"'Shroud Encounter' coming to Bradenton big screen Jan. 14": Shroud of Turin News, January 2016

Shroud of Turin News - January 2016
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #2 of the January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. See part #1, Editorial and Contents, on this new multi-part format and for other items as they are posted in this issue.

[Previous: January 2016, part #1] [Next: January 2016, part #3]

---

"'Shroud Encounter' coming to Bradenton big screen Jan. 14," Bradenton Herald, January 5, 2016. ... BRADENTON -- The "Shroud Encounter " ... a production of the Shroud of Turin Education Project Inc. , will be presented by

[Right (enlarge): Click here to watch this 1 minute promo video]

international expert Russ Breault ... Yet another example of Breault's tireless work in promoting the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin is the most analyzed artifact in the world yet remains a mystery. This alone proves that the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet, because if it were a medieval forgery, modern science would have long ago discovered it by working out how it was done. It is a corollary of the Argument from Ignorance, that "if a certain event had occurred [the Shroud was forged in the Middle Ages], evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators," in which case "the absence of proof of its occurrence ... [is] positive proof of its nonoccurrence" [the Shroud was not forged in the Middle Ages]:

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) ... A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators. In such a case it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence."[2]

The 14-foot-long linen cloth has been in Turin, Italy, for more than 400 years and bears the faint front and back image of a 5-foot-10 bearded, crucified man with apparent wounds and bloodstains that match the crucifixion account recorded in the Bible. While the Man on the Shroud's wounds and bloodstains are consistent with the Gospels, there is not enough information in them to tell a medieval artist how to forge those wounds and bloodstains. For example, Roman crucifixion had been abolished by the Emperor Constantine in 337 so the hypothetical, unknown, medieval forger of the Shroud "would ... have been the only human being between the time of the emperor Constantine and our own to have been completely conversant with the details of Roman crucifixion":

"A medieval forger would also need to have been the only human being between the time of the emperor Constantine and our own to have been completely conversant with the details of Roman crucifixion."[3]

Millions of people over the centuries have believed it be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. With good reason: the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet! The historical trail tracks back through Italy, France, Asia Minor (Turkey) and it may have originated in the Middle East, according to botanical evidence. And also human DNA evidence. See my posts of 18Oct15, 25Oct15, 10Nov15, 24Nov15, 30Nov15 & 04Dec15. A team of 24 scientists in 1981 concluded it was not the work of an artist. That was the 1981 Final Report of STURP. They found no visible trace of paint, pigment, dye or other artistic substances on the cloth. That is, STURP found no "paint, pigment, dye or other artistic substances on the cloth" which comprises the Man's image. STURP did find random flecks of paint on the Shroud, from artists pressing their copies against it to `sanctify' them, and also from frescoes in the Savoy royal palaces the Shroud has been in since 1453 (see 05Jan16). The blood is type AB with human DNA as determined in 1995. The major point here is not that the Man on the Shroud's blood is type AB, which may or may not have been more prevalent in Jews of the 1st century (see "Blood type distribution by country)." It is that the Shroud's bloodstains are blood, which leading Shroud sceptic Walter McCrone (1916-2002) for one refused to accept. Because that (for starters) invalidates a key plank of Shroud sceptic propaganda, the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377–1395), which claimed that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" in c. 1355 and that "the artist who had painted it" had confessed. But since the Shroud is not painted, then at best Bishop d'Arcis was mistaken and at worst, he was lying. Skeptics have mounted numerous attempts to show how a medieval artist could have produced the image but all have been inadequate to fully explain how it was formed. Shroud sceptics themselves tacitly admit that, in that they are a rabble of mutually contradictory alternatives, which was Wilson's key point in 1998, and is even more true today:

"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."[4].

If the cloth indeed wrapped a corpse, there are no stains of body decomposition. Which is consistent with the body having separated from the Shroud within 3 days, as Jesus' resurrected body did, within 36 hours. The Shroud was largely dismissed in 1988 when three carbon dating labs indicated a medieval origin. The three laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, all used the same AMS method of radiocarbon dating, and they each dated one-third of the same sample which had been cut from the Shroud. So one would expect the dates across the three laboratories to closely agree with each other. And they did: for the non-Shroud control samples! The Shroud samples differed markedly across the three laboratories. This was admitted under Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper:

"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [non-Shroud control samples] is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted"[5]

See my post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #4" for why this is further evidence that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was computer-generated by a hacker's (allegedly Timothy W. Linick's) program. Chemical research published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2005 showed the single sample cut from the outside corner edge may not have been part of the original Shroud material. This is the paper by STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005)[6]. While Rogers provides evidence from the lack of vanillin in the Shroud sample that the Shroud is much older than 1260-1390, his claim in the Abstract that, "... the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin," does not follow from the article itself and moreover is self-evidently false (see photomicrograph below of part of Arizona's sample). In violation of the sampling protocol, only one sample was used for dating and was cut from the most handled area of the cloth, an area that should have been avoided. This is often claimed, but it is not true. At the 1986 Turin workshop pro-authenticist archaeologist William Meacham argued for samples to be taken from different parts of the Shroud but regrettably this was not accepted and so it was not included in the protocol[7]. The sample may have been part of a section that was repaired sometime during the Middle Ages. While there may have been some repairs with dyed cotton, this was only about one percent of the sample, yet it would require about sixty percent of the sample to have been 16th century to shift the radiocarbon date of the authentic 1st century Shroud, 12-13 centuries into the future. This was clearly not the case because Arizona laboratory still has an undated part of its Shroud sample as it came from Turin, and it has "no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants"[8]. See photomicrograph [Left (enlarge) and 16Jul15] taken by pro-authenticist Barrie Schwortz in 2012, of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample[9]. The true explanation of the 1st century Shroud's false "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" is that it was the result of a computer hacking (see my "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail"). Many scientists now believe the carbon dating result is inconclusive. Agreed, but even most Shroud pro-authenticists fail to grasp that: 1) since the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet; 2) the improbability that the first-century Shroud could by chance have a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 (i.e. 1325 ±65) is "astronomical," "about one in a thousand trillion," "totally impossible," and indeed "a miracle," 3) so there had to have been some form of fraud in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud; and 4) one form of fraud that had not been previously considered but was rife in the 1980s, is computer hacking, which the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating system was vulnerable to (see my series, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking"). Adding more doubt to the carbon dating tests, new chemical and mechanical tests published in 2013 by Italian scientists with Padua University indicate a date range of 280 BC to 220 AD. Indeed! See my post, "New tests by Prof. Giulio Fanti show the Shroud of Turin could date from the time of Christ." National Geographic called it: "One of the most perplexing enigmas of modern times." That was in June 1980:

"THEY CALL IT the Shroud of Turin. You may never have heard of it; few had, until recent years, outside of Italy. Yet this treasured strip of linen cloth-an object of veneration by millions-is one of the most perplexing enigmas of modern times."[10]

which was ~35 years ago, so considering all the advances in science that could have disproved the Shroud since then, it is even more true today! Shroud Encounter will cover all aspects of the history, science, art and theories of how the image may have been formed.I envy those who can easily get to these Shroud events. But because I live in a suburb of Perth, Western Australia (one of the most isolated cities in the world), I have never met another Shroudie, let alone been to a Shroud conference, nor seen the Shroud, and now because of my wife's MS, I expect I never will.

To be continued in part #3 of this January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.

---

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]
2. Copi, I.M., 1953, "Introduction to Logic," Macmillan: New York NY, Seventh Edition, 1986, pp.94-95. [return]
3. Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY, p.292. [return]
4. 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]
5. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 613. [return]
6. Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, 425, pp.189–194. [return]
7. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.75,86; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.153, 155, 170. [return]
8. Freer-Waters, R.A. & Jull, A.J.T., 2010, "Investigating a Dated [sic] Piece of the Shroud of Turin," Radiocarbon, Vol 52, No 4. [return]
9. Schwortz, B.M., 2012, "New Photographs of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21. [return]
10. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve ... The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-753, 730. [return]

Posted 14 February 2016. Updated 25 April 2025.

Editorial and Contents: Shroud of Turin News - January 2016

Shroud of Turin News - January 2016
© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: December 2015] [Next: January 2016, part #2]

This is the Editorial and Contents, being part #1 of the January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related January 2016 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with my words in bold to distinguish them from the articles'. I have decided to abandon posting my Shroud of Turin News as one post, because it becomes too large and complex to manage.

Contents (click on a link below to go to that article):
Editorial
"'Shroud Encounter' coming to Bradenton big screen Jan. 14"
"Is The Shroud Of Turin Genuine?"

---

Editorial. Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word- processing of Rex Morgan's Shroud News for Barrie Schwortz to convert to PDF and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in January up to issue #38, December 1986. [Right (enlarge)]. It is now up to issue #36, August 1986, on that archive. Topic index: I continued adding my old posts to my Topic Index in January up to and including my post of 16 February 2012. In January, I blogged 5 posts: Shroud of Turin News - December 2015; Double image #10: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!; Summary of evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first 1350 date ; Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index A-Z; and Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30. Radiocarbon dating hacking In January I received Timothy Linick's half-brother Anthony's book, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl" (2008) [Left: Amazon.com] which confirmed that "Timothy ... took his own life at age 42 in 1989" (p.619). That Linick's half-brother wrote a book which mentioned his suicide (amongst other significant things), is just one of several amazing `coincidences' which helps me remember that Jesus, the Man on the Shroud, is fully in control (Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9) and that I am on the right track. This month (February) I hope to start on part #6, "Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the hacker," of my series, The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking. Updates to my posts in the background included: Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index A-Z": anatomical; crucifixion; d'Arcis, Pierre; faint; hands, Leonardo da Vinci; linen cloth; missing parts, negative, radiocarbon dating, scourged, STURP and style. Pageviews: As at the time of posting, 12 February, Google Analytics gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 499,143 (which means at the current rate of about 400 a day it should pass half a million in 2-3 days! [It did about 9am, Perth time, on 14 February]), and "Pageviews last month" (month to date) as 12,030. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month to date, as: Double image #10: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!, Jan 13, 2016 - 239; Problems of the Forgery Theory: Index A-Z, Jan 20, 2016 - 104; `Ian Wilson's Turin Shroud theories are the worst kind of junk history' , Apr 17, 2010 - 98, Leonardo da Vinci 'faked Turin Shroud and used his own features as the face of Jesus', Jul 14, 2009 - 92; Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear, Mar 18, 2011 - 87. Google Analytics gives these last two as my "All time" highest number of pageviews: "Leonardo da Vinci ..." - 9633 and "Re: Shroud blood ... " - 8203; but again I don't know why.

Continued in part #2 of this January 2016 issue of my Shroud of Turin News.

---

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to it. [return]

Posted 12 February 2016. Updated 25 April 2025.

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

---

This "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" has been superseded by my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present" series.

---

This is my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30," which is also the Main Index and part #1 of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" series. This series supersedes the "Chronology of the Shroud" in my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." This chronology will be divided into a separate post for each time period, starting with AD 30 and working forwards. I have changed it from one post per century because I now realise that some centuries would be too long (like the 1st century), and other centuries would be too short, for a post. My chronology is inspired by Ian Wilson's "Highlights of the Undisputed History") but is not based on it. To save space throughout this chronology series I will assume, what the evidence overwhelmingly points to, that the man on the Turin Shroud is Jesus Christ. Some dates will necessarily be approximate.

Main Index[AD 30] [31-176]

---

AD 30[Next: 31-]

AD 30 On Friday, 7th April, AD 30[2] Jesus, the man on the Turin Shroud, after having been arrested on the previous night by Jewish Temple guards (Mt 26:47-50; Mk 14:43-46; Lk 22:47-48,52-54; Jn 18:2-8,12) and while bound (Mt 27:2; Mk 15:1, Jn 18:12,24), was struck on his face and head (Mt 26:67-68,27:30; Mk 14:65; Lk 22:64; Jn 18:22; 19:3) and beaten on his body (Mk 14:65; Lk 22:63). Having been sentenced to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, led by the High Priest Caiaphas (r. 18–36), for alleged blasphemy (Mt 26:63-66; Mk 14:53,61-64; Lk 22:66-71), Jesus was then sent to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate (r. 26–36) to ratify the Sanhedrin's death

[Right (enlarge): "Anatomy of the Shroud"[3], showing the wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud match those in the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' passion and death.]

sentence (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1-2; Jn 18:24,28-32). Jesus was then scourged on Pilate's orders with a Roman flagrum (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:16; Jn 19:1) and crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5). Pilate then reluctantly sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion (Mt 27:11-26; Mk 15:2-15; Lk 23:1-5, 18-25; Jn 19:1-16). Having carried his crossbeam a short distance (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26; Jn 19:17), at the site of crucifixion Jesus was stripped of his clothes (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-24) and nailed to a cross through his hands (wrists) and feet (Lk 24:36-40; Jn 20:19-20,24-28; Col 2:14). One of Jesus' last acts while He hung in agony on the cross was to commit His mother Mary, to the care and protection of her nephew and His cousin (see below), the Apostle John (see below) (Jn 19:25-27). Jesus died on that cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30) and because He was dead, Jesus' legs were not broken (Jn 19:31-33), which was to hasten death by asphyxiation[4]. Instead Jesus was speared in the [right] side to make sure he was dead (Jn 19:34-35). Jesus was then given a hasty and incomplete burial[5] because of the impending weekly Sabbath (Mt 27:62; Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54; Jn 19:31), which was also the annual Passover (Mt 26:2,17-19; Mk 14:1,12-16; Lk 22:1,7-15; Jn 13:1;18:28,39;19:14,31), and buried in a cave tomb (Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53-55; Jn 19:41-42). Jesus was buried according to the burial custom of the Jews (Jn 19:40), therefore His hands and feet would have been bound (Jn 19:40) with strips as Lazarus' were (Jn 11:44)[6], to prevent them moving and a Pontius Pilate lepton coin was placed over each eyelid to keep it closed[7]. On the top [epi[8]] = "on, upon" - see below] of his head was a bloodstained face cloth [soudarion] (Jn 20:7; 11:44), the Sudarium of Oviedo (see below), and over all, enveloping his entire body[9], was a large linen sheet [sindon] (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Mk 14:51).

Sunday, 9th April, 30 At dawn on Sunday, three of Jesus' women disciples: Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of James the younger and Joseph; and Salome the mother of the Apostle John and sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (Mt 20:20; Mk 10:35; Mt 27:55-56; Mk 15:40; Jn 19:25)[10], went the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). They found that the large stone which Joseph of Arimathea had rolled across the entrance of the tomb (Mt 27:60; Mk 15:46;16:3) had been rolled away (Mk 16:4; Lk 24:2; Jn 20:1) by an angel (Mt 28:2-4) causing the guards who had been set on Saturday (Mt 27:62-66) to flee (Mt 28:4,11). And when the women went in to the tomb, Jesus’ body was not there (Lk 24:3). While they were in the tomb the angel(s) told them that Jesus had risen from the dead (Mt 28:5-6; Mk 16:5-6; Lk 24:4-6). The women left to tell the other disciples (Mt 28:7-8; Mk 16:7-8; Lk 24:9; Jn 20:1-2) and on the way the risen Jesus met them, spoke with them and they touched him (Mt 28:9-10; Mk 16:9; Jn 20:11-17). The women continued on to tell the other disciples that Jesus' body was not in the tomb and that He had appeared to them (Mt 28:11; Mk 16:8-11; Lk 24:10-11; Jn 20:2,18).

In response to the women's report that Jesus' body was not in the tomb (Lk 24:10-11; Jn 20:1-2; Mk 16:9-11), Peter and "the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved," i.e. John[11], ran to the tomb but John reached it before Peter (Jn 20:4). Then "stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths [othonia = "strips of linen"[12], "linen bandages"[13]] lying there, but he did not go in" (Jn 20:5) (because John was a priest - see below). Peter then arrived at the tomb, and also "stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths [othonia "strips of linen"[14]] by themselves" (Lk 24:12). Then Peter, "went into the tomb" and "saw the linen cloths [othonia "strips of linen" NIV] lying there" (Jn 20:6). Peter also saw "the face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi "on, upon" not peri "around," "about" [15]] Jesus' head (see below), not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself." (Jn 20:7). Then "the other disciple" (John - see above), "who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed" that Jesus had risen "from the dead." (Jn 20:8-9).

There is no mention of the sindon (Shroud) having been seen by Peter and John in the empty tomb[16], which there surely would have been, because of its dominating size, if it had been there. The eminent pro-authenticist Irish theologian Patrick A. Beecher (1870-1940) in 1928 pointed out that "The Sindon was a large white linen sheet that covered the entire body" but "After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb" (my emphasis):

"THE three Synoptic Evangelists, Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke, tell us that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Our Lord in a Sindon (Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53). The Sindon was a large white linen sheet that covered the entire body. The Evangelists carefully distinguish between it and the sudarium (napkin), which latter was in shape and size like a handkerchief, and was used for the head. In addition, as we know from St. John (Jn 19:40), linen cloths (ta othonia) were used, with spices, according to Jewish custom. After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb. St. John tells us that Peter `saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place' (20:6,7). And St. Luke tells us that `Peter rising up, ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves' (24:12)"[17].

And as Beecher further pointed out, that Luke in 24:12 did not mention the sindon being present in the empty tomb after Jesus' resurrection, despite having previously mentioned it in Lk 23:53 as being present in the tomb at Jesus' burial, indicates that "the Sindon was not in the [empty] tomb" (my emphasis):

"What became of the Sindon? Saints Matthew and Mark are silent and make no reference to any cloths in the tomb. St. John still speaks of bandages and of the napkin. His silence about the Sindon would have no special significance, inasmuch as he did not refer to it before. But the fact that St. Luke does not now mention the Sindon [in Lk 24:12], which had occupied his attention previously [in Lk 23:53], but speaks of cloths (othonia) instead, would indicate that the Sindon was not in the tomb."[18].

Attempts to include the sindon in the othonia, or identify it as the soudarion, have failed. It has been claimed that othonia in Lk 24:12 and Jn 20:5 are to be understood in a collective sense as "linen cloths"[19] or "[linen] cloths in general"[20]. But 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," and othonia its plural, are "strips of linen," "bandages."[21]. This is clear also from the "strips of linen" [othoniois] in which the spices were bound to Jesus' body (Jn 19:40 NIV). Both othoniois and othonia denote the same thing, the only difference being that othoniois is the dative (indirect object) plural of othonion and othonia is the accusative (direct object)) plural of othonion[22].

Likewise attempts to identify the Shroud with "the face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi] Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7)[23] also fail. Again my lexicons are unanimous in stating that the soudarion, is a "face-cloth" corresponding to our "handkerchief" (Lk 19:20, Acts 19:12), and "used as a head covering for the dead" (Jn 11:44; 20:7)[24]. Moreover, the discovery in 1965 by Giulio Ricci (1913-95) that there

[Above (enlarge): "Comparison of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin"[25]. "The most striking thing about all the stains [on the Sudarium of Oviedo] is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud."[26] (my emphasis).]

was a "perfect correspondence" between the bloodstains on the face and head of the man on the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo[27],

[Above (enlarge): The Sudarium of Oviedo[28]. "It was originally a white linen cloth with a taffeta texture, now stained, dirty, and wrinkled"[29]. Its dimensions are "84 cm. x 53 cm. or 2 feet 9 inches x 1 foot 9 inches"[30]. Unlike the Shroud, the Sudarium bears no image[31], so there is no reason why such an unimpressive, bloodstained and dirty cloth would have been kept in the first place unless it was known by the earliest Christians to have been "the face cloth [soudarion] which had been on Jesus' head" and found in the empty tomb "not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself" (Jn 20:7).]

meant that both cloths covered the same face[32]. And since the Sudarium of Oviedo has been in Spain since 616, and indisputably in Oviedo since at least 1075, this is further evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[33] must be wrong[34]! Therefore, in addition to the above negative linguistic evidence that the soudarion ("face cloth") of Jn 20:7 could not have been the sindon ("shroud") of Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53[35]; the positive scientific evidence is that the Sudarium of Oviedo IS the soudarion of Jn 20:7!

Unlike the soudarion which was wrapped around [peridedeto = "bound about"[36]] Lazarus' face (Jn 11:44), Jesus' soudarion had been on His head (Jn 20:7)[37]. The Greek is epi tes kephales ="on the head of him"[38], which is identical to the placing of the crown (which was a cap[39]) of thorns on Jesus' head in Mt 27:29: "and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head" [epi tes kephales][40]. And as Prof. Werner Bulst (1913-95) pointed out (although arguing for the "sweat cloth" [soudarion] being a chin-band) there is a space between the frontal and dorsal head images wide enough to allow for the soudarion having been on the crown or top of the man on the Shroud's

[Above (enlarge)[41]: Gap of about 6½ inches (~16.5 cms) (see below) between the front and back head images, where the bloodstained "face cloth [soudarion] which had been on [epi] Jesus' head", but the image being vertically collimated[42], i.e. straight up and down from the body[43], no image would have been formed there.]

head, since there no image would have been formed:

"Still more interesting, there is no imprint of the crown of the head between the forehead and the dorsal view. If the sweat cloth was tied above, no imprint could be formed there on the Shroud. The space between the frontal and dorsal view is wide enough to allow for the sweat sweat cloth, especially if we suppose that the Shroud was not loosely laid, but drawn quite taut over the head"[44]

Agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow, also arguing for a chin-band, agrees that "something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head":

"There is, in fact, clear evidence that such a band covered the crown of the head: the gap between the frontal and dorsal images. If the Shroud had lain directly on the man's crown, the body-image would have formed here as elsewhere, joining the two figures via a long, sausage-shaped head. The length of the gap, roughly 6½ inches, is too short to allow the cloth to have been raised beyond the range of the image-forming process (somewhere in the order of 2 inches). Therefore, something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head, preventing the imprint forming on the Shroud. Given its apparent shape and the ritual requirement to bind up the jaw, this can hardly have been anything other than a bandage."[45]

However, unlike a normal Jewish death, such as that of Lazarus, "a chin band ... would have served no useful purpose, since, by virtue of the rigor mortis when Jesus was lowered from the cross, where He had remained with the head inclined on the chest, the mouth could not be open."[46]. Furthermore, as Wilson pointed out, albeit arguing wrongly (see above) that the Shroud was the soudarion ("a sweat-cloth"), Jewish law prescribed that if a Jew died a bloody death, then "any clothes, however bloodstained" were to be with the body inside "an all-enveloping ... single sheet," called a sovev, that went "right round ... the entire body":

"But why should Jesus have needed a sweat-cloth [sic] for his entire body and not Lazarus? The answer lies in the fundamentally different circumstances of the two burials. Lazarus died a natural death. ... Jesus, in contrast, died a very bloody death ... In his case Jewish law prescribed something very different. ... In these circumstances, therefore, those preparing the dead person for burial had to wrap a `sheet which is called a sovev' straight over any clothes, however bloodstained. This sovev had to be an all-enveloping cloth, that is a `single sheet ... used to go right round' the entire body. Such a sovev readily corresponds to the `over the head' characteristics of Turin's Shroud."[47]

That same Jewish law would have required the bloodstained soudarion to be inside the sovev/sindon) and in contact with Jesus' body[48], which the top of His head was. So there is no need to posit a hypothetical chin-band. The "face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi] Jesus' head" and found in the empty tomb "not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself"(Jn 20:7), that is, the Sudarium of Oviedo, fits all the evidence, Biblical, linguistic, historical, Jewish and scientific, perfectly!

From the above and below, what Peter and John saw in the empty tomb, and my reconstruction of what had happened in the tomb immediately after Jesus' resurrection, as recorded in Lk 24:12 & John 20:6-9, is as follows:

• The "strips of linen" [othonia] were "lying by themselves" (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6). The linen strips which had bound Jesus' hands and feet (see Jn 11:44) and the spices (Jn 19:40), were "lying by themselves" [mona = "alone"] (Lk 24:12). There was no body[49] and nor was there the sindon which Luke had only just (Lk 23:53) mentioned that Jesus had been wrapped in[50]. Since the Shroud had fallen through where Jesus body had been (as per Jackson's "cloth collapse theory"[51]) it would also have fallen through these linen strips which had bound Jesus' hands and feet. So they would have been lying there still "looped together and knotted exactly as they had bound the hands and the feet"[52]. The strips binding Lazarus' hands and feet had to be untied by others (Jn 11:44) but those which had bound Jesus' hands and feet were lying on the floor of the tomb untied[53].

• The "face cloth [soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head [epi tes kephales], not lying with the linen cloths [othonia = strips"] but folded up in a place by itself" (Jn 20:7). The Greek is alla choris entetyligmenon eis ena topon = "but apart having been wrapped up into one place"[54]. John's emphasis is on the soudarion which had been on Jesus' head, under the sindon, was now apart from the linen strips and had been folded up and put in a separate place. John "saw [eide = "saw the meaning of"[55]] and believed" (Jn 20:8) that Jesus had risen from the dead (Jn 20:9).

• Both the Shroud [sindon] and the linen strips [othonia] under it, which were binding Jesus' hands and feet, fell through the space where Jesus' supine body had been. The soudarion was also under the sindon but being on the top of Jesus' head, was not vertically over His body, and so did not fall through the space where His body had been, but just settled down inside the Shroud, in the space between the front and back head images, which had just been imprinted on both inside surfaces of the Shroud as "a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection"[56]. The risen Jesus, being outside the Shroud, reached inside one edge of it and took out the soudarion, folded it up and placed it on a separate, but nearby part of the tomb. Then Jesus extracted the Shroud from the still looped and knotted linen binding strips [othonia] and walked out of the tomb with the Shroud[57] through the opening that the angel had made by rolling away the large stone that had been across its entrance (Mt 28:2; Mk 16:3-4; Lk 24:2).

Sundays 23rd - 30th April, 30[58] According to the late first century/early second century[59] writing, "The Gospel of the Hebrews," preserved only in fragments in some Church Fathers, notably St Jerome (c.347–420)[60], Jesus "had given the linen cloth [sindon] to the servant of the priest" (see 06Nov14 & 15Nov14):

"The Gospel that is called `according to the Hebrews,' which I have recently translated into both Greek and Latin, a Gospel that Origen frequently used, records the following after the Savior's resurrection: `But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went and appeared to James.' (Jerome, Illustrious Men, 2)"[61]

In Jerome's Greek translation of the gospel, "linen cloth" renders sindon[62]. The Gospel of the Hebrews originated in early Judaeo-Christian circles[63]. In fact, many of the Church Fathers believed it was the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew[64]. However, since this seems to say that the risen Jesus appeared to a servant of the High Priest, Caiaphas (or Annas - Lk 3:2), who had recently sentenced Jesus to death (see above), which makes no sense[65], other explanations have been proposed. The most popular being that "servant of the priest" is a copyist error of an original "Simon Peter"[66]. In favour of this is that Peter was the first Apostle to whom Jesus appeared after His resurrection (1Cor 15:5; Lk 24:34) [67]. Jerome believed that "the priest" was James, Jesus' brother (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19)[68], to whom also Jesus did appear (1Cor 15:7). However, attempts to amend either the Greek, the Latin, or the presumed Hebrew text of the gospel have failed[69]. This passage is the first of many statements (see "Chronology ... Second century") in early Christian extra-biblical writings that Jesus' burial shroud (sindon) had been preserved from His empty tomb[70]

There are multiple lines of evidence that "the servant of the priest" was the Apostle John, of whom there is historical and Biblical evidence that he was a priest and that he had been a servant in the High Priest's household (see 23Nov14 for full quotes of references):

• Historical evidence that the Apostle John was a Jewish priest. Early Church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340) quoted from a letter by Polycrates (c.130–196), a Bishop of Ephesus (where John had ministered and died), who wrote that "John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate (petalon) ..."[71]

• Biblical evidence that John was a servant of the High Priest. John "was known to the high priest" (Jn 18:15-16), and was also known to the High Priest's servant girl (Jn 18:17), who let him through the door into the High Priest's courtyard (Jn 18:15), and then let him bring Peter in also (Jn 18:16). John knew the name of the High Priest's servant Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off (Jn 18:10) and Jesus had healed (Mt 26:51-52; Mk 14:47-48; Lk 22:49-51) and John also knew that one of the High Priest's servants was a relative of Malchus (Jn 18:26). This depth of detailed knowledge of the the High Priest's household is beyond what a fish supplier, or even a relative of the High Priest, would know, let alone write about. The only plausible explanation is that the Apostle John was himself a member of the the High Priest's household, that is, John was himself a servant of the High Priest.

• Biblical evidence that John was a priest. Kruse asks, "how do we account for him [John], as a Galilean fisherman, being 'known' to the high priest?" and his only answer is that, "Someone in the fishing industry could have friends among the chief priests"[72]. Hendriksen has no answer and says it "remains a mystery"[73]. Tenney's answer is that:

"... it may be that the [John's] family had connections with the priesthood, either by business relationships or possibly by marital ties. Salome, the mother of John, was a sister of Mary, Jesus' mother (cf. John 19:25 with Mark 15:40), and would have been equally related to Elizabeth, whose husband, Zechariah, was a priest (Lk 1:36)."[74]

Morris' answer also is that John "came from a priestly family" and he also accepts the historical evidence "that John was a priest":

"John seems to have come of a priestly family. The woman Salome, who stood by the cross of Jesus, appears to have been his mother, as a comparison of Mark 15:40 and Matt. 27:56 shows. John does not mention Salome, nor his own mother specifically, but he does speak of the Virgin Mary's sister (John 19:25) in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that she is Salome. Now Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) who is called one `of the daughters of Aaron' (Luke 1:5). Salome thus had priestly connections. The conclusion is that John was of a priestly family and could well have come in contact with the high priest in connection with his priestly duties. This is supported by the passage in the letter of Polycrates (c. 190 A.D.) which says that John `was a priest wearing to petalon (Eusebius HE, III. xxxi, 3) ... Polycrates certainly supports the view that John was a priest"[75]

• The Jewish High Priest was commonly called simply "the Priest"[76]. Examples include: Aaron, the first High Priest was called "Aaron the priest" (Ex 31:10; 35:19; 38:21, etc); "Hilkiah the high priest" (2Ki 22:4,8; 23:4; 2Chr 34:9) was called "Hilkiah the priest" (2Ki 22:10,12,14; 23:24; 2Chr 34:14). There are examples in the Bible where a High Priest is never called "High Priest" but only "the priest": Eleazar (Num 16:39; Josh 14:1); and Phinehas (Josh 22:30). So the Apostle John could have been a servant of the High Priest (either Annas or Caiaphas - Lk 3:2) and be called "the servant of the Priest."

• Further Biblical evidence that John had been a servant of the High Priest. Although John and his brother James had helped their father Zebedee in his fishing business on the Sea of Galilee, they had left it to follow Jesus (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20) and John had a home in Jerusalem (Jn 19:27)[77]. John had a detailed and accurate knowledge of the geography of Judea and the features of Jerusalem before its destruction in AD 70, which one would not expect from a Galilean fisherman[78]. The Gospel of John, much more than the other gospels, gives details of Jewish feasts and purification rites, which would have been especially important to a Jewish priest: the Passover (Jn 2:13,23; 5:1; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28); the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2, 37, 38); and the Feast of Dedication (Jn 10:22, 23)[79]. This is further Biblical evidence that John was a priest and had been based in Jerusalem, as would be the case if he had been a servant of the High Priest.

• Jesus appeared to the Apostle John before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother. The Apostle Paul, quoting a list of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, stated that Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" (1Cor 15:3-7), which included John (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16-17, Lk 6:13-14), before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19)[80]. Jesus could have given His shroud to John when He appeared to the Twelve. Or, since Paul lists only five of the ten recorded post-resurrection appearance of Jesus[81], and since Acts 1:3 states that Jesus appeared to His apostles after His resurrection over a space of "forty days," it is possible that Jesus appeared to John alone, but unrecorded, to give His shroud to him, before He appeared James.

• That Jesus took His burial shroud (sindon) with Him out of the empty tomb and later gave it to the Apostle John, is the most likely explanation of all the evidence. See above and also my "Servant of the priest" series: (1), (2) and (3). It is therefore proposed that the term "servant of the priest" was a pseudonym of the Apostle John, necessary to preserve the security of the Shroud from the far more numerous and powerful enemies of the early Church, the Romans and the Jews, who if they knew the Shroud existed with Jesus' image on it, they would demand it be handed over to them under threat of torture and death[82].

To be continued in part #2, "31-176" of this "Chronology of the Turin Shroud."

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 here. [return]
2. Finegan, J., 1964, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, pp.296,300; Doig, K.F., 2015, "New Testament Chronology: Part IV, The Crucifixion of Jesus" & "The 30 CE Crucifixion," 22 April. [return]
3. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve ... The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.736-737. [return]
4. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, pp.84-87; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, pp.22-23; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.48-49. [return]
5. Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.24-25; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.87-88; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.116-117,120. [return]
6. Except in Lazarus' burial the strips binding his hands and feet [Gk keiriais] were primarily bands and not necessarily linen: "a band, either for a bed-girth ... or for tying up a corpse" (Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.343); "bandage, grave-clothes" (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.427). That John uses a different word "keiriais" of Lazarus' gravecloths instead of othonia which he used of Jesus' gravecloths (see above) implies that Lazarus' were not linen. [return]
7. Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J., Mottern, R.W. & Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image On Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, 1977, pp.290-291; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.38-39; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, pp.30-31; 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, pp.107-108. [return]
8. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Second edition, p839. All New Testament Greek words in this post are from Green, 1986, at the respective verses, unless otherwise indicated. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.45-46; Wilson, 1998, pp.54-55. [return]
10. Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Two Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One," [1959], Banner of Truth: London, Third Edition, Vol. II, p.978; Morris, L.L., 1971, "The Gospel According to John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1984, pp.810-811; Tenney, M.C., "The Gospel of John," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1981, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9: John - Acts," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.182. [return]
11. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. II, pp.23-25, 448; Tenney, 1981, pp.5-7, 188; Morris, 1971, pp.8-11; Barker, K., ed., 1985, "The NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.1591; Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.28-30, 375. [return]
12. Jn 20:5 NIV; Tenney, 1981, p.187; Kruse, 2003, p.375. [return]
13. Hendriksen, 1964, II:448. [return]
14. Lk 24:12 NIV; Liefeld, W.L., "Luke," in Gaebelein, 1984, p.1049. [return]
15. Thayer, 1901, p.231, 501; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, pp.166, 231; Bauer, et al., 1979, pp.285-286; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.51. [return]
16. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.82. [return]
17. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.16. Footnotes omitted and verse references modernised. Transliterations mine. [return]
18. Beecher, 1928, pp.16-17. Greek othonia has been substituted for Beecher's Latin "linteamina" error. [return]
19. Bulst, 1957, p.88; Ruffin, 1999, pp.46-47; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.33. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.58; Wilson, 2010, p.50. [return]
21. Bagster, S., ed., 1870, "The Analytical Greek Lexicon," Samuel Bagster and Sons: London, c. 1960, reprinted, p.283; Thayer, 1901, p.439; Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.411; Bauer, et al., 1979, p.555; Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.1028. [return]
22. Bagster, 1870, p.283. [return]
23. Wilson, 1979, pp.58,60; Wilson, 1986, p.45; Wilson, 1998, p.55; Wilson, 2010, pp.51-52, 297. [return]
24. Thayer, 1901, p.439; Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.311; Bauer, et al., 1979, p.759; Zodhiates, 1992, p.1028. [return]
25. 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, p.122. [return]
26. Guscin, 1998, p.27. [return]
27. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.137; Bennett, 2001, p.17. [return]
28. Guscin, M., 1997, "The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin," Shroud.com. [return]
29. Bennett, 2001, p.13. [return]
30. Ricci, 1981, p.137; Guscin, M., 1996, "The Sudarium of Oviedo," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 43, June/July. [return]
31. Whanger, A.D. & M.W., "A Quantitative Optical Technique for Analyzing and Authenticating the Images on the Shroud of Turin," in 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, pp.303-324, 312-313; Guscin, 1996. [return]
32. Guscin, 1998, pp.28,32,64,87; Guscin, M., 1999, "Recent Historical Investigations on the Sudarium of Oviedo," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.122-141, 124-125; Bennett, 2001, p.79. [return]
33. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, , pp.611-615, 611. [return]
34. Guscin, 1998, pp.32,64,110; Bennett, 2001, p.79. [return]
35. Bennett, 2001, pp.146-148. [return]
36. Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.207. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, p.59; Wilson, 2010, p.51. [return]
38. Robinson, 1977, p.26. [return]
39. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.35; Barbet, 1953, p.94; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.34; Wilson, 1986, p.20; Guscin, 1998, p.30; Ruffin, 1999, pp.42-43; Wilson, 2010, p.44. [return]
40. Barbet, 1953, pp.34,51. [return]
41. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
42. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.184-189, p.188; Adler, A.D., "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, p.18. [return]
43. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.118; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.35, 130. [return]
44. Bulst, 1957, pp.95-96. [return]
45. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.147-148. [return]
46. Bennett, 2001, p.150. [return]
47. Wilson, 2010, p.52. [return]
48. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.313. [return]
49. Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, p.292; Liefeld, 1984, p.1049. [return]
50. Beecher, 1928, pp.16-17; Bulst, 1957, p.142. [return]
51. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in 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, p.325-344; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.240-241. [return]
52. Bulst, 1957, p.99; Wilson, 1979, p.60; Iannone, 1998, p.90. [return]
53. Kruse, 2003, p.376. [return]
54. Marshall, A., 1966, "The Interlinear Greek - English New Testament," Samuel Bagster & Sons: London, p.454. [return]
55. Tenney, 1981, p.188. [return]
56. Wilson, 1979, p.251. [return]
57. Robinson, 1977, p.29. [return]
58. Assumed, since according to 1Cor 5:7, Jesus appeared to James, after He had "appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time" (1Cor 5:6), which presumably was His Great Commission appearance in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20 - see Mt 28:7,10; Mk 14:28; 16:7). Which would take those in Jerusalem about a week to walk there (the distance by road between Jerusalem and Capernaum in Galilee being ~196 kms or ~120 miles). [return]
59. Bulst, 1957, pp.87, 144; Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, No. 3, Autumn, pp.319-345; Guscin, M., 2004, "The History of the Sudarium of Oviedo: How It Came from Jerusalem to Northern Spain in the Seventh Century A.D.," Edwin Mellen Press: Lewiston NY, p.18. [return]
60. Beecher, 1928, p.17; Barnes, 1934, p.50. [return]
61. Ehrman B.D., 2003, "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did not Make It into the New Testament," Oxford University Press: New York NY, p.16. [return]
62. Barnes, 1934, p.50; Bulst, 1957, p.87; Green, 1969; Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.69-81, 75. [return]
63. Bulst, 1957, p.142. [return]
64. Schonfield, H., "Historical Supplement," in Proszynski, K. & Schonfield, H., ed., 1932, "The Authentic Photograph of Christ: His Face, and Whole Figure as Marvellously Appearing on the Shroud which was Thrown Over His Body after the Crucifixion," The Search Publishing Co Ltd: London, p.54; Green, 1969; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.74. [return]
65. Barnes, 1934, p.50. [return]
66. Schonfield, 1932, pp.54-55; Barnes, 1934, p.50; Humber, 1978, p.74; Wilson, 1979, pp.92-93; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.74. [return]
67. Guscin, 200, p.18. [return]
68. Ruffin, 1999, pp.52-53. [return]
69. Guscin, 2004, pp.18-19; Fulbright, D., 2008, "A Note on `the Servant of Peter'," in Fanti, G., ed., 2009, "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, p.435. [return]
70. Scavone, 1989, p.74; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.14. [return]
71. Eusebius, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," Cruse, C.F., transl., 1955, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing, 1966, Book V, Chapter xxiv, p.208. [return]
72. Kruse, 2003, p.353. [return]
73. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. II, pp.390-391. [return]
74. Tenney, 1981, p.182. [return]
75. Morris, 1971, p.752. [return]
76. "High Priest of Israel: Biblical narrative," Wikipedia, 23 December 2015. [return]
77. Tenney, 1981, p.182. [return]
78. Kruse, 2003, p.30; Tenney, 1981, p.6. [return]
79. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. I, p.18. [return]
80. Grosheide, F.W., 1954, "Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians," [1953], The New London Commentary on the New Testament," Marshall, Morgan & Scott: London, Second edition, pp.351-352; Mare, W.H., "1 Corinthians," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1978, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 10 - Romans - Galatians," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.282; Morris, L.L., 1985, "The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1958], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1987, p.203. [return]
81. Robertson, A.T., 1931, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume IV: The Epistles of Paul," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, pp.187-188. [return]
82. Ricci, 1981, p.xxi; Scavone, 1989, pp.70-71. [return]

Posted 21 January 2016. Updated 25 April 2025.

Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F

This is my alphabetical index, A-F, to where mentions of "forger," "forgery," etc, occur in Shroud literature on my system. To save space I will use an abbreviated in-line referencing format, with a link to each reference, but no return. This post was originally "A-Z" but it grew too long, so I progressively split it into "A-F," "G-M," "N-R" and "S-Z." See also Problems of the forgery theory A-Z in my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series. This series and the previous series have been superseded by my 2024 series, "Problems of the forgery theory: Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!"

---

PROBLEMS OF THE TURIN SHROUD FORGERY THEORY:
INDEX A-F
© Stephen E. Jones

[Above [enlarge) [LM10]: Bloodstains on the forehead of the man on the shroud, including the "reversed `3'", which perfectly show the distinction between arterial and venous blood, discovered by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603) in 1593 [RS81p5]. So in addition to his many `accomplishments', the unknown medieval or earlier forger of the Shroud would have discovered the circulation of blood, at least ~238 years before Cesalpino!]

---

alternatives The Shroud is either the burial shroud of Jesus Christ or it it the most ingenious and perplexing forgery the world has ever seen[HT78p15-6]. Is this burial cloth a silent witness to the resurrection of Jesus, or is it the greatest art forgery known to date?[JG99p114]. "the image ... Are we dealing with a miracle? A chance natural occurrence? A clever medieval forgery?[MC81p44].

anatomical Medieval forger's understanding of anatomy would have been far in advance of that of all his contemporaries[CT99p291]. The blood flows are physiologically convincing to some of the best medical minds of our time[WI79p32].

asymmetry if the Shroud was proven to be a mediaeval forgery it would have no impact on the core beliefs of Christians[OM10p280]. But if the Shroud was proven to be authentic (which it has) it would have a major impact on the core beliefs of non-Christians[OM10p280]. Which explains why so many non-Christian Shroud sceptics have been so vehement in their scepticism[OM10p280].

before 1355 Forgery would have had to be in the 14th century[BP53p30] before the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France, in c. 1355 [AF82p88].

blood
- arm There is a blood mark behind the man's right elbow but no body image[AM00p79]. Forger would not have painted a blood mark where there is no body image[AM00p79].
- distinction between arterial and venous The forger would have had to know about the circulation of human blood and the difference between arterial and venous blood, which was discovered only in 1593 by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603)[TF06p99] (see above).
- first No image under blood, so blood was on cloth before image and prevented image forming[AA99p104]. Forger would have had to paint with blood around image[AA99p105], which was virtually impossible[AA00p129].
- reversed `3' A modern painter, unless he had a thorough knowledge of the physiology of coagulation, could not portray this frontal clot (above) without making a blunder [BP53p96-7].
- serum ring Every blood clot has a serum retraction ring, visible in ultraviolet[AA99p104]. Forger would have to paint a near-invisible serum ring around every clot, which he would not know was required[AA99p105], and was virtually impossible[AA00p129].
- stereoregister Blood is out of stereoregister with body image[AA99p104]. Forger would have to paint with blood around image out of stereoregister[AA99p105], which was virtually impossible[AA00p129].

burden of proof has shifted onto those who claim that the shroud is a forgery[CJ84p54]. The onus is on anti-authenticists to explain how, when and why the Shroud was made; for whom it was made; and who was this unknown genius who created it[CN88p31].

coins over eyes Two button-like objects, one over each eye of the man on the Shroud, were found after the discovery that the Shroud image is three-dimensional[JJ77p88-9]. These were the same size and shape as Pontius Pilate lepton coins minted in AD 30-31[JJ77p90]. What artist or forger in the 14th century would have thought to place [coin sized and shaped] objects on the eyes of Jesus?[JJ77p91]. In 1982 Fr Francis Filas (1915-85) identified the `button' over the right eye as a lepton coin struck during the rule of Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judaea from AD 26–36 (who had Jesus crucified in AD 30), with a misspelling "U CAI" for "U KAI" in the Greek inscription "TIBERIOU KAISAROS"[IJ98p36] (Tiberius Caesar (42BC–AD37) [AF82p90]. Leptons were later found with that misspelling [AF82p90]. Excludes forgery as forger would have had to obtain a rare misspelled lepton and imprint its image on the Shroud[AF82p90]. But such a coin is very unlikely to have been owned by a forger in the 13th-14th centuries[MM91p295]. Let alone two, because later computer enhancement found that the coin image over the left eye was of a Julia lepton, struck only in AD 29 to mark the death of Tiberius' mother, Julia[GV01p99]. These details on coins over these eyes were only discovered by three-dimensional relief and enlargement of Shroud negatives[AM00p108] and computer enhancement[GV01p99]. Also no mediaeval forger could know these coins, as they were only identified by numismatists in the 19th century[BP00p135]. Impossible for forger to encode such tiny (~1/32 in. = ~0.8 mm[IJ98p44]), near-invisible details over the Shroud eyes[AM00p108], in photographic negative, with no pigment, and in three-dimensional relief[IJ98p44]

crucifixion A medieval forger would also need to have been the only human being between the time of the Emperor Constantine (c.272–337) and our own to have been completely conversant with the details of Roman crucifixion[CT99p292].

d'Arcis, Pierre According to the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377–1395), one of his predecessors Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) had "thirty-four years" earlier, i.e. in 1355[GV01p14], discovered the forger who had painted the Shroud which had been exhibited in the Lirey church in 1355[AM00p152]. But this predates the benevolent letter from Bishop Henri of Poitiers of 1356[GV01p14] in which he had praised the Lirey church[AM00p152], the indulgences granted by Pope Clement VII to pilgrims in 1357[GV01p14]. Also, if the Shroud had been painted by a then living forger, the Lord of Lirey, Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56) and the canons of the Lirey church, would have known that and would not have exhibited the Shroud in 1355[BW57p13]. If someone in the 1350s had publicly confessed to having painted the Shroud's image, why did pilgrims flock to see the Shroud when it was again exhibited in 1389[DR84p13]? Nor would Pope Clement VII (1478-1534), having heard Bishop d'Arcis' objections, enjoined "perpetual silence" about this matter on him[WI79p89] and "allowed the second exposition to continue in 1389[BW57p13] until at least 1390 since there was in 1390 a Papal Bull granted new indulgences to those who visited the Lirey church and its relics[OM10p59]. Neither Pope Clement VII nor Bishop d'Arcis' successor as Bishop of Troyes, Bishop Louis Raguier[OM10p59], considered the Shroud a fraud[DR84p24-25]. Pope Clement VII was Robert of Geneva (1342–94), who was a nephew and neighbour of Aymon of Geneva (c. 1324-88), the second husband of Geoffroy I de Charny's widow, Jeanne de Vergy[WI98p279]. So presumably the future Pope Clement VII had been given a private viewing of the Shroud[WI91p18] in the ~20 years the Shroud was with Jeanne and Aymon in High Savoy from c. 1358 and Robert becoming Pope in 1378, and so knew about the Shroud, its history and how it came into the possession of Geoffrey de Charny and why this had to be kept secret[CN88p43]. D'Arcis himself produced no proof that the Shroud was a painting nor did he mention the name of the supposed forger[OM10p59]. There is no written record of any confession nor the name of the alleged artist[GV01p14]. In fact the d'Arcis memorandum is the only medieval document alleging forgery of the Shroud[SH90p71]. The most serious difficulty with Bishop d'Arcis' claim that Bishop Henri de Poitiers had discovered "the artist who had painted it" is that the Shroud's image is not painted (see painting)[DR84p26]. If d'Arcis had gained possession of the Shroud he would have found that it was not a forgery but the genuine burial cloth of Christ, which would have brought substantial financial benefit to his Troyes Cathedral[OM10p60]. The coincidence between Bishop d'Arcis' false claim that the Shroud was painted in about 1355 and the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390, i.e. 1325 ±65 (see radiocarbon dating) is used as the basis for claims that the Shroud is a medieval forgery[OM10p60-1]. "But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence ... Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve"[DT12p170].

de Charny, Geoffroy I One would not expect Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56), who in the early 1350s owned the Shroud and built the Lirey church, of complicity in a forgery[DR84p24]. To suggest that Geoffrey de Charny would willfully have used a forgery of no value to try and extract money from gullible pilgrims is to totally misunderstand the type of man he was[OM10p49]. He was not only one of France's most trusted and gallant knights, but also a devout author of religious poetry[DR84p24].

de Poitiers, Henri Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) whom one of his successor Bishop d'Arcis claimed had condemned as a forgery the Shroud exhibited at the Lirey church in 1355, had no problems with that exhibition. A year later in 1356 de Poitiers consecrated that same Lirey church[CN88p49], praising the church's canons and its founder Geoffroy I de Charny[WI79p193]! Contradicting d'Arcis, contemporary documents indicate that the cult was approved by the bishop of Troyes, Henry of Poitiers and by a council of bishops at the Avignon papal court [in 1357][DT12p14-5]. Bishop d'Arcis' claim that a forger confessed to Bishop Henri de Poitiers that he had painted the Shroud is worthless since the Shroud is not painted and is a photographic negative[VP02p58]. That d'Arcis had no official document to send to Pope Clement VII shows there never had been a legal process in 1355[VP02p58].

dirt STURP's Roger and Marty Gilbert discovered by reflectance spectroscopy traces of dirt on the feet of the Man on the Shroud[HJ83p112]. There is not enough dirt to be seen, so no forger would have put it there[HJ83p112]. Further analysis of this dirt by crystallographer Joseph Kohlbeck revealed that it contained travertine aragonite, a comparatively rare form of limestone, which is found near Golgotha[GM98p79] (where Jesus was crucified - Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Jn 19:17 and was near to His tomb - Jn 19:41). Those who believe that the Shroud is a forgery need to explain how the very rare aragonite found its way to the surface of the Shroud[RC99p103]. But no medieval forger would ever think of including such details, visible only under a microscope[GM98p79], which was not invented until the 1620s.

faint How did a medieval artist know how to paint a pale, diffuse yellow image that disappears if you look at it close-up[CT96p25]? It would be impossible for a forger to produce the Shroud's faint image on its herringbone weave[MG99p3].

forger Why should an unknown forger have gone to such elaborate lengths to produce an image capable of being comprehended only from the twentieth century[WI79p32]? Forger must have known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century[HT78p16]. He must have had the medical knowledge of a modern master surgeon[HT78p16]. He must have used an art process unknown to any artist before or since[HT78p16]. He must have known principles of photographic negativity not otherwise discovered for centuries[HT78p16]. He must have used a coloring agent that would be unaffected by intense heat[HT78p16]. He must have been able to incorporate into his work details that the unaided human eye cannot see and are only visible with modern technology[HT78p16]. He must have been able to reproduce flawlessly on linen, in a single color, a three-dimensional human body[HT78p16-7]. All of this had to have been done prior to 1355, for since that date the Shroud has a clearly documented history[HT78p16]. But all this is impossible[HT78p16]! Forger would have made a blunder which would have betrayed him[BP53p90,97]. If a fourteenth century artist had invented a process for producing the Shroud, he would have used the process again to produce shrouds of apostles, saints, and martyrs[DR84p26].

forgery Critics who denounce the Shroud as a forgery have been unable to agree on a method, a place, or an artist[AM00p154]. Questions for those who claim the Shroud is a forgery include: How was the forgery committed[CN84p154]? By whom was the forgery committed[CN84p154]? What was the forger's motive[CN84p154]? When was the forgery committed[CN84p154]? How did the forger commit it undetected[CN84p154]? It is impossible to forge the Shroud with today's technology, much less during medieval times[AM00p154,234].

Continued in "G-M".

REFERENCES [top]
AF82. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
AA99. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112.
AA00. Adler, A.D., 2000, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
BP00. Baima Bollone, P., "Images of Extraneous Objects on the Shroud," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, Italy
BP53. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963.
BW57. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI.
CT99. Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY.
CT96. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH.
CJ84. Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN.
CN84. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK.
CN88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
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.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
GM98. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK.
HJ83. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA.
HT78. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
JJ77. Jackson, J., et al., "The Three Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.74-94.
JG99. Jeffrey, G.R., 1999, "Jesus: The Great Debate," Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON, Canada.
LM10. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org.
MW83. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311.
MG99. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ.
MM91. Moroni, M., "Pontius Pilate's Coin on the Right Eye of the Man in the Holy Shroud, in the Light of the New Archaeological Findings," in 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.
MC81. Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous-the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-65
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
RS81. Rodante, S., 1981, "The Coronation of Thorns in the Light of the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #1, December, pp.4-24.
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
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
VP02. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI91. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London
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.
[top]

Posted 20 January 2016. Updated 20 November 2025.