Monday, July 6, 2020

Bears image of a naked man: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #15

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
BEARS IMAGE OF A NAKED MAN
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the second installment of, "Bears image of a naked man," part #15 of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover #1, Contents #2 and Preface #3, of this series.

[Contents #2] [Previous: Has been in Turin since 1578 #14] [Next: Man has wounds matching those of Jesus #16]


  1. What is the Shroud of Turin? #8
    1. Bears image of a naked man #15
The Shroud bears the faint[2], double image[3], front and back[4], head to head[5], of a naked man[6].

[Right (enlarge)[7]: Full-length image of the Shroud after the 2002 restoration.]

As can be seen, this muscular[8], bearded[9], man on the Shroud is entirely naked[10].

Although his hands are crossed covering his genitals[11], the back image shows that he is completely naked[12].

Jesus was crucified naked, His clothes having been taken off Him and divided between His Roman soldier executioners (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-24)[13].

To be continued in the third installment of this post.

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. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.5. [return]
3. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.2. [return]
4. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.12. [return]
5. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.18. [return]
6. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.22. [return]
7. "Image of Full 2002 Restored Shroud," Shroud University: Peachtree City GA, 2014. [return]
8. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.266. [return]
9. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.1. [return]
10. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.31. [return]
11. Bucklin, R., 1997, "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May. [return]
12. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.17. [return]
13. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.52, 314. [return]

Posted: 6 July 2020. Updated: 8 July 2020.

Sunday, July 5, 2020

Has been in Turin since 1578: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #14

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
HAS BEEN IN TURIN SINCE 1578
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is "Has been in Turin since 1578," part #14 of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover #1, Contents #2 and Preface #3, of this series.

[Contents #2] [Previous: First undisputed appearance was in c.1355 #13] [Next: Bears image of a naked man #15]


  1. What is the Shroud of Turin? #8
    1. Has been in Turin since 1578 #14
On 14 September 1578 the Shroud arrived in Turin, Italy from Chambéry, France[2].

[Right (enlarge)[3]: Print published in 1578 based on a copper engraving by Turin's Giovanni Testa[4], depicting the public exposition of the Shroud in Turin on 12 October 1578[5].]

Since then, except for comparatively brief periods in times of war, the Shroud has remained in Turin[6], either in Turin's St John the Baptist Cathedral or the adjoining Chapel of the Holy Shroud[7].

Continued in part #15 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.18. [return]
3. Fossati, L., 1985, "The Souvenir Engraving of the 1578 Exposition," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 15, June, pp.7-11, 9. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.262-263. [return]
5. Wilson, 2010, pp.261-262. [return]
6. Guerrera, 2001, p.20. [return]
7. Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.14. [return]

Posted: 5 July 2020. Updated: 10 July 2020.

Tuesday, June 30, 2020

First undisputed appearance was in c.1355: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #13

The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!
FIRST UNDISPUTED APPEARANCE WAS IN C.1355
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is "First undisputed appearance was in c.1355," part #13 of my online book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" For more information see the Cover #1, Contents #2 and Preface #3, of this series. See " What is the Shroud of Turin? #8 why " Dimensions is #12 and this post is #13.

[Contents #2] [Previous: Dimensions #12] [Next: Has been in Turin since 1578 #14]


  1. What is the Shroud of Turin? #8
    1. First undisputed appearance was in c.1355 #13
The Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in about 1355 at an

[Right (enlarge)[2]: Rebuilt Church of St. Mary, Lirey, France[3]. It was on these grounds in c.1355 that the Shroud was first exhibited in undisputed history.]

exposition in the tiny village of Lirey, France[4]. This first known public exposition of the Shroud was held by the French knight Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–56) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428)[5].

Evidence for the c.1355 date of this exposition includes a 1389 memorandum by the bishop of nearby Troyes, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-95), that this first exposition of the Shroud had taken place "thirty-four years or thereabouts" before the time he was writing, which would put it about 1355[6]. And a pilgrim's lead badge found in 1855

[Left (enlarge)[7]: Lead pilgrim's badge in the Cluny Museum, Paris, depicting the Shroud being exhibited with the de Charny (left) and de Vergy (right) coats of arms[8].]

in the mud under a bridge over the Seine River, Paris and dated 1357, depicts the Shroud at what can only be the first Shroud exposition in Lirey c.1355[9].

However, "undisputed history" is not necessarily actual history. Shroud historian Ian Wilson coined the term "undisputed history" to mean the "general consensus of even the most doubting [Shroud] researchers"[10]. But as we shall see, there is objective (true whether it is believed or not) historical, artistic, scientific and archaeological evidence that the Shroud existed in thirteenth century Constantinople, sixth century Edessa and first century Jerusalem!

To be continued in part #14 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Lirey, France," Google Street View, August 2008. [return]
3. Jang, A.W., 2013, "Introducing... Lirey, France!," Shroud.com. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 2010, “The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved,” Bantam Press: London, p.222. [return]
5. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.49. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.91, 267. [return]
7. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
8. Ibid. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.126-127. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1996, "Highlights of the Undisputed History," Shroud.com. [return]

Posted: 30 June 2020. Updated: 6 July 2020.

Sunday, June 21, 2020

"News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, May 2020

Shroud of Turin News - May 2020
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: April 2020] [Next: June 2020]

This is the May 2020 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in May as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them. The articles' words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.


News:
• "Shakespearean Stabbings, How to Feed a Dictator and Other New Books to Read," Smithsonian Magazine, May 5, 2020, Meilan Solly ... The Holy Shroud: A Brilliant Hoax in the Time of the Black Death by Gary Vikan [Right. I have today, 21 June, ordered Vikan's book and will review it here after I receive it.] Gary Vikan has spent some 35 years tracking down evidence refuting the Shroud of Turin's authenticity. [See "Deconstructing the `Debunking' of the Shroud by Daniel Scavone," for a refutation of Vikan's so-called "refuting the Shroud of Turin's authenticity."] In The Holy Shroud, Vikan — former director of Baltimore's Walters Art Museum and a respected art historian — outlines his findings, arguing that the controversial burial cloth belonged not to Jesus, but to a medieval artist employed by French monarch John II [r. 1350-64] at the height of the Black Death [1347-52]. [The evidence is that Geoffroi I de Charny (c. 1300-56) already had been given, or had been promised, the Shroud by John II's father King Philip VI of France (r. 1328-50) by 1343. See "c. 1343".]

"I knew right away that the Holy Shroud was the fake, for the simple reason that it does not fit into the chronology of Christian relics or iconography, ..." [This is strange `logic'. It amounts to saying that, `the Shroud must be 14th century because it doesn't look like it's 14th century'! As French biologist-artist Paul Vignon (1865-1943) pointed out, if the Shroud were a medieval forgery it would fit in with the traditional depictions of Jesus by medieval artists":

"Now let this be well noted: every time that we find in the Holy Shroud some strangeness, some departure from tradition, we may feel assured that such strangeness, such departure, can never have been knowingly done by a forger, whose direct intention would have been to appeal forcibly to the imagination of his public"[2]
Agnostic but pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow pointed out that so foreign is the Shroud to medieval artistic culture, that a better explanation than that it "is a medieval forgery" is that "the Shroud was deposited in medieval France by aliens":
"Given credence, the [1260-1390] carbon-dating result effectively raises the Shroud to the status of a miracle, an object that defies, if not a law of nature, a law of culture. All artefacts are linked to the art and technology of the society in which they originate. Something that cannot be explained in terms of its (presumed) cultural context invites a supernatural explanation. As far as I am aware, no one has yet argued that the Shroud was deposited in medieval France by aliens, but ... There is no better explanation, though, for a fourteenth-century Shroud"[3].]
"... and because it appears for the first time in the historical record in 14th century France," wrote Vikan in a blog post earlier this year." [This is false! The Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France in c.1355. That is, even the vast majority of anti-authenticists don't dispute that. But that is not the same as, The Shroud "appears for the first time in the historical record." As I quoted in my previous post (footnotes omitted):
"In 1207, after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, Nicholas Mesarites, keeper of the Emperor's relics in the Pharos Chapel, Constantinople, recalled that in 1201, in that chapel, was `the sindon [which] wrapped the mysterious, naked dead body [of Christ] after the Passion' (my emphasis). The Greek word variously translated `mysterious', `indefinable' and `uncircumscribed', is aperilepton, which literally means `un-outlined' or `outlineless'. The Shroud-image uniquely has no outline [see 11Jun16], so there could be no stronger proof that the Shroud in Constantinople is that of Lirey, Chambéry and Turin!"
This is objective, historical evidence that the Shroud existed in Constantinople in 1201, over a century and a half (154 years) before it was exhibited at Lirey in c. 1355! And 59 years before the earliest possible radiocarbon date of 1260! Therefore the Shroud appeared in the historical record in at least 12th century Constantinople, irrespective of whether anti-authenticists accept it!]

"... [W]ith the help of a brilliant scientist, I am [now] able to answer the questions of when, why, by whom, and how the Shroud was made." [I will be interested to read in Vikan's book, "by whom ... the Shroud was made"! As well as "when, why ... and how the Shroud was made"! The "brilliant scientist" is presumably a "Robert Morton" who is mentioned, with a Rebecca Hoppe, on the title page of the book. I have been unable to find anything about Morton or Hoppe, except a 2007 article which mentions a "Chemist Robert Morton" with Vikan `explaining' "how a realistic shroud could be made using common scribe's chemicals ..." ]

Per the book's description, John II gifted the "photograph-like body print" to his friend Geoffroi de Charny shortly before the latter's death at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. [See above that the evidence is that Geoffroi I de Charny already had been given, or had been promised, the Shroud by John II's father King Philip VI of France by 1343.]

Originally meant as an "innocuous devotional image" for the knight's newly-built church, the cloth was soon reinvented as one of Christianity's most significant relics. [It is self-evidently absurd that the Shroud, half of which shows Jesus completely naked the full length of His back and covered with hundreds of scourge wounds [Left (enlarge[4])] would have been "meant as an `innocuous devotional image'"!] "Miracles were faked," says Vikan, "and money was made." [I don't know what Vikan meant by this, but on the topic of "miracles", if the Shroud was a forgery "it would be a greater miracle than if it were the actual cloth of Christ":

"At this point, I am reminded of what Dr. Donald Lynn, a dedicated Shroud researcher, said when questioned on the possibility that the Shroud be indeed a forgery. 'Were the Shroud a forgery, it would be a greater miracle than if it were the actual cloth of Christ'"[5].
And as for "money was made," Prof. Edward Hall's Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory received 1 million pounds for its part in radiocarbon dating the Shroud as 1260-1390:
"24 March [1989] (Good Friday). A press release to the UK press announces that forty-five businessmen and 'rich friends' have donated £1 million to create a chair of archaeological sciences at Oxford to perpetuate the radiocarbon-dating laboratory created by Professor Edward Hall. The first incumbent is to be the British Museum's Dr Michael Tite"[6].
• "`There WAS a body inside' Shroud of Turin oddity discovery exposed in Bible breakthrough," Daily Express, Callum Hoare, May 27, 2020 ... an expert who radiocarbon-dated the cloth more than three decades ago revealed more recently that he spotted an "oddity" during his experiment that he admitted proves "it is highly probable that there was a body inside" This by an anti-authenticist (see below) would destroy one of the twin pillars of the temple (Jdg 16:25-30) of anti-authenticism (the other being the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date), the claim of the Bishop of Troyes Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395) that one of his predecessors Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370), had discovered that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" and moreover had obtained the confession of the artist who had painted it:
"The Lord Henry of Poitiers ... then Bishop of Troyes ... after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed"[7]
Rob Walker spoke to Professor Michael Tite [Below left (original)[8].], who supervised the testing process [and] "was, at the time, keeper of the British Museum Research Laboratory and he was given the job of coordinating the work of three labs chosen by the Church to do the radiocarbon dating." ... The experiments concluded with a 95 percent confidence that the Shroud's material dated between 1260–1390AD. This is false and indeed fraudulent [see 29May19] But, Professor Tite revealed why that was not the end of the argument. ... He added: "To some extent, it confirmed what I expected, my suspicions were proved. "But I did make a mistake at the press conference, there was a big blackboard

[Right (enlarge): From left to right, Prof. E. Hall (Oxford), Dr M. Tite (British Museum) and Dr R. Hedges (Oxford) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[9].]

behind me and I put 1260 - 1390 and an exclamation mark afterwards which caused me endless trouble."The significance of the exclamation mark was to tell the press that this is what you already knew, but all sorts of various things were read into the exclamation mark." So Tite was lying when in September 1989 he told a French radio interviewer, Chantal Dupont, that he couldn't remember who added the exclamation mark after "1260-1390" on the blackboard at the news conference in the British Museum on 13 October 1988[10]:

"[Dupont] Who put the exclamation mark after the date on the blackboard? [Tite] I can't remember who did that, the press, Hall, or me ... it reflected the mood of the moment"[11].
But Tite was telling the truth back then, that the exclamation mark "reflected the mood of the moment," rather than it was "to tell the press that this is what you already knew," because the press did not then already know that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated "1260-1390." And "the mood of the moment" represented by the explanation mark was the triumph[12] of naturalistic (`nature is all there is - there is no supernatural') science over Christianity (or so they thought)!

But, Professor Tite admitted there was one "oddity" he discovered during the testing, leading him to believe there was a body inside the Shroud at one point, a breakthrough in understanding the struggle of Bible followers in the Middle Ages. He continued: "There are certain groups who resisted and continue to resist the date. "A number of people have made their whole career out of the Shroud, in one way or another. So they should "continue to resist the date," given that the evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic! And therefore the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is false!

There's no real evidence it was painted on there, This is a huge admission by Tite that the Shroud image was not painted [see "No paint, etc. #15"] because as leading anti-authenticist, the late Walter McCrone (1916-2002) pointed out, painting the Shroud man's image "... is certainly the simplest and probably the only way" that it could have been done by a medieval forger:

"I realize that there are still, perhaps, a majority of people convinced by the carbon-dating that the `Shroud' is medieval, who are still looking for an answer as to how the `Shroud' was produced. Many mechanisms have already been proposed. Some say it was draped wet over a bas-relief to which it was shaped then dabbed with powder or a paint. Some say a painting was prepared and transferred to a cloth in contact with it by pressure. However, I see no reason to doubt that an artist ... simply took up his brush and a dilute red ochre watercolor paint based on scraps of parchment as the vehicle and proceeded to paint the `Shroud.' Why go to all the work of preparing a statue or bas-relief or making a transfer of the image from a primary artist's rendering? A direct approach to painting a dilute watercolor image on a canvas of the proper size is a common sense assumption; Occam's Razor applies here ... It is certainly the simplest and probably the only way an undistorted original image could be prepared. If an artist (read sculptor) has to first prepare a statue or bas-relief then decorate it he will have to be more skilled, go to more trouble and stand in greater risk of distorting the final image than if he decided, by careful study, the image he wanted to produce then proceeded to paint it on a flat canvas with materials, and, by a method, readily available to him in the 1350s. The artist requires only a dilute watercolor paint, a paint brush, canvas and the talent and skill to produce a `Shroud'"[13].
and the other oddity is if you look at paintings from the Middle Ages they always paint Christ with the nails going through the palms of the hands. "Whereas in reality, you have to put the nails through the wrist, Indeed! Tite sounds like a pro-authenticist! See my "Non-traditional #13" (footnotes omitted):
"A medieval artist/forger who who intended his shroud to be accepted, would not have contradicted the traditional iconography, showing only only one full hand on the Shroud and therefore only one nail wound, in the wrist, not the palm. It was not until the 17th century, and therefore likely influenced by the Shroud, that a minority of artists, notably Van Dyck, began depicting Jesus crucified, suspended by a nail in each wrist ... A medieval forger would certainly have placed the hand nail wound in Jesus' palm, as he would have had to conform to traditional norms, if he wanted his false shroud to have been accepted. Medieval tradition demanded that the nail-wound in the left hand be in the centre of the palm, and in a forged relic such independence from tradition would not have been tolerated."
I think a complete replication of the image has not been achieved. Indeed it hasn't! As Mark Oxley [Left (original)[14]] asked, `could a 14th century forger produce an image that 21st century science cannot replicate?':
"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?"[15].
"I don't believe it was the Shroud, but I believe it is highly probable that there was a body in there – it was the time of the Crusades and an appropriate way to humiliate a Christian would be to crucify him." This was the theory of a Dr. Michael Straiton but de Wesselow has demolished it:
"Slightly more sensible is the suggestion of another doubter, Dr Michael Straiton, that the body was that of an unfortunate Crusader, captured and crucified by Mamluk Turks in the last years of the thirteenth century. This is probably the least implausible idea regarding the Shroud's origin that a sceptic has ever offered, though that is not saying very much. The Turks may have practised crucifixion occasionally at the time of the Crusades, but it is a massive leap of faith to imagine that they ever crucified anyone in exact imitation of Jesus. Even if they had wanted to, they could hardly have recreated the complex torture, execution and burial of a first-century Jew without introducing a single anachronism. Just consider what would have been involved. First, our archaeologically minded Muslims would have scourged their prisoner with a Roman-style flagrum, before making him carry a crossbeam on his shoulders, in imitation of the Roman custom. Then, rather than bang a nail into the upright through either foot, they would have expertly driven a single nail through both feet ... Once he was dead, they would have pierced him in the Roman manner beneath the armpit, using a spear like a Roman lancea. The reconstruction would have continued after the man was taken down from the cross. Rather than toss him into a simple grave, they would have given him an appropriate Jewish burial, washing away all the blood clots, carefully avoiding the post-mortem 'lifeblood', binding up the jaw, and wrapping him in a sovev. This linen sheet, of very fine material and manufactured in conformity with ancient Jewish textile-making techniques, would have been sourced from the Jerusalem area, as indicated by the pollen and limestone dust embedded in its weave. Finally, they would have left the burial unfinished, draping the body rather than tying it up, and then they or someone else would have removed the cloth from the body within a few days. All this would have been done, moreover, to a man bearing an uncanny resemblance to the traditional portrait of Jesus ... The odds against the Mamluk Turks (or anyone else) having performed such a bizarre 'action-replay' of the events of Good Friday must be astronomical. As a historical scenario, it is speculative, nonsensical and implausible"[16].

Editorial
Posts: In May I blogged only 2 new posts (latest uppermost):
"Problems of the forgery theory A-Z: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 24th & "`News and Editorial,' Shroud of Turin News, April 2020" - 22nd.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 May 2020, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,189,689:

This compares with 1,064,304 at the same time in May 2019. That is 125,385 pageviews over the year, or an average of ~344 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for May 2020 (highest uppermost) as: "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F," Jan 20, 2016 - 485; "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index G-M," Apr 2, 2016 - 468; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear" Mar 18, 2011 - 132; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present: 1st century and Index." Jul 24, 2016 - 123 & "Problems of the forgery theory A-Z: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 83.

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. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.32. [return]
3. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.167-168. [return]
4. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Horizontal, rotated right 90 degrees," Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Rinaldi, P., 1987, "For the Holy Shroud, the Hour of Truth Reprint of an interview with Fr. Peter Rinaldi," Shroud News, No. 39, February, pp.13-17, 16. [return]
6. 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.311. [return]
7. "Memorandum of Pierre D'arcis, Bishop Of Troyes, to the Avignon Pope Clement VII," 1389, Thurston, H., transl., "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, 1903, pp.17-29, in Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, pp.230-231. [return]
8. "Michael S. Tite-2008 Pomerance Award for Scientific Contributions to Archaeology," Archaeological Institute of America, 2008. [return]
9. Wilson, 1998, plate 3b. [return]
10. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7; 310-311; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.84. [return]
11. Dupont, C., 1989, "Radio Courtoisie," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 32/33, September/December, pp.36-37. [return]
12. Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp.8-9; McDonnell, D.J., 2003, "The Great Holy Shroud Dating Fraud of 1988," 4 November. [return]
13. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.122-123. [return]
14. "Mark O.," Oxley Consulting, Devex, 2020. [return]
15. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.xii. [return]
16. de Wesselow, 2012, p.150. [return]

Posted: 21 June 2020. Updated: 4 July 2020.

Sunday, May 24, 2020

Problems of the forgery theory A-Z: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

PROBLEMS OF THE FORGERY THEORY A-Z
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is "Problems of the forgery theory A-Z." In my next post in this series I will rename this post "A-M" and split off a new post "N-Z."

[Right (enlarge): Secondo Pia's 1898 negative photograph of the Shroud face[2], which because it is a photographic positive, proved that the Turin Shroud image is a photo-graphic negative[3, 4, 5]. See "Negative" below.

in my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" As mentioned in a recent comment, due to the popularity of my 2016 series, "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory," I have decided to begin posting in advance what will become section "12. "Problems for the forgery theory," as I go along in this, "The evidence is overwhelming ..." series. The topics will be in alphabetic order and linked back to the "Problem for the forgery theory" sections of posts in this series. References will be numerical and so will become out of order in the text as new topics are added. When this post becomes too long I will split it into "A-M" and "N-Z" and so on. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Coins over the eyes #32] [Next: Writing #33]

Dilemma [#1]. Leading Shroud sceptics have admitted that either the Shroud was created by a medieval or earlier artist/forger, or it is authentic, there being no third alternative[6, 7, 8]. Therefore evidence against the Shroud being a forgery is evidence for the Shroud being authentic, the very "linen shroud" of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53).

Dimensions [#3]. The Shroud's lineal dimensions are approximately 437 x 111 cms[11] or about 4.4 x 1.1 metres (14 ft 4 in. x 3 ft 8 in.). To Ian Dickinson of Canterbury England, an expert in early Syriac[12], they seemed odd[13]. Dickinson wondered what the Shroud's dimensions would be if it was measured in units of length common in first century Jerusalem, namely the cubit[14]. He found that the

[Above (enlarge): Shroud Scope photo with my 8 x 2 grid overlay showing that the Shroud divides evenly into 8 squares, each 437/8 = ~54.6 cm (~21.5 in.) x 111/8 = ~55.5 cm (~21.8 in.). This is very close to the Standard Assyrian cubit of Jesus' day of 21.6 inches[15] ! [see 10Jul15].]

dimensions of the Shroud of 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches (as they were thought to be in 1989), or 171 by 43 inches, were approximately 8 by 2 Assyrian Standard cubits of 21.6 inches[16], i.e. 171/21.6 = 7.92 and 43/21.6 = 1.99! While one dimension of the Shroud having an exact whole cubit measurement might be a coincidence, two dimensions having exact whole cubit measurements could not plausibly be[17]. A medieval artist/forger would be most unlikely to know the length of the standard cubit of Jesus' day[18], as this was only discovered by archaeologists in the 19th century[19]. Although the Bible mentions cubits (e.g. Gn 6:15; Ex 25:10; Mt 6:27, etc) it does not say how long they were. The learned John Calvin (1509–64), commenting on Genesis 6:15 admitted, "But what was then the measure of the cubit I know not ..."[20]. Shroud sceptics could resort to the fall-back position of Walter McCrone (1916-2002) that, "a first century cloth could have been found and used by a 14th century artist to paint the image"[21]. But why would a medieval forger go to all the trouble and expense of obtaining an 8 by 2 cubit, first century, fine linen sheet (assuming that he could), when his contemporaries would not appreciate his diligence and would be satisfied with far less[22]? And to claim that a medieval forger used a first century cloth upon which to forge the Shroud's image would mean admitting that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was wrong in its claim that, "... the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 ..."[23]!

Naked [#9]. The man on the Shroud is naked (see below)[82], both front and back[83]. His hands are crossed modestly over his genitals[84], but his back image shows he is completely naked[85]. Jesus was crucified naked, His clothes having been taken off Him and divided between His Roman soldier executioners (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-24)[86]. No medieval artist depicted the crucified Christ as completely[87] and realistically[88] naked as he is on the Shroud. Medieval artists nearly always depicted the crucified Jesus either wearing a loincloth[89], or covered Jesus' nakedness by the angle of His body or were unrealistically cartoon-like[90]. For examples of the latter two see the 9th century Stuttgart Psalter [21Oct13] and the 14th century "Holkham Bible Picture Book" [27Dec15]. Those few late medieval artist who did depict the crucified Jesus fully naked realistically were influenced by the Shroud[91]. The earliest depiction of Jesus naked[92] is in the Hungarian Pray Codex

[Left (enlarge): "Entombment" (upper) and "Visit to the Sepulchre" (lower), ink drawings in the Hungarian Pray Codex (1192-1195)[93]. As can be seen, Jesus is depicted nude with His hands crossed right over left, crossing awkwardly at the wrists, covering His groin, identical to the Shroud[94]! These are only two of the at least "eight telling corres-pondences between the Shroud and ... the Pray Codex"[95]!]

(or Manuscript), which is dated 1192-95[96]. It was named after György Pray (1723-1801) who discovered it in a Hungarian archive in 1770[97]. There are at least eight, and by my count twelve [see 27May12a], telling correspondences between the Shroud and the Pray Codex[95], at least sixty-five years before the earliest possible radiocarbon date of 1260[98]. The above (Berkovits, 1969, pl.III) is one of four ink drawings in the Pray Codex but only pl.III and pl.IV [see 27May12b] are self-evidently based on the Shroud[99]. The drawings are older than the codex and Berkovits dates them about 1150[100]. At the time of the codex's compilation Hungary was ruled by King Bela III (r. 1172–1196), who was an ally of the Byzantine Empire[101] and had lived at the Imperial Court in Constantinople from 1163-72[102]. Bela III had been betrothed to Maria Komnene (1152-82) a daughter of Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143-80)[103] and was the promised heir to the throne of the Emperor Manuel I[104]. But after Manuel's wife Maria of Antioch (1145–1182) in 1169 gave birth to a son, Alexios II (r.1180-83), Manuel dissolved his daughter's betrothal to Bela[105]. At Manuel's request Bela instead married Manuel's wife's sister Agnes of Antioch (1154-84) in c.1168[106]. Upon the death of Bela's brother King Stephen III (r. 1162–72) in 1172, Bela returned to Hungary and was crowned King of Hungary in 1173[107]. It seems likely that the four drawings in the Pray Codex, including the two which depict Jesus' naked body on the Shroud, were a gift from Emperor Manuel I to Bela III for giving up his claim to the Byzantine throne and marrying Manuel's wife's sister instead of his promised daughter! In 1207[108], after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, Nicholas Mesarites, keeper of the Emperor's relics in the Pharos Chapel, Constantinople, recalled that in 1201, in that chapel, was "the sindon [which] wrapped the mysterious, naked dead body [of Christ] after the Passion" (my emphasis)[109]. The Greek word variously translated "mysterious"[110], "indefinable"[111] and "uncircumscribed"[112], is aperilepton[113], which literally means "un-outlined"[114] or "outlineless"[115]. The Shroud-image uniquely has no outline[116, see 11Jun16], so there could be no stronger proof that the Shroud in Constantinople is that of Lirey, Chambéry and Turin[117]! No medieval forger, who intended his work to be accepted as genuine, would have depicted Jesus fully naked[118], when almost all artists who copied the Shroud added a loincloth [see above]. A realistic, completely naked image of Jesus, as on the Shroud, would be a violation of the ethics of the medieval era[119]. A realistic depiction of a nude Christ would have been considered offensive in the Middle Ages, lessening, if not destroying, a forgery's economic and ceremonial value[120]. Indeed, as Wilcox points out: ".... the portrayal of Jesus on the shroud is non-traditional, non-European ... the nakedness of the loins would not inspire the devotional or artistic sensibilities of fourteenth-century Europe; rather they would have gotten the forger burned at the stake"[121]! Moreover, the at least eight, and by my count twelve telling correspondences between the Shroud and the Pray Codex [see above] not only proves that the Shroud existed in 1192-95, which is at least 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud; it also places the Shroud in Constantinople in 1163-72 when Hungary's King Bela III (r. 1172–1196) lived there [see above]. The Shroud had been in Constantinople since 944, having arrived from Edessa as the Image of Edessa, "four-doubled" (Greek tetradiplon) [see "944b"]. Which makes the Shroud more than seven centuries older than the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date [see 20Dec18]!

Negative [#1]. The Shroudman's image is a photographic negative (see above) but photographic negativity was unknown until the early 19th century[9], nearly 600 years after the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355[10]! This alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud is authentic!

Selvedges [#6]. A selvedge is a weaver-finished edge on a piece of woven fabric[44] as it grows lengthwise on a loom[45]. The purpose of a selvedge is to prevent a woven fabric from fraying or unravelling at its long edges[46]. There is a selvedge on each long side of the Shroud[47]. But the left-hand long side is the sidestrip [see below]. And the sidestrip and the main body of the Shroud were once part of a wider cloth because both share the same weft (widthwise) irregularities [see 11Sep15]. Ancient textiles conservator Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (1929-) provided the most likely (if not the only) explanation, that the bolt of linen from which the Shroud and sidestrip were cut, had been woven on a loom about ~3.5 metres wide, which is more than three

[Above (enlarge): "How the shroud was originally woven much wider than its present width. Reconstruction of the likely size of the bolt of cloth of which the two lengths of the Shroud (shaded) formed part. This wider cloth was very expertly cut lengthwise, then the raw (i.e. non-selvedge) edges of the shaded segments joined together by a very professional seam to form the Shroud we know today"[48].]

times the Shroud's width[49]. She pointed out that looms in antiquity were up to 11½ feet (3.5 metres) wide[50], to produce the tunica inconsutilis, or seamless tunic, which was particularly fashionable in the Roman period (30BC-AD395)[51]. Jesus Himself wore such a seamless tunic (John 19:23)[52]. Flury-Lemberg explained that the extra-wide cloth would have been cut twice lengthwise, and the two sections with a selvedge, the main body of the Shroud and the sidestrip, were joined by a seam (see below) to form the cloth which became the Shroud[53]. The central section without side selvedges, would have been used for other purposes, such as a tunica inconsutilis since it would have been seamless[55]. No such wide seamless fabrics are known from the Middle Ages[56]. The widest medieval woven cloths up to the 16th century were tapestries, and they were a maximum of only 3 feet (~91 cm) wide[57]. The tunica inconsutilis was produced only in ancient times, never in the Middle Ages[58]. All known linen bed sheets in the Middle Ages are joined by a seam at their selvedges to make them wide enough for a bed[59]. This indicates that there were no wide looms in the Middle Ages[60]. The professionalism of the Shroud's manufacture, having been woven on a very wide loom, the expert lengthwise cutting and seaming, points to its production in a major, sophisticated cloth-making 'factory'[61]. Such are known to have existed in Roman-period Egypt and Syria[62] for making the large seamless garments that were then fashionable, but not in the Middle Ages[63]. So together with the Shroud's dimensions being 8 by 2 Assyrian cubits (see "Dimensions"), the stitching of the seam joining the Shroud's sidestrip being identical to that found only at first-century Masada (see "sidestrip") and now its selvedges showing the Shroud was woven on an extra-wide loom which did not exist in the Medieval Period (AD476–1453), Shroud sceptics who maintain that the Shroud image was created by a medieval artist/forger, if they were honest before the evidence and yet wished to remain a Shroud sceptic, would abandon the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud's claim that, "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" (see above) and embrace McCrone's fall-back position that, "a first century cloth could have been found and used by a 14th century artist to paint the image" (see above)!

Sidestrip [#5]. The sidestrip is a strip of linen about 8.5 cm (3.35 in.) wide[32] along the left-hand side of the Shroud (looking at it with the Shroudman's front upright [Right (enlarge)[34]] and joined by a seam[33]. The sidestrip is made from the same piece of cloth as the Shroud, since unique irregularities in the weave of the main body of the Shroud extend across into the sidestrip [see 11Sep15]. In preparing the Shroud for its 1998 exposition, ancient textiles conservator Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (1929-) removed the blue satin surround[36] that had been sewed on by Princess Clotilde of Savoy (1843–1911) in 1868[37]. Flury-Lemberg was the first person since the 16th century to see the underside of the Shroud between its Holland Cloth backing which was sewed on in 1534 by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns after the 1532 fire[38].

In 2000 Flury-Lemberg reported that she had discovered, "a very special, almost invisible stitching with which the edges were finished" which is visible only on the Shroud's underside[39]. In her forty years of working on historic textiles Flury-Lemberg had only once before found an

[Left (enlarge): Drawing of `invisible seam' found on cloth fragments at the first-century Jewish fortress of Masada[40], which is "identical to that found on the Shroud and nowhere else"[41].]

"essentially identical" type of stitching: that found in first-century textiles at Masada the, Jewish fortress overrun by the Romans in AD 73[42] and never occupied again[43]. Since a medieval forger would be most unlikely to even know about almost invisible first century Jewish stitching; and even if he did know about it, he would be most unlikely to go to the trouble of adding it to his forgery - what use would almost invisible stitching be to a forger? And even if he wanted to use it, a medieval forger would be most unlikely to have the high degree of skill needed to do such stitching. So again, Shroud sceptics could resort to McCrone's fall-back position that, "a first century cloth could have been found and used by a 14th century artist to paint the image" (see above). But again that would mean admitting that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was wrong!

Weave [#4]. The Shroud's herringbone twill weave [see 16Jul15a] would have been expensive[24] and rare[25] before the advent of mechanised weaving in the early 19th century[26]. The Shroud's costly weave fits the Gospel evidence that it was bought for Jesus' burial by the "rich man" Joseph of Arimathea (Mt 27:57-60 & Mk 15:42-46[27]). The rarity of the Shroud's weave is shown by there being only one surviving fragment of herringbone twill linen, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[28] [see 16Jul15b]. And also by the British Museum's Michael Tite being unable to obtain a sample of medieval linen with a weave that resembled the Shroud's, to use as a blind control sample for its 1988 radiocarbon dating[29]. So it would have been highly unlikely that a medieval forger would have been able to obtain a 4.4 x 1.1 metre (see above), actually 8 x 2 cubits (see above), herringbone twill fine linen sheet upon which to forge the Shroud image. The primary motive of art and archaeological forgery is financial gain[30]. So Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) was right in his claim that a forger of the Shroud would have, "... just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged [sold] it"[31]. If the Shroud was a medieval forgery, then the forger, to maximise his profit, would have "just got a bit of linen." That is, he would have used the least expensive "bit of linen" he could find that would still deceive his prospective buyers. But the Shroud is not just any "bit of linen." As we saw above, the Shroud cloth would have been expensive and rare before the 19th century. So in the most unlikely event that a medieval forger could have found a fine linen herringbone twill sheet the size of the Shroud, he would not have bought it as its very high price would have reduced the profit margin on his planned forgery of the Shroud image upon it.

Yarn [#7]. Yarn is a long continuous length of interlocked fibres, suitable for use in the production of textiles, including weaving[64]. Linen yarn is spun[65] from the cortex[66] fibres of the flax plant[67], Linum usitatissimum[68]. Retting is the process of separating the fibre from the rest of the plant in water[69]. It relies on the fermentation[70] action of microorganisms and moisture to rot and dissolve away the cellular tissues[71] leaving the almost pure cellulose of the flax fibres[72]. Ancient retting of linen was in natural bodies of water, whereas its medieval counterpart could also have been in large vats of water[73]. A consequence of ancient retting of linen in natural bodies of water like rivers and lakes, is that the linen takes up ions of strontium, calcium and iron from the water[74]. Ancient linen yarn was, as described by the Roman natural historian Pliny the Elder (AD23-79), after spinning laid out in hanks to be mildly bleached by the sun[75]. Medieval linen was, by contrast, mildly bleached in the sun as the whole cloth, mostly in "bleach fields" in the Low Countries, hence the name "Holland cloth" for the medieval linen backing cloth of the Shroud[76]. Each hank of ancient linen yarn was bleached

[Above (enlarge): Ultraviolet-fluorescence photograph of the Shroud man's hands, showing colour banding of different hanks of yarn in the linen[77], both weft (widthwise) and warp (lengthwise) on the loom[78].]

separately, and so they each have slightly different, banded, colours[79]. Medieval linen, again by contrast, was bleached as a whole cloth after being woven, not before[80], and so is homogeneous, with no bands of different coloured yarn[81]. That the linen yarn which comprises the Shroud's weave is banded in variegated colours and therefore was spun from flax in antiquity, not the Middle Ages, is together with the Shroud's dimensions being 8 by 2 Assyrian cubits (see "Dimensions"), the stitching of the seam joining the Shroud's sidestrip being identical to that found only at first-century Masada (see "sidestrip"), its selvedges showing the Shroud was woven on an extra-wide loom which did not exist in the Medieval Period (see Selvedges), is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud's claim that, "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" (see above) is wrong! Shroud sceptics could resort to the fall-back position of Walter McCrone (1916-2002) that, "a first century cloth could have been found and used by a 14th century artist to paint the image" (see above). But that would mean publicly admitting they had been wrong for over thirty years about the medieval date of the Shroud's linen, and it would have its own problems of explaining why a medieval forger would go to all the trouble and expense of obtaining an 8 by 2 cubit (see "Dimensions"), first century, fine linen sheet (assuming that he could), when his contemporaries would not appreciate his diligence and would be satisfied with far less (see above).

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. "Holy Face of Jesus," Wikipedia, 6 May 2020. [return]
3. McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.26-27. [return]
4. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, pp.46-47. [return]
5. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.34-35. [return]
6. Thurston, H., S.J., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, January, pp.17-29, p.19, in Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.40. [return]
7. 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.128. [return]
8. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42, in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
9. "History of photography: Development of chemical photography," Wikipedia, 15 May 2020. [return]
10. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 174; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.4; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.222-223. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.181. [return]
13. Dickinson, I., 1990, "The Shroud and the Cubit Measure," BSTS Newsletter, Issue 24, January, pp.8-11, p.8. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Clift, M., 1993, "Carbon dating - what some of us think now," BSTS Newsletter, No. 33, February, pp.5-6, p.6. [return]
18. Wilson, 1991, p.181. [return]
19. Petrie, W.M.F., 1877, "Inductive Metrology: Or, The Recovery of Ancient Measures from the Monuments," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Reprinted, 2013. Google books. [return]
20. Calvin, J., 1554, "A Commentary on Genesis," Banner of Truth: London, 1965, reprint, p.257. [return]
21. McCrone, W.C., 1999, “Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin,” Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.141. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.59-60. [return]
23. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
24. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.68; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.12; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.13; Antonacci, 2000, p.98; Wilson, 2010, p.74; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.108-109. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.68; Wilson, 2010, p.74; de Wesselow, 2012, p.108. [return]
26. Wilson, 1979, p.68; "Textile manufacture during the British Industrial Revolution: Later developments," Wikipedia, 19 May 2020. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.68; Iannone, 1998, p.13. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, pp.69-70. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, p.68; Wilson, 2010, p.75. [return]
30. "Archaeological forgery," Wikipedia, 8 April 2020; "Art forgery," Wikipedia, 30 May 2020. [return]
31. "Obituaries: Professor Edward Hall," 16 August 2001; Wilson, 1991, p.12; Wilson, 1998, p.7; Wilson, 2010, p.2. [return]
32. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.9. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.21. [return]
34. "File:Shroudofturin.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 12 April 2020. [return]
35. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, p.42. [return]
36. Wilson, 2000. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
38. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22. [return]
39. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.22. [return]
40. Wilson, 2010, p.74. [return]
41. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
42. Wilson, 2010, pp.71-74. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, p.71. [return]
45. Wilson, 2010, pp.72, 315. [return]
46. Wilson, 2010, p.315. [return]
47. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
48. Wilson, 2010, p.73. [return]
49. Ibid. [return]
50. Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
51. Ibid. [return]
52. Ibid. [return]
53. Ibid. [return]
54. Crispino, D.C., 1990, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 37, December, p.26. [return]
55. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
56. Wilson, 2010, p.76. [return]
57. Wilson, 2010, pp.76-77. [return]
58. Wilson, 2010, p.77. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. de Wesselow, 2012, p.110. [return]
61. Wilson, 2010, p.76. [return]
62. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.41. [return]
63. Wilson, 2010, pp.76-77. [return]
64. "Yarn," Wikipedia, 24 April 2020. [return]
65. "Spinning (textiles)," Wikipedia, 23 March 2020. [return]
66. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.196. [return]
67. "Linen," Wikipedia, 6 June 2020. [return]
68. "Flax," Wikipedia, 6 June 2020. [return]
69. "Retting," Wikipedia, 20 November 2019. [return]
70. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.91. [return]
71. Ibid. [return]
72. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.36. [return]
73. Wilson, 1986, p.91. [return]
74. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.174. [return]
75. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.18. [return]
76. Rogers, 2008, p.18. [return]
77. Rogers, 2008, p.19. [return]
78. Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.176. [return]
79. Ibid. [return]
80. de Wesselow, 2012, p.110. [return]
81. Rogers, 2008, p.18. [return]
82. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.15; Iannone, 1998, p.6; Zugibe, 2005, p.177; Oxley, 2010, p.169; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.188. [return]
83. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.1. [return]
84. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.61; Heller, 1983, p.vii; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.50; Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese / Doubleday: New York NY, p.292; 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.12. [return]
85. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.17. [return]
86. Ricci, G., "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, pp.58-73, 72. [return]
87. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.5. [return]
88. Wilson, 1998, p.204; Wilcox, 2010, p.188. [return]
89. Hynek, 1951, pp.30-31; Wilson, 1986, p.71; Barbet, P., 1987, "Proof of the Authenticity of the Shroud in the Bloodstains: Part II," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 23, June, pp.3-15, 14; Wilcox, 2010, p.188; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
90. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.55. [return]
91. Hynek, 1951, p.5. [return]
92. Wilson, 1986, p.115; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.154; Wilson, 1998, p.271; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.105. [return]
93. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, pl. III. [return]
94. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178-179. [return]
95. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
96. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; Wilson, 1991, pp.150-151; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.162-163; 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 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, p.64; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.116; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178, 180. [return]
97. Guerrera, 2001, p.104; Fant & Malfi, 2015, pp.58-59. [return]
98. Maloney, P.C., "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, 2002, p.33. [return]
99. Wilson, 1991, pp.150-151; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
100. Berkovits, 1969, p.19. [return]
101. de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
102. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 23 April 2020. [return]
103. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 23 April 2020. [return]
104. Berkovits, 1969, p.20; Bulst, W., 1989, "Some Important Dates in the Early History of the Turin Shroud," Shroud News, No. 54, August, pp.10-17, 15. [return]
105. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 23 April 2020. [return]
106. "Agnes of Antioch," Wikipedia, 15 April 2020. [return]
107. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 23 April 2020. [return]
108. Crispino, D.C., 1985, "Excerpts from 'The Palace Revolution of John Comnenus by Nicholas Mesarites," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 17, December, pp.23-27, 23; Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.323. [return]
109. Scavone, 1991, p.196; Wilson, 1998, p.272; Antonacci, 2000, p.122; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.25-26, 29. [return]
110. Wilson, 1979, pp.168, 257; Maher, 1986, p.93; Guerrera, 2001, p.6; Wilson, 2010, p.185. [return]
111. Scavone, 1989, p.89; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.79. [return]
112. Scavone, D., "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, p.321; Wilson, 1998, p.272. [return]
113. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.176, 180; Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.321; Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145. [return]
114. de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
115. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, pp.145, 201. [return]
116. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14; Iannone, 1998, pp.71, 156, 178; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
117. Hynek, 1951, p. 31. [return]
118. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.41. [return]
119. 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.89. [return]
120. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, p.293. return]
121. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, pp.170-171, 188. [return]

Posted: 24 May 2020. Updated: 27 June 2020.

Friday, May 22, 2020

"News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, April 2020

Shroud of Turin News - April 2020
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: March 2020] [Next: May 2020]

This is the April 2020 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in April as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them. My comments (if any) are bold in square brackets. Any emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.


News:
• "Archdiocese to livestream display Shroud of Turin on Holy Saturday," Catholic News Service, 5 April 2020 ... With people forced to stay home, even during Holy Week, because of the coronavirus pandemic, the archbishop of Turin has announced a special online exposition of the Shroud of Turin, which many believe is the burial cloth of Jesus. On Holy Saturday, April 11, as Christians contemplate Jesus lying in the tomb, Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia will lead a liturgy

[Above (enlarge): Archbishop of Turin Cesare Nosiglia at the Liturgical Shroud Festival on 4 May 2020 prays before the Shroud image to be live streamed on 11 May (YouTube)]

of prayer and contemplation before the shroud [sic] ... The prayer service will be live-streamed along with live images of the 14-foot-by-4-foot shroud, which has a full-length photonegative image of a man, front and back, bearing signs of wounds that correspond to the Gospel accounts of the torture Jesus endured in his passion and death. The ... livestream could be viewed directly on the official website for the shroud — http://www.sindone.org ... Announcing the special display, Archbishop Nosiglia said April 4 that he had received "thousands and thousands" of messages "asking me if, in this time of grave difficulty we are going through, it would be possible to pray this Holy Week before the shroud" and ask God for "the grace to defeat evil as he did, trusting in the goodness and mercy of God." The archbishop told Vatican News that the online viewing of the shroud could be "much better" than seeing it in person because the cameras will allow viewers to see it up close and to remain at length with the image. The image of the crucified man on the shroud, he said, "will go to the heart and the sadness of many people who will follow us. It will be like staying with the Lord on the day we await his resurrection." ... I didn't watch this but I disagree that "the online viewing of the shroud could be `much better' than seeing it in person." I have yet to see the Shroud in person but I am planning to in 2025. I have seen so many photos of the Shroud, and read so many descriptions of it by those who have seen it, that I doubt I will be surprised. But I expect it will be an overwhelming experience to be so close to the very Cloth that covered the dead body of Jesus, that has His very blood on it and through which He was resurrected!

• "Pope offers blessing for Holy Saturday online showing of Shroud of Turin," Crux, 11 April 2020 ... "ROME - Calling the Shroud of Turin an "icon of the Lord Jesus crucified, died and risen," Pope Francis thanked the archbishop of Turin for deciding to offer a special online exposition of the shroud Holy Saturday, April 11, to pray for an end to the coronavirus pandemic. "Jesus gives us the strength to face every trial with faith, hope and love in the certainty that the Father always hears his children who cry out to him and saves them," the pope said in a message dated April 9 and sent to Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia of Turin. Nosiglia was to lead a liturgy of prayer and contemplation before the shroud ... The prayer service was to be livestreamed along with live images of the 14-foot-by-4-foot shroud, which has a full-length photonegative image of a man, front and back, bearing signs of wounds that correspond to the Gospel accounts of the torture Jesus endured in his passion and death ... In his message to the archbishop, Pope Francis said he deeply appreciated the archbishop’s decision to have an extraordinary exposition of the shroud to "meet the requests of the faithful people of God, who are so harshly tried by the coronavirus pandemic." "I, too, join in your prayer," the pope said. "In the face of the Man of the Shroud we also see the faces of many sick brothers and sisters, especially those most alone and least cared for, but also all the victims of wars and violence, slavery and persecution." Offering his blessing to all who watch the exposition online or on television, Pope Francis said, "we live these days in intimate union with the passion of Christ so as to experience the grace and joy of the resurrection." Pope Francis' calling the Shroud an "icon of the Lord Jesus crucified, died and risen" is no accident. As I pointed out in my posts of 23Jun15 and 11Aug15:

"An `icon,' in Roman Catholic theology is merely a humanly created representation of the real thing:
"ICON ... from the Greek eikon meaning image, is a word now generally applied to paintings of sacred subjects or scenes from sacred histories" ("Icon," New Catholic Encyclopedia 2003. My emphasis)
as opposed to "relic" which is the real thing:
"RELICS The material remains of a saint or holy person after his death, as well as objects sanctified by contact with his body." ("Relics," New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003)
And Pope Francis consistently has referred to the Shroud as merely an "icon" 26Nov13, 01Mar14, 23Jun15 & 11Aug15. That is because Francis is a religious liberal, i.e. he is man-centred rather than God-centred (Mt 16:23 & Mk 8:33).

Editorial
Posts: In April I blogged only 3 new posts (latest uppermost):
"Coins over the eyes #32: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 18th; "`News and Editorial,' Shroud of Turin News, March 2020" - 15th & "Dimensions: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #11" - 8th.

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 April 2020, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,173,629:

This compares with 1,051,769 at the same time in April 2019. That is 121,860 pageviews over the year, or an average of ~334 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for April 2020 (highest uppermost) as: "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F," Jan 20, 2016 - 73; "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index G-M," Apr 2, 2016 - 45; "`If Jesus had type AB blood it would mean... he had two separate human parents!'," Sep 29, 2018- 22; "Holy Shroud to be exhibited April 19-June 24 2015," Mar 1, 2014, 21 & "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (5): Coins over eyes," May 10, 2013 - 20.

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]

Posted: 22 May 2020. Updated: 22 June 2020.