Burns #27: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

BURNS #27
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #27, "Other marks and images: burns," 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 "Other marks and images #26." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Again see also, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (1): Burns and water stains."

[Main index #1] [Previous: Other marks and images #26] [Next: Water stains #28]

---

3. Other marks and images #26
1. Burns #27

Note: This post will need to be updated in the light of Aldo Guerreschi and Michele Salcito's water stain findings in part #28.

Introduction The most obvious[2] and prominent[3] marks on the Shroud are those resulting from a fire in AD 1532 (see below).

[Right (enlarge): Burns marks and patches on the frontal half of the Shroud resulting from the 1532 fire (outlined in green)[4]. The body image appears prominent in this photo but that is because it is enhanced by photography[5]. Seen directly it is very faint (see "Faint #11").]

1532 fire On the night of 4 December 1532 a fire broke broke out in the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, France[6] (see below), where the Shroud had been kept since 1502[7]. The Shroud was folded in 48 layers[8] inside a wooden casket overlaid with silver[9]

[Left (enlarge): The restored Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, as it is today[10], after it was all but destroyed by a fire in 1532.]

that had been donated in 1509 by a former Duchess of Savoy, Margaret of Austria (1480–1530)[11]. The casket was in a cavity in the wall above the high altar behind an iron grille, secured by four locks each with a different

[Right (enlarge): The cavity in a wall of the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry[12], from where the Shroud was rescued in the 1532 fire.]

key and keyholder[13]. One of the keys was held by Canon Philip Lambert, who was present[14] but the other keyholders could not be located in time[15]. A local blacksmith, Guglielmo Pussod[16], was summonsed who, at great personal risk from falling burning roof timbers, prised opened the grille[17], and with the help of Canon Lambert, two of his clergy and the Duke's butler, carried the Shroud in its burning casket to safety[18].

Molten silver burned Shroud So hot was the fire that the casket's silver overlay had melted (at the melting point of silver ~960°C = ~1762°F)[19] and burned through a corner of the casket[20]. A drop of molten silver fell onto a corner of the folded Shroud[21] and then burned through all

[Left (enlarge)[22]: Burn marks on the back image. The left-most mark was `ground-zero' where the drop of molten silver first impacted the folded Shroud (see plan below). It is also `ground-zero' of the water poured into the burned hole in the casket (see future "Water stains #28). Yet note that none of the hundreds of scourge mark images, even those closest to the molten silver, melted, cracked or `ran' in the heat and steam (see close-up below), further proving that the Shroud image is not comprised of paint, pigment, dye or powder (see below).]

48 folds[23]. The Shroud itself did not catch fire due to lack of oxygen in the casket[24] and also water poured onto the burning casket and through its burned hole onto the Shroud[25]. Inside the casket the water would have become steam when it touched the molten silver[26].

Casket opened When the casket was opened[27] and the still-folded cloth was lifted out and laid out full-length[28], in the nearby ducal castle[29], it was found that the Shroud had been badly damaged in a repeating pattern of symmetrical lozenge or diamond shaped burn marks[30].

[Right (enlarge): "Plan of the damage caused by the 1532 fire, showing how the Shroud was folded into 48 folds at the time of this incident."[31].]

But miraculously[32] (literally! - see below) the burns paralleled the all-important body image[33] and only the edges of the shoulders and upper arms were lost[34].

Natural experiment The 1532 fire and its extinguishment by water was a "natural experiment"[35] which provided further evidence that the Shroud man's image was not painted [see "No paint, etc. #15"] with any medieval or earlier paint, pigment, dye or powder[36]. That is because if any coloured material had been added to the cloth to produce the image, it would have visibly changed[37] in the intense heat inside the casket, calculated to have been between 200°C to 300°C before the Shroud was doused with water[38]. But there is no such

[Left (enlarge)[39]: Close-up of the above `ground-zero' burn. There is no change to the scourging images closest to the molten silver, even though the blood (top) has been burned[40]. The lack of scourge marks at the burn's upper edge is because it was the gap between the body and arms (see ShroudScope), but lower down the scourge marks on the shoulder blades are unchanged under the burn!]

change[41]. Not even in those parts of the image closest to the molten silver at ~960°C[42] (see above). Nor did the image run or migrate through the water stains[43] (see next part #28 "Water stains").

Shroud's survival a miracle To those who were present when the twelve by four folded[44], 442.5 x 113.7 cms Shroud (see below), i.e. 442.5/12 = ~36.9 x 113.7/4 = ~28.4 cm, or 14.5 in x ~11.2 in, fire damaged Shroud bundle was lifted out of its ruined casket and was opened out full-length, and saw that the Shroud image was untouched by the fire except for the edge of the shoulders and upper arms, the Shroud's survival through the 1532 fire was a miracle[45]. But some modern Christian writers hedge their bets on this. For example, to Ian Wilson in 1979, the Shroud's survival was only "seemingly miraculously":

"On the night of December 4, 1532, fire broke out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, where the Shroud was then kept. Flames spread quickly through the chapel, engulfing rich furnishings and hangings in their path. A beautiful stained-glass window of the Shroud, completed only ten years earlier, melted in the heat, and the cloth itself was only saved by the quick intervention of one of the duke of Savoy's counselors, Philip Lambert, and two Franciscan priests. Together they managed to carry the already burning casket out of the building. But they were too late to prevent a drop of molten silver falling onto the linen inside. This set fire to one edge, scorching all forty-eight folds before the fire could be doused with water. When the reliquary was opened up, the Shroud presented a sorry picture of holes, scorch marks, and stains left by the water. Yet, seemingly miraculously, the image itself had scarcely been touched"[46]

But by 2010, to Wilson it was only "most eerily" and "some extraordinary quirk of fate"[47]:

"But what truly arrested those present was the way that the fire damage the Shroud had sustained had, most eerily, missed the all-important image"

"Yet by some extraordinary quirk of fate, the all-important imprint had scarcely been touched."

To Mark Oxley in 2010 the Shroud's survival of the 1532 fire was only, "Almost as if by a miracle" (whatever that means):

"One night in December 1532 a fire broke out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, in south-eastern France, where the Shroud was then being kept. The flames rapidly consumed the furnishings in the church and a stained-glass window depicting the Shroud melted in the heat. The Shroud itself was saved by the quick thinking of one of the Duke of Savoy's counsellors, Philip Lambert, who, with the help of two Franciscan priests, retrieved the casket containing the Shroud and carried it out of the burning building. However a drop of molten silver fell on to the linen inside the casket, resulting in scorching of all forty-eight folds of the Shroud. This was then doused with water, which resulted in further stains. Almost as if by a miracle the image itself was scarcely touched"[48].

However, Rex Morgan in 1980 affirmed "the miraculous survival of the Shroud" through the 1532 fire:

"On 4th December 1532 there occurred an event, the consequences of which can be studied on the Shroud itself today. A fire broke out in the sacristy of the Holy Chapel at Chambéry. Historical accounts tell us that within a few minutes the whole building was alight and the silver casket in which the Shroud was kept had started to melt. Two Franciscan priests and a blacksmith managed to get into the building and rescue the relic but not before the molten silver had burned through the corner of the cloth and its forty-eight folds. These burn marks are the most apparent marks on the Shroud when one sees it in reality or on photographs today. What is interesting and entirely consistent with the miraculous survival of the Shroud is that the image of Christ was itself hardly affected by the fire at Chambéry ..."[49].

I also affirm that the survival of the Shroud through the 1532 fire was a miracle, supernaturally controlled by Jesus, whose Shroud it is, and who is ruling over all (Mt 28:18; Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9). Specifically I affirm that the survival of the Shroud, against all the odds, through the 1532 fire was what evangelical Christian philosopher Norman Geisler termed a "second class miracle":

"It may be that some things are so highly unusual and coincidental that, when viewed in connection with the moral or theological context in which they occurred, the label `miracle' is the most appropriate one for the happening. Let us call this kind of supernaturally guided event a second class miracle, that is, one whose natural process can be described scientifically (and perhaps even reduplicated by humanly controlled natural means) but whose end product in the total picture is best explained by invoking the supernatural"[50].

Here are ten things which could have gone wrong, any one of which would have left no Shroud after 1532, but didn't:

1. Fire was discovered too late. Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry was completely destroyed and the Shroud in it.
2. Blacksmith was not available or unwilling to risk his life entering the burning chapel.
3. Three other men not available or unwilling to risk their lives entering the burning chapel.
4. Four men available and willing, but driven back by intense heat, which melted silver at ~960°C, so unable to rescue the Shroud.
5. Burning roof timbers fell into chapel, killing all four men and destroying the Shroud.
6. Blacksmith unable in intense heat to break open the red hot iron grille and rescue the Shroud.
7. Four men unable to carry the too hot burning casket though the burning chapel.
8. More molten silver burnt through a larger area of the casket top, fell onto the folded Cloth, let in more oxygen and incinerated the Shroud.
9. Molten silver burned through the middle of the casket top and destroyed the image.
10. Shroud was folded in a configuration such that the corner drop of molten silver did not miss the image.

But this is only part of a larger pattern of Divine preservation that has ensured the Shroud has survived, against the odds, down through the centuries, a "frail piece of linen" when "every edifice in which the Shroud was ... housed before the fifteenth century has long since vanished":

"For if the author's [Ian Wilson's] reconstruction is correct, the Shroud has survived first-century persecution of Christians, repeated Edessan floods, an Edessan earthquake, Byzantine iconoclasm, Moslem invasion, crusader looting ... not to mention the burning incident that caused the triple holes, the 1532 fire, and a serious arson attempt made in 1972. It is ironic that every edifice in which the Shroud was supposedly housed before the fifteenth century has long since vanished through the hazards of time, yet this frail piece of linen has come through almost unscathed"[51].

1534 repairs On 16 April 1534 the Shroud was carried in a procession led by Duke Charles III (1486-1553) and the Papal Legate, Cardinal Louis de Gorrevod (c.1473-1535), from the ducal castle to the convent of Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns[52]. There under the leadership of Abbess Louise de Vargin[53], the Shroud was laid full-length on a stiff Holland cloth backing[54], which was attached to a wooden frame[55], which in turn had been laid on a large table brought from the castle, upon which the Shroud had been lying[56]. Charred areas were removed from the Shroud and replaced by triangular white linen altar cloth patches[57] which were sewn to the Holland cloth backing[58]. Despite a constant stream of visitors arriving to see the Shroud[59], on 2 May the repairs were completed[60]. The Shroud was rolled around a wooden cylinder with a sheet of red silk, then covered in cloth of gold, and returned to the Savoy castle[61]. On 4 May 1534, the Shroud's traditional annual feast and exposition day[62], it was briefly displayed from Chambéry castle to reassure the public[63]. Abbess de Vargin wrote a report on the Shroud and its repair[64].

2002 restoration Following concerns that the remaining burnt areas may be chemically reacting with the Shroud's linen[65], in 2002 under the leadership of ancient textiles conservator Mechthild Flury-Lemberg[66], the 1534 patches were removed[67], burnt particles vacuumed up[68], the old 1534 Holland cloth backing removed[69] and replaced by a new backing cloth[70]. In removing the 1534 Holland cloth backing, Flury-Lemberg became the first person to see the full underside of the Shroud in ~468 years[71]. She found no

[Right (enlarge): The Shroud after the 2002 restoration[72].]

evidence of "invisible mending" as proposed by Benford and Marino's "invisible reweaving" theory[73] (see my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1"). But Flury-Lemberg did discover that the stitching of the seam joining the sidestrip to the main body of the Shroud was most unusual[74], and which in her experience she had only seen in textiles found in the ruins of the Jewish fortress at Masada which was conquered by the Romans in AD 74 and never occupied since[75]! (See my "Sidestrip #5"). Flury-Lemberg also accurately measured the Shroud at 437 cm x 111 cm[76], later revised to 442.5 cm x 113.7 cm[77](~14 ft 6 in x 3 ft 9 in)[78].

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #23, #24 and #25). This section was inadvertently omitted but will be completed in the update in the light of Aldo Guerreschi and Michele Salcito's water stain findings in part #28.

Continued in the next part #28 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.22; Jumper, E.J., Adler, A.D., Jackson, J.P., Pellicori, S.F., Heller, J.H. & Druzik, J.R., in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin,"Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.447-476, 449; Hoare, R., 1999, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence Updated," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, pp.18, 24; 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.10. [return]
4. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Overlays: Burn Holes (1532 A.D.)" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.21-22, 219; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 32; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.7, 10. [return]
6. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.45; Wilson, 1979, p.24; 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.30; Crispino, D.C., 1982, "The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns: Chambéry, 1534," No. 2, March, pp.19-28, 19; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.49; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.2; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162; Hoare, 1999, pp.18-19, 24; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.141; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.18; Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.14; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.49; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.4, 76; Wilson, 2010, pp.14, 305. [return]
7. Iannone, 1998, pp.141-142; Oxley, 2010, p.76; Wilson, 2010, pp.249, 305. [return]
8. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.3; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.105; Wilson, 1979, p.24; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Wilson, 1986, p.2; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
9. Morgan, 1980, p.45; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.30; Wilson, 1986, p.2; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.162. [return]
10. "File:Sainte-Chapelle (Chambéry).jpg," Wikipedia, 7 May 2016. [return]
11. Ruffin, 1999, p.67. [return]
12. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.19. [return]
13. Wilson, 1986, p.2; 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.65. [return]
14. Crispino, 1982, p.19. [return]
15. Wilson, 1986, p.2; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
16. Humber, 1978, p.105; Wilson, 1998, pp.65, 289; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, pp.77, 277; Wilson, 2010, p.253. [return]
17. Wilson, 1986, p.2; Ruffin, 1999, p.67; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.16; Wilson, 2010, p.14, 305. [return]
18. Hynek, 1951, p.11; Wilson, 1979, p.24; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.30; Cruz, 1984, p.49; Iannone, 1998, pp.141-142; Hoare, 1999, p.19; Ruffin, 1999, p.67; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
19. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D.C., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.34-57, 35; Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.23; Cruz, 1984, p.49; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.57; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.176; Borkan, 1995, pp.32, 48; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.217; Iannone, 1998, p.3; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.48; Smith, P.R., 1996, "A scientific appraisal of the Allen hypothesis for the formation of the image on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud News, No. 94, April, pp.10-14, 11; Hoare, 1999, p.19. [return]
20. Hoare, 1999, p.19; de Wesselow, 2012, p.16. [return]
21. Hynek, 1951, p.3; Humber, 1978, p.36; Iannone, 1998, p.3; Moretto, 1999, p.19; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
22. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
23. Humber, 1978, p.105; Cruz, 1984, p.49; Moretto, 1999, p.19; Oxley, 2010, p.4; de Wesselow, 2012, p.16. [return]
24. Borkan, 1995, p.38; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.217-218. [return]
25. Cruz, 1984, p.49. [return]
26. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.176; Wilson, 2010, p.93. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Oxley, 2010, p.77. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, p.65; Oxley, 2010, p.78. [return]
29. Rinaldi, P.M., 1978, "The Man in the Shroud," [1972], Futura: London, Revised, p.20; Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Wilson, 1986, p.2; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.162; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22; Oxley, 2010, p.78. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, p.65. Wilson's photo has been rearranged to fit. [return]
32. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Crispino, 1982, p.20; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Hoare, 1999, p.19; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.304. [return]
33. Morgan, 1980, p.45; Adler, A.D., 1996, "Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.81-86, 81; Ruffin, 1999, pp.11-12; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
34. Hynek, 1951, p.3; 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; Wilson, 1998, p.23. [return]
35. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.30; Antonacci, 2000, pp.48-49, 73-74; Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous - the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-68, 64; Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.10. [return]
36. Murphy, 1981, p.55; Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.24; Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.103-112, 105; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 16-17; Antonacci, 2000, p.48; Tribbe, 2006, p.127; Oxley, 2010, p.210. [return]
37. Borkan, 1995, pp.23-24; Antonacci, 2000, p.48; Tribbe, 2006, p.127; Rogers, 2008, p.10. [return]
38. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, 236. [return]
39. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal," (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
40. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.162. [return]
41. Culliton, 1978, p.236; Murphy, 1981, p.55; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.67; Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.24; Adler, 1999, p.105; Adler, 2000c, pp.16-17; Antonacci, 2000, p.48; Tribbe, 2006, p.127; Oxley, 2010, p.210. [return]
42. Murphy, 1981, pp.55-56; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.67; Adler, 1999, p.105. [return]
43. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.107; Antonacci, 2000, p.48; Oxley, 2010, p.210. [return]
44. Hynek, 1951, p.3; Hoare, 1999, p.19; Tribbe, 2006, p.11. [return]
45. Crispino, 1982, p.20; Scavone, D.C., 1995, "Philibert Pingon and the Shroud of Turin," Shroud News, No 87, February, pp.18-23,22. [return]
46. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
47. Wilson, 2010, pp.254, 14. [return]
48. Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
49. Morgan, 1980, p.45. [return]
50. Geisler N.L., 1976, "Christian Apologetics," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Ninth Printing, 1995, p.277. [return]
51. Wilson, 1979, p.251. [return]
52. McNair, 1978, p.22; Wilson, 1979, pp.24, 263; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Crispino, 1982, p.22; Wilson, I., 1996, "A Calendar of the Shroud for the years 1509-1694," BSTS Newsletter, No. 44, November/December; Crispino, D.C., 1998, "A Chronological Survey of Observations on the Shroud Textile," 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.279-286, 279; Iannone, 1998, pp.2-3; Wilson, 1998, p.289; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.22; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, p.78; Wilson, 2010, p.253. [return]
53. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Crispino, 1982, p.22; Oxley, 2010, pp.78, 277. [return]
54. Crispino, 1982, p.22; Wilson, 1996; Crispino, 1998. [return]
55. Crispino, 1982, p.22; Wilson, 1996; Crispino, 1998. [return]
56. Crispino, 1982, p.22; Wilson, 1996; Crispino, 1998. [return]
57. McNair, 1978, p.22; Wilson, 1979, p.24; Cruz, 1984, p.49; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Wilson, 2010, pp.256, 304. [return]
58. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.162; Wilson, 1998, p.64; Wilson, 2010, p.304. [return]
59. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, pp.24, 262; Wilson, 1996; Guerrera, 2001, p.18. [return]
61. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, pp.286, 290; Oxley, 2010, pp.78, 262; Wilson, 2010, p.256. [return]
62. Wilson, 1979, pp.218, 262; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Wilson, 1998, p.112; Ruffin, 1999, p.68; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.364; Oxley, 2010, pp.84; Wilson, 2010, pp.95; 253, 255-256, 264, 304; de Wesselow, 2012, p.16. [return]
63. Wilson, 1979, p.219; Tribbe, 2006, p.50. [return]
64. Crispino, 1982, pp.19-28. [return]
65. Adler, A.D., 1991, "Conservation and Preservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.67-71, 69-70; Oxley, 2010, pp.263, 268; Wilson, 2010, p.286. [return]
66. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Oxley, 2010, p.9; Wilson, 2010, pp.14, 70, 286, 310. [return]
67. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Oxley, 2010, pp.9, 78, 263; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 24, 286. [return]
68. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Oxley, 2010, p.263; Wilson, 2010, p.15. [return]
69. Antonacci, 2000, p.187; Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Oxley, 2010, pp.244, 263; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 24, 286. [return]
70. Antonacci, 2000, p.187; Oxley, 2010, p.244; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 24, 310. [return]
71. Oxley, 2010, p.263; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 72, plate 13b. [return]
72. "Image of Full 2002 Restored Shroud," High Resolution Imagery, Shroud University, 2014. [return]
73. Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol 26, No. 4, July-August, pp.4-12; Oxley, 2010, p.229. [return]
74. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
75. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 72-74. [return]
76. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
77. Wilson, 2010, pp.311, 315. [return]
78. Wilson, 2010, p.71. [return]

Posted 20 January 2018. Updated 24 october 2024.

Other marks and images #26: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

OTHER MARKS AND IMAGES #26

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is "Other marks and images," part #26, of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" This page is a sub-index to topics under the heading, "Other marks and images." That is, marks other than wounds and bloodstains, and images other than of the Man on the Shroud (see under part #8, "The man on the Shroud" for those). Each topic will be a page containing items of evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud, under that topic heading. Each of those topic pages will be linked back to this sub-index and it in turn will be linked back to the Main index. See that Main index for more information about this series.

[Right (enlarge): Burns (outlined in blue) and `poker holes' (outlined in yellow) on a full-length pre-2002 restoration positive photograph of the Shroud[2].]

The order of topics in this "Other marks and images," section is from the perspective of what I imagine a person looking at the Shroud would notice first among the other marks and images, such as: the burns, the water stains, etc., grading into those which are less obvious, such as flower images, coins over the eyes, etc. See also "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks."

[Main index #1] [Previous: No image under blood #25] [Next: Burns #27]

---

3. Other marks and images #26
1. Burns #27
2. Water stains #28
3. `Poker holes' #29
4. Dirt #30
5. Flower & plant images #31
6. Coins over the eyes #32

---

Continued in part #27 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]

Posted 19 January 2018. Updated 7 April 2024.

12th-11th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (3): Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #11

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #11, "12th-11th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (3)," in my "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory," series. For more information about this series see part #1, "Hacking an explanation & Index." References "[A]", etc., will be to that part of my original post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: "Vignon markings: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (2) #10" [Next: "11th-10th century: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (4)" #12]

[Above (enlarge): "Scenes from the Passion of Christ ...The Lamentation"[2]: Part of a larger carved ivory panel (see below) in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London. Note that Jesus' arms cross awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, exactly as they are on the Shroud[3], in this late eleventh/early twelfth century Byzantine icon. This alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud existed at least a century before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!]

Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Shroud hacker theory in my early 2014 posts (last three): "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Further to my replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey"; "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1"; "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #2 (Vignon markings)" and now "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #3."

This post continues from my previous "... against the preponderance of the evidence (2), and before that "... against the preponderance of the evidence (1), which presented historical evidence for the Shroud's existence in the 13th and 12th centuries [see also "Chronology ... 12th century"]. As I had previously explained, my purpose of documenting all this historical evidence of the Shroud's existence from the 13th to the 11th century is to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[4] must be wrong. And then [since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic] the key questions would be (and are): 1. "How could a 1st century cloth (absent fraud) carbon-date to the 13th-14th century?"; and 2. "How could the midpoint of that date range, 1325 ±65[5], `just happen' (absent fraud) to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355"? Especially given that the leader of the Shroud carbon-dating project, Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), pointed out that the improbability of the Shroud being first century (which it is), yet its radiocarbon date was "between 1260 and 1390," is "about one in a thousand trillion"[6]). [A]

c. 1100 Late eleventh century portable mosaic, "Christ the Merciful"[7], in the former Ehemals Staatliche Museum[8], now Bodemuseum, Berlin.

[Left (enlarge): "Christ the Merciful" mosaic icon (1100-1150) in the Bodemuseum, Berlin[9].]

By my count this icon has 12 of the 15 Vignon markings [see "c.1100"], including a wisp of hair where the reversed `3' bloodflow is on the Shroud, a topless square, wide open staring eyes, a forked beard and a line across the throat, but they are more stylized[10]. [B]

1092 A letter purporting to be from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081-1118) to Count Robert II of Flanders (r.1093- 1111)[11], appealed for

[Right: "Portrait of Emperor Alexios I, from a Greek manuscript"[12].]

help to prevent Constantinople falling into the hands of the pagans[13]. The letter listed the relics in Constantinople including, "the linen cloths found in the sepulchre after his Resurrection"[14]. Although the letter may (or may not [see "1092"]) be a forgery, this need not invalidate its description of the relics then in the imperial collection[15]. [C]

c. 1090 Late eleventh/early twelfth century Byzantine ivory of the threnos, or lamentation scene of Jesus being mourned as he is laid out in death, in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London[16]. As already

[Left (original): Full carved ivory panel in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[17], showing scenes of: crucifixion (top), deposition (middle) and burial threnos (bottom).]

mentioned above Jesus' hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right arm over the left, exactly as on the Shroud! This late eleventh century artistic style of depicting Jesus laid out in death on a shroud coincides with the first references to the burial sheet (sindon) in Constantinople's relics[18]. [D]

c. 1080 Eleventh-century Christ Pantocrator mosaic in the dome of the monastery church of Daphni near Athens, Greece[19]. It has 13

[Right (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator mosaic from Daphni, Greece, ca. 1080-1100[20].]

of the 15 Vignon markings[21] (see #10). In this and other icons, some of these Vignon markings, for example the `topless square,' are more stylized than on the Shroud, having been rendered more naturalistic by very competent artists[22] copying these features second hand from the master-original[23], the Shroud face[24]. [E]

1058 The Christian Arab writer Abu Nasr Yahya recorded that he saw the cloth of Edessa in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople [25]. But it was not then publicly exhibited full length[26] as it was still regarded as too holy for ordinary gaze[27]. [F]

c. 1050 Eleventh-century mosaic bust of Christ Pantocrator in the narthex of the catholicon church (c. 1010) within the Hosios Loukas monastery[28] near the town of Distomo, Greece[29].

[Left (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator, c. 1050, Hosios Loukas monastery, Greece[30].]

The late art historian, Professor Kurt Weitzmann (1904-1993), who specialised in Byzantine and medieval art[31], noted that this icon had facial "subtleties" similar to the sixth-century Christ Pantocrator icon portrait in St. Catherine monastery, Sinai[32] [See "c. 550"] . In particular Prof. Weitzmann noted:

"...the pupils of the eyes are not at the same level; the eyebrow over Christ's left eye is arched higher than over his right ... one side of the mustache droops at a slightly different angle from the other, while the beard is combed in the opposite direction ... Many of these subtleties remain attached to this particular type of Christ image and can be seen in later copies, e.g. the mosaic bust in the narthex of Hosios Lukas over the entrance to the catholicon ... Here too the difference in the raising of the eyebrows is most noticeable ..." [33].

Those facial "subtleties" that Prof. Weitzmann noted were "attached to this particular type of Christ image and can be seen in later copies" are Vignon markings which are all found on the Shroud! [G]

c. 1050 The mid-eleventh-century Old French "Life of Saint Alexis"[34], the first masterpiece of French literature, contains the passage[35]:

"Then he [Alexis] went off to the city of Edessa Because of an image he had heard tell of, Which the angels made at God's commandment..."

[Right (enlarge): Miniature and text of the "Chanson de St Alexis" or "Vie de St Alexis," in the St. Albans Psalter (c. 1120-1145)[36].]

As philologist Linda Cooper has shown in a scholarly paper[37], the "image" referred to is the Image of Edessa, and from the various versions of St. Alexis's life it is clear that this was the Shroud[38]. Over two centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud! [H]

Continued in the next part #12 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 page. [return]
2. "Scenes from the Passion of Christ; The Crucifixion, the Deposition from the Cross, The Entombment and the Lamentation," Victoria & Albert Museum, London. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.160; 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.270; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.182-183. [return]
4. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
5. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; Wilson, 1998, p.7; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.169; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.170; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.87. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.160h. [return]
8. Ibid. [return]
9. Mosaic icon, "Christ the Merciful (1100-1150), in Museum of Byzantine Art, Bode Museum, Berlin, Germany: Wikipedia (translated by Google). [return]
12. "Alexios I Komnenos," Wikipedia, 13 January 2018. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
11. Wilson, 1979, pp.166-167. [return]
13. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.xxxv. [return]
14. de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, p.314 n31. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.151. [return]
17. "Scenes from the Passion of Christ," Victoria and Albert Museum, London. [return]
18. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.88. [return]
19. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.77. [return]
20. "Daphni Monastery," Wikipedia, 28 December 2017. [return]
21. Maher, 1986, p.77. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
23. Wilson, 1991, p.168. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.270. [return]
26. Currer-Briggs, N., 1987, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.63. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.257. [return]
28. "Hosios Loucas (Stiris)," Pausanias Project, 29 August 2013. [return]
29. "Hosios Loukas," Wikipedia, 28 December 2017. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. "Kurt Weitzmann," Wikipedia, 6 January 2018. [return]
32. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.107. [return]
33. Weitzmann, K., 1976, "The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, p.15, in Wilson, 1986, p.107. [return]
34. Bauer, B.L.M. & Slocum, J., 2013, "Old French Online: Lesson 3," Linguistics Research Center in The College of Liberal Arts, University of Texas at Austin, 11 December. [return]
35. Wilson, I., 1987, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter 16, May, p.14. [return]
36. "St. Albans Psalter," Wikipedia, 1 July 2017. [return]
37. Cooper, L., 1986, "The Old French Life of Saint Alexis and the Shroud of Turin," Modern Philology, Vol. 84, No. 1, August, pp.1-17. [return]
38. Wilson, 1987, p.14. [return]

Posted: 14 January 2018. Updated: 26 July 2021.

Obituary (2): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #2 of my obituary of Dr. Alan D. Whanger. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. As stated in part #1, because this obituary was going to be too long, I split it into two (or more) parts. Also I had added links below to the major headings which will continue in this part #2. See next part #3.

[Points of Congruence] [Instruments and Objects of the Crucifixion]

[Above (enlarge): "Justinian II. first reign, 685-695 AD. AV solidus ..."[2].]

Points of Congruence (PC) [top] Whanger continued with his explanation in part #1:

"To tabulate and describe these similarities, we made use of a system of points of congruence, by which we mean the identity or marked similarity of points between the two images. These were then diagrammed on transparent plastic sheets covering large photographs so that the findings could be tabulated and demonstrated. We were not able to find any statistical method for validating our observations, so we used the forensic criteria for validating images, although this would probably not accurately apply to the type of image comparison we were using. In a court of law, 14 points of congruence between two fingerprints is sufficient to establish same source. For more complicated features, notably the human face, 45 to 60 points of congruence is sufficient to determine the same face or same origin. Therefore, we had a yardstick of sorts to try to understand the significance of our findings"[3].

However, I regret to say that, as congenial as this is to Shroud pro-authenticists (including me who had cited it in the past), Whanger's PC argument has several major flaws (some of which he tacitly admitted above), that invalidate it. Flaw #1 of Whanger's PC argument is that at its core it is subjective. Whanger effectively admitted this when he stated that there was no "statistical method for validating our observations." Mary Whanger has effectively admitted that a point of congruence is what they both agreed was so:

"To do comparisons, Alan would first superimpose two images, using what he came to consider `best possible alignment': eyebrows, tip of nose, and mouth. Then together we would do the comparisons. The first two we did were those of the Shroud face with the Pantocrator face and with the solidus coin face. Using a clear plastic sheet over an eight-by-ten photograph of the Shroud face, every feature that matched was drawn in with a red permanent marker. These features are not just the large structures, but small details, such as the tip of the nose, the shape of a blood stain in the hair, a dot to one side of the mouth, etc. We called these points of congruence (PC). This was carefully and meticulously done, and we did not draw in anything unless we both could see and be certain that it was really there. Then we counted the points of congruence"[4].

So it follows that if anyone else using Whanger's Polarized Image Overlay technique (PIOT) could not see that a claimed point of congruence was really there (for example Ian Wilson - see future below), then it was not a point of congruence!

Flaw #2 of the Whangers' PC argument is their claim above that, "In a court of law, 14 points of congruence between two fingerprints is sufficient to establish [the] same source." First, the Whangers have repeated this claim many times[5], but never, as far as I am aware, provided a reference to support it. Second, in a court of law, the prosecution would have to show photographs of the fingerprints and claimed points of congruence between them for a jury to assess the claim, with a defence lawyer vigorously attacking each claim. But as far as I am aware, the Whangers have never produced photographs of their claimed points of congruence, so that others can see for themselves if they are truly congruent. Third, this claim is an example of the Fallacy of False Analogy[6], in that it assumes that the correspondence of a fingerprint mark to the finger that produced it is essentially the same as a mark on an icon or coin to a mark at the corresponding location on the Shroud. But, for starters, fingerprint marks are so regular and objective that the matching of them can be, and is, computerised[7].

[Above (enlarge): "Classification of fingerprints. Fingerprints have general patterns of ridges that allow them to be classified and compared. All fingerprints are divided into three large groups, based on their ridge pattern"[8].]

Whereas (as we saw above) the Whangers' determination of what is a point of congruence is entirely subjective in that they both had to agree on whether a mark on an icon or coin is a match of a mark at the corresponding location on the Shroud. Whanger even admitted that "the analogy may not be strictly correct" and "the analogy is not fully correct"[9]!

Flaw #3 of the Whangers' Points of Congruence claims is their assumption that more is better. But the more claimed PCs the more the likelihood that some are wrong. In a court of law, a defence lawyer would attack the more doubtful claimed PCs to make them all appear doubtful to the jury. Ian Wilson realised this in his reduction of the original twenty Vignon markings down to a more reliable fifteen:

"In the 1930s Vignon turned his interest away from the scientific aspects of the Shroud, and began to study some of the post-sixth-century Byzantine portraits ... together with many similar pre-fourteenth-century portraits of Christ. He had noticed that in many of these portraits there were certain oddities, certain peculiarities to the Christ face ...Vignon, and after him the American scholar Edward Wuenschel, began to search for other such peculiarities, and found some twenty in all, oddities originating from some accidental imperfection in the Shroud image or weave, and repeated time and again in paintings, frescoes, and mosaics of the Byzantine period, even though artistically they made no sense ... Not all of the twenty markings deduced by Vignon and Wuenschel are acceptable ... But even so, one could still make a reasonable case for the validity of some fifteen ..."[10].

Similarly it would have been far better if the Whangers had produced a much shorter list (say 14 to match their court of law analogy) of their best PCs for each icon/coin and publish side-by-side photographs of those claimed congruent points for others to assess and reach a majority consensus. But with Alan Whanger's passing that seems now unlikely to happen and all we will be left with is the Whanger's assertions.

Flaw #4 of the Whangers' PC claims is the lack of realism of some, which discredits them all. For example, Whanger claimed of the Justinian II solidus coin in part #1 and above, that it had, "145 points of congruence"[11]. But the face of Jesus on this coin, "from the top of the head to the tip of the beard," is only nine millimetres high[12] - less than a centimetre. The Whangers admitted that the die-maker of this 7th century coin could not have seen with his unaided eye much of their claimed 145 PCs:

"How a seventh-century iconographer ever got such detail engraved in so small a space is beyond our understanding. Much of it you cannot even see with the unaided eye. Repeatedly, as we were comparing the photographs projected on a large screen and enlarged to fill the screen, we would have to remind ourselves of the tiny size of the icon, and we would pause and marvel! Surely, the engraver who did that work must have been one of the most skilled of all time"[13].

Magnifying lenses did then exist[14], so it is not impossible that the die maker could have used one. But why would he when those using the coin could not see its fine detail? The Whangers attempted to explain this by claiming that to the Byzantines, icons were the same as Scripture and so this coin's maker, "would no more create an image according to his own imagination than a scribe would ... rewrite Scripture":

"Why such incredible accuracy? Why go to such extraordinary lengths to reproduce with such meticulous care features that most people would never see? The answer has to do with the nature of icons. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, icons had (and still have) the same status as Scripture. Thus the iconographer would no more create an image according to his own imagination than a scribe would casually rewrite Scripture"[15].

But this explanation is self-evidently false, because when the Shroud face is compared with Jesus' face on the Justinian II solidus (below), it

[Above (enlarge): Positive of the Shroud face (left) as this solidus' die-maker would have seen it, and the solidus face (right) as the die-maker depicted it. While the coin was based on the Shroud (as evidenced by it having 11 out of the 15 Vignon markings - see above), the two prominent bloodstains on the Shroud man's forehead being depicted as two tufts of hair alone proves that the coin's iconographer did create the coin's image at least partly according to his own imagination!]

can be easily seen that the coin's die-maker did not meticulously copy the Shroud face as a scribe would have copied Scripture.

Further examples of the Whangers' lack of realism (i.e. failure step back and take a reality-check) in their points of congruence identifications, is their claim that the face of a statue of the pagan god Zeus, excavated from the ancient Syrian city Dura-Europos, and dated AD 31 (i.e. one year after Jesus' death in AD 30[16]!), was based on the Shroud, sharing 79 points of congruence with it:

"We examined in detail ... early depictions from Dura-Europos that were well preserved and of good quality, a relief of the god Zeus Kyrios or Baalshamin of A.D. 31 ... Using the Polarized Image Overlay Technique, we compared the face image of Zeus Kyrios with the face image on the Shroud of Turin and found a very good match of seventy-nine PC"[17].

But as can be seen below in these side-by-side photos of the positive of the Shroud face (which the claimed sculptor would need to have seen)

[Above (enlarge): Positive photo of the Shroud face[18](left)] compared with the photo of the face of the same statue of Zeus[19](right)] in the Whangers' 1998 book[20].]

and the face of the same Zeus statue on page 40 of the Whangers' 1998 book, the two faces have very little in common! The Whangers evidently did not even consider realistically that it would require a sudden and largely complete conversion of Syrian paganism to Christianity in a year (indeed in months because major sculptures take time to plan and create) for it to be true that the Dura-Europos pagans saw the Shroud, were convinced by it that Jesus had risen from the dead, and erected this idol (because that is what it was) with their traditional face of Zeus replaced by the face of Jesus, as seen on the Shroud! But if this had happened we would surely know about it in history but we don't. Wilson pointed out (with typical British understatement), "That the face of Jesus should have been used within two years of the ... crucifixion as a model for a pagan statue of the king of the gods ... put[s] an intolerable strain on our credulity":

"That the face of Jesus should have been used within two years of the earliest likely date for the crucifixion as a model for a pagan statue of the king of the gods is in itself quite sufficient to put an intolerable strain on our credulity"[21].

Moreover, Wilson continued, "the source of inspiration for Dura Europos' Zeus Kyrios was the magnificent ... statue of Zeus at Olympia, created ... in the fifth century BC":

"But in any case what Dr. Whanger seems sadly to have overlooked is the fact that with little doubt the source of inspiration for Dura Europos' Zeus Kyrios was the magnificent chryselephantine (gold and ivory) statue of Zeus at Olympia, created by the famous Greek sculptor Phidias back in the fifth century BC"[22].

This alone is sufficient to discredit as unrealistically subjective the Whangers' points of congruence claims, but as we shall see next, it gets even worse!

Instruments and Objects of the Crucifixion [top] The Whangers claim to have discovered on the Shroud images of some of the instruments of Jesus' crucifixion[23]. Mary Whanger described their search for these as an "adventure" and "a treasure hunt" (which is not the right frame of mind to have for an objective, scientific investigation):

"BY THIS TIME, THE ADVENTURE OF looking for images of objects on the Shroud had taken on the excitement of a treasure hunt. Once again, Alan began to study every square inch of the Shroud photographs, up close and at a distance. What he was looking for were areas whose appearance differed in some way from the surrounding area: patterns that do not follow the weave pattern, or alterations in the texture or density of an image, or unusual directions or configurations"[24].

They were using only their "Polarized Image Overlay" technique (PIOT)[25] (see part #1) and thus were vulnerable to Maslow's "Law of the instrument," i.e. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail":

"The concept known as the law of the instrument, otherwise known as the law of the hammer, Maslow's hammer (or gavel), or the golden hammer, is a cognitive bias that involves an over-reliance on a familiar tool. As Abraham Maslow said in 1966, `I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail'"[26].

Instruments of Jesus' crucifixion that the Whangers claim to have found on the Shroud include a large Roman crucifixion nail[27].

[Right (enlarge): "The images of a large nail with two crossed smaller nails can be seen on the Shroud between a railroad spike for comparison on the left and a drawing of the images on the right."[28].]

From the Whangers' description of its location:

"The first such image found was of a six and one-half inch long spike on the dorsal image half of the Shroud a few inches away from the body on the anatomic right [sic] side at thigh level"[29]

I located this `nail' on the Shroud (except that it is on the anatomical left side - the Whangers were presumably confused by using only Enrie negative photographs of the Shroud[30]), using ShroudScope (see below). But as can be seen in my two versions of the same ShroudScope

[Above (enlarge)[31]: Positive image of the Shroud showing the `nail' outlined in red (left) alongside the same original image autocorrected (right), showing that the sides of the `nail' are part of the weave of the cloth!]

image, and even in the Whangers' photo above, the sides of the `nail' are part of the longitudinal weave of the cloth and therefore this Roman crucifixion `nail' is merely an illusion!

Another image of an instrument of the crucifixion of Jesus that the Whangers claim to have found on the Shroud is that of the spear which

[Left (enlarge)[32]: "The image of the upper end of the shaft of a spear and of part of its head can be seen on the Shroud between a drawing of the spear on the left and a model on the right. The upper part of the image on the Shroud, repres- ented by a dotted line in the drawing, is lost in a water stain. The spear image is compatible with a Roman hasta, or thrusting spear"[33].]

was thrust into Jesus' side to make sure that He was dead (Jn 19:33-34)[34]. The Whangers' further describe this claimed spear image and its location on the Shroud:

"The next object we found on the Shroud was the spear, located on the dorsal half of the Shroud near the edge on the anatomic left. The head or blade of the spear is about level with the head of the man. The upper part of the shaft apparently was made of wood. The upper end of the shaft is rounded. A narrow neck, which is inserted into both the shaft and the head, connects the shaft with the head. The outline of the lower part of the spear head is not difficult to see, but the upper part disappears into a water stain area"[35].

But contrary to the Whangers' claim above that the this spear image is compatible with a Roman hasta, in fact the cross-section shape of the side wound on the Shroud is elliptical[36], which matches a Roman leaf-like lancea[37], not the more pointy hasta[38]. And as can be seen in the ShroudScope negative below (I cannot see it at the equivalent

[Above (enlarge)[39]: ShroudScope Enrie negative with `spear' head outlined in red (left) alongside same original ShroudScope image (right). ]

place on the ShroudScope positive), if enlarge is clicked it can be seen that the head of the `spear' is part of longer diagonal marks (wrinkles or water stains) on the Shroud, and its shaft is part of the cloth's longitudinal weave! So again the Whangers' `spear' is an illusion! Moreover, this is yet another example of the lack of realism in the Whangers' claims. For there to be an image on the Shroud of the spear that a Roman soldier had just used to pierce Jesus' side (Jn 19:33-34), one of the disciples present would have had to ask the soldier to hand over his spear. The Whangers claim is that the centurion present at the crucifixion of Jesus who remarked, "Truly, this man was the Son of God" (Mt 27:54; Mk 15:39), recovered all the items touched by Jesus' lifeblood, and gave them to the disciples to be wrapped in the Shroud[40]. But not only is there no Gospel evidence for this, and it surely would have been mentioned if it had happened; the spear did not have Jesus' lifeblood on it because He was already dead when speared (Jn 19:33-34). And as Whanger concedes it would have been "a capital offence for a Roman soldier to give away his spear":

"It was also a capital offence for a Roman soldier to give away his spear. However, it was an immediate capital offence for a Roman soldier to disobey his centurion. So, if a centurion ordered a soldier to leave his spear in the tomb, it would be done"[41].

But their excuse that "it was ... [a] capital offence for a Roman soldier to disobey his centurion" is surely false in this context, because the centurion's order would have been illegal!

An object that the Whangers' claim is on the Shroud and associated with Jesus' crucifixion is a head phylactery[42] (see below). But as

[Right (enlarge): "Composite showing the face image on the Shroud including a head phylactery on the forehead and the model below"[43].]

can be seen below left, the Whangers' `desecrated phylactery' (see below) is merely an illusion caused by the longitudinal weave of the cloth and horizontal

[Above (enlarge)[44]: The Whangers' claimed `desecrated phylactery' (see below) outlined in red on part of a ShroudScope Enrie negative photo of the Shroud. As can be seen, the sides of this `phylactery' are the longitudinal weave of the cloth and the image of the nose, which both continue past the `phylactery'. An obvious refutation of this being the desecrated "leather" (see below) back of a phylactery is that it would have had to be transparent because the same nose features and weave above and below it can be seen through in it!]

marks which continue across the nose! Problems with the Whangers' `phylactery' include: ■ They admit that "Scripture makes no mention of a phylactery at the time of Jesus' death and burial"[45]. ■ The Whangers explained away that their `phylactery' is not complete as in their photo above by claiming that when Jesus was mocked by Roman soldiers in their Praetorium (Mt 27:57-31; Mk 15:16-20), the soldiers "desecrat[ed]" the "leather" phylactery by cutting the front of it off with "a sharp knife"[46]. But not only is this entirely imaginary, it has the obvious problem (as mentioned above) that the leather back of the phylactery would have had to be transparent because the same nose and weave features above and below where the claimed phylactery was can also be seen through it! ■ They explained away that "the phylactery is too low on the forehead for its normal placement ... It should be close to the hair line" (see below) by claiming that "it was pushed down by

[Above (enlarge): "Jewish men wearing phylacteries during prayer at the Western Wall, Jerusalem, 2003"[47].]

the crown of thorns"[48]. But they did not consider the reality that the final placement of the phylactery, if it existed, would have occurred at burial after the crown of thorns had been removed (since there is no image of it on the Shroud), when out of respect for the deceased the phylactery would have been placed in its customary position - at the hair line.

Leading pro-authenticists Ian Wilson and Barrie Schwortz and "many others who favour the Shroud's authenticity" dismissed the Whangers' identification of instruments and objects of crucifixion on the Shroud as equivalent to seeing "faces in clouds" (pareidolia):

"Dr Alan Whanger ... further reported seeing numerous other objects both on the man of the Shroud's body, and in the cloth's ostensibly plain background. These included ... two desecrated Jewish phylacteries [prayer boxes], one on the forehead and the other on the left arm, an amulet of Tiberius Caesar, a crucifixion nail, a Roman spear, a crown of thorns, a sponge tied to a reed [John 19:29], a large hammer, a pair of pliers, two Roman scourges ... two sandals, a scoop ... two brush brooms, a pair of dice, a coil of rope, several letters on the title or titulus [the `King of the Jews' placard of John 19:19], and possibly partial images of the cloak, the tunic and two more nails'[49]. All of these objects ... Whanger argued ... must have been placed within the Shroud at the time of the man's burial, somehow becoming imprinted onto the cloth in much the same manner as the body ... For such reasons Barrie Schwortz and I, along with many others who favour the Shroud's authenticity, dismissed Alan Whanger's insights as having too much of a `faces in clouds' character ..."[50]

Not only did the Whangers' self-indulgent "adventure" and "treasure hunt" (see above) for images of instruments and objects of crucifixion on the Shroud bring discredit upon them in the pro-authenticity community, it also brought discredit on the Shroud in the Shroud sceptic community. In an article titled, "Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud'," leading Shroud sceptic, Joe Nickell, likened the Whangers' identification of images on the Shroud as akin to seeing imaginary shapes in a Rorschach ink-blot test:

"Shroud of Rorschach ... a retired geriatric psychiatrist, Alan Whanger, and his wife Mary, former missionaries who have taken up image analysis as a hobby ... visualized ... perceived shapes seen--Rorschach-like--in the shroud's mottled image and off-image areas. These include ... head and arm `phylacteries' (small Jewish prayer boxes), an `amulet,' and such crucifixion- associated items (cf. John, ch. 19) as `a large nail,' a `hammer,' `sponge on a reed,' `Roman thrusting spear,' `pliers,' `two scourges,' `two brush brooms,' `two small nails,' `large spoon or trowel in a box,' `a loose coil of rope,' a `cloak' with `belt,' a `tunic,' a pair of `sandals,' and other hilarious imaginings including `Roman dice'--all discovered by the Whangers (1998) ..."[51].

However, as we shall see in future parts of this obituary, Alan Whanger made a number of other important discoveries which added to the already overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is authentic. Including one discovery which may be the most important of all [see X-rays #22], because it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ and bears His crucified and resurrected image!

Continued in part #3 of this obituary of Dr. Alan D. Whanger.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission 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 page. [return]
2. Justinian II - Byzantine Coinage - WildWinds.com ... SB 1249." [return]
3. Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M.W., "A Quantitative Optical Technique for Analyzing and Authenticating the Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Berard, A., ed., "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, 1991, pp.303-324, 307. [return]
4. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998a, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.19. [return]
5. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.307; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.19, 27; Whanger, A.D., 1998b, "Knowing a Hawk from a Handsaw," BSTS Newsletter, No. 47, May/July; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.6; Rogalski, J., 2007, "Fact or Forgery? Whangers Apply Test of Science to Shroud of Turin," DukeMed Alumni News, 10 November; Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M.W., 2008b, "Revisiting the Eye Images: What are They?," in Fanti, 2009, pp.134-139, 137. [return]
6. Downes, S., 1995, "The Logical Fallacies: False Analogy," 26 May. [return]
7. "Fingerprint Recognition — FBI," Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013. [return]
8. "CSI'/ Forensics Fingerprint Identification," March 8, 2010. [return]
9. Whanger, A.D., in Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 303; Whanger, A. & Whanger, M., 1999, "The Real Date of the Shroud: The Visual Evidence," in Walsh, B., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.69-77, 71. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised, pp.103-104. [return]
11. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, pp.308, 310; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.20. [return]
12. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.20-21. [return]
13. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.308; Whanger & Whanger, 2008a, p.143; Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.20. [return]
14. "Magnifying glass: History," Wikipedia, 28 October 2017. [return]
15. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.21. [return]
16. Doig, K.F., 2015, "New Testament Chronology: Part IV, The Crucifixion of Jesus" & "The 30 CE Crucifixion," 22 April. [return]
17. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.43; Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M., 1991, "Evidence of early origin and nature of the Shroud of Turin by image analysis and optical comparison," Shroud News, No 65, June, pp.8-18, 15-16; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.73. [return]
18. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
19. Extract from "Dura Europos - Gods," St. Louis Community College, St. Louis MO, nd. [return]
20. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.40. [return]
21. Wilson, I., 1986, "Dr. Alan Whanger - A New Claim," BSTS Newsletter, No. 13, April, pp.9-12, 10-11. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
23. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.86; Whanger, 1998b. [return]
24. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.86 (emphasis original). [return]
25. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.88. [return]
26. "Law of the instrument," Wikipedia, 5 October 2017. [return]
27. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.88; Whanger, A.D. & Whanger, M.W., 2015, "Other Images," Council for the Study of the Shroud of Turin, Durham NC. [return]
28. Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
29. Ibid. [return]
30. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.8-9. [return]
31. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
32. Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
33. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.89. [return]
34. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.88; Whanger, 1998b; Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
35. Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.48; Meacham, 1983, p.290; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.62; 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.41; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.63. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, pp.48-49; Meacham, 1983, p.290; Iannone, 1998, p.62; Wilson, 1998, p.41; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.63. [return]
38. Wilson, 1979, p.48; Meacham, 1983, p.290; Iannone, 1998, pp.62-63. [return]
39. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
40. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.58; 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.109. [return]
41. Selinsky, D., 1991, "'Off the body' images - new Whanger research: A report from Duke University," Shroud News, No. 68, December, pp.3-4, 3. [return]
42. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, pp.60-65; Whanger, 1998b; Whanger & Whanger, 1999, p.73; Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
43. Whanger & Whanger, 2015. [return]
44. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
45. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.63. [return]
46. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.63. [return]
47. David Roberts, 2013, "Phylactery: Judaism," Britannica.com. [return]
48. Whanger & Whanger, 1998a, p.64. [return]
49. Whanger, A., CSST News, July 1998. Not online. See Whanger & Whanger, 2015, "Other Images." [return]
50. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.82-84; Wilson, I., 1997, "Very Like a Whale," BSTS Newsletter, No. 46, November/December. [return]
51. Nickell, J., 2001, "Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud'," Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 25, No. 5, September, pp.17-20. [return]

Posted 18 December 2017. Updated 14 December 2022.