Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Sixteenth century (1)

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

This is the nineteenth installment of part #20, "Sixteenth century (1)" of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see the Index #1. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. This page was initially based on Ian Wilson's 1996, "Highlights of the Undisputed History: 1500."

[Index #1] [Previous: 15th century (2) #19] [Next: 16th century (2) #21]


16th century (1) (1501-1550).

1501 The childless already widowed at 17, Margaret of Austria (1480– 1530) [Right [2]], daugh-ter of future Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I (r. 1508-19)[3], married the childless already widowered at 19, Philibert II, Duke of Savoy (1480-1504), thus becoming Duchess of Savoy[4].

1502 Margaret was devoted to the Shroud[5], and at her behest it was no longer to accompany the Savoys during their travels [see "1473b], but is to given a permanent home in the Royal Chapel of Chambéry Castle, the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry[6]. On 11 June the Shroud in its silver-gilt reliquary is

[Above (enlarge): The Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry[7], as it is today, after the 1532 fire fire [see future "1532"].]

carried in a solemn procession from Chambéry's Franciscan church to the Sainte-Chapelle[8], where it is deposited in a special cavity hollowed out of the wall [see future "1532"], above the Chapel's high altar[9]. The cavity is secured by an iron grille with four locks, each opened by a separate key, two of which are held by the Duke[10].

1503 On Good Friday, 14 April, the Shroud was exhibited at Bourg-en-Bresse in Eastern France for Margaret's brother Archduke Philip the Duke of Burgundy (r. 1482–1506)[11]. The Shroud was first exhibited in Philip's castle[12], presumably the Château de Cordon (now a ruin [Left (enlarge)[13]) which is between Chambéry and Bourg-en-Bresse and was owned by the Holy Roman Emperors[14], and then in the marketplace of Bourg-en-Bresse[15]. An eyewitness, Antoine of Lalaing (1480-1540), who was Chamberlain to Philip, recorded the events of that day:

"The day of the great and holy Friday, the Passion was preached in Monsignor's chapel by his confessor, the duke and duchess attending. Then they went with great devotion to the market halls of the town, where a great number of people heard the Passion preached by a Cordeilier. After that three bishops showed to the public the Holy Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ ..."[16].
Lalaing recounted that one of the three bishops holding the Shroud for veneration solemnly announced:
"Here, my brothers, among holy things, is the most holy and contemplative on all the earth. It is the precious and noble `sindon' purchased by Joseph of Arimathea for the burial of the divine Master, when, with the help of Nicodemus, he took him down from the cross"[17].
1504a Death of Duke Philibert II of Savoy on 10 September at age of 24, by drinking too much iced wine after hunting[19]. He is succeeded as Duke of Savoy by his 18 year old brother Charles III "the Good" (1486–1553) [Right (enlarge)[18]]. Margaret is now twice-widowed at only 22[20].

1504b On 16 September, six days after Philibert's death, Margaret instals herself at Bourg-en-Bresse and begins work on cult of remembrance of her dead husband at neighbouring Brou, chosen because in 1480 her mother-in-law, dowager duchess Claudine de Brosse (1450–1513), widow of Duke Philip II of Savoy (r. 1496-97) [see "1496"], and mother of the late Philibert II and the new Duke Charles III, had made a vow to found a monastery at Brou if her husband Philip recovered from an accident, which he had[21].

1505a On 29 March, Margaret commissioned a church to be built on the ruins of the ancient Benedictine monastery at Brou[22].

1505b On 5 May, Margaret formally relinquishes custody of the Shroud to Claudine, who has a special devotion for the Shroud and keeps it with her, in her castle at Billiat en Michaille, (between Bourg-en-Bresse and Geneva)[23]. Presumably this was today's Château de Poncin [Below (original) [24]], which was "included in the dowry of Anne of Cyprus, widow of Louis, Duke of Savoy, and after her in that of Claudine of Brittany ... widow of Duke Philip of Savoy ..."[25]

1505c Duke Charles III and his mother petition [Pope Julius II (r. 1503- 13) to approve the text of a Mass in honour of the Shroud"[26]

1505d In October Claudine invites Margaret to 'come and see the Holy Shroud' to preserve Margaret from the plague then raging in Bourg-en-Bresse[27].

1506a Pope Julius II gives his formal assent for Chambéry's Sainte Chapelle to be known henceforth as the Sainte Chapelle of the Holy Shroud[28].

1506b On 21 April Julius, thanks to the intermediacy of Bishop (soon to be Cardinal) Louis de Gorrevod (c. 1473-1535)[29], authorized that a Feast of the Holy Shroud, initially only for the Chambéry diocese, should be assigned to 4 May, the day after the feast celebrating the finding of the True Cross[30]. Two weeks later on 9 May Julius issued a follow-up papal bull formally approving a Mass of the Shroud[31]. This included a prayer with the words `Almighty, eternal God, in memory of the Passion of your only begotten Son, you have left us the Holy Shroud on which his image is imprinted'[32].

1506c Death on 25 September of Margaret's brother Philip, the Duke of Burgundy (r. 1482–1506) and King of Castile, Spain (r. 1506)[33].

1507 Margaret becomes, on the request of her father, Emperor Maximilian I (r. 1508-19), the regent of the Netherlands during the minority of her nephew Charles I (1500-58), future Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (r. 1519-58)[34] [See "1519"].

1508a On 20 February Margaret of Austria draws up her will, giving to the church of Brou, among other relics, a snippet of the Shroud[35]. Marino and Benford claim that this snippet was taken [see future "1530"] from what later became the 1988 radiocarbon dating area [Below (enlarge)[36]] and 16th century threads were used to repair the excision, thus giving the first-century Shroud a false 13th-14th century radiocarbon date[37]. However, see my comment below that:

"... younger carbon contamination and/or threads from a medieval repair included in the radiocarbon dating samples does not, of itself, explain why the first century Shroud had the `bull's eye' 1260-1390 = 1325±65 radiocarbon date. For an explanation of both, see my possible reconciliation of the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories with my hacker theory."
1508b Work begins on the rebuilding in stone of Geoffrey de Charny's wooden church at Lirey, which will take another eighteen years [see future "1526"] to complete[38].

1509 A new casket for the Shroud is commissioned by Margaret of Austria at a cost of more than 12,000 gold ecus[39]. The installation of the Shroud in this new casket takes place on 10 August, before the Sainte-Chapelle's grand altar, in the presence of many dignitaries[40]. Twenty-three years later this magnificent casket will be ruined beyond repair in the Sainte-Chapelle fire of 1532 [see future "1532"], its molten silver permanently scarring parts of the Shroud[41].

1511a A private exposition of the Shroud was held for Anne of Brittany, Queen of France (r. 1488-1514), and Cardinal Francesco of Aragon (r. 1505-1511)[42].

1511b A major programme of embellishment of Chambéry's Sainte Chapelle is commenced, which includes the provision of stained glass, Flemish sculpture, marble tombs of the princesses of Savoy, rich draperies, ornamentation from Cyprus, reliquaries studded with precious stones, etc[43].

1512 Johann von Erlach (1474-1539), the Mayor of Bern, a Swiss ambassador and military commander, travelled on a diplomatic mission to meet Charles III, Duke of Savoy[44]. In 2016 a miniature depiction of an exposition of the Shroud was discovered in von Erlach's prayerbook[45]. Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts specialist

[Above (enlarge)[46]: A double-page depiction of the Shroud in Johann von Erlach's prayerbook being held by three Bishops at an exposition. Its undamaged state shows it pre-dates the fire of 1532 [see future "1532"]), and may be the earliest (or second only to the 1516 Lier copy [see 1516b]) surviving painted representation of the Shroud [see 26Jul16].]

Eugenio Donadoni considers it to be "not implausible that on such an occasion he could have been shown the Shroud" and then "have been so inspired by the visit that he had the holy relic reproduced in his prayerbook"[47].

1513 Death at Chambéry of dowager duchess Claudine de Brosse (1450–1513), who is buried behind the high altar of the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, facing the casket containing the Shroud[48].

1516a On 15 June, dressed as a monk, King Francis I of France (r. 1515-1547) arrives in Chambéry[49] from Lyon to venerate the Shroud after his victory at Marignan[50]. He is a grandson of Duke Philip II of Savoy (r. 1496-97) and his first wife Margaret of Bourbon (1438–83), through their daughter, his mother, Louise of Savoy (1476-1531)[51].

1516b Year inscribed in Latin on a one-third (1.47m x 0.33m) size[52] painted copy of the Shroud [Left enlarge)[53]] preserved in the Church of St. Gommaire at Lier, Belgium[54]. It may be the "picture of the Holy Shroud of Our Lord made on cloth," listed in an inventory of Margaret of Austria's goods when she moved from Mechelen to Brussels in 1523[55]. The painting has been attributed to Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528)[56] but it is doubtful that he was the artist[57]. More likely is the attribution of the Lier copy to Margaret's court painter from 1518 to 1529 Bernard van Orley (c.1487-1541)[58] of whom there is a record that Margaret paid him for four paintings including, "a painting of a Holy Shroud made upon cotton"[59] and the Lier copy is on cotton[60]. The Lier copy does not depict the burns of the 1532 fire [see future "1532"], so it presumably pre-dates it[61]. If so, it is the earliest painted copy of the Shroud[62], with the possible exception of the Von Erlach prayerbook [see "1512" above]. The Lier copy does depict as red bloodstains[63] the `poker holes' [see 21Aug18], the origin of which there is no historical record[64], proving that they pre-date 1516[65].

1517a. A 1517 travel diary of Don Antonio de Beatis, companion of Cardinal Luigi d'Aragona (r. 1494–1519) records of an exposition of the Shroud at Chambéry:

"... the public exhibition took place from the top of the walls of the château in the direction of a certain meadow that is there outside the town for the convenience of the pilgrims ..."[66].
Of the Shroud de Beatis wrote:
"This winding-sheet, sindon or sudarion, is about five and a half spans high and only a little longer than the imprint, which is double - a front and a rear impression. These images of the most glorious body are impressed and shaded in the most precious blood of Jesus Christ and show most distinctly the marks of the scourging, of the cords about the hands, of the crown on the head, of the wounds to the hands and the feet, and especially of the wound in the most holy side, as well as various drops of blood spilled outside the most sacred image ..."[67] .

1517b Beginning of the Protestant Reformation on 31 October when Martin Luther sends his Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences to the Archbishop of Mainz[68].

1518. On 28 October the Cardinal of Aragon again visited Chambéry

[Above (enlarge)[69]: Simulated exposition of the Shroud (white rectangle) from the balcony in front of the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry's apse window, where the Shroud was shown to the crowds in 1518[70].]

and the populace was given a showing of the Shroud from a balcony of the chapel jutting out over the castle wall[71].

1519. The Habsburg King of Spain, Charles I (r. 1516-56), son of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I (r. 1508-19), and of whom Margaret was regent [see "1507" above], was elected Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (r. 1519-58)[72]. The intense rivalry between Charles V and Francis I, King of France (r. 1515-1547), over their conflicting claims of inheritance of parts of Italy[73]. would have major consequences for the Shroud [see future "1535"].

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. "File:Bernard van Orley - Portrait of Margareta van Oostenrijk - WGA16689.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 15 August 2018. [return]
3. Van Haelst, R., 1986, "The Lier Shroud: a problem in attribution," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 20, September, pp.7-23, 14; Wilson, I., 1995, "New Insights on Margaret of Austria, who commissioned the Shroud casket destroyed in the Fire of 1532," BSTS Newsletter, No. 39, January, pp.14-16, 15; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.230; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.248-249. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1994, "A Chronology of the Shroud 1452-1509," BSTS Newsletter, No. 38, August/September, pp.20-25, 23; 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.285; Oxley, 2010, p.230. [return]
5. Oxley, 2010, p.17. [return]
6. Van Haelst, 1986, p.14; Wilson, 1994, p.22; Wilson, 1998, p.285; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.16; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
7. "File:Sainte-Chapelle (Chambéry).jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 7 May 2016. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.218; Wilson, 1994, p.23; Wilson, 1998, p.285; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
9. Wilson, 1979, p.218; Wilson, 1994, p.23; Wilson, 1998, p.286; 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.67; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.17; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.218; Wilson, 1998, p.285; Ruffin, 1999, p.67; Guerrera, 2001, p.17; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
11. Guerrera, 2001, p.17; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
12. Wilson, 1979, p.218. [return]
13. "File:Chateau de Cordon.JPG," Wikimedia Commons, 20 July 2011. [return]
14. "Château de Cordon," Wikipedia, 21 February 2017. [return]
15. Wilson, 1994, p.23. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Wilson, 1994, pp.23-24. [return]
18. "File:Carlo III di Savoia.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 18 February 2016. [return]
19. Wilson, 1994, p.24. [return]
20. Ibid. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.286. [return]
22. Chagny, A., 1990, "An Exposition of the Holy Shroud in the Market Place of Bourg-en-Bresse, 14 April 1503," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 37, December, pp.3-8, 8. [return]
23. Wilson, 1994, p.24. [return]
24. "Chateau de Ponçin, propriété privée inscrite IMH," 7 April 2019. [return]
25. "Château de Poncin," Wikipedia (French), 27 March 2017. Translated by Google. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, p.286. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. Wilson, 2010, p.250. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, pp.286-287. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
31. Wilson, 1994, p.23. [return]
32. Wilson, 2010, p.250. [return]
33. Wilson, 2010, p.250. [return]
34. Wilson, 1994, p.23; Ibid. [return]
35. Wilson, 1994, p.24; Wilson, 1998, p.287; Oxley, 2010, p.5. [return]
36. Marino, J.G. & Benford, S., 2000, "Evidence for the skewing of the C-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin due to repairs," Semantic Scholar. [return]
37. Marino, J.G. & Benford, S., 2001, "Could the Shroud's radiocarbon date have been Skewed due to 16th century repairs?" BSTS Newsletter, No. 54, November; Oxley, 2010, p.5. [return]
38. Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, 25; Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
39. Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
40. Ibid; Ruffin, 1999, p.67. [return]
41. Wilson, 1994, p.25. [return]
42. Wilson, I., 1996, "A Calendar of the Shroud for the years 1509-1694," BSTS Newsletter, No. 44, November/December; Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Donandoni, E., 2016, "5 minutes with… The earliest painted representation of the Turin Shroud," Christie's, 7 June. [return]
45. Donandoni, 2016. [return]
46. Ibid. [return]
47. Ibid. [return]
48. Wilson, 1996. [return]
49. Wilson, 1998, p.288. [return]
50. Wilson, 1996. [return]
51. "Francis I of France," Wikipedia, 7 October 2019. [return]
52. Fossati, L., 1984, "Copies of the Holy Shroud: Part I," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 12, September, pp.7-23, 8. [return]
53. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.18. [return]
54. Wilson, 1998, p.288; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
55. Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
56. Moretto, 1999, p.18; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
57. Van Haelst, 1986, pp.18-20. [return]
58. Van Haelst, 1986, p.7. [return]
59. Van Haelst, 1986, p.20. [return]
60. Van Haelst, 1986, pp.7,13, 16. [return]
61. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.4. [return]
62. Morgan, R.H., 1998, "Shroud Exposition 1998," Shroud News, No 107, April, pp.2-26, 21. [return]
63. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.163. [return]
64. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.37. [return]
65. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
66. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, pp.46-47. [return]
67. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, pp.43-44. [return]
68. "Reformation Day," Wikipedia, 23 September 2019. [return]
69. Chambéry Palace piazza, La Savoie, terre d'accueil de la Fédération Française de Gymnastique, www.savoie-ffgym.com. [return]
70. Wilson, 2010, pp.251-252. [return]
71. Wilson, 1979, p.262; Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, p.288; Wilson, 2010, p.251. [return]
72. Oxley, 2010, p.79. [return]
73. Oxley, 2010, p.79. [return]

Posted: 25 September 2019. Updated: 16 October 2019.

Monday, September 16, 2019

"News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, August 2019

Shroud of Turin News - August 2019
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: July 2019, part #1] [Next: September 2019, part #1]

This is the August 2019 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in August as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. My words are bold to distinguish them from the articles'.


News:
• "The Turin Shroud: Evidence for Everything," Patheos, 1 August 2019, Fr. Dwight Longenecker: "Over at Imaginative Conservative an article of mine surfaced from my pilgrimage to Italy in 2015 to venerate the Shroud of Turin [Right]. In the article I outline some of the well known discoveries and some of the more recent, and go on to speculate about how the Shroud of Turin is the evidence that so many atheist[s] demand ... Why is this evidence for everything? Because the materialist worldview is based on the belief that the natural world is a closed system. It is a closed system because there is not other force greater than that system outside the system which could intervene and interrupt that closed system. There is certainly not external intelligent force to do so. For the materialist the system MUST be closed. This is the weakness of the materialist point of view. All it takes is one miracle to break their fragile worldview. Just one miracle means that the system is not closed, but open to outside forces that can intervene and interrupt that system. If the miracle is consistent with the rest of our body of knowledge, if it is rational ... and if it makes sense with the rest of our proposals about reality, then the materialist edifice must crumble. There is enough evidence about the shroud (for those who will examine it with an open mind) to bring one to the point of saying, `Here is evidence of a miracle' and if that, then much else must follow." As I wrote in my first post to this my blog:

"I created this blog because I have become increasingly interested in the Shroud as empirical evidence that Christianity is true and therefore that Naturalism (i.e. the philosophy that nature is all there is = there is no supernatural = there is no God, which dominates science and our secular Western society generally), is false."
• "The Shroud of Turin: Latest Study Deepens Mystery," National Catholic Register, 5 August 2019, K.V. Turley:"A new French-Italian study on the Shroud of Turin throws doubt on what many thought was the definitive dating of the cloth believed by millions to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ ... This news comes as no surprise to Russ Breault [Left (original)[2].], the president of the Shroud of Turin Education Project Inc. `It is amazing that it took a Freedom of Information request to finally get the raw data from the British Museum, who oversaw the 1988 dating tests,' he told the Register. `The decision not to publish all the data in Nature was no doubt so they could achieve the coveted `95% confidence' regarding the medieval date.' Casabianca's team found that the 1988 carbon dating was unreliable, as only pieces from the edges of the cloth were radiocarbon tested ... `There is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the shroud, are representative of the whole fabric. It is, therefore, impossible to conclude that the Shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages' ... Doubts persist elsewhere, too, about the methodology and findings of the 1988 study. David Rolfe [Right[3].] ... explains how all the controls, initially put in place for the 1988 tests, that the scientists might proceed in a rigorously scientific manner, were disregarded. Rolfe thinks that ... `For reasons of their own self-interest, the individuals supervising the test and those running the labs ... glossed over the abandonment of the protocols, as they needed to give the impression of accuracy and infallibility of the new method.' When the 1988 findings were published, Rolfe says: `No one was prepared to challenge the weight and might of the combined authority of the British Museum and Oxford ... Breault told the Register, `Usually when something is revealed only under duress it is because there is something to hide ... `Politically the Church does not want to be viewed as anti-science. Hence, the shroud is often referred to as a "symbol of Christ's suffering, worthy of veneration."' ... To call the shroud a `relic' would imply it is authentic, whereas to call it an `icon' is to suggest that it is manmade ..." I have previously criticised the Vatican's duplicity in refusing to confirm or deny that the Shroud is authentic, i.e. a relic, not an icon. When by its spending of many millions of US dollar equivalents in protecting and exhibiting the Shroud, the Vatican shows that it really does think the Shroud is Jesus' very burial sheet. See 06Oct13, 26Nov13, 14Feb14, 01Mar14 ...

• "Conference aims to push the boundaries of faith and science in study of the Shroud of Turin," The Catholic Register, 6 August 2019, Mickey Conlon: "In R. Gary Chiang's mind there is no argument over the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin — science has already proven the existence of the supernatural. `Science has already solved the mystery, but people will not accept the answer,' said Chiang [Left[4]], a professor at Redeemer College, a Christian university in Ancaster, Ont., where he pursues research and teaching from a Christian perspective as well as insect physiology."

• "Get to know the Shroud of Turin’s companion cloth," Aleteia John Burger, 10 August 2019. "Less celebrated but more often viewed is Spain's Sudarium. The Shroud of Turin was in the news again recently ... An object that gets much less attention, though, is equally interesting. And for many believers, there is far less doubt surrounding the Sudarium of Oviedo, as it is known. `It was preserved

[Above (enlarge)[5]: The Sudarium of Oviedo. Why would anyone bother to preserve from Christianity's earliest centuries such an ordinary, grubby, blood and lung fluid stained, piece of linen, unless it was known to be "the face cloth [Gk. soudarion] that had been on Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7)?!]

from the time of the crucifixion in a reliquary; however, the [Shroud and the Sudarium] were separated — eventually being carried to other countries,' blogger Kathy Schiffer writes in the National Catholic Register. According to Schiffer, the Sudarium never went missing, so its location can be traced back to ancient times ... Since 631, it has been in Spain and since 840 in the cathedral of Oviedo in north-central Spain. Before that it was ... hidden in a cave ... not far from Jerusalem. When Persian forces invaded the Byzantine provinces in 614, the oak case in which the Sudarium was kept was spirited out of Palestine through northern Africa ... Study of the Sudarium helps to authenticate the Shroud of Turin, Schiffer notes, because of notable similarities between the two cloths. `Of prime importance, the blood and lymph stains on the two cloths match — both are type AB, which was uncommon among medieval Europeans but is a common blood type in the Middle East,' she say ... Pollen residues on the Shroud and the Sudarium both provide evidence that the cloths were in the same region of Palestine. Stains on the two cloths would also seem to match.

[Above (enlarge)[6]: Perfect match of bloodstains on the Sudarium of Oviedo (which has been in Spain since at least AD 840) and the Shroud, proving that they once covered the head of the same crucifixion victim - Jesus!]

Because of the way the Sudarium would have covered the head, there is no clear face print — but there are remarkable correlations between stains on the two cloths. The Sudarium would have been wrapped over the head of Christ while his relatives waited for permission to remove the body; and so the stains show that the body was held in a vertical position with the head dropping back. At the back of the head, the cloth shows blood from deep puncture wounds, similar to the wounds on the Shroud of Turin, which may have been made by the crown of thorns. A second, overlaying stain was produced by fluids excreted from the nostrils when the body was lain horizontally. According to the Investigation Team from the Spanish Centre for Sind[on]ology, which has been studying the Sudarium since 1989, this second set of stains is composed of one part AB-type blood and six parts oedemal fluid. This fluid proves, according to scientists, that the victim died from asphyxiation — which is the cause of death for people who are crucified ... The Sudarium is kept in the Arca Santa in the Oviedo cathedral ..."

• "`Perhaps the most important isotope': how carbon-14 revolutionised science," The Guardian, 11 August 2019, Robin McKie: "The discovery that carbon atoms act as a marker of time of death transformed everything from biochemistry to oceanography – but the breakthrough nearly didn't happen ... Later, the technique was used by laboratories in

[Above (original): "A photographic reproduction of the Turin shroud." The photo contradicts the article! Res ipsa loquitur (L. "it speaks for itself")!]

Britain, Switzerland and the United States to date the flax used to weave the Turin shroud. This cloth, marked with the negative image of a bearded man, was believed by some to be the burial shroud in which Jesus was wrapped after crucifixion. Using only a few fragments of cloth, scientists dated it to 1260-1390AD."

• "Open Letter to Pope Francis: Time to Re-Test the Shroud," Townhall, 11 August 2019, Myra Kahn Adams: "... Your Holiness, Significant momentum is building for decisive action that will positively impact your church, all Christ-centered denominations, and the world. It’s time for 21st-century scientific testing on the Shroud of Turin. Only you can authorize what will be a universally applauded decision that could also enhance your papal legacy. Why should the Shroud be tested now? Articles from three international Catholic news sources provide the answer. National Catholic Register, August 5: `The Shroud of Turin Latest Study Deepens Mystery.' (Subhead: `Researchers cast doubt on the findings of the controversial 1988 study.') Inside the Vatican, June/July issue (re-published from La Stampa newspaper): `The Shroud Is Not Medieval. We Need New Studies to Know Its Age.' Aleteia, July 22: `New data questions finding that Shroud of Turin was medieval hoax.' (Subhead: `Specialists hope to re-test the artifact which some believe to be an authentic relic of Christ's crucifixion.') The Aleteia article immediately followed my July 21, U.S.-based Townhall piece, `Shroud of Turin: New Test Concludes 1988 "Medieval Hoax" Dating Was a Fraud.' ... " I am opposed to the Shroud being re-carbon dated because: 1) It would probably not date 1st century, but early century (e.g. 4th century), because of irremovable carbon contamination, and then sceptics would claim that the Shroud was forged in the 4th century! 2) We have more than enough evidence that the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet. 3) Radiocarbon dating of old linen is problematic. 4) We could not guarantee that the carbon dating would be conducted honestly as it would still be done by secular scientists who are mostly opposed to Christianity and there would be a powerful vested interest to save face.

• "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?," Creation.com, 16 August 2019, Matthew Cserhati & Rob Carter: "Figure 1: The Shroud of Turin contains a faint dorsal (top half) and frontal (lower half) image of a man, with many features paralleling the Crucifixion. Yet, the historical record of the Shroud is spotty, multiple features on it conflict with the biblical record of events, and carbon dating places it squarely in the medieval era." I am responding to this article in a multi-post series, "`Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?' #1" As I noted in my original reply comment:

"It is strange that a Young Earth Creation publication would attack the Shroud, since: 1) it has nothing directly to do with creation; 2) it is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which is evidence that Christianity and therefore creation is true); 3) it would turn off many of its creationist readers who believe that the Shroud is authentic ...; and 4) it sides with atheist/agnostics like Richard Dawkins on an issue, carbon dating, that Young Earth Creationist normally reject"!
• "The Atheist Filmmaker and the Shroud of Turin," National Catholic Register," 24 August 2019: "David Rolfe is today one of the foremost British experts on the Turin Shroud. He is also one the most enthusiastic proponents of the Shroud's authenticity. That mysterious cloth has not only become part of his life: it changed it. In 1976, Rolfe was working as an independent documentary filmmaker in London. He invited film proposals and then found himself swamped with responses. They were `mostly,' he says `very uninspiring.' However, having invited the submissions, he felt under obligation to look through the correspondence he was receiving. One summer evening in his office overlooking the rooftops of Soho, the London district that is the center of the British film industry, he remembers yet again reaching for the pile of submissions. As he lifted up a sheaf of paper a picture tumbled out. The picture was of the photographic negative of the face on the Turin Shroud. `I had never seen it before or even been aware of the Shroud's existence,' he says. Then he noticed that there was an additional picture. It was of the body that is on both sides of the Shroud. Notes accompanied the pictures from an historian, Ian Wilson. Wilson was to author the later groundbreaking book: The Turin Shroud (1978). This work sparked interest and debate about the Shroud in the English-speaking world as never before. Wilson's then notes to the filmmaker began to detail what he claimed to be the Shroud's history as well as documenting the new research into the Shroud, both archaeological and scientific. Rolfe knew none of this. He was an atheist. Unmoved by any of the religious implications of the images at which he was looking, he says what struck him was `that this negative image was on a 4-metre linen cloth at least as old as the Middle Ages.' ... The documentary filmmaker was suddenly engaged: he felt `there had to be a story worth investigating here!' ... During these `advent-ures' Rolfe says he `found God.' He had been baptized an Anglican and returned to the faith of his parents. His finished film was to be called The Silent Witness (1978) [Right (enlarge)[7].]. It would go on to win a BAFTA and many other international film awards ..."

Editorial
Posts: In August I blogged only 1 new post: "4 June 1989: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud."

Updates In August, from memory, there were no significant updates in the background of my past posts.

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. In August, as can be seen above, I blogged only 1 post on this topic.

My book: [see 02Sep19] In August I continued writing in Word, Chapter 3, "The man on the Shroud" and in parallel also in Word, "Problems of the Forgery Theory."

[Left (enlarge): The planned cover of my book.]

I recently read in an old news article, which I hadn't saved, so I may not have known it, that, "The next public viewing [of the Shroud] is scheduled for 2025"[8]. That now is my target date to publish my book. It will also be my last chance (I will be 79 - "If the Lord wills ..." James 4:15!) to see the Shroud for the first time. As I mentioned at the end of a previous post:

"Also, with the end of this series, I want to start a new series: `Turin Shroud: the Evidence,' which will supersede my unfinished series, `The Shroud of Turin.' This will also help me write my book by covering topics in advance of it."
But only today I realised that I needed to continue with my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" series, which I last posted on 14Jan19! So that will probably be my next post.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 August, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,093,684.

This compares with 940,492 at the same time in August 2018. That is 153,192 pageviews over the year, or an average of ~420 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for August (highest uppermost) as: "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F," Jan 20, 2016 - 116; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 114; "Shroud name index `J'," Apr 1, 2008 - 78; "Casabianca, T., et al., 2019, `Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data,' Archaeometry, 22 March" May 29, 2019 - 51 & "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index G-M ," Apr 2, 2016 - 51.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Russ Breault: The Mystery of the Shroud," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc, 2019. [return]
3. "The Shroud of Turin ... A Grave Injustice," David Rolfe, Beaconsfield UK, 2019. [return]
4. "Dr. Gary Chiang," Redeemer University, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada, 2019. [return]
5. Schiffer, K., 2019, "The Sudarium of Oviedo: The `Other Shroud' of Jesus," National Catholic Register, 18 April. [return]
6. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.122. [return]
7. "Amazon.com: The Silent Witness: Various, David W Rolfe: Movies & TV," 14 January 2005 [return]
8. "Shroud of Turin on display for the first time in five years," Telegraph, 21 April 2015, Teresa Machan. [return]

Posted: 16 September 2019. Updated: 26 September 2019.

Sunday, September 8, 2019

`Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?' #1

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #1 of my multi-post response to Cserhati, M. & Carter, R., 2019, "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?" Creation.com, 16 August. See my reply comment of 22Aug19. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. The article's words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

Summary Controversy surrounds the Shroud of Turin (hereafter ‘the Shroud’), which some say is the

["Figure 1 (Enlarge[2]): The Shroud of Turin contains a faint dorsal (top half) and frontal (lower half) image of a man, with many features paralleling the Crucifixion.This is false. The Shroud has all the features paralleling the Crucifixion of Jesus. See my 15Jun13 (with dot points in lieu of a table):

"The Shroud is consistent with the Bible. There is no injury sustained by the man on the Shroud that does not correspond to the injuries to Christ described or implied in the Gospels ... parallels between the Gospel evidence and the Shroud evidence are ... Gospel evidence Verses Shroud evidence:
• Jesus was scourged. Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:1 The body is covered with the wounds of a severe scourging.
• Jesus was struck blows to the face. Mt 27:30; Mk 15:19; Lk 22:63; Jn 19:3 There is a severe swelling below the right eye and other face wounds.
• Jesus was crowned with thorns. Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2 Bleeding from the scalp indicates that a `cap' of thorns was thrust upon the head..
• Jesus was made to carry a heavy crossbeam. Jn 19:17 Scourge wounds on the shoulders are blurred, as if by the chafing of a heavy burden.
• Jesus' cross had to be carried for him, suggesting he fell under its weight. Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26 The knees are severely damaged, as if from repeated falls.
• Jesus was crucified by nails in His hands and feet. Jn 20:25-27; Col 2:14 There are blood flows as from nail wounds in the wrists and at the feet.
• Jesus' legs were not broken, but a spear was thrust into his side as a check that he was dead. Jn 19:31-37 The legs are not broken, and there is a large wound in the right side."
Yet, the historical record of the Shroud is spotty, Misleading-see future below. multiple features on it conflict with the biblical record of events, False-see future below. and carbon dating places it squarely in the medieval era" These Young Earth Creationists, who reject carbon dating, are here using it to discredit the Shroud!-but see future below.]

authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ. This cloth shows the front and rear image of a man who appears to have undergone a lot of torture. Here we present our view on the authenticity of the Shroud. Due to several lines of evidence, we think that the Shroud of Turin is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ: As I noted in my reply comment:

"It is strange that a Young Earth Creation publication would attack the Shroud, since: 1) it has nothing directly to do with creation; 2) it is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which is evidence that Christianity and therefore Creation is true); 3) it would turn off many of its creationist readers who believe that the Shroud is authentic (like yourself); and 4) it sides with atheist/agnostics like Richard Dawkins on an issue, carbon dating, that Young Earth Creationist normally reject"!
These no doubt well-meaning Bible-believing Christian writers (if they read this-which I doubt) might ponder: 1) It is possible to "have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom 10:2). Their reference list at the foot of their article does not include anything by Ian Wilson, for starters! 2) It is possible to unwittingly be "fighting against God" (Acts 5:39 NIV). 3) Jesus warned in Mt 18:6; Mk 9:42; Lk 17:1-2 [Below (enlarge)[3]] that if anyone causes a Christian to sin (in this case to reject the Shroud, which is the is the very burial sheet of Jesus, according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence), "it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." So these writers might ask themselves, "why are we undermining the Christian faith of millions?" Even if they were right that the Shroud is a forgery (which they are not - see my "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory"), Jesus' warning against undermining the faith of even one their fellow Christians still applies.

Bible: Our conclusions are primarily based on the biblical evidence, namely that according to John 11:44 and John 20:7 the Jewish custom was to bury their dead using several cloths, not just one. The Jews buried Jesus with a face cloth, which disqualifies the Shroud as being the burial cloth of Christ. As pointed out in the previous post, this is fallacious as "One large shroud does not preclude the use of other cloths":

"One commenter on this blog, in an earlier post on the subject, said that the Shroud could not be genuine, since the Bible specifies that Joseph of Arimathea `bound' Jesus’ body in `linen cloths,' plural (John 19:40). But the synoptic Gospels say that His body was wrapped in a `linen shroud,' singular (Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53). This is not a contradiction. One large shroud does not preclude the use of other cloths, which might have been used to `bind' the larger cloth that was wrapped around the body"[4].

[Above (enlarge): Pray Codex (or Manuscript) "Visit to the Sepulchre" lower half of Berkovits, 1969, Plate III[5]. This depicts Mark 16:1-6 where the three women disciples: Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of the James the younger (Mk 15:40) and wife of Clopas (Jn 19:25); and Salome, sister of Mary the mother of Jesus and mother of the Apostle John (Mt 20:20; 27:56; Jn 19:25) came to finish the anointing of the body of Jesus and were told by an angel ("a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe") that Jesus was not there but had risen. See 11Jul12.]

The reason I posted the above angel appearance to the women, is that it is the same apparent problem, where one gospel (Mark 16:5) mentions only one man/angel and another gospel (Luke 24:4) mentions two, for the same incident. And the solution is the same for us Bible-believing Christians namely, "If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one":

"How many men or angels appeared at the tomb? Matt 28:2; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; John 20:1-2, 12

An angel of the Lord on the stone (Matthew 28:1-2) - "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it."

A young man (Mark 16:5) - "And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed."

Two men (Luke 24:4) - "And it happened that while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling apparel."

Two angels (John 20:1-2,12) - "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him. 10nd she beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying."

There is no discrepancy at all. An angel of the Lord moved the stone and was sitting upon it outside (Matthew 28:2). The two men (Luke 24:4) were angels (John 20:12). Mark 16:5 presents the only potential issue and it isn't the only one at all. If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one. This one was on the right. Therefore, we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb." ("How many men or angels appeared at the tomb?," Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, 2011)

There is a similar apparent problem in Mt 8:28-34; Mk 5:1-16; Lk 8:26-36 where Matthew mentions "two demon-possessed men" but Mark and Luke mention only one "man" in what is clearly the same incident. Then there is Mt 20:29-34, which records that Jesus healed "two blind men" near Jericho. But Mk 10:46-52 and Lk 18:35-43 say that only one "blind beggar"/"blind man" was healed.

The Bible-believing solution is the same in each case: "If there were two [angels, linen cloths, demon-possessed men, blind men] in the same incident, then there was at least one." Bible-believing Christians (including Cserhati and Carter) who reject the Shroud, on the basis that John's gospel (Jn 20:5-7) mentions "linen cloths" (plural [Gk othonia "strips of linen" (Lk 24:12; Jn 19:40 and 20:5-7 (NIV)) and Mounce Interlinear]), not a "linen cloth" (singular), to be consistent should reject Luke's account that there were two men/angels in the empty tomb (Luke 24:4) because Mark mentions there was one (Mk 16:5). They should also reject Matthew's account that Jesus healed two demon-possessed Gadarene/Gerasene men by sending the demons into a herd of pigs (Mt 8:28-34) because Mark and Luke mention only one (Mk 5:1-16; Lk 8:26-36). And they should also reject Matthew's account which says that Jesus healed two blind men near Jericho (Mt 20:29-34), because Mark and Luke record there was one (Mk 10:46-52; Lk 18:35-43).

And there is not even that problem in the case of the Shroud, because nowhere does any gospel state that that there was only one burial cloth. And no one on the Shroud pro-authenticity side, as far as I am aware, claims that the Shroud was the only burial cloth of Jesus. As far as I am aware, everyone in the Shroud pro-authenticity community accepts that the Sudarium of Oviedo is "the face cloth [Gk. soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths [othonia] but folded up in a place by itself" in Jn 20:7.

Furthermore, Jesus was buried with seventy-five pounds of extremely sticky spices, according to John 19:40, whereas the Shroud shows no signs of them. They are setting up a strawman and then refuting that:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent"[6].
John 19:40, in context John 19:38-40 (NIV), says nothing about "extremely sticky spices":
"38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs."
As can be seen above, it simply says "a mixture of myrrh and aloes." And according to Wikipedia, "Myrrh gum

[Right: Dried myrrh resin[7].]

... coagulates quickly ... [and] becomes hard and glossy":
"When a tree's wound penetrates through the bark and into the sapwood, the tree secretes a resin. Myrrh gum, like frankincense, is such a resin. When people harvest myrrh, they wound the trees repeatedly to bleed them of the gum. Myrrh gum is waxy and coagulates quickly. After the harvest, the gum becomes hard and glossy. The gum is yellowish and may be either clear or opaque. It darkens deeply as it ages, and white streaks emerge"[8].
The Greek word translated "mixture," migma from "mingle," can either be liquid, as in "diluting wine" or dry as in "mixing ... two sorts of grain"[9].

This very large quantity of 75 pounds (= 34 kgs) of spices [Gk aromaton = aromatics] shows that simple anointing was not their intended function, but that they would have been packed around the body, as we today would pack ice[10]. Their function was to postpone putrefaction temporarily until the washing and anointing could be completed after the Sabbath and Passover (Mk 16:1; Lk 23:56-24:1)[11]. They would therefore have been in dry blocks or in powdered or granulated form[12]. This is supported by Jn 19:40's "with [Gk meta] the spices"[13] (see above), not epi "on" or peri "around" but with the body of Jesus.

As pointed out in 21Jan16, the Greek word othonia is not a collective plural to be translated "linen cloths" (as wrongly in the ESV). My New Testament Greek lexicons are unanimous in stating that othonia is a plural of othonion, which is a diminutive of othone, "a linen cloth," hence othonion is "a small linen cloth," "a bandage" (as rightly in the NIV) and othonia its plural, are "strips of linen," "bandages"[14]. Therefore it was the strips of linen (othonia) which were in contact with the packs of dried myrrh and aloes, not the Shroud (sindon) :

"Another term is introduced by the New Testament writers, namely othonia, defined as `binding cloths or strips of linen.' We read in John 19:40: `They took Jesus' body and bound it in linen cloths ["strips of linen"] (othoniois) with the spices, as is the custom among the Jews in preparing for burial.' Luke 24:12 also uses the term: `But Peter got up and ran to the tomb, and when he stooped down he saw only the linen cloths ["strips of linen"](othonia).' The late Shroud author Werner Bulst, SJ., pointed out that othonia as used in John 19:40 refers to a narrow cloth, a strip (such as is used for bandaging a wound). This is equivalent to the bindings (keriai) with which Lazarus was bound (Jn 11:44). Likewise the verb deo found in John 11:44 and 19:40 always meant to bind in the strict sense and never `to wrap up in or envelop' indicating that these were bandage strips differing from the larger cloth. These binding strips were used to bind the hands and feet to permit easy carrying of the body, especially through the narrow entrance to the cave-tombs and to secure the position of the body (with hands folded across the loins). Rigor mortis likely began on the Cross and was broken to bind the hands and feet for carrying. Bulst points out that on the body image of the Shroud there is a gap above the wrists: Strangely, a little above the wrist, there is a gap of about a hand's breadth with no trace of the blood that trickled and caked along the forearm muscle of the Crucified. The blood transfers on the forearms are otherwise unusually clear and sharply outlined. The missing imprint above the wrists on either forearm would be readily explained if a linen strip had been bound about them here and knotted to keep the arms in the position as they are seen on the Cloth. Without some such bond, this position of the arms would he impossible"[15].
Moreover, it is not true that "the Shroud shows no signs of" myrrh and aloes. While STURP did not detect those spices[16], "Pier Luigi Baima Bollone, professor of Legal Medicine at the University of Turin, identified traces of aloe and myrrh on the Shroud, principally in the bloodstained areas"[17].

To be continued in the eighth installment of this part #1 of this series.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Image of the Shroud in the article, with no acknowledgment of source (which is plagiarism), but it appears to be from, "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 7 September 2019. [return]
3. "Warning to not Cause Someone to Sin – Matthew 18:6," Mission Venture Ministries, 19 April 2018. [return]
4. Veith, G., 2019, "The Shroud of Turin Is Not a Medieval Hoax After All?" Patheos, July 26. [return]
5. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, plate III. [return]
6. "Straw man," Wikipedia, 9 September 2019. [return]
7. "File:Commiphora-myrrha-resin-myrrh.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 30 October 2018. [return]
8. "Myrrh," Wikipedia, 9 August 2019. [return]
9. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.985. [return]
10. Clift, M., 1985, "Contributions from B.S.T.S. members," BSTS Newsletter, No. 10, April, pp.11-13, 12-13). [return]
11. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.117. [return]
12. Antonacci, 2000, p.117. [return]
13. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.49; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.94. [return]
14. Bagster, S., ed., 1870, "The Analytical Greek Lexicon," Samuel Bagster and Sons: London, c. 1960, reprinted, p.283; Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.439; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.411; Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, p.555; Zodhiates, 1992, p.1028. [return]
15. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.81. [return]
16. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh NC, p.44; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.154. [return]
17. Morgan, R., 1982, "Some Italian Scientific Results," Shroud News, No 12, pp.6-10, 6; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.205-206; Iannone, 1998, p.87. [return]

Posted: 8 September 2019. Updated: 23 September 2019.

Monday, September 2, 2019

"News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, July 2019

Shroud of Turin News - July 2019
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: May-June 2019, part #1] [Next: August 2019, part #1]

This is the July 2019 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have decided to post separate July and August issues, so I can get the July news `out the door' faster. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in July as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.


News:
• "Shroud of Turin: New Test Concludes 1988 `Medieval Hoax' Dating Was a Fraud," Townhall, July 21, 2019, Myra Kahn Adams:

"Thankfully now there is a new chapter in the 1988 dating debate. Raw data and documents from the original test that were `unavailable' (many scientists and researchers would say deliberately `hidden') were obtained in 2017 by Tristan Casabianca [Right[2]], a French researcher. In March, after two years of tests and analysis, Casabianca and his team of scientists published their results in the scholarly journal Archaeometry. This month, in an interview with the French publication L'Homme Nouveau ... Casabianca discusses how he obtained the documents, his team's methodology, and conclusion. Here is an excerpt:
"In 1989, the results of the shroud dating were published in the prestigious journal Nature: between 1260 and 1390 with 95% certainty. But for thirty years, researchers have asked the laboratories for raw data. These have always refused to provide them. In 2017, I submitted a legal request to the British Museum, which supervised the laboratories. Thus, I had access to hundreds of unpublished pages, which include these raw data. With my team, we conducted their analysis. Our statistical analysis shows that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was unreliable: the tested samples are obviously heterogeneous, [showing many different dates], and there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the sheet, are representative of the whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages."
• "New data questions finding that Shroud of Turin was medieval hoax," Aleteia, John Burger, July 22, 2019:
"Casabianca said his work will help find answers beyond the research of the American chemist Raymond N. Rogers [1927–2005], who debunked the 1988 dating, because he had only the data published by Nature to work with. Rogers maintained that the three Shroud test samples used in 1988 were cut from an outer edge on a piece of the cloth added later as a repair because of frequent handling of the Shroud in public veneration."
• "Study of data from 1988 Shroud of Turin testing suggests mistakes," Phys.org, July 24, 2019, Bob Yirka:
"A team of researchers from France and Italy has found evidence that suggests testing of the Shroud of Turin back in 1988 was flawed. In their paper published in Oxford University's Archaeometry, the group describes their reanalysis of the data used in the prior study, and what they found ... In this new effort, the research team sued the University of Oxford [sic British Museum], which had the data, for access — and won. After studying the data for two years, the new research team announced that the study from 1988 was flawed because it did not involve study of the entire shroud — just some edge pieces. Edge pieces from the shroud are rumored to have been tampered with by nuns in the Middle Ages seeking to restore damage done to the shroud over the years."
• "The Shroud of Turin Is Not a Medieval Hoax After All?" Patheos, July 26, 2019, Gene Veith:
"Some critics noted that the three cloth samples were all taken from the same location, the outer edge of the cloth. It has long been known that the Shroud was often mended and repaired through the ages. In 2005, Raymond A. Rogers published an article [in] Thermochimica Acta that concluded, in the words of the abstract,
"The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."
That there was younger carbon contamination and/or threads from a medieval repair included in the radiocarbon dating samples does not, of itself, explain why the first century Shroud had the `bull's eye' 1260-1390 = 1325±65 radiocarbon date. For an explanation of both, see my possible reconciliation of the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories with my hacker theory:
"But looking at the great variability of Arizona's C14 atom counts across its subsamples A1-A8 ... it has just now occurred to me that the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories and my hacker theory may not be incompatible. What if Linick's program did not substitute the C14 atom counts coming from the Shroud, but in a mathematically sophisticated way inflated them to 13th-14th century dates? If so, then the variability of the C14 atom counts could reflect actual carbon-14 variability across the Shroud sample, due to contamination and/or younger repair threads ... But the 13th-14th century dates of the Shroud samples would be due to Linick's program inflating that carbon-14 variability to 13th-14th century date levels!"
"One commenter on this blog, in an earlier post on the subject, said that the Shroud could not be genuine, since the Bible specifies that Joseph of Arimathea `bound' Jesus’ body in `linen cloths,' plural (John 19:40). But the synoptic Gospels say that His body was wrapped in a `linen shroud,' singular (Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53). This is not a contradiction. One large shroud does not preclude the use of other cloths, which might have been used to `bind' the larger cloth that was wrapped around the body."

A clear answer to this common, though logically fallacious objection. See my longer answer at 11Jul12.

Editorial
Posts: In July I blogged only 1 new posts: "`News and Editorial,' Shroud of Turin News, May-June 2019 " - 30 July.

Comments: In July comments included:
• Under "Non-traditional #13: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic! ":

James

>Again I wanted to repeat … your site is quite amazing. I haven’t had time to see all of it yet… it has so much in it. Still your exposition seems careful and deliberate and thorough… it is very unique.

Thanks again. My obsession with detail is probably a personality fault. When I was doing my science degree, one of my lecturers complained that my pages of references were longer than most other students' assignments!

>One thing that has struck me from everything I have come across – well two things – about the Shroud that I frequently find little or no ‘discussion’ about. One is perhaps too obvious, the fact the Shroud is still around for us to examine. That seems by itself an amazing thing. [...]

Ian Wilson has made that same point:
"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." (Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251)

"For a simple sheet of linen to have survived so much when so many solid buildings have been reduced to rubble ranks as nearly as extraordinary as the imprint itself. Somehow this ostensibly frail piece of linen has survived down the years to our own age when, uniquely in all history, we have the technology infinitely to duplicate its appearance for all posterity." (Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.293-294)
Updates In July, from memory, there were no significant updates in the background of my past posts.

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. In July, as can be seen above, I didn't blog any post on this topic: "4 June 1989: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud""

My book: [see 30Jul19] In July I continued writing Chapter 3, "The man on the Shroud" and in parallel a Word document "Problems of the Forgery Theory." As I mentioned at the end of my previous post:

"Also, with the end of this series, I want to start a new series: "Turin Shroud: the Evidence," which will supersede my unfinished series, "The Shroud of Turin."
This will also help me write my book by covering topics in advance of it.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 July, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,085,419. This compares with 913,093 at the same time in July 2018. That is 172,326

pageviews over the 12 months to 31 May 2019, or an average of ~472 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for July (highest uppermost) as: "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F," Jan 20, 2016 - 253; "The Pray Manuscript (or Codex)," Jan 11, 2010 - 142; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present: 1st century and Index," Jul 24, 2016 - 89; "Casabianca, T., et al., 2019, `Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data,' Archaeometry, 22 March" May 29, 2019 - 87 & "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes," Mar 6, 2013 - 79.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Des chercheurs remettent en cause l’idée selon laquelle le Saint-Suaire daterait du Moyen-Âge," L'Homme Nouveau, July, 2019. [return]

Posted: 2 September 2019. Updated: 16 September 2019.

Saturday, August 3, 2019

4 June 1989: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the eighteenth and final installment of part #17, "4 June 1989" of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. I fell behind again, but it matters less this time because unless significant new information comes to light from someone in a position to know what happened, this will be the last post in this series. I have said all along that 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, allegedly by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[3], aided by German hacker Karl Koch (1965–89)[4], on behalf of the former Soviet Union, through its agency the KGB." [23Jul15, etc].
is circumstantial and may never be proved true [15Sep16, 15Jul18a & 28Oct18a].

[Index #1] [Previous: 23 May 1989: #16] [Next: To be advised]

4 June 1989 On 4 June 1989[5], the body of Arizona radiocarbon

[Above (enlarge)[6]: Extract of a photograph of those present at the Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating laboratory on 6 May 1988[7] when the AMS computer terminal [left] displayed a date of the first century Shroud, which when calibrated, was "1350 AD"[8]. The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick (1946-89) [05Jul14, 22Feb16a], is in a black shirt standing prominently in the foreground[9]. That Linick is standing in front of his Arizona laboratory leaders and colleagues in this historic group photograph of the very first dating of the Shroud is evidence that Linick was in charge of the fully computerised AMS dating process[10] at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that [22Feb16b, 22Nov16a, 25Mar18, 23Jun18a, 15Jul18, 27Sep18 & 28Oct18b].]

dating laboratory physicist, Timothy Weiler Linick (1946-89), was found dead of gunshot[11] in Tucson, Arizona[12].

Linick's death was not suicide It was assumed that Linick had committed

[Right: Photograph of Linick and report that "He died at the age of forty-two on 4 June 1989, in very unclear circumstances ..."[13]

suicide[14] but there was no suicide note[15]. Nor was there any reason for Linick to have killed himself. He suffered from depression[16] but any problems Linick may have had with his laboratory leaders from communicating with anti-authenticist David Sox (1936-2016)[17] [see below] would have been eight months before and it was only four months after the publication of the 1989 Nature article, Linick would still have been basking in the afterglow of Arizona laboratory's apparently successful carbon dating of the Shroud[28Oct18c].

Linick's `suicide' was the day after Karl Koch's burnt body was publicly identified And `coincidentally' Linick's `suicide' on 4 June 1989 was the day after West German police on 3 June 1989 had

[Left: Karl Koch (1965–89). "He was involved with the KGB scandal that involved hackers being bought by drugs in exchange for breaking into key NATO and corporate installations ... Koch, of Hanover, West Germany, died Friday, June 3 [1989]"[18]. But since the police found Koch's burnt body on 1 June 1989[19], 3 June 1989 was presumably when the police publicly identified the body as Koch's.]

publicly identified the burnt body found on the edge of a forest outside of Hanover, Germany, as that of German hacker for the KGB Karl Koch (1965–89), who also it was assumed had committed suicide but it could not have been [see part #16]. And it was Koch who had phoned the American Shroud author `Harry' about March 1989 begging forgiveness for having "been involved in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating" [see part #15].

When Turin reduced the laboratories to 3 using the AMS method, including Arizona, Linick realised he could hack the Shroud's dating As we saw in part #6 of this series, when the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989) wrote on 10 October 1987 to all the participants in the 1986 Turin Workshop, including the seven laboratories which were to have dated the Shroud, advising them that only three AMS laboratories: Arizona, Oxford and Zurich had been chosen to carbon-date the Shroud, the alleged hacker, Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (according to my theory), would have realised that it was feasible for him to write a program to be installed on the AMS computers at the three laboratories (which were effectively clones[20]), that would substitute (or rather build on-see 29May19a) the Shroud's actual carbon-14 dates with computer-generated dates, which would make the Shroud seem to date from just before it's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355.

Linick was deeply introverted from "a family of losers" Linick's older half-brother Anthony Linick (1938-) (below[21]) recorded that Timothy, "was a bright little boy doomed to grow up in a family of losers," and over the ensuing years he sank so deeply into introversion that Anthony had difficulty connecting with him:

"I also enjoyed having a little sibling and Timmy doted on me ... He was a bright little boy doomed to grow up in a family of losers ... Eight years my junior, Timmy was just too young to be a real pal and ... we soon resumed our separate existences. As he sank deeper into what seems to have been the family's hereditary introversion he became harder and harder for me to connect with"[22].
Before I emailed him in 2016, Anthony was already aware of "theories of conspiracy ... on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989":
"Of course I have encountered materials on the controversies surrounding the Turin Shroud, including theories of conspiracy – including those on the death of my half-brother, Timothy Linick, in 1989"[23].
Linick was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first "1350" date of the Shroud to Sox [see 24Jun14a, 05Mar15, 03Jun15, 15Oct15, 30Dec15 & 19Jan16]. Linick was quoted in Sox's August 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked" [Left]:
"Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'"[24].
This was despite Linick having signed, along with all present at Arizona's first dating, "not to communicate the results to anyone - spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public"[25].

Sox was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first "1350" date of the Shroud to the media [see 24Jun14b, 22Nov16b, 15Aug17a, 15Jul18a & 06Aug18]. As we saw in part #12, on 3 July 1988, historian Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) in his column in the London Sunday Telegraph

[Right: The late Kenneth Rose[26], was the first to leak on 3 July 1988 that the carbon dating of the Shroud would be "medieval".]

reported on the ongoing radiocarbon dating of the Shroud that:

"In spite of the intense secrecy surrounding the i456nvestigation I hear signs that the linen cloth has been proved to be mediaeval"[27].
The story was picked up by news media around the world[28].

Then on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran a front-page story, "Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake"[29], with an accompanying article by Cambridge librarian Dr. Richard Luckett stating that "a

[Left: "Dr Richard Luckett [who] has been the Pepys Librarian at Magdalene College, Cambridge, since 1982"[30], i.e. Luckett's position in August 1988 when he leaked, on behalf of Sox, who received it from Linick, Arizona's 1350 date of the Shroud to the London Evening Standard.]

probable date of about 1350 looks likely" and remarking that "laboratories are rather leaky institutions"[31].

This generated another world-wide media frenzy, yet none of the laboratories nor the British Museum knew Luckett or how he had obtained his information[32]. It was assumed that Oxford laboratory, which had completed its dating on 6 August, had leaked the 1350 date to Luckett[33]. But not only was Oxford's mean date "several decades less than 1350 AD"[34], in an Associated Press story of 9 September 1988, Luckett was quoted as saying:

"I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford"[37].

Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the co-inventor of AMS radiocarbon dating[38] and the unofficial leader of the project[39], knowing that Luckett's date of 1350 was Arizona's first date of the Shroud on 6 May 1988, became "worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" (as Linick was):

"I must say I wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988. Of course, it also corresponds very closely to the shroud's known historic date. However, I still assumed Luckett had said he got the number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement"[40].
I had been told in 2014 by a leading Shroudie who knew Sox, that the

[Left (enlarge): David Sox (left) on his 80th birthday, 24 April 2016, with "his partner of 45 years [1971-2016], Allan Offermann"[41].]

possible connection between Sox, Luckett and Rose was "pillow talk"! See 15Aug17b that the connection between Sox, Rose and Luckett was that they were part of an informal network of homosexuals. Sox was a homosexual (see above) and both Rose and Luckett were unmarried and wrote a lot about homosexuals. Also Luckett's birthday is 1 July and Rose's article above was on 3 July 1988, so was Rose and Luckett told by Sox the result of Arizona's first "1350" date of the Shroud at Luckett's birthday party on 1 July 1988?

As we also saw in part #12, on 18 September 1988 the London Sunday Times published a front-page story with the headline, "Official: The Turin Shroud is a Fake"[42]. The article claimed that, "all three labs had independently placed the age of the linen in the same period of medieval history" and it concluded that, "The shroud is undoubtedly the work of a brilliant medieval hoaxer"[43]. After Ian Wilson:

"... complained to the Sunday Times Editor with particular regard to the `official' headline. This prompted a conciliatory phone call from the Science Correspondent who when challenged directly, admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. He said he had in front of him the Revd Sox's already complete book about the Shroud's mediaeval date, awaiting publication the moment this news becomes formally released"[44]!
So on 23 September in a letter to British Society for the Turin Shroud members, Wilson publicly concluded that Sox was the secondary source of all the leaks of the Shroud's "medieval" and "1350" dates, and that "his `inside' information ... can only have come from Arizona or Zurich" laboratories
"It seems clear that ... the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman [the American Rev. David Sox] whose identity will now be self-evident. This individual's means of obtaining his `inside' information (which can only have come from Arizona or Zurich), and his motives for flouting the confidentiality that all others have respected, can only be guessed at. His only explanation to me was that he `thinks' he knows the result by a `fluke'. Not being party to the same source(s), I can neither confirm nor deny the information's truth, only deplore the insidious and underhand means by which it has been disseminated"[45].
On that same day, 23 September, Sox phoned Gove to complain that Wilson had charged him with being the source of all the leaks, which Sox denied[46]. But Gove did not write that he believed Sox[47], on the contrary Gove wrote that Arizona's Doug Donahue and Paul Damon, as well as Turin's Luigi Gonella, had each come to the conclusion that "Sox was the source of the leaks"[48]. The next day, 24 September, in La Stampa, Sox was quoted as admitting he was partly to blame for the leaks: "May I be damned if I were to let the entire blame fall on myself"[49].

Linick's half-brother Anthony worked with Sox at the same American London school for at least 13 years! As I posted on 22Feb16d, On 22 February 2016, I discovered in Anthony Linick's Wikipedia entry, that he had worked at the American School in London for 20 years from 1982 to 2002:

"In 1982 Linick began a twenty-year tenure as a member of the faculty of the American School in London (ASL) in St John's Wood. There he taught courses for both the social studies and the English departments, moving permanently to the latter in 1988 and serving as its chair for the last eight years of his teaching career, 1994-2002"[50].
And David Sox, whose quote of Timothy Linick I had sent to Anthony in my email of 2 January [see 22Feb16c] was a teacher at the American School in London from at least 1978 to 1995:
"Sox, an American Anglican priest, teaches [in 1995] at the American School in London, England. He has long been interested in the Turin Shroud and has authored several books about it"[51].

"On 11 May 1978 I phoned the Reverend H David Sox at his home in London to find out what the latest interest was in carbon dating the shroud. ... A few days later I got another letter from Sox saying that he was planning to visit his parents in North Carolina sometime around the end of June and he would also like to visit Rochester. ... he is an American-an Anglican-who teaches [in 1995] at the American School in London"[52].

"On 12 May [1988] I flew to London. David Sox had made a reservation for me at the Abbey House Hotel, which was not far from where he lived. ... The next morning, I was to appear at the American School. Cameron had decided that he would film the part of the Timewatch programme on the shroud which involved me at David Sox's school, and to make believe that it was my laboratory"[53].

Since the last date in Gove's book is "September 1995"[54], that is an overlap of at least 13 years from 1982 to 1995 when Anthony Linick worked at same school as Sox.

And, since I had prefaced my above quote of Sox in my first message to Anthony Linick with:

"Your late half-brother Timothy W. Linick, who was a member of the team at Arizona Radiocarbon dating laboratory which radiocarbon dated the Shroud of Turin in 1988, was quoted by the Rev. David Sox as follows: ..."[55].
I felt I was owed an explanation why Anthony had not mentioned that he knew Sox. So I emailed Anthony Linick again on 23 February, with the above quotes from Wikipedia and Gove's book, putting those questions to him:
"So did you know David Sox? And that he was deeply involved in seeking to discredit the Shroud of Turin? Including being the secondary source of leaks to the media of Arizona's first "AD 1350" date:
"[Hardly had this wave of publicity died down before on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran as its front-page lead story `Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake'. Accompanying this was a seemingly authoritative article by librarian Dr. Richard Luckett of Magdalene College, Cambridge, cryptically remarking that `laboratories are rather leaky institutions' and `a probable date of about 1350 looks likely' ... When in a telephone enquiry to Dr. Luckett I asked whether the Revd. David Sox had been his source, he hastily changed the subject.] ... I complained to the Sunday Times Editor ... This prompted a conciliatory phone call from the Science Correspondent who when challenged directly, admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. He said he had in front of him the Revd Sox's already complete book about the Shroud's mediaeval date, awaiting publication the moment this news becomes formally released. Sadly, as evident from a Daily Mail article of September 19, Professor Gonella and Cardinal Ballestrero in Turin have attributed the succession of apparent `leaks' emanating from England to malicious breaches of confidentiality on the part of the Oxford laboratory scientists and Dr. Tite. It seems clear that they have been mistaken, and that the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman whose identity will now be self-evident. This individual's means of obtaining his `inside' information (which can only have come from Arizona or Zurich), and his motives for flouting the confidentiality that all others have respected, can only be guessed at." (The words in square brackets mentioning the "1350" date were omitted in my email) [56].
which date presumably Timothy was the source of Sox's "`inside' information ... which can only have come from Arizona ..." Not Zurich because it turned out that "1350" was not Zurich's date"[57].
I concluded my email to Anthony Linick with:
"It seems an amazing coincidence that your half-brother Timothy was in contact with David Sox, who presumably you worked with? Did you put Timothy in touch with Sox or vice-versa?"[58].
In his reply email the next day, 24 February, Anthony claimed that he only had "a suspicion" that the "David Sox" whom I and "others [plural] mentioned" was the same David Sox "who worked at

[Left (enlarge)[59]: Extract from the Fall 2011 issue of Accents, the magazine of the American School in London, which records that "David Sox (1974-93)" was in the same room of an English pub with "Anthony Linick (1984-2002)" at a reunion of "ASL faculty and staff, past and present" only ~5 years before his 2016 reply email to me that he had only met Sox "once or twice" in 13 years! Clearly Anthony Linick was lying about not knowing Sox, which can only be because he had helped his half-brother Timothy make contact with Sox, so he could leak Arizona's first "1350" radiocarbon date of the Shroud to the English media through him! And although the years are different "Sox (1974-93)" and "Linick (1984-2002)," they still overlapped from 1984-1993, i.e. 9 years, which included 1988.]

the American School in London":

"You have confirmed for me a suspicion that began to grow when you and others mentioned David Sox. I had wondered if this was the same chap who worked at the American School in London and this is now confirmed. I did meet him once or twice and, indeed, my first long-term assignment at ASL was in the middle school, where he was a faculty member. This was in the spring of 1982."[60].
This seems most implausible, on several counts: 1) "David Sox" is an unusual name. 2) In my first message of 2 January to Anthony Linick, I wrote that in "1988 ... Sox was in England"[61]. 3) In my experience as a relief (substitute, supply) teacher for 6 years from 2010-2015 at over a dozen different high schools, it would be highly unlikely (to put it mildly) that two teachers could work in the same school for 13 years and indeed in the same middle school faculty, and only "meet ... once or twice." In my experience they would have met daily, if not at least weekly!

Anthony's email continued:

"I also knew that he [Sox] wrote on religious topics. However I do not recall his ever seeking me out (in spite of a rather uncommon last name) or putting any questions to me about Timothy Linick and I certainly did not know of his interest in the shroud nor did I have anything to do with putting him in contact with my half-brother."[62].
The implausibilities continue: 4) how would Anthony Linick know that Sox wrote on "religious topics" and not know that most (if not all) of Sox's religious writings (including three books in 1978, 1981 and 1988) were on the topic of the Shroud? 5) Sox was well-known at ASL for "his interest in the shroud." In his first 1978 book on the Shroud, Sox wrote that his "associates (i.e. fellow teachers) and students at the American School in London have had to suffer through much of this project":
"My associates and students at the American School in London have had to suffer through much of this project and I appreciate their forbearance and good humour"[63].
6) As we saw above, in May 1988 the BBC filmed part of its Timewatch program about dating the Shroud, arranged by Sox, in an ASL science laboratory, which Anthony must surely have been aware of. 7) Linick's "I do not recall" again sounds evasive (see his "I can't remember" 22Feb16e) Sox's ever seeking him out. And 8) Since Sox was communicating in 1988 with an American Timothy Linick, with the same "uncommon last name," it is hard to believe that Sox would not have asked his work colleague, Anthony Linick, if he was related to a Timothy Linick who worked at the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory which had been chosen to date the Shroud?

Linick would have contacted Sox, not vice-versa. Linick was not an Arizona laboratory leader, but an ordinary `backroom' scientist, who would have been unknown outside of specialist radiocarbon dating circles [see 22Feb16f]. So Sox, who lived in England, would not likely have known that Linick existed, let alone quoted him. Sox had written on radiocarbon dating the Shroud in his two pre-1988 books, "File on the Shroud" (1978) and "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?" (1981). For example:

"My special interest came to be in the possibility of having the Shroud carbon dated, a pursuit which took me to Turin many times ..."[64].
"Carbon dating has been the most suggested test for the Shroud and has come to be the decisive test for authenticating many historical objects. ..."[65].
"If all the negative elements regarding the current study were removed or resolved - even if carbon dating gave the linen an 'acceptable date', there is no way ever to have a one-to-one identification of the cloth's figure with Jesus of Nazareth"[66].
"The New Mexico conference of 1977 placed carbon dating at the top of priority tests it recommended and the proposals were presented in Turin months later. McCrone [Walter McCrone (1916-2002) had been seen at New Mexico as the best person to oversee the carbon dating situation ..."[67].
"What carbon dating could do, is rarely mentioned in Turin - exactly what was done for the debate of the Dead Sea Scrolls - remove it once and for all from the Middle Ages, or place it squarely there for all time."[68].
"Joseph Noble has said, `In order to detect a forgery, it is best to remember that every object made by man carries within it the evidence of the time and place of its manufacture' If the Turin Shroud is not the 'real thing', what is the evidence of its 'time and place' being the fourteenth century?"[69].
So Timothy Linick, since he was interested in carbon-dating the Shroud to prove or disprove its authenticity (as shown by his words quoted by Sox above), would likely have read Sox's books, and knowing that his half-brother worked with Sox, asked Anthony to help him make contact with him. Although it is possible that Anthony, knowing that Sox was interested in carbon-dating the Shroud, told Sox that his half-brother worked at Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory. But even then, it is more likely that Sox would have asked Anthony to arrange for Timothy to contact him, than for Sox to contact Timothy direct.

Linick needed to create a climate of expectation that the Shroud's date was medieval. The hacker (Timothy Linick according to my theory) would have needed to create a climate of expectation so that the laboratories would accept without question that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was medieval [see 24Jun14c, 31Mar15, 22Sep15, 22Feb16g, 15Aug17c & 28Oct18d]. Arizona's first "1350"

[Right (enlarge): Extract from Table 1 in the 1989 Nature paper, showing the dates of each run at each laboratory of Sample 1, the Shroud[70]. The dates are years before 1950[71]. Thus the corrected mean of Arizona's first date was actually 1950-591=1359, i.e. it overlapped by 4 years the first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355. In fact, as pointed out in 23Jun18b the mean of Arizona's first date is not a typical one: it is the lowest of all the laboratories' means! And because lowest is most recent, it is the upper limit of the dating's calendar years! But see 29May19b where 591±30 was the result of a fraudulent combining of two dates, 606±41 and 574±45.]

radiocarbon date of the Shroud was probably "hard wired" for its psychological and media leak value [see 31Mar15 & 22Feb16g]. This is supported by the fact that, as can be seen above, it is the the lowest of all the laboratories' means, and therefore the most recent of all the laboratories' dates!

That the "1350" date had the psychological effect of overriding the scientists' critical faculties is evident from Gove's eyewitness description of Arizona laboratory's first dating run of the Shroud:

"The first sample run was OX1 [an oxalic acid standard]. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen. The age of the control sample could have been calculated on a small pocket calculator but was not-everyone was waiting for the next sample-the Shroud of Turin! At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue. His face became instantly drawn and pale. At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. It had taken me eleven years to arrange for a measurement that took only ten minutes to accomplish! Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began"[72].
Note how uncritical Gove, and indeed all present were, including Douglas Donahue, the co-founder of Arizona laboratory[73], who is a Roman Catholic and believed that the Shroud was authentic[74]. Gove even wrote approvingly of Donahue, changing his mind and believing on the basis of one dating run, at one laboratory, that "this was the shroud's age":
"I remember Donahue saying that he did not care what results the other two laboratories got, this was the shroud's age. Although he was clearly disappointed in the result, he was justifiably confident that his AMS laboratory had produced the answer to the shroud's age"[75].

End of this series? I have decided to end this series here. I was going to conclude with a summary of the evidence that the Shroud's radiocarbon dating was the result of a computer hacking, by Timothy Linick, aided by Karl Koch, when I realised that I will do that when I get to my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia topics "hacking," "Kock, K" and "Linick, T," admittedly a long time in the future. But, I have left this series open with the next post in it, "To be advised." I am hopeful that Jesus, the Man on the Shroud, who is ruling over all (Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9), will cause to be brought to light further new evidence which confirms my theory. Also, with the end of this series, I want to start a new series: "Turin Shroud: the Evidence," which will supersede my unfinished series, "The Shroud of Turin." Also, as mentioned in a comment under this post, I want to start a series responding to Cserhati, M. & Carter, R., "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?" Creation.com, 16 August 2019.

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. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
3. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
4. "Karl Koch (hacker)," Wikipedia, 26 April 2019. [return]
5. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
8. Ibid. [return]
9. Jull & Suess, 1989. [return]
10. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp.146-147; Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
11. Linick, A., 2016a, Email "Re: David Sox," 25 February, 3:58 PM.. [return]
12. "Linick, T.W.," Death notice in The Los Angeles Times, 9 June 1989; Suess, H.E. & Linick, T.W., 1990, "The 14C Record in Bristlecone Pine Wood of the past 8000 Years Based on the Dendrochronology of the Late C. W. Ferguson," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 330, April 24, pp.403-412. [return]
13. Bonnet-Eymard, B., 2000, "The Holy Shroud is as Old as the Risen Jesus, IV. Caution! Danger!, The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No 330, Online edition, May. [return]
14. Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse: Bloomington IN, p.619. [return]
15. Linick, A., 2016a, Email "Re: David Sox," 24 February, 1:04 AM. [return]
16. Linick, A., Email "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:08 PM. [return]
17. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
18. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
19. Clauss, U., 2012, "Ancestor of the Pirate Party was charred in the forest," Die Welt, 25 May 2012. Translated by Google. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.281. [return]
21. "Anthony Linick," Wikipedia, 4 July 2019. [return]
22. Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse: Bloomington IN, p.250. [return]
23. Linick, A., Email "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:08 PM. [return]
24. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
25. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
26. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014; Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," The Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
27. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
29. Wilson, 1988. [return]
30. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, July 1 2010. [return]
31. Wilson, 1988. [return]
32. Ibid. [return]
33. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
34. Gove, 1996, pp.277-278. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.278. [return]
38. Gove, 1996, p.314. [return]
39. Sox, 1988, p.95; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.192-193. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
41. "In Memory of Harold David Sox, April 24, 1936 - August 28, 2016," Trident Society, Rancho Mirage CA, 28 September 2017. [return]
42. Wilson, 1988, pp.1-2; Wilson, 1998, p.310. [return]
43. Gove, 1996, p.282. [return]
44. Wilson, 1988, p.2. [return]
45. Ibid. [return]
46. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
47. Ibid. [return]
48. Ibid. [return]
49. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
50. "Anthony Linick: Academic life," Wikipedia, 4 July 2019. [return]
51. Gove, 1996, p.8. [return]
52. Gove, 1996, pp.20-21. [return]
53. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
54. Gove, 1996, p.309. [return]
55. Jones, S.E., "Re: A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 3 January 2016, 11:16 pm. [return]
56. Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
57. Jones, S.E., Email "Re: David Sox," 23 February 2016, 10:20 PM. [return]
58. Ibid. [return]
59. "Accents 2011 - American School in London," 11 October 2011. [return]
60. Linick, A., Email "Re: David Sox," 24 February 2016, 1:04 AM. [return]
61. Jones, S.E., Message, "A Walkers Journal Contact: Timothy W. Linick," 2 January 2016, 6:19 am.. [return]
62. Linick, 24 February 2016. [return]
63. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, p.14. [return]
64. Sox, 1978, p.12. [return]
65. Sox, 1978, p.146. [return]
66. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.v. [return]
67. Sox, 1981, p.22. [return]
68. Sox, 1981, p.132. [return]
69. Sox, 1981, p.133. [return]
70. Damon, et al., 1989, p.612. [return]
71. Damon, et al., 1989, p.611. [return]
72. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
73. "About us: Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory," University of Arizona, 2019. [return]
74. 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.188. [return]
75. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]

Posted: 3 August 2019. Updated: 31 August 2019.