Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Names of the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #9

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
NAMES OF THE SHROUD
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is "Names of the Shroud," part #9 of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover #1, Contents #2 and Preface #3, of this series.

[Contents #2] [Previous: What is the Shroud of Turin? #8] [Next: A linen cloth #10]


  1. What is the Shroud of Turin? #8
    1. Names of the Shroud #9

Shroud of Turin The name "Shroud of Turin" (Sindone di Torino) in

[Right (enlarge): A poster advertising the exposition of the Shroud from 4-24 May, 1931[2]. As can be seen, the Shroud's preferred name in 1931 was a variant of La Santa Sindone, "The Holy Shroud."]

Italian, can only have been used of the Shroud since 1578, when it was moved from Chambéry, France by Duke Emmanuel-Philibert of Savoy (r. 1553–80) to his new capital, Turin, Italy[3].

But it seems likely that the name "Shroud of Turin" is comparatively recent. The earliest use of "Shroud of Turin" that I am aware of is in a 1902 book by Paul Vignon (1865-1943), who referred to the Shroud as "the Holy Shroud of Turin"[4].

Holy Shroud In Italy the Shroud is more commonly known as "la Santa Sindone"[5] and in France, "le Saint Suaire"[6], both meaning in English "the Holy Shroud". In French both "suaire" and "linceul" mean "shroud"[7] with the latter denoting a funerary sense[8]. So both are used of the Shroud, for example Vignon's 1902 book, "Le linceul du Christ"[9] and Yves Delage's 1902 paper, "Le Linceul de Turin," Revue Scientifique 22:683-87[10].

Sudarium In Latin and the Romance languages Spanish and Portuguese, the Shroud is known as the "Sudarium"[11]. This probably originated as an attempt to harmonize the soudarion ("facecloth")[12] in John 11:44 and 20:7 with the sindon ("shroud")[13] in Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46 and Luke 23:53[14]. This is confusing, because as we shall see, "the face cloth [soudarion] that had been on Jesus' head" (John 20:7), exists today as the "Sudarium of Oviedo"[15]! In the seventh century, Bishop Braulio (590-651) of Zaragoza, Spain) wrote in Latin of the preservation of the burial linteamina (linens) and sudarium of the Lord[16]. In the original Braulio stated that, "the body of the Lord was wrapped" in this "sudarium," so by it he was referring to the Shroud[17].

Shroud of Christ This is the earliest known name of the Shroud. The twelfth century historian William of Tyre (c. 1130–86), who was Archbishop of Tyre from 1127 to 1135, referred in his Latin chronicle Historia to the "shroud of Christ"[18].

At Ray-sur-Saone in Burgundy there is a chateau which is owned by

[Above (enlarge): A wooden chest preserved in Ray-sur-Saone chateau, which is claimed to be that in which Otho de Ray brought the Shroud from Constantinople[19]. Othon had acquired the title of Baron of Ray from his marriage to Isabelle de Ray (c. 1190-1212))[20]. A metal plate on the chest translated reads :

"13th century coffer in which was preserved at Ray Castle the Shroud of Christ brought by Otho de Ray from Constantinople. 1206"[21].]
a descendant of Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234)[22], who as we shall see, was a leader in the Fourth Crusade which sacked Constantinople in 1204, and took the Shroud with him to Athens[23]. In the museum at the castle there is a chest which, according to family tradition, was used to transport the Shroud from Athens to France[24]. As can be seen above, the label on the chest states that it is a "13th century coffer in which was preserved ... the Shroud of Christ ..."[25].

In a 1389 memorandum to the Avignon Pope Clement VII (r. 1523-34), the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395), complained that what was claimed to be the "Shroud of Christ" was being exhibited without his permission by Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–98) in the village of Lirey within his Troyes diocese[26]. Moreover, according to d'Arcis, "thirty-four years or thereabouts" previously, i.e. in c. 1355, the same claimed "Shroud of Christ" had been exhibited in Lirey[27], when it would have been by Geoffroy II's father Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–56)[28].

In 1670 the Congregation of Indulgences in Rome, presumably at the direction of Pope Clement X (1670-76), granted a plenary indulgence to pilgrims to Shroud in Turin, albeit "not for venerating the cloth as the true Shroud of Christ, but rather for meditating on his Passion, especially his death and burial"[29].

As we have already seen, Paul Vignon chose "Le linceul du Christ" ("the Shroud of Christ") as the title of his 1902 book, which was "the founding text of sindonology"[30]. This was no accident. Twice on the first page of his book's Introduction, Vignon referred to the Cloth as "the Shroud of Christ"[31]. Clearly to Vignon (and to me), "The Shroud of Turin" merely denotes the Shroud's current location. "The Shroud of Christ" is the Shroud's name!


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. "Poster exhibition litografia Turin Shroud Exposition 1931 100 Cm X 70cm Sindone Holy Shroud," Todocoleccion.net, 14 February 2005. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.260-261. [return]
4. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted 1970, p.24. [return]
5. McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.21. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.161-162. [return]
7. Correard, M-H., Grundy, V., Ormal-Grenon, J-B. & Rubery, J., eds, 2009, "Concise Oxford Hachette French Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Fourth edition, pp.343, 565. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 2012, "A Significant New Example of the Lirey Pilgrim Badge," BSTS Newsletter, No. 76, December. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n76part2.pdf. [return]
9. Translated into English in that same year as, "The Shroud of Christ." [return]
10. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311. http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm. [return]
11. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.84. [return]
12. 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.759. [return]
13. Bauer, et al., 1979, p.751. [return]
14. Bulst, 1957, pp.82, 84. [return]
15. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pp.13, 146-147. [return]
16. Bennett, 2001, pp.32-34. [return]
17. Guscin, M., 2012, "The History of the Shroud: Part One – Before the Thirteenth Century," 1st International Congress on the Holy Shroud in Spain - Valencia," Centro Español de Sindonologia (CES), April 28-30, 2012, Valencia, Spain. [return]
18. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.17. [return]
19. Piana, 2010. [return]
20. Oxley, 2010, p.105. [return]
21. Oxley, 2010, pp.105-106. [return]
22. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.105). [return]
23. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.194. [return]
24. Oxley, 2010, p.105. [return]
25. Oxley, 2010, p.105. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, pp.120-121. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, p.121. [return]
28. Wilson, 2010, pp.220-222. [return]
29. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.26, 221. [return]
30. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.158. [return]
31. Vignon, 1902, p.9. [return]

Posted: 26 February 2020. Updated: 5 March 2020.

Friday, February 21, 2020

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

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

[Previous: November 2019, part #1] [Next: January 2020, part #1]

This is the December 2019 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. As I mentioned in a comment under my previous post

"Since I am unable to post my Shroud of Turin News on time, the last issue was November 2019, I had almost decided to cease posting it, and I still might. However, I have decided to trial a cut-down version with less Editorial."
I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in December as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them. My comments (if any) are bold in square brackets.


News:
• "Shroud of Turin still surrounded with mystery and passion," CNN, Julia Buckley, 13th December 2019 ... When she was 24, Emanuela Marinelli [Right (orig-inal)[2]] was walking near the Vatican in Rome when she caught a glimpse of a "beautiful face of Christ" printed on a souvenir in the window of a shop run by nuns. The image, she said, stood out among the other items for sale -- a kitschy array of ashtrays with the face of the Pope and plastic representations of Jesus on the cross, with eyes that opened and closed. "It was black and white with his eyes closed, suffering but serene," she said. Transfixed, she entered the shop and asked a nun who had painted the original version, only to be told there was no artist, it was a photograph of the Shroud of Turin. "I was surprised and disconcerted," says Marinelli. "The idea that [this photo was of] the funeral sheet of Christ with his image printed on it seemed... ridiculous. I left the shop skeptical, and didn't think any more of it." That was back in 1975. Today, Marinelli is one of the world's most prominent "shroudies" -- people who believe that the 14'5" x 3'7" [437 x 111 cms] linen cloth, which bears an image of what appears to be the body of a man, is in fact the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth ... It may seem amazing that someone who was living in Italy (Marinelli was born in Rome in 1951[3]) did not know about the Shroud. But in 1975, the last Shroud exposition had been in 1898 - 77 years previously, so many (if not most) Italians would not have known about the Shroud back then. But the next Shroud exposition was in 1978 - 3 years later, which turned Marinelli from a sceptic into a Shroudie![4]!

• "Extraordinary public display of Turin Shroud in 2020," Vatican News, Robin Gomes ... The Shroud of Turin, believed by many to be the

[Above (enlarge): Pope Francis at the Turin Shroud in June 2015. (Vatican Media)]

burial cloth of Jesus, will be publicly displayed again on the occasion of the Taizé Community's next annual meeting of Europe's youth in Turin, Italy, in December 2020. The announcement of the extraordinary display of the revered cloth was made by Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia of Turin at Wroclaw, Poland, where this year's annual meeting of Europe's young people, known as the "Pilgrimage of Trust on Earth", is currently taking place. The Taizé Community has chosen the northern Italian city of Turin as the venue of its next meeting of Europe's young people, scheduled from December 28, 2020, to January 1, 2021. There is no official teaching or dogma on the authenticity of the Shroud, which is housed in the Cathedral of Turin. Next year will be the fifth time that the shroud will be on public display since 2000. The last time it was on display was from April 19 to ‎June ‎‎24, 2015, ‎in the cathedral of Turin." It is not clear if this December 2020 exposition will be open to the general public. It is commendable that there have been four expositions of the Shroud since 2000: 2000, 2010, 2013 and 2015, although the 2013 exposition was by television.

[Above (enlarge)[5]: The 2013 one-day (Easter Saturday, 30 March 2013) exposition of the Shroud by television.]

But it is not commendable that, "There is no official teaching or dogma on the authenticity of the Shroud." As I have pointed out (see 06Oct13, 26Nov13, 14Feb14, 01Mar14 & 16Sep19), it is:

• "Dishonest, because the Roman Catholic Church has spent, and continues to spend, the equivalent of many millions of US dollars preserving and protecting the Shroud, and holding expositions at which tens of millions of pilgrims have filed past it on the understanding that it really is Jesus' burial shroud. And individual Popes have expressed their personal conviction that it really is Jesus' burial shroud. So clearly the Roman Catholic Church (to its credit), really believes that the Shroud of Turin is the very burial sheet of Jesus and the image on it is of Jesus' body" (06Oct13a).
• "Weak, because as John Evangelist Walsh [1927-2015] (himself a Catholic) pointed out 50 years ago, either the Shroud of Turin is a deliberate fraud, or it is Jesus' burial shroud:
"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground"[6].
If the Shroud of Turin is a deliberate fraud, then it would almost certainly be a work of Satan "the deceiver of the whole world" (Rev 12:9), and no Church that calls itself Christian should be promoting a deliberate fraud (let alone a work of Satan)!" (06Oct13b).
Duplicitous "... it is duplicitous (i.e. two-faced), of the Vatican to refuse to confirm or deny that the Shroud is authentic. By its actions of spending the equivalent of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars preserving the Shroud and exhibiting it to millions of people as though it is authentic, the Vatican clearly does believe that the Shroud is authentic, so it should say so. Shroud anti-authenticists cite the Vatican's refusal to state that the Shroud is authentic as evidence that it is not" (17Apr15; 23Jun15; 07May16a).
Amoral If the Shroud is not authentic "then it can only be the image of someone else tortured and crucified to make it look like Jesus":
"... as devout Roman Catholic Donald M. Smith pointed out in his 1983 book, "The Letter," which was in the form of a letter to Pope John Paul II, if the Shroud is not authentic then it can only be the image of someone else tortured and crucified to make it look like Jesus (see 25Oct15). And for the Vatican to exhibit that, would show it has the same "the end justifies the means' ... principles of ... Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler":
"[If the Shroud is not authentic] ... there is another conclusion which also must follow: Sometime between 100 A.D. and 1357 A.D., an evil, cruel and sinful act occurred. A human being was actually made to go through the exact same torture and agonizing death as suffered by Jesus and as reported in the Gospels, for the sole purpose of producing a valuable relic ... If the goal of producing a likeness of the only begotten Son of God by such evil means, could in any way be condoned, then the whole principle is based on the theories that `the end justifies the means,' and that `power makes right.' These are the same set of principles of men with character the likes of Nietzsche, Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler ... It is not right to venerate an object if that object was created by evil means" (my emphasis)[7]. (07May16b).

Editorial
Posts: In December I blogged nine new posts (latest uppermost):
"My position on the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #7" - 30th; "Flower & plant images #31: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 17th; "My Shroud blog: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #6" - 16th; "News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, November 2019" - 11th; "About me: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #5" - 10th; "`Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?' #2" - 6th; "This book: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #4" - 4th; "News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, October 2019" - 2nd; and "Preface: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #3" - 1st.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 December 2019, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,132,902.

This compares with 998,352 at the same time in December 2018. That is 134,550 pageviews over the year, or an average of ~369 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for December (highest uppermost) as: "Introduction #2: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Jul 9, 2015 - 113; "`Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?' #2" Dec 6, 2019 - 113; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present: 1st century and Index," Jul 24, 2016 - 77; "Shroud on SBS 1 Australia at 7:30 pm tonight Sunday 24 March," Mar 24, 2013 - 69 & "Flower & plant images #31: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" Dec 17, 2019 - 66.

My 2013 "Shroud on SBS 1 Australia at 7:30 pm tonight ... " post is interesting because the main part of the post is in my comments below it! I commented on: "1) Barbara Frale's claim that there is Hebrew writing on the Shroud, which was refuted by Barrie Schwortz"; 2) Problems with the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as `medieval' were also discussed by Barrie Schwortz"; 3) Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli's powdered ochre bas relief `reproduction'. Barrie Schwortz examined under a microscope ..."; 4) Prof. Nicholas Allen's claim that the Shroud is a medieval photograph using a camera obscura, a large calcite lens and a silver nitrate emulsion on linen as a photographic plate." My comments on that are too long to summarise. Presumably one or more of those items were being discussed in another forum.

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. "La Sindone ed Emanuela Marinelli: conquistata dall’uomo della croce," Famiglia Cristiana, 6 April 2017. [return]
3. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, back cover. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. "Live: the Turin Cathedral 30.3.2013," YouTube, Mar 30, 2013. [return]
6. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.x-xii. My emphasis. [return]
7. Smith, D.M., 1983, "The Letter," DMS Publishing Co: Rancho Palos Verdes CA, pp.24-25. [return]

Posted: 21 February 2020. Updated: 3 March 2020.

Friday, February 14, 2020

My hacker theory: guarded support from Ian Wilson but censored by the BSTS' David Rolfe!

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

On 19 January I received an email of that date from Joe Marino (copied to over 20 others), with the subject heading,

[Right (original): Joe Marino speaking at the 2014 St. Louis Shroud Conference[2].]

"Significant article in Winter 2019/2020 British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter" (my emphasis below):

"Winter 2019/2020 issue of British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter now online (subscription required).

Issue includes a condensed version of my 1 hour, 45 presentation on the invisible reweave theory presented at the Ancaster, Canada International Shroud conference in August 2019.

Notable is a comment at end of article by noted Shroud scholar Ian Wilson, who had not been a proponent of the theory, but now writes,

`A Major Change of Mind…

For those of us who disbelieve the medieval date that the 1988 carbon dating attributed to the Shroud, the key question perennially needing to be resolved is how three internationally respected scientific laboratories could have produced an error of thirteen centuries.

Without unreservedly supporting any one theory, I have tended to favour the microbiological contamination argument because the sliver of linen from which all three laboratories derived their samples came from a corner demonstrably handled countless times during historical Shroud expositions and therefore bound to have been heavily contaminated by hand contact. Likewise, whilst conspiracy theories should always be treated with the greatest caution, I have taken seriously the possibility of some sort of laboratory foul play in 1988, based on the suspiciously early leaking of the results, the equally suspicious centering of the result around the year 1350, and the never explained early 1989 suicide of the Arizona laboratory's computer guru Timothy Linick.

By contrast the Reweave Theory long promulgated by Joe Marino and his late wife Sue Benford has never attracted me, mostly due to my not having found the slightest sign of any such restoration work when I was closely looking for such anomalies during my examination of the Shroud in 1973. This scepticism has, however, now greatly diminished due to the very convincingly presented Joe Marino conference paper that follows, buttressed by a ‘French Reweave’ demonstration - specifically performed on a Shroud-like herringbone weave - that can be viewed on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIgC_IeuzKE. Whilst I still cannot yet describe myself as fully convinced by any one theory, I can now commend Joe's presentation unreservedly….'" (ellipses original)[3].

I was elated that my Hacker Theory (see 23Jul15 & 28Oct18) had received guarded support from Ian Wilson and that it had been mentioned in the BSTS Newsletter (or so I - and Joe - thought )!

So I excitedly replied to Joe (copy to the others and Ian Wilson):

"Joe (cc Ian Wilson and others)

Thanks and especially thanks to Ian:

"Notable is a comment at end of article by noted Shroud scholar Ian Wilson ... Likewise, whilst conspiracy theories should always be treated with the greatest caution, I have taken seriously the possibility of some sort of laboratory foul play in 1988, based on the suspiciously early leaking of the results, the equally suspicious centering of the result around the year 1350, and the never explained early 1989 suicide of the Arizona laboratory’ computer guru Timothy Linick."
As previously mentioned, our two theories are not incompatible, if Linick's program built on (rather than substituted) the existing C-14 atom counts of the Shroud samples:
"But looking at the great variability of Arizona's C14 atom counts across its subsamples A1-A8 (above), 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 (see above that Arizona's subsample was in two parts A1 and A from opposite ends of the Shroud sample). 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! And again note that in favour of my theory is that `odd man out' very first run C14 atom count of 8226 (above) which equated to "1350" (see above)." (Casabianca, T., et al., 2019, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data," Archaeometry, 22 March)
"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!" ("News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, July 2019)
While your invisible reweave theory does explain the variability in C-14 atom counts across the ~1.2cm x ~8cm Shroud sample, it does not explain why: 1) the very first Arizona C14 run was "1350":
"Gove doesn't consider how amazing it is, that the very first dating at Arizona, "1350 AD," agreed to within 25 years of the midpoint, 1325, of the average of all the other datings! Especially considering the very wide spread of all those datings: 204 years! (see above), and Arizona's 110 years. In fact the mean of Arizona's first date, 591 +/- 30, is not a typical one: it is the lowest of all the means. And because lowest is most recent, it is the upper limit of the dating's calendar years." ("6 May 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" )
"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." ("4 June 1989: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud")
nor 2) why the combined average radiocarbon date of all the Shroud subsamples was 1260-1390 = 1325 +/- 65, which `just happened' to be 25 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in 1355.

As the physicist Frank Tipler pointed out, that would be a miracle (Tipler believes it was literally a miracle):

"If the radiocarbon date is ignored, there are quite a few reasons for accepting the Shroud as genuine ... But ... what must be answered before the Shroud can be accepted as genuine - is why the radiocarbon date is exactly what one would expect it to be if the Turin Shroud were actually a fraud. A very plausible history of the Shroud from A.D. 30 to the present has been constructed ... However, the first time the Shroud is agreed by all scholars to have existed is 1355, when a French squire, Geoffrey de Charny of Lirey, in the bishopric of Troyes, petitioned the Pope to display it as the unique burial cloth of Jesus. ... A few decades after de Charny's death, the bishop of Troyes denounced the Shroud as a fake and said that he knew the name of the forger, who had confessed. So if the bishop and later skeptics were correct, we would expect the linen of which the Shroud is made to date from the time of the forgery. That is, the middle of the fourteenth century. When the radiocarbon date was discovered to be between 1260 and 1390 (95 percent confidence interval), most scientists (including myself until a few years ago) were convinced that the Shroud had been proven a fraud. If bacterial or other contamination had distorted the date, we would expect the measured radiocarbon date to be some random date between A.D. 30 and the present. It would be an extraordinary and very improbable coincidence if the amount of carbon added to the Shroud were exactly the amount needed to give the date that indicated a fraud. That is, unless the radiocarbon date were itself a miracle ..." (Tipler, F.J., 2007, "The Physics of Christianity," Doubleday: New York NY, pp.178-179).
So there is no need for Ian Wilson (or anyone) to chose between the three theories: 1) "the microbiological contamination argument"; 2) " the Reweave Theory long promulgated by Joe Marino and his late wife Sue Benford"; and 3) "the possibility of some sort of laboratory foul play in 1988, based on the suspiciously early leaking of the results, the equally suspicious centering of the result around the year 1350, and the never explained early 1989 suicide of the Arizona laboratory’ computer guru Timothy Linick" (my Hacker Theory )

What I call my Revised Hacker Theory comprehensively covers all three!

PS: I don't know whether you have read my argument that Margaret of Austria's snippet of the Shroud would have been removed, not after her will was executed in 1531, but either when she was Duchess of Savoy (1501-4), or it was a gift from Margaret's successor as Duchess of Savoy, Claudine de Brosse (1450–1513):

"1531 Margaret's will is executed but there is no record of a portion of the Shroud having been removed at that time. Marino and Benford claim, or imply, that consequently there was an excision of a 5½ inch x 3½ inch (~14 cm x ~8.9 cm) section from the Shroud which was later almost invisibly repaired with 16th century thread which unknowingly was included in the 1988 radiocarbon dating sample ... But clearly Margaret could not have legally stipulated the removal of part of the Shroud which was not her property in 1508. So presumably she had been given, or had taken, a snippet from the Shroud when she was Duchess of Savoy between 1501-4. Or it was a gift from her mother-in-law, dowager duchess Claudine de Brosse (1450–1513) in 1505 when Margaret formally relinquished custody of the Shroud to Claudine [see "1505b"].
PPS: I have just now subscribed to the BSTS Newsletter.

Regards,
Stephen Jones"[4].

However, having paid my subscription to the BSTS Newsletter, and reading right through the latest online issue, I could not see a mention of my Hacker theory. So I wrote to Joe Marino again:
"Joe

Having paid my subscription to the BSTS Newsletter digital version and logged in, I cannot see where the words in black below appear.

Was it only in the paper edition?

Regards,
Stephen

On 19/01/2020 4:47 am, jmarino240@aol.com wrote:
> Winter 2019/2020 issue of British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter now online (subscription required).

>Issue includes a condensed version of my 1 hour, 45 presentation on the invisible reweave theory presented at the Ancaster, Canada International Shroud conference in August 2019.

>Notable is a comment at end of article by noted Shroud scholar Ian Wilson, who had not been a proponent of the theory, but now writes,

>"A Major Change of Mind…

>For those of us who disbelieve the medieval date that the 1988 carbon dating attributed to the Shroud, the key question perennially needing to be resolved is how three internationally respected scientific laboratories could have produced an error of thirteen centuries.

>Without unreservedly supporting any one theory, I have tended to favour the microbiological contamination argument because the sliver of linen from which all three laboratories derived their samples came from a corner demonstrably handled countless times during historical Shroud expositions and therefore bound to have been heavily contaminated by hand contact. Likewise, whilst conspiracy theories should always be treated with the greatest caution, I have taken seriously the possibility of some sort of laboratory foul play in 1988, based on the suspiciously early leaking of the results, the equally suspicious centering of the result around the year 1350, and the never explained early 1989 suicide of the Arizona laboratory’ computer guru Timothy Linick.

>By contrast the Reweave Theory long promulgated by Joe Marino and his late wife Sue Benford has never attracted me, mostly due to my not having found the slightest sign of any such restoration work when I was closely looking for such anomalies during my examination of the Shroud in 1973. This scepticism has, however, now greatly diminished due to the very convincingly presented Joe Marino conference paper that follows, buttressed by a ‘French Reweave’ demonstration - specifically performed on a Shroud-like herringbone weave - that can be viewed on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIgC_IeuzKE. Whilst I still cannot yet describe myself as fully convinced by any one theory, I can now commend Joe’s presentation unreservedly..."[5].

At first Joe didn't understand what I was getting at and he replied:
"Stephen,

I printed out the last page when I was online yesterday and it was all there. See attached [PDF].

Joe [...]"[6].

So I sent Joe a screenshot of that part of the BSTS Newsletter article:
"Joe

Thanks, but neither your `see attached' PDF nor the actual BSTS Newsletter paragraph "A Major Change of Mind - Ian Wilson" (see below) [The screenshot I sent Joe did not have the expanse of white space between "unreservedly." and "13" which is in the Newsletter.]:

contain the words in your email which I highlighted in black, now highlighted in red about "Timothy Linick":
"For those of us who disbelieve the medieval date that the 1988 carbon dating attributed to the Shroud, the key question perennially needing to be resolved is how three internationally respected scientific laboratories could have produced an error of thirteen centuries.
Without unreservedly supporting any one theory, I have tended to favour the microbiological contamination argument because the sliver of linen from which all three laboratories derived their samples came from a corner demonstrably handled countless times during historical Shroud expositions and therefore bound to have been heavily contaminated by hand contact. Likewise, whilst conspiracy theories should always be treated with the greatest caution, I have taken seriously the possibility of some sort of laboratory foul play in 1988, based on the suspiciously early leaking of the results, the equally suspicious centering of the result around the year 1350, and the never explained early 1989 suicide of the Arizona laboratory’ computer guru Timothy Linick.
By contrast [the Reweave Theory]..."
Where do they appear so I can reference them?

Thanks,

Stephen"[7].

Joe replied, at last having realised what I was getting at:
"Stephen,

OK, figured out what happened.

Ian had sent me a MWord file before publication showing how the piece was going to read.

The final version on the BSTS site is such that one can't even copy and paste the text, so when I sent his piece to my email contacts on which your included, I used the Word version he sent me so I could copy and paste.

I didn't realize that the actual version was shortened and left the Linick part out--not sure why because there was plenty of room left on the page.

I've attached the doc that Ian sent me.

Regards,

Joe"[8].

That is, the BSTS Newsletter's Editor, David Rolfe [Left [9].], had seamlessly, without ellipses, edited out Wilson's words about "Timothy Linick," such that his readers would never know that they were there, when there was "plenty of room left on the page" for them (see above)!


I replied to Joe, "I presume that David Rolfe is anti- my Hacker theory and censored it":

"Joe

On 24/01/2020 10:27 pm, jmarino240@aol.com wrote:> Stephen,

>> OK, figured out what happened.

>> Ian had sent me a MWord file before publication showing how the piece was going to read.

>> The final version on the BSTS site is such that one can't even copy and paste the text, so when I sent his piece to my email contacts on which your included, I used the Word version he sent me so I could copy and paste.

>> I didn't realize that the actual version was shortened and left the Linick part out--not sure why because there was plenty of room left on the page.

I presume that David Rolfe is anti- my Hacker theory and censored it. "First they ignore you ..."!

Rolfe asked me a while ago to submit an article to the BSTS Newsletter, but when I pointed him to my online, "Media release: Were the Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? " and said he could use that I never heard anything more from him.

>> I've attached the doc that Ian sent me.

Thanks. I will quote your email below in a future blog post and say it was in Ian Wilson's original article submitted to the BSTS Newsletter, which you were sent a copy of, but it was edited out in the Newsletter.

Regards,

Stephen"[10].

Because it was not me directly that Rolfe censored, but Ian Wilson, Rolfe's predecessor as inaugural Editor of the BSTS Newsletter, for ~18 years from 1982 to 2001!

Five days later I emailed Joe Marino that Rolfe did censor that part of Ian Wilson's submitted article which mentioned "Timothy Linick" (i.e. my Hacker theory - see 23Jul15 & 28Oct18) on the grounds that he considered it to be "radical" and "might be confusing":

"Joe

I vaguely thought that David Rolfe had explained to me why he deleted Ian's words below:

"Likewise, whilst conspiracy theories should always be treated with the greatest caution, I have taken seriously the possibility of some sort of laboratory foul play in 1988, based on the suspiciously early leaking of the results, the equally suspicious centering of the result around the year 1350, and the never explained early 1989 suicide of the Arizona laboratory’ computer guru Timothy Linick."
I found it when I finally got to the bottom of my inbox [in an email of 20 January confirming my BSTS membership]. Rolfe did censor it on the grounds that he considered it to be "radical" and "might be confusing":
"I felt that including the more `radical' Linick hypothesis into the same issue might be confusing. That said, unless there is anything further on the contamination aspect, I would like to do something quite major on the Lin[ic]k/Sox axis. I knew Sox well. I later discovered how duplicitous he could be. Some more spadework needs to be done and I hope to find the resources to do it"[11].
Which is absurd. There is nothing confusing in what Ian wrote above. I will call Rolfe out on it in a blog post the near future on his censorship of Ian and my Hacker theory.

But Rolfe does say that he "would like to do something quite major on the Lin[ic]k/Sox axis". But I'll believe that when I see it.

Regards,

Stephen"[12].

Joe replied in what presumably was his last word on this:
"Stephen,

Yeah, kind of strange that he would think a mention of it would be radical and confusing when he's open to a full article on it!

Joe"[13].

Because I believe that my Revised Hacker Theory (see above) is true, I regard Rolfe's censorship of it because it is, in his opinion, too "radical" and "confusing" for his BSTS Newsletter readership to handle, as an attempt by him to, unwittingly, suppress the truth. Surely most, if not all, of his readers would have heard of my Hacker Theory? So I can only assume that Rolfe does not personally like my Hacker Theory and he is abusing his power as Editor to impose his own personal tastes on his readers!

Last September Rolfe wrote to me, that he was "trying to turn around a declining subscriber base for the Newsletter"[14]. Well he won't do that by serving up the "same old, same old" that his BSTS Newsletter readers have been reading for decades! Over 20 years ago Ian Wilson wrote of anti-authenticists:

"Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen"[15].
But the same is true of pro-authenticists in their mutually exclusive explanations of how the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. I maintain that my "radical" Revised Hacker Theory is the only theory that can create a consensus around which most, if not all, pro-authenticists can rally around!

For starters, mine is the only theory which explains the two most important facts: 1) why the very first radiocarbon dating run at Arizona was "1350," which was the most recent date of all, at all three laboratories [see above, 23Jun18 & 03Aug19]; and 2) why the combined average of all three laboratories' was 1325 ± 65, which `just happened' to be a mere 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in 1355 [see above, 20Mar19 & 29May19].

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. Joe Marino at "Shroud of Turin: The Controversial Intersection of Faith and Science Conference," October 9-12, 2014, Drury Plaza Hotel, St. Louis, Missouri. [return]
3. Marino, J.G., 2020, email to S.E. Jones and others, "Significant article in Winter 2019/2020 British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter," 19/01/20 4:47 am. [return]
4. S.E. Jones, 2020, email to Marino, J.G., and others, "Significant article...," 19/01/2020, 9:48 pm. [return]
5. S.E. Jones, 2020, email to Marino, J.G., "Significant article...," 20/01/2020, 9:54 am. [return]
6. Marino, J.G., 2020, email to S.E. Jones, "Significant article...," 20/01/2020, 10:25 am. [return]
7. S.E. Jones, 2020, email to Marino, J.G., "Significant article...," 24/01/2020, 8:51 pm. [return]
8. Marino, J.G., 2020, email to S.E. Jones, "Significant article...," 24/01/2020, 10:27 pm. [return]
9. Rolfe, D., 2019, "The Shroud of Turin ... A Grave Injustice," Beaconsfield UK. [return]
10. S.E. Jones, 2020, email to Marino, J.G., "Significant article...," 24/01/2020, 10:58 pm. [return]
11. Rolfe, D., 2020, email to S.E. Jones, "BSTS Newsletter," 20/01/2020, 7:46 am. [return]
12. S.E. Jones, 2020, email to Marino, J.G., "Significant article...," 29/01/2020, 8:23 am. [return]
13. S.E. Jones, 2020, email to Marino, J.G., "Significant article...," 30/01/2020, 5:11 am. [return]
14. Rolfe, D., 2019, email to S.E. Jones, "BSTS Newsletter," 12/09/2019, 11:57 pm. [return]
15. 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.235). [return]

Posted: 14 February 2020. Updated: 22 February 2020.

Date index 2020: The Shroud of Turin blog

The Shroud of Turin blog
DATE INDEX 2020
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the date index to the 2020 posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog. The posts are listed in reverse date order (recent uppermost). For further information on this date index series see the Main Index. The linked subject headings of future 2020 posts will be added to this page in the background.

[Main index] [Previous: 2019] [Next: 2021]


2020

[Above (enlarge): Face of the "Christ Enthroned" mosaic [see c.526] in the Sant'Apollinare Nuovo church, Ravenna, Italy[2] compared to the Vignon markings (see 11Feb12)[3]. According to Maher, this "early (sixth-century) ... mosaic of Christ enthroned" has "eight Vignon markings"[4], which is proof beyond reasonable doubt that it was based on the Shroud, over 700 years before its earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating[5]! But by my count, it has thirteen of the fifteen Vignon markings [see 08Oct16, 16Feb12, 07Dec16 and 08Jan19]. And since this is a mosaic, created in situ, not a portable painting, it is evidence that the Shroud was in Ravenna, Italy, in the early sixth century! This is from my post of 01-Jan-20 below.]

10-Mar-20: "News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, February 2020
04-Mar-20: A linen cloth: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #10
03-Mar-20: "News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, January 2020
26-Feb-20: Names of the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #9
21-Feb-20: "News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, December 2019
15-Feb-20: My hacker theory: guarded support from Ian Wilson but censored by the BSTS' David Rolfe!
14-Feb-20: Date index 2020: The Shroud of Turin blog
12-Feb-20: What is the Shroud of Turin?: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #8
01-Jan-20: Antioch: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia


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. Extract from "File:Christus Ravenna Mosaic.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 22 August 2019. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82E. [return]
4. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.77. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.3; Wilson, 1998, pp.125, 140-141; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.108. [return]

Posted: 14 February 2020. Updated: 11 March 2020.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

What is the Shroud of Turin?: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #8

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is, "What is the Shroud of Turin?" part #8, of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover #1, Contents #2 and Preface #3, of this series. When a topic below is linked, it has been posted.

[Right (enlarge)[2]: "Full-length image of the Turin Shroud before the 2002 restoration"[3].]

[Contents #2] [Previous: My position on the Shroud #7] [Next: Names of the Shroud #9]


  1. What is the Shroud of Turin? #8
    1. Names of the Shroud #9
    2. A linen cloth #10
    3. Dimensions #11
    4. First undisputed appearance was in 1355 #12
    5. Has been in Turin since 1578 #13
    6. Bears image of a naked man #14
    7. Man has wounds matching those of Jesus #15
    8. Was radiocarbon dated 1260-1390 #16
    9. Central dilemma of the Shroud #17


To be continued in part #9 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "File:Shroudofturin.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 21 August 2016. [return]
3. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 10 February 2020. [return]

Posted: 12 February 2020. Updated: 8 April 2020.