Sunday, November 18, 2007

TSoT: Bibliography "A"

Here is the Bibliography "A" page for authors' surnames beginning with "A" of books

[Left: Mark Antonacci's, "The Resurrection of the Shroud" (2000), See `tagline' quotes below (bold emphases mine) from this excellent book.]

that I will probably refer to in my book outline, "The Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus?"

© Stephen E. Jones



Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Patrick Walsh Press: Tempe AZ.
Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blog: CreationEvolutionDesign

"The Shroud of Turin, a large linen cloth 14 feet 3 inches long and 3 feet 7 inches wide (4.34 m x 1.10 m), takes its present name from the city where it has been kept for the last 422 years-Turin, Italy. In ancient times, burial shrouds were wrapped lengthwise around a body as shown below. Jesus would have been wrapped and buried in such a linen shroud. The Shroud of Turin purports to contain evidence of some of the most startling events in all of history: that a man who was beaten and scourged, his head pierced repeatedly about the crown; a man who was crucified, pierced in the side, a man who was dead and buried-that this man was resurrected; and, further, that he was Jesus Christ. Unlike any other burial garment, this cloth contains the front and back images of the body of a man ... Of course, we might be tempted to dismiss such claims as colorful legends from the far reaches of the past, assumptions carried forth by our own philosophical desires. But the passage of time and the expansion of our knowledge about the world around us have, surprisingly, borne out these claims to greater and greater degrees. As the greatest advances in our knowledge have come about with increasing intensity during the twentieth century, so, too, has our knowledge about the enigmatic Shroud of Turin." (Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.1,4).

"Not only are all the above tests consistent with the presence of blood, but venous blood flows can even be distinguished from arterial blood flows in some of the bloodstains on the man's forehead. In general, venous blood appears denser and darker red, and it flows more slowly than arterial blood. In large wounds or wounds that puncture a vessel and produce a large blood flow, venous blood slowly thickens as it descends because it takes a few minutes for the coagulation process to begin and a clot to form. The large epsilon-shaped clot in the middle of the man's forehead is a good example of a large venous blood flow. .... In contrast to blood from a vein, arterial blood spurts from a wound, driven by the pumping action of the heart. ... Dr. Rodante, who has made one of the most extensive studies of the forehead wounds to date, has identified the origins of many of the head wounds based on the size or coagulation pattern of blood flows on the skin. ... As examples, the epsilon-shaped forehead clot lies exactly over the frontal vein, while the arterial wound numbered AI in figure 21 precisely corresponds with the frontal branch of the superficial temple artery. According to Rodante, `The perfect correspondency of the forehead dots imprinted on the [Shroud], overlaying as they do the vein and the artery in mirror image, gives us the certainty that the linen covered the corpse of a man, who, while living, suffered the lesion of these blood vessels:' ... These examples of distinctly venous and arterial wounds indicate that the injuries evident on the man's image could have occurred only on an actual human body. Regardless of technique, no artist, especially one working in the Middle Ages, has ever represented the distinction between venous and arterial blood so accurately. .... In fact, the difference between arterial and venous blood was not even discovered until 1593 [actually 1628 - SEJ], more than 230 [265 - SEJ] years after some allege that the Shroud image was painted. The epsilon-shaped clot on the man's forehead contains another realistic detail. As the blood flow descended, it broadened and changed course twice. Physicians believe this was because forehead muscles spontaneously contract when they are injured. The forehead, temple, and scalp contain a web of nerves that is highly sensitive to pain. Thus, contracting forehead muscles would be a natural reaction to the intense pain caused by having more than thirty head wounds." (Antonacci, 2000, pp.25-26).

"Nickell Powder-Rubbing Method Joe Nickell, a former stage magician and amateur detective, has experimented with a proposed technique of image encoding. Nickell's technique involved conforming wet linen to a bas-relief while impressing all the relief's features onto the cloth. After the cloth dried, he used a cotton dauber covered with cloth to rub powdered pigment onto the impressions left on the linen. [Nickell, J., "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books, 1987] The results obtained by such a technique ... show what happened when STURP members tested Nickell's theory. As is evident in the VP-8 photograph, Nickell's powder-rubbing method does not produce a true three-dimensional image. A powdered bas-relief technique would involve the application of a substance to the Shroud. As discussed earlier, all the extensive scientific examinations of the cloth indicate that no powdered particles or foreign materials of any kind have been added to the body-image fibrils that could account for the coloring-and therefore visibility-of the image. Specifically, magnified photographs of the body image threads do not reveal any sort of applied particles or staining substance. The `natural experiment,' arising from the fire of 1532, also disproves Nickell's theory, as it did the painting theory. Nickell promulgates that the powdered pigments used were iron oxide, myrrh, or aloes. Yet if organic substances such as these had been used to encode the Shroud image, they would have been altered or decomposed during the fire, depending on their distance from the hottest areas of the cloth. However, no such alteration in the body image can be found on the Shroud when those image areas nearer the burn marks are compared to those areas farther away." (Antonacci, 2000, pp.73-74. Emphasis original).

"Nickell contends that his powder-rubbing method produces a superficial image. However, when STURP scientists reproduced his experiment using linen with a herringbone weave that simulates the Shroud's weave, large quantities of powder fell through the weave of the cloth and accumulated on the reverse side. Shroud researcher and archaeologist Paul Maloney even tried using a piece of linen with a box weave, which is the tightest linen weave known. Maloney found that powdered particles still penetrated through to the back of the cloth. Obviously, Nickell's technique fails to meet the requirement of image superficiality. Nickell's theory seems far-fetched for other reasons. The Shroud contains, conservatively, thousands of individual body-image fibrils, but each fibril is encoded with a uniform intensity of color. Someone applying powdered pigment onto a cloth with a hand-held dauber and/or rubbing powder on woven linen could never achieve this uniform intensity on all image fibrils. In fact, experiments involving powder rubbing have shown that a uniform application of powder cannot be obtained on even one fibril." (Antonacci, 2000, p.74).

"Photographic examinations of the Shroud done with X ray, reflectance, and raking light (light directed at the cloth at a grazing angle) revealed various horizontal fold marks. (Due to the angle of illumination used in the raking-light study, vertical fold marks would not be visible.) The locations of these horizontal fold marks are consistent with the fold configuration in which the Shroud is believed to have been stored more than a thousand years ago ... If Nickell's powder-rubbing method were responsible for the image on the Shroud, evidence of fold marks should also be evident at such places as the top of the head, eyebrow area, nose, lips, chin, hands, feet, et cetera-everywhere the linen would have been molded to an underlying bas-relief. However, no fold marks in these areas can be found on the Turin Shroud." (Antonacci, 2000, p.75).

"Nickell's attempts to reproduce blood images were as unsuccessful as his body image efforts. He asserts that the blood marks were made by tempera paint, but this assertion conflicts with the evidence showing that the blood marks were made by actual whole blood. Tempera paint cannot chemically pass for primate or human blood. In addition, the application of tempera paint could not begin to account for the serum halos surrounding the edges of the wounds covering the man in the Shroud." (Antonacci, 2000, p.76).

"Nickell has never submitted his experimental cloth to scientists for verification, but he has presented photographs showing the results of his powder-rubbing technique. On these photos his painted `blood' does not begin to approach the realism of the wounds found on the Shroud. They also do not have the shape or appearance of actual wounds that have formed and bled on human skin. The actual blood marks evident on the Shroud are mirror images on cloth of how actual wounds appear on skin. The deficiencies of Nickell's method become even more apparent when one considers the smaller wounds on the Shroud, such as the scourge marks. The slightly depressed centers and raised edges of these scourge marks have been encoded on the cloth in such a way that their characteristics are not even visible unless one examines photographs that have been enlarged and then magnified under a microscope. The fluorescing borders, composed of actual serum, around the scourge marks are also invisible until observed under ultraviolet light, as are the scourged areas that consist of only scratches or lines. None of these characteristics of the blood, serum, or scourge marks can be encoded, or duplicated, by Nickell's proposed application of tempera paint." (Antonacci, 2000, p.76).

"Microscopic and ultraviolet examinations of the Shroud indicate that the blood images were transferred to the cloth before the body image. If the body image were encoded through contact with a hot surface, thermal discoloration or degradation of bloodied fibrils would be evident because the blood images would have been in direct contact with the bas-relief heated to temperatures high enough to scorch linen. Indeed, this effect appeared in the experimental testing of this technique. Microscopic study of the bloodstains on the Shroud, however, reveals no thermal discoloration or fusing (except in areas where the fire marks of 1532 intersected bloodstains). Furthermore, a heated bas-relief could not produce the many other aforementioned unique features of the blood on the Shroud." (Antonacci, 2000, p.79).

"Available scientific evidence strongly supports the contention that the Shroud of Turin was in Palestine and in Turkey sometime before the 1350s when its presence in Europe was first documented. Of the fifty-eight [57 - SEJ] pollen grains from plant species that were found on the Shroud by Dr. Frei (discussed earlier), only seventeen of these-less than one third, can be found in France or Italy. That seventeen of these pollen grains are grown in France or Italy should come as no surprise, since the Shroud has spent its last 645 years in these countries. What is surprising is that only a minority of pollens are native to Western Europe; the majority are native to the Middle East, including Turkey and Israel. It is interesting that the proportion of pollen grains from plants in Edessa (eighteen) and Constantinople (thirteen) is very similar to that of western European plants (seventeen). One would expect such a proportional distribution if the Shroud had a strong history associated with the Mandylion and the Image of Edessa, as postulated by Wilson and others." (Antonacci, 2000, p.153).

"As you can see, a historically documented, plausible provenance of the Shroud of Turin from first-century Jerusalem to present-day Turin is not hard to put together. Critics who denounce the Shroud as a fraud have not only been unable to agree on a method of forgery-they have also never agreed on a plausible, documentable place or `artist' of a forged Shroud. We have already seen that it would be impossible to forge the Shroud naturally or artistically, even with today's technology-much less during medieval times." (Antonacci, 2000, p.154).

"Before we review the radiocarbon dating controversy in connection with the Shroud, you should understand the fundamental principals of radiocarbon dating. Three isotopes of carbon are normally found in carbon-containing materials: carbon-12 (C-12), carbon-13 (C-13), and carbon-14 (C-14). C-12 accounts for 98.9 percent of naturally occurring carbon. C-13 accounts for the other 1.1 percent. C-14 is present only in trace amounts. C-13 and C-12 are stable isotopes that were formed when the planet's other atoms were formed. Practically all of the earth's carbon in organic and inorganic materials consists of these two isotopes. Any C-14, or radiocarbon, that was formed along with the planet disappeared long ago because this isotope is radioactively unstable and decays. However, new, minute amounts of C-14 are continuously formed during collisions of cosmic rays with nitrogen-14 (N-14) atoms in the atmosphere. N-14 is not unusual: Air is about 78 percent nitrogen and 99.63 percent of all the nitrogen on earth is N-14. This newly formed C-14 is also unstable and disappears naturally. The amount of C-14 on earth remains nearly the same because new C-14 is created in the atmosphere at almost the same rate that older C-14 is decaying on the earth's surface. Thus, carbon-14 is said to be in balance. However, this balance is infinitesimal with C-14 being approximately one part in a trillion of the overall carbon content (1/1,000,000,000,000). This very tiny amount of C-14 formed in the atmosphere, along with the much larger amounts of C-13 and C-12, is taken up in atmospheric carbon dioxide by photosynthesizing plants and is, thereby, spread throughout the biosphere, thus allowing all living things to have a similar ratio of C-14 to C-12. Since these carbon isotopes have the same chemical behavior, this ratio is maintained while the organism lives. However, upon its death, the C-14 disappears according to its radioactive half-life, which is approximately 5,730 years. By measuring the C-14 to C-12 ratio, scientists can calculate the date of the organism's death. ... Since the fraction of C-14 to C-12 is so infinitesimal, and since this measured ratio is the basis for calculating the organism's age, any error in measuring or counting the C-14 isotope could alter the date, perhaps significantly. A correct date can be calculated if and only if the very tiny trace amount of measured C-14 from the object accumulated there by the above natural process. If the measured C-14 got on the object any other way, the interpretation of the date will be incorrect." (Antonacci, 2000, pp.156-157. Emphasis original).

"Errors in radiocarbon dating have been quite numerous. .... This dating measures the ratio of C-14 to C-12, so if there are any errors in measuring the small amount of C-14 or in measuring the C-12, the date will be incorrect. Even if the two isotopes are correctly measured, the isotopes that were measured must be original, and must belong only to the object from which they were taken. This dating process is not absolute and is subject to enormous error. ... Quotes from the most elementary textbooks show that contamination can cause errors in dating. `Carbon from other sources may easily be trapped in porous materials ... The archaeologist is the only person who is in a position to know of these contaminating potentials' [Stuckenrath, R., Jr., "On the Care and Feeding of Radiocarbon Dates," Archaeology, Vol. 18, 1965, pp.277-281]. `[C]ontamination of the sample may take place ... and removal of the contaminant from the pore spaces and fissures is almost impossible.' [Goudie, A., "Environmental Change," Clarendon: Oxford, 1977, p.10]. Excavated samples are `liable to absorb humic matter from the solutions, that pass through them (resulting in) contamination by carbon compounds of an age younger than its own ... there is also the possibly of exchange of carbon isotopes under such conditions ... That there are other risks of contamination and other pitfalls involved in this method is obvious enough.' [Zeuner, F.E., "Dating the Past," Hafner: Darien CT, 1970, pp. 341-346] The possibility of contamination should be exhaustively investigated and pretreatment measures should be designed accordingly whenever any critical radiocarbon dating is being attempted. Unfortunately, even with specialized pretreatment, contamination cannot always be detected and, if detected or identified, cannot always be eliminated." (Antonacci, 2000, pp.157-158).

"The first area of scientific research that we shall examine may constitute the most important challenge to and refutation of the carbon dating of the Shroud. These scientific findings also indicate the key areas of future testing that must be performed on the Shroud to confirm whether it was irradiated with a particular form of radiation, whether new C-14 was created within it, to distinguish the original C-14 from the additional C-14, and to calculate the cloth's true age. In the same issue of Nature in which the carbon dating report of the Shroud appeared, this scientific journal also published a letter by Thomas Phillips of the High Energy Physics Laboratory at Harvard University [Phillips, T., "Shroud Irradiated with Neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 1989, p.594]. Phillips, also an IBM scholar, stated that if the body of the man in the Shroud gave off radiation during the image-encoding process it could have radiated neutrons, `which would have irradiated the Shroud and changed some of the nuclei to different isotopes by neutron capture. In particular, some C-14 could have been generated from C13.' [ibid] This same process could also form newly created C- 14 from nitrogen. This newly created C-14 would make the Shroud appear much younger that it actually is. When asked by a journalist if such a process could have caused an incorrect dating of the Shroud in 1988. Michael Tite, who coordinated the carbon dating of the Shroud for the British - Museum, commented: `It is certainly possible if one gave the Shroud a large dose of neutrons to produce C-14 from the nitrogen in the linen cloth.' [Jennings, P, `Still Shrouded in Mystery;' 30 Days in the Church and in the World, 1.7, 1988, pp.70-71, p.71]. Robert Hedges, one of the scientists who participated in the carbon dating of the Shroud at the Oxford laboratory, also acknowledged to the journalist that a `sufficient level of neutrons from radiation on the Shroud would invalidate the radiocarbon date which we obtained.' [ibid]. In fact it was Dr. Hedges who pointed out that the amount of neutron flux required to cause a 1,300-year difference in age was not nearly as much as first suggested by Phillips. [Hedges, R., `Hedges Replies,' Nature, Vol. 337, 1989, p.594] Because the amount of C-14 in the C-14 to C-12 ratio is so minuscule (one part in a trillion), if a neutron flux activated only an extra 18 percent of C-14 compared to that present naturally in the linen, it would cause a cloth from the first century to appear to be only 650 years old [Kelly, B., `Turin Shroud,' New Scientist, Vol. 119, September 1988; Statement confirmed by Dr. Robert Otlet of the Harwell Laboratory and by Prof. Edward Hall of the Oxford Laboratory according to Wilson in the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, 20, October 1988, p.14]." (Antonacci, 2000, pp.159-160).

"Gove's book makes it absolutely dear that he assumed leadership on every possible issue that he could, and that he was a major influence not just on the laboratories but also on the final decisions that led to such controversial results. Moreover, his book revealed ... his deep-seated animosity toward STURP, the full extent of which would be revealed only by his publication seventeen years after joining STURP's effort, and eight years after the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud had taken place. Gove's true feelings and motives toward STURP and its involvement in the scientific testing of the Shroud are clearly revealed on the first page, on which he mentions them, in the very first chapter of his book. `I was determined to prevent their involvement in its [the Shroud's] carbon dating, if that were ever to come about.... Fortunately in this I was successful.' [Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.6-7] On the next page, he states, `I am happy to say that, in the end, they [STURP] played no role in its carbon dating.' [ibid., p.8] One of the sad ironies is that STURP's participation could have prevented many amateurish aspects of the procedure and precluded the questionable sampling. While discussing the early period of 1978 to 1979, Gove further informs us of his actual `disdain for those [STURP] scientists.' [ibid., p.48] In his 1996 book, he shows that his hypocritical and concealed attitude existed before he even made any pledges to or agreements with STURP. Immediately before he called STURP in 1979, accepting that its C-14 committee members could be present during the removal of the sample from the Shroud and during the sample's preparation and measurement, he blatantly reveals his duplicity: ` ... they [STURP] had good connections in Turin, and could be useful in obtaining a shroud sample for dating-if only they could be prevented from playing any other role.' [ibid., p.57]" (Antonacci, 2000, p.193).

"In light of the Shroud's known and unknown contaminants and history, Meacham warned the lab directors at the Turin workshop, and in an article published the same year, `[t]o measure Shroud samples, one must consider every possible type of contamination and attempt to identify and counter them all, before the measurement is made and a 'radiocarbon age' assigned.' [Meacham, W., "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties," in "Turin Shroud: Image of Christ," Cosmos: Hong Kong., 1987, pp.41-56] Meacham further warned that `an elaborate pretreatment and screening program should be conducted before the samples are measured.' [ibid., p.48]. If the laboratories had followed this advice, perhaps they could have determined whether wax or starch had chemically bound to the cellulose in the sample taken from the Shroud for dating. Chemical analysis by combustion of the linen before and after the cleaning treatment could have revealed if any wax had become chemically bound to their samples. Enzymes could have detected the presence of starch. Meacham's article, as well as previous articles, had even listed wax and starch among the known contaminants discovered on the Shroud. Meacham further warned in the same article that, `unless there are specific conditions which warrant specialized pretreatment, most laboratories process samples with acid and alkali washes. While this standard pretreatment is usually effective in removing modern contaminants, it may not do so for intrusive materials deposited much earlier.' [ibid., p.47]" (Antonacci, 2000, pp.197-198).

"The scientific evidence found on the cloth itself gives a good deal of information about its images, in particular that they appear to have resulted from some type of radiation. ... Neither the scorch marks nor the body images have faded with time, and neither were caused by foreign materials or particulates. ... For these and many other reasons, most scientists, as well as other Shroud experts, have concluded that some form of light or heat (or radiation) caused the images on the Shroud. However, the absence of pyrolitic compounds or products expected from high-temperature cellulose degradation indicates that the image-forming process took place at a fairly low temperature. This type of low-temperature radiation would not leave any residue on the cloth, as is the case with the Shroud's body images. Neither would it leave any directionality across the width or length of the image. In addition, radiation is an agent that can operate on skin, hair, coins, or flowers, and can uniformly encode the fibers on a cloth. It is extremely difficult to imagine how the subtle shades of light and dark on the Shroud's body images could possibly have been obtained without using light or radiation. These body images are not saturated or diffused. The edges of the man's body at the sides, top, and bottom break off sharply. Furthermore, the agent, acting at a distance, barely penetrated the cloth. As one noted scientist who has studied the Shroud for more than two decades observed, `An agent acting at a distance with decreasing intensity is, almost by definition, radiation. The limitation of the cloth darkening to the outermost surface pointed to a non-penetrating, non-diffusing agent, like radiant energy' ..... [Gonella, L., "Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin: Problems, Results and Methodological Lessons," in "Turin Shroud-Image of Christ?," Cosmos: Hong Kong, 1987, pp.29-40, p.31]" (Antonacci, 2000, p.212).

"A vertical beam or beams of light or radiation also best explains how the Shroud's body image was encoded through space in a straight line from the body to the cloth. STURP scientist John Heller stated, "It is as if every pore and every hair of the body contained a microminiature laser." [Heller, J., in McDonald, W. "Science and the Shroud," The World and I, October 1986, pp.420-428, p.426] This vertical directionality of the Shroud body image has only been accounted for by methods involving radiation. As scientist Luigi Gonella explained, "Whatever the mechanism might be, it must be such to yield effects as if it were a burst of collimated radiant energy." [Gonella, L., "Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin: Problems, Results and Methodological Lessons," in "Turin Shroud-Image of Christ?," Cosmos: Hong Kong, 1987, pp.29-40, p.31]" (Antonacci, 2000, p.213).

"We also saw earlier how the various shades of light and dark on the cloth's frontal image directly correlate to the various distances that they were from the underlying body. This ratio exists throughout the length of the body image, even in places where the cloth could not have been touching the body, resulting in an image that contains precisely encoded, three-dimensional information. Such a precisely encoded correlation over such a distance could seemingly only be achieved by radiation. The Shroud's highly resolved image is also difficult to imagine unless light or radiation coming from the body is somehow directed onto the cloth." (Antonacci, 2000, p.213).

"All of the evidence points to a very unique occurrence that caused the images on the Shroud, something that could never have been created by the technology of the medieval ages (or even by the technology of today). Only through simulation have today's scientists been able to come close to the Shroud's three-dimensionality, vertical directionality, and finely resolved and highly focused image; their simulation achieved by a mechanism in which light was attenuated in a liquid, then traveled in a vertical, straight-line direction from the plaster reference face while it was being focused in a camera. [Jackson, J.P. & Jumper, E.J. & Ercoline, W R., "Correlation of Image Intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D Structure of a Human Body Shape," Applied Optics, Vol. 23, No. 14, July 1984, pp.2244-2270]." (Antonacci, 2000, p.213).

"Dr. Giles Carter, Professor Emeritus, Eastern Michigan University, has conducted years of experiments with X rays. He has noted that cloth samples placed in an X ray beam and exposed to low-energy, long-wave X rays for different periods of time will produce superficial, straw-yellow discoloration like that found on the Shroud body images. [Carter, G.E., "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by X Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., "Archaeological Chemistry, III," American Chemical Society: Washington DC, 1984, pp.425-446] He also noted that these same types of X rays are easily absorbed in air. Because of this absorption or attenuating quality Carter stated that X rays given off by the body would also convey three-dimensional information onto the cloth. [Carter, ibid. p.435]. Dr. Carter first suggested in 1984 that the finger bones are visible on the photographic negative images of the man in the Shroud. In addition, he noted that the bones extending into the hand, over the wrist, could also be visible, helping to explain why the man's fingers appeared so long. Since then, other scientists and physicians have confirmed the identification of these finger and hand bones. [Accetta, A.D., "Experiments with Radiation as an Image Formation Mechanism," Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond VA, June 18-20, 1999] Carter stated that these `images may be due at least in part to x-rays emanating from the bones in the body.' [Carter, ibid. p431] Scientists and physicians have identified other possible internal skeletal features on the man in the Shroud. Dr. Jackson has noted that part of the skull at the forehead may be visible on the man. Surgeon Alan Whanger, utilizing his modified Polarized Image Overlay Technique with the Shroud's negative and positive images, has also identified features from the skull, as have Dr. Carter and Dr. August Accetta. [Whanger, M. & A., "The Shroud of Turin," Providence House Publishers, Franklin TN, 1998, pp.116-117]" (Antonacci, 2000, p.213).

"Dr. Accetta, a physician, has also conducted experiments concerning radiation-imaging of skeletal and other bodily features. Dr. Jackson and Dr. Accetta have further identified faint images of the curved and inverted thumb under the man's left palm. [Accetta, ibid., 1999; Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain All Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in Berard, A., ed., "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," 1991, pp.333-335] Carter, Whanger, and Accetta have stated that images of the man's teeth could be partially visible, especially on the right side of the man's mouth. [Carter, 1984, pp.433-434; Whanger, 1998, pp.117-118]. Dr. Carter also first stated that, `Part of the backbone may be visible on the dorsal image ...' of the man in the Shroud. [Carter, ibid., p.433] This identification has also been confirmed by Dr. Whanger. [Whanger, ibid., p.118] Recently I enlisted the services of Dr. Joseph Gerard and Dr. Cheri Ellis, who, in their profession as chiropractic physicians, make and view more X-ray images of the spinal column than almost any other profession. After studying quality photographic negatives of the dorsal area, they were able to specifically identify numerous vertebrae in the neck and backbone (and even a few pedicles of the vertebrae with disc spaces prevalent). All these skeletal features lie near the surfaces of the frontal or dorsal sides of the man in the Shroud. All are encoded correctly, and none were visible for hundreds of years-until the development of modern technology. The existence of just some of these features shows not only that the radiation came from the body, but that it resembled or had qualities analogous to X rays." (Antonacci, 2000, pp.213-214).

"Since we know the Shroud contained a body, the fact that both the frontal and dorsal images are contained on the inside of it is an indication that the body wrapped within was the source of radiation. We also saw that the reason a truly proportional three-dimensional image resulted was because the lightness or darkness of the image on the cloth correlated to the distance that it was from the body. Since the various degrees of the body image's lightness are all contained on the Shroud's surface, and the cloth itself received this information indicating the corresponding distances between it and the body below, the light had to have come from the body. In fact, all the numerous body image features, that are encoded over the entire lengths and widths of both the frontal and dorsal body images, indicate that the radiation emanated throughout the length and width of the body. Having studied the various features of the Shroud body image that have been discovered since its first extensive scientific examination in 1978, physicist Kitty Little wrote: `It was already known that the image was inside the Shroud and not on the outside. With this further examination it became certain that the source of the illumination that had formed the image came from within-that is, from the body-and that whatever caused it had a range of about four centimetres ... [with] the "illumination" coming from the body as a whole.' [Little, K., "The Holy Shroud and the Miracle of the Resurrection," Christian Order, April 1994, pp.218-231]" (Antonacci, 2000, p.214).


Creationistic said...

Hi Stephen,

How do you weigh passages in The Bible with all of this science and carbon dating?

It is my understanding from various passages in The Bible that the shroud is unlikely to be the burial shroud of Jesus, especially in looking at Jhn 20:7.

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself."

There are other issues as well that would lead me to believe that this is not the burial shroud of Jesus.

I confess that I am neither a theologian nor an expert and it is clear that you have done much research into this area - but I see some things that appear to be contrary to the belief that the shroud is in fact His.


Stephen E. Jones said...


Thanks for your comment.

>How do you weigh passages in The Bible with all of this science and carbon dating?

The short answer is that the Shroud is compatible with the Bible, it is supported by science, with the sole exception of the carbon dating.

However, there were a lot of problems with the latter, including the possibility (if not probability) of outright fraud. See "The Great Holy Shroud Dating Fraud of 1988." I certainly don't agree with everything in this paper, but there seems to be at least a prima facie case that the Shroud linen sample may have been switched for a sample from a medieval cloth.

If my proposal to radiocarbon date the Shroud's pollen (as set out in my paper "A proposal to radiocarbon-date the pollen of the Shroud of Turin," to be published in December's British Society for the Turin Shroud's Newsletter), if carried out, will provide an independent check, using the same method, on the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud's linen.

>It is my understanding from various passages in The Bible that the shroud is unlikely to be the burial shroud of Jesus, especially in looking at Jhn 20:7.
>"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself."

Again, the short answer is that there is no real conflict between the Shroud and the Bible. In my book, "The Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus?," I will have a chapter, "3. THE BIBLE AND THE SHROUD," where I will fully cover this issue.

The basic problem is that the various gospel writers, writing from their own perspective, use different Greek words for the various graveclothes, singly and collectively (i.e. sindon = linen sheet, shroud; othonia = linen strips, linen collectively, sudarion = head cloth, jaw-band; and keiriai = bandages, windings); and the problem is compounded by our English translations of those Greek words, and our preexisting ideas that the Jews wrapped their bodies like Egyptian mummies, when they did not.

Here are some quotes which explain and answer these problems:

"Although the New Testament's description of typical first-century Jewish burial customs is not overly detailed, it does give the general features. The body was washed (Acts 9:37) and the hands and feet were bound (John 11:44). A cloth handkerchief (Greek, sudarion) was placed `around' the face (John 11:44; 20:7). The body was then wrapped in clean linen, often mixed with spices (John 19:39-40), and laid in the tomb or grave. The Code of Jewish Law adds that the Jews usually shaved the head and beard completely and cut the fingernails before burial. However, the gospels tell us that Jesus' burial was incomplete. Because the Sabbath was about to begin, he was removed from the cross and laid in the tomb rather hurriedly. This is why the women returned to the tomb on Sunday morning. They had prepared spices and ointments for Jesus' body, and they went to the tomb to apply them (Luke 23:54-56). It is not often noticed why the women went to the tomb. They certainly did not expect Jesus to rise (Luke 24:3-4; John 20:12-15). Rather they came in order to finish anointing Jesus' body with the prepared spices (Luke 24:1; Mark 16:1). They were worried about who would help them to move the stone from the entrance of the tomb so that they could finish the job begun before the Sabbath (Mark 16:3)." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, pp.46-47).

"Another apparent problem crops up in the descriptions of the grave clothes the disciples saw in the tomb on Easter morning. Both Luke and John describe grave clothes in the tomb. Luke says that Peter went inside the tomb and saw the othonia-the generic term for all the grave clothes, including the shroud and the smaller pieces used to bind the jaw, hands, and feet. John, however, gives a more detailed description of what he and Peter saw, and he introduces another term into the grave clothes listing. When they went into the tomb, they saw the othonia lying on the ground, but also the sudarion lying rolled up in a place by itself, apart from these othonia. John adds the detail that the sudarion had been "around the head" of Jesus. Sudarion means `napkin' or `sweat cloth.' It is, at any rate, a rather small piece of cloth. If it had been placed over the face of Jesus in the tomb, no image of Jesus' face would have appeared on the Shroud. Since the Shroud of Turin bears the image of a face, the reference to a sudarion seems to challenge the authenticity of the Shroud. Indeed, some Christians have pointed to this passage as evidence that the Shroud is incompatible with scripture. However, a number of scripture scholars do not think that the sudarion was a napkin or cloth placed over Jesus' face. The Mishnah instructs Jews to tie up the chin of the corpse (Shabbath 23;5). The Code of Jewish Law also commands the practice of binding the chin. 8 Lazarus' napkin was wrapped "around" his face (Greek, perideo), a position that is more consistent with the jaw being tied shut. Additionally, John's observation that Jesus' napkin was found "rolled up" (Greek, entulisso) in the empty tomb corresponds closely to the cloth being used to bind the jaw. John A.T. Robinson, the British New Testament scholar, gives the most plausible explanation for the sudarion. He says it was probably a jaw band, a piece of linen rolled up into a strip, placed under the chin, drawn up around the face, and tied on the top of the head. Its function was to keep the jaw shut before rigor mortis set in. Not only does the New Testament not state that the napkin was placed over the face so as to cover it, but the combination of `wrapped up' and `around the head' (John 20:7; cf. 11:44) fits what is depicted in the Shroud. Jaw bands are used for this purpose today and there is every reason to believe that they were used in first-century Palestine. There is evidence for just such a jaw band on the three-dimensional image of the face of the Shroud. The hair of the man seems to be separated from the cheeks. The hair or the left side of the face hangs out over the edge of an object probably the chin band." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.49-50).

"As we have already mentioned, it was normal for Jews to be buried in clothing, more specifically the white garments they wore for festivals. In the case of Jesus we would not necessarily expect this, as we know his clothing was taken from him at the time of crucifixion. But many authors have pointed out. that we would certainly not expect the fourteen-foot sheet that we find preserved in Turin. Here again we are in a hornets' nest of controversy over gospel interpretation that exists quite independently of the Shroud. It all stems from apparent conflicts of information between the synoptic writers and St. John. The synoptics speak only of the sindon purchased by Joseph of Arimathea (Mt. 7:59; Mk. 15:46; Lk. 23:53). This is often translated as shroud, although it should be pointed out that it does not have a specifically sepulchral meaning. St. Mark, for instance, used the same word to describe the garment lost by the young man at Gethsemane who fled at the arrest of Jesus (Mk. 14:51, 52). St. John, on the other hand, does not use the word sindon, but instead says the body of Jesus was wrapped in othonia. And in his account of the discovery of the linens in the empty tomb again he uses the word othonia (which he describes as lying at the scene), and refers also cryptically to a mysterious soudarion, rolled up and lying in a place by itself (Jn. 20:7) . The precise meanings of othonia and sindon in their gospel context have been hotly debated. Some have contended that othonia (which is a plural form) means linen bands and that Joseph must have torn up the sindon into strips to wind Jesus mummy-style. Quite neutral exegetes such as Pere Benoit have pointed out that it would surely have been easier for Joseph to purchase ready-made bandages rather than tearing up a large sheet for this purpose. The most balanced modern view is that othonia means cloths in general, which could incorporate shroud and bands." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.41-42).

"What of the soudarion, literally a `sweat cloth'? Some have thought of this as simply the headcloth or chin band-which is clearly what the soudarion mentioned in the story of Lazarus as `round his face' (Jn. 11:44) was. Others have argued that it may have been our Shroud, on the grounds that the description of it as having been `over his head' (Jn. 20:7) could well refer to the manner in which we know the Turin Shroud was used. In support of this argument we may note that in the Lazarus account St. John uses the word peri ('round' or `about'), in contrast to epi ('over'), in the case of Jesus, leaving open the possibility that a different arrangement (and different size of cloth) is being described. St. John makes special mention of Jesus' soudarion being `not with the othonia but rolled up in a place by itself,' which certainly might suggest a cloth larger and more important than a mere chin hand; but as many maintain adamantly that a soudarion could not be anything larger than a handkerchief-sized piece of cloth, it seems unwise to be dogmatic. The conclusion to be drawn is that from exegetical studies alone we can be sure of nothing, that of themselves they can neither prove nor disprove that the Shroud is genuine. It does seem worthwhile at least to consider the various possibilities raised by the gospel accounts for what the Shroud might have been among the linens Peter and John found in the empty tomb on the first Easter Sunday." (Wilson, 1978, pp.42-43).

"The precise nature of the burial cloths has been the subject of much debate. The synoptists tell us that Joseph of Arimathea bought (Mark) a clean (Matthew) linen shroud or sheet (Greek - sindon) and wrapped Jesus in it (Matthew, Mark, Luke) [Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:50-56]. John mentions no shroud, but speaks in the plural of linen cloths (othonia) [Jn 19:40; 20:5-6] and also of a soudarion - "the napkin, which had been on his head ... rolled up in a place by itself." [Jn 20:7] The disputed (but probably authentic) passage at Luke 24:12 makes no further reference to the sheet, but mentions othonia lying by themselves. Christian artists have commonly depicted the grave-clothes of Jesus as broad bandages wound round the limbs and the body, together with a turban-like towel around his head. Some writers have visualised the linen sheet being torn into strips and the spices being wound into the folds. It has then been supposed that at the resurrection thesoudarion and othonia collapsed in situ to form two separate piles. As will be seen presently this does not in fact tally very well with what the evangelists say, but it illustrates the apparently rather imprecise and confusing picture which they seem to give. John gives us an account of a normal burial in a well-to-do home in his record of the raising of Lazarus: "The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages (keiriai), and his face wrapped with a cloth (soudarion). Jesus said to them, `Unbind him, and let him go.'' [Jn 11:44] There is nothing in this account to suggest a winding of long bandages around arms and legs and other parts of the body; indeed just the opposite, for the resuscitated corpse was certainly not deprived of wrappings which left him standing there naked. Before burial he had been washed, anointed with perfumed ointments and dressed in his best clean garment. Short strips of cloth had apparently been tied round wrists and ankles to keep his arms and legs in position, and the soudarion kept the mouth from falling open. The hobbled Lazarus was able to shuffle to the entrance of the tomb, where he was set free by the untying of these three cloths. And now he stood there fully clothed." (Wenham, J.W., "Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Stories in Conflict?," [1984], Paternoster: Exeter UK, Reprinted, 1987, pp.66-67).

"Q. Doesn't the Shroud conflict with Scripture? a) John 20:5-7 mentions linens and at the very least implies there were a minimum of two cloths. Many have suggested that the linens were `strips,' however the Shroud is merely one piece of cloth. ... A. …. The answers to these apparent discrepancies are as follows: First, the Gospels use the following words to describe the Shroud: Sindon burial sheet, winding sheet, shroud; sudarion-sweat cloth, face cloth, handkerchief; othonia linens. One way for the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be in harmony with John is if a burial method like the one depicted on the Shroud was used. John mentions a cloth that was described as `around his head' and about the face of Lazarus (John 20:7; 11:44). The word is sudarion, used in burial to bind the jaw against the effects of rigor mortis. There is evidence on the Shroud that a sudarion was used, though the whereabouts of any such cloth has long been unknown. The Shroud is a pure linen garment with some evidence that the head, hands, and feet were bound, most likely with other `linens.' The synoptics describe a linen sheet-a single cloth. Most likely, the sheet was more significant to the synoptic writers than other funerary cloths. Since the Jewish burial custom allowed the use of cloths to bind the hands and feet as well as the jaw, the total picture matches Jewish burial customs exactly and explains clearly why the synoptics only mention a sindon and John mentions othonia. Second, John's use of othonia has led to a widely held belief that Jesus was wrapped like an Egyptian mummy. But such a procedure doesn't conform to what is known of first-century normal Jewish burial ritual. Nor does it match what was previously mentioned in the Word, to wit, that Joseph of Arimathea had purchased a winding sheet and wrapped Jesus in it (Mark 15:46). Even John used the word edesan, which is translated wound in the KJV but literally means `enfolded.' Enfolded would also match the burial custom. Being wrapped with strips of cloth would not. In other words, othonia in John should be understood to mean that Jesus' dead body was enveloped from head to feet in one burial cloth, not wrapped like a mummy with numerous strips of cloth." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, p.149-150. Emphasis original).

"In addition to the Frei sticky tapes taken from the Shroud in 1973 (Table 1) and 1978 for pollen grains, other related materials were also examined. This included three samples from the Sudarium of Oviedo, the traditional face cloth (John 20:7), which would have been wrapped around the head to cover the disfigured face until enshroudment. The Sudarium, which has only bloodstains and no image, has been housed in Oviedo, Spain, continuously since the mid-8th century (Guscin, 1998). In 1979, Frei took 46 sticky tape samples from the Sudarium. All except three of these were removed from his collection shortly after his death and were not available for examination." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.11)

See the video "Shroud Report Interview with Mark Guscin" for a demonstration of how the Sudarium of Oviedo (the sudarion of John 20:7) complements the Shroud of Turin.

>There are other issues as well that would lead me to believe that this is not the burial shroud of Jesus.


>I confess that I am neither a theologian nor an expert and it is clear that you have done much research into this area - but I see some things that appear to be contrary to the belief that the shroud is in fact His.

See above.


Hope this has helped.

Stephen E. Jones