Monday, June 20, 2022

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Twentieth century (4)

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
TWENTIETH CENTURY (4)
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the fifth installment of part #28, "Twentieth century" (4) of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see the Index #1. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. This page was initially based on Ian Wilson's 1996, "Highlights of the Undisputed History: 1900."

[Index #1] [Previous: 20th century (3) #27] [Next: 21st century #29]


20th century (4) (1978-2000).

[Above (enlarge)[2]: Dr. John Jackson (left foreground) about to begin STURP's five-day examination of the Shroud, from 8th to 13th October, 1978 (see future below)]

1978a 20 January. Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-89), the Archbishop of Turin, announces that the Shroud is to be publicly exhibited from 27 August to 8 October of this year, with an International Congress to be held in Turin on the last two days[3].

1978b March. Publication of the first, Doubleday, edition of Ian Wilson's book, "The Turin Shroud"[4]. In the book Wilson

[Right[5]: Ian Wilson's 1978 first book on the Shroud. Although published over 40 years ago, it is still, in my opinion, the most important book on the Shroud ever written. Primarily because in it Wilson showed that the 6th century Image of Edesssa / Mandylion and the Shroud were one and the same (see below)!]

showed that the 6th-10th century Image of Edesssa / Mandylion, was the Shroud, folded in eight, with the face one-eighth of the Shroud being the face of Jesus in the Image of Edessa, in landscape aspect (see my "Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin")!

"The consistent appearance of the head in this manner [in ... landscape aspect] on artists' copies of the Mandylion therefore suggests one thing-that the artists were deliberately trying to reproduce a curiosity of the original. If the Shroud was the Mandylion, was this the manner in which it appeared in the early centuries? This speculation takes on more credibility in the light of a piece of information gleaned from a text of the sixth century, the period when the Mandylion first came to light in Edessa. The text gives a description of how the image was thought by those of the time to have been created by Jesus on the linen of a cloth he had used to dry his face. This text, as translated in Roberts and Donaldson's voluminous Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, at first sight seems totally uninformative:
And he ... asked to wash himself, and a towel was given to him; and when he had washed himself he wiped his face with it. And his image having been imprinted upon the linen ...[6]
But, as a footnote reveals, one word in the passage gave the translators some difficulty. In order to convey the sense evident from the description, they used the word `towel.' But they were careful to point out that this is not the literal meaning of the strange Greek word used in the original text. The actual meaning is `doubled in four.' [tetradiplon][7]. The discovery is intriguing. Could the sixth-century writer have been trying to convey that the cloth he saw was literally `doubled in four' - i.e., that it was a substantially larger cloth, the folds perhaps being actually countable at the edges but otherwise inaccessible? The only logical test is to try to `double in four' the Turin Shroud to see what effect is achieved. This is not a difficult task. One simply takes a full-length print of the cloth, doubles it, then doubles it twice again, producing a cloth `doubled in four' sections. The head of Christ appears on the uppermost section, curiously disembodied, exactly as on artists' copies of the Mandylion. Furthermore, it appears on the cloth in landscape aspect, again exactly as on artists' copies of the Mandylion"[8].
1978c April. The Turin authorities approve in principle the testing that had been requested by the American scientists in September 1977 (see "1977f"), to immediately follow the public exposition in October[9].

1978d. May. Nuclear physicist Thomas (Tom) F. d'Muhala (1940-),

[Left (enlarge): Tom d'Muhala at the 2005 Dallas Shroud Conference, ©2005 Barrie M. Schwortz Collection, STERA, Inc[10]. d'Muhala who at 82 is still alive (as far as I know), is an unsung hero of STURP's 1978 examination of the Shroud[11]. As both a nuclear physicist and a businessman[12], d'Muhala registered "The Shroud of Turin Research Project," as a non-profit corporation and coined the acronym "STURP"[13], He was President of STURP[14] and its "administrator, findraiser, coordinator" and "expedition leader"[15]. A "great bear of a man"[16] who admitted that originally "science was my God"[17], d'Muhala became a Christian through the Shroud and in 2007 produced a video, "The Case for Christ's Resurrection." d'Muhala never lost faith in the Shroud after the "1260-1390" radiocarbon dating, as at least one STURP member did - see his address, "Where Do We Go From Here?" at the 1996 Esopus Conference.]

President of Nuclear Technologies Corporation of Amston, Connecticut, names and incorporates"The Shroud of Turin Research Project," with the acronym "STURP"[18].

1978e 3-4 June. In Colorado Springs, STURP meets for the first time in a a conference to plan their scientific testing of the Shroud[19].

1978f 6 August. Death of Pope Paul VI (r. 1963-78), who had been expected to visit Turin to view the Shroud during the period of the expositions[20]. He is succeeded on 26 August by Pope John Paul I (r. 1978) who, however, died 33 days later[21].

1978g 26 August. The Shroud is exhibited at an inaugural Mass on the

[Right (enlarge)[22]: Turin's Cathedral of St. John the Baptist during the 1978 exhibition.]

first day of a five-week-long period of expositions, until 8 October[23], commemorating the 400th anniversary of the Shroud in Turin[24]. It is the first public

Left (enlarge)[25]: The Shroud displayed above the high altar in Turin Cathedral during the 1978 exposition.]

exposition of the Shroud since 1933[26]. During the five weeks the Shroud is publicly displayed, more than 3.5 million visitors view the cloth[27].

1978h 2-3 September. STURP meets in Amston, Connecticut, to finalize their plans, after Turin havd agreed to a twenty-four hour test period on 9 October[28]. This meeting would become known as the "Dry Run" and was the first time that the entire team had assembled together[29]. They review their planned experiments and test their equipment, including a special table designed to hold the Shroud[30]. They each sign an agreement to formally become a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)[31].

1978i 28 September. Sudden death of Pope John Paul I (r. 26 August-28 September 1978). He was rumored to have been intending a private visit to the exposition before its close[32].

1978j 29 September. The STURP team departs the United States for Turin under a cloud of doubt, concerned that the death of the Pope John Paul I the night before might cause the cancellation of their testing[33].

1978k 30 September. The STURP team arrives in Turin, but some of their luggage is lost and Italian Customs authorities hold all eighty cases of their test equipment, refusing to release any of it[34]. One particularly delicate piece of x-ray equipment needs to be filled with liquid nitrogen or it will be damaged beyond repair[35].

1978l Early October. En route to Turin to take part in the Second International Symposium on the Shroud, Harry E. Gove (1922-2009) stops off in Oxford to inform Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) of Oxford about the possibility of radiocarbon dating the Shroud[36]. Although Hall does not yet have an AMS facility, he expresses himself and his colleagues as being very enthusiastic to 'get in on the act'[37].

To be continued in the sixth 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]
2. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.47. [return]
3. 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.303. [return]
4. Email from Ian Wilson to S.E. Jones, "RE: What was the month of publication of your book, `The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?,' Doubleday & Company, 1978?" 25 June 2022, 6:41 am. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Victor Gollancz: London, front cover. [return]
6. Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J., eds, 1951, "The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325," Vol. VIII: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted 1974, p.558. [return]
7. Roberts & Donaldson, 1951, p.558.n4. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Victor Gollancz: London, pp.99-100. [return]
9. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.130. [return]
10. Email from Barrie Schwortz, "RE: Could you email me the original photograph of Tom d'Muhala?," 22 June 2022, 2:29 am. [return]
11. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.55-67. [return]
12. Heller, 1983, pp.55, 62. [return]
13. Heller, 1983, pp.61-62, 76. [return]
14. d'Muhala, T., 1996, "Where Do We Go From Here?" The 1996 Esopus Conference, August 23rd-25th, 1996, Esopus, New York; "Shroud of Turin Research Project," Wikipedia, 26 September 2021. [return]
15. Heller, 1983, p.56. [return]
16. Heller, 1983, p.55. [return]
17. Heller, 1983, p.55. [return]
18. Heller, 1983, pp.61-62, 76. [return]
19. Wilson, 1998, p.303; Tribbe, 2006, p.130. [return]
20. Wilson, 1998, p.303. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.303. [return]
22. Brooks, E.H., II., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., 1981, "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago IL, p.2. [return]
23. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 21; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.12, 184; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.60; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.10. [return]
24. Borkan, 1995, p.21; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.184; Wilson, 1998, p.303; Guerrera, 2001, p.60; Tribbe, 2006, p.8. [return]
24. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.35. [return]
25. Brooks, Miller & Schwortz, 1981, p.3. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, p.303; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.6. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, p.303. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
33. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
34. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
35. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
36. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, p.304. [return]

Posted 20 June 2022. Updated 26 June 2022.

Sunday, June 5, 2022

The Shroudman and Jesus were crucified #39: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

THE SHROUDMAN AND JESUS WERE CRUCIFIED #39
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #39, "The Shroudman and Jesus were crucified," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus'burial sheet!." Formerly "... is authentic," which is unclear. I will go back and replace "authentic" with "Jesus' burial sheet" in the title of all 38 of my previous posts in this series. For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." See also "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: The Shroud man and Jesus were crowned with thorns #38] [Next: The Shroud man and Jesus died on a cross #40]


  1. The Bible and the Shroud #33
    1. The Shroud man and Jesus were crucified #39

The Shroudman and Jesus were crucified. Both the man on the

[Above: "Crucifixion," sculpture in wood by Giulio Ricci (1913-95), based on his intensive study of the Shroud[2].]

Shroud[3] and Jesus (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:25; Lk 23:33 & Jn 19:18)[4] were crucified[5].

The Shroud man and Jesus carried a cross Jesus carried a cross (Jn 19:17)[6], part of the way to the site of His crucifixion[7] (see below). It was an integral part of Roman crucifixion that the condemned man carried his own cross to the site of his execution (Mt 10:38; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23; 14:27)[8]. It could not have been the full cross that was carried, as depicted in Christian art, because that would have been too heavy, but rather it was the crossbeam only, called in Latin the patibulum[9], to which the victim's outstretched arms were bound[10]. At the site of crucifixion the patibulum, bearing the nailed or tied victim, was attached to the much heavier, upright, stipes[11]. It was also part of Roman crucifixion that the victim was made to carry his cross naked through the streets to the site of his execution[12], but as a concession to Jewish morality, Jesus was given back his clothes after being scourged (Mt 27:31; Mk 15:20)[13].

The man on the Shroud carried a cross[14]. He has abrasions on his

[Above (enlarge)[15]: Shoulder blades of the man on the Shroud, rotated 180°, showing the blurring of the scourge marks, evidently due to him carrying across his upper back, over his clothes (Mt 27:31; Mk 15:20) a heavy object, such as a crossbeam, illustrated by the parallel lines from the man's higher right to lower left.]

shoulders[16], comsistent with him having carried across his back a heavy object[17], such as the transverse beam of a cross[18]. This must have occurred after he was scourged because the scourge wounds are underneath the shoulder abrasions[19]. But if the crossbeam had been in direct contact with his scourged shoulders, the lacerations would have widened, but on the Shroud, they have kept their shape[20]. This is consistent with the man on the Shroud carrying his cross under which was a garment protecting his scourged shoulders[21], as the gospels recorded of Jesus (Mt 27:31 & Mk 15:20).

The Shroudman and Jesus fell. The man on the Shroud fell. He

[Above (enlarge): [22]. Knees of the Shroudman, showing that both knees (see contextspear-wound in the side bloodstain is on the man's right side), and the left knee (left - apparent right because of lateral inversion[23]) in particular, has a circular piece of the kneecap missing[24].]

has cuts to both knees, especially to his left knee, indicating an unprotected fall onto a hard surface[25]. A Roman crucifixion victim (crucarius[26]) was made to carry the horizontal crossbeam tied to his outstretched arms and placed across the back of his neck[27]. Which meant that he frequently stumbled and fell in his scourged-weakened condition under the heavy weight of the crossbeam[28]. And when fell, he could not protect his face from the impact of the fall[29]. This explains why the man on the Shroud's nose is swollen, displaced and had been bleeding[30]. It also explains why the nose and knees areas of the Shroud have a high concentration of dirt particles[31].

Jesus fell. The gospels don't record that Jesus fell carrying the crossbeam[32]. However three of the gospels say that that a passerby named Simon of Cyrene was compelled by the Romans to carry Jesus' cross for Him (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26)[33], and this implies that Jesus, weakened by his unusually severe scourging (see "The Shroud man and Jesus were scourged #37"), was unable to carry the crossbeam all the way to the place of His crucifixion[34]. It is therefore likely that it was Jesus' repeated stumbling and falling under the weight of the crossbeam which prompted his executioners to compel Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross for Him[35].

The Shroudman and Jesus were crucified. The man of the Shroud was crucified. He had been nailed to a cross[36]. He has a bloodstain on the back of his left hand, which overlays his right hand,

[Right (enlarge)[37]: Nail exit wound in the Shroudman's left wrist (which appears to be right because of lateral inversion - see above). Only one nail wound is visible because the man's left hand covers his right wrist[38]. But a similar nail wound in the hidden right wrist can be inferred from the identical pattern of bloodstains along the right arm to those along the left arm, when he hung from the nails in his wrists affixed to the crossbeam (see below)[39]. The man's fingers seem too long because they are x-rays of his finger and hand bones under his skin[40]! (see 20Apr17b)]

showing that his hands were pierced by nails through his wrists, not

[Left (enlarge): Bloodflows on the left arm of the man on the Shroud[41], flipped horizontally and then rotated 90 degrees, showing how the blood dripped off the arm vertically under gravity.]

through his palms[42]. This is anatomically accurate as French surgeon Dr. Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) demonstrated, that nails through the palms would tear through by the weight of a man's body on a cross[43]. The man's

[Above (enlarge)[44]: The dorsal (back) feet bloodstains on the Shroud (see context). The larger stain is a complete imprint from the nail wound in the man's right foot[45]. The square hole made by the Roman nail can be seen slightly below centre above (enlarged)[46]. The smaller stain is an incomplete imprint of the heel and middle of the man's left foot[47], which had been nailed to the cross by a single nail through it and the right foot[48].

left foot appears to have been forced over his right foot and both fixed to the cross by a single nail driven through the insteps[49].

Jesus was crucified. All four Gospels record that "they crucified him" (Mt 27:31-38; Mk 15:20-27; Lk 23:24-33; Jn 19:16-20)[50]. There was no need for the Gospel writers to describe details of Jesus' crucifixion[51] since these were common knowledge, as the Romans carried out their crucifixions along public thoroughfares so that the greatest number could watch and be deterred[52]. Jesus was nailed to the cross[53] (tying with rope was an option)[54]. To prove that He had risen bodily from the dead, Jesus showed the disciples (absent the Apostle Thomas) the wounds in "his hands and his side" (Jn 20:20)[55], and later Jesus invited Thomas to put his finger in the nail wounds in His hands and side (Jn 20:25,27)[56]. Earlier, to two disciples on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, the risen Jesus had said, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself" (Lk 24:39-40)[57], which can only mean that Jesus had nail wounds in both hands and both feet[58].

The Shroudman and Jesus died on a cross The man on the Shroud died on a cross. He is dead[59]. He has a swollen abdomen which indicates that he died of asphyxiation, the way crucifixion victims died[60]. Also, the body of the man on the Shroud is in a state of rigor mortis, in which the muscles stiffen, keeping the body in the position it was immediately prior to death[61]. Signs of rigor mortis on the Shroud man include: his head is bent forward, the chest and abdomen are `frozen', and his whole body is rigid and stiff, occupying some of the positions it did on the cross (see above), especially his left leg[62]. Further evidence that the man on the Shroud was dead is the post-mortem blood flows, especially from the speared in the side wound (see below)[63]. If the man's heart had been beating the blood would have spurted out onto the cloth, instead of oozing out as it did[64].

Jesus died on a cross. All four gospels record that Jesus died on a cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30)[65]. The gospels of Mark and Luke explicitly state that Jesus "breathed his last" on the cross (Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46)[66]. The Roman centurion in charge of Jesus' crucifixion confirmed to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate that Jesus, who was then still on the cross, was dead (Mk 15:44-45)[67].

The Shroudman's and Jesus' legs were not broken The Shroudman's legs were not broken[68]. This is despite the crurifragium, the breaking of a crucifixion victim's lower leg-bones with a heavy mallet[69], to hasten his death[70], because he then would be

[Right (enlarge)[71]: As can be seen, the legs of the man on the Shroud are not broken.

unable to use his legs to raise himself up to breathe[72], being the norm in Roman crucifixions[73]. The Gospel of John records that the Roman soldiers broke the legs of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, to bring about their immediate deaths (Jn 19:31-32)[74].

Jesus' legs were not broken. The Roman soldiers, having broken the legs of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, when they came to Jesus they saw that he was already dead, and so they did not break His legs (Jn 19:32-33)[75]. Despite breaking of the legs of crucifixion victims being the norm in Roman crucifixions, neither the man on the Shroud nor Jesus had their legs broken, which is further evidence that the man on the Shroud is Jesus[76]!

The man on the Shroud and Jesus were speared in the side. The man on the Shroud was speared in his right side[77]. Clearly visible on the Shroud is a lance stab wound in the man's right side together with an effusion of blood and clear fluid[78]. The wound is on the left-hand side of the Shroud image but because of mirror reversal it was in the right side of the man of the Shroud[79]. The wound and its bloodstain is immediately adjacent to one of the triangular-shaped burn marks from the fire of 1532[80] (see "part #27"), yet miraculously[81] was not consumed by it[82]. The origin of the flow of

[Above (enlarge)[83]: The wound on the right side of the man on the Shroud (on our left because the Shroud is, like a plaster cast, a mirror image[84]). Note the wound (circled in red) which corresponds to the incision of a Roman lancea and the light and dark stains corresponding to blood and lung cavity fluid.]

blood and fluid is an elliptical wound at its top edge[85] about 4.4 cm long by 1.1 cm wide (1.75 x 0.44 inches)[86]. The size and shape of the wound in cross-section[87] conforms perfectly to a Roman lancea (Greek λογχη - logche)[88]. The wound is in the intercostal space between the right fifth and sixth ribs[89]. From below this is directly in line with the right auricle of the heart which fills with blood after death[90]. From the angle of flow[91] the body must have been erect and leaning forward when the side was pierced, for the blood and the fluid flowed downwards and frontwards from the wound[92].

There was a post-mortem flow of blood and fluid from the wound in the side across the small of the back (see below), evidently from when the body was laid on the Shroud[93].

[Above (enlarge)[94.]: The post-mortem flow of blood across the small of the back from the wound in the side.]

Jesus was speared in the side. As we saw above, the Roman executioners did not break Jesus' legs because they could see that he was dead. But to make absolutely certain that Jesus was dead[95], one of the soldiers speared him in the side with a lance, and immediately there came out blood and water (Jn 19:32-34)[96]. The Greek word logche), for the Roman lancea, was the very word used in John 19:34 to describe the weapon used by the Roman soldier to check that Jesus was dead[97].]

This eyewitness testimony of the Apostle John (Jn 19:34-35; 21:24)[98] of "blood and water" flowing from the lance-wound in the dead Jesus' side, matches the blood and fluid on the right side, under the heart, of the man on the Shroud[99](see above). Most medical specialists agree that the "water" was probably fluid that had steadily accumulated in Jesus' lung cavity as a result of the unusually brutal scourging (see "The Shroud man and Jesus were scourged" part 37) that He was subjected to[100]. The lance then released this watery type fluid from the lung cavity followed by blood from the perforated heart[101]. A mixture of blood and lung fluid is also the basis of the stains around the nasal area of the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is more evidence that both it and the Shroud once covered the same body[102]. But the Sudarium of Oviedo has been in Spain since the 6th century[103]. This will be covered in a future "10. The Sudarium of Oviedo."

Problems for the forgery theory:
• Christian art has consistently depicted Jesus as having been nailed through His palms, even though, as we saw above, medical experiments have shown that nails through the palms could not support the weight of a man's body[104]. But it would be unlikely that a medieval forger would have known this and even if he had, he would have conformed to prevailing Christian tradition and depicted the nail wounds in Jesus' palms[105].

• Crucifixion was outlawed by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 337[106] and was not practiced since then in the Western world[107]. Yet a medieval forger of the Shroud would have to know a lot about crucifixion to produce such an anatomically and historically accurate representation[108].

• A medieval or earlier forger would have been most unlikely to have gone to the trouble of depicting the man on the Shroud's nose as swollen, displaced and bleeding, let alone added ground particles and dust to his nasal area, consistent with his having fallen on his face while carrying his crossbeam (see above), given that the Gospels do not explicitly mention those[109].

• A medieval or earlier forger is unlikely to have been able to depict the convincing medical detail of the lance wound in the side of the man on the Shroud, given that none of the many depictions of that lance wound in Jesus' side in mediaeval or earlier art do so[110].

• The Gospels do not tell us in which side (right or left) Jesus was pierced by a Roman soldier's lance, so a medieval forger would most likely assume it was the left side, as he would be unlikely to realise that the last beat of a heart empties its left ventricle of blood while the right auricle fills with blood after death[111].

• That the Sudarium of Oviedo has blood and lung fluid stains around its nasal area, indicating that both it and the Shroud once covered the same crucifixion victim's body (see above), yet the Sudarium has been in Spain since the 6th century, means that either there were two forgers, separated by centuries and thousands of kilometres/miles, yet the two forgeries matched their blood and fluid stains exactly, or a single forger would have had to forge both the Shroud and the Sudarium in or before the 6th century[112]!

Conclusion. There is an amazing correspondence between the details that are observed on the Shroud, and the description of Jesus's crucifixion as narrated in gospels, given that each crucifixion was `personalized' according to the victim executed, the crime committed[113] and the whims of the executioners[114]. The Shroud supplements the Gospels as a photograph supplements a verbal description[115]:

"The Gospels say only that Christ carried His cross. The Shroud depicts Him bent under the transverse beam lying across the shoulders, with His outstretched arms bound to the instrument of His death. And there are the excoriations on the shoulder-blades, the oozing and the aggravated wounds of the scourging. He was crucified, is all the Evangelists say of the awful climax of the drama. The Shroud re-enacts the scene. It raises the arms of Christ to the angle at which they were extended on the cross. It shows the point where the hands were pierced, and how the fingers and thumbs responded to the pressure on the median nerve. It crosses the feet and shows how they were pierced with a single nail through the insteps, how the wounds bled at the beginning of the crucifixion, how they bled again when the nail was extracted. It reconstructs the position in which the body was left by death, because the body grew rigid on the cross and remained so while impressing its image on the Shroud. There is also the final outrage committed upon that sacred Body. The Shroud evokes the vision of the soldier plunging his spear into the right side between the fifth and the sixth rib. It shows us the very wound into which Thomas was invited to thrust his hand, and it almost analyses the issue of blood and water which was such a marvel to John"[116].
"In summary, the man of the Shroud was crucified the way Jesus was. The comparison of the New Testament and the Shroud image lines up at every point"[117].

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Ricci, G., 1978, "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1982, p.61. [return]
3. Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous - the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-68, 57; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 25; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.33; 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.85. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.52; 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, p.44; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.86; Bennett, 2001, p.125. [return]
5. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.87. [return]
6. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, pp.42-43; Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.44; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.55; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.38. [return]
7. Robinson, J.A.T., 1978, "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.78. [return]
8. Torrance, J.B., "Cross, Crucifixion," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., 1982, "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1988, pp.253. [return]
9. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.42-43. [return]
10. Wuenschel, 1954, p.42. [return]
11. Borkan, 1995, p.25. [return]
12. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.45. [return]
13. 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.125. [return]
14. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.43; Guerrera, 2001, p.39. [return]
15. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical (rotated 180°)," auto corrected Sindonology.org. [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, pp.38-39; Bucklin, R., 1997, "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
17. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.44; Bucklin, 1997; Antonacci, 2000, p.120. [return]
18. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
19. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.44. [return]
20. Ricci, G., 1977, "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud," 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, p.69. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical. (auto corrected)," Sindonology.org. [return]
23. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.64; Bucklin, R., 1970, "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and the Law, January; Wilson, 1979, p.30; Borkan, 1995, p.42; Antonacci, 2000, p.189. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.39; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 285; Iannone, 1998, p.56; Guerrera, 2001, p.65. [return]
25. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Cruz, 1984, p.51. [return]
26. Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.19; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.122. [return]
27. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.28. [return]
28. Antonacci, 2000, p.33; Oxley, 2010, p.165. [return]
29. Guscin, 1998, p.28; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. Bucklin, R., 1982, "The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 5, December, pp.3-10, 8; Guscin, 1998, p.28; Antonacci, 2000, pp.32-33, 100. [return]
32. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.86; Iannone, 1998, p.56. [return]
33. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.44. [return]
34. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
35. Ibid. [return]
36. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
37. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
38. Bucklin, 1970. [return]
39. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.165. [return]
40. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.431-433; Borkan, 1995, p.42; 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.29; Ruffin, 1999, pp.150-151; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.37-38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
41. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
42. Wuenschel, 1954, p.44; Barbet, 1953, p.109; . [return]
43. Wuenschel, 1954, p.44; Barbet, 1953, p.117; Borkan, 1995, p.24. [return]
44. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical (auto corrected)," Sindonology.org. [return]
45. Barbet, P., 1952, "The Five Wounds of Christ," Apraxine, M., transl., Clonmore & Reynolds: Dublin, p.32; Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, p.121. [return]
46. Barbet, 1952, p.35; Barbet, 1953, p.125. [return]
47. Barbet, 1952, p.32; Barbet, 1953, p.121. [return]
48. Barbet, 1952, p.37; Barbet, 1953, p.128; Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.46; Wilson, 1979, p.42; Morgan, 1980, p.103; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson, 2010, p.48; de Wesselow, 2012, p.145. [return]
49. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.43-44; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.76. [return]
50. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43; McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.23; Petrosill & Marinelli, 1996, p.229; Ruffin, 1999, p.43; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.57. [return]
51. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
52. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.62. [return]
53. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Borkan, 1995, p.24. [return]
54. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.90. [return]
55. Iannone, 1998, p.57. [return]
56. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.52-53; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Iannone, 1998, p.57; Ruffin, 1999, p.43; Wilson, 2010, p.47. [return]
57. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43; Iannone, 1998, p.57. [return]
58. Bulst, 1957, p.48; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.86-87; Guerrera, 2001, p.39. [return]
59. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
60. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
61. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.112-113. [return]
62. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
63. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
64. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
65. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
66. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
67. Wuenschel, 1954, p.43. [return]
68. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]
69. McNair, 1978, p.24. [return]
70. Antonacci, 2000, p.120. [return]
71. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," (auto corrected)," Sindonology.org. [return]
72. Wilson, 1979, p.42. [return]
73. McNair, 1978, p.24. [return]
74. Robinson, 1978, p.78. [return]
75. Ibid. [return]
76. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.90-91. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
78. Robinson, 1978, p.78. [return]
79. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
80. Wilson, 1986, pp.24,26. [return]
81. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
82. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
83. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
84. Antonacci, 2000, p.33. [return]
85. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.63 [return]
86. Wilson, 1979, p.48. [return]
87. Wilson, 1986, p.34. [return]
88. Ibid. [return]
89. Wilson, 1986, p.26. [return]
90. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
91. 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.37. [return]
92. Wuenschel, 1954, p.46. [return]
93. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
94. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," (flipped vertically & auto corrected)," Sindonology.org. [return]
95. Ruffin, 1999, p.44. [return]
96. Wuenschel, 1954, p.45. [return]
97. Wilson, 1979, p.49. [return]
98. Wilson, 1996, pp.132,133. [return]
99. Robinson, 1978, p.78. [return]
100. Wilson, 1996, pp.132,133. [return]
101. Bucklin, 1997. [return]
102. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.78. [return]
103. Guscin, 1998, p.31. [return]
104. Robinson, 1978, p.77. [return]
105. Ibid. [return]
106. Crucifixion:Ancient Rome," Wikipedia, 18 June 2022. [return]
107. Iannone, 1998, p.69. [return]
108. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, p.238. [return]
109. Iannone, 1998, p.44. [return]
110. Wilson, 1998, p.38. [return]
111. Oxley, 2010, p.167. [return]
112, Bennett, 2001, p.89. [return]
113. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.229. [return]
114. Bulst, 1957, p.49. [return]
115. Wuenschel, 1954, p.55. [return]
116. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.55-56. [return]
117. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45. [return]

Posted 5 June 2022. Updated 26 June 2022.

Sunday, May 29, 2022

Ashe, Geoffrey. Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones
[1]

Ashe, Geoffrey #15

This is "Ashe, Geoffrey," part #15 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. See also 11Febr22. For more information about this series, see part #1 and part #2. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: Barbet, Pierre #14] [Next: bas relief #16]


Geoffrey Ashe (1923-2022) was a British cultural historian whose

[Right (enlarge)[2]: "Geoffrey Ashe, b. 1923 ... Ashe was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1963."]

specialty was the legendary King Arthur[3].

In 1961 Ashe tested his theory that the Shroud image was a scorch, by placing a white handkerchief over of a heated small medallion that bore a carving of a horse[4] (see below). However,

[Above (enlarge)[5]: Ashe's brass horse ornament, 3½ inches (about 9 cm.) across[6], which, when heated and a white handerchief placed over it for a few seconds, a "scorch-picture" formed[7] (see [positive and negative image below).]

it was not until 1966 that Ashe published his scorch theory and experiment in the Italian Shroud journal Sindon[8]. In favour of Ashe's scorch theory is that his scorch images do have some of the properties of the Shroud[9]. The colour of Ashe's scorch image was sepia, the same colour as the Shroud image[10]. In the positive of Ashe's scorch image below, small features such as the horse's fore-hoof are reprod-

[Above (enlarge)[11]: Positive image formed by a scorch on a white handerchief placed over the heated brass horse ornament above.]

uced, which in the ornament is only 1/8 inch (about 3 mm.) across[12]. The image is three-dimensional in that, the front of the horse's body, which is the highest part of the ornament, is the most heavily scorched and whitest in the negative (see below), with gradually decreasing

[Above (enlarge)[13]: Negative of the positive image above. As with the Shroud, the negative is more life-like than the positive[14].]

scorching toward the outer and lower parts[15].

Ashe's crtitics missed his point by assuming that he was claiming that the Shroud image was a heat scorch[16], and then they pointed out the problems of heat scorches, including that they fluoresce but the Shroud image doesn't fluoresce[17]. But Ashe wasn't a sceptic, like Joe Nickell, proposing that the Shroud image was a scorch from a heated bas relief[18]. Rather, Ashe was a Christiian[19] and a member of the International Centre of Sindonology[20].

In fact, Ashe argued against the Shroud image being a heat scorch[21]! He questioned "whether fabrication by scorching could have been executed at all"[22]. In particular, Ashe pointed out the immense difficulties of evenly scorching a linen cloth as large as the Shroud with the ordinary fire heat sources available in the Middle Ages:

"Ordinary heat would have been a medieval artist's only resource. There could be no question of any other sort of radiation. He would have had to make life-size metal reliefs of the front and back, heat these evenly to a high temperature in a horizontal position, and lower the enormous cloth neatly on to them, without pressure or sagging, and for just the right time to imprint the picture without actually burning holes. Or could he have heated the metal gradually with the Shroud already there, lifting it off when the marks were brown enough? In either case the task would have been immensely hazardous, calling for a great deal of previous experiment, and faultless team-work by the assistants holding the cloth and stoking the fire"[23].
And why would a forger go to all the trouble, expense and risk to make a metal or stone statue or bas relief just to heat it so that it could scorch its image on a rare and expensive large sheet of fine linen?:
"And why should any artist do it? ... Why take so much trouble, with a frightful risk of accidentally ruining" a precious cloth[24]?
Finally, the parts of the cloth that had been scorched by heat would be weakened and wouldn't have survived the handling that the Shroud has had down through the centuries:
"One further objection has been urged to such a fabrication, an objection which may well be fatal. Scorching by heat might not have made actual holes, but it would have weakened the fabric to a point here it would probably have fallen apart with handling through the centuries"[25].
Ashe was proposing that the Shroud image was the result of "the physical change of the body [of Jesus] at the Resurrection [which] may have released a brief and violent burst of some other radiation than heat" (my emphasis):
"Secondly then, on the assumption of authenticity, let us inquire whether a `scorch-picture' could have been formed by the veritable body of Christ. An ordinary corpse could not do so, since it would never generate heat or any other radiation at the required intensity. But the Christian Creed has always affirmed that Our Lord underwent an unparalleled transformation in the tomb: his case is exceptional, and here perhaps is the key. It is at least intelligible (and has indeed been suggested several times) that the physical change of the body at the Resurrection may have released a brief and violent burst of some other radiation than heat — perhaps scientifically identifiable, perhaps not — which scorched the cloth. In this case the Shroud is a quasi-photograph of Christ returning to life, produced by a kind of radiance or `incandescence, partially analogous to heat in its effects"[26].
Ashe's theory was confirmed true when in 2011 Shroud scientists, under the auspices of ENEA (the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development), using a vacuum ultraviolet excimer laser, succeeded in producing on linen the closest characteristics of the Shroud image yet (see 22Dec11 & 06Jan12), and ENEA laser's ultraviolet light scorch on linen did not fluoresce:
"Instead, the results of ENEA `show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence'" (my emphasis)[27]!

Ashe's conclusion in 1966, fifty-six years ago, is still true today (and will be true for all time):"The Shroud is explicable if it once enwrapped a human body [i.e. Jesus'] to which something extraordinary happened. It is not explicable otherwise"[28].

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Geoffrey Ashe," The Royal Society of Literature, 24 August 2017. [return]
3. "Geoffrey Ashe," Wikipedia, 25 May 2022. [return]
4. Ashe, G., 1966, "What Sort of Picture?" Sindon, No. 10, April, pp.15-19, 16; 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, p.70; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.77. [return]
5. Ashe, 1966, p.16a & Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.125. [return]
6. Ashe, 1966, p.16. [return]
7. Ashe, 1966, p.17. [return]
8. Ashe, 1966, pp.15-19; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.74. [return]
9. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, pp.197-198; Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.25; Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.204. [return]
11. Ashe, 1966, p.16c & Wilcox, 1977, p.124. [return]
12. Ashe, 1966, p.17; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.18. [return]
13. Ashe, 1966, p.16b. [return]
14. Drews, 1984, p.18. [return]
15. Ashe, 1966, p.17. [return]
16. Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.25; Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
17. Guerrera., 2001, p.75. [return]
18. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.122; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.216; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.136; Antonacci, 2000, p.76; "Joe Nickell: The Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 28 April 2022. [return]
19. Humber, 1978, p.199. [return]
20. Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.100. [return]
21. Ashe, 1966, pp.17-18. [return]
22. Ashe, 1966, p.17. [return]
23. Ashe, 1966, pp.17-18. [return]
24. Ashe, 1966, p.18. [return]
25. Ibid. [return]
26. Ibid. [return]
27. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," The Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
28. Ashe, 1966, p.18. [return]

Posted 29 May 2022. Updated 12 June 2022.

Sunday, May 22, 2022

Shroud of Turin News, January - April 2022

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: July-December 2021 ] [Next: May-? 2022]

This is the January-April 2022 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. The articles' words are bold to distinguish them from mine.


"Turin Shroud Scholar: Reexamination of Historical Texts Point to Cloth's Early Existence," Cision PR Newswire, Joseph Marino, 12 April

[Above (enlarge)[2]:

"One of the most famous references to the burial linens of Jesus is called the `Hungarian Pray Manuscript,' which is reliably dated to AD 1192 -1195 (which places it at least sixty-five years before the beginning date of the AD 1260-1390 date range assigned to the Shroud by the three labs that dated it in 1988 — it was possibly depicted decades before the manuscript was actually published.) One of the images from the manuscript is shown above. The top portion of the image depicts Jesus with his arms and hands placed in the same pose as seen on the Shroud; another similarity is that it shows four fingers but no thumb. The bottom portion of the manuscript shows what appears to be a representation of the Shroud's distinctive three-over-one herringbone weave, a match to the `L-shaped burn holes' found on the Shroud, and a correspondence of a rectangular cloth being wrapped lengthwise around the body. Additionally, a very curious feature is seen: look behind the woman's right arm on the left of the group of 3 three. One can clearly see a facial image. The only reasonable conclusion one can make is that the artist is trying to convey that there is a facial image on the linen."[3].]

2022 ... Joseph Marino debunks skeptics who say there is no mention of the Shroud before the 1350s ... Marino, ... has just published an article that compiles numerous historical references to Jesus' burial linens from the second century through the first half of the 14th century. Turin Shroud Scholar: Reexamination of Historical Texts Point to Cloth's Early Existence Turin Shroud Scholar: Reexamination of Historical Texts Point to Cloth's Early Existence ... Marino's new 45-page article, "Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Turin Shroud's Appearance in France in the Mid-1350s" ... adds to the growing body of evidence indicating the Shroud of Turin could be the actual burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Thanks to Joe for this article. Chapter 9 of my book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!," is "Prehistory of the Shroud (AD30-1355) and I needed to find references to the many quotes I had seen proving that the Shroud has existed since AD 30. Also thanks to Joe for tipping me off about Jack Markwardt's, "The Hidden History of The Shroud of Turin" (2022), which I have ordered just now. As a sample of what readers will find in the article, in the sixth century, nearly a thousand years older than the carbon date, an ancient liturgical text translates John 20:5 [Jn 20:3-8] in the following manner: Peter and John ran to the tomb and saw the recent imprint of the dead and risen man on the linens.[4] This is from the 6th century Mozarabic Rite, composed by Bishop Leader of Seville (c. 534-601) after he had been exiled to Constantinople from 579 to 582. It has been suggested that Leander saw the Shroud in Constantinople. But the Shroud, as the Image of Edesssa "four-doubled' (tetradiplon), did not arrive in Constantinople from Edessa until 944 (see "944b"). So this is evidence that the ecclesiastical elite in Constantinople and Edessa were aware that behind the face only Image of Edessa was the full-length folded Shroud. There are one or more references for each century from the 2nd through the 14th, clearly demonstrating the existence of the Shroud from right after the time of Jesus through its appearance in France in the mid-14th century. A former Benedictine monk, Marino has studied the Shroud for 45 years. Wow!

"The $1m challenge: "If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done," The Observer, Joanna Moorhead, 17 Apr 2022 ... Expert on

[Above (enlarge)[4]: David Rolfe holds up a negative image of the face on the Turin Shroud: "They said it was knocked up by a medieval conman, and I say: well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well." Photograph: Sophia Evans/The Observer]

revered relic calls on British Museum to back up the results of its disputed carbon dating tests. It was one of the most eagerly awaited scientific announcements of all time, and it pitted the world of faith against the world of rational thought, under the glare of the media. This is Naturalism's (nature is all there is - there is no supernatural) false dichotomy and strawman fallacy. If the contest is set up between "the world of faith" and "the world of rational thought" then it's over before it starts! But the shoe is on the other foot. It's the so-called "world of faith," the Shroudies, who are appealing to the evidence, which is overwhelming, that the Shroud is the burial sheet of Jesus! And it's the so-called "world of rational thought," the sceptics, who are clinging to one discredited test! So when cutting-edge carbon-14 tests found that the Shroud of Turin was a forgery, it seemed like the final chapter for a relic that had been revered for centuries as the cloth in which Christ's body had been wrapped when he supposedly rose from the dead at the first Easter almost 2,000 years ago. There is no "supposedly" about it. Even without the Shroud, the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus rose from the dead at the first Easter almost 2,000 years ago. See for example, "10 Concise Pieces of Evidence for the Resurrection [of Jesus]." But one man – David Rolfe, a film-maker whose documentary The Silent Witness had brought the shroud into the public eye in modern times, and who had converted to Christianity as a result of his research – wasn't prepared to give up on it. He was convinced the carbon dating, carried out in 1988 under the direction of the British Museum and Oxford University, had been flawed. And now he claims he has the evidence to prove it. This week sees the release of a new film, Who Can He Be?, in which Rolfe argues that, far from the shroud being a definite dud, new discoveries in the past few years have again opened the question of its authenticity. So convinced is Rolfe that he's issuing a challenge worth $1m to the British Museum. "If … they believe the shroud is a medieval forgery, I call on them to repeat the exercise, and create something similar today," he says ... They said it was knocked up by a medieval conman, and I say: well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. And if you can, there's a $1m donation for your funds." Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Director, Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001), after his laboratory had been part of the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, famously claimed that:

"There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century ... Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it"[5].
If a 14th century "someone" could just get "a bit of linen" and "fake" the Shroud, then it should be child's play for 21st century science to do it! That it hasn't, is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud was not faked in the 14th or any century! ... The British Museum is less willing to get involved this time around. "Any current questions about the shroud would be best put to those who currently care for it in the royal chapel of the cathedral of Turin," a spokesperson said. What a cop out! It was the British Museum's Michael Tite who wrote the 1989 Nature article which claimed that the Shroud was dated "1260-1390"[6]. As the late Mark Oxley (1949?-2021) asked, "Could a fourteenth century forger ... produce an artifact that can still not be replicated by ... twenty-first century science?":
"The Shroud presents many challenges. It challenges those who claim it is a mediaeval forgery to replicate it. Nobody has yet been able to do so with any credibility. This must be an argument in favour of its authenticity. Could a fourteenth century forger, with the limited scientific knowledge of his time, really produce an artifact that can still not be replicated by all the wonders of twenty-first century science?"[7].
Clearly the answer is NO!

"New Scientific Technique Dates Shroud of Turin to Around the Time of Christ's Death and Resurrection," National Catholic Register, Edward Pentin, 19 April 2022. Italian scientist Liberato De Caro ... is claiming a new technique using X-ray dating shows the Holy Shroud of Turin to be much older than some scientists have stated, and that it does in fact coincide with Christian tradition by dating back to around the time of Christ's death and resurrection ... [See 04Apr22] ... Working with a team of other researchers ... De Caro of Italy's Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council in Bari used a "Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering" method to examine the natural aging of cellulose that constitutes a sample of the famous linen cloth. They concluded that their peer reviewed research shows the Holy Shroud is compatible with the hypothesis that it is much older than seven centuries old — the conclusion reached in 1988 using carbon dating techniques — and is around 2,000 years old.

This is compatible with other scientific tests of the Shroud's age:
Vanillin content: "between 1300- and 3000-years old":

"The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years"[8].
If the Shroud was 1300 years old in 2004 (when Rogers wrote his article) its linen would date from ~AD 704. If it was 3000 years old in 2004, its linen would date from ~996BC. That is a range of ~996BC - ~AD 704, or ~146BC ± 850 years. Jesus' crucifixion was in AD 30, which was ~176 years after ~146BC, and the Shroud's flax would have been harvested and its linen woven before AD30.
FT-IR: "300 BC ±400 years"[9], i.e. 700 BC - AD 100.
Raman spectroscopy: "200 BC ± 500 years"[10], i.e. 700 BC - AD 300.
• Mechanical: "AD 400 ± 400 years"[11], i.e. AD 1 - 800.

This is summarised in the following table (vanillin rounded to nearest 50):

TestMax/MinRange
Vanillin150 BC ±8501000 BC-AD 700
FT-IR300 BC ±400700 BC-AD 100
Raman200 BC ± 500700 BC-AD 300
Mechanical400 AD ± 400AD 0 - AD 800

So all four tests yield a date range in which Jesus' death in AD 30 falls!

The research started in 2019 ... We finally applied the new X-ray dating technique to a sample of the Shroud of Turin, and the findings of the research were published in the international journal Heritage after about a month of preparation and revision, during which our work was evaluated and peer reviewed by three other independent experts and the journal's editor. Here is the article's abstract (my emphasis):

"Abstract On a sample of the Turin Shroud (TS), we applied a new method for dating ancient linen threads by inspecting their structural degradation by means of Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS). The X-ray dating method was applied to a sample of the TS consisting of a thread taken in proximity of the 1988/radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image, near the so-called Raes sample). The size of the linen sample was about 0.5 mm × 1 mm. We obtained one-dimensional integrated WAXS data profiles for the TS sample, which were fully compatible with the analogous measurements obtained on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55–74 AD, Siege of Masada (Israel). The degree of natural aging of the cellulose that constitutes the linen of the investigated sample, obtained by X-ray analysis, showed that the TS fabric is much older than the seven centuries proposed by the 1988 radiocarbon dating. The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe. To make the present result compatible with that of the 1988 radiocarbon test, the TS 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 (my emphasis)"[12]
This is the fifth scientific test which is consistent with the Shroud being Jesus' burial cloth! Why should one dating technique, radiocarbon dating, be privileged over five scientific dating techniques? Especially when that one scientific dating test of the Shroud, radiocarbon dating, is inconsistent with the vast majority of other evidence for the Shroud's 1st century date, and the other five tests are consistent with that other evidence? … … The first published paper from 2019 demonstrated the reliability of the new X-ray dating technique on a series of samples, taken from linen fabrics ranging in age from 3000 BC to 2000 AD (see black, red, green and blue curves in the figure below ... These curves

[Above (enlarge)[13]: 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 never occupied again. 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!]

show that the sample of the Shroud of Turin (orange curve in the picture) should be much older than the approximately seven centuries indicated by the radio-dating carried out in 1988 ... The reliability of the new X-ray dating technique on a series of samples, taken from linen fabrics ranging in age from 3000 BC to 2000 AD (see black, red, green and blue curves in the figure below). These curves show that the sample of the Shroud of Turin (orange curve in the picture) should be much older than the approximately seven centuries indicated by the radio-dating carried out in 1988 ... The technique of dating linen by X-ray is non-destructive. Therefore, it can be repeated several times on the same sample ... The technique using X-rays requires very small tissue samples, with linear dimensions even smaller than 1 mm, and this is an advantage compared to radio-dating, which usually requires much larger samples and is destructive ... The Shroud of Turin challenges science, and each new piece of research could clarify part of the complex puzzle this relic represents. For example, the Shroud's image has yet to find a definitive explanation from those who have studied it, an explanation shared by the entire scientific community. It is unrealistic to expect that "the entire scientific community," who are mostly non- and even anti-Christian, would ever accept that the Shroud's image is that of Jesus at the instant of His resurrection. - It is as if a photographic plate had been imprinted by radiation! (my exclamation mark).

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "File:Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 28 June 2021. [return]
3. Marino, J.G., 2022, "Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin's Appearance in France in the Mid-1350s," Academia.edu, pp.1-47. [return]
4. Marino, 2022, pp.18. Also Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.113 n.10 & 125 n.91; 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; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.93; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.76; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.17; 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.55-56; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.42. [return]
4. Moorhead, J., 2022, "The $1m challenge: `If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done'," The Observer, 17 April . [return]
5. "Obituaries: Professor Edward Hall," Independent, 16 August 2001. [return]
6. Morgan, R., 1990, "Interview With Dr. Michael Tite by Orazio Petrosillo and Emanuela Marinelli, 8 September 1989, during the Paris Symposium," Shroud News, No 59, June, pp.3-9, 7. [return]
7. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.xii. [return]
8. Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Nos 1-2, 20 January, pp.189-194, 192. [return]
9. Tornielli, A., 2013, "New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval," Vatican Insider, 26 March; Squires, N., 2013, "Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery'," Daily Telegraph, 30 March; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.204. [return]
10. Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.208. [return]
11. Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.246. [return]
12. de Caro, L., et al., 2022, "X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample," Heritage, 5(2), pp.860-870, 860. [return]
13. Pentin, E., 2022, "New Scientific Technique Dates Shroud of Turin to Around the Time of Christ's Death and Resurrection," National Catholic Register, 19 April. [return]

Posted 22 May 2022. Updated 4 June 2022.