Wednesday, September 9, 2020

The Shroud is consistent with the Bible #34: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

THE SHROUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BIBLE #34
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the seventh installment of part #34, "The Shroud is consistent with the Bible" of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." See also "The Shroud of Turin: 3. The Bible and the Shroud." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: The Bible and the Shroud #33] [Next: The Shroud man is consistent with being Jesus #35]


  1. The Bible and the Shroud #33
    1. The Shroud is consistent with the Bible #34

The Shroud must be consistent with the Bible If the Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, then it must be consistent with what the Bible says about Him, and particularly about His suffering, crucifixion, death and burial:

"If the Shroud is the actual burial garment of Jesus, then it should be consistent with the New Testament texts. This condition must be satisfied before anyone can identify the cloth as Jesus' burial garment"[2].

[Right (enlarge): "Anatomy of the Shroud"[3], showing wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud man's image which match the Gospels' accounts of the beatings (Mt 26:67-68; 27:30; Lk 22:64; Jn 18:22; 19:3), scourging (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:16; Jn 19:1), crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5), crucifixion (Mt 27:35,38,44; Mk 15:24-27,32; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:16-18), death (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37,39; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30), legs not broken (Jn 19:32-33), speared in the side (Jn 19:34) of Jesus[4].]

Because, as Stevenson and Habermas' second sentence above implies, if the image on the Shroud was not consistent with what the Bible says about Jesus, and particularly about His suffering, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection, then that would be sufficient reason to believe that the Shroud image is that of another crucifixion victim[5].

The Shroud is consistent with the Bible The Shroud has wounds and bloodstains consistent with those of Jesus Christ described or implied in the Gospels[6]. There is no injury sustained by the man on the Shroud that does not correspond to the injuries to Christ described or implied in the Gospels[7]. Some of the parallels between the Gospel evidence and the Shroud evidence are summarised below in table form[8]:

Gospel evidenceVersesShroud evidence
Jesus was scourged.Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:1The body is covered with the wounds of a severe scourging.
Jesus was struck blows to the face.Mt 27:30; Mk 15:19; Lk 22:63; Jn 19:3There is a severe swelling below the right eye and other face wounds.
Jesus was crowned with thorns.Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2Bleeding from the scalp indicates that a `cap' of thorns was thrust upon the head.
Jesus was made to carry a heavy crossbeam.Jn 19:17Scourge wounds on the shoulders are blurred, as if by the chafing of a heavy burden.
Jesus' cross had to be carried for him, suggesting He fell under its weight.Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26The knees are severely damaged, as if from repeated falls.
Jesus was crucified by nails in His hands and feet.Jn 20:25-27; Col 2:14There are blood flows as from nail wounds in the wrists and at the feet.
Jesus' legs were not broken, and a spear was thrust into His side to check that He was dead.Jn 19:31-37The legs are not broken, and there is a large wound in the right side.

The Bible does not exclude the man on the Shroud being Jesus Nothing in the Bible rules out the man on the Shroud being Jesus[9]. There is nothing in the Gospels' account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus that contradicts the witness of the Shroud[10].

Shroud sceptics concede that the Shroud image matches the Gospels' description of Jesus The late Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856-1939), a leading early Roman Catholic Shroud sceptic, admitted that:

"As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head ... If this is not the impression of the Body of Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other personage since the world began could these details be verified"[11].
Modern day sceptics Steven Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell), agreed that, "the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else":
"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[12] and Stevenson and Habermas[13] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[14]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic [i.e. not "a product of human artifice"], the image is that of Jesus'"[15].
Professor Harry E. Gove (1922-2009), co-inventor of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating[16], the unofficial leader of the Shroud radiocarbon dating project[17] and an agnostic[18], noted that:
"It [the Shroud] bears the faint front and back imprint of a naked crucified man with hands folded modestly over his genitals. The image depicts all the stigmata of the crucifixion [of Jesus] described in the Bible including a large blood stain from the spear wound in the side"
Problem for the forgery theory. (See previous three: #30, #31 and #32). While the Shroud is consistent with the Bible, a medieval forger, working from the Gospels, would not have produced the image of Jesus on the Shroud. The late Anglican New Testament scholar, Bishop John A.T. Robinson (1919–83), pointed this out:
"One of the things that shook my natural predisposition to scepticism about the Turin shroud was precisely that it could not at all easily be harmonized with the New Testament account of the grave-clothes. I am not saying that it is incompatible with them but simply that no forger starting, as he inevitably would, from the details of the Gospels, and especially that of the fourth, would have created the shroud we have"[19].
The Shroud's flax is claimed to have been harvested in c. 1325 According to the 1988 radiocarbon dating, the Shroud's flax was harvested between 1260-1390[20]. The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325[21]. But see my 22Feb16 that this date was the result of a computer hacking.

The Shroud is claimed to have been painted in France in c. 1355 The c.1325 radiocarbon date seemingly confirmed 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 in c.1355 discovered that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" and moreover had obtained the confession of the artist who had painted it[22]. But see 11Jul16 that the Shroud image is not painted, 03Jul18 that Bishop de Poitiers did not discover that the Shroud was painted and 14Jan19 that de Poitiers did not have a problem with the Shroud!

A linen shroud A medieval forger working from the Gospels would have read in Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53 that Jesus' body was "wrapped in a linen shroud." So a forger would have done what Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) said that that he did, "... just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged [sold] it"[23].

To be continued in the eighth installment of this part #34 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. 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.43. [return]
3. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve ... The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.736-737. [return]
4. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.119-120. [return]
5. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.124ff. [return]
6. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.5; Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.55; Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.69-81, 78; Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.34-57, 35; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.52, 157; Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.220; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, pp.34-35, 84-85; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.229; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.8-9, 48, 64; 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.161; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.118, 239; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.43-44. [return]
7. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.170; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.4, 124; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.53; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.44; Ruffin, 1999, p.49; Antonacci, 2000, p.265; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.231. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-52; Wilson, 1986, pp.44-45. [return]
9. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.53. [return]
10. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.52; Cruz, 1984, p.54; Ruffin, 1999, p.49. [return]
11. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wilson, 1979, p.52. [return]
12. Wilson, 1979, pp.51-53. [return]
13. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.121-129. [return]
14. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
15. 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]
16. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.314. [return]
17. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.95; Antonacci, 2000, pp.192-193. [return]
18. Gove, 1996, p.14. [return]
19. Robinson, J.A.T., " The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.23; Wilson, 1979, p.61; Foley, C., 1984, "In Memoriam: John Arthur [Thomas] Robinson (1919-1983)," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 10, March, pp.34-38, 38; Tribbe, 2006, p.73. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.264; Hulse, T.G., 1997, "The Holy Shroud," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, p.28; 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.7; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.160, 301. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.7; Tribbe, 2006, p.169. [return]
22. Hynek, 1951, p.10; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.99; Wilson, 1979, pp.266-267; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.14; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.181; Wilson, 1998, p.126; Ruffin, 1999, p.64; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.14. [return]
23. Wilson, 1998, p.7; Oxley, 2010, p.87; de Wesselow, 2012, p.167. [return]

Posted: 9 September 2020. Updated: 19 September 2020.

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

The Bible and the Shroud #33: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

THE BIBLE AND THE SHROUD #33
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #33, "The Bible and the Shroud," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" This page is a sub-index to topics under the heading, "The Bible and the Shroud." Each topic will be a page containing items of evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud, under that topic heading. Each of those pages will be linked back to this sub-index and it in turn will be linked back to the Main index.

[Right (enlarge): The wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud are consistent with the Gospels' accounts of the suffering, crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ[2].]

For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." See also "The Shroud of Turin: 3. The Bible and the Shroud." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Coins over the eyes #32] [Next: The Shroud is consistent with the Bible #34]


  1. The Bible and the Shroud #33
    1. The Shroud is consistent with the Bible #34
    2. The Shroud man is consistent with being Jesus #35
    3. The Shroud man and Jesus were beaten #36
    4. The Shroud man and Jesus were scourged #37
    5. The Shroud man and Jesus were crowned with thorns #38
    6. The Shroud man and Jesus carried a cross #39
    7. The Shroud man and Jesus were stripped naked #40
    8. The Shroud man and Jesus' legs were not broken #41
    9. The Shroud man and Jesus were speared in the side #42
    10. The Shroud man and Jesus were crucified #43
    11. The Shroud man and Jesus died on a cross #44
    12. The Shroud man and Jesus were wrapped in a linen shroud #45
    13. The Shroud man and Jesus were buried in a tomb #46
    14. The Shroud man and Jesus were resurrected! #47

To be continued in part #34 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. Brooks, E.H., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., 1981, "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago, p.13. [return]

Posted: 8 September 2020. Updated: 10 September 2020.

Saturday, August 15, 2020

My reply to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki's, "Evidence snubbed by famous shroud faithful," ABC Australia, 26 August 2009

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This (started in my July 2020 Shroud of Turin News but since moved to here) is my reply to a 2009 anti-Shroud article by Australian science populariser and evident atheist/agnostic (he was "2006 Australian Skeptic of the Year"), Dr Karl Kruszelnicki. His words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

"Evidence snubbed by famous shroud faithful," Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science, ABC (Australia), Karl S. Kruszelnicki, 26 August 2009.

Believing in the authenticity of the famous shroud of Turin is one thing but what of the science? Dr Karl scours the evidence in an attempt to see the light. Kruszelnicki's [Right[2]] actual science qualification is a Bachelor of Science[3] (the same as me). He qualified as a medical doctor, but only worked briefly as one in 1986[4]. Kruszelnicki is a true believer in the "science = facts and religion = faith" false dichotomy:

"Can a scientist believe in God? Dr Karl says yes. There's no conflict between science and religion, just as there's no conflict between `wearing a red shirt and liking a curry'. `Science depends 100 per cent on facts and zero on faith,' says the science commentator and University of Sydney physicist. `Religion depends 100 per cent on faith and zero on facts. They are completely separate ways of thinking and you can carry both mindsets in the same skull'"[5].

Last time, I talked about the famous shroud of Turin, and part of its history, beginning when it first appeared around 1365. Kruszelnicki is such an extreme Shroud anti-authenticist that throughout this article he cannot bring himself to capitalise "shroud" (even when followed by "of Turin") which is just good English, the Shroud in this case being a proper noun. Kruszelnicki's "1365" is evidently a typo, because in his subsequent article on the Shroud, he states of the Shroud that "It was first reported around 1354 ..." But with the typo corrected to "1355" it is still wrong! As I pointed out recently [21Jun20 & 24Jul20a], that the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France in c. 1355 is not the same as the Shroud "first appeared around 1355." There is objective (true whether it is believed or not), historical evidence that what can only be the Shroud was in Constantinople in at least 1201! [see "1201"]. There is even a c. 1070 painting by John Skylitzes (c.1040–1101)[6], depicting the transfer of the Shroud from Edessa to

[Above (enlarge)[7]: 11th century depiction by John Skylitzes of the transfer of the Image of Edessa, behind the face image of which is the full-length Shroud [see 15Sep12], from Edessa (left) to Constantinople (right) via Byzantine general John Kourkouas (fl. 915–946) to Byzantine Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 919–944) in 944 [see "944b"]]

Constantinople in 944, as the full-length Shroud which had been folded behind the face-only Image of Edessa (see above)! That Shroud sceptics don't accept it is irrelevant!

This time I'll talk more about its authenticity. When I was studying for my science degree, we were told that as future scientists, before we wrote on a scientific topic, we should research its literature thoroughly. But it's clear that Kruszelnicki has not studied Shroud pro-authenticity literature, but has cobbled together his arguments against the Shroud from anti-authenticist websites. This is the very antithesis of science! Or as the King James Version put it, "science falsely so called" (1Tim 6:20)!

The first problem with this shroud of Turin being the true and original burial shroud of Jesus Christ, the son of God, is simple: the problem is the other 40 or so burial shrouds of Jesus Christ, each claiming to be the true and original one. This is totally false! See my 15June12 that there are at least 130 copies of the Shroud and most (if not all) of them state on them (as the copy

[Above (enlarge)[8]: The frontal head and upper body area of a copy of the Turin Shroud discovered in 1999 in a box in the monasterial church of Broumov, Czechia (formerly Czechoslovakia). The linen cloth is 4.71 m x 1.2 m, about the same size as the Shroud. Accompanying it was a letter of authenticity from the then Archbishop of Turin, dated 4 May 1651. Unlike the Shroud original, but like all other copies of the Shroud, it has no photographic negative or three-dimensional properties, and the image shows brush strokes and paint particles. Also note the above Latin inscription "EXTRACTVM AB ORIGINALI" (derived from the original)[9]]

above does) that they are copies of the one and only original Shroud. So it is not "the faithful" (Kruszelnicki's patronising term for all Shroud pro-authenticists) but Kruszelnicki and his anti-authenticists ilk who are snubbing the evidence! Moreover, either Kruszelnicki is ignorant that none of these Shroud copies "claim... to be the true and original one," which would be scientific incompetence, or Kruszelnicki knows that at least some of these Shroud copies state on them that they are copies of the original Shroud, but is keeping it from his readers, which would be scientific dishonesty!

Secondly, surely the transference of the image of Christ onto his burial sheet must have counted as a miracle? How come the evangelists, who wrote about many miracles, didn't think this event was worthy of mention? Kruszelnicki begs the question that the reason the evangelists (Gospel writers) did not mention Jesus' image being on the Shroud was because it was not "worthy of mention". But there are several good reasons why the Gospel writers did not mention that Jesus' image was imprinted on the Shroud, which to save time I will list `off the top of my head' with minimal references: ■ The Gospels do not mention the Shroud at all after Jesus' resurrection. The only three Gospel references to Jesus' "linen shroud" (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) occur while Jesus is hanging dead on the cross. ■ Possession of Jesus' burial shroud after He had died in it would have been an embarrassment to the earliest Christians who were Jewish because: a) anything that had touched a dead body was ceremonially unclean in the Law of Moses (Num 19:11-22), and b) an image of Jesus would have been considered idolatrous (Ex 20:4; Dt 5:8) by their Jewish opponents[10]. ■ If the earliest Christians had proclaimed they possessed Jesus' burial shroud, the Jewish religious leaders would: a) regard it as proof of their claim that the disciples had stolen Jesus' dead body (Mat 28:11-15), and b) demand they hand it over, under threat of torture and death. And finally: ■ the image may have developed slowly as it aged faster than the rest of the Shroud and so may not have been visible when the Gospels were being written in the first century AD (the Latent Image Theory)[11].

Thirdly, the shroud first came to notice in the 14th century. We know that "the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed". This is a quote from an article in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia written by extreme anti-authenticist Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939), an English Roman Catholic priest[12]. Thurston provided no reference backing up his assertion and in the 1.7 gigabytes of Shroud literature on my system I cannot find anything with "vivid" and "freshly shed" together. So I assume that Thurston just made it up! If Kruszelnicki didn't know that Thurston was an extreme anti-authenticist, then again he would be scientifically incompetent. Or if Kruszelnicki did know, but concealed it from his readers, he would be scientifically dishonest, on this matter. Moreover, below is a 16th century depiction of the Shroud in a prayer book, presumably owned by Queen Claude of France (1499–1524)[13].

[Above (enlarge)[14]: A mid-16th century depiction of the Shroud in its pre-1532 fire state.]

As can be seen above, although the bishops' clothing is vivid and bright, the image on the Shroud is faint and the blood is dull brown, as it is today, 5 centuries later!

But today the image on the shroud is so faded as to be almost invisible. How could the image keep its brightness for 13 centuries, and then lose it in another five centuries? On the other hand, this is exactly what we would expect to find if it were a 14th century forgery. See above that Kruszelnicki's premise is wrong. There is no evidence that five centuries ago the Shroud's image was vivid and the blood looked fresh, as the extreme anti-authenticist, Thurston, claimed. And there is evidence (see above) that five centuries ago the Shroud's image was faint and the blood brown, as it is today!

Fourthly, the supposed blood on the shroud. There are reddish stains on the wrists, feet and left side of chest of the image. The "reddish stain... on the ... left side of chest of the image" is actually on the man's right side (being laterally inverted like the inside of a plaster cast) and exactly matches that of a Roman lance [see 02Dec13]!

[Left (enlarge): Major bloodstains on the Shroud[15].

Chemicals such as iron, proteins and porphyrins are found in blood. They are also found in these stains. Krusze-lnicki fails to inform his readers, what he surely must know - at least the first one, that the Shroud's "reddish stains": ■ have the blood group AB[16]; contain: ■ haemo-globin[17], ■ albumin[18], ■ bilirubin[19], ■ human immunoglobulins[20], and ■ human male DNA[21]; ■ exhibit blood clot retraction serum halos[22]; and ■ are correct for arterial and venous bloodflows (discovered in 1628!)[23].

Surely this must mean that the stains are the blood of Christ? Nope! For one thing, only fresh blood is red. After a short time, it darkens to deep brown or black. As Kruszelnicki must know, but fails to tell his readers, Shroud blood contains the bile pigment, bilirubin[24] in extraordinarily high amounts[25]. And in cases of severe trauma[26], such as the scourging and crucifixion that Jesus suffered[27], red blood cells are broken and their haemoglobin is converted by the liver into bilirubin[28]. The bilirubin which is yellow-orange colour then mixes with albumin which is also a yellowish orange color, and methemoglobin which is orangey-brown and becomes blood with a red color[29].

For another thing, iron, proteins and porphyrins are indeed found in blood, but they are also found in many red paints and pigments. Kruszelnicki dishonestly set up a strawman and then refuted that:

"A straw man ... is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted ... The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition ... and the subsequent refutation of that false argument... instead of the opponent's proposition" (my emphasis)[30].
He dishonestly selected those components of blood which are also found in non-blood materials such as "paints and pigments." And Kruszelnicki dishonestly ignored those components which are unique to blood and which are also found in the bloodstains on the Shroud (see above and below). In this Kruszelnicki is both "deceiving and being deceived" (2Tim 3:13)!

Walter McCrone is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and has testified in court on forensic cases. He analysed the so-called 'blood' on the shroud, and found that it was red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. Walter McCrone (1916-2002)" did not "analyse" the blood on the Shroud. He looked through a light microscope at some of STURP's sticky tapes of Shroud bloodstains and dogmatically ignored the actual chemical and physical analysis of STURP scientists:

"In March 1979 the STURP team held its first post-examination meeting in Santa Barbara, California. The first paper was presented by Roger Morris, a physicist from the Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories. He had carried out X-ray fluorescence tests on the Shroud and was able to show from these the presence of iron spread uniformly over the Shroud except in the blood areas, where it was higher than elsewhere. This would be expected in the event of real bloodstains, due to the iron atoms in blood. There was no measurable amount of inorganic substances. A further presentation by Ray Rogers suggested that there were no organic and biological substances present either. When it was Dr McCrone's turn to present his results he stated that the body images had been made by red iron oxide earth pigments. In his opinion the iron oxide had been applied by a finger and the image was therefore a finger painting. He also stated that the blood, too, was made of an iron oxide paint. This flew in the face of the evidence gathered by scientists in the team that had traveled to Turin and the observations made by them. The reaction of Dr Sam Pellicori, an optical physicist from Santa Barbara Research Centre, who had measured the spectrum of iron oxide on numerous occasions, was that the colour from the image was totally wrong for what Dr McCrone was claiming. However, in the face of questions, Dr McCrone insisted that the X-ray fluorescence studies must be wrong and that purely by microscopic examination, without any specific chemical tests for iron oxide, he could confirm the Shroud as being a painting" (my emphasis)[31].
Moreover, there is a fatal flaw in McCrone's and Kruszelnicki's claim that the "reddish stains" on the Shroud are "red ochre and vermilion." First, red ochre is a form of iron oxide, Fe2O3 and as I pointed out in a previous post,
"... there was no difference in iron content between image and non-image areas, proving that the image was not the result of the iron ... [and] ... the tiny amount of iron on the Shroud was too faint to be visible to the naked eye[24Jul20b]."
Second, vermilion, doesn't stay red when exposed to the air (as the Shroud has been for at least six centuries), but turns black:
"Alternatively, if the red color of the blood is due to the presence of vermilion, i.e., mercuric oxide, light exposure will blacken the image, as has been evidenced in many older paintings"[32].

"Vermilion has one important defect: it is liable to darken, or develop a purplish-gray surface sheen. Cennino Cennini [c. 1360–1427] wrote, `Bear in mind ... that it is not in its character to be exposed to air but it is more resistant on panel than on walls since, when it is used and laid on a wall, over a period of time, standing in the air, it turns black'"[33].

Finally, the element sodium is very abundant in blood. But there's no sodium in the stains on the shroud. Not only is this false, it is unscientific! It is unscientific because science does not throw out many known facts because one fact may as yet be unknown. And Prof. Alan D. Adler (1931-2000), a blood chemist, subjected STURP's sticky tapes that had been pressed onto the Shroud in October 1978 to many chemical and physical tests, and he found that "the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!":

"We began our presentation. One by one, we gave our short talks with slides, graphs, spectra, and tried to make them intelligible to the nonscientist ... Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone's claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ocher and vermilion. Adler flashed on the screen the following table from our paper.
Table 5 Tests confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud 1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence 2. Indicative reflection spectra 3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra 4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence 5. Positive hemochromogen tests 6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests 7. Positive detection of bile pigments 8. Positive demonstration of protein 9. Positive indication of albumin 10. Protease tests, leaving no residue 11. Positive immunological test for human albumin 12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls 13. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks.
Then, after explaining each item briefly, Al said, `That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!'" (emphasis original)[34].
It is false because Adler and Heller deliberately chose not to test whether there was sodium (amongst most other elements) in the evident blood on STURP's sticky tapes:
"Only about ninety elements occur naturally on earth ... Testing for all of them would have been farcical ... We needed to look for elements that, had they been present in small amounts, might have been missed by X-ray fluorescence or X-radiography, and yet were present in sufficient amounts to be seen as color by the human eye. We finally agreed that testing for the following elements would be more than adequate: aluminum, arsenic, antimony, cadmium, calcium, cobalt, chromium, iron, nickel, mercury, manganese, lead, palladium, tin, zinc, and silver"[35].
And McCrone did find Na (sodium) in the evident blood on STURP's sticky tapes:
"In this regard it is interesting to note that the elements other than Hg detected by McCrone's analysis, viz., Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Cl, K, Ca, Fe and Cu[36], are in fact all found in whole blood"[37].

Fifthly, the weave of the linen. The linen is a herringbone twill weave. This type of weave was not known at the time of Jesus Christ in the Middle East. But it was common in medieval Europe, when the shroud first appeared. This is 180 degrees wrong! (Where does Kruszelnicki get his factoids, or does he just make them up?) The Shroud's complex 3:1 herringbone twill weave is known from antiquity, but only in silk[38] and wool[39], not linen (other than the Shroud). But examples of simpler herringbone woven linen from antiquity do exist[40]. So the same process which produced 3:1 herringbone twill woven silk and wool in antiquity could have been used to produce linen with the same weave[41] but no examples in linen have survived from that period (except the Shroud)[42].

See above on Kruszelnicki's false claim that the Shroud first appeared in medieval Europe. As for Kruszelnicki's claim that herringbone twill weave was common in medieval Europe, there is in fact only one surviving example of 3:1 herringbone twill linen (other than the Shroud), a fourteenth century, block-painted linen fragment with a

[Above (enlarge): The only known example of a herringbone twill weave in linen from the mediaeval (or any) period, apart from the Shroud. The grey part is a reconstruction. Victoria and Albert Museum ref. no. 8615-1863[43].]

3:1 chevron twill weave, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[44]. And when in 1988 the then British Museum's Dr. Michael Tite needed 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, he was unable to find one[45]!

Sixthly, the absence of brushstrokes on the shroud. It is true to say that there are no signs of brushstrokes on the shroud. Does this prove that the image appeared there only by a miracle? Nope, there are many ways to get an image without brushstroke. This is another strawman by Kruszelnicki (see above). The issue is directionality[46], i.e. "up and down, side to side, etc"[47] (see 29Oct16), of which brushstrokes is but one example[48]. Painting with a spray gun is directional, even though it is not done with strokes of a paint brush[49]. Even pointillism, the "technique of painting in which small, distinct dots of color are applied in patterns to form an image"[50], each dot betrays a slight directional movement[51]. But the Shroud image has no directionality at all[52]! The only apparent exception is the scourge marks, which are directional[53], but these are bloodstains, which are not part of the image. In 1976 STURP's Don Lynn (1932-2000) and Jean Lorre (-2005), working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, used a microdensitometer, which measures variation in image density[54], to scan photos of the Shroud negative[55], four million points for each one[56]. The scanned data in 256 discrete levels of intensity[57] was then processed through a computer[58]. These density studies revealed that the Shroud body

[Right (enlarge)[59]: The computer TV screen showing that the Shroud image's microdensit-ometer data was random and therefore not directional[60]. The white cross in the centre of the screen represents the warp and weft of the weave[61].]

image was non-directional[62] and in particular there was no sign of brush strokes)[63]. The only directional feature found in the Shroud image (apart from the scourge mark bloodstains-see above) was the weave of the cloth underneath[64]. This absence of directionality in the Shroud image is significant because the microdensitometer would have revealed the presence of brush strokes if the image had been painted[65]. Thus the microdensitometer testing further proved that the Shroud image was not painted[66]. [see 11Jul16].

One technique called 'rubbing' has been used to give a result remarkably similar to the image on the shroud. This technique, which is called 'brass rubbing', involves laying a sheet of paper on top of a brass image (usually a face or a full human figure) and then carefully rubbing the paper with graphite, chalk or soft wax. And yes, rubbing automatically gives a negative image (as found on the shroud of Turin). ■ Kruszelnicki here abandons painting as an explanation of the Shroud's image! But as McCrone, who Kruszelnicki cites above, 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"[67].
■ Rubbing is inherently directional[68]. ■ Scientific examinations of the Shroud (e.g. by STURP) have shown that there are no powdered particles or foreign materials added to the body-image fibrils which could account for the coloring and visibility of the image[69]. ■ Magnified photographs of the body image threads do not reveal any applied particles or staining substance coating the image fibrils[70]. ■ Powder or pigment rubbing does not produce a true three-dimensional image[71] [see 05Feb17], contrary to what Kruszelnicki claims. ■ Powder or pigment rubbing is not extremely superficial as the Shroud image is [see 11Nov16] [72]. ■ There is no rubbing from the entire medieval period that is even remotely comparable to the Shroud image[73].

And if you want to use paint, there are lots of ways to apply paint without leaving brushstrokes. First, Kruszelnicki can't have it both ways. He cannot claim that the Shroud image is both a rubbing and a painting! The evidence for one is evidence against the other! Second, this shows why Kruszelnicki set up his second strawman above, claiming that the issue was "brushstrokes" when really it is directionality. There may be "lots of ways to apply paint without leaving brushstrokes" but there is no way to apply paint without leaving evidence of directionality (see above)!

In 1994, Doctors Craig and Bresee wrote in the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology of their experiments with the carbon dust drawing technique. This technique was known in medieval times, and has long been used by medical illustrators. It involves gently brushing a dry powder (charcoal or ground carbon) onto a surface with a soft artist's paintbrush, with many short delicate strokes, each from a different angle. Each brushstroke makes hardly any difference, but many strokes do. They were able to reproduce many of the features of the image on the shroud of Turin, including a complete lack of brushstrokes. Randall Bresee is a Textiles Science professor at the University of Tennessee[74] and Emily Craig is a forensic anthropologist, formerly at the University of Tennessee[75]. In 1992 Craig attended a lecture by Bresee in which he encouraged his audience to come up with ideas of how a mediaeval artist might have produced the Shroud image[76]. As a medical illustrator specializing in reconstructing faces from skeletal remains[77], Craig developed what they called in their 1994 journal article, "Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin"[78], a "dust transfer" technique[79]. This involved Craig sketching on white drawing paper a

[Above (enlarge)[80]: Top left: The dry powder sketch on paper that was the starting point Emily Craig's `replication' of the Shroud face. Top right: The image created on cloth when the original powder drawing on paper is burnished onto this with a spoon. Bottom left: A negative photograph of Craig's top right Shroud face `replication'. Bottom right: A negative photo of the Shroud face. As can be seen, the negative of Craig's `replication' of the Shroud face lacks the photographic realism (and the bloodstains) of the Shroud negative[81].

" ... to me their face on the cloth looks just what it is, a rather amateurishly hand-painted face that has been faintly transferred to a piece of linen, thereby offering a superficial resemblance to the Shroud, but that is all" (Ian Wilson)[82]]

charcoal portrait of a fellow graduate student's face, working with a dry brush to indicate in shades of dark those areas that she would normally have left light, and vice versa[83]. Then, taking a piece of cloth the same size as the paper sketch, Craig laid the sketch face down on the cloth and rubbed the back of the sketch with a wooden spoon in circles to transfer a left-to-right reversed imprint of the image onto the cloth[84]. This lost all evidence of Craig's original brush-strokes[85]. The cloth was then heated[86]. Craig then photographed the imprint to see what it would look like in negative and in her opinion it was a "perfect' parallel to the Shroud's hidden 'photograph'[87]! She went on to repeat the procedure using iron oxide instead of charcoal[88].

Problems with Craig and Bresee's Shroud `replication' include: ■ Craig and Bresee started their Shroud `replication' from a photo of the Shroud face itself, but how did the hypothetical forger get the original Shroud face[89]? ■ There is no evidence on the Shroud of the dry powder which is Craig and Bresee's image[90]. ■ Craig's circular spoon burnishing would still be directional[91]. Craig and Bresee's image is visible within a short distance, but the Shroud image cannot be seen within six to ten feet (2-3 metres) [see 08Mar16][92]. ■ Being face only Craig and Bresee's Shroud `replication' avoids all the complexities of creating the Shroud's double full-length image[93]. For starters their method could not depict the intricate details found on each of the 100-120 scourge marks, many of which are invisible to the naked eye[94]. ■ It would be impossible to evenly heat a 14 foot (4 metre) length of linen with medieval instruments[95]. ■ It exhibits modelling and contour faults which betray the hand of a human illustrator[96]. ■ Its colour is too red[97]. ■ Craig and Bresee's `replication' does not include the Shroudman's bloodstains (see above), presumably because the Shroud's bloodstains were on the cloth before the body imprint [see 05Nov17][98]. ■ Nor do they explain the chemical changes in the cellulose of the body image[99]. ■ Craig and Bresee claim that their technique had historical support from the mediaeval Italian artist Cennino Cennini (c. 1360–1427), who in his Il Libro dell'Arte, wrote of "instruction for grinding pigment into powder, brushing charcoal with feathers and burning an image onto cloth"[100]. But Cennini's book contains nothing about the "dust transfer" method that Craig and Bresee claim was used to create the Shroud image[101]. Craig and Bresee's initial drawing, to accurately depict all the qualities of the Shroud, would require a degree of draftsmanship and knowledge that didn't exist in the Middle Ages[102]. Craig and Bresee claim that the drawings of animals during prehistoric times in the caves at Lascaux, France were created with a dust drawing technique, but they were drawn with burnt sticks and moreover they were not negative images[103] - the concept of negativity did not exist until the early 19th century [see 22Dec16]! Craig and Bresee admit, "it is impossible to satisfy simultaneously all observations reported for the Turin image"[104]! Their excuse, "because many reported observations conflict"[105] is not only lame - it is deluded! Craig and Bresee "concluded that a 13th or 14th century artist could have created the image on the cloth known as the shroud of Turin"[106], but to do that they would have needed to address each one of those major observations [see 26Dec15] and show how their "dust transfer" method could have explained them. Because they didn't (or rather couldn't), as Wilson noted, Craig and Bresee's "explanation for the Shroud's imprint, it is hardly convincing and has failed to attract any wide support"[107]!

Seventhly, the weird 3D information of the image on the shroud. In 1977, Donald Lynne and Jean Lorre announced that the image on the shroud had a supposedly unique mathematical property. It is "Lynn" not "Lynne." And while Lynn and Lorre provided the microdensitometer data (see above) it was STURP's John P. Jackson and William R. Ercoline who found that data could be expressed mathematically as, "a single global mapping function":

"But as Dr. Jackson demonstrated,the Shroud image is three-dimensionally `consistent with a body shape covered with a naturally draping cloth and which can be derived from a single, global mapping function relating image shading with distance between these two surfaces"[108] (see below).

[Above enlarge: "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape"[109].

"... the frontal image on the Shroud of Turin is shown to be consistent with a naturally draping cloth in the sense that image shading can be derived from a single global mapping function of distance between these two surfaces..."[110].

If you assume that the darkest parts of the image are the ones closest to the viewer, and the lightest parts the ones furthest away, then you can reconstruct a 3D image of the face. This was absolutely amazing, if it was unique to the shroud of Turin. But it was not. In fact, it was incredibly easy to duplicate. In 1994, Doctors Craig and Bresee used the carbon dust drawing technique to make their own image on a shroud. And yes, it had the same 3D information. This is misleading. Starting with a negative photo of the Shroud face before them, Craig and Bresee carefully added carbon dust to their `replication' until it had the same three-dimensional structure as the Shroud face:

"To duplicate the characteristics of the image on the Turin cloth, a faint negative image had to be created in a way that revealed no brush strokes and accurately represented detailed three-dimensional structure. We dipped the tip of a clean, dry, soft artist's paintbrush into dry dust, gently tapped the brush to remove excess dust, and then drew the brush across a drawing surface in short, delicate strokes. The amount of dust applied with individual brush strokes was nearly indiscernible to the naked eye, but the brush strokes were repeated again and again from slightly different angles to build up dust in areas corresponding to the greatest numbers of brush strokes"[111].
But this does not mean that a medieval forger would have built up the Shroud's three-dimensionality in this way: ■ Accurate three-dimensional perspective in art was not discovered until the early fifteenth century[112]. ■ Again, Craig and Bresee's `replication' is of the Shroud face only (see above). Until they replicate the entire double full length image of the Shroud (see above), they (and Kruszelnicki) cannot truthfully claim that "a 13th or 14th century artist could have created the image on the cloth known as the shroud of Turin" (see above). ■ Craig and Bresee's Shroud `replication' does not include the Shroudman's bloodstains (see above). They claim that, "With this drawing technique, one can also incorporate images of wounds, as well as blood evidence into the illustration"[113]. But until they actually do "incorporate ... blood" into their `replication' they cannot truthfully claim that they can. And because the blood was on the Shroud before the image (see above), they would have to: 1) apply fresh clotted human blood in the correct locations to the cloth; 2) add the carbon dust to their drawing around where the blood is on the cloth; 3) press the dusted drawing to the cloth, 4) without smearing the blood, and then 5) heat both without cooking the blood! But as the professional artist and physicist Isabel Piczek (1927-2016) pointed out, "it would be impossible":
"Also, it is known that the blood transferred itself to the Shroud before the image did and there is therefore no image underneath the blood. How would the dust transfer technique of Craig and Bresee reproduce that? We must admit, it would be impossible"[114]

So next time, I'll finish this story bringing a little more science to bear on the famous shroud of Turin. I haven't read Kruszelnicki's other articles on the Shroud and nor do I intend to waste any more of my time doing so. If they are anything like this false and unscientific article, Kruszelnicki should retract it and them! Kruszelnicki is abusing science to push his anti-Christian personal prejudice. He is yet another Shroud sceptic example of `the blind leading the blind' (Mt 15:14; Lk 6:39):

[Above (enlarge)[115]: "The Blind Leading the Blind," 1568, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c.1525-1569).]

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:Karl Kruszelnicki Usyd.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 21 July 2018. [return]
3. "Karl Kruszelnicki: Education," Wikipedia, 12 July 2020. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. "A leap of faith with science and God," The [Adelaide] Advertiser, Clare Peddie, March 2, 2012. [return]
6. "John Skylitzes," Wikipedia, 6 May 2020. [return]
7. "File:Surrender of the Mandylion to the Byzantines.jpg," in "Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 131a, Madrid National Library, Wikimedia Commons, 20 December 2012. [return]
8. "Broumovo vienuolynas," Mytrips.It, 1 September, 2011. [return]
9. Bazant-Hegemark, L., 1999, "Report on the Czechia Shroud Copy, Shroud.com. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.107. [return]
11. Morgan, R.H., 1981, "What the scientists told me: Interview with Sam Pellicori," No. 9, Shroud News, 18th September, pp.3-7, 7; 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, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, pp.3-49, 24, 33, 36; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.19; Wilson, I., 1987, "A New Theory of the Shroud's Image Formation - by Oswald Scheuermann," BSTS Newsletter, No. 16, May, pp.8-9; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.221-222; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.216. [return]
12. Thurston, H., 1912, "The Holy Shroud (of Turin)," The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent, 2020. [return]
13. Donandoni, E., 2016, "5 minutes with ... The earliest painted representation of the Turin Shroud," Christie's, 7 June. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Major bloodstains overlay.," Sindonology.org. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.96; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.210; Baima-Bollone, P. & Zaca, S., 1998, "The Shroud Under the Microscope: Forensic Examination," Neame, A., transl., St Pauls: London, pp.22-23; Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp.38-39; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.67; 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.89; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.28; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.76; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.49; Oxley, 2010, p.8. [return]
17. Wilson, 1998, p.89; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.28; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.49; Oxley, 2010, p.8. [return]
18. Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.10-27, 21. [return]
19. Antonacci, 2000, p.28; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.76. [return]
20. Iannone, 1998, p.66; Antonacci, 2000, p.28. [return]
21. Iannone, 1998, pp.67-68; Antonacci, 2000, p.28; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.77. [return]
22. Iannone, 1998, p.66; Antonacci, 2000, pp.27-28. [return]
23. Rodante, S., 1981, "The Coronation of Thorns in the Light of the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 1, December, pp.4-24; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.20; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 26; Iannone, 1998, pp.66-67; Wilson, 1998, pp.33-34; Antonacci, 2000, pp.25-26; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, pp.57-58; 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.99. [return]
24. Antonacci, 2000, p.29; Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.34-57, 39. [return]
25. Adler, A.D., 1986, "The Origin and Nature of Blood on the Turin Shroud," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.59-66, 61; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.105. [return]
26. Adler, 1986, p.61; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138, 129; Adler, 2000c, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.29; Guerrera, 2001, p.64; de Wesselow, 2012, p.105. [return]
27. Adler, 1986, p.61; Adler, 2000b, p.135; Adler, 2000c, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.29. [return]
28. Adler, 1986, p.61; Adler, 2000c, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.29; de Wesselow, 2012, p.105. [return]
29. Adler, 1986, p.61; Adler, 2000c, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.29; de Wesselow, 2012, p.105. [return]
30. "Straw man," Wikipedia, 9 August 2020. [return]
31. Oxley, 2010, pp.213-214. [return].
32. Adler, A.D. & Schwalbe, L.A., 1993, "Conservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.73-80, 75 (footnotes omitted). [return]
33. "Vermilion: Chemistry and manufacture," Wikipedia, 27 June 2020 (footnotes omitted). [return]
34. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.215-216. [return]
35. Heller, 1983, pp.188-189. [return]
36. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.136. [return]
37. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.48. [return]
38. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.74; Antonacci, 2000, pp.98-99; de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
39. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
40. Tyrer, J., 1983, "Looking at the Turin Shroud as a Textile," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 6, March, pp.35-45. [return]
41. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.74; Antonacci, 2000, p.99; de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
42. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.12. [return]
43. Extract from, "Weaving, block printing: Techniques: Facets: V&A Spelunker by Good, Form & Spectacle" (no longer online) [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, pp.69-70. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.68; Wilson, 2010, p.75. [return]
46. Borkan, 1995, p.40. [return]
47. Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
48. Heller, 1983, p.150; Drews, 1984, p.16. [return]
49. Habermas, G.R., "Discussion: Antony G.N. Flew, Gary R. Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.120. [return]
50. "Pointillism," Wikipedia, 21 August 2020. [return]
51. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.26. [return]
52. Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
53. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 287; Borkan, 1995, p.25. [return]
54. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, 237; Antonacci, 2000, p.37; Oxley, 2010, p.204. [return]
55. Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
56. Heller, 1983, p.137. [return]
57. Culliton, 1978, p.237. [return]
58. Antonacci, 2000, p.37. [return]
59. Antonacci, M., 2016, "Test The Shroud: At the Atomic and Molecular Levels," Forefront Publishing Company: Brentwood TN, p.7. [return]
60. Antonacci, 2016, p.7. [return]
61. Ibid. [return]
62. Heller, 1983, p.137; Meacham, 1983, p.287; Antonacci, 2000, p.37; de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
63. de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
64. Antonacci, 2000, p.38. [return]
65. Ibid. [return]
66. Antonacci, 2000, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.136. [return]
67. McCrone, 1999, p.122. [return]
68. Borkan, 1995, p.22. [return]
69. Case, 1996, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.73; Tribbe, 2006, p.153. [return]
70. Antonacci, 2000, p.73. [return]
71. Antonacci, 2000, p.73; Guerrera, 2001, p.79. [return]
72. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.31; Antonacci, 2000, p.74; Guerrera, 2001, p.77; Oxley, 2010, p.252. [return]
73. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.31-32; Guerrera, 2001, p.78. [return]
74.Wilson, 1998, p.202; Antonacci, 2000, p.76. [return]
75.Wilson, 1998, p.202; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, pp.121-122; Wilson, 2010, p.26. [return]
76. Wilson, 1998, p.202; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
77. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
78. Wilson, 1998, p.202. [return]
79. Craig, E.A. & Bresee, R.R., 1994, "Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, January-February, pp.59-67; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122; Wilson, 2010, p.26. [return]
80. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, pp.122-123. [return]
81. Wilson, 1998, p.203; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, pp.122-123. [return]
82. Wilson, 1998, p.203. [return]
83. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122; Wilson, 2010, p.26. [return]
84. Antonacci, 2000, p.77; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
85. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
86. Wilson, 1998, p.202; Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
87. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
88. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
89. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.103-112, 107. [return]
90. Adler, 1999, p.107; Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
91. Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
92. Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
93. Piczek, I., 1994, "A Response to the Craig-Bresee Theory," Shroud News, No. 83, June, pp.15-18, 16; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
94. Antonacci, 2000, p.77. [return]
95. Piczek, 1994, p.16. [return]
96. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
97. Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
98. Piczek, 1994, p.17; Adler, 1999, p.107; Wilson. & Schwortz, 2000, p.122. [return]
99. Adler, 1999, p.107. [return]
100. Craig & Bresee, 1994; Wilson, 1998, p.202. [return
101. Piczek, 1994, p.16; Wilson, 1998, pp.202-203. [return]
102. Piczek, 1994, p.16. [return]
103. Craig & Bresee, 1994; Piczek, 1994, p.16. [return]
104. Craig & Bresee, 1994; Borkan, 1995, p.44; 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.137. [return]
105. Craig & Bresee, 1994. [return]
106. Craig & Bresee, 1994. [return]
107. Wilson, 2010, p.26. [return]
108. Jackson, J.P. & Ercoline, W.R., 1982, "The Three-Dimensional Characteristics of the Shroud Image," IEEE 11982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October, pp.559-575, 575, in Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.32-33. [return]
109. Jackson, et. al, 1984, "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape," Applied Optics, Vol. 23, No. 14, pp. 2244-2270. [return]
110. Wilson, I., 1985, "Some Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 9, January. [return]
111. Craig & Bresee, 1994. [return]
112. "Perspective (graphical): Renaissance: mathematical basis," Wikipedia, 12 August 2020. [return]
113. Craig & Bresee, 1994. [return]
114. Piczek, 1994, p.17. [return]
115. "File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1568) The Blind Leading the Blind.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 1 July 2020. [return]

Posted: 15 August 2020. Updated: 18 September 2020.

Saturday, August 8, 2020

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

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

[Previous: June 2020] [Next: August 2020]

This is the July 2020 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. As in June, there were no news articles about the Shroud in July worth mentioning. So in their place I will again list under news, an old Shroud-related article. This time it is a 2009 anti-Shroud article by Australian science populariser and evident atheist/agnostic (he was Australian Skeptics' 2006 "Australian Skeptic Of The Year"), Dr Karl Kruszelnicki.


News:
"Evidence snubbed by famous shroud faithful," Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science, ABC (Australia), Karl S. Kruszelnicki, 26 August 2009.

Because of its growing length, I have decided to move my response to this article to a separate next post, "My reply to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki's, `Evidence snubbed by famous shroud faithful,' ABC Australia, 26 August 2009."

[Right: "Part of the Turin shroud [sic] as shown in this August 1978 photograph (Source: Reuters)" (article)]

Editorial
Posts: In July I blogged 7 new posts (latest uppermost):
"Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Seventeenth century," - 26th; "`News and Editorial,' Shroud of Turin News, June 2020" - 24th; "Central dilemma of the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #18," - 18th; "Was radiocarbon dated 1260-1390: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #17," - 14th; "Man has wounds matching those of Jesus: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #16," - 12th; "Bears image of a naked man: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #15," - 6th; "Has been in Turin since 1578: The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! #14," - 5th.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 July 2020, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,215,907:

This compares with 1,085,419 at the same time in July 2019. That is 130,488 pageviews over the year, or an average of ~357 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for July 2020 (highest uppermost) as: "Date index 2020: The Shroud of Turin blog," Feb 14, 2020 - 1113; "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F," Jan 20, 2016 - 339; "`The Turin Shroud is a fake ... and it's one of 40': Antonio Lombatti," Jun 15, 2012 - 144; "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes," Mar 6, 2013 - 119 & "`Ian Wilson's Turin Shroud theories are the worst kind of junk history'," Apr 17, 2010 - 119.

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: 8 August 2020. Updated: 16 August 2020.

Sunday, July 26, 2020

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Seventeenth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #22, "Seventeenth century" 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: 1600."

[Index #1] [Previous: 16th century (2) #21] [Next: 18th century #23]


17th century (1601-1700).

1602 December 11: A surprise attack by forces under the command of Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy (r. 1580-1630), and his brother-in-law, Philip III of Spain (r. 1598–1621), is repelled by the citizens of Geneva[2].

1603 Establishment on August 17 by Federico Cesi (1585–1630) of what was to become in 1847 and 1936 the Pontifical Academy of Sciences[3].

1604a The Shroud begins to be kept rolled around a velvet-covered staff in a new silver-gilt wood casket, four feet long by one foot wide, which would remain the Shroud's container until 1998[4].

1604b May 4: Showing of the Shroud in the presence of Duke Charles Emmanuel I and his court[5].

1605 March 25: Church of the Most Holy Shroud is dedicated in Rome[6].

1606a February 14: Private showing of the Shroud to Silvestro da Assisi-Bini, father general of the Capuchin order, an offshoot of the Franciscans[7].

1606b May 9: Public showing of the Shroud before a crowd which included 40,000 visitors[8].

1607a: Account for four columns in black marble being supplied by a stone cutter in conformity with the design of the Chapel of the Holy Shroud in Turin[9].

1608: September 14. The thirtieth anniversary of the Shroud's arrival in Turin in 1578 [see "1578b"]. A print issued to mark the occasion is

[Above (enlarge)[10]: Print in the British Museum depicting the 1608 exposition of the Shroud in Turin. Unusually eleven bishops are depicted holding the Shroud[11].]

preserved in London's British Museum[12].

1613 May 4. Exposition of the Shroud at which St Francis de Sales (1567-1622), as bishop of Geneva, is one of the bishops who holds the cloth up before the populace[13]. An engraving by Antonio Tempesta (1555–1630) depicted this exposition and their immense popularity[14].

[Above (enlarge): "Antonio Tempesta (1555-1630), View of the Piazza del Castello, Turin, during the ostension of the Holy Shroud, 1613"[15].]

1616-17: Six official faithful "tone for tone, blotch for blotch" copies of the Veronica in St Peter's, Rome (which in turn was a copy of the Image of Edessa/Shroud) were commissioned by Pope Paul V (r. 1605-1621) to be painted by an amateur artist who was also a canon of St Peter's, Pietro Strozzi[16]. And at least three of Strozzi's copies have survived: "The Holy Face of Vienna," "The Holy Face of San Silvestro" and "The Holy Face of Genoa" [Right (enlarge)[17]] (see 27Jul17)[18].

1620a: The Shroud is shown in the Turin Castle Piazza to mark the marriage of Victor Amadeus I (1587-1637) to Christine of France (1606–63)[19].

1620b: A missal with a scene of Jesus being laid in the Shroud is made, preserved today in the Royal Library of Turin, is thought to derive from the workshop of Girolamo [sic] della Rovere[20]. This presumably is it:

[Left (enlarge)[21]: "Descent from the Cross with the Holy Shroud," by Giovanni Battista della Rovere (1561-1627).]

1624: Exposition of the Shroud at which Maria Maddalena, Grand Duchess of Austria (1589-1631), asks for a copy of the Shroud to be made for herself[22]. She later gives the copy, which is frontal only, to the Dominican nuns of Rome, who 300 years later, give it to the Dominican nuns of the convent of Our Lady of the Rosary, in Summit, New Jersey, USA[23].

1630: On July 26 Duke Charles Emmanuel I dies and is succeeded by his eldest surviving son, Duke Victor Amadeus I (r. 1630-37)[24].

1633 June 16: Public showing of the Shroud in the Castle Piazza, Turin[25].

1635 May 4: Public showing of the Shroud in the Castle Piazza, Turin[26].

1637: On 7 October Duke Victor Amadeus I dies and is succeeded by his eldest son, 5 year-old Francis Hyacinth (1632–38)[27]. His mother, the widowed Duchess Christine, ruled Savoy as his Regent[28].

1638a Private showing of the Shroud at Turin for St. Jeanne Francoise de Chantal (1572-1641), founder of the Order of the Visitation of Mary[29].

1638b: On 4 October Duke Francis Hyacinth dies, aged 6, and is succeeded by his 4 year-old younger brother Duke Charles Emmanuel II (r. 1638–75)[30]. His mother Duchess Christine continued to rule Savoy as Regent but Victor Amadeus I's younger brothers, Princes of Savoy Maurice (1593-1657) and Thomas (1596-1656) disputed

[Right (enlarge)[31]: Christine, Duchess of Savoy, ruled Savoy for ~26 years]

that and started the Piedmontese Civil War (1639–42), with Spanish support to seize Savoy[32]. But Christine, who was the sister of King Louis XIII of France (r. 1610-43), with French support, was victorious and preserved Savoy for her son until he turned 14 in 1648[33]. But at Duke Charles Emmanuel II's invitation Christine continued as ruler of Savoy until her death in 1663[34].

1640 Shroud is exhibited as an expression of thanks for the release of Turin from the plague[35]

1642 Showing of the Shroud to mark the conclusion of peace between the princes of Savoy [see 1638b], in the presence of Christine of France, Duchess of Savoy, her young son Charles Emmanuel II, and the princes Maurice and Thomas of Savoy[36].

1647 May 4: At a public showing this year, held in the Cathedral, some in the enormous crowd died of suffocation[37].

1655 April 24: Massacre, including rape and torture, of thousands of civilian men, women and children of the proto-Protestant Waldensians

[Left (enlarge)[38]: Print dated 1658 depicting the death by torture in 1655 of a young Waldesian woman, Anna Charbonn-iere of La Torre, by Savoyard troops. Her right arm has been burned, her left arm cut off and she was impaled by a stake through her vagina - by so-called `Christians' (Mt 7:21-23)! Anna's terror, pain, loss and death, and that of all martyrs for Jesus, will be avenged by Him (Rev 6:9-11).]

by Savoyard troops as ordered by Duke Charles Emmanuel II[39].

1657 June 5: Issue of official warrant authorising developed plans by Swiss-Italian architect Bernardino Quadri (c. 1625-95) for a Chapel of the Holy Shroud, raised high above the level of the cathedral presbytery and connected directly through to the royal apartments in the adjoining Royal Palace[40].

1663a May 16-17: Exposition of the Shroud in the Cathedral of Turin is delayed from the normal May 4 date to coincide with the wedding on 3 April 1663 of Duke Charles Emmanuel II of Savoy with Francesca d'Orleans (1648–1664). She would die 9 months later on 14 January 1664 aged 15[41].

1663b Death on 27 December of Duchess Christine of Savoy[42].

1665a Showing of the Shroud in the Royal Chapel, in the presence of Archbishop of Turin Michele Beggiano (r. 1662-1689), to mark the marriage of Duke Charles Emmanuel II to his distant relative Marie Jeanne de Savoy-Nemours (1644-1724)[43].

1665b May 14: (Feast of the Ascension): Shroud is shown in public before a huge crowd, held up by seven bishops[44].

1665c May 20: Marie Jeanne de Savoy-Nemours marries Charles Emmanuel II[45].

1666a March 24: Private showing for Duke Maximilian I of Bavaria (1597–1623)[46].

1666b May 14: Birth to Duke Charles Emmanuel II and Duchess Marie Jeanne, a son Victor Amadeus II (1666-1732)[47].

1668 May 19: Guarino Guarini (1624–83) is appointed ducal engineer for the construction of the Chapel of the Holy Shroud, Turin Cathedral[48].

1675 June 12: Death of Duke Charles-Emmanuel II and accession of the 9 year-old Victor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy (r. 1675–1730)[49]. His mother, Duchess Marie Jeanne, ruled Savoy as his Regent, but she refused to relinquish control of Savoy to her son when he attained his majority at age 14 in 1480[50].

1684a March 14: Victor Amadeus II forced his mother to cease being Regent and took his rightful control of Savoy[52].

1684b May 6: Wedding of Duke Victor Amadeus II and Anne Marie d'Orléans (1669-1728), which was arranged by her uncle King Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715) of France[53]. A public exposition of the Shroud to

celebrate the occasion was depicted by an etching on silk [Above (enlarge)], in about 1690, by Pietro Antonio Boglietto[54].

1692 As part of the Nine Years' War (1688–1697), Victor Amadeus II invaded Dauphiné, a French province in southeastern France, after which in 1695-96 he negotiated a treaty with Louis XIV which included the return of Pinerolo to Savoy[55].

1694 June 1: The Shroud is brought into the Guarini Chapel where

[Above (enlarge): Interior of the Chapel of the Holy Shroud before it was closed for repairs in 1990[56].

it remained almost uninterruptedly for over three centuries[57], until 1990 when falling stonework from its dome forced its closure for repairs and moving the Shroud into the Cathedral [see 03Jun15].

1699 May 6: Birth to Duke Victor Amadeus II and Duchess Anne Marie, a son Victor Amadeus, Prince of Piedmont (1699-1715), however, he would die of smallpox in 1715, aged 15[58].

To be continued in the next part 23 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. "1602," Wikipedia, 11 July 2020. [return]
3. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.132; "About," The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2017; "Pontifical Academy of Sciences," Wikipedia, 1 July 2020. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.14, 264. [return]
5. 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.293. [return]
6. Ibid. [return]
7. Ibid. [return]
8. Ibid. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. "print; broadside," Museum number 1913,0528.120, British Museum, 2020. [return]
11. Crispino, D.C., 1987, "The Pilgrim Badge of Lirey," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 25, December, pp.13-18, 16-17. [return]
12. Wilson, 1998, p.293. [return]
13. Ibid. [return]
14. Wilson, 2010, p.265. [return]
15. "The Origins of the Shroud of Turin," Medievalists.net, 24 October 2014. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.106-113; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.37. [return]
17. "The Holy Face," Visitgenoa.it, 2020. [return]
18. Wilson, 1991, pp.111-114. [return]
19. Wilson, 1998, p.294. [return]
20. Ibid. [return]
21. "`The Holy Shroud' by Giovanni Battista della Rovere," Wikigallery.org, 30 July 2020. [return]
22. Wilson, 1998, p.294. [return]
23. Ibid. [return]
24. "Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy," Wikipedia, 5 April 2020. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.294. [return]
26. Ibid. [return]
27. "Victor Amadeus I, Duke of Savoy," Wikipedia, 28 December 2019. [return]
28. "Christine of France: Duchess and Regent of Savoy," Wikipedia, 7 April 2020. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, p.294. [return]
30. "Charles Emmanuel II, Duke of Savoy," Wikipedia, 11 April 2020. [return]
31. "File:Portrait of Christine of France, Duchess of Savoy in 1633 by an anonymous artist.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 20 March 2020. [return]
32. "Christine of France: Duchess and Regent of Savoy," Wikipedia, 7 April 2020. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
35. Ibid. [return]
36. Ibid. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, p.295. [return]
38. "File:AnnaCharboniereTortured.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 6 April 2020. [return]
39. "Piedmontese Easter," Wikipedia, 13 July 2020. [return]
40. Wilson, 1998, p.295. [return]
41. "Françoise Madeleine d'Orléans," Wikipedia, 25 June 2020. [return]
42. "Christine of France: Duchess and Regent of Savoy," Wikipedia, 7 April 2020. [return]
43. Wilson, 1998, p.295. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, p.296. [return]
45. "Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours," Wikipedia, 27 May 2020. [return]
46. Wilson, 1998, p.296. [return]
47. "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 13 May 2020. [return]
48. Wilson, 1998, p.296. [return]
49. Ibid. [return]
50. "Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours: Regent of Savoy," Wikipedia, 27 May 2020. [return]
51. "File:Vittorio Amedeo II in Maestà - Google Art Project.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 6 April 2020. [return]
52. "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia," Wikipedia, 2 October 2019. [return]
53. "Anne Marie d'Orléans," Wikipedia, 28 June 2020. [return]
54. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.239. [return]
55. "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia: Nine Years War," Wikipedia, 13 May 2020. [return]
56. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.17. [return]
57. Wilson, 2010, p.306. [return]
58. "Victor Amadeus, Prince of Piedmont," Wikipedia, 19 November 2019. [return]

Posted: 26 July 2020. Updated: 11 August 2020.