Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Problems of the forgery theory #2: Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is my "Problems of the forgery theory #2," which is based on, and will help me write, Chapter 19, "Problems of the forgery theory," of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See part #1 for more information about this series.

[Previous #1][Next #3]


PROBLEMS OF THE FORGERY THEORY #2
© Stephen E. Jones

The Man on the Shroud (Ch. 4). Double image Why would a medieval forger depict the man's back, with its over 100 tiny scourge wounds[AF82, 70; AM00, 76; WI10, 44-45], when the front image, or even the face, would have sufficed for his gullible contemporaries[WI98, 59-60]? A

[Right (enlarge): "Full-length image of the Turin Shroud before the 2002 restoration" (Wikipedia)[STW]. Seriously, could an unknown medieval forger have created this? Negative? Three-dimensional? Non-directional? Extremely superficial? Not with paint, pigment or dye? X-rays? With real, human blood? Which was on the cloth before the image? Res ipsa loquitur!]

~4.4 metre (14.5 foot) long Shroud would be too large to easily display and so would detract from its sale value[OG85, 53]. A face only shroud "would have been much easier to make than a full-body image, and it would have been much more saleable"[DT12, 138]. In fact, a medieval forger of the Shroud could have subdivided his ~4.4 x ~1.1 m (~14.5 x ~3.7 ft) cloth into 16 face only shrouds of ~55.2 x ~56.7 cm (~21.7 x ~22.3 in.) each! [see 20Jun24]. All sceptics' `replications' of the Shroud are either face or front only[WI98, pl. 47c; DT12, 138]. But:

"If a modern debunker cannot be bothered to reproduce the whole figure, front and back, it is difficult to see why a medieval hoaxer would have been any more industrious"[DT12, 138]!

How did a medieval forger depict the more than 100 scourge wounds on the back, legs and chest of the Shroudman, when each of these has a serum halo [see 27Dec21], many of which are visible only under a microscope (invented c. 1609) and in ultraviolet light (discovered 1801)[AM00, 76; WS00, 70]!

Faint Why would a forger have depicted the man's image so

[Left (enlarge): Full-length double image of the man on the Shroud after the 2002 restoration[SU14], showing that the image is very faint (and photographs enhance the image[BM95, 32; WI98, 4]).]

faint[AF82, 5] that it cannot be seen close up[HJ83, 2; BM95, 32; WI98, 4; AM00, 37], but only at a distance of about about 10 feet (3 metres)[HJ83, 2; SD91, 192; OM10, 52-53; RC99, 12]? How could a forger depict the Shroudman when he could not see up close what he was depicting[HJ83, 202; WM86, 82; TF06, 152; DT12, 138]?

Colour Why would, and how did, a medieval forger use dehydrative oxidation and conjugation of the cellulose in the Shroud's flax fibrils[HA81, 35; HJ83, 198-200; BM95, 22, 40; AA99, 105; AA0a, 113, 120; AA0c, 22-25; AM00, 212, 221; GV01, 65; TF06, 187; OM10, 218] to create the man's uniform straw-yellow image[AA99, 104-105; AA0a, 116; AA0c, 15; AM00, 36; DT12, 106]? Why would a medieval forger have depicted the man by such a time-consuming method as an areal density image[AA99, 105; AA0a, 113, 116; AA0c, 15; ], that is, the body image is not variations in concentrations of applied pigment (of which there is none - see 11Jul16) but by variation in the number of uniformly colored image fibres per unit area[AA99, 105; AA0a, 113, 116 ; AA0c, 15]?

[Right (enlarge[HTW].): The first printed photo using a halftone (i.e. an areal density image), in the Canadian Illustrated News, 30 October 1869].

Which was only discovered in the 19th century (see above).

Hands Why would a medieval forger depict Jesus hands with his fingers unnaturally long[DD84; SH88, 70; SS98]? And with no thumbs[BP53, 106, 119; BR78, 44; DR84, 4; BM95, 24; AM00, 24]?

[Left (enlarge): The nail exit wound and bloodstain on the back of the left hand of the man on the Shroud[LM10a]. Only one nail wound is visible because the corresponding wound in the right wrist (inferred by identical blood flows down his right forearm[WI98, 34; DT12, 119]) is covered by his left hand[BP53, 106; WI98, 34; DT12, 119]. As can be seen, the thumbs are not visible and the man's retracted left thumb bones can be seen through the flesh of his left hand[JJ91, 334]! The man's fingers seem too long because they are x-rays of his under-the-skin hand bones [see 20Apr17]! A medieval forger would not know about, let alone depict, x-rays, as they were discovered in 1895[XRW] by Wilhelm Roentgen (1845-1923)[WRW]!]

Shroud sceptics Picknett and Prince claim that the forger was Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)[PP06, 91], but if these were mistakes, a high school art student would not have made them. However, French surgeon Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) found that when he drove a large Roman nail into the wrists of fresh cadavers, at the Space of Destot, where the nail exit wound is in the man's left wrist, the median nerve which controls the thumb was grazed, causing the thumb to contract inward and lie across the palm[BP53, 118-119; WI98, 35; AM00, 24]! "Could a [medieval] forger have imagined this?", Barbet asked[BP53, 119], and the answer clearly is NO!

Feet Why would a medieval forger depict the square cross-section

[Right (enlarge[LM10b]):
"Half-way along there is a rectangular stain, rather nearer to the inner than to the outer edge of the impression, and this is where the flows seem to have their centre ... This four-sided image is certainly the mark of the nail ..."[BP53, 125].]

imprint of a Roman nail in the man's right foot, when it was only discovered in the mid-20th century[BP53, 125]?

Non-traditional Why would a medieval forger depict the crucified Jesus non-traditionally? A medieval forger would need to conform to tradition for his forgery to be accepted[SH90, 93]:

"How could an artist, who was painting a shroud destined for public exposition, have dared to do an unheard-of thing, that of portraying a Christ who was entirely naked? How would he have come to contradict the traditional iconography, with a nail in the wrist, with a thumb hidden in the palm of the hand ... who only shows one pierced hand and one pierced foot ..."[BP53, 31].
"Now we come to a more important point. The nail-wound of the left hand is in the wrist, not in the centre of the palm, as demanded by tradition. In a forged relic such a parade of independence would scarcely have been tolerated. As it was, to have shown the public only one hand, and consequently only one wound, was remarkable enough. Such licences would be pardoned only in the most authentic relic. Yet anatomy proves that the nails must have been driven into the wrists, not into the hands. Here again tradition is contradicted" (emphasis original)[VP02, 40].
Naked A medieval forger would not have defied tradition by depicting Jesus entirely naked[BP53, 31; BR78, 44; DR84, 29; OG85, 53]. He would likely have been burned at the stake for blasphemy[WR10, 188], as would a buyer of his forgery who displayed it. A naked rear view of Jesus would be especially shocking to the medieval mind because that was the evident intent of the 2nd century Alexamenos graffito (below), to depict Jesus in that most degrading pose.

[Left (enlarge[AGW].): The c. 200 Alexamenos graffito, discovered in 1857, mocks Alexamenos, a second century Christian[OG85, 237; WI98, 49], who is depicted raising a hand in worship of a naked Jesus with a donkey's head, on a cross from the rear, with the caption, "Alexamenos worships [his] God"]

Nails in the wrists Why would a medieval forger contradict traditional iconography by correctly depicting Jesus with nails in his wrists, not his palms[VP02, 40; BP53, 31; BR78, 44; WI79, 40-41; DR84, 25; SH90, 92; BM95, 24; IJ98, 57-58; WR10, 188; DT12, 119]? See above on the nail wound in the hidden right wrist is inferred from identical bloodflows down the right forearm.

Cap of thorns Why would a medieval forger depict the man with numerous scalp puncture wounds consistent with a cap of thorns which covered his entire head rather than a traditional circlet crown of thorns depicted in medieval Christian art[BM95, 26; GM98, 30; GV01, 38]? See 02Jul24.

No right hand nor left foot nail wound Why would a medieval forger not depict the nail wounds in the man's right hand [see above] and left foot?

[Right (enlarge[LM10c]): Feet dorsal view showing the man's right foot (left-right reversed-see 05Jun22) with a nail wound but no complete left foot with a nail wound. See frontal view of the feet where none of the left foot is visible (due to the man's left foot having been nailed to the cross with a single nail through his right foot - see 23Jan23).]

"The lack of clarity regarding the stigmata in the feet is itself significant. If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, the wounds in the feet (along with every other wound) would surely have been clearly marked ... Christ's wounds were not just incidental traces of torture in the Middle Ages. As the source of the blood that bought salvation, they were considered profoundly meaningful and were a focus of devotion. Accordingly, when medieval artists depicted Christ's wounded feet, they were always careful to indicate the marks of the nails"[DT12, 121-122].
To be continued in a future "Problems of the forgery theory #3."

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]

Bibliography
AA99. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in AC02, 103-112.
AA0a. Adler, A.D., 2000, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in AC02, 113-127.
AA0c. Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in AC02, 10-27.
AC02. Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy.
AF82. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
AGW. "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 25 June 2024.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
BA91. Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX.
BM95. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, 18-51.
BP53. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963.
BR78. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London.
DD84. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review, 23, 243-55.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
DR84. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD.
GM98. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
HA81. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in AC02, 34-57.
HJ83. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA.
HTW. "Halfton," Wikipedia, 6 July 2024.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
JJ91. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in BA91, 171-204., 325-344.
OG85. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin.
LM10a. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org
LM10b. Latendresse, M., 2010, Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical, Sindonology.org
LM10c. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
PP06. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
RC99. 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.
SD91. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in BA91, 171-204.
SH88. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK.
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
SS98. Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2., 3 October 2002.
STW. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 20 June 2024.
SU14. "Image of Full 2002 Restored Shroud," High Resolution Imagery, Shroud University, 2014.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
VP02. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970.
WR10. Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI98. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.
WI10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London.
WM86. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London.
WS00. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London.
WRW. "Wilhelm Röntgen: Discovery of X-rays," Wikipedia, 27 June 2024.
XRW. "X-ray: Discovery by Rontgen," Wikipedia, 17 July 2024.

Posted 10 July 2024. Updated 27 July 2024.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Stephen Jones
On behalf of Centro Português de Sindonologia I want to congratulate you for this excellent post.
However I'm a medical doctor and I feel I should clarify a statement about the injury to the median nerve in the wrist and Dr. Pierre Barbet's experiences, because even Professor Frederick Zugibe misunderstood Barbet's experiments and criticized him without reason.
Actually Dr. Barbet performed experiences with fresh amputated forearms so the musculoskeletal and nerve structures were still alive,
He observed after careful dissection that if the wrist was nailed on the palmar flexion crease the nail caused a partial lesion to the median nerve which lies beneath the palmar flexor retinaculum in the Carpal Tunnel (and not in Destot's space which is an anatomical virtual space bewteen carpal bones lunatum triquetrum capitatum and hamatum) and because of palmar anatomical structures namely wrist and fingers flexor tendons the nail is AUTOMATICALLY DRIVEN to the so called Destot's Space and exits the wrist.
The partial lesion of the median nerve is a noxious stimulus that activates thenar muscle contractions causing the thumb to flex and retract to the palm of the hand.
A careful observation of the Shroud image can conclude that: the exit wound on the left wrist corresponds topographically to the carpal Destot's space which is on the ulnar side, however the median nerve is not injured in Destot's space but rather in the carpal tunnel beneath the palmar flexor retinaculum.
There is no reason to doubt Professor Barbet's conclusions and his honesty
I hope this may clarify all the controversies shed on the median nerve injury.
Warmest regards
Antero de Frias Moreira
(Centro Português de Sindonologia)

Stephen E. Jones said...

Antero

>There is no reason to doubt Professor Barbet's conclusions and his honesty

Agreed. See my series, "Why I prefer Barbet's hypotheses over Zugibe's."

Stephen E. Jones
----------------------------------
MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate (2Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9), I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.