Sunday, November 5, 2017

No image under blood #25: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #25, "The man on the Shroud: No image under blood," 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: Blood clots intact #24] [Next: Other marks and images on the Shroud #26]

  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. No image under blood #25

Introduction There is no image under the bloodstains on the Shroud[2]. Therefore the blood was on the cloth before the image[3].

[Right (enlarge): The Shroud, showing major bloodstains outlined in red[4]. Most (if not all) of these are comprised of many minor bloodstains, which would have had to be individually depicted by an artist/forger if the Shroud was a forgery. And note that these are only the major bloodstains. There are hundreds of minor bloodstains, especially when it is realised that each of the over 100 scourge marks[5] includes a tiny bloodstain[6]. Since the blood was on the Shroud before the image, if the Shroud was a forgery, the artist/forger would have had to apply the blood first and then depict the image around the blood[7]! That this is not how an artist/forger would have worked[8], and is in practice impossible[9], is evidenced by the fact that every claimed replication of the Shroud adds the blood after the image (see future "Problem for the forgery theory")!

There is no image under the bloodstains There are no yellowed image fibres under blood stained fibres on the Shroud[10]. When bloodstained linen fibrils from body image areas were treated with proteases, enzymes which digest blood, after the blood had been dissolved by the proteases, the underlying fibrils were white like those from non-image areas[11]. This meant that blood on the linen had protected it from the image-forming process[12].

The blood was on the cloth before the image That there was no underlying image on fibrils from bloodstained image areas means that the blood was on the cloth before the image[13]. The blood came first, then the image[14].

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #22, #23 and #24). That there is no image under the blood means that the order of events was blood first followed by the image[15]. This is the correct sequence if the Shroud is authentic[16] but effectively impossible for an artist[17]. The artist/forger would have had to paint the wound areas with real human blood [see #23] with no image under the blood areas to guide him[18]. All attempts to replicate the Shroud add blood after the image was already created[19].

For example Joe Nickell (1987) arguing for his brass rubbing method of Shroud image formation[20], requires that the brass bas relief would be sculpted first, the image produced next and after that the bloodstains would be added (his question marks are only about how long it would take):

"A couple of days to sculpt the relief? Two more to produce the image and add the `flagellation marks' and the picturelike `blood' stains? Or perhaps it would take longer"[21].
Picknett and Prince (1994), after they had produced their "final image" then "add[ed] the `bloodflows'":
"Was there anything else that would be revealed when the final image appeared? ... When the image was 'developed' by the washing and heating, it left us ... with a perfectly graded, if faint, scorched image, visible on one side of the cloth only ... Then we turned our attention to adding the `bloodflows': because of their anatomical accuracy on the Shroud it has always been thought they would be difficult to fake. In fact, they were surprisingly easy. The trick is to make them backwards. Place a drop of 'blood' on the cloth (we used theatrical blood), then use a cocktail stick to trace out a thin line to the point where the 'wound' welled up"[22].
Prof. Nicholas Allen (1998), in support of his Medieval Photography theory [see 07Aug16, 01Sep16 & 05Sep16], after having produced his `medieval photograph' [but see here where I allege that it wasn't by medieval technology!], Allen then claimed the "medieval `photographers' paint[ed] on the stigmata with real blood":
"On the positive image of the Shroud of Port Elizabeth, it is possible to make out the finest detail of the original subject, details which are not visible in its negative state ... Having achieved a similar result, our medieval 'photographers' only had to paint on the stigmata with real blood ..."[23]
Earlier (1995) Allen had falsely claimed that "the denatured haemoglobin [i.e. blood] ... on the Shroud ... was applied by brush or stylus after the image was produced":
"Only a photographic technique could produce an image like the one which appears on the Shroud of Turin today. It is no use pointing aimlessly to the denatured haemoglobin which is found on the Shroud, since this was applied by brush or stylus after the image was produced"[24].
Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli (2009), first produced his `shroud' and "then added blood stains ... to achieve the final effect":
"An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake ... `We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud,' Luigi Garlaschelli ... said. A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli ... reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face ... The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud ... They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect"[25]
See my my 08Oct09 and Prof. John Jackson's refutation of Garlaschelli on that point.

That "there is no image under the blood meaning that the order of events is blood first followed by image" alone invalidates all claimed `replications' of the Shroud which all add the blood after the image[26]!

Further evidence of Jesus' resurrection That the blood was on the Shroud before the image is consistent with the Gospels that Jesus' blood first stained His shroud when He was taken down dead from His cross on a Friday evening and His body was wrapped "in a linen shroud" (Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:50-54). And it is further consistent withe the Gospels that the image was later imprinted, as a "snapshot," on Jesus' already bloodstained shroud at His resurrection:

"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"[27]!
early on the ensuing Sunday morning (Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:2-6; Lk 24:1-7; Jn 20:1-9). Moreover, as those Shroud sceptics have unwittingly demonstrated in their `replications' of the Shroud, by all producing their image first, and then adding the blood, that the blood on the Shroud having been first, and after that the image, is only consistent with that order having been uniquely the result of Jesus' resurrection!

We have already seen in this series the following evidence for the image and blood of the man on the Shroud being the result of Jesus' resurrection: image has no style #16; image is non-directional #17; image is extremely superficial #18; image is a photographic negative #19; image is three-dimensional #20; the body shows no signs of decomposition #21; bones and teeth are x-rays #22; blood clots are intact #24. So together this is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Man on the Shroud is Jesus and the image is of His resurrected body!

It is an assumption of modern-day secular man (including many who profess to be Christians) that continuing scepticism of Christianity, despite the overwhelming evidence for it being true, is not only acceptable, but even commendable. For example Dan Porter wrote in his final post on his blog:

"Skepticism is the healthiest of attitudes with all things having to do with religion. I believed that. For instance, a Christian should never fear new discoveries in science and history. There can be no better test of the strength and truth of one’s faith than to face the questions posed by new views of reality"[28]
I agree that a Christian should never fear new discoveries (and I for one don't), but it does not follow that a perpetual scepticism of the Shroud's authenticity, and of Christianity itself, is the answer. And what's more, Jesus warned against it! When the Apostle Thomas was told by his fellow apostles that they had seen the risen Jesus who had appeared to them in locked room when Thomas was absent, Thomas said he would not believe that Jesus had been raised:
"Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side" (Jn 20:19-26).
A week later Jesus appeared again in the same locked room, but this time Thomas was present. Jesus, knowing what Thomas had said, invited him to put a finger in the nail wounds in His hands and place his hands in the spear wound in Jesus' side (Jn 20:26-27). After which Jesus commanded Thomas:
"Do not disbelieve, but believe"(Jn 20:27)!
So Jesus had tolerated Thomas' scepticism up to the point where He had given Thomas sufficient evidence to believe in His resurrection. Thereafter Jesus commanded Thomas to cease his scepticism and start believing that Jesus had in fact risen from the dead. The same applies to modern day `doubting Thomases'. If you have read this far, then Jesus, who is God in human flesh (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20) has given you sufficient evidence for you to cease your scepticism and start believing in Him, and say to Jesus, as Thomas did, "My Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28)!

[Above (enlarge)[29]: Image of Jesus' face imprinted on the Shroud at the moment of His resurrection!

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'"[30]. Yes it is!!]
Continued in the next part #26 of this series.

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. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.203; Minor, M., 1990, "Shroud of Turin Manuscript Discovered By Texas Member," The Manuscript Society News, Vol. XI, No. 4, Fall, pp.117-122, 122 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, 189; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.66; Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112, pp.106-107; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113-127, 121; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 22; Lavoie, G.R., 2000, "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," [1998], Thomas More: Allen TX, p.62; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.123; Breault, 2009, "Is the Shroud of Turin a Fake?,", October 11; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.239. [return]
3. Heller, 1983, p.203; Minor, 1990, p.122; Adler, 1999, pp.106-107; Iannone, 1998, p.66; Adler, 2000a, p.121; Adler, 2000c, p.22; Lavoie, 2000, p.62; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.71; Whiting, 2006, p.123; Breault, 2009; Oxley, 2010, p.239. [return]
4. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal (rotated right 90 °): Major bloodstains overlay," [return]
5. Minor, 1990, p.122. [return]
6. Minor, 1990, p.122. [return]
7. Guerrera, 2001, p.71. [return]
8. Heller, 1983, p.203; Iannone, 1998, p.66. [return]
9. Breault, 2009. [return]
10. Guerrera, 2001, p.71. [return]
11. Heller, 1983, p.203; Adler, 1999, pp.106-107; Adler, 2000c, p.22; Oxley, 2010, p.239; Whiting, 2006, p.123. [return]
12. Heller, 1983, p.203; Minor, 1990, p.122; Iannone, 1998, p.66; Adler, 1999, p.107; Adler, 2000a, p.121; Adler, 2000c; Lavoie, 2000, p.62, p.22; Whiting, 2006, p.123; Oxley, 2010, p.239. [return]
13. Heller, 1983, p.203; Minor, 1990, p.122; Adler, 1999, pp.106-107; Iannone, 1998, p.66; Adler, 2000a, p.121; Adler, 2000c, p.22; Lavoie, 2000, p.62; Guerrera, 2001, p.71; Whiting, 2006, p.123; Breault, 2009; Oxley, 2010, p.239. [return]
14. Lavoie, 2000, p.62; Breault, 2009; Oxley, 2010, p.239. [return]
15. Breault, 2009. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Ibid. [return]
18. Minor, 1990, p.122. [return]
19. Breault, 2009. [return]
20. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.101-106. [return]
21. Nickell, 1987, p.106. [return]
22. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 1994, "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?: The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.169-170; Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, pp.202, 204. [return]
23. Allen, N.P.L.,1998, "The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens: Testament to a Lost Technology," Empowerment Technologies: Port Elizabeth, South Africa, pp.109-110. [return]
24. Allen, N., 1995, "Letter from Dr Nicholas Allen," Shroud News, No. 92, October, pp.20-23, 22 (not yet online). [return]
25. Pullella, P., 2009, "Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin," Reuters, October 5. [return]
26. Breault, 2009. [return]
27. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251; 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.234. [return]
28. Porter, D., 2015, "Thank You, Everyone," Shroud of Turin Blog, December 15. [return]
29. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]
30. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]

Posted: 5 November 2017. Updated: 19 January 2018.


Anonymous said...

" Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails,"

The nails were obviously put inside Jesus' hands , not on his wrists .

Stephen E. Jones said...


>>"Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails,"
>The nails were obviously put inside Jesus' hands , not on his wrists .

First, the wrist is part of the hand:

"In human anatomy, the wrist is variously defined as 1) the carpus or carpal bones, the complex of eight bones forming the proximal skeletal segment of the hand; (2) the wrist joint or radiocarpal joint, the joint between the radius and the carpus;[2] and (3) the anatomical region surrounding the carpus including the distal parts of the bones of the forearm and the proximal parts of the metacarpus or five metacarpal bones and the series of joints between these bones, thus referred to as wrist joints." ("Wrist," Wikipedia, 7 August 2017. My emphasis. Footnotes omitted).

Second, as pointed out in "Non-traditional #13": "Nails in the hands. ... This is consistent with the Gospels because the New Testament Greek for "hand" [cheir] included the wrist and in fact the hand, wrist and arm up to the elbow, because the Greek words for "arm" [ankale and brachion] did not include the arm from the elbow to the hand (i.e. the forearm)" (footnotes omitted-see original post for them).

Third, one of my New Testament Greek lexicons states of "cheir, "The hand. Originally it meant the whole arm to the end of the fingers" (Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.1472). And my general Greek (Classical and New Testament) lexicon states of cheir, "the hand, or rather the hand or arm, the arm" (Milford, H., 1871, "A Lexicon: Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon," Clarendon Press: Oxford, reprinted 1935, p.780).

Ancient languages, such as New Testament Greek and Aramaic, had a much smaller vocabulary than our modern English (as can be seen by comparing the thickness of their dictionaries on a bookshelf). As far as I am aware there was no first century Greek or Aramaic word for "wrist" or "palm" (of the hand).

This meant that there was more ambiguity in words in ancient languages, since fewer words had to cover a wide range of meanings. This ambiguity is evident in Jn 21:18, where Jesus tells Peter, "`... when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.' (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.)." Peter was crucified, so "hands" here means "arms and hands".

So in the original Greek or Aramaic, which is what Jesus and Thomas would have spoken, it would have been entirely correct for Jesus to ask Thomas to, "Put your finger here, and see my hands" when the nail wounds were in Jesus' wrists.

Indeed, even in our modern English it would be correct to say of a wound in one's wrist, "see the wound in my hand"!

Stephen E. Jones
MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any one Shroud-related topic. To avoid time-wasting debate I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your excellent reply Stephen.

Stephen E. Jones said...


>Thanks for your excellent reply Stephen.


The links above for "hand" [cheir] and "arm" [ankale] and [brachion] are now to a German version of "Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words."

The links to an English version (there are still at least two) of those words are at "Hand" and "Arm(physical)."

Stephen E. Jones
Comments deleted as sub-standard include: bare links to another website with little or no explanatory text; comments that are inane, i.e. empty, insubstantial, lacking significance, meaning, or point.