The Letter of Publius Lentulus: A Shroud-like description of Jesus by an eye-witness contemporary?

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is my proposal that the Letter of Publius Lentulus contains a

[Right (enlarge)[2]: "Letter of Lentulus, printed in London, 1680"[3].]

Shroud-like description of Jesus by an eye-witness contemporary, and therefore is further first-century evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud!

In 1969, when I had been a Christian for only a few years, I was promoted to a position in the Mines Department of Western Australia. One of my new workmates was a Seventh Day Adventist who showed me in the back of his Bible the Letter of Publius Lentulus. From memory it was similar to Wikipedia's account (with the Shroud-like parts in bold):

"Lentulus, the Governor of the Jerusalemites to the Roman Senate and People, greetings. There has appeared in our times, and there still lives, a man of great power (virtue), called Jesus Christ. The people call him prophet of truth; his disciples, son of God. He raises the dead, and heals infirmities. He is a man of medium size (statura procerus, mediocris et spectabilis); he has a venerable aspect, and his beholders can both fear and love him. His hair is of the colour of the ripe hazel-nut, straight down to the ears, but below the ears wavy and curled, with a bluish and bright reflection, flowing over his shoulders. It is parted in two on the top of the head, after the pattern of the Nazarenes. His brow is smooth and very cheerful with a face without wrinkle or spot, embellished by a slightly reddish complexion. His nose and mouth are faultless. His beard is abundant, of the colour of his hair, not long, but divided at the chin. His aspect is simple and mature, his eyes are changeable and bright. He is terrible in his reprimands, sweet and amiable in his admonitions, cheerful without loss of gravity. He was never known to laugh, but often to weep. His stature is straight, his hands and arms beautiful to behold. His conversation is grave, infrequent, and modest. He is the most beautiful among the children of men"[4].

I remember the part about his hair being the colour of "hazel nut" (although I remembered it as "chestnut") and "He was never known to laugh, but often to weep." I was intrigued by its description of Jesus, but was sceptical of it since it was in a Seventh Day Adventist source. For some reason I thought about the Letter the other day, probably because I was thinking about the hair and beard of the Shroudman in my then current but now previous post.

Introduction Quoting Wikipedia (footnotes omitted):

"Origin It appears in several Florentine publications from around 1460 along with works of such humanists as Petrarch and Boccaccio. The letter was first printed in Germany in the `Life of Christ' by Ludolph the Carthusian (Cologne, 1474), and in the `Introduction to the works of St. Anselm' (Nuremberg, 1491). But it is neither the work of St. Anselm nor of Ludolph. According to the manuscript of Jena, a certain Giacomo Colonna found the letter in 1421 in an ancient Roman document sent to Rome from Constantinople. [Wikipedia's link to Giacomo Colonna redirects to a Giacomo Colonna who died in 1329, so that Giacomo Colonna couldn't have found Lentulus' Letter in 1421. See the comments below. So the Letter must have been found in 1421 by another Giacomo Colonna]. It must have been of Greek origin, and translated into Latin during the thirteenth or fourteenth century, though it received its present form at the hands of a humanist of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. Christopher Mylius, the 18th century librarian of Jena, stated the letter was written in golden letters on red paper and richly bound, but lost. In 1899, Ernst von Dobschütz [1870–1934] listed over 75 historical manuscripts from Germany, France, and Italy that include the Letter of Lentulus in variant forms. The 19th-century scholar Friedrich Münter believed he could trace the letter down to the time of Diocletian [ r. 284-305], but this is generally not accepted by present-day scholars"[5].

And:

"1680 English translation The first English translation of the text appears in 1680 and lists the author as `Publius Lentulus', a Prefect in Judea at the time of Tiberius Caesar [r. 14-37]. The letter is frequently regarded as apocryphal for several reasons: No Governor of Jerusalem or Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus, and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented. However, the Deeds of the Divine Augustus lists a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (27 BC-AD 14). The Roman writer cited the expressions `prophet of truth', `sons of men' or `Jesus Christ'. The former two are Hebrew idioms, and the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived of him"[6].

For the Letter being authentic That is, it is what it purports to be, an eye-witness report by a Roman Governor of Jerusalem named Publius Lentulus, who was a contemporary of Jesus, to the Roman senate.

• The obscurity of Publius Lentulus Most (if not all) apocryphal writings which purport to be from a person, that person was well-known in the early church, e.g. "The Gospel of Philip," "The Gospel of Thomas," "The Gospel According to Maithias," "The Gospel of Judas," "The Apocryphon of John," "The Apocryphon of James" and "The Gospel of Bartholomew"[7]. What would be the point of forging a letter purporting to be from someone that few (if any) had heard of?

• There was a Publius Lentulus who could have been a governor of Jerusalem in Jesus' time As mentioned by Wikipedia above, the Deeds of the Divine Augustus lists a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of reign of Augustus (27 BC - AD 14)." The relevant part of that document states:

"6. When Marcus Vinicius and Quintus Lucretius were consuls (19 B.C.E.), then again when Publius Lentulus and Gnaeus Lentulus were (18 B.C.E.) ..."[8].

For Publius Lentulus to write:

"There has appeared in our times, and there still lives, a man of great power (virtue), called Jesus Christ ... He raises the dead, and heals infirmities ..."

and to have seen Jesus in Jerusalem, he would have had to have written his letter in the final six months of Jesus' public ministry, between the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:1-14) in October AD 29 and the Feast of the Passover in April AD 30[9].

There were two Roman consuls elected each year and they served as consuls only for that year:

"A consul held the highest elected political office of the Roman Republic (509 to 27 BC) ... Each year, the Centuriate Assembly elected two consuls to serve jointly for a one-year term ... a consul's imperium extended over Rome and all its provinces. ... After the establishment of the Empire (27 BC), the consuls became mere symbolic representatives of Rome's republican heritage and held very little power and authority, with the Emperor acting as the supreme authority"[10].

So Publius Lentulus having been a Consul in AD 18, he would have been a pre-Empire Consul with vast authority over the entire Roman world for that year.

After they had served their one-year term, Consuls were appointed by the Senate to serve as governors of a province, with the title of Proconsul:

"After leaving office, the consuls were assigned by the Senate to a province to administer as governor. The provinces to which each consul was assigned were drawn by lot and determined before the end of his consulship. Transferring his consular imperium to proconsular Imperium, the consul would become a proconsul and governor of one (or several) of Rome's many provinces. As a proconsul, his imperium was limited to only a specified province and not the entire Republic. Any exercise of proconsular imperium in any other province was illegal. Also, a proconsul was not allowed to leave his province before his term was complete or before the arrival of his successor. Exceptions were given only on special permission of the Senate. Most terms as governor lasted between one and five years"[11].

Judea was not a Roman province until AD 41, but was a satellite of the province of Syria[12], as is evident in Lk 2:1-3 where "Quirinius [who] was governor of Syria" had ordered a previous census in Judea in which Joseph and Mary had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, their ancestral birthplace. Quirinius, i.e. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (r. AD 6 – 21), was later appointed in AD 6 as Legate of Syria, with authority over Judea, which position he held until his death in AD 21, even though he had returned to Rome in AD 12[13]. Moreover, Quirinius's successor, Lucius Aelius Lamia (bef. 43 BC–AD 33), although appointed as imperial Legate to Syria by Tiberius in AD 22, stayed in Rome and never traveled to Syria in person[14]! So although Pontius Pilate was subordinate to the Legate of Syria, for most of his Governorship of Judea, Syria's Legate was absent from the region, until AD 35 when Lucius Vitellius (bef. 7 BC–AD 51) took up that position, and deposed Pilate in AD 36[15]. So it is possible that Publius Lentulus had been appointed by "special permission of the Senate" as Governor of Jerusalem itself until AD 29, since Pilate lived in the provincial capital Caesarea Maritima, about 120 km (or 75 miles) from Jerusalem. There are only a few sources on Pilate's rule that have survived[16], and Pilate's political weakness is evident in the Jewish religious leaders' threat to him that if he realeased Jesus, he would not be Caesar's friend (Jn 19:12).

• Jesus' "hair ... is parted in two on the top of the head, after the pattern of the Nazarenes"A 15th century European forger would not likely know how "the [first-century] Nazarenes" wore their hair. But a first-century Roman governor of Jerusalem (along with other residents of Jerusalem and Judea) would! The Bible mentions "Nazarene" in two Greek words, both basically meaning an inhabitant of Nazareth[17]: 1) nazōraios (Mt 2:23; 26:71; Lk 18:37; Jn 18:5,7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 24:5; 26:9); and 2) Nazarēnos (Mk 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6; Lk 4:34; 24:19). But none of these say anything about how Jesus or the Nazarenes wore their hair. So even if the unknown 15th century European forger did know how first-century "Nazarenes" wore their hair, what would be the point of including that in his forged letter to other 15th century Europeans who wouldn't know? But there would have been a point if Lentulus' Letter is not a forgery and Jesus did in fact part His hair in two from the top of His head, as the man on the Shroud did (see below)!

• The Letter was found in 1421 by a Giacomo Colonna[18]. He would have been a member of the powerful Colonna family[19], who trace their lineage back to the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the gens Julia[20]. The Julio-Claudian dynasty comprised the first five Roman emperors: Augustus (27BC –AD 14), Tiberius (r. 14–37), Caligula (r. 37–41), Claudius (41–54), and Nero (54–68)[21]. The gens Julia was one of the most ancient patrician families in ancient Rome[22]. The Letter of Publius Lentulus to the Roman senate in AD 29, could have been passed down unrecognised until 1421 in the archives of such an ancient Roman family!

• Historians near in time to the finding of the Letter in 1421 accepted it as authentic As Wikipedia states:

"In 1899, Ernst von Dobschütz [1870–1934] listed over 75 historical manuscripts from Germany, France, and Italy that include the Letter of Lentulus in variant forms"[above].

No details are given of how many of these more that 75 historical manuscripts accepted the Lentulus Letter as authentic, but it is a reasonable assumption that most (if not all) did. If the Letter was known to be a forgery, historians would likely have ignored it.

Against the Letter being authentic That is, it is a forgery.
• No known Governor of Jerusalem was named Publius Lentulus

"No Governor of Jerusalem or Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus" [above].

But this is an argument from silence. As Wikipedia also mentioned, "Although Pilate is the best-attested governor of Judaea, few sources on his rule have survived"[above]. The Gospels don't mention anyone who is not essential to their record of Jesus.

And empires don't run themselves, especially in an occupied country as Roman Judea was. There must have been an entire civil administration of Judea, and other Roman provinces, which is largely under history's radar. Pontius Pilate, although referred to as "Governor" (Gk hegemon Mt 27:2), was actually appointed by the Emperor Tiberius (r. 14-37) as Procurator of Judea[23]. "Procurator" was a title of officials in ancient Rome who were in charge of the financial affairs of a province[24]. In the larger provinces there was a dual administrative structure in which the Governor, appointed by the Senate, headed the civil and judicial administration of the province[25]. Since for most of Pilate's c. 26-36 AD term as Procurator/Governor of Judea there was no Syrian Legate to whom he would normally have been subordinate to (see above),it seems likely that in those years AD 12-35, when there was no Syrian Legate, there would have been governors of Jerusalem itself, appointed by the Senate, one of whom was Publius Lentulus, to oversee the civil administration of th ecity.

• A Roman governor would not have written to the Senate

"a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented" [above].

But Publius Lentulus being originally a Consul, had been appointed by the senate, and if he was later appointed by the senate, to be Governor of Jerusalem itself, then it would be to the senate that he wrote his account of Jesus!

• A Roman writer would not have used Hebrew idioms and terms in the New Testament.

"The Roman writer cited the expressions `prophet of truth', `sons of men' or `Jesus Christ'. The former two are Hebrew idioms, and the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived of him"[above].

In his Letter Lentulus is quoting: what Jesus was generally known as - "Jesus Christ"; what "The people call" Jesus - "prophet of truth"; and what His "disciples" call Him - "son of God". The words "sons of men" is not in Lentulus' Letter [above]. The term "prophet of truth" is not in the New Testament, but it could well be an early Jewish-Christian term used of Jesus. Pilate referred to Jesus as "Jesus who is called Christ" in questions to the Jewish religious leaders (Mt 27:17,22). And on the Day of Pentecost, 7 weeks after Jesus' death at Passover, the Apostle Peter called upon a large Jerusalem crowd to, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ..." (Acts 2:38). So "Jesus Christ" was a name that Jesus was generally known by in Jerusalem. The term "son of God" is used approvingly of Jesus in the Gospels (Mt 4:3, 6; 8:29; 14:33; 16:16; Mk 1:1; 3:11; 5:7; Lk 1:35; 4:3,9; 4:41; 8:28; Jn 1:34, 49; 3:16-18; 3:36; 5:25; 10:36; 11:4, 27; 20:31), as well as negatively by the Jewish religious leaders against Jesus (Mt 26:63; Lk 22:70; Jn 19:7) and the unbelieving Jewish public (Mt 27:40, 43), and positively by the Roman centurion at Jesus' crucifixion (Mt 27:54; Mk 15:39). So Lentulus could have heard in Jerusalem the terms: "Jesus Christ," "prophet of truth" and "son of God," used of Jesus while He was alive. And the term, "prophet of truth," being not in the New Testament, it is unlikely a medieval forger would have used it of Jesus!

Problems of the forgery theory
• Who was the forger? Like Bishop d'Arcis' claimed c. 1355 `cunning painter'[26] the supposed forger of the Letter of Publius Lentulus is unknown. But like Bishop d'Arcis' claimed forger, how could he be unknown? Surely someone would know who he was, and even if it was after his death, would reveal it?

• Why would the forger stop at forging the Letter of Publius Lentulus? In the Middle Ages, forged eye-witness descripions of Jesus would be extremely valuable, so why is there only one? Why are there not forged descripions of Jesus by other claimed eyewitnesses? Medieval cathedrals did not care if the same claimed relic was held by other cathedrals, because they could claim theirs was the true one and charge pilgrims money to see it.

• Why would a forger choose an obscure name like Publius Lentulus? See above that this is an argument for the Letter to be authentic. Most, if not all, apocryphal writings which purported to be from a person, that person was prominent in the New Testament or early church.

• Why would a forger claim that that the Letter was "sent to Rome from Constantinople"? Why would a forger add an unnecessary complication that the Letter had been "sent to Rome from Constantinople" (see above)? Why not simply claim that ever since Publius Lentulus sent the Letter to the Roman senate when Jesus was still alive, it had been in Rome? Unless the Letter is not a forgery and it (or an early copy of it) had in fact been "sent to Rome from Constantinople"!

• Why would a forger create the Letter "written in golden letters on red paper"? (see above). That would make it a self-evident copy of Lentulus' Letter, not the original, because Lentulus would have written his Letter to the senate on then ordinary writing materials, either papyrus, parchment or vellum.

• Either Giacomo Colonna was the forger or he was duped by the forger See above that a Giacomo Colonna claimed he found the Letter in 1421 in an ancient Roman document sent to Rome from Constantinople. But it seems highly unlikely that Giacomo Colonna would have been the forger if he was a wealthy nobleman. But it also seems unlikely that he would have been duped by a forger planting the Letter in the Colonna archives. For starters, a forger would have planted an original-looking letter, not a self-evident copy. And it would not be easy to make a newly created forgery look like it was ~1400 years old.

Shroud-like description of Jesus
• "His hair is ... parted in two on the top of the head" [above]. As can be

[Above (enlarge)[27]: Enrie 1931 negative photograph of the Shroudman's face.]

seen in this Enrie negative photograph of the Shroudman (Jesus') face above, (which is the closest to how He would have looked in life), "His hair ...is parted in two on the top of the head""[28] exactly as described of Jesus in the Letter of Lentulus [above]!]

• "His beard is ... not long, but divided at the chin" [above]. And as also can be seen in the negative photograph of the Shroud face above, "His beard is ... not long, but divided at the chin"[29], again exactly as described of Jesus in the Letter of Lentulus [above]!

• "His hair is of the colour of the ripe hazel-nut" [above]. The colour of

[Left (enlarge)[30]: Ripe hazelnuts are a reddish-brown colour.]

ripe hazel nut is reddish brown (above). This, and Lentalus' further description of Jesus, that He had, "a slightly reddish complex-ion"[above], has a ring of authenticity, because nowhere before 1421, as far as I am aware, was Jesus described or depicted as having reddish hair or complexion. See "Was Jesus A Ginger?," for post-1421 Christian artworks, including by Michelangelo (1475-1564) and Leonardo da Vinci Leonardo da Vinci (1452– 1519), which depicted Jesus as having red hair. Evidently these artists considered the Letter of Lentulus to be authentic.

Israel's King David (r. c. 1010–970 BC), Jesus' ancestor through His mother Mary (Lk 3:23-31), was "ruddy" [Heb. admowniy "reddish (of the hair or the complexion)"][31] (1Sam 16:12; 17:42). There are red-haired Jews,

[Right (original)[32]: Stav Shaffir, a red-haired Israeli politician.]

and indeed in medieval Europe, red-hair was associated with Jewish-ness ("ginger Jews")[33].

That Jesus was a red-head is both supported by the Shroud and negates the criticisms of Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell, that the Shroudman's hair and beard not being white on the Shroud photo-negative, means they were not dark as "would be expected of a Palestinian Jew in his thirties":

"The alleged photographic negative quality of the Shroud image has been championed by Shroud enthusiasts as evidence for authenticity since 1898 when the feature was first discovered. According to these accounts, a photographic negative of the Shroud image reveals a photographic positive, and both the original image and its photographic negative have been repeatedly published in books devoted to the Shroud. However, a number of investigators have documented the fact that the Shroud image is NOT a true photographic negative but only an apparent one - a faux-photographic negative. As with a true negative, light features such as skin are dark on it and light on the positive and shadows are light on it and dark on the positive. Unlike a true photographic negative, however, dark features like the beard, mustache, hair, and blood are dark on it and light on the positive. So unless Jesus was blond or white-haired and his blood was white, the Shroud image cannot be a true photographic negative"[34].

"In 1898 the shroud was photographed for the first time, and the glass-plate negatives showed a more lifelike image of a man ... Thus began the modern era of shroud inquiry, with proponents asking how a mere medieval forger could have produced a perfect `photographic' negative before the development of photography. In fact, the analogy with photographic images is misleading: the `positive' image shows a figure with white hair and beard, the opposite of what would be expected of a Palestinian Jew in his thirties"[35].

Correcting Schafersman's and Nickell's errors: 1) "a faux-photographic negative." The Shroud image was not taken with a camera, so there are some differences between the Shroud's negative and that of a camera, so claiming that "the Shroud image [is not] a true photographic negative" is a straw man; 2) "... dark features like the ... blood are dark on it [the negative] and light on the positive." False! As can be seen below, the opposite is true: the blood (which is not part of the image) is dark on the positive and white on the negative! 3) "the `positive' image

[Above (enlarge): Comparison of positive (left)[36] and negative (right)[37] photographs of the Shroud face.]

shows a figure with white hair and beard ..." As can be seen above, this is false. If the Shroudman's hair and beard were (i.e. corresponded to) white on the positive, they would be black on the negative, but they are grey on the negative, i.e. the man's (Jesus') hair and beard were a colour between black and white, like reddish brown! 4) "the opposite of what would be expected of a Palestinian Jew in his thirties." This also is false, based on a stereotype that all Jews have dark hair. But as can be seen above, some Jews have red (or reddish brown) hair, as King David did!

So the Shroud image above is consistent with the Letter of Lentulus' description of Jesus, that:

"His hair is of the colour of the ripe hazel-nut, straight down to the ears ... parted in two on the top of the head ... His ... face ... [has] a slightly reddish complexion ... His beard is ... divided at the chin"[above]!

Conclusion We saw above that in favour of the Letter of Publius Lentulus being authentic, that is, an eyewitness description of Jesus in a report by a Roman governor of Jerusalem, Publius Lentulus, to the Roman senate, are: • The obscurity of Publius Lentulus. A forger would not likely chose as the author of the Letter, a person that few, if any, had heard of. • There was a Publius Lentulus who could have been a governor of Jerusalem in Jesus' time. • A 15th century European forger would not likely know how the first-century Nazarenes wore their hair, but a first-century Roman governor of Jerusalem would! • The Letter could have been found in 1421 by a Giacomo Colonna in the archives of his Colonna family, who trace their lineage back to ancient Rome. • Historians and artists near in time to the finding of the Letter in 1421 accepted it as authentic.

We also saw that arguments against the Letter of Publius Lentulus being authentic, are both fallacious and wrong. That no Governor of Jerusalem is known to have been called Lentulus is at best an argument from silence. And, as we saw above , a Gaetulicus Lentulus may have been a consul at Jerusalem in A.D. 26. If that is confirmed, then there would be no reason to deny that Publius Lentulus was a consul-governor of Jerusalem in Jesus' time! Besides, on general considerations, that empires don't run themselves, especially in an occupied country as Roman Judea was, so there must have been an entire civil administration of Judea, which is unknown to history. The argument that, a Roman governor would not have written to the Senate ignores the fact that if Publius Lentulus was a consul in Jerusalem, he would have been appointed by the senate, and so it would be to the senate that he would have written his account of Jesus! The argument that a Roman writer would not have used Hebrew idioms and New Testament terms ignores who Lentulus said used those terms, and when that is taken into account, they are seen to be correct.

If the Letter of Lentulus is not authentic, then it is a forgery. But, as we saw there are major problems with the Letter being a forgery, including: • Who was the forger? • Why would the forger stop at forging Lentulus' letter? • Why would a forger claim that that the Letter was sent to Rome from Constantinople, which would make it a copy because Lentulus would have sent his letter direct to the senate in Rome? • Why would a forger create the Letter written in golden letters on red paper, which would make it a self-evident copy of Lentulus' Letter, because he would have written to the senate on then ordinary writing materials?

Finally we saw that the Letter's desccription of Jesus is Shroud-like : • Jesus' hair is parted in two on the top of the head, as the Shroudman's hair is. • Jesus' beard is not long, but divided at the chin, again as the Shroudman's beard is. • Jesus' hair is the colour of ripe hazel nut, that is, reddish brown. As we saw above, the Shroudman's hair was in-between white and black, which is consistent with his hair having been reddish brown. And Jesus' ancestor, through His mother Mary, King David, was "ruddy," i.e. He had reddish hair and/or a reddish complexion!

We have seen above the evidence is strong that the Letter of Publius Lentulus is an eyewitness description of Jesus in life, consistent with the Shroud, and the arguments against that are weak. Therefore, the Letter of Publius Lentulus is further first-century evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud!

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (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:Anon-Publius Lentulus.jpg," OrthodoxWiki, 17 December 2011. [return]
3. "Letter of Lentulus," OrthodoxWiki, 8 May 2021. [return]
4. "Letter of Lentulus," Wikipedia, 26 September 2021. [return]
5. Ibid. [return]
6. Ibid. [return]
7. Hennecke, E., Schneemelcher, W. ed., & Wilson, R. McL., ed., 1963, "New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and Related Writings," Vol. 1, [1959], SCM Press: London, p.15. [return]
8. Bushnell, T., 1998, "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus," The Internet Classics Archive. [return]
9. Wieand, A.C., 1950, "A New Harmony of the Gospels : The Gospel Records of the Message and Mission of Jesus Christ," Wm. B. Erdman's Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted 1961, pp.8-119. [return]
10. "Roman consul," Wikipedia, 29 September 2021. [return]
11. "Proconsul," Wikipedia, 19 June 2021. [return]
12. "Judaea (Roman province): Under a prefect (6-41)," Wikipedia, 23 October 2021. [return]
13. "Quirinius: Life," Wikipedia, 3 September 2021. [return]
14. "Lucius Aelius Lamia (consul 3)," Wikipedia, 25 June 2021. [return]
15. "Lucius Vitellius (consul 34)," Wikipedia, 9 August 2021. [return]
16. "Pontius Pilate," Wikipedia, 9 October 2021. [return]
17. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.1003. [return]
18. Letter of Lentulus," Wikipedia, 26 September 2021. [return]
19. "Sciarra Colonna," Wikipedia, 4 March 2021. [return]
20. "Colonna family: Origins," Wikipedia, 17 September 2021. [return]
21. "Julio-Claudian dynasty," Wikipedia, 8 October 2021. [return]
22. "Julia gens," Wikipedia, 8 October 2021. [return]
23. Gehman, H.S. & Davis, J.D., 1924, "Pilate," and "Procurator," in "The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Collins: London, Revised, 1944, pp.482-483; Wheaton, D.H, "Pilate," and "Procurator," in Douglas, J.D., et al., eds., "New Bible Dictionary," [1962], Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester UK, Second edition, 1982, Reprinted, 1988, pp.939 & 973-974. [return]
24. "Procurator (ancient Rome)," Wikipedia, 21 March 2021. [return]
25. "Procurator (ancient Rome): Fiscal offices," Wikipedia, 21 March 2021. [return]
26. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.267. [return]
27. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical. [return]
28. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.155-156; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised, pp.102-103; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, pp.18-19; Bongert, Y., 1993, "Influence du Linceul dans l'Iconographie du Christ et le MS Pray," Shroud Spectrum International No. 42, December, p.34; 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.110 & Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.114. [return]
29. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, pp.84-86; 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, pp.16-17; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, pp.76-77; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.100-101. [return]
30. Skhirtladze, K., 2021, "Swiss Company Camille Bloch Expects Its First Georgian Hazelnut Harvest by 2025," Georgia Today, 9 September. [return]
31. Strong, J., 1995, "New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN. [return]
32. Extract from, "Stav Shaffir on Rabin's assassination: To me, as a child, Rabin was a real hero," Twitter, 5 November 2014. [return]
33. Connelly, I.K., 2019, "On National Redhead Day, Explore the History of Ginger Jews," Forward, 5 November. [return]
34. Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2. Footnote omitted. [return]
35. Nickell, J., 2007, "Relics of the Christ," The University Press of Kentucky: Lexington KY, p.140. [return]
36. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
37. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]

Posted 23 October 2021. Updated 18 July 2022.