1 [18Feb14], part 2 [20Feb14], part 3 [22Feb14], "Summary" [07Mar14] and "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey." [13Mar14]. So by mid-March 2014 my hacker theory was well underway!

Continued in part #3 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of it (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., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
3. "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Thomas de Wesselow, AbeBooks.com, nd. [return]
4. 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; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin,", pp.1,141,178,246-247. [return]
5. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.168, 170. [return]
6. Wilson, 1998, p.11. [return]

Posted 21 February 2017. Updated 7 November 2023.

Three-dimensional #20: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

THREE-DIMENSIONAL #20

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #20, "The man on the Shroud: Three-dimensional," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "The man on the Shroud #8." As previously stated, the order of topics in this "The man on the Shroud," section is from what a person looking at the Shroud would notice first, e.g. the man is naked, through to what is less obvious, e.g. his image is a photographic negative. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. See also #32 "Coins over the eyes."

[Main index #1] [Previous: Negative #19] [Next: No decomposition #21]

---

2. The man on the Shroud #8
12. Three-dimensional #20

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud is three-dimensional[2].

[Above (enlarge):

"The Shroud image's three-dimensional characteristics, as revealed by the VP-8 Image Analyzer in February 1976. Here the face and body appear in sculpted relief, framed by the two lines of scorches from the chapel fire of 1532"[3].

Note that the scorches from the 1532 fire also appear three-dimensional but that is because the VP-8 automatically converts lighter shades as vertically higher, irrespective of whether they are in reality. So that (for example) the white squares on a chessboard falsely appear higher (see below). As can be seen on Enrie's 1931 negative, a copy of which was processed in 1976 by the VP-8, the scorches and patches from the 1532 fire are in negative reality almost flat. They are therefore meaningless and so falsely, three-dimensional under a VP-8, but the Shroud image is meaningful (i.e. consistent with a real human body), and therefore truly, three-dimensional in reality. All other photographs of persons processed by the VP-8 appear distorted and therefore falsely three-dimensional. See the photographs of Pope Pius XI below.

Frontal image only is three-dimensional However, to clarify, only the frontal image of the Shroud man is three-dimensional[4]. The dorsal or back image is not three-dimensional[5], having been formed by direct contact[6]. The frontal image cannot have been formed by direct contact because it has areas that could not have been in contact with the cloth[7]: for example the recessed areas between the nose and cheeks, the eye sockets and ears, the ribs and part of the neck[8]. This is consistent with STURP's John P. Jackson's "cloth collapse theory" (see below ).

Paul Vignon In 1902 French biologist Paul Vignon (1865-1943) observed that the intensity of the image on the Shroud varied inversely with the distance between the cloth and the body[9]:

"Some emanation from the body has acted on the linen, and since the hollows on the Shroud are less vigorously reproduced than the raised portions it must be admitted that this something worked with less intensity in proportion as the distance from the body increased ... In the present case ... the main point is that we can assert that the action diminished in proportion as the distance of the body from the Shroud increased ... Thus it is that before making any detailed examination we are able to assert that ... the raised parts of the body are reproduced strongly while the hollows have given fainter impressions in proportion to their distance from the cloth."[10]

That is, the nearer the body part was to the cloth, the darker its image appears[11]

Leo Vala In 1967, Leo Vala, a professional photographer and an agnostic[12] made the first three-dimensional reproduction of the Shroud face by projecting a Shroud negative photograph onto a lump of clay and sculpting it[13]. Vala published his experiment in the March 8,

[Above (enlarge): "British photographer Leo Vala displays the photographic representation he has produced of the face of Christ. He used a unique process to develop the Turin Shroud's imprint into a three-dimensional picture. (Photo by Douglas Miller/Keystone/Getty Images). 23rd January 1967"[14].]

1967 issue of Amateur Photographer, stating in the article:

"I've been involved in the invention of many complicated visual processes, and I can tell you that no one could have faked that image. No one could do it today with all the technology we have. It's a perfect negative. It has a photographic quality that is extremely precise."[15]

Vala became a critic of anyone who thought the image could have been produced by human hands[16].

Barbara M. Sullivan In a 1973 National Review article, "mother of six" Barbara M. Sullivan (1933-2016), with tracing paper and a Shroud photograph was the first to provide evidence that the whole Shroud image was three-dimensional[17]. The late Alan D. Adler (1931-2000) credited Sullivan with having provided "the first evidence for encoded 3-D information in the Shroud images":

"It should be noted that the first evidence for encoded 3-D information in the Shroud images was worked out using sheets of tracing paper"[18]

Eighteen years later Sullivan attempted to present her presumably completed tracings at the 1991 St. Louis Shroud Symposium but due to inexperience her presentation was not successful[19].

Paul Gastineau In 1974 French engineer Paul Gastineau, at the

[Above (enlarge): "Three-dimensional reproduction of the Face, which is more akin to the bas-relief than photography. It was a Frenchman, Paul GASTINEAU, who realized it, by a process of his invention, in April 1974."[20]:

"The three-dimensional figures obtained by Drs. Jackson and Jumper [see below] and Prof. Tamburelli (see below) are images in perspective on a screen. My experiment is different in that I obtain directly a tangible relief, a sort of sculpture. The analysis of the image and the production of the sculpture are simultaneous. By means of an optic system, a luminous ray explores a photograph of the Shroud line by line. The reflection of the luminous ray on the photo is captured by photo-sensitive cells, which electronically work a signal creating, in an apparatus of permanent magnets, an electro-propelling-force. The EPF is variable in function of the variation of luminous intensities captured by the cells; or, in other words, in function of the `values' (from the brightest to the darkest) of the photograph of the Shroud. The EPF activates a mechanical system equipped with a stylus which is moved vertically, up and down. To each line of the photo explored by the cells, the stylus simultaneously cuts a corresponding groove in a matrix of a soft translucent material. When the cells capture a value more or less bright, the stylus descends more or less deep, making the corresponding groove at that place. The result is a negative bas-relief ... A supple plastic mold is then turned into the negative, and thus we obtain the `tangible' 3D image of the Holy Face. Jackson and Jumper have demonstrated that on the VP8 analyzer [see below], a normal photograph gives a distorted image. Likewise, if I place a normal photo on my machine, I obtain an image completely deformed by cast shadows."[21]

Note that Gastineau's photomechanical method of obtaining a 3-D image from a photograph of the Shroud face was two years before and completely different from the VP-8 Image Analyzer method (see above and below), yet it produced the same result. Which can only mean that the Shroud man's image really does contain three-dimensional information! Also note the small round object over each eye (see below).]

request of his friend, veteran sindonologist Antoine Legrand (1904-2002), invented a machine which produced:"... by photomechanical means, a bas-relief sculpture based on the information encoded in the Shroud image"[22]. This "astonishing 3-dimensional photo of the Shroud Face made by Paul Gastineau (France) in April 1974, [was] three [sic two] years before STURP [sic] independently accomplished their now-famous 3-D rendition"[23].

Correlation between image intensity and cloth-body distance In 1974 John P. Jackson a physicist, and Eric Jumper an engineer, were stationed at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico[24]. They were investigating in their spare time Vignon's observation (see above) that the darkness, or intensity, of each part of the Shroud man's image varies in direct proportion to how far that part of the body would have been from the cloth that had covered it[25]. Using a microdensitometer they plotted along the Shroud's ridge line, the body's highest point of contact with the Shroud[26], the relationship

[Above (enlarge): The correlation between image intensity and cloth-body distance along the ridge line of the Shroud[27].]

between image intensity and the distance between the cloth and the body[28]. They found that there was a definite correlation between image intensity and cloth-body distance (see Fig. 3)[29].

VP-8 Image Analyzer In 1976 Robert William (Bill) Mottern (1924-2015), an image-enhancement specialist at Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, offered Jackson the use of an Interpretation Systems VP-8 Image Analyzer, an instrument which translates light intensity into vertical relief[30], to help in their investigations[31]. Mottern was using the VP8 to analyze x-rays in his work at Sandia Laboratories[32].

[Above (enlarge): Chessboard demonstration that the VP-8 Image Analyzer automatically displays lighter shades as vertically higher and darker shades as lower, even when the object is not three-dimensional[33].]

When a negative transparency of a Shroud photograph provided by Jackson[34] was processed by the VP-8, they were amazed that on the VP-8's computer screen they saw a correctly-proportioned, three-dimensional image of the Shroud man (see above)[35]. Being a transparency, Mottern was able to rotate the image and view it from the side and back[36]. This proved that the Shroud image contains three-dimensional information[37], since ordinary photographs processed by the VP-8 >appear distorted because they contain only

[Above (enlarge)[38]: "Ordinary photographs of persons transformed into vertical relief showed obvious distortion; noses were pushed into faces, arms into chests, and entire reliefs appeared flat and unnatural. See Figures 6 and 7 [Pope Pius XI]. ... Compare the flattened nose, contorted mouth and deeply depressed eyes to the correctly defined image in Figure 8 (see above) [39].]

light, not distance, information[40] (see above photograph of Pope Pius XI). A separate photograph of the face (see below) was later processed by the VP-8 and it also showed the same three-dimensional relief effect[41]. That face photograph also confirmed the presence of unnatural bulges over the

[Above (enlarge)[42]: Separate photograph of the Shroud face as processed by the VP-8 Image Analyzer. Note again the small round objects over the eyes (see below).

eyes, which they later proposed were coins placed over the eyes (see below) to keep the eyelids closed[43]. From the VP-8 three-dimensional relief information, Jackson and others were able to construct a three-dimensional model of the Shroud image[44] (right). Their work

[Right (enlarge)[45]: Three-dimensional cardboard and fibreglass statue of the Shroud image based on vertical relief information provided by the VP-8 Image Analyzer.]

attracted the attention of other scientists and led to the formation in 1977 of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)[46].

Single global mapping function Based on the VP-8 information, Jackson and William R. Ercoline found that a drape of a Shroud-sized cloth over a Shroud man-sized human body could be expressed mathematically as, "a single global mapping function":

"But as Dr. Jackson demonstrated,the Shroud image is three-dimensionally `consistent with a body shape covered with a naturally draping cloth and which can be derived from a single, global mapping function relating image shading with distance between these two surfaces"[47] (see below).

[Above enlarge: "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape."[48]

"... the frontal image on the Shroud of Turin is shown to be consistent with a naturally draping cloth in the sense that image shading can be derived from a single global mapping function of distance between these two surfaces..."[49].

This proved that the Shroud had covered a real human body[49a].

Computer enhancement In 1978, Prof. Giovanni Tamburelli (1923-1990) of the University of Turin, after seeing Jackson, et al.'s VP-8 Image Analyzer three-dimensional Shroud images from poor-quality photographs of the Shroud, commenced his own computer processing of higher quality Shroud photographs[50].

[Above (enlarge): Three-dimensional image of the Shroud man's face computer-enhanced by Prof. Tamburelli from a negative Enrie 1931 Shroud photograph (left) and the same image of the face after removal by Prof. Tamburelli of the wounds by information processing techniques (right)[51].]

Tamburelli's completely different method (that makes three-see above) independently confirmed the VP-8 results that the Shroud image contains three-dimensional distance information[52]. Tamburelli's own independent computer processing of the three-dimensional information contained in the Shroud's image found that there was a "circular mark on the right eyelid probably left by a coin"[53] (see below). However, Tamburelli was unable to determine whether the object over the left eye was a coin[54]. After Prof. Tamburelli's death in 1990 his work has been continued by a University of Turin team supervised by Prof. Nello Balossino[55].

Coins over the eyes As previously mentioned, two different methods, Gastineau's and the VP-8 Image Analyzer revealed the presence of small, round, three-dimensional objects over each eye of the man on the Shroud. A third different method, Tamburelli's, confirmed the presence of a "circular mark ... probably ... a coin" over the right eye. In Jackson's own words, when in 1976 he and Jumper processed through the VP-8 Image Analyzer a negative photograph of the Shroud face (see above), they noticed:

"...something unexpected - over each eye appeared objects resembling small buttons. Though it seemed natural on the basis of the computer generated picture to interpret these features as objects resting atop closed eyelids, we felt compelled to consider several alternative explanations ... we were left with but one conclusion - that the buttonlike features are what they seem to be, namely solid objects resting upon the eyelids. This identification agrees with ancient Jewish burial custom where objects (potsherd fragments or coins) were apparently sometimes placed over the eyes." (emphasis original)[56].

Jackson, et al. then proposed that the objects were coins:

"... we propose that they may be some kind of coins since: (1) they are both nearly circular and approximately the same size, and (2) scriptural accounts indicate that Joseph of Arimathaea, a wealthy man, was responsible for burying Jesus. [Mt 27:57] He obviously had money on his person at the time of Jesus' burial for he was able to purchase a linen burial cloth. [Mk 15:46] Thus, if Joseph followed Jewish burial custom to cover the eyes, then it is not unreasonable that the most natural and convenient thing for him to use would have been coins rather than pottery fragments."[57]

After consulting with historian Ian Wilson who was at the same 1977 Shroud conference in Albuquerque, Jackson, et al. proposed that the three-dimensional "objects resembling small buttons" which were "over each eye" of the Shroud, likely were "a Lepton of Pontius Pilate coined in A.D. 30-31":

"If our conjecture is true that these images are of coins, then we may have a truly unique method of dating the image. Computer enhancement of high quality closeup photographs of the eye region followed by a statistical correlation with known coinage of a given era and locality may be able to: (1) identify the objects as coins and (2) date and locate the probable time and place the image and not just the cloth was formed. Indeed, we have some computer enhancements which, though lacking sufficient resolution for positive identification, indicate a possible structure on the surface of the objects. In addition, Ian Wilson has suggested several Judean Bronze Lepton coins which are about the correct size as the buttonlike images. In particular, a Lepton of Pontius Pilate coined in A.D. 30-31 seems to agree especially well ... According to Wilson, a Lepton would probably be a likely candidate for Joseph of Arimathaea, an orthodox Jew, to use since it was acceptable as a Temple offering.[Mk 12:41-44; Lk 21:1-4]"[58]

The thickness of these objects was later determined to be about 1 to 5 mm, and they were circular disks, about the same size with a diameter of approximately 14 mm[59]. Pontius Pilate leptons, the "widows mite" of Mk 12:42 & Lk 21:2 KJV[60], had diameters of between 15-17 mm[61]. Since first century Jewish burials allowed either pieces of pottery or coins to be placed over the eyelids of their dead[62], it is much more likely these two tiny circular disks over the eyes of the man on the Shroud are coins[63], and if so they are Pontius Pilate lepton coins which were the only coins of that tiny size ever minted[64].

It is beyond the scope of this "Three-dimensional" post to comment on the further identification by Fr. Francis L. Filas (1915-85) of part of the inscriptions and designs on these coins over the eyes of the Shroud man, as indeed leptons struck by Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea from AD 26–36, who sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion (Mt 27:24-31; Mk 15:15-20; Lk 23:25-26; Jn 19:12-16). I will cover this in "3. Other images and marks on the Shroud." But until then see my post of 10May13. Those who deny that evidence of part-inscriptions and designs on these disks over the eyes of the man on the Shroud, should at least acknowledge from the above evidence that they are disks, and from their tiny size and shape they are most likely to be Pontius Pilate leptons!

Test of image formation theories The VP-8 Image Analyzer has been used to test proposed Shroud image formation mechanisms[65]. Numerous artistic techniques, including painting, bas relief[66], dry powder[67], scorching, the vaporograph theory[68] and the medieval photography theory[69] have been so tested by the VP-8 and have all have failed to meet this criterion[70].

Cloth collapse theory In 1990, Jackson proposed his "cloth collapse theory"[71]:

"... in the case of the Shroud image, the cloth did collapse into and through the underlying body structure ... The concept of a cloth falling into the underlying body region and receiving an image, in essence, requires that two separate assumptions be made. First, we must assume that the body became mechanically `transparent' to its physical surroundings and, second, that a stimulus was generated that recorded the passage of the cloth through the body region onto the cloth as an image. With regard to the latter assumption, it is unclear in an a priori sense what to assume for the physical nature of the stimulus. However, we at least know that it was able to interact physically with cloth; otherwise, image discolorations would not have been formed. I propose that, as the Shroud collapsed through the underlying body, radiation emitted from all points within that body discolored the cloth so as to produce the observed image"[72]

Jackson proposed that the radiation was "in the ultraviolet or soft x-ray region" because it is "sufficiently energetic to photochemically modify cellulose" yet is "absorbed strongly in air"[73].

Again it is beyond the scope of this "three-dimensional" post to cover Jackson's entire theory. Except to point out that it is an explicit prediction (i.e. retrodiction) of Jackson's theory that "the frontal image is ... `three-dimensional'" but "the dorsal image is ... one of `direct contact'":

"Additional Predictions of the Theory ... 1. Intensity Structure of the Frontal and Dorsal Images. While the frontal image is predicted to be `three-dimensional', the dorsal image is predicted to be one of `direct contact'. The reason for the difference is that the top part of the Shroud falls dynamically through the body region while the lower part remains statically in place. This means that image intensity should be generated on the lower part of the Shroud only where hard body contact with the cloth occurs, owing to the strong attenuation in air of the emitted radiation from the body"[74]

Which is the case (see above and below left).

[Left (enlarge)[75]: As can be seen, the dorsal image is not three-dimensional, being the result of hard direct contact of upper back, buttocks, calves and heels, with those areas not in hard direct contact: between calves and heels, knees, small of back and neck, having a fainter image due to the ultraviolet radiation dose received having been attenuated by air (see above). Compared with the equivalent frontal image, it can be seen that this dorsal image is much fainter, despite it having had hard direct contact with the body. This can only mean that a different process created the frontal image.]

That the dorsal image is not three-dimensional is also evident from this comparison VP-8 photograph (below) of the frontal (left) and the dorsal (right) images.

[Above (enlarge): VP-8 Image Analyzer views of the frontal image (left) and the dorsal image (right). As can be seen, the frontal image is three-dimensional and readily recognisable as a human body whereas the dorsal image is flat and featureless, including even the buttocks, and is not readily recognisable as a human body. This confirms the prediction of Jackson's theory (above) that the frontal image will be three-dimensional because:

"[The] ... cloth-covered body ... became mechanically transparent to its physical surroundings and, as it did so, emitted radiation from all points within and on the surface of the body ... As the top part of the Shroud fell into the mechanically transparent body, the radiation began to interact with the cloth so as to produce a time integrated record of the cloth's passage through the body region"[76]

but the dorsal image would not be three-dimensional because that half of the cloth remained static under the body and so did not receive the imprint of that "time integrated record."]

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #17, #18) & #19. No medieval artist would have been able to encode three-dimensional information into the Shroud, almost a century before the recognition of perspective and its incorporation into painted images[77]. Even after perspective had been discovered, Renaissance and modern masters had tried to copy the Shroud, but their photographs in the VP-8 are "dimensional disasters"[78]. Jackson, et al, asked police artist to copy the Shroud but the results in the VP-8 were contorted[79]. They then had the police artists draw the VP-8 images but again their copies were aberrant[80]. As mentioned above all attempts to replicate the Shroud naturally have failed to pass the VP-8 three-dimensionality test. This includes Shroud sceptic Joe Nickell's powdered bas-relief which was designed to create a three-dimensional image on cloth, but failed the VP-8 test[81]. The producer of the VP-8, Peter M. Schumacher, asks how could and why would an artist/forger "embed three-dimensional information in the gray shading of an image" with "no means of viewing this property ... for at least 650 years" afterwards:

"If one considers the Shroud image to be `a work of art' of some type, then one must consider how and why an artist would embed three-dimensional information in the gray shading of an image. In fact, no means of viewing this property of the image would be available for at least 650 years after it was done. One would have to ask, (assuming this is a `natural result' in some style or type of art), `Why isn't this result obtained in the analysis of other works?' Or, if this is a unique work, `Why would the artist make only one such work requiring such special skills and talent, and not pass the technique along to others?' How could the artist control the quality of the work when the artist could not `see' gray scale as elevation? Did the artist predict the outcome before the outcome could be defined? Would an artist produce this work before the device to show the results was invented?"[82]

It therefore is an effective impossibility for a medieval artist/forger to have created the Shroud man's image with three-dimensional qualities (in negative), based on the distances between each point on the front of the body and its covering the cloth[83]. The three-dimensional qualities of the Shroud's frontal image support the theory that the image was not man-made, that is it occurred by either a natural (which no one to my knowledge argues for) or a supernatural process[84]!

Resurrection Jackson, to be rigorously scientific, did not offer the resurrection of Jesus as an explanation of how a dead man's body lying in a tomb covered by a linen Shroud, as Jesus' body was (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53), suddenly "became mechanically `transparent' to its physical surroundings" and "emitted radiation"[85]. But the gospels record that Jesus' resurrected body did become "mechanically `transparent' to its physical surroundings" in the sense of suddenly appearing inside a locked room (Lk 24:36; Jn 20:19,26)[86], and the Apostle Paul wrote that in Jesus' resurrection His body instantly changed state from "perishable" to "imperishable" (1Cor 15:50-53; Php 3:21)[87]. As Ian Wilson in typical British understatement wrote:

"Dr John Jackson has elaborately theorized that the Shroud's image was formed when the cloth collapsed through a body that became `mechanically transparent', arguably in the course of the resurrection of Jesus described in the Christian gospels ..."[88]

The normally cautious STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005) was forced by this and other evidence to conclude that, "the image [on the Shroud] was formed by a burst of radiant energy — light ... such as Christ might have produced at the moment of resurrection":

"I am forced to conclude that the image [on the Shroud] was formed by a burst of radiant energy — light, if you will. I think there is no question about that. What better way, if you were a deity, of regenerating faith in a skeptical age, than to leave evidence 2,000 years ago that could be defined only by the technology available in that skeptical age. The one possible alternative is that the images were created by a burst of radiant light, such as Christ might have produced at the moment of resurrection"[89].

Also Jesus' live body "emitted radiation," namely light, at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-13; Mk 9:2-13; Lk 9:28-36), where His "face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light" (Mt 17:2); "his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them" (Mk 9:3); "the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white" (Lk 9:29). And the Transfiguration was "a preview of the glorified body of Christ following his Resurrection"[90]. It is the view of many (if not most) Shroud scholars, including Ian Wilson, Rex Morgan, John Iannone, Mark Oxley, August Accetta and Giulio Fanti that the image on the Shroud is Jesus' imprinted on the cloth by the light of His resurrection[91].

It is also supported by the findings of scientists working under the auspices of Italy's ENEA agency, that the closest approximation yet to the colour, extreme superficiality, and other characteristics of the Shroud man's image, was obtained using an excimer laser delivering "a short and intense burst of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] directional radiation"[92]. But the only `problem' with that is, "to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height," would require "a total power of VUV radiation" of "34 thousand billion watts![93].

As the German physicist Oswald Scheuermann, concluded:

"It seems as if physics and chemistry [would have] provided better explanations of the formation of the image nowadays ... and yet, the genuine arrangement of simultaneous and successive causal steps that formed this expressive and informative image cannot be attributed to a series of coincidences. Neither was it possible for human beings to produce such an image ... Consequently, one cannot help reaching the following conclusion: A Dead Man Rose from the Dead and Left Behind His Image as an Evidence for Posterity"[94]!

Continued in part #21 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Jackson, J.P., 1977, "A Problem of Resolution Posed by the Existence of a Three Dimensional Image on the Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.223-233, 223; Clark, K.R., 1988, "Seeking a Truer Picture of the Shroud," Chicago Tribune, April 3; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.38-39; Newcombe, J., 2012 , "Is There Scientific Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?," The Christian Post, April 4. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.82I. [return]
4. 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, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, pp.7-8, 44; Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.167; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.241. [return]
5. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.8; Bennett, 2001, p.167; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
6. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.35; Jackson, J.P., 1991, "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, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, 1991, pp.340-341. [return]
7. 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, 429. [return]
8. Heller, 1983, p.210; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.125; 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.78; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.95; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.27. [return]
9. Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J., Mottern, R.W. & Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, 1977, pp.74-94, 74; Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.71; Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.7; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.218; Balossino, N., "Computer Processing of the Body Image," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà:Cantalupa, pp.116-117; 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.122; Oxley, 2010, pp.202-203. [return]
10. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, pp.136-137. [return]
11. Antonacci, 2000, p.39; Balossino, 2000, p.117. [return]
12. 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.19; Wilson, 2010, p.21. [return]
13. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.34-35; Morgan, 1980, pp.128-129; Tribbe, 2006, p.254. [return]
14. "Simply Some Photos," Avax News, 1 October 2011. [return]
15. Vala, L., 1967, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Amateur Photographer, March 8, pp.332-335, in Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, pp.130-131 & Wilson, 2010, p.21. [return]
16. Wilcox, 1977, pp.130-131. [return]
17. Sullivan, B.M., 1973, "Reading the Shroud of Turin: How in fact was Jesus Christ laid in his tomb?," National Review, July 20, Reprinted March 24, 2005. [return]
18. Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.113-127, 117, 127n.31. [return]
19. Morgan, R.H., 1991, "The St Louis Shroud of Turin Symposium: History, Science, Theology and the Shroud Report by Rex Morgan," Shroud News, No 67, October, pp.3-19, 8,11. [return]
20. "Le plus vieux negatif photographique," Fetes et Saisons, "Le Linceul de Turin," No. 372, February 1983. ("The oldest photographic negative," Festivities and Seasons, "The Shroud of Turin.") French translation by Google Translate. See also Gastineau, P., 1986, "A Bas relief from a Photograph of the Holy Face," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 18, March, pp.2-6, 2. [return]
21. Gastineau, 1986, p.3. [return]
22. Morgan, R.H., 1989, "The Paris Symposium - Part I of Report by Rex Morgan," Shroud News, No. 55, October 1989, pp.5-23, 17. [return]
23. Crispino, D.C., 1983, "Recently Published: A Bishop Writes (France)," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 9, December, pp.27-34, 28. [return]
24. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, pp.92-93. [return]
25. Adams, 1982, p.93; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.47. [return]
26. Jackson, et al., 1977, p.77 [return]
27. Jackson, et al., 1977, p.77 [return]
28. Jackson, et al., 1977, p.77 [return]
29. Jackson, et al., 1977, p.77 [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, p.229; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.132; 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; Wilson, 1986, p.47; Wilson, 1998, p.28; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.11-27, 18; Wilson, 2010, p.21. [return]
31. Adams, 1982, p.93; Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.39; Wilson, 1986, p.47; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.101. [return]
32. Schwortz, B., 2015, "In Memoriam: Robert William (Bill) Mottern 1924-2015," 2015 Website News, Shroud.com, 1 November. [return]
33. Weiss, A. & Schumacher, P., 2016, "SEAM VP8 Image Analyzer Presentation - ShroudNM.com," 31 December. [return]
34. Wilson, 1979, p.229; Morgan, 1980, p.132. [return]
35. Wilson, 1979, p.229; Adams, 1982, p.94; Wilson, 1986, p.47; Wilson, 1998, p.28; Antonacci, 2000, p.39. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.229; Morgan, 1980, pp.132-133; Wilson, 1986, p.47; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.34. [return]
37. Adams, 1982, p.94; Adler, 2000a, p.117; Adler, 2000c, p.18. [return]
38. Jackson, et al., 1977, p.80. [return]
39. Jackson, et al., 1977, pp.80-81; Morgan, 1980, p.133. [return]
40. Wilson, 1979, pp.229-230; Adams, 1982, p.94; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, pp.52-53; Antonacci, 2000, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.101. [return]
41. Adams, 1982, p.94. [return]
42. Brooks, E.H., II., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., 1981, "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago IL, p.22. [return]
43. Adams, 1982, p.94. [return]
44. Adams, 1982, p.94. [return]
45. 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.76K; Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve...The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-767, 731. [return]
46. Adams, 1982, p.94; ; Whanger, A.D. & M.W., "Revisiting the Eye Images: What are They?," in Fanti, G., ed., 2009, "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, pp.134-139, 135,. [return]
47. Jackson, J.P. & Ercoline, W.R., 1982, "The Three-Dimensional Characteristics of the Shroud Image," IEEE 11982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October, pp.559-575, 575, in Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.32-33. [return]
48. Jackson, et. al, 1984, "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape," Applied Optics, Vol. 23, No. 14, pp. 2244-2270. [return]
49. Wilson, I., 1985, "Some Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 9, January. [return]
49a. Jackson, 1991, p.329. [return]
50. Diocese of Turin, 2016, "The Holy Shroud: A three dimensional image," 14 November. [return]
51. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.51. [return]
52. Antonacci, 2000, pp.40, 288n9. [return]
53. Tamburelli, G., 1982, "Reading the Holy Shroud, called the Fifth Gospel, with the Aid of the Computer," Shroud Spectrum International, March, pp.3-11, 5. [return]
54. Tamburelli, 1982, p.5. [return]
55. Diocese of Turin, 2016. [return]
56. Jackson, et al., 1977, p.89; Antonacci, 2000, p.102. [return]
57. Jackson, et al., 1977, p.89; Antonacci, 2000, p.102. [return]
58. Jackson, et al., 1977, p.89; Antonacci, 2000, p.102. [return]
59. Jumper, E., Stevenson, K. & Jackson, J., 1978, "Images of Coins on a Burial Cloth?," The Numismatist, July, Vol. 91, No. 7, pp.1349-1357, 1354. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, p.231; Iannone, 1998, p.35; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.24; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.9; Ruffin, 1999, p.107; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.99; Whanger & Whanger, 2009, pp.135, 138; Oxley, 2010, p.176. [return]
61. Baima Bollone, P., "Images of Extraneous Objects on the Shroud," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, p.133. [return]
62. Jumper, et al, 1978, p.1354. [return]
63. Jumper, et al, 1978, p.1356. [return]
64. Jumper, et al, 1978, p.1356. [return]
65. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.103-112, 105-106; Adler, 2000a, p.118; Adler, 2000c, p.18. [return]
66. Antonacci, 2000, p.78. [return]
67. Antonacci, 2000, p.73. [return]
68. Antonacci, 2000, p.61. [return]
69. Antonacci, 2000, pp.85-86. [return]
70. Adler, 1999, p.106; Adler, 2000a, p.118; Adler, 2000c, p.18. [return]
71. Jackson, J.P., 1990, "Is the Image on the Shroud Due to a Process Heretofore Unknown to Modern Science?," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 34, March, pp.3-29. [return]
72. Jackson, 1991, p.339. [return]
73. Jackson, 1990, pp.13-14; Jackson, 1991, p.341. [return]
74. Jackson, 1990, p.15. [return]
75. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
76. Jackson, 1990, p.12. [return]
77. Adams, 1982, p.94; Adler, 2000a, p.118; Adler, 2000c, p.18. [return]
78. Heller, 1983, p.207. [return]
79. Heller, 1983, p.207. [return]
80. Heller, 1983, p.207. [return]
81. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.108. [return]
82. Schumacher, P.M., 1999, "Photogrammetric Responses from 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.30-37, 32-33. [return]
83. Maher, 1986, p.53. [return]
84. Maher, 1986, p.53. [return]
85. Bennett, 2001, p.168. [return]
86. Oxley, 2010, p.244. [return]
87. Martin, R.P., "Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1959], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second Edition, 1987, Reprinted, 2002, pp.165-166. [return]
88. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.128-129. [return]
89. Rogers, R.N., 1978. Los Alamos Monitor, March 24, in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.87-88, 172n9. [return]
90. "Transfiguration of Jesus: Transfiguration and Resurrection," Wikipedia, 10 February 2017. [return]
91. Wilson, 1979, p.250; Morgan, 1980, p.77; Iannone, 2010, p.102; Oxley, 2010, pp.250-251; Ball, P., 2015, "How did the Turin Shroud get its image?," BBC, 19 June. [return]
92. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
93. Ibid. [return]
94. Scheuermann, O., 1986, "Shroud," West Germany, June, in Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.208, 245 n.33. [return]

Posted 5 February 2017. Updated 5 August 2024.