Problems of the forgery theory A-Z: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

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

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

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

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

This series has been superseded by my 2024 series, "Problems of the forgery theory: Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!"

[Main index #1] [Previous: Coins over the eyes #32] [Next: The Bible and the Shroud #33]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(or Manuscript), which is dated 1192-95[96]. It was named after György Pray (1723-1801) who discovered it in a Hungarian archive in 1770[97]. There are at least eight, and by my count twelve [see 27May12a. Actually fourteen - see 04Oct18], telling correspondences between the Shroud and the Pray Codex[95], at least sixty-five years before the earliest possible radiocarbon date of 1260[98]. The above (Berkovits, 1969, pl.III) is one of four ink drawings in the Pray Codex but only pl.III and pl.IV [see 27May12b] are self-evidently based on the Shroud[99]. The drawings are older than the codex and Berkovits dates them about 1150[100]. At the time of the codex's compilation Hungary was ruled by King Bela III (r. 1172–1196), who was an ally of the Byzantine Empire[101] and had lived at the Imperial Court in Constantinople from 1163-72[102]. Bela III had been betrothed to Maria Komnene (1152-82) a daughter of Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143-80)[103] and was the promised heir to the throne of the Emperor Manuel I[104]. But after Manuel's wife Maria of Antioch (1145–1182) in 1169 gave birth to a son, Alexios II (r.1180-83), Manuel dissolved his daughter's betrothal to Bela[105]. At Manuel's request Bela instead married Manuel's wife's sister Agnes of Antioch (1154-84) in c.1168[106]. Upon the death of Bela's brother King Stephen III (r. 1162–72) in 1172, Bela returned to Hungary and was crowned King of Hungary in 1173[107]. It seems likely that the four drawings in the Pray Codex, including the two which depict Jesus' naked body on the Shroud, were a gift from Emperor Manuel I to Bela III for giving up his claim to the Byzantine throne and marrying Manuel's wife's sister instead of his promised daughter! In 1207[108], after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, Nicholas Mesarites, keeper of the Emperor's relics in the Pharos Chapel, Constantinople, recalled that in 1201, in that chapel, was "the sindon [which] wrapped the mysterious, naked dead body [of Christ] after the Passion" (my emphasis)[109]. The Greek word variously translated "mysterious"[110], "indefinable"[111] and "uncircumscribed"[112], is aperilepton[113], which literally means "un-outlined"[114] or "outlineless"[115]. The Shroud-image uniquely has no outline[116, see 11Jun16], so there could be no stronger proof that the Shroud in Constantinople is that of Lirey, Chambéry and Turin[117]! No medieval forger, who intended his work to be accepted as genuine, would have depicted Jesus fully naked[118], when almost all artists who copied the Shroud added a loincloth [see above]. A realistic, completely naked image of Jesus, as on the Shroud, would be a violation of the ethics of the medieval era[119]. A realistic depiction of a nude Christ would have been considered offensive in the Middle Ages, lessening, if not destroying, a forgery's economic and ceremonial value[120]. Indeed, as Wilcox points out: ".... the portrayal of Jesus on the shroud is non-traditional, non-European ... the nakedness of the loins would not inspire the devotional or artistic sensibilities of fourteenth-century Europe; rather they would have gotten the forger burned at the stake"[121]! Moreover, the at least eight, and by my count twelve [fourteen - see above] telling correspondences between the Shroud and the Pray Codex [see above] not only proves that the Shroud existed in 1192-95, which is at least 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud; it also places the Shroud in Constantinople in 1163-72 when Hungary's King Bela III (r. 1172–1196) lived there [see above]. The Shroud had been in Constantinople since 944, having arrived from Edessa as the Image of Edessa, "four-doubled" (Greek tetradiplon) [see "944b"]. Which makes the Shroud more than seven centuries older than the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date [see 20Dec18]!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Holy Face of Jesus," Wikipedia, 6 May 2020. [return]
3. McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.26-27. [return]
4. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, pp.46-47. [return]
5. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.34-35. [return]
6. Thurston, H., S.J., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, January, pp.17-29, p.19, in Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.40. [return]
7. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.128. [return]
8. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42, in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
9. "History of photography: Development of chemical photography," Wikipedia, 15 May 2020. [return]
10. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 174; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.4; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.222-223. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.181. [return]
13. Dickinson, I., 1990, "The Shroud and the Cubit Measure," BSTS Newsletter, Issue 24, January, pp.8-11, p.8. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Clift, M., 1993, "Carbon dating - what some of us think now," BSTS Newsletter, No. 33, February, pp.5-6, p.6. [return]
18. Wilson, 1991, p.181. [return]
19. Petrie, W.M.F., 1877, "Inductive Metrology: Or, The Recovery of Ancient Measures from the Monuments," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Reprinted, 2013. Google books. [return]
20. Calvin, J., 1554, "A Commentary on Genesis," Banner of Truth: London, 1965, reprint, p.257. [return]
21. McCrone, W.C., 1999, “Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin,” Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.141. [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.59-60. [return]
23. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
24. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.68; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.12; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.13; Antonacci, 2000, p.98; Wilson, 2010, p.74; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.108-109. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.68; Wilson, 2010, p.74; de Wesselow, 2012, p.108. [return]
26. Wilson, 1979, p.68; "Textile manufacture during the British Industrial Revolution: Later developments," Wikipedia, 19 May 2020. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.68; Iannone, 1998, p.13. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, pp.69-70. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, p.68; Wilson, 2010, p.75. [return]
30. "Archaeological forgery," Wikipedia, 8 April 2020; "Art forgery," Wikipedia, 30 May 2020. [return]
31. "Obituaries: Professor Edward Hall," 16 August 2001; Wilson, 1991, p.12; Wilson, 1998, p.7; Wilson, 2010, p.2. [return]
32. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.9. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.21. [return]
34. "File:Shroudofturin.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 12 April 2020. [return]
35. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, p.42. [return]
36. Wilson, 2000. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, p.189. [return]
38. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22. [return]
39. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.22. [return]
40. Wilson, 2010, p.74. [return]
41. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
42. Wilson, 2010, pp.71-74. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, p.71. [return]
45. Wilson, 2010, pp.72, 315. [return]
46. Wilson, 2010, p.315. [return]
47. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
48. Wilson, 2010, p.73. [return]
49. Ibid. [return]
50. Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
51. Ibid. [return]
52. Ibid. [return]
53. Ibid. [return]
54. Crispino, D.C., 1990, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 37, December, p.26. [return]
55. de Wesselow, 2012, p.109. [return]
56. Wilson, 2010, p.76. [return]
57. Wilson, 2010, pp.76-77. [return]
58. Wilson, 2010, p.77. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. de Wesselow, 2012, p.110. [return]
61. Wilson, 2010, p.76. [return]
62. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.41. [return]
63. Wilson, 2010, pp.76-77. [return]
64. "Yarn," Wikipedia, 24 April 2020. [return]
65. "Spinning (textiles)," Wikipedia, 23 March 2020. [return]
66. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.196. [return]
67. "Linen," Wikipedia, 6 June 2020. [return]
68. "Flax," Wikipedia, 6 June 2020. [return]
69. "Retting," Wikipedia, 20 November 2019. [return]
70. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.91. [return]
71. Ibid. [return]
72. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.36. [return]
73. Wilson, 1986, p.91. [return]
74. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.174. [return]
75. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.18. [return]
76. Rogers, 2008, p.18. [return]
77. Rogers, 2008, p.19. [return]
78. Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.176. [return]
79. Ibid. [return]
80. de Wesselow, 2012, p.110. [return]
81. Rogers, 2008, p.18. [return]
82. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.15; Iannone, 1998, p.6; Zugibe, 2005, p.177; Oxley, 2010, p.169; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.188. [return]
83. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.1. [return]
84. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.61; Heller, 1983, p.vii; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.50; Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese / Doubleday: New York NY, p.292; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.12. [return]
85. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.17. [return]
86. Ricci, G., "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.58-73, 72. [return]
87. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.5. [return]
88. Wilson, 1998, p.204; Wilcox, 2010, p.188. [return]
89. Hynek, 1951, pp.30-31; Wilson, 1986, p.71; Barbet, P., 1987, "Proof of the Authenticity of the Shroud in the Bloodstains: Part II," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 23, June, pp.3-15, 14; Wilcox, 2010, p.188; de Wesselow, 2012, p.179. [return]
90. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.55. [return]
91. Hynek, 1951, p.5. [return]
92. Wilson, 1986, p.115; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.163; Iannone, 1998, p.154; Wilson, 1998, p.271; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.105. [return]
93. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, pl. III. [return]
94. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178-179. [return]
95. de Wesselow, 2012, p.180; Guerrera, 2001, p.105. [return]
96. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson, 1986, pp.114-115; Wilson, 1991, pp.150-151; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.162-163; Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, p.64; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.116; Guerrera, 2001, p.104; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178, 180. [return]
97. Guerrera, 2001, p.104; Fant & Malfi, 2015, pp.58-59. [return]
98. Maloney, P.C., "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, 2002, p.33. [return]
99. Wilson, 1991, pp.150-151; Wilson, 1998, p.146; Guerrera, 2001, p.105; de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
100. Berkovits, 1969, p.19. [return]
101. de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
102. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 23 April 2020. [return]
103. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 23 April 2020. [return]
104. Berkovits, 1969, p.20; Bulst, W., 1989, "Some Important Dates in the Early History of the Turin Shroud," Shroud News, No. 54, August, pp.10-17, 15. [return]
105. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 23 April 2020. [return]
106. "Agnes of Antioch," Wikipedia, 15 April 2020. [return]
107. "Béla III of Hungary," Wikipedia, 23 April 2020. [return]
108. Crispino, D.C., 1985, "Excerpts from 'The Palace Revolution of John Comnenus by Nicholas Mesarites," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 17, December, pp.23-27, 23; Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.323. [return]
109. Scavone, 1991, p.196; Wilson, 1998, p.272; Antonacci, 2000, p.122; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.25-26, 29. [return]
110. Wilson, 1979, pp.168, 257; Maher, 1986, p.93; Guerrera, 2001, p.6; Wilson, 2010, p.185. [return]
111. Scavone, 1989, p.89; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.79. [return]
112. Scavone, D., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, p.321; Wilson, 1998, p.272. [return]
113. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.176, 180; Scavone, in Sutton, 1989, p.321; Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145. [return]
114. de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
115. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, pp.145, 201. [return]
116. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14; Iannone, 1998, pp.71, 156, 178; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
117. Hynek, 1951, p. 31. [return]
118. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.41. [return]
119. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.89. [return]
120. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, p.293. return]
121. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, pp.170-171, 188. [return]

Posted 24 May 2020. Updated 19 October 2024.