Shroud of Turin News, July - September 2024

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Newcomers start <here>

[Previous: January-June 2024] [Next: January - June 2025].

This is the fourth installment of my Shroud of Turin News for July - September 2024. The articles are in date order (earliest first). My words will be in [bold square brackets] to distinguish them from the articles' words.

---

"5 things you shouldn't miss at the 2024 National Eucharistic Congress," Catholic News Agency, Francesca Pollio Fenton, 17 July 2024 ...There will also be five key exhibits that attendees can visit daily. These are the National Shroud of Turin Exhibit ... Here's a closer look

[Right (enlarge): The National Shroud of Turin Exhibit at the 2024 National Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis. Credit: Ursula Murua/EWTN News]

at these five activities open to all participants at the congress: National Shroud of Turin Exhibit A replica of the incredible 14-foot linen burial shroud will be on display in an interactive and immersive high-tech educational exhibit daily from noon to 6:30 p.m. at the Indiana Convention Center. ... There will also be three 45-minute presentations taking place each day at the exhibit. Dr. Cheryl White will give a talk titled "Jerusalem to Turin: The Shroud's Elusive History," Father Andrew Dalton will discuss how the shroud is a mirror of the Gospel, and Pam McCue will give a talk titled "Power of a Traveling Shroud Exhibit." [I have emailed Prof. White, asking her if there is a transcript of her talk, "Jerusalem to Turin: The Shroud's Elusive History," at the 2024 National Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis? And if so, could she send it to me as a PDF or Word document, that I could post it, or excerpts from it, to my blog?].

"Scientist Converts to Catholicism After Studying the Shroud of Turin: It's a "Photograph of Jesus Himself," ChurchPOP, 19 July 2024 ...

[Leftt (enlarge). Negative of the Shroud face, digitally processed[XFW]

Bill Lauto is an environ-mental scientist and energy consultant who has been following and studying the Shroud of Turin since he was 14 ... "So I was a 14-year-old going into the field of science and questioning the possibility that there was no such thing as a God. I looked up Jesus Christ in the Encyclopedia Britannica, saw that photograph, and from there, it all started for me". He attests that studying the Shroud gave him faith like never before, as it is also based on reason. "Now when people come up to me and say ‘Bill you're a scientist, you don't believe in all that God stuff ...` I say, 'You're right, I don't believe, I know.'" ... [This is similar to my experience. I came from a non-Christian home and was converted to Christianity from Atheism/Deism at age 20. So as an adult convert to Christianity, with no childhood faith, I always have `tested everything and held fast to what is good' (1Th 5:21). My Christian faith was, and is, based on reason, but the Shroud has added a new dimension to it. I wrote somewhere, it may have been in a comment, that, "I am now like the Apostle John in the empty tomb in Jn 20:6-9, who found "the binding strips looped together and knotted exactly as they had bound the hands and the feet" but Jesus' body was no longer inside them:

"From his account of the finding of the cloths on Easter morning it is fairly obvious that something in the arrangement of both the sweat cloth and the binding strips assures him [John] that the body could not possibly have been stolen, but that Christ had risen from the dead. The simplest clue to this startling information would have been to find these cloths each in its proper place: the binding strips looped together and knotted exactly as they had bound the hands and the feet; the sweat cloth "not together with the binding strips" but "in a place by itself" ... still "folded together" lengthwise, and perhaps knotted at the top. In the state of glory, the risen body has no need of first untying knots"[BW57, 99].

So, from what I now know about the Shroud, I know that Jesus has risen from the dead!]

"Shroud of Turin dates from time of Christ, scientists reveal," Catholic Herald, Simon Caldwell, 22 August 2024 ... Italian researchers have used a new X-ray technique to demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin dates from the time of Jesus Christ. Scientists at the Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, CNR) studied eight tiny samples of fabric from the shroud, a burial garment which bears the imprint of a man killed by crucifixion, using a method called wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS).

[Above (enlarge)[22May22]: Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) curves. The green "2000 years" curve is from a linen sample recovered from the Jewish fortress Masada which was conquered by the Romans in AD 74 and and thereafter occupied only between the 5th and 7th centuries by the Byzantine monastery of Marda[25Aug24]. The orange curve is from a Shroud sample. As can be seen, the Shroud sample's WAXS curve very closely matches that of the 1st century Masada sample! See 22May22; 09Sep23; 16Aug22; 11May24 & 25Aug24]

They were able to age flax cellulose – long chains of sugar molecules which slowly deteriorate over time – to show that the shroud is 2,000 years old, based on the conditions it was kept in. They deduced that the shroud was kept in conditions maintaining a temperature around 22.5 degrees Celsius and a relative humidity of about 55 per cent for 13 centuries before it was brought to Chambery, France, in the 1350s; thereby taking the shroud's chronology all the way back to the time of Christ. [The Shroud's temperature and humidity assumptions are corroborated by the Masada result. The Shroud's "2,000 years old" age is corroborated by that Masada sample's age, and four other scientific tests of the Shroud's age: Vanillin content: "between 1300- and 3000-years old" - a range of ~146BC ± 850 years; Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR): "300 BC ±400 years", i.e. 700 BC - AD 100; Raman spectroscopy: "200 BC ± 500 years"[i.e. 700 BC - AD 300; Mechanical: "AD 400 ± 400 years", i.e. AD 1 - 800[25Aug24]. So now five scientific tests of the Shroud are consistent with the death of Jesus in AD 30[FJ64, 296, 300; DK15]. But since STURP found that the Shroudman's image was not painted, which even Joe Nickell (1944-) has admitted, and therefore Bishop d'Arcis' "cunningly painted" claim must be wrong[11Jul16], the 1988 radiocarbon dating claim that "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[DP89, 611], is not corroborated by anything!] ... "The data profiles were fully compatible with analogous measurements obtained on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55-74 AD, found at Masada, Israel," said the study in the journal Heritage. The samples were also compared with similar linens from the 13th and 14th centuries but none was a match. Dr Liberato De Caro, one of the scientists involved in the study, dismissed a 1988 test which concluded that the shroud was probably a Medieval forgery and only seven centuries old as inaccurate ... "To make the present result compatible with that of the 1988 radiocarbon test, the Shroud of Turn should have been conserved during its hypothetical seven centuries of life at a secular room temperature very close to the maximum values registered on the earth" ...! [This is a refutation of the 1260=1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud, by a recognised scientific test, Wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS), in a peer-reviewed scientific journal! The surviving authors of the 1989 Nature article must either: 1) show where De Caro, et al.'s experiment is wrong; or 2) retract the Nature article! For some reason this 2022 WAXS experiment belatedly caught the attention of the media in August 2024, including Newsweek and Al Jazeera! Read "Shroud of Turin discovery catches attention of world’s media," Aleteia, 27 August 2024. Are we entering a second "Golden Age of the Shroud" after the first from the 1960s to 1988?]

To be continued in the fifth installment of this post.

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]

Bibliography
BW57. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI.
DK15. Doig, K.F., 2015, "New Testament Chronology: "The 30 CE Crucifixion."
DL22. De Caro, L.,et al., 2022, "X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample," Heritage, Vol. 5, No. 2, 11 April.
DP89. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 611-615.
FJ64. 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.
XFW. "Extract from File:Turin shroud positive and negative displaying original color information 708 x 465 pixels 94 KB.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 7 July 2021.

Posted 25 October 2024. Updated 29 October 2024.

Gabriel Vial: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

Newcomers start <here>

[Index #1] [Previous: Barbara Frale #30] [Next: To be advised]

This is "Gabriel Vial," part #31 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. For more information about this encyclopedia, see part #1. This post will help me write, Chapter 3, "A linen cloth" of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See 06Jul17, 03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22, 8 Nov 22 & 20Jun24).

Vial Gabriel Vial (1916-2005) was the Curator of the International Centre for the Study of Ancient Textiles (CIETA) at the Ancient Textile

[Right (enlarge): Gabriel Vial[KD10].

Museum, Lyon, France[RR05, 189; RR08, 63; WI10, 70].

Radiocarbon dating Vial and Prof. Franco Testore (1925-2018), an Italian textile expert from Turin Polytechnic's Depart-ment of Material Science, were present at the cutting of the radiocarbon dating sample in Turin Cathedral on 21 April 1988[DP89, 611; GH96, 260; GV01, 125]. They had been invited by the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r, 1977-89), to be expert witnesses to the cutting of the sample[WI10, 70]. They were also to choose the best place on the Shroud from which to cut off the sample[PM96, 48], and to follow all the operations[PM96, 48]. But when asked by the Cardinal to nominate the place from which the sample was to be taken, neither Vial nor Testore could say where because of their limited knowledge of the Shroud[GV01, 125]. So that decision was made by Turin professors Giovanni Riggi (1935-2008) and Luigi Gonella (1930-2007)[DT12, 166]. Which was to take the sample from the same corner where Prof. Gilbert Raes (1914-2001) had taken his sample in 1973, at the bottom left corner of the frontal image, called "Raes' corner"[GV01, 125], with Riggi doing the cutting[PM96, 62-63; GH96, 276].

The British Museum's Michael Tite (1938-), who was the cordinator of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating[IJ98, 162; GM98, 67; WI98, 6], had asked Prof. Jacques Evin (1937-), Director of the Lyon radiocarbon dating laboratory, among others, to find a 13th-14th century herringbone twill linen cloth, from which a sample could be provided as a control[GV01, 129]. Evin was eventually successful in obtaining from the Basilica of Saint Mary Magdalene, in the town of Saint-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume, in Provence, France, threads from the cope of St. Louis d'Anjou (1274-97)[PM96, 56-57; GV01, 129]. This sample was plain-weave linen, but its gold thread embroidery was herringbone weave and on the sample there was an impression which appeared to be herringbone[WI89, 6; WI98, 186; AM00, 182]. Also, it was only threads, not pieces of cloth, as the other samples were[WI98, 186]. Tite asked Evin to mail the sample to him, but fearing a postal strike, Evin gave the sample to Vial to hand deliver it to Tite, which he did[WI89, 5; GV01, 129], and it became the fourth sample[GV01, 129].

Report Vial took the opportunity to make a very careful examination of the Shroud, which he called "The Document" (see below), and write a technical report on the cloth[VG91, 7; WI10, 70].

[Above (enlarge): Dimensions of parts of the Shroud as measured by Vial[VG91, 7]. "31" and "32" should be "S1" and "S2".]

Weave Vial confirmed Vignon's 1938 identification of the Shroud's weave as "3:1 herringbone twill"[VG91, 7].

Dimensions Vial measured the total dimensions of the Shroud as "length 4.30 m x width 1.08 m"[VG91, 7]. Or ~14 ft 1 in. x ~3 ft 6 in. This compares with the latest 442 cm = 14 ft 6 in. average length and 113.35 cm = 3 ft 9 in. average width, during the 2002 Restoration after the Shroud's Holland cloth backing had been removed[LM05].

Two parts Vial found that the Shroud is actually two cloths, what Vial called the "Main piece" (usually called the "Main body of the Shroud"[WI79, 71; WI98, 72; AM00, 98) and a "Lateral band" (usually called the "Sidestrip" which Vial also later calls it). The image lies on the Main piece[VG91, 7].

Main piece Vial gives the dimensions of the Main piece as "4.30 x 1.08 m"[VG91, 7] but that is an error because that is the total dimensions of the Shroud (see above). In the diagram above Vial gives the width of the main piece as "ca 1.01 m" but that is also an error because 108 - 8 - 0.5 cm = 99.5 cm. Since the width of the Sdestrip is usually quoted as 8 cm[SR82, 41] and the seam is likely to be about 0.5 cm, either Vial's "1.08 m" width of the Shroud, and/or his "ca. 1.01 cm" width of the main body of the Shroud, is slightly too short.

Sidestrip As mentioned above, Vial initially called this the "Lateral band." The Sdestrip, which Vial gives the dimensions of as "3.80 x 0.08 m", agreeing with his diagram above. is sewn to the main body of the Shroud by a seam[VG91, 7]. The Sdestrip of the frontal image is 14 cm shorter (at the bottom left hand corner) and the Sdestrip of the dorsal image lacks 36 cm (at the top left hand corner[VG91, 7; PM96, 162]. See my "Sidestrip #5"). These two corners are where the Shroud was held at expositions over previous centuries and it is presumed they frayed and/or became semi-detached from the Main body of the Shroud, and were cut off and distributed as relics[AA98, 90-91]. At those two missing ends of the Sdestrip can be seen the cloth which serves as a lining for the entire sheet[VG91, 7] (the Holland cloth backing added in 1534 by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns to support their repairs to the Shroud after the 1532 fire)[WI79, 262; PM96, 161; WS00, 22].

Hem All around the Shroud is a rolled hem[VG91, 7], presumably the blue satin hem which surrounds the perimeter of the Shroud that was sewn on in 1868 by Princess Clotilde of Savoy (1843-1911)[PM96, 161; WI98, 189].

Selvedge There is a selvage, the cloth's original, weaver-finished edge as it grew lengthwise on the loom[WI10, 72], along each lateral edge, at the outside of the main piece and the Sdestrip[VG91, 7]. See "31" and "32" (which should be "S1" and "S2") on the diagram above.

Original fabric Because of the cut between Main piece and Sdestrip, the width of the "original fabric" is unknown[VG91, 7-8]. Here and on future page 14, Vial states that the Main body of the Shroud and the Sdestrip were originally parts of a wider cloth, which was cut and then rejoined! Up to now, going by Wilson's:

"One genuinely big surprise from Dr Flury-Lemberg's findings within the last decade is that the original cloth from which the Shroud derived was very likely substantially larger"[WI10, 71-72],

I had thought that Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (1929-) discovered this (see 22Jan15; 11Sep15a; 08Oct16; 24May20; 18Apr21 & 21Mar23). But since it was a "genuinely big surprise" to Wilson in 2000 (see BSTS Newsletter No. 51, June 2000), either Wilson had not read that part of Vial's report, or he had forgotten it.

Technique Description: A chevron (herringbone) twill weave. The chevrons are oriented in the warp (lengthwise) direction (vertical herringbone twill). The structure is 3:1 twill, of 41 threads in the straight series and 39 threads in the return series[VG91, 8].

Weaving faults There are two types of typical weaving faults. Type 1: some series are too narrow (e.g. 37 threads) and some are too wide (e.g. 45 threads). Type 2: narrow rows for short distances[VG91, 8].

Warp (lengthwise). Fibre is linen, with "Z" twist and unbleached[VG91, 8]. That the Shroud's linen fibres were "unbleached" contradicts STURP chemist Ray Rogers [1927-2005] assumption that the Shroud's linen yarn was bleached, as described by Pliny the Elder (23/24-79):

"Pliny the Elder, who wrote his Natural History about AD 77, ancient linen yarn was spun by hand on a spindle whorl. When the spindle was full, the spinner prepared a hank of yarn for bleaching by the fuller. Each hank of yarn was bleached separately, and each was a little different; indeed, different parts of the same hank show slightly different colors, a little like variegated yarn. This effect can be observed on the Shroud"[RR08, 18].

This has adverse implications for Rogers' saponaria theory, about how the image was formed. Vial was an ancient textiles expert who examined in detail the cloth itself, whereas Rogers was a chemist who analysed sticky tape samples lifted from the Shroud. If Vial says the Shroud's linen is "unbleached" then it is unbleached!

Regularity of spinning. The warp thread was "not spun with great reglarity": neighbouring threads have diameter which varies by factor of 3. A quick sample of 7 neighbouring threads had diameters ranging from 12.2 - 31.0 mm, with average of 21 mm[VG91, 8, 10]. However, this is normal for handspun threads, and is found in all ancient textiles[VG91, 10].

Twist The "Z" direction twist is "unusual." Twist in the "S" direction is the natural direction of flax fibre when it dries[VG91, 10]. Egyptian flax was typically spun in the "S"-direction[VG91, 10; SR82, 42]. Ancient linen with a "Z" twist has been found at Palmyra (Syria) and the Judean desert[VG91, 10].

Thread count Piece 1 (Main). Average was 38.3 threads per cm. Piece 2 (Sidestrip). At only one place there were 38.1 threads per cm. Vial's estimated average thread count of the warp was 38.1 threads per cm[VG91, 11].

Weft (widthwise). Fibre is linen, with "Z" twist and unbleached[VG91, 11].

Regularity of spinning. The weft thread was thicker and more irregular than the warp thread[VG91, 11].

Twist The twist of the weft thread is identical to that of the warp thread, so the same comments above about the "unusual" "Z" direction twist applies to the weft[VG91, 11].

Thread count Six counts were taken at different places on the cloth (3 Main and 3 Sidestrip). Piece 1 (Main): Average of 25.4 passes per cm. Piece 2 (Sidestrip): Average of 26.2 passes per cm. Overall average of 25.8 passes per cm. There was a slight difference in thread count between the warp and weft. But until the reverse side of the Shroud is examined, where the weft dominates, no definitive judgment can be made[VG91, 12].

Construction The chevron is traditional, in being oriented in the direction of the warp[VG91, 12]. The 3:1 twill gives the cloth two different faces: A dominant weft face seen by the weaver on the loom, and a dominant warp face which is underneath the weaving[VG91, 12]. The image is on the warp face[VG91, 12].

The weaving method called "face down" requires the elevation of only one quarter of warp threads[VG91, 12]. Weaving a 3:1 twill cloth

[Right (enlarge): "... a three-to-one (3:1) herringbone twill pattern ... means that the weft thread passes under three warp threads and then over one"[AM00, 98]. Extract from diagram at VG91, 13, showing that weaving the Shroud's 3:1 twill cloth required four shafts (numbered 1-4)].

required 4 shafts. The shafts were operated by pedals which the weaver manoeuvres with the passage of each weft thread[VG91, 12].

Construction of the original fabric The main piece and the sidestrip are each joined at a half-series where they had been cut[VG91, 14].

[Above (enlarge): Join of main body of the Shroud and sidestrip at matching half-series weaves[VG91, 14]. But the two edges, although matching, were originally separated by an unknown width of cloth (see 11Sep15b).]

X-rays have shown that irregularities in the weave of the main piece continue across into the sidestrip (see 11Sep15c), proving they were once part of the same large cloth, but were cut apart and then re-sewn together very soon after[VG91, 14].

Comments on weaving techniques Weaving faults. Type 1 - Differences in number of threads in a series are typical in ancient fabrics and result from counting errors by the weaver[VG91, 15]. Type 2 faults reveal the method used in threading the warps[VG91, 15].

Execution of warp chevron in 3:1 twill Traditional method. Before stretching on the loom, the warp threads are passed through heddles of four shafts. Archaic method. From the pattern of faults in the Shroud cloth, this was the method used to weave the Shroud[VG91, 15]. This is evidence that the Shroud is not medieval [SEJ], but it is not known when the traditional method began[VG91, 15].

Comparison of Shroud fabric with other ancient cloths I have personally analysed a Chinese fabric from the Tan era (618-907) in the New Delhi Museum; a herringbone 3:1 twill in silk. The fabric of Doura-Europas given as a 3:1 twill is, in reality, a damasked lozenge of 2:2 twill in wool. The only herringbone in linen so far analysed and published is that cited in note 10 [Martin de Vos ... painting of The Last Supper ... on linen with a 3:1 (herringbone) twill weave. Structured

[Above (enlarge[FMW]): "The Last Supper" (c. 1575) by Flemish artist Maerten de Vos (1532-1603). The painting is 1,460 mm (57.48 in) high and 2,125 mm (83.66 in) wide, and is painted on a piece of 3:1 herringbone twill weave linen].

with a series of 9 threads straight, 7 threads return, itpresents faults of the same type as those studied here]. It is very late — second half of the XVI th century — and much simpler than that of Turin. The number of threads per centimeter in its main warp is practically half of the Turin count (19.5 instead of 38) and the proportion of warp/weft reductions is less: 19.5/16 = 1.22 instead of 38/26 = 1.46 for Turin. The important main warp of the latter thus offered a much smoother surface to the reproduction of the image. If one takes into account the three constitutive elements of a textile — the structure, the primary material, and the reductions of warp and weft — one must acknowledge that the Shroud of Turin is truly "incomparable" (my emphasis)[VG91, 18].

Again, if I hadn't read Vial's report to the very end, including the footnotes, I would have continued to believe Wilson, that the only known example of 3:1 herringbone twill linen, apart from the Shroud, is two fragments in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London:

"Herringbone woven linen was certainly not commonplace in the mediaeval European world in which the Shroud was purportedly forged. Dr Donald King, the Keeper of Textiles at London's Victoria and Albert Museum, was only able to find one possible example in his collection … in the form of two seven inch by four inch (18 x 10.5 cm) cuttings from a stole or maniple. Because this bears a printed design of foliage and birds inspired by patterns from late-fourteenth-century woven silks, it is thought to have been made around this same date. But it represents a lone example and as has been pointed out by Manchester textile specialist the late John Tyrer its texture is very much coarser than the Shroud. So the Shroud is the only known example of plain herringbone twill linen dating from before the second half of the sixteenth century"[WI98, 69-70].

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]

Bibliography
AA98. Adler, A.D., 1998, "Concerning the Side Strip on the Shroud of Turin," in AC02, 87-89].
AC02. Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
DP89. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 611-615.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
FMW. "File:Marten de Vos - The Last Supper - Google Art Project.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 3 January 2022.
GH96. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK.
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.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
KD10. Koudinoff, D., 2010, "In honour of Gabriel Vial," weavinglesson.blogspot.com, November.
LM05. Latendresse, M., 2005, "Length Measurements on the Shroud of Turin," 16 August.
PM96. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta.
RR05. Rogers, R., 2005, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, No. 1–2, 20 January, 189-194.
RR08. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
SR82. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, No. 135, 3-49.
TJ83. Tyrer, J., 1983, "Looking at the Turin Shroud as a Textile," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 6, 35-45, 37.
VG91. Vial, G., 1991, "The Shroud of Turin: A Technical Study," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 38/39, March/June.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI89. Wilson, I., 1989, "A French Accusation Against Dr. Tite," BSTS Newsletter, No. 22, May, 4-7.
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.
WS00. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London.

Posted 12 October 2024. Updated 29 October 2024.

Barbara Frale: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

Newcomers start <here>

[Index #1] [Previous: Report of the 1973 Turin Commission on the Shroud (3) #29] [Next: Gabriel Vial #31]

This is "Barbara Frale," part #30 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. For more information about this encyclopedia, see part #1. This post will help me write, Chapter 7, "Other Marks and Images" of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" [Right (enlarge[SU91]): The planned cover of my book.]. See 06Jul17; 03Jun18; 04Apr22; 13Jul22; 8 Nov 22 & 20Jun24). See my "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (6): Writing: Barbara Frale."

Frale Barbara Frale (1970-) is an Italian paleographer[BFW] (expert in ancient writings), and a researcher at the Vatican Secret Archives[FN09; OR09; BFW]. Frale has

[Left (enlarge): Barbara Frale (Maverick House).]

written books about the Templars[BFW] and a 2009 book about the Shroud in Italian, La Sindone di Gesu Nazareno ("The Shroud of Jesus of Nazareth")[OR09. See below]. The latter book has not been published in English, as far as I know. So, since I cannot read Italian, I must rely on English articles about Frale's book. However, I do have Frale's Italian book and I will post photographs from it.

[Right: Cover of Frale's book, "La sindone di Gesù Nazareno" (2009).]

This post will be primarily about Frale's claim to have discovered on the Shroud, ink writing from a Roman papyrus death/burial certificate of Jesus, which was glued to the Shroud where it covered the Shroudman's face!

Computer ehancement Frale based her burial certificate theory on the computer enhancement of Shroud photographs by nuclear physicist Andre Marion (1942-2009) and his graduate student, Anne-Laure Courage, at the Institut d'Optique d'Orsay, Paris[LR09]. See 04Jun13. Frale has a photograph at plate 11 of her book (below) of Marion and

[Above (enlarge): "11. Traces of writing in Greek and Latin identified by Andre Marion and Anne-Laure Courage: a) NNAZAPENOE; b) (I)HEOY(E); c) INNECE(M d) PEZ(co); e) KIA-; ΑΔΑ-; g) SB" (Frale-translated by Google). Photograph at plate 11 in Frale's book showing the words that Marion and Courage claimed they found on the Shroud by computer enhancement. But because some of their words were vertical, Marion and Courage proposed that they had been on two U-shaped wooden frames which held Jesus' head in position[GM99]. This was contrary to John 19:30 where  Jesus "bowed his head" and died[GV01, 108] (amongst many other things), so Frale has converted Marion and Courage's U-shaped wooden frames into a burial certificate! But as can be seen, it would be larger than necessary - by my scaling from a Shroud photograph[LM10], it would have been about 39.7 cm (15.6 in) wide and 45.3 cm (17.8 in.) tall. And surely no burial certificate would have a combination of horizontal and vertical writing!].

Courage' photograph at plate 17 of their French book, "Nouvelle Decouvertes sur Le Suaire de Turin" (1997). Frale counted at least 11 words in her study of enhanced images produced by French scientists (Marion and Courage)[FN09]. Frale stated that, "My research begins where that of the French researchers (Marion and Courage) ends"[LR09]. Frale named Marion and Courage in her claim that, "Marion and Courage were not paleographists and could not make much sense out of those words"[LR09].

Words Frale claimed that  computer enhancement of photographs of the Shroud revealed extremely faint words[LR09; SN09]. That the letters are barely visible to the naked eye[OR09]. The words are fragmented and scattered on and around the image's head, crisscrossing the cloth vertically and horizontally[FN09]. According to Frale, the words are Greek, Aramaic and Latin[FN09; SN09] in archaic script[SN09]. Many of the letters are missing[OR09]. Like the image of the man on the Shroud, the words are in reverse and only make sense in negative Shroud photographs[OR09]. They included the Greek words "(I)esou(s) Nnazarennos," i.e. "Jesus the Nazarene"[FN09; LR09; OR09; SN09], and "(T)iber(iou)," which Frale interprets as "Tiberius," the Roman emperor at the time of Christ's crucifixion[FN09; SN09]. Frale claimed that scholars first noticed that there was writing on the Shroud in 1978[OR09], presumably STURP. But, according to Frale, when radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in 1988 claimed that the Shroud was a medieval forgery, historians lost interest in the writing[FN09; SN09]. When Frale cut out the words from enhanced photos of the Shroud and showed them to experts, they concurred the writing style was typical of the Middle East in the first century[FN09].

Death/burial certificate Frale claimed  that the words were on a death or burial certificate[FN09; LR09; OR09; SN09], which was of Jesus Christ[OR09; FN09; SN09]. She explained that the three languages was consistent with the polyglot nature of a community of Greek-speaking Jews in a Roman colony[LR09; OR09]. Frale said that under Jewish burial practices current at the time of Christ in a Roman colony such as Palestine, a body buried after a death sentence could only be returned to the family after been purified for a year in a common grave[LR09; OR09]. Frale claimed that the death/burial certificates were written by low-ranking Roman officials or mortuary clerks on a scroll or piece of papyrus to identify each corpse[FN09; SN09]. According to Frale the certificates enabled the relatives of a dead person to retrieve his/her body from a communal morgue[FN09; SN09]. The papyrus burial certificate was attached to the Shroud with a flour-based glue[FN09; SN09], around the face[LR09; OR09] to

[Above (enlarge): "9. The Burial of Jesus and the Glory of the Holy Shroud, painting by Jean-Gaspard Baudoin (1590-1669), today in the Chapelle du Saint-Suaire in Nice." (Frale-translated by Google). Photograph at plate 9 in Frale's book. Note that if Frale's papyrus burial certificate was stuck to that part of the Shroud which covered Jesus' face, that would be now be the non-image side of the Shroud. This is a fatal problem of Frale's theory because her claimed burial certificate writing is on the image side of the Shroud[OR09]! See "Problems of Frale's theory."]

identify it for later retrieval[LR09; OR09]. This had been done in the case of Jesus even though he was buried not in a common grave but in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea[OR09]. The metal based ink seeped through the papyrus burial certificate into the Shroud below it, leaving a faint imprint[FN09; SN09]. Frale claims that the certificate mentions that the man who was wrapped in the Shroud had been condemned to death[SN09]. According to Frale the certificate confirms the Gospels' account of Jesus' final moments[FN09], and provided a historical date consistent with the Gospels account[OR09]. And that a fragment in Greek on the Shroud can be read as "removed at the ninth hour" and so may refer to Christ's time of death reported in the Gospels[FN09]. Here is Frale's interpretation of the letters appearing in Marion and Courage's image above[LR09]. 1. (I)esou(s) "Jesus" 2. Nnazarennos "Nazarene" 3. (o)pse kia(tho) "taken down in the early evening." 4. in nece(m) "to death" 5. pez(o) "I execute"[LR09]. There are more letters on the linen[LR09], such as the word "iber," which Frale identified as referring to Emperor Tiberius, who reigned at the time of Jesus' crucifixion[LR09]. Frale's reconstruction of the burial certificate from the lettering on the Shroud[FN09; LR09; OR09] reads:

"In the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius Jesus the Nazarene, taken down in the early evening after having been condemned to death by a Roman judge because he was found guilty by a Hebrew authority, is hereby sent for burial with the obligation of being consigned to his family only after one full year"[LR09; OR09].

The certificate ends with "I execute"[LR09] and "signed by" but the signature has not survived[OR09].

Frale's credibility Shroudie historian Ian Wilson (1941-), has publicly cast doubt on Frale's credibility[WI11]. According to Wilson, Frale, in an article in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, about her book 2009 book, I Templari e la sindone di Cristo ("The Templars and the Shroud of Christ"), stated that a document she had discovered in the Archives Nationales, Paris, had vindicated Wilson's 1978 theory that the Knights Templar had owned the Shroud at some time during its disappearance from Constantinople in 1204 and its reappearance in Lirey, France in the 1350's[WI11]. The document which Frale stated was previously unknown, described an initiate to the Knights Templar, Arnaut Sabbatier, being shown a "long linen cloth," presumably the Shroud, at one of the Order's ceremonies in 1287[WI11]. Wilson, whom Frale had not contacted, emailed Frale asking for a copy of the Sabbatier document[WI11]. Frale, however, replied that the Archives Nationales had sent her a "bad reproduction" photocopy, pages of which were very dark" and she declined to send it to Wilson and even her transcript of the document[WI11]. When Wilson obtained a copy of I Templari e la sindone di Cristo, he was surprised to see that Frale had even less detail in it about the Sabbatier document than in the L'Osservatore Romano article[WI11]! Then in correspondence between Wilson and the Shroud sceptic historian, Andrea Nicolotti on another matter, Nicolotti mentioned that far from being a new discovery by Frale, a transcript of the Latin text of the Sabbatier document had been published in 1907 by a German medieval historian, Heinrich Finke (1855-1938)[WI11]! And Finke's transcript revealed that three of Sabbatier's fellow Templars described their order's "idol" as made of wood (lignum), whereas Sabbatier's document  described it as made of lineum (linen)[WI11]. Historians had agreed that this was a translation error, and had corrected Sabbatier's lineum to lignum[WI11]. Frale, however, had translated it as the original "linen"[WI11]. Furthermore, Frale had inserted in her translation the descriptions "long" and "imprinted" which were not in the Sabbatier document's Latin text[WI11]! So Frale made that up to support her theory! Moreover, Nicolotti then provided Wilson with a photograph of the page of the Sabbatier document obtained by him from the Archives Nationales, which Frale had told Wilson was only available in a badly reproduced, "very dark" photocopy[WI11]. But actually the photograph is clear, in full colour, and perfectly legible[WI11]. Nicolotti further informed Wilson that that same photograph had been published, to accompany an interview with Frale, in the Italian magazine Fenix in June 2009 (below enlarge)[WI11].

Which was a month before Frale assured Wilson that all she had was illegible photocopies[WI11]. Wilson therefore concluded his article with:

"In summary, and quite aside from her seriously questionable behaviour towards me, Frale's so extravagant claims to the world's media as made back in 2009 simply cannot justify the conclusiveness that she so publicly attributed to them. Besides her misinforming the world in general, she misled me, and thereby seriously misdirected the line that I took in chapter 14 of my latest book … And  whilst  I have absolutely no competence to  comment on Dr Frale's more recent  claims to have  discovered Aramaic lettering on the Shroud,  it is hard for me to  avoid harbouring the strongest doubts concerning these also ..." (my emphasis)

Problems of Frale's theory

Computer enhancement Since Frale's 'writing on the Shroud' theory is based on Marion and Courage's computer enhancement, problems of their theory (see again 04Jun13) are problems of Frale's theory. In my book I will have covered Marion and Courage's theory before Frale's.

Words Frale admitted that her letters are barely visible to the naked eye. But if she cannot show publicly where they are on the Shroud, then it is because they are not really there but exist only in Frale's imagination!

Frale also admits that many of the letters are missing. Indeed most of them are missing! But if her claimed words are not substantially complete, they are not words at all, and therefore not even letters, but just random shapes in the weave vaguely resembling letters. For example, the Greek words translated "Jesus the Nazarene" in Mt 26:71 are "Iēsous ho Nazōraios," ("IHSOUS HO NAZORAIOS" in capitals), which are 17 letters all together in one direction. But according to Frale above the "words are fragmented and scattered ... crisscrossing the cloth vertically and horizontally! Frale's copy above in her book, of  Marion and Courage's photograph of claimed words, Frale's caption includes the letters "HSOY" (Greek ΗΣΟΥ)," supposedly "Jesus," diagonally below the chin and "NNAZAPENOE" (Greek ΝΝΑΖΑΡΕΝΟΕ)," supposedly "the Nazarene," vertically alongside the man's face! So they are not the name "Jesus the Nazarene." And neither are "HEOY" and "NNAZAPENOE" found in the New Testament, according to my "Analytical Greek Lexicon" which lists in Greek alphabet order every Greek word in the New Testament[AG70].

Why are the letters in reverse and only make sense in negative photographs? If the letters "IBER" (using one of Frale’s claimed words as an example) are written on porous paper (representing a papyrus certificate), they do appear on the other side of that paper as "IBER", in reverse. But then if that "IBER" in reverse soaks through to an underneath sheet of porous paper (representing the Shroud), it appears on that underneath sheet of paper (the Shroud) as "IBER" again!

And why would the burial certificate of a crucified Jew include the name of the Roman emperor? And if it did, why wasn't it his official name, "Tiberius Caesar" (Lk 3:1)?

The only scholars who examined the Shroud in 1978 was STURP. And it is false that STURP noticed that there was writing on the Shroud in 1978. The first sentence of STURP's October 1981 Final Report stated: "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the [Shroud's] fibrils"[SS81], and that includes ink. So Frale made this up!

Why did Frale cut out her claimed words from Marion and Courage's enhanced photograph of the Shroud to show them to experts? Why did she not show them copies of the photograph and ask them if they saw any words? Assuming that this is even true and not another made up claim by Frale?

Death/burial certificate Why would the words on first century Jerusalem burial certificates be written in Greek, Aramaic and Latin, when Frale claimed they were to enable Greek-speaking Jews to identify the bodies of their deceased relatives? For that, Greek alone would have been sufficient.

Why would the words on a burial certificate be "fragmented and scattered ... crisscrossing the cloth vertically and horizontally"?

Why under Jewish burial practices in a first century Roman colony could a body buried after a Roman death sentence only be returned to the family after been purified for a year in a common grave? For starters, this is refuted by Jesus' burial in Joseph of Arimathea's private cave-tomb[Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:43-46; Lk 23:50-53; Jn 19:38-42]. The brutal Romans would not have altruistically provided a free written death/burial certificate service, and a free communal mortuary service, for Jewish criminals! In every first century Roman colony! This is a fatal problem of Frale's theory, and so she must have made it up also!

Since Old Testament times, the norm for Jewish burials was: 1) To be buried in the family rock-cut cave tomb, and 2) promptly "including that of the bodies of hung criminals":

"BURIAL AND MOURNING. I. In the Old Testament a. The times of the Patriarchs It was customary for successive generations to be buried in the family tomb (cave or rock-cut); thus Sarah (Gn. 23:19), Abraham (Gn. 25:9), Isaac and Rebekah, Leah (Gn. 49:31) and Jacob (Gn. 50:13) were all buried in the cave of Machpelah, E of Hebron. Individual burial was sometimes necessitated by death at a distance from the family tomb; so Deborah near Bethel (Gn. 35:8) and Rachel on the road to Ephrath (Gn. 35:19-20), their tombs being marked by an oak and a pillar respectively ... b. The Pentateuchal legislation Prompt burial, including that of the bodies of hung criminals, was the norm (Dt. 21:22-23) ... c. Israel in Palestine (i) Burial. When possible, people were buried in the ancestral inheritance in a family tomb: so Gideon and Samson (Jdg. 8:32; 16:31), Asahel and Ahithophel (2 Sa. 2:32; 17:23), and eventually Saul (2 Sa. 21:12-14)"[KA82, 151].

How could there have been a communal morgue in first century Jerusalem, before the invention of refrigeration in the 19th century[RFW]? A communal morgue before refrigeration, in which bodies were continully being added, would be filled with an overpowering stench of decomposing corpses, including the poisonous decomposition gas hydrogen sulfide[DCW]. As well as blowflies[DCW] carrying diseases to the deceased's relatives who entered the morgue and the citizens of Jerusalem beyond it. This is a fatal problem of Frale's theory, and she must have made it up!

Why was there a burial certificate for Jesus when he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, as Frale acknowledges? According to Frale the purpose of a Roman burial certificate was to enable the relatives of a dead Jewish criminal to retrieve his/her body from a communal morgue after a year. But since Jesus' body was was not taken into a Roman communal mortuary, there would be no reason for there to be a burial certificate attached to his Shroud. This is a another fatal problem of Frale's theory, and again she must have also made it up!

Frale claims that the papyrus burial certificate was attached to the Shroud with a flour-based glue, around the face to identify it for later retrieval (see above). But as pointed out above, that part of the Shroud which covered Jesus' face underneath it, is now the non-image side of the Shroud. This is yet another fatal problem of Frale's theory because her claimed burial certificate writing is on the image side of the Shroud! So again, Frale must have made this up.

Frale further claimed that the metal based ink seeped through the papyrus burial certificate into the Shroud below it, leaving a faint imprint. But this would mean that the ink did not quickly dry but seeped right through the papyrus burial certificate to its underside, and then continued to seep through to the underlying Shroud. But this would be the non-image side (see above), so Frale, to save her theory, would need to claim that the ink continued to seep right through the Shroud to its underneath image side! But an ink which did not quickly dry on the surface it first contacted, but kept seeping through its original document (the hypothetical papyrus burial certificate), and then continued to seep all the way through an underlying document (the Shroud), would be unusable and would not exist beyond its first testing! This is another fatal problem of Frale's theory, so again she must have made it up!

According to Microsoft Word, Frale's reconstruction of Jesus' burial certificate above has 58 words and 155 letters! Yet Frale counted only 11 words in Marion and Courage's computer enhanced Shroud photograph above! As pointed out above, "ΗΣΟΥ" supposedly "Jesus," and "ΝΝΑΖΑΡΕΝΟΕ" supposedly "the Nazarene," are nowhere near each other. On plate 10 of Frale's book, "IBER" is only the two letters "ie"! So again, Frale made up her reconstructed `burial certificate' out of random shapes in the Shroud's weave, or out of thin air! This also is a fatal problem of Frale's theory.

Conclusion As we have seen, there are at least six fatal problems with Frale's theory that the Shroud has imprinted on it the faint ink writing of Jesus' burial certificate:

1. The Romans would not have provided a free written death/burial certificate service, and a free communal mortuary service, for Jewish criminals, in every first century Roman colony!
2. There could not have been a communal morgue in first century Jerusalem (or anywhere), before the invention of refrigeration in the 19th century.
3. Jesus would not have had a burial certificate so that his relatives could retrieve his body from a Roman communal morgue after a year, because (apart from there wasn't one) Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
4. Frale claims that the papyrus burial certificate was attached to the Shroud covering Jesus' face, but that part of the Shroud is now its non-image side (see above), so Frale's writing cannot be on the same side as the man's image! (This is a fatal problem of some (if not all) other `writing on the Shroud' theories)!
5. An ink would dry quickly on Frale's papyrus burial certificate and not remain liquid to seep right through it and then through both sides of the Shroud under it to imprint its image side.
6. Frale's reconstruction of Jesus' burial certificate is self-evidently made up by her. Marion and Courage's computer enhanced Shroud photograph that Frale's burial certificate is based on has 11 words but Frale's reconstruction has 58 words! The words "Jesus the Nazarene" are together in Frale's reconstruction but they are far apart in Marion and Courage's photograph.

We have seen that Frale made up out of thin air the words "long" and "imprinted" to support her theory that the Templars' idol was the Shroud. The above at least six fatal problems with Frale's theory that the Shroud has imprinted on it writing of a Roman burial certificate bearing Jesus' name, must also have been made up by Frale. I presume the reason there has been after ~5 years no English translation of Frale's 2009 La sindone di Gesù Nazareno book is because Frale's claims in it are so self-evidently false that the English publisher, Maverick House rejected it!

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]

Bibliography
AG70. Bagster, S., ed., 1870, "The Analytical Greek Lexicon," Samuel Bagster and Sons: London, c. 1960, reprinted
BFW. "Barbara Frale," Wikipedia, 26 September 2024.
DCW. "Decomposition," Wikipedia, 17 August 2024.
FN09. "Does Hidden Text Prove Shroud of Turin Real?," Fox News, 20 November 2009.
GM99. Guscin, M., 1999, "Purported Inscriptions on the Shroud Claimed by French Researchers Marion and Courage - Are They Really There?" British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, November.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
KA82. Kitchen, K.A., "Burial and mourning," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988.
LM10. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org.
LR09. Lorenzi, R, 2009, "Big Pic: Close-Up of Latest Shroud of Turin Claim," Discovery News 24 November.
OR09. Owen, R., 2009, "Death certificate is imprinted on the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican scholar in Rome," The Times, 21 November.
RFW. "Refrigeration," Wikipedia, 18 August 2024.
SN09. Squires, N., 2009,  "Jesus Christ's 'death certificate' found on Turin Shroud," The Telegraph, 20 November.
SS81. "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October 1981, Shroud.com.
SU91. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA.
WI11. Wilson, I., 2011, "The Shroud, the Knights Templar and Barbara Frale," BSTS Newsletter, No. 73, June.

Posted 29 September 2024. Updated 16 October 2024.

Prehistory of the Shroud (5) #48: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

PREHISTORY OF THE SHROUD (5) #48

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is #48, "Prehistory of the Shroud (5)," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!" This post is based on my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Tenth century." For more information about this "overwhelming" series, see the "Main index #1."

Newcomers start <here>

[Main index #1] [Previous: Prehistory of the Shroud (4) #47] [Next: Prehistory of the Shroud (6) #49]

---

Prehistory of the Shroud (AD 30-1354).

943 In the Northern Spring of 943, Byzantine usurper Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–944)[OM10, 31; WI79, 255; W198, 267] sent an army led by his best general, John Kourkouas (aka Curcuas) (bef. 915 – aft. 946)[WI79, 148; W198, 148], to Edessa to negotiate with its Muslim emir ruler for possession of the Edessa Cloth/Shroud[SD89a, 84; OM10, 31], to add to his collection of Christian relics[MR90, 36; SD89a, 84; DA99, 4]. In exchange for the Cloth, Kourkouas offered on behalf of the Emperor, a guarantee of perpetual immunity of Edessa from Byzantine attack, 12,000 pieces of silver and the release of 200 Muslim prisoners[MR90, 36; W198, 267-268; AM00, 130; GV01, 4; SJ01, 215; TF06, 24; WI10, 300].

944a After lengthy consultations with his superiors in Baghdad[W198, 48; AM00, 130; SJ01, 215; TF06, 24; OM10, 31; WI10,158.], in the Northern Summer of 944[TF06, 24], Edessa's emir accepts Kourkouas' terms, and Bishop Abraham of nearby Samosata[WI79, 149, 255; AM00, 130; TF06, 24; OM10, 32; WI10, 159], enters Edessa to receive the cloth, and despite the resistance of Edessa's Christians[WI79, 149-150, 255; OM10, 32; WI10, 159-160], he is satisfied that he has the

[Above (enlarge): "The surrender of the Holy Mandylion" (the Image of Edessa), one of 574 miniatures, which may be copies of earlier Byzantine images, in the 12th Century "Madrid Skylitzes," which was based on the Synopsis of Histories by John Skylitzes (c. 1040s – aft. 1101)[CFW]. The persons on the left are wearing turbans and the buildings on their side have no Christian crosses, hence they are Muslims. The buildings on the right have Christian crosses, which means that the artist depicted both the Image being handed over by muslims in Edessa and its arrival in Christian Constantinople. Note that behind the face-only Image of Edessa is depicted the full-length Shroud[WI90, 10; FM15, 54-55]! So by at least the 12th century the Image of Edessa/Mandylion was known to be the full-length Shroud[SD91, 193-194; SD06]!]

original, as well as two copies of the Image[WI79, 255; AM00, 130; TF06, 24; 39] and Abgar V's letter from Jesus (see "50" and 08Jan19)[WI79, 255; TF06, 24], the bishop travels with the Image, escorted by Kourkouas' army[W198, 148; WI10, 159] across Anatolia back to Constantinople[WI79, 149, 255; TF06, 24; 39; OM10, 32; WI10, 159].

944b On Thursday 15 August 944 the Image of Edessa/Shroud arrives in Constantinople[MW86, 92; W198, 268; GV01, 4]. It is carried in its framed portrait, fastened to a board and embellished with gold[WI79, 282; DR84, 35, 57; SD89a, 84; AM00, 131], through the streets of the city amidst great celebration[SD89a, 84; SD91, 194; WI10, 300]. The Image is then taken to the church of St Mary at Blachernae[W198, 148-149, 268; GV01 4-5], where it is viewed by members of the imperial family[W198, 149, 268]. Romanos I's two sons Stephen (r. 924-45) and Constantine (r. 924-45) find the face blurred and cannot distinguish its features[WI79, 116; MW86, 92; SD91, 192; W198, 268; AM00, 130; TF06, 25] (further evidence that this was the Shroud: its image is faint and difficult to see close-up[WI79, 116, 122; SD91, 192; AM00, 130!). But the legitimate Emperor, Constantine VII (r. 913-59), son of the late Emperor Leo VI (r. 886–912), is artistic and readily discerns them[WR77, 94; SD91, 192; W198, 268; TF06, 25; WI10, 300.]. The Image of Edessa/Shroud is then taken to the Imperial (Boucoleon) Palace where it is placed overnight in the Pharos chapel[W198, 149, 268].

944c The next day, Friday 16 August 944, the Image is carried around the walls of Constantinople[WI79, 256; WI98, 149, 268], thereby establishing it as the city's new palladium (guarantee of a city's Divine protection)[CN95, 57; WI98, 149]. The Image is then taken to Constantinople's Hagia Sophia cathedral[WI79, 256; WI98, 149, 268], where it is placed on the "throne of mercy"[WI79, 256; MW86, 92; CN95, 57; WI98, 149, 268]. During that enthronement of the Image ceremony[RC99, 58], Gregory Referendarius (overseer of relationships between the Patriarch and the Emperor[GM09, 4]), Archdeacon of Hagia Sophia[SD91, 192; WI91, 143; OM10, 13], an eyewitness of these events[SD91, 192; DT12, 185], delivers a sermon[SD91, 192; WI91, 143; IJ98, 115; OM10, 13, 36; DT12, 185; FM15, 56] in which he says that the Cloth bears not only "the sweat from the face of the ruler of life, falling like drops of blood" but also "drops from his own side ... [of] blood and water":

"This reflection, however - may everyone be inspired with the explanation - has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the ruler of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are indeed the beauties that have coloured the true imprint of Christ, because that from which they dripped was also embellished by drops from his own side. Both are highly instructive - blood and water there, here sweat and image. O equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side"[GM09, 85; OM10, 36].

By "the sweat from the face of [Christ] ... falling like drops of blood" Gregory refers to Lk 22:44:

"And being in agony he [Jesus] prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

which occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36; Mk 14:32), before Jesus' death on the cross[WI98, 268]. But the "drops from his own side ... [of] blood and water" refers to Jn 19:33-34 which was after Jesus' death on the cross:

"But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water."

Clearly the face-only Image of Edessa does not show the blood and fluid stained spear wound in Jesus' side that is on the Shroud[ SD91, 192]. But Gregory could not have made that reference unless he had been aware of the wound in the side of the image and of bloodstains in the area of that wound[OM10, 36.], and hence knew that the Cloth was full-length rather than merely a face-cloth[IJ98, 115; RC99, 58; OM10, 36]. And to know that, Gregory must have seen that under the Image of Edessa face was a full-length, bloodstained, body image of Jesus[SD98, 63; WI98, 268. SD91, 192; GV01, 5-6; SD06, xxvii]. This is a further corroboration of Ian Wilson's insight that the Image of Edessa was the Shroud ("four-doubled" - tetradiplon)[SD91, 192; GV01, 5-6; SD06, xxvii]!

944d In December 944, the co-Emperor sons of Romanos I, Stephen and Constantine, fearing their ~74 year-old father was going to confirm Constantine VII as his successor[RLW], forced him to abdicate[MW86, 92].

945a On 27 January 945, with the help of his wife, Romanos I's daughter Helena Lekapene (c. 910–61), Constantine VII exiled Stephen and Constantine (Helena's brothers!) and became sole emperor at the age of 39[CSW; WI79, 154; WI98, 268; WI10, 166-167]. Within weeks of his accession, Constantine VII had a new gold solidus coin struck[WI79, 154; MW86, 92; TF06, 164; WI10, 300], bearing

[Right (enlarge):

"Coin ... [a gold solidus] minted in 945 under the reign of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII. On the obverse, a bust of Christ similar to the Shroud face image; on the reverse, Constantine VII ... Notice ... the overall similarity of the facial representation with the face on the Shroud ... the left cheek of Christ, that is, the cheek that appears on our right, shows a clear protuberance, which is also on the Shroud. The beard and hair are also similar to the Shroud. Note the very peculiar lock of hair on the forehead. This is similar to the inverted '3' shape as seen on the forehead on the Shroud"[LM07].]

a Shroud-like Christ 'Rex Regnantium' (King of Kings) portrait, inspired by the recently arrived cloth of Edessa[WI98, 268]

945b On 16 August 945, the anniversary of the solemn exposition of the cloth in Hagia Sophia cathedral, Constantine VII proclaimed 16 August as the Feast of the Holy Mandylion in the Eastern Orthodox church calendar[WI79, 256; MW86, 92; WI98, 149; GV01, 6; WI10, 300], which it continues to celebrate to this very day, even though the Image has been lost to them since 1204[WS00, 113; WI10, 167]!

945c Soon after becoming sole Emperor, Constantine VII commissioned[WI79, 116-117; WI10, 167, 174] an Official History of the Image of Edessa[WI79, 272; WM86, 112; WI98, 151, 268; OM10, 34], the "Narratio de Imagine Edessena"[WR77, 95; WI98, 256, 268], or "The Story of the Image of Edessa"[SH81, 207; AM00, 130; DT12, 185]. Indeed it may have been written by Constantine himself[WI10, 167, 174]! The Story is actually a sermon to be read to Eastern Orthodox congregations on each 16 August Feast of the Holy Mandylion, starting in 946[WI79, 155; AM00, 130], hence it is also known as the "Festival Sermon"[DR84, 115]. The Official History states that the Image of Edessa "now to be seen" in Constantinople in 944, had in Edessa been fastened to a board and embellished with gold by Abgar V:

"Abgar ... set up this likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand, fastening it to a board and embellishing it with the gold which is now to be seen, inscribing these words on the gold: `Christ the God, he who hopes in thee is never disappointed'"[WI79, 280; OM10, 34].

This fits Ian Wilson's theory that the Shroud was folded and mounted in such a way ("four-doubled" - tetradiplon) that only the facial area was visible and accessible, so "every description of the Image of Edessa during the period in question is compatible with a viewing of the Shroud"[WM86, 112; WI98, 152-153; OM10, 34; WI10, 140, 174].

The Official History gives two mutually exclusive versions of the origin of Jesus' image on the Cloth[WI79, 117, 256; WI98, 150, 268; WI10, 174-175]. The first version is the traditional explanation since the sixth century[DT12, 185], that Jesus washed his face in water, wiped it on a towel, and his likeness was impressed on the towel, which he then gave to Abgar V's servant Ananias, who in turn gave it to Abgar:

"... immediately Ananias [Abgar's servant] focused his eyes on him [Jesus], held a piece of paper in his hand and began to draw a likeness of him ... Jesus ... summoned Thomas and said, `... bring me that man who is sitting on the rock drawing me, and bring the letter which he has brought from home, so that he may fulfill the command of the man who sent him:' Thomas ... brought him to Jesus ... He then took it [the letter from Abgar] and, having read it, gave him another letter for Abgar ... Christ ... knew that the man was anxious to bring to completion the other command of his master, that he should take a likeness of Jesus' face to Abgar. The Savior then washed his face in water, wiped off the moisture that was left on the towel that was given to him, and in some divine and inexpressible manner had his own likeness impressed on it. This towel he gave to Ananias and instructed him to hand it over to Abgar so that the latter might have some consolation for his longing and disease"[WI79, 117, 276-277; DR84, 35, 56; WI98, 150, 268; WI10, 174-175; DT12, 185].

The second version is that:

"... when Christ was about to go voluntarily to death ... he ... pray[ed] ... sweat dropped from him like drops of blood ... he took this piece of cloth which we see now from one of the disciples and wiped off the drops of sweat on it ... the still-visible impression of that divine face was produced. Jesus gave the cloth to Thomas, and instructed him that after Jesus had ascended into heaven, he should send Thaddaeus with it to Abgar ... Thomas gave the divine portrait of Christ's face to Thaddaeus and sent him to Abgar"[WI79, 117, 277-278; WI10, 175].

That is, the image was formed during Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane when His "sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Lk 22:44)[WI79, 117, 123; DR84, 35, 57; SD91, 190; WI98, 150, 153, 268; WS00, 111; WI10, 175]. See also Gregory Referendarius' sermon above. This second version would be inexplicable unless drops of blood could be seen on the face of the Image of Edessa[WI79, 123; DR84, 35; SD89b, 315; SD91, 190; DT12, p185-186], as they are on the Shroud face[DR84, 35], but which

[Left (enlarge): Face of the man on the Shroud showing major bloodstains outlined in red[27Feb14].]

could not be explained by the first version[SD89b, 315]. This second version may be the parent of the tradition of Veronica's veil[WI79, 117; SH81, 25; CN88, 59] - or it may be the other way around [see 06Mar17 and "1011"].

The Official History described the Image as "a moist secretion without coloring or painter's art"[WR77, 95; WI79, 115, 255, 273; SD91, 192; DT12, 185], "it did not consist of earthly colors ... and ... was due to sweat, not pigments"[WI79, 115, 279; WI98, 268; WS00, 111]. This fits the Shroud image which is extremely faint[SD98b, 315]. It also explains why some thought the Image had been made in the Garden of Gethsemane when Christ's face was covered in sweat "like great drops of blood"[DT12, 187]. Wilson, who has seen the Shroud many times, agrees that these "water/sweat details" sound "uncannily like the characteristics of the Shroud's image"[WI98, 150]. Wilson also asks of the late 10th/early 11th century copy of the Edessa cloth, painted above

[Above (enlarge): The Image of Edessa (late 10th-early 11th century), Sakli church, Goreme, Turkey[WI10, pl. 22b].]

an arch in the Sakli church in the Goreme region of central Turkey:

"... its general resemblance to the facial portion on the Shroud is really quite remarkable. There is the same sepia-coloured, disembodied, rigidly frontal face on the same landscape cloth. ... And when we know, as we do from the Official History, that this same Edessa cloth's imprint had the appearance of `a moist secretion without colouring or painter's art', then can we really believe that this could not have been our Shroud[WI98, 151]?

In his insistence that the Image was "... without coloring or painter's art," "did not consist of earthly colors" and "was [not] due to ... pigments," the author of the Official History "anticipat[ed] twentieth-century science by a full millennium"[TF06, 25], in that the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), after an exhaustive series of scientific tests on the Shroud, found that: "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils"[SS81] (i.e. which constitutes the image).

945d Soon after he became sole Emperor in January 945[WI79, 154; PH83, 8], Constantine VII commissioned a painting, now at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mt Sinai, depicting Abgar V holding the Edessa cloth, which had been handed to him by Jesus' disciple Thaddeus[WI79, 154; SD89a, 88; WW98, 5]. That icon survives as the

[Right (enlarge)[IH12]: King Abgar V (r. 4 BC-AD 7, AD 13 - 50) of Edessa is depicted in this 10th century icon at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai[AVW], receiving the Image of Edessa (the Shroud "four-doubled" - tetradiplon) from Jesus' disciple Thaddeus[WI79, 154-155] [see "50"]. Abgar's face is that of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913-59)[WI79, 151,154], to commemorate the arrival of the Image of Edessa/Shroud in Constantinople on 15 August 944[WI79, 116, 151, 255; W198, 148,268; GV01, 4-5; TF06, 24; WI10, 165, 300; WI79, 255; W198, 267OM10, 31].]

top right-hand quarter of a diptych[WM86, 110E, 118] (see 13May17).

946 On 16 August 946, the first anniversary of the Image's enthronement ceremony in Hagia Sophia Cathedral (see above) the "Monthly Lection" for that day, and on that day in each year thereafter, was a text that recounted the full history of the Image of Edessa[DR84, 40]. This particular lection was prepared soon after the Image's arrival in time for this first anniversary festival[DR84, 40]. In describing the Image's origins, the "Monthly Lection" stated that after Jesus had washed:

"...there was given to him a piece of cloth folded four times [rhakos tetradiplon]. And after washing, he imprinted on it his undefiled and divine face"[DR84, 40; IJ98, 105]

According to former Cambridge University Prof. Geoffrey Lampe (1912-80), editor of A Lexicon of Patristic Greek (1961), in all of Greek literature the word tetradiplon is found only twice, here in the 10th century Monthly Lection and in the 7th century Acts of Thaddeus (see "c. 620"), and both times it is in connection with the Image of Edessa/Mandylion[WI79, 307; WM86, 112-113; IJ98, 105; AM00, 132-133]! Moreover, that the Image of Edessa is the Shroud "four-doubled" (tetradiplon), was proved experimentally by Wilson, in that, when a full-length photograph of the Shroud is four-doubled (tetradiplon), kepeing the face uppermost, the result is, "the Shroud face, front-facing and disembodied-looking on a landscape aspect cloth, exactly as on the earliest artists' copies of the cloth of Edessa" (see my "Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin")!:

"For me a crucial breakthrough in overcoming this objection surfaced in the 1960s, when I noticed how a sixth-century Greek version of the Abgar story, the `Acts of the Holy Apostle Thaddaeus', describes the Edessa cloth as a tetradiplon. In all the corpus of Greek literature tetradiplon is an extremely rare word, and totally exclusive to the Edessa cloth. Yet, because it is a combination of two common words, _tetra_ meaning `four' and _diplon_ meaning `two fold' or `doubled', its meaning is actually very clear: `doubled in four', suggesting four times two folds. This immediately raised the thought: `What happens if you try giving the Shroud four times two folds?' When I tried this, using a full-length photograph of the Shroud, I was dumb-founded by the result - as I continue to be today. There was the Shroud face, front-facing and disembodied-looking on a landscape aspect cloth, exactly as on the earliest artists' copies of the cloth of Edessa" (my emphasis)[WS00, 110-111]

In 1984, STURP's John Jackson (c. 1946-) examined STURP's 1978 raking light photograph of the Shroud and found a pattern of foldmarks at one-eighth intervals[08Dec22], which is consistent with the Shroud having been "doubled in four" for much of its history.

[Left (enlarge): Diagram of raking light photograph of the Shroud, taken in 1978 by STURP photographer Vernon Miller (1932-2009)[JP84, 10; WM86, 123].]

Classics Prof, Prof. Robert Drews (1936-) has shown how the Image of Edessa could have been "fastened to a board" and yet known to be "doubled in four" from its side view:

"What exactly the authors meant by a cloth `folded four times' may be debated, but a reasonable guess is that in a slightly expanded form the cloth was arranged something like this: [Below (enlarge)] The Mandylion [Image of Edessa], then, was an ivory-colored linen, bearing a blurred and dim image, the image being described as `not made by human hands' and resembling, in the artists' copies of the Mandylion, the face of the Man of the Shroud. The Mandylion was considerably wider than one would expect as backdrop for a portrait of a face, and was apparently far longer than the height of the exposed cloth. The bulk of the cloth seems to have been folded, in seven folds, behind an exposed, eighth panel. That the seven other folds were nothing but blank linen, carefully concealed but carefully preserved for over a thousand years, is manifestly improbable. If the Shroud does carry, as it seems to, the vera imago of Jesus, then what is now known as the Shroud of Turin was in the Middle Ages the Mandylion of Edessa and Constantinople" (my emphasis)[DR84, 41]!

The above is further evidence that the Image of Edessa was the Shroud "four-doubled" (tetradiplon), which first appeared in history during the 544 Siege of Edessa (see "544"). That is ~716 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud and ~811 years before the Shroud first appeared in c. 1355, in undisputed history at Lirey, France!

958 In a letter of encouragement to his troops campaigning around Tarsus in 958, Constantine VII told them that he was sending them holy water consecrated by relics of the Passion, including, "the sindon [shroud] which God wore"[SD89b, 317-318; WI91, 153; WI98, 268-269; WI10, 169; DT12, 177]. This can only mean that by 958 Constantine VII had seen unfolded the full-length Shroud behind the face of the Image of Edessa[SD89b, 318]. Moreover Constantine made no mention of the Image of Edessa, despite his previous close identification with it[SD89b, 317-318; WI10, 169]. This is the first of several subsequent mentions of a burial sindon or shroud being among the imperial relic collection in Constantinople, with no explanation how it came to be there[WI98, 269; WI91, 153; WI10, 169]. The arrival of the Edessa cloth in Constantinople in 944 had been accompanied by a great celebration (see above), so the arrival of the sindon, acknowledged as Jesus' burial shroud, ought to have merited at least the same level of celebration and ceremony, but there is no record of the sindon's arrival in Constantinople[SD91, 194-195]! And there is no record of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion leaving Constantinople or ceasing to exist-it just quietly faded away[MW86, 93]. This is inexplicable unless the Edessa cloth and the Shroud are one and the same[WI98, 269], more than three centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[DT12, 178]!

c. 960 The Image of Edessa is called a sindon in versions of a liturgical text called the Synaxarion, composed after its arrival in Constantinople and based on the work of Symeon Metaphrastes (fl. c.950-c.990), who saw the cloth in 944[WI10, 177; DT12, 186].

977 A group of refugee Greek monks, led by Sergius, exiled metropolitan of Damascus, set up a cult of St Alexis of Rome (d.412) in Rome's near-abandoned Church of St Boniface[WI98, 269; ARW]. According to their version, the young Alexis was attracted to become a beggar at Edessa by hearing of its cloth bearing Jesus's imprint: "an image of our Lord Jesus Christ made without human hand on a sindon," the same word used in the gospels for Jesus's burial shroud[WI98, 269; ARW] (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53)! [see "c1050a"]

c. 980 Leo the Deacon (Leo Diaconus) (c. 950-992) was a Byzantine historian and a deacon in the imperial palace[LDW]. In Constantinople he wrote a history from the reign of Byzantine Emperor Romanus II (r. 959-963) to the early part of the reign of Basil II (r. 976-1025)[LDW]. Leo's history was based on his experiences as an eyewitness to events[LDW]. Leo wrote of the Cloth as being a peplos, which was a full-length robe[WI98, 152; AM00, 136; OM10, 36; DT12, 383 n.53]!

c. 990 The first known reference to the Edessa Cloth as the "Mandylion" appeared in about the year 990 in a biography of the Greek ascetic, Paul of Latros (c. 880-956)[DR84, 39; GV01, 4; WI98, 151, 268; OM10, 36], who without ever leaving Mt. Latros (aka Mt Latmus), was granted a vision of "the icon of Christ not made by hands, which is commonly called 'the holy Mandylion'"[DR84, 39; GV01, 5; WI98, 151, 268; OM10, 36.]. "Mandylion" originally derived from the Latin word mantile which meant "hand-cloth"[WI79, 118; DR84, 39], and by the tenth century it had been borrowed by several languages including Arabic, Turkish, and Greek[DR84, 39; GV01, 5; OM10, 33] as mandil, "handkerchief"[WI79, 118; DR84, 39; OM10, 33; WI10, 176]. The Byzantine Greeks attached to mandil the diminutive suffix -ion as a colloquial name for the Image of Edessa[DR84, 39]. It clearly was not a descriptive name because the Image of Edessa definitely was not a "little handkerchief "[DR84, 39]! The existing word "mandylion" was evidently applied by the Byzantines to the Cloth since it was no longer of Edessa but Constantinople[WI10, 176]. However "mandylion" was not used of the Image by the cloth's official custodians[DR84, 39; WI98, 151], and in fact the word only appears three times (including the Paul of Latros reference) in the Greek texts of that period[DR84, 39; WI98, 151].

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. [ret urn]

Bibliography
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
ARW. "Alexius of Rome: Veneration," Wikipedia, 17 July 2024.
AVW. "Romanos I Lekapenos: End of the reign," Wikipedia, 23 August 2024.
BA91. Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX.
CFW. "Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 131a, Madrid National Library, in "File:Surrender of the Mandylion to the Byzantines.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 25 February 2021.
CN88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
CSW. "CN95. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK.
DA99. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO.
DR84. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
FM15. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore.
GM09. Guscin, M., 2009, "The Image of Edessa," Brill: Leiden, Netherlands & Boston MA.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
IH12. "Image of Edessa or Holy Mandylion," Digital Journal, 28 March 2012 (no longer online).
JP84. Jackson, J.P., 1984, "Foldmarks as a Historical Record of the Turin Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 11, June, 6-29, 10.
LDW. "Leo the Deacon," Wikipedia, 20 April 2024.
LM07. Latendresse, M., 2007, "The Shroud of Turin and Byzantine Coins," Sindonology.org.
MM02. 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.
MR90. Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia.
MW86. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY.
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
PH83. Pfeiffer, H., 1983, "The Shroud of Turin and the Face of Christ in Paleochristian, Byzantine and Western Medieval Art: Part I," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #9, December, 7-20.
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.
RLW. "Romanos I Lekapenos: End of the reign," Wikipedia, 23 August 2024.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
SD89a. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA.
SD89b. Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, 311-329.
SD91. Scavone, D.C., 1991, "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in BA91, 171-204.
SD98. Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in MM02, 58-70.
SD06. Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in TF06, xxvii.
SH81. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI.
SJ01. Segal, J.B., 2001, "Edessa: The Blessed City," [1970], Gorgias Press: Piscataway NJ, Second edition, Reprinted, 2005.
SS81. "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October 1981, Shroud.com.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI90. Wilson, I., 1990, "Correspondence," BSTS Newsletter, No. 25, April/May 1990.
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.
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.
WR77. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY.
WS00. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London.
WW98. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN.

Posted 15 September 2024. Updated 10 October 2024.