Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Sixteenth century (1)

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
© Stephen E. Jones

This is part #20, "Sixteenth century (1)" 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: 1500."

[Index #1] [Previous: 15th century (2) #19] [Next: 16th century (2) #21]

16th century (1) (1501-1534).

1501 The childless, already widowed at 17, Margaret of Austria (1480– 1530) [Right [2]], daugh-ter of future Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I (r. 1508-19)[3], married the childless already widowered at 19, Philibert II, Duke of Savoy (1480-1504), thus becoming Duchess of Savoy[4].

1502 Margaret was devoted to the Shroud[5], and at her behest it was no longer to accompany the Savoys during their travels [see "1473b], but is to given a permanent home in the Royal Chapel of Chambéry Castle, the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry[6]. On 11 June the Shroud in its silver-gilt reliquary is

[Above (enlarge): The Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry[7], as it is today, after the 1532 fire fire [see "1532"].]

carried in a solemn procession from Chambéry's Franciscan church to the Sainte-Chapelle[8], where it is deposited in a special cavity hollowed out of the wall [see "1532"], above the Chapel's high altar[9]. The cavity is secured by an iron grille with four locks, each opened by a separate key, two of which are held by the Duke[10].

1503 On Good Friday, 14 April, the Shroud was exhibited at Bourg-en-Bresse in Eastern France for Margaret's brother Archduke Philip the Duke of Burgundy (r. 1482–1506)[11]. The Shroud was first exhibited in Philip's castle[12], presumably the Château de Cordon (now a ruin [Left (enlarge)[13]) which is between Chambéry and Bourg-en-Bresse and was owned by the Holy Roman Emperors[14], and then in the marketplace of Bourg-en-Bresse[15]. An eyewitness, Antoine of Lalaing (1480-1540), who was Chamberlain to Philip, recorded the events of that day:

"The day of the great and holy Friday, the Passion was preached in Monsignor's chapel by his confessor, the duke and duchess attending. Then they went with great devotion to the market halls of the town, where a great number of people heard the Passion preached by a Cordeilier. After that three bishops showed to the public the Holy Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ ..."[16].
Lalaing recounted that one of the three bishops holding the Shroud for veneration solemnly announced:
"Here, my brothers, among holy things, is the most holy and contemplative on all the earth. It is the precious and noble `sindon' purchased by Joseph of Arimathea for the burial of the divine Master, when, with the help of Nicodemus, he took him down from the cross"[17].
1504a Death of Duke Philibert II of Savoy on 10 September at age of 24, by drinking too much iced wine after hunting[19]. He is succeeded as Duke of Savoy by his 18 year old brother Charles III "the Good" (1486–1553) [Right (enlarge)[18]]. Margaret is now twice-widowed at only 22[20].

1504b On 16 September, six days after Philibert's death, Margaret installs herself at Bourg-en-Bresse and begins work on cult of remembrance of her dead husband at neighbouring Brou, chosen because in 1480 her mother-in-law, dowager duchess Claudine de Brosse (1450–1513), widow of Duke Philip II of Savoy (r. 1496-97) [see "1496"], and mother of the late Philibert II and the new Duke Charles III (r. 1504–53), had made a vow to found a monastery at Brou if her husband Philip recovered from an accident, which he had[21].

1505a On 29 March, Margaret commissioned a church to be built on the ruins of the ancient Benedictine monastery at Brou[22].

1505b On 5 May, Margaret formally relinquishes custody of the Shroud to Claudine, who has a special devotion for the Shroud and keeps it with her, in her castle at Billiat en Michaille, (between Bourg-en-Bresse and Geneva)[23]. Presumably this was today's Château de Poncin [Below (original) [24]], which was "included in the dowry of Anne of Cyprus, widow of Louis, Duke of Savoy, and after her in that of Claudine of Brittany ... widow of Duke Philip of Savoy ..."[25]

1505c Duke Charles III and his mother petition Pope Julius II (r. 1503- 13) to approve the text of a Mass in honour of the Shroud"[26]

1505d In October Claudine invites Margaret to 'come and see the Holy Shroud' to preserve her from the plague then raging in Bourg-en-Bresse[27], which Margaret presumably did and received her "snippet" of the Shroud as a consolation gift from Claudine [see 1508a].

1506a Pope Julius II gives his formal assent for Chambéry's Sainte Chapelle to be known henceforth as the Sainte Chapelle of the Holy Shroud[28].

1506b On 21 April Julius, thanks to the intermediacy of Bishop (soon to be Cardinal) Louis de Gorrevod (c. 1473-1535)[29], authorized that a Feast of the Holy Shroud, initially only for the Chambéry diocese, should be assigned to 4 May, the day after the feast celebrating the finding of the True Cross[30]. Two weeks later on 9 May Julius issued a follow-up papal bull formally approving a Mass of the Shroud[31]. This included a prayer with the words `Almighty, eternal God, in memory of the Passion of your only begotten Son, you have left us the Holy Shroud on which his image is imprinted'[32].

1506c Death on 25 September of Margaret's brother Philip, the Duke of Burgundy (r. 1482–1506) and King of Castile, Spain (r. 1506)[33].

1507 Margaret becomes, on the request of her father, Emperor Maximilian I (r. 1508-19), the regent of the Netherlands during the minority of her nephew Charles I (1500-58), future Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (r. 1519-58)[34] [See "1519"].

1508a On 20 February Margaret of Austria draws up her will, giving to the church of Brou, among other relics, a snippet of the Shroud[35]. Marino and Benford claim that this snippet was taken [see "1530"] from what later became the 1988 radiocarbon dating area [Below (enlarge)[36]] and 16th century threads were used to repair the excision, thus giving the first-century Shroud a false 13th-14th century radiocarbon date[37]. However, see my comment below that:

"... younger carbon contamination and/or threads from a medieval repair included in the radiocarbon dating samples does not, of itself, explain why the first century Shroud had the `bull's eye' 1260-1390 = 1325±65 radiocarbon date. For an explanation of both, see my possible reconciliation of the carbon contamination and/or medieval repair theories with my hacker theory."
1508b Work begins on the rebuilding in stone of Geoffroy I de Charny's wooden church at Lirey, which will take another eighteen years [see "1526] to complete[38].

1509 A new casket for the Shroud is commissioned by Margaret of Austria at a cost of more than 12,000 gold ecus[39]. The installation of the Shroud in this new casket takes place on 10 August, before the Sainte-Chapelle's grand altar, in the presence of many dignitaries[40]. Twenty-three years later this magnificent casket will be ruined beyond repair in the Sainte-Chapelle fire of 1532 [see "1532"], its molten silver permanently scarring parts of the Shroud[41].

1511a A private exposition of the Shroud was held for Anne of Brittany, Queen of France (r. 1488-1514), and Cardinal Francesco of Aragon (r. 1505-1511)[42].

1511b A major programme of embellishment of Chambéry's Sainte Chapelle is commenced, which includes the provision of stained glass, Flemish sculpture, marble tombs of the princesses of Savoy, rich draperies, ornamentation from Cyprus, reliquaries studded with precious stones, etc[43].

1512 Johann von Erlach (1474-1539), the Mayor of Bern, a Swiss ambassador and military commander, travelled on a diplomatic mission to meet Charles III, Duke of Savoy[44]. In 2016 a miniature depiction of an exposition of the Shroud was discovered in von Erlach's prayerbook[45]. Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts specialist

[Above (enlarge)[46]: A double-page depiction of the Shroud in Johann von Erlach's prayerbook being held by three Bishops at an exposition. Its undamaged state shows it pre-dates the fire of 1532 [see "1532"]), and may be the earliest (or second only to the 1516 Lier copy [see 1516b]) surviving painted representation of the Shroud [see 26Jul16].]

Eugenio Donadoni considers it to be "not implausible that on such an occasion he could have been shown the Shroud" and then "have been so inspired by the visit that he had the holy relic reproduced in his prayerbook"[47].

1513 Death at Chambéry of dowager duchess Claudine de Brosse (1450–1513), who is buried behind the high altar of the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, facing the casket containing the Shroud[48].

1516a On 15 June, dressed as a monk, King Francis I of France (r. 1515-1547) arrives in Chambéry[49] from Lyon to venerate the Shroud after his victory at Marignan[50]. He is a grandson of Duke Philip II of Savoy (r. 1496-97) and his first wife Margaret of Bourbon (1438–83), through their daughter, his mother, Louise of Savoy (1476-1531)[51].

1516b Year inscribed in Latin on a one-third (1.47m x 0.33m) size[52] painted copy of the Shroud [Left enlarge)[53]] preserved in the Church of St. Gommaire at Lier, Belgium[54]. It may be the "picture of the Holy Shroud of Our Lord made on cloth," listed in an inventory of Margaret of Austria's goods when she moved from Mechelen to Brussels in 1523[55]. The painting has been attributed to Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528)[56] but it is doubtful that he was the artist[57]. More likely is the attribution of the Lier copy to Margaret's court painter from 1518 to 1529 Bernard van Orley (c.1487-1541)[58] of whom there is a record that Margaret paid him for four paintings including, "a painting of a Holy Shroud made upon cotton"[59] and the Lier copy is on cotton[60]. The Lier copy does not depict the burns of the 1532 fire [see "1532"], so it presumably pre-dates it[61]. If so, it is the earliest painted copy of the Shroud[62], with the possible exception of the Von Erlach prayerbook [see "1512" above]. The Lier copy does depict as red bloodstains[63] the `poker holes' [see 21Aug18], the origin of which there is no historical record[64], proving that they pre-date 1516[65].

1517a. A 1517 travel diary of Don Antonio de Beatis, companion of Cardinal Luigi d'Aragona (r. 1494–1519) records of an exposition of the Shroud at Chambéry:

"... the public exhibition took place from the top of the walls of the château in the direction of a certain meadow that is there outside the town for the convenience of the pilgrims ..."[66].
Of the Shroud de Beatis wrote:
"This winding-sheet, sindon or sudarion, is about five and a half spans high and only a little longer than the imprint, which is double - a front and a rear impression. These images of the most glorious body are impressed and shaded in the most precious blood of Jesus Christ and show most distinctly the marks of the scourging, of the cords about the hands, of the crown on the head, of the wounds to the hands and the feet, and especially of the wound in the most holy side, as well as various drops of blood spilled outside the most sacred image ..."[67] .

1517b Beginning of the Protestant Reformation on 31 October when Martin Luther sends his Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences to the Archbishop of Mainz[68].

1518. On 28 October the Cardinal of Aragon again visited Chambéry

[Above (enlarge)[69]: Simulated exposition of the Shroud (white rectangle) from the balcony in front of the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry's apse window, where the Shroud was shown to the crowds in 1518 and 1521[70]. [see "1521a" below]]

and the populace was given a showing of the Shroud from a balcony of the chapel jutting out over the castle wall[71].

1519. The Habsburg King of Spain, Charles I (r. 1516-56), son of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I (r. 1508-19), and of whom Margaret was regent [see "1507" above], was elected Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (r. 1519-58)[72]. The intense rivalry between Charles V and Francis I, King of France (r. 1515-1547), over their conflicting claims of inheritance of parts of Italy[73] were to have major consequences for the Shroud [see 1525a and future "1535"].

1521a On 8 April the 35 year-old Duke Charles III (r. 1504–53) marries the 17 year-old Beatrice of Portugal (1504-38), daughter of King Manuel I of Portugal (r. 1495–1521) and Queen Maria of Aragon (1482–1517)[74]. Charles and Beatrice make a pilgrimage from Vercelli, Italy over the Alps to Chambéry to venerate the Shroud[75]. Beatrice bore Charles 9 children, one of whom was Emmanuel Philibert (1528-80), who would become Duke in 1553[76] [see 1528 and future "1553"].

1521b On 30 April the Shroud is exhibited at Chambéry for the benefit of Dom Edme, i.e. Edmond de Saulieu (c. 1485-1552), an abbot of Clairvaux[77]. An eyewitness, Jean Gallot, chamberlain of Dom Edme, reported that three bishops carried the relic "in procession to a room [in the château] where a scaffold had been constructed outside the windows [of the Sainte Chapelle] to show it to the people who were below"[78].

1523 On 18 March the chapter of St. Etienne's (Stephen's) Cathedral in Besançon, Eastern France, sent one of their number to nearby Dijon to inquire how the Paschal Mystery was being played there, as they wished to present a performance of it at Easter[79]. As Easter Sunday was on 5 April that year, on 27 March the chapter made a formal decision that their `shroud' should be secured in a

[Right (original)[80]: Extract from a 1634 copy of the Besançon `shroud'.]

chest with three locks and three keys[82]. And so at Easter in 1523, the Mystery Play of the Resurrection was reinstated at the Cathedral of St. Etienne, Besançon[83]. This was the first properly documented reference to the existence of a purported Holy Shroud at Besançon[84]. In time this `shroud' comes to be regarded as of equal authenticity to the Lirey-Chambéry Shroud, supposedly having been used to wrap Jesus' body after it had been washed[85]. But the Besançon `shroud' was only 8 feet long[86] and had only a frontal image[87]. It may have been the eight feet long linen sheet bearing the figure of Christ that Bishop Arculf saw in Jerusalem about 670 [see "670"][88].

According to the theory first proposed by Roman Catholic historian Arthur S. Barnes (1861-1936)[89], taken up by historian Dan Scavone[90], and which I accept with modifications [see "c. 1343"], the Shroud was taken from Constantinople in 1204 by Fourth Crusader Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234) [see "1204"], an ancestor of Shroud owner Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428) [see "1355"] and after his death it was kept in Besançon's St Stephen's Cathedral[91]. Then in 1349 after the cathedral was struck by lightning and almost destroyed by the ensuing fire, the Shroud in its reliquary had disappeared[92] [see "1349"]. A member of the pro-French de Vergy family, fearing an English invasion of Burgundy (which later happened), within which was Besançon, entrusted the Shroud to France's King Philip VI (1328–50), who gave it to Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–56)[93], who then married Jeanne de Vergy[94] [see "1345a"]. Conveniently the Besançon `shroud' was later `found' in 1375 within the rebuilt cathedral by another member of the de Vergy family[95] [see "1375"]! Unfortunately the Besançon `shroud' was destroyed in 1794 by the French Revolution (1789-99) after it was examined and found to be painted[96].

1525a On 24 February Emperor Charles V defeats King Francis I in the Battle of Pavia[97]. The French suffer massive casualties and Francis is captured and imprisoned[98]. A year later, Francis is forced to sign the Treaty of Madrid surrendering Burgundy to the Holy Roman Empire[99].

1525b A notice "Pour scavoir la verite" ("to know the truth")[100] is posted by the canons[101] in the recently rebuilt in stone Lirey church [see "1526] next][102]. This contains inaccuracies[103], but its core claim that King Philip VI, gave the Shroud to Geoffroy I de Charny[104] "'as recompense for his valour"[105] is consistent with the Barnes-Scavone Besançon theory [see above].

1526 On 27 March Bishop Guillaume Parvy consecrates the new rebuilt in stone Lirey church[106]. Around 1820 this second Lirey church would be demolished and it would not be until 1897 that the third and current Lirey church [Left (enlarge)[107]] would be built in stone on the site of Geoffroy I de Charny's wooden church[108], which was built in 1353 [see "1353"].

1527 On 6 May Rome and the Vatican were sacked by mutinous troops of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (r. 1519-58)[109]. The Vatican icon

[Above (original)[110]: Extract from poor quality distance photograph of the Vatican's Veronica icon, which the Vatican won't allow to be photographed close up, presumably because they know it is merely a deteriorated 12th century copy of the Image of Edessa/Shroud!]

called "the Veronica" (Latin vera "true" + Greek eikon "image")[111] that had been in Rome since 1011[112], was thought to have disappeared in the sack[113]. But Ian Wilson has shown that the Veronica was copied in 1617[114], therefore it had survived the 1527 sack, and so presumably the Vatican's "Veronica" [above] is its 12th century copy of the Image of Edessa/Shroud, much deteriorated! [See 23Aug12 & 27Jul17]

1528 Birth of the great Emmanuel Philibert (1528-80), who will become Duke of Savoy in 1553[115], to Duke Charles III (r. 1504–53) and Beatrice of Portugal (1504-38) [see 1521a above]

1529 The Treaty of Cambrai between Francis I and Charles V agreed that France would keep Burgundy but renounced its claims to Milan and Naples in Italy, Artois in Northern France and Flanders in Belgium[116]. The treaty was negotiated between Francis I's mother Louise of Savoy (1476-1531) and Charles V's aunt and former regent, Margaret of Austria (1480–1530)[117]!

1530 Untimely death of Margaret of Austria in Mechelen, Belgium, on 1 December aged only 50[118]. In her will, which had been drawn up in 1508 [see "1508a"], Margaret had stipulated that she wished to leave a portion of the Shroud to her church at Brou near (now in) Bourg-en-Bresse[119].

1531 Margaret's will is executed but there is no record of a portion of the Shroud having been removed at that time[120]. Marino and Benford claim, or imply, that consequently there was an excision of a 5½ inch x 3½ inch (~14 cm x ~8.9 cm) section from the Shroud which was later almost invisibly repaired with 16th century thread which unknowingly was included in the 1988 radiocarbon dating sample[121]. But clearly Margaret could not have legally stipulated the removal of part of the Shroud which was not her property in 1508. So presumably she had been given, or had taken, a snippet from the Shroud when she was Duchess of Savoy between 1501-4. Or it was a gift from her mother-in-law, dowager duchess Claudine de Brosse (1450–1513) in 1505 when Margaret formally relinquished custody of the Shroud to Claudine [see "1505b"].

1532 In the night between the 3rd and 4th of December[122], a fire probably caused by an overturned candle[123], breaks out in the sacristy[124] of the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry[125]. The fire spreads rapidly through the rich furnishings of the Sainte Chapelle[126], and all but destroys it[127]. Because the Shroud's casket is in a cavity in the wall [Right (enlarge)[128]] above the high altar, behind an iron grille secured by four locks, each with a separate key [see above], there was no time to find the other key holders, so Canon Philibert Lambert summonsed a local blacksmith, Guglielmo Pussod, to prise open the grille to rescue the Shroud[129]. With the help of two Franciscan priests, they carry the Shroud in its burning casket outside to safety and the by then burning Shroud inside the casket is doused with water[130]. When the casket is opened in the adjoining Duke's castle it is discovered that miraculously the all-important image is almost unaffected[131].

However, a drop of molten silver from Margaret of Austria's casket [see "1509"] had burned its way through all 48 layers of the folded Shroud[132]. This left a descending pattern of burned and scorched areas [Left (enlarge)[133]] which were repaired by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns in 1534[134]. [see "1534"]. The fire was extinguished with water which penetrated the holes in the casket, leaving water stains on the cloth[135]. However, the repeating pattern of three large water stains across the Shroud are not from extinguishing the 1532 fire but from when the Shroud was kept in an ancient Middle-Eastern type pottery jar [see 05Apr18]! The melting point of silver is about 960°C[136], although the temperature inside the casket may have been `only' 200°C[137]. The 1532 burns and waterstains were therefore a "natural experiment" in that if the Shroud image had been painted, the paint and binder would have been affected by the heat and `run' through the waterstains[138]. But the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) found in 1978 that the image was unaffected by the intense heat and water[139], thus proving (along with other evidence - see 11Jul16) that the Shroud is not a painting[140].

1533 On 4 May the Shroud is not publicly exhibited[141] as it had been every year since 1506 [see "1506b"]. This gave credence to rumours that the Shroud had been totally destroyed in the fire[142].

1534 In April Pope Clement VII (r. 1523-34) (not the Avignon Pope Clement VII (r.1378-94)[143]) sent his envoy, Cardinal Louis de Gorrevod (c. 1473-1535), to Chambéry to make an official recognition of the Shroud and have it repaired[144]. Cardinal Gorrevod knew the Shroud well-it was him who in 1506 [see "1506b"] persuaded Pope Julius II (r. 1503- 13) to grant Duke Charles III's petition for a feast day of the Shroud[145]. On 15 April Cardinal Gorrevod holds a canonical investigation at Chambéry at which three bishops and ten noblemen testify that the cloth before them is the same one that they knew before the fire[146]. Then that same day, the cardinal sent word to the Poor Clare nuns at Chambéry (presumably this had been pre-arranged with them) that they were to undertake the delicate task of mending the Shroud[147]. The next day, 16 April, the Shroud is carried in a solemn procession including Duke Charles III, Cardinal Gorrevod, two bishops, an ecclesiastical notary and numerous other clergy, from the Duke's castle to the convent of Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns[148]. The Abbess, Louise de Vargin, and three other nuns begin their repairs of the Shroud[149]. They first attach a Holland cloth backing to the Shroud[150]. Then, after removing charring, the nuns sewed 14 large triangular-shaped patches and eight smaller ones into the Holland cloth backing[151]. These repairs are completed on 2 May and the Shroud is returned to the Dukes' castle in Chambéry[152].

To be continued in the next part #21 of this series.

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. "File:Bernard van Orley - Portrait of Margareta van Oostenrijk - WGA16689.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 15 August 2018. [return]
3. Van Haelst, R., 1986, "The Lier Shroud: a problem in attribution," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 20, September, pp.7-23, 14; Wilson, I., 1995, "New Insights on Margaret of Austria, who commissioned the Shroud casket destroyed in the Fire of 1532," BSTS Newsletter, No. 39, January, pp.14-16, 15; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.230; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.248-249. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1994, "A Chronology of the Shroud 1452-1509," BSTS Newsletter, No. 38, August/September, pp.20-25, 23; 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.285; Oxley, 2010, p.230. [return]
5. Oxley, 2010, p.17. [return]
6. Van Haelst, 1986, p.14; Wilson, 1994, p.22; Wilson, 1998, p.285; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.16; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
7. "File:Sainte-Chapelle (Chambéry).jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 7 May 2016. [return]
8. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.218; Wilson, 1994, p.23; Wilson, 1998, p.285; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
9. Wilson, 1979, p.218; Wilson, 1994, p.23; Wilson, 1998, p.286; 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.67; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.17; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
10. Wilson, 1979, p.218; Wilson, 1998, p.285; Ruffin, 1999, p.67; Guerrera, 2001, p.17; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
11. Guerrera, 2001, p.17; Wilson, 2010, p.249. [return]
12. Wilson, 1979, p.218. [return]
13. "File:Chateau de Cordon.JPG," Wikimedia Commons, 20 July 2011. [return]
14. "Château de Cordon," Wikipedia, 21 February 2017. [return]
15. Wilson, 1994, p.23. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Wilson, 1994, pp.23-24. [return]
18. "File:Carlo III di Savoia.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 18 February 2016. [return]
19. Wilson, 1994, p.24. [return]
20. Ibid. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.286. [return]
22. Chagny, A., 1990, "An Exposition of the Holy Shroud in the Market Place of Bourg-en-Bresse, 14 April 1503," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 37, December, pp.3-8, 8. [return]
23. Wilson, 1994, p.24. [return]
24. "Chateau de Ponçin, propriété privée inscrite IMH," 7 April 2019. [return]
25. "Château de Poncin," Wikipedia (French), 27 March 2017. Translated by Google. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, p.286. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. Wilson, 2010, p.250. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, pp.286-287. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
31. Wilson, 1994, p.23. [return]
32. Wilson, 2010, p.250. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Wilson, 1994, p.23; Ibid. [return]
35. Wilson, 1994, p.24; Wilson, 1998, p.287; Oxley, 2010, p.5. [return]
36. Marino, J.G. & Benford, S., 2000, "Evidence for the skewing of the C-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin due to repairs," Semantic Scholar. [return]
37. Marino, J.G. & Benford, S., 2001, "Could the Shroud's radiocarbon date have been Skewed due to 16th century repairs?" BSTS Newsletter, No. 54, November; Oxley, 2010, p.5. [return]
38. Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, 25; Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
39. Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
40. Ibid; Ruffin, 1999, p.67. [return]
41. Wilson, 1994, p.25. [return]
42. Wilson, I., 1996, "A Calendar of the Shroud for the years 1509-1694," BSTS Newsletter, No. 44, November/December; Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Donandoni, E., 2016, "5 minutes with… The earliest painted representation of the Turin Shroud," Christie's, 7 June. [return]
45. Donandoni, 2016. [return]
46. Ibid. [return]
47. Ibid. [return]
48. Wilson, 1996. [return]
49. Wilson, 1998, p.288. [return]
50. Wilson, 1996. [return]
51. "Francis I of France," Wikipedia, 7 October 2019. [return]
52. Fossati, L., 1984, "Copies of the Holy Shroud: Part I," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 12, September, pp.7-23, 8. [return]
53. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.18. [return]
54. Wilson, 1998, p.288; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
55. Wilson, 1998, p.287. [return]
56. Moretto, 1999, p.18; Guerrera, 2001, p.106. [return]
57. Van Haelst, 1986, pp.18-20. [return]
58. Van Haelst, 1986, p.7. [return]
59. Van Haelst, 1986, p.20. [return]
60. Van Haelst, 1986, pp.7,13, 16. [return]
61. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.4. [return]
62. Morgan, R.H., 1998, "Shroud Exposition 1998," Shroud News, No 107, April, pp.2-26, 21. [return]
63. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.163. [return]
64. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.37. [return]
65. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
66. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, pp.46-47. [return]
67. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, pp.43-44. [return]
68. "Reformation Day," Wikipedia, 23 September 2019. [return]
69. Chambéry Palace piazza, La Savoie, terre d'accueil de la Fédération Française de Gymnastique, [return]
70. Wilson, 2010, pp.251-252. [return]
71. Wilson, 1979, p.262; Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, p.288; Wilson, 2010, p.251. [return]
72. Oxley, 2010, p.79. [return]
73. Oxley, 2010, p.79. [return]
74. Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, p.288. [return]
75. Wilson, 1998, p.288. [return]
76. "Beatrice of Portugal, Duchess of Savoy: Marriage and children," Wikipedia, 27 July 2019. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, p.262; Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, p.288. [return]
78. Wilson, 1979, p.262; Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, p.288; Scott, 2003, pp.47-48. [return]
79. Crispino, D.C, 1985, "Doubts along the Doubs," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 14, March, pp.10-24, 21. [return]
80. "The Holy Shroud of Besançon," 1634, by Jean de Loisy (c. 1603-60), The Art Institute of Chicago. [return]
82. Crispino, 1985, p.21. [return]
83. Ibid. [return]
84. Wilson, 1998, p.288. [return]
85. Wilson, 1998, p.289. [return]
86. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 200. [return]
87. Scavone, 1991, p.200. [return]
88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.16. [return]
89. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, pp.54-55; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.50. [return]
90. Scavone, 1991, pp.198-201. [return]
91. Barnes, 1934, pp.55-56; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.50; Scavone, 1991, p.198. [return]
92. Barnes, 1934, p.55; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.50; Scavone, 1991, p.198. [return]
93. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.50. [return]
94. Ibid. [return]
95. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.50; Scavone, 1991, p.199. [return]
96. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.60; Barnes, 1934, p.57; Rinaldi, P.M., 1978, "The Man in the Shroud," [1972], Futura: London, Revised, p.54; Fossati, 1984, p.7; Crispino, 1985, p.11; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.99; Ruffin, 1999, pp.62, 101. [return]
97. Oxley, 2010, p.80; "Battle of Pavia," Wikipedia, 14 October 2019. [return]
98. Battle of Pavia," Wikipedia, 2019. [return]
99. Oxley, 2010, p.80; Battle of Pavia," Wikipedia, 2019. [return]
100. Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.58-70, 67. [return]
101. Crispino, D.C., 1993, "Recently published: D. Raffard de Brienne: Le Secret du Saint Suaire, Chire 1993, pp. 125," pp.43-50, 44. [return]
102. Guerrera, 2001, p.11. [return]
103. Crispino, 1988, p.25; Wilson, 1996; Scavone, 1998, p.67; Wilson, 1998, p.289. [return]
104. Scavone, 1998, p.67. [return]
105. Wilson, 1998, p.132. [return]
106. Crispino, 1988, p.25. [return]
107. "Lirey, France," Google Street View, August 2008. [return]
108. Crispino, 1988, p.25. [return]
109. "Sack of Rome (1527)," Wikipedia, 14 October 2019. [return]
110. "St. Peter's Basilica: St Veronica Statue," 6 February 2010. [return]
111. Guerrera, 2001, p.7. [return]
112. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.156; Wilson, 1998, p.269; Guerrera, 2001, pp.7, 24; Oxley, 2010, p.37. [return]
113. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.266; Oxley, 2010, p.37. [return]
114. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.113; Oxley, 2010, p.37. [return]
115. "Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy," Wikipedia, 7 October 2019. [return]
116. Oxley, 2010, p.37; "War of the League of Cognac: Barcelona, Cambrai, and Bologna," Wikipedia, 22 October 2019. [return]
117. "War of the League of Cognac," Wikipedia, 22 October 2019. [return]
118. Chagny, 1990, p.8; "Margaret of Austria, Duchess of Savoy," Wikipedia, 10 August 2019. [return]
119. Oxley, 2010, p.77. [return]
120. Oxley, 2010, p.77. [return]
121. Marino & Benford, 2001. [return]
122. Crispino, D.C., 1982, "The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns: Chambéry, 1534," No. 2, March, pp.19-28, 19; Iannone, 1998, p.3; Moretto, 1999, p.19. [return]
123. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.2; Iannone, 1998, pp.3, 141. [return]
124. Wilson, 1979, p.219; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.45; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.49; Iannone, 1998, p.141; Moretto, 1999, p.19; Guerrera, 2001, p.18. [return]
125. Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.14. [return]
126. Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.14; de Wesselow, 2012, p.16. [return]
127. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.13; Antonacci, 2000, p.48. [return]
128. Moretto, 1999, p.19. [return]
129. Humber, 1978, p.105; Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, pp.65, 289; Oxley, 2010, p.77. [return]
130. Morgan, 1980, p.45. [return]
131. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Ruffin, 1999, p.68. [return]
132. 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.49; 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, 13. [return]
133. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Burn holes (1532 A.D.)," (rotated left 90°), [return]
134. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.34-57, 35. [return]
135. Heller & Adler, 1981, p.35. [return]
136. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.23; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 38. [return]
137. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.6-7; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.36. [return]
138. Heller, 1983, pp.6-7; Antonacci, 2000, p.48. [return]
139. Guerrera, 2001, p.65. [return]
140. Antonacci, 2000, p.48. [return]
141. Crispino, 1982, p.20; Wilson, 1998, p.289; Wilson, 2010, p.253. [return]
142. Crispino, 1982, p.20; Wilson, 1998, p.289; Wilson, 2010, p.253; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22. [return]
143. Guerrera, 2001, p.25. [return]
144. Crispino, 1982, p.20. [return]
145. Crispino, 1982, p.20. [return]
146. Wilson, 1996. [return]
147. Crispino, 1982, p.20. [return]
148. Wilson, 2010, pp.252-253. [return]
149. Oxley, 2010, p.79. [return]
150. Cruz, 1984, p.49; Iannone, 1998, pp.3-4. [return]
151. Morgan, 1980, p.45. Cruz, 1984, p.49; Guerrera, 2001, p.18. [return]
152. Wilson, 1996. [return]

Posted 25 September 2019. Updated 5 June 2024.

Monday, September 16, 2019

"News and Editorial," Shroud of Turin News, August 2019

Shroud of Turin News - August 2019
© Stephen E. Jones

[Previous: July 2019, part #1] [Next: September 2019, part #1]

This is the August 2019 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in August as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. My words are bold to distinguish them from the articles'.

• "The Turin Shroud: Evidence for Everything," Patheos, 1 August 2019, Fr. Dwight Longenecker: "Over at Imaginative Conservative an article of mine surfaced from my pilgrimage to Italy in 2015 to venerate the Shroud of Turin [Right]. In the article I outline some of the well known discoveries and some of the more recent, and go on to speculate about how the Shroud of Turin is the evidence that so many atheist[s] demand ... Why is this evidence for everything? Because the materialist worldview is based on the belief that the natural world is a closed system. It is a closed system because there is not other force greater than that system outside the system which could intervene and interrupt that closed system. There is certainly not external intelligent force to do so. For the materialist the system MUST be closed. This is the weakness of the materialist point of view. All it takes is one miracle to break their fragile worldview. Just one miracle means that the system is not closed, but open to outside forces that can intervene and interrupt that system. If the miracle is consistent with the rest of our body of knowledge, if it is rational ... and if it makes sense with the rest of our proposals about reality, then the materialist edifice must crumble. There is enough evidence about the shroud (for those who will examine it with an open mind) to bring one to the point of saying, `Here is evidence of a miracle' and if that, then much else must follow." As I wrote in my first post to this my blog:

"I created this blog because I have become increasingly interested in the Shroud as empirical evidence that Christianity is true and therefore that Naturalism (i.e. the philosophy that nature is all there is = there is no supernatural = there is no God, which dominates science and our secular Western society generally), is false."
• "The Shroud of Turin: Latest Study Deepens Mystery," National Catholic Register, 5 August 2019, K.V. Turley:"A new French-Italian study on the Shroud of Turin throws doubt on what many thought was the definitive dating of the cloth believed by millions to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ ... This news comes as no surprise to Russ Breault [Left (original)[2].], the president of the Shroud of Turin Education Project Inc. `It is amazing that it took a Freedom of Information request to finally get the raw data from the British Museum, who oversaw the 1988 dating tests,' he told the Register. `The decision not to publish all the data in Nature was no doubt so they could achieve the coveted `95% confidence' regarding the medieval date.' Casabianca's team found that the 1988 carbon dating was unreliable, as only pieces from the edges of the cloth were radiocarbon tested ... `There is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the shroud, are representative of the whole fabric. It is, therefore, impossible to conclude that the Shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages' ... Doubts persist elsewhere, too, about the methodology and findings of the 1988 study. David Rolfe [Right[3].] ... explains how all the controls, initially put in place for the 1988 tests, that the scientists might proceed in a rigorously scientific manner, were disregarded. Rolfe thinks that ... `For reasons of their own self-interest, the individuals supervising the test and those running the labs ... glossed over the abandonment of the protocols, as they needed to give the impression of accuracy and infallibility of the new method.' When the 1988 findings were published, Rolfe says: `No one was prepared to challenge the weight and might of the combined authority of the British Museum and Oxford ... Breault told the Register, `Usually when something is revealed only under duress it is because there is something to hide ... `Politically the Church does not want to be viewed as anti-science. Hence, the shroud is often referred to as a "symbol of Christ's suffering, worthy of veneration."' ... To call the shroud a `relic' would imply it is authentic, whereas to call it an `icon' is to suggest that it is manmade ..." I have previously criticised the Vatican's duplicity in refusing to confirm or deny that the Shroud is authentic, i.e. a relic, not an icon. When by its spending of many millions of US dollar equivalents in protecting and exhibiting the Shroud, the Vatican shows that it really does think the Shroud is Jesus' very burial sheet. See 06Oct13, 26Nov13, 14Feb14, 01Mar14 ...

• "Conference aims to push the boundaries of faith and science in study of the Shroud of Turin," The Catholic Register, 6 August 2019, Mickey Conlon: "In R. Gary Chiang's mind there is no argument over the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin — science has already proven the existence of the supernatural. `Science has already solved the mystery, but people will not accept the answer,' said Chiang [Left[4]], a professor at Redeemer College, a Christian university in Ancaster, Ont., where he pursues research and teaching from a Christian perspective as well as insect physiology."

• "Get to know the Shroud of Turin’s companion cloth," Aleteia John Burger, 10 August 2019. "Less celebrated but more often viewed is Spain's Sudarium. The Shroud of Turin was in the news again recently ... An object that gets much less attention, though, is equally interesting. And for many believers, there is far less doubt surrounding the Sudarium of Oviedo, as it is known. `It was preserved

[Above (enlarge)[5]: The Sudarium of Oviedo. Why would anyone bother to preserve from Christianity's earliest centuries such an ordinary, grubby, blood and lung fluid stained, piece of linen, unless it was known to be "the face cloth [Gk. soudarion] that had been on Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7)?!]

from the time of the crucifixion in a reliquary; however, the [Shroud and the Sudarium] were separated — eventually being carried to other countries,' blogger Kathy Schiffer writes in the National Catholic Register. According to Schiffer, the Sudarium never went missing, so its location can be traced back to ancient times ... Since 631, it has been in Spain and since 840 in the cathedral of Oviedo in north-central Spain. Before that it was ... hidden in a cave ... not far from Jerusalem. When Persian forces invaded the Byzantine provinces in 614, the oak case in which the Sudarium was kept was spirited out of Palestine through northern Africa ... Study of the Sudarium helps to authenticate the Shroud of Turin, Schiffer notes, because of notable similarities between the two cloths. `Of prime importance, the blood and lymph stains on the two cloths match — both are type AB, which was uncommon among medieval Europeans but is a common blood type in the Middle East,' she say ... Pollen residues on the Shroud and the Sudarium both provide evidence that the cloths were in the same region of Palestine. Stains on the two cloths would also seem to match.

[Above (enlarge)[6]: Perfect match of bloodstains on the Sudarium of Oviedo (which has been in Spain since at least AD 840) and the Shroud, proving that they once covered the head of the same crucifixion victim - Jesus!]

Because of the way the Sudarium would have covered the head, there is no clear face print — but there are remarkable correlations between stains on the two cloths. The Sudarium would have been wrapped over the head of Christ while his relatives waited for permission to remove the body; and so the stains show that the body was held in a vertical position with the head dropping back. At the back of the head, the cloth shows blood from deep puncture wounds, similar to the wounds on the Shroud of Turin, which may have been made by the crown of thorns. A second, overlaying stain was produced by fluids excreted from the nostrils when the body was lain horizontally. According to the Investigation Team from the Spanish Centre for Sind[on]ology, which has been studying the Sudarium since 1989, this second set of stains is composed of one part AB-type blood and six parts oedemal fluid. This fluid proves, according to scientists, that the victim died from asphyxiation — which is the cause of death for people who are crucified ... The Sudarium is kept in the Arca Santa in the Oviedo cathedral ..."

• "`Perhaps the most important isotope': how carbon-14 revolutionised science," The Guardian, 11 August 2019, Robin McKie: "The discovery that carbon atoms act as a marker of time of death transformed everything from biochemistry to oceanography – but the breakthrough nearly didn't happen ... Later, the technique was used by laboratories in

[Above (original): "A photographic reproduction of the Turin shroud." The photo contradicts the article! Res ipsa loquitur (L. "it speaks for itself")!]

Britain, Switzerland and the United States to date the flax used to weave the Turin shroud. This cloth, marked with the negative image of a bearded man, was believed by some to be the burial shroud in which Jesus was wrapped after crucifixion. Using only a few fragments of cloth, scientists dated it to 1260-1390AD."

• "Open Letter to Pope Francis: Time to Re-Test the Shroud," Townhall, 11 August 2019, Myra Kahn Adams: "... Your Holiness, Significant momentum is building for decisive action that will positively impact your church, all Christ-centered denominations, and the world. It’s time for 21st-century scientific testing on the Shroud of Turin. Only you can authorize what will be a universally applauded decision that could also enhance your papal legacy. Why should the Shroud be tested now? Articles from three international Catholic news sources provide the answer. National Catholic Register, August 5: `The Shroud of Turin Latest Study Deepens Mystery.' (Subhead: `Researchers cast doubt on the findings of the controversial 1988 study.') Inside the Vatican, June/July issue (re-published from La Stampa newspaper): `The Shroud Is Not Medieval. We Need New Studies to Know Its Age.' Aleteia, July 22: `New data questions finding that Shroud of Turin was medieval hoax.' (Subhead: `Specialists hope to re-test the artifact which some believe to be an authentic relic of Christ's crucifixion.') The Aleteia article immediately followed my July 21, U.S.-based Townhall piece, `Shroud of Turin: New Test Concludes 1988 "Medieval Hoax" Dating Was a Fraud.' ... " I am opposed to the Shroud being re-carbon dated because: 1) It would probably not date 1st century, but early century (e.g. 4th century), because of irremovable carbon contamination, and then sceptics would claim that the Shroud was forged in the 4th century! 2) We have more than enough evidence that the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet. 3) Radiocarbon dating of old linen is problematic. 4) We could not guarantee that the carbon dating would be conducted honestly as it would still be done by secular scientists who are mostly opposed to Christianity and there would be a powerful vested interest to save face.

• "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?,", 16 August 2019, Matthew Cserhati & Rob Carter: "Figure 1: The Shroud of Turin contains a faint dorsal (top half) and frontal (lower half) image of a man, with many features paralleling the Crucifixion. Yet, the historical record of the Shroud is spotty, multiple features on it conflict with the biblical record of events, and carbon dating places it squarely in the medieval era." I am responding to this article in a multi-post series, "`Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?' #1" As I noted in my original reply comment:

"It is strange that a Young Earth Creation publication would attack the Shroud, since: 1) it has nothing directly to do with creation; 2) it is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which is evidence that Christianity and therefore creation is true); 3) it would turn off many of its creationist readers who believe that the Shroud is authentic ...; and 4) it sides with atheist/agnostics like Richard Dawkins on an issue, carbon dating, that Young Earth Creationist normally reject"!
• "The Atheist Filmmaker and the Shroud of Turin," National Catholic Register," 24 August 2019: "David Rolfe is today one of the foremost British experts on the Turin Shroud. He is also one the most enthusiastic proponents of the Shroud's authenticity. That mysterious cloth has not only become part of his life: it changed it. In 1976, Rolfe was working as an independent documentary filmmaker in London. He invited film proposals and then found himself swamped with responses. They were `mostly,' he says `very uninspiring.' However, having invited the submissions, he felt under obligation to look through the correspondence he was receiving. One summer evening in his office overlooking the rooftops of Soho, the London district that is the center of the British film industry, he remembers yet again reaching for the pile of submissions. As he lifted up a sheaf of paper a picture tumbled out. The picture was of the photographic negative of the face on the Turin Shroud. `I had never seen it before or even been aware of the Shroud's existence,' he says. Then he noticed that there was an additional picture. It was of the body that is on both sides of the Shroud. Notes accompanied the pictures from an historian, Ian Wilson. Wilson was to author the later groundbreaking book: The Turin Shroud (1978). This work sparked interest and debate about the Shroud in the English-speaking world as never before. Wilson's then notes to the filmmaker began to detail what he claimed to be the Shroud's history as well as documenting the new research into the Shroud, both archaeological and scientific. Rolfe knew none of this. He was an atheist. Unmoved by any of the religious implications of the images at which he was looking, he says what struck him was `that this negative image was on a 4-metre linen cloth at least as old as the Middle Ages.' ... The documentary filmmaker was suddenly engaged: he felt `there had to be a story worth investigating here!' ... During these `advent-ures' Rolfe says he `found God.' He had been baptized an Anglican and returned to the faith of his parents. His finished film was to be called The Silent Witness (1978) [Right (enlarge)[7].]. It would go on to win a BAFTA and many other international film awards ..."

Posts: In August I blogged only 1 new post: "4 June 1989: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," - 3rd.

Updates In August, from memory, there were no significant updates in the background of my past posts.

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. In August, as can be seen above, I blogged only 1 post on this topic.

My book: [see 02Sep19] In August I continued writing in Word, Chapter 3, "The man on the Shroud" and in parallel also in Word, "Problems of the Forgery Theory."

[Left (enlarge): The planned cover of my book.]

I recently read in an old news article, which I hadn't saved, so I may not have known it, that, "The next public viewing [of the Shroud] is scheduled for 2025"[8]. That now is my target date to publish my book. It will also be my last chance (I will be 79 - "If the Lord wills ..." James 4:15!) to see the Shroud for the first time. As I mentioned at the end of a previous post:

"Also, with the end of this series, I want to start a new series: `Turin Shroud: the Evidence,' which will supersede my unfinished series, `The Shroud of Turin.' This will also help me write my book by covering topics in advance of it."
But only today I realised that I needed to continue with my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" series, which I last posted on 14Jan19! So that will probably be my next post.

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 August, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 1,093,684.

This compares with 940,492 at the same time in August 2018. That is 153,192 pageviews over the year, or an average of ~420 pageviews per day.

Google Analytics also gave the most viewed posts for August (highest uppermost) as: "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F," Jan 20, 2016 - 116; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 114; "Shroud name index `J'," Apr 1, 2008 - 78; "Casabianca, T., et al., 2019, `Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data,' Archaeometry, 22 March" May 29, 2019 - 51 & "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index G-M ," Apr 2, 2016 - 51.

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. "Russ Breault: The Mystery of the Shroud," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc, 2019. [return]
3. "The Shroud of Turin ... A Grave Injustice," David Rolfe, Beaconsfield UK, 2019. [return]
4. "Dr. Gary Chiang," Redeemer University, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada, 2019. [return]
5. Schiffer, K., 2019, "The Sudarium of Oviedo: The `Other Shroud' of Jesus," National Catholic Register, 18 April. [return]
6. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.122. [return]
7. " The Silent Witness: Various, David W Rolfe: Movies & TV," 14 January 2005 [return]
8. "Shroud of Turin on display for the first time in five years," Telegraph, 21 April 2015, Teresa Machan. [return]

Posted: 16 September 2019. Updated: 11 October 2021.

Sunday, September 8, 2019

`Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?' #1

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #1 of my multi-post response to Cserhati, M. & Carter, R., 2019, "Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Or is it a forgery?", 16 August. See my reply comment of 22Aug19. It is a long article, which would require an even longer series to fully respond to it, so I have decided to confine my response to the article's "Summary," referring to the main article as I do. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. The article's words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

[Next: part #2]

Summary Controversy surrounds the Shroud of Turin (hereafter ‘the Shroud’), which some say is the

["Figure 1 (Enlarge[2]): The Shroud of Turin contains a faint dorsal (top half) and frontal (lower half) image of a man, with many features paralleling the Crucifixion.This is false. The Shroud has all the features paralleling the Crucifixion of Jesus. See my 15Jun13 (with dot points in lieu of a table):

"The Shroud is consistent with the Bible. 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 ... parallels between the Gospel evidence and the Shroud evidence are ... Gospel evidence Verses Shroud evidence:
• Jesus was scourged. Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:1 The 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 19:3 There is a severe swelling below the right eye and other face wounds.
• Jesus was crowned with thorns. Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2 Bleeding from the scalp indicates that a `cap' of thorns was thrust upon the head..
• Jesus was made to carry a heavy crossbeam. Jn 19:17 Scourge 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 23:26 The knees are severely damaged, as if from repeated falls.
• Jesus was crucified by nails in His hands and feet. Jn 20:25-27; Col 2:14 There are blood flows as from nail wounds in the wrists and at the feet.
• Jesus' legs were not broken, but a spear was thrust into his side as a check that he was dead. Jn 19:31-37 The legs are not broken, and there is a large wound in the right side."
Yet, the historical record of the Shroud is spotty, Misleading-see future below. multiple features on it conflict with the biblical record of events, False-see future below. and carbon dating places it squarely in the medieval era" These Young Earth Creationists, who reject carbon dating, are here using it to discredit the Shroud!-but see future below.]

authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ. This cloth shows the front and rear image of a man who appears to have undergone a lot of torture. Here we present our view on the authenticity of the Shroud. Due to several lines of evidence, we think that the Shroud of Turin is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ: As I noted in my reply comment:

"It is strange that a Young Earth Creation publication would attack the Shroud, since: 1) it has nothing directly to do with creation; 2) it is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which is evidence that Christianity and therefore Creation is true); 3) it would turn off many of its creationist readers who believe that the Shroud is authentic (like yourself); and 4) it sides with atheist/agnostics like Richard Dawkins on an issue, carbon dating, that Young Earth Creationist normally reject"!
These no doubt well-meaning Bible-believing Christian writers (if they read this-which I doubt) might ponder: 1) It is possible to "have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom 10:2). Their reference list at the foot of their article does not include anything by Ian Wilson, for starters! 2) It is possible to unwittingly be "fighting against God" (Acts 5:39 NIV). 3) Jesus warned in Mt 18:6; Mk 9:42; Lk 17:1-2 [Below (enlarge)[3]] that if anyone causes a Christian to sin (in this case to reject the Shroud, which is the is the very burial sheet of Jesus, according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence), "it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." So these writers might ask themselves, "why are we undermining the Christian faith of millions?" Even if they were right that the Shroud is a forgery (which they are not - see my "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory"), Jesus' warning against undermining the faith of even one their fellow Christians still applies.

Bible: Our conclusions are primarily based on the biblical evidence, namely that according to John 11:44 and John 20:7 the Jewish custom was to bury their dead using several cloths, not just one. The Jews buried Jesus with a face cloth, which disqualifies the Shroud as being the burial cloth of Christ. As pointed out in the previous post, this is fallacious as "One large shroud does not preclude the use of other cloths":

"One commenter on this blog, in an earlier post on the subject, said that the Shroud could not be genuine, since the Bible specifies that Joseph of Arimathea `bound' Jesus’ body in `linen cloths,' plural (John 19:40). But the synoptic Gospels say that His body was wrapped in a `linen shroud,' singular (Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53). This is not a contradiction. One large shroud does not preclude the use of other cloths, which might have been used to `bind' the larger cloth that was wrapped around the body"[4].

[Above (enlarge): Pray Codex (or Manuscript) "Visit to the Sepulchre" lower half of Berkovits, 1969, Plate III[5]. This depicts Mark 16:1-6 where the three women disciples: Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of the James the younger (Mk 15:40) and wife of Clopas (Jn 19:25); and Salome, sister of Mary the mother of Jesus and mother of the Apostle John (Mt 20:20; 27:56; Jn 19:25) came to finish the anointing of the body of Jesus and were told by an angel ("a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe") that Jesus was not there but had risen. See 11Jul12.]

The reason I posted the above angel appearance to the women, is that it is the same apparent problem, where one gospel (Mark 16:5) mentions only one man/angel and another gospel (Luke 24:4) mentions two, for the same incident. And the solution is the same for us Bible-believing Christians namely, "If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one":

"How many men or angels appeared at the tomb? Matt 28:2; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; John 20:1-2, 12

An angel of the Lord on the stone (Matthew 28:1-2) - "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it."

A young man (Mark 16:5) - "And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed."

Two men (Luke 24:4) - "And it happened that while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling apparel."

Two angels (John 20:1-2,12) - "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him. 10nd she beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying."

There is no discrepancy at all. An angel of the Lord moved the stone and was sitting upon it outside (Matthew 28:2). The two men (Luke 24:4) were angels (John 20:12). Mark 16:5 presents the only potential issue and it isn't the only one at all. If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one. This one was on the right. Therefore, we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb." ("How many men or angels appeared at the tomb?," Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, 2011)

There is a similar apparent problem in Mt 8:28-34; Mk 5:1-16; Lk 8:26-36 where Matthew mentions "two demon-possessed men" but Mark and Luke mention only one "man" in what is clearly the same incident. Then there is Mt 20:29-34, which records that Jesus healed "two blind men" near Jericho. But Mk 10:46-52 and Lk 18:35-43 say that only one "blind beggar"/"blind man" was healed.

The Bible-believing solution is the same in each case: "If there were two [angels, linen cloths, demon-possessed men, blind men] in the same incident, then there was at least one." Bible-believing Christians (including Cserhati and Carter) who reject the Shroud, on the basis that John's gospel (Jn 20:5-7) mentions "linen cloths" (plural [Gk othonia "strips of linen" (Lk 24:12; Jn 19:40 and 20:5-7 (NIV)) and Mounce Interlinear]), not a "linen cloth" (singular), to be consistent should reject Luke's account that there were two men/angels in the empty tomb (Luke 24:4) because Mark mentions there was one (Mk 16:5). They should also reject Matthew's account that Jesus healed two demon-possessed Gadarene/Gerasene men by sending the demons into a herd of pigs (Mt 8:28-34) because Mark and Luke mention only one (Mk 5:1-16; Lk 8:26-36). And they should also reject Matthew's account which says that Jesus healed two blind men near Jericho (Mt 20:29-34), because Mark and Luke record there was one (Mk 10:46-52; Lk 18:35-43).

And there is not even that problem in the case of the Shroud, because nowhere does any gospel state that that there was only one burial cloth. And no one on the Shroud pro-authenticity side, as far as I am aware, claims that the Shroud was the only burial cloth of Jesus. As far as I am aware, everyone in the Shroud pro-authenticity community accepts that the Sudarium of Oviedo is "the face cloth [Gk. soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths [othonia] but folded up in a place by itself" in Jn 20:7.

Furthermore, Jesus was buried with seventy-five pounds of extremely sticky spices, according to John 19:40, whereas the Shroud shows no signs of them. They are setting up a strawman and then refuting that:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent"[6].
John 19:40, in context John 19:38-40 (NIV), says nothing about "extremely sticky spices":
"38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs."
As can be seen above, it simply says "a mixture of myrrh and aloes." And according to Wikipedia, "Myrrh gum

[Right: Dried myrrh resin[7].]

... coagulates quickly ... [and] becomes hard and glossy":
"When a tree's wound penetrates through the bark and into the sapwood, the tree secretes a resin. Myrrh gum, like frankincense, is such a resin. When people harvest myrrh, they wound the trees repeatedly to bleed them of the gum. Myrrh gum is waxy and coagulates quickly. After the harvest, the gum becomes hard and glossy. The gum is yellowish and may be either clear or opaque. It darkens deeply as it ages, and white streaks emerge"[8].
The Greek word translated "mixture," migma from "mingle," can either be liquid, as in "diluting wine" or dry as in "mixing ... two sorts of grain"[9].

This very large quantity of 75 pounds (= 34 kgs) of spices [Gk aromaton = aromatics] shows that simple anointing was not their intended function, but that they would have been packed around the body, as we today would pack ice[10]. Their function was to postpone putrefaction temporarily until the washing and anointing could be completed after the Sabbath and Passover (Mk 16:1; Lk 23:56-24:1)[11]. They would therefore have been in dry blocks or in powdered or granulated form[12]. This is supported by Jn 19:40's "with [Gk meta] the spices"[13] (see above), not epi "on" or peri "around" but with the body of Jesus.

As pointed out in 21Jan16, the Greek word othonia is not a collective plural to be translated "linen cloths" (as wrongly in the ESV). My New Testament Greek lexicons are unanimous in stating that othonia is a plural of othonion, which is a diminutive of othone, "a linen cloth," hence othonion is "a small linen cloth," "a bandage" (as rightly in the NIV) and othonia its plural, are "strips of linen," "bandages"[14]. Therefore it was the strips of linen (othonia) which were in contact with the packs of dried myrrh and aloes, not the Shroud (sindon) :

"Another term is introduced by the New Testament writers, namely othonia, defined as `binding cloths or strips of linen.' We read in John 19:40: `They took Jesus' body and bound it in linen cloths ["strips of linen"] (othoniois) with the spices, as is the custom among the Jews in preparing for burial.' Luke 24:12 also uses the term: `But Peter got up and ran to the tomb, and when he stooped down he saw only the linen cloths ["strips of linen"](othonia).' The late Shroud author Werner Bulst, SJ., pointed out that othonia as used in John 19:40 refers to a narrow cloth, a strip (such as is used for bandaging a wound). This is equivalent to the bindings (keriai) with which Lazarus was bound (Jn 11:44). Likewise the verb deo found in John 11:44 and 19:40 always meant to bind in the strict sense and never `to wrap up in or envelop' indicating that these were bandage strips differing from the larger cloth. These binding strips were used to bind the hands and feet to permit easy carrying of the body, especially through the narrow entrance to the cave-tombs and to secure the position of the body (with hands folded across the loins). Rigor mortis likely began on the Cross and was broken to bind the hands and feet for carrying. Bulst points out that on the body image of the Shroud there is a gap above the wrists: Strangely, a little above the wrist, there is a gap of about a hand's breadth with no trace of the blood that trickled and caked along the forearm muscle of the Crucified. The blood transfers on the forearms are otherwise unusually clear and sharply outlined. The missing imprint above the wrists on either forearm would be readily explained if a linen strip had been bound about them here and knotted to keep the arms in the position as they are seen on the Cloth. Without some such bond, this position of the arms would he impossible"[15].
Moreover, it is not true that "the Shroud shows no signs of" myrrh and aloes. While STURP did not detect those spices[16], "Pier Luigi Baima Bollone, professor of Legal Medicine at the University of Turin, identified traces of aloe and myrrh on the Shroud, principally in the bloodstained areas"[17].

Continued in the part #2 of this series.

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. Image of the Shroud in the article, with no acknowledgment of source (which is plagiarism), but it appears to be from, "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 7 September 2019. [return]
3. "Warning to not Cause Someone to Sin – Matthew 18:6," Mission Venture Ministries, 19 April 2018. [return]
4. Veith, G., 2019, "The Shroud of Turin Is Not a Medieval Hoax After All?" Patheos, July 26. [return]
5. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, plate III. [return]
6. "Straw man," Wikipedia, 9 September 2019. [return]
7. "File:Commiphora-myrrha-resin-myrrh.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 30 October 2018. [return]
8. "Myrrh," Wikipedia, 9 August 2019. [return]
9. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.985. [return]
10. Clift, M., 1985, "Contributions from B.S.T.S. members," BSTS Newsletter, No. 10, April, pp.11-13, 12-13). [return]
11. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.117. [return]
12. Antonacci, 2000, p.117. [return]
13. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.49; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.94. [return]
14. Bagster, S., ed., 1870, "The Analytical Greek Lexicon," Samuel Bagster and Sons: London, c. 1960, reprinted, p.283; Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.439; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.411; Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, p.555; Zodhiates, 1992, p.1028. [return]
15. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.81. [return]
16. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh NC, p.44; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.154. [return]
17. Morgan, R., 1982, "Some Italian Scientific Results," Shroud News, No 12, pp.6-10, 6; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.205-206; Iannone, 1998, p.87. [return]

Posted: 8 September 2019. Updated: 7 December 2019.