Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Kim Dreisbach's "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" in favor of the Shroud's authenticity - part 1

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part 1 of Rev. Albert Russel `Kim” Dreisbach Jr. (1934-2006)'s

[Right: Fr. Kim Dreisbach on Shroud Encounter (YouTube).]

"overwhelming preponderance of evidence" in favor of the Shroud's authenticity. I will quote it in full, but I will have to break it up into several posts. The original is a series of PDFs with handwritten notes on them, the latter I will replace the typewritten text with, as Dreisbach intended. My comments will be in bold.

On 8 October 2023, I emailed Ian Wilson and Joe Marino:

"Do you have a copy, that you can send me, of Kim Dreisbach's compilation of all the evidence in favor of authenticity, calling it the `overwhelming preponderance of evidence':
"On the counter-attack was Rev. Kim Dreisbach, an Anglican priest and long-time Shroud scholar in Atlanta, Georgia, who prepared a massive and impressive compilation of all the evidence in favor of authenticity, calling it the `overwhelming preponderance of evidence." He circulated it to dozens of people, and the press, but his efforts like mine met with little success in getting across to the mass media what a travesty had occurred.'" (Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.110-111).
Ian replied that he didn't think he had it anymore, but Joe replied that he did have it, albeit in an old format, which he would scan into a series of PDFs and email them to me. Which he kindly did. A few obvious errors I have corrected. The scanned text is very poor, albeit understandable, so I have had to correct letters in almost every word, which makes it slow-going! I gave up the time-wasting, old-fashioned, underlining of "e.g." and "Ibid". Continued in part 2 and part 3.


-1-

[Proposed] PRESS RELEASE [Not prior to 26 Sep 88]

FROM: The Atlanta International Center for Continuing Study of the Shroud of Turin (AICCSST)

Atlanta, Georgia

CONTACT PERSON: The Rev. Albert R., Dreisbach, Jr., Executive Director (404) 344-8982 349-0001

RE: C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin

SYNOPSIS: THE ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN, AN ECUMENICAL, NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, REJECTS THE INITIAL C-14 DATING OF THE SHROUD AS "MEDIEVAL" BASING ITS STAND ON BOTH SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS AND THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THROUGH THE CENTURIES FROM A HOST OF DIVERSE FIELDS RANGING FROM PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY TO ART HISTORY AND FORENSIC PATHOLOGY, THE CENTER ARGUED THAT THE PRESENT RADIOCARBON RESULTS SHOULD BE REJECTED AT THIS TIME UNTIL PEER-REVIEW OF THESE RESULTS BY THE LARGER SCIENTIC COMMUNITY, MANY OF WHOM ARE SERIOUSLY CONCONCERNED ABOUT FLAWS IN THE PROTOCOL EMPLOYED BY ARIZONA. OXFORD AND ZURICH IN THE COURSE OF THEIR RECENT TESTING. CAUTIONING BOTH THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS TO AVOID FACILE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ALLEGED "MEDIEVAL" (sic) DATE, THE ATLANTA CENTER ADVOCATED THAT SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN A HOST OF SUB-FIELDS BE CONTINUED AND ENCOURAGED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE SHROUD OF TURIN CAN BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF A 14TH CENTURY CONTEXT AND/OR BY NEW RADIOCARBON TESTING GUARANTEED BY RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC CONTROLS. This raises an important point that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "1260-1390"[DP89, 611] has never been replicated independently by other laboratories. Therefore it cannot be considered "scientific knnowledge" (footnote omitted):

"Reproducibility, closely related to replicability and repeatability, is a major principle underpinning the scientific method. For the findings of a study to be reproducible means that results obtained by an experiment or an observational study or in a statistical analysis of a data set should be achieved again with a high degree of reliability when the study is replicated. There are different kinds of replication but typically replication studies involve different researchers using the same methodology. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge" (my emphasis)[RPW].
Citing the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE from such hard sciences as Physics and Chemistry already published in peer-reviewed scientific journals by scientists from such prestigious facilities as Los Alamos, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratory, the Atlanta International Center for Continuing Study of the Shroud of Turin, Inc. issued a statement today seriously questioning the conclusion of the C-14 laboratories at the University of Arizona, Oxford and Zurich alleging the Shroud of Turin to date from the Middle Ages. Noting that scientists from both Oxford and Arizona, have concluded that the Shroud "is not a painting" and that the mechanism for the image formation of the ventral and dorsal side of the figure on it "continues to remain a mystery'", AICCSST's Executive Director, the Rev. Albert R. Dreisbach, Jr., cautioned both the public and the press to withhold judgment on the alleged "medieval" (sic) date until "all the facts are in, and the larger scientific community has been given an opportunity to thoroughly review the protocol used by the three labs in their investigations." Fr. Dreisbach then went on to outline what he believes to be some of the major flaws of that protocol:
1) At a 1986 conference in Turin called to determine the protocol for C-14 testing, it was stressed by experts in attendance that prior to any such testing detailed and extensive chemistry should be conducted to determine the kinds of contaminants on the Shroud, methods for the detection of same, and procedures for their removal complete with scientific controls for same. In a six-laboratory "dry run" of known-dated samples provided by the British Museum whose results were announced at a Radiocarbon Conference in Trondheim in 1985, the same Swiss lab which today announced its concurrence of a "medieval"(sic) date had an outlier of 1,000 years difference from the other five labs. Careful examination of this outlier proved it to have resulted from "improper cleansing"' of the sample. When the proper technique was applied on the second run, the Swiss lab· then came on line with the others.

2) Despite repeated attempts by some of the experts present at that 1986 Turin conference for sampling from at least two separate areas on the Shroud. (Note; three distinct sites would have been even more preferable), the decision was made to take the samples only from a single site; and that, one of the worst possible sites available. (Note; The eventual site chosen for the removal of the sample on 21Apr88 was from the edge of the Shroud most exposed to human handling and industrial pollution during its public and private expositions through the centuries.)

3) In addition to potential skewing of the C-14 date via contamination, experts also warned that “possible isotope exchange spurred by heating may likely affect the radiocarbon age of the cloth." The Sunday London Times in its edition of August 7, 1988, observed:
"Those convinced that the shroud really was Christ's burial cloth could argue that the same burst of energy which created the image also irradiated (i.e. affected via radiation) the cloth. That would make the cloth appear younger than its true age.” Nick Rufford, Science Correspondent, p. 1. Emphasis added.)
One would not even have to posit a non-empirically verifiable event such as the Resurrection to account for such an isotope exchange via heating. Even as this release is being made available to the media, experts familiar with the myriad subtleties of the Shroud are investigating the possibility that the very site from which the C-14 samples were taken was subject to a "mild scorch" - possibly as a result of the fire of 1532 at Chambery in France Since portions of the silver casket containing the Shroud melted during this fire, it is estimated that the heat of the latter reached 800 degrees centigrade.
On the topic of "improper cleansing," for the Shroud to have the `bull's eye' radiocarbon date of "1260-1390," or 1325 ±65 years[WI98, 7; TF06, 169], which is only ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in ~1355[WI10, 222], the laboratories would have had to remove almost all contamination by younger carbon. Otherwise the Shroud's radiocarbon date would be more recent than 1355! But that would have been impossible because the fire of 1532 and the water that extinguished it, would have forced large quantities of new carbon from the smoke of the burning chapel into the molecular structure of the linen, where it could not be removed:
"Because of the fire and the melting of the silver casket, the heat inside would have been intense, and a temperature in the region of 900°C the temperature of molten silver alloy) would probably have been reached. In these circumstances, natural moisture in the Shroud, perhaps together with dousing water, would turn into steam, in places to superheat. Any contaminants on or embedded in the fabric structure would be dissolved and forced into the yarn construction, conditions in which they would react chemically with the molecular structure of the fibres of the flax ... Contaminants on the surface of the cloth, within the interlacements of the weave, on the surface of the yarns, and even within their twisted structures can be removed with suitable surfactants and ultrasonic treatments. At fibre-molecular level, however, the problem of contaminants presents specific difficulties ... contaminating molecules can also enter and link chemically into the fine structure through what are envisaged as 'pores' in the fibre ... In this way, organic molecules containing carbon would become part of the flax-fibre chemistry and would be impossible to remove by surfactants and ultrasonic cleansing treatments. More drastic methods to remove the contaminants so as to obtain a pure specimen would inevitable destroy the flax fibre themselves"[TJ96, 7]
Therefore the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud must not only be wrong, but fraudulent! According to my hacker theory, they are not real dates but computer-generated dates by a hacker's program (see 24May14 and 23Jul15).

-2-

4) Contrary to· the initial "understanding" agreed to in 1986 at the Turin conference church authorities reduced from seven to three the number of laboratories who would be permitted to do C-14 testing. Without warning, four of the labs learned in a letter dated October 10, 1987 that they had been excluded from the testing. Ironically, two U.S. labs which were the first to propose C-14 dating of the Shroud ten years ago were among the four excluded. In reality, the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the University of Rochester are also the inventors of the two primary methods - small proportional counter and mass accelerator respectively – proposed for C-14 dating. Along with the two American labs, the Isotope Measurements Laboratory at Harwell in England was also rejected. Harwell had pioneered in the field of archaeological dating and had done more sampling than the combined efforts of the three chosen laboratories.

To further compound the problem, both Brookhaven and Harwell use the small proportional counters to achieve C-14 dates. Eliminating them reduced the method to but one approach - the mass accelerators used by Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. It is difficult to deny that the use of these two separate techniques would strengthen the credibility of any resultant date. (Note: The proportional count method used by both Brookhaven and Harwell is tried and tested , having been in use for over 30 years. The mass accelerator method is less than 10 years old, and there are still doubts in some quarters about its reliability.)

It was initially speculated that the motive behind reducing the number of labs from 7 to 3 was to conserve the amount of material from the Shroud that would have to be destroyed for C-14 testing, Radiocarbon experts familiar with the original 7-lab protocol have attacked this reasoning as: specious in that the amount of cloth needed for all seven would be roughly equivalent; to two-and-a-half US 25¢ postage stamps.

Finally, the elimination of Harwell and Brookhaven introduces two other factors to be considered when evaluating the alleged "medieval" (sic) result. One expert in the field of radiocarbon dating has noted:

A) "In accelerator technology there are many more steps which the lab must go through in the process than occurs with the small proportional counter. With each step in this process there is the possibility of intrusion of extraneous carbon thereby affecting the date. The use of the small proportional counter provides a very good alternate way of verifying the results obtained by the accelerator. In fact this dual method of dating has already been used by professionals as a reference point where there might otherwise have been a question of discrepancy.

The same expert goes on to conclude that linen has a clear advantage with the gas (i.e. proportional) counter since cloth has undergone years of testing with the conventional dating technology. On the other hand cloth does not seem to be an item which has commonly been dated by the accelerator method."

B) Though the accelerator method can deal with smaller samples and is capable of providing an instant readout by employing electrostatic accelerators to separate the carbon atoms within a sample and then quickly count the individual C-14 nuclei in that sample, once this is accomplished the sample (now a carbonized pellet) is useless for further testing. The proportional counter, on the other hand, reduces the sample to a gas, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and then counts the C-14 decays in the gas. Unlike the accelerators, this gas can be saved and redated by technologically-refined small proportionate counters 10, 20 or 50 years in the future.

Thus, the decision to reduce the laboratories to include only those with the accelerator capability has reduced the credibility of the results of the three labs involved in the minds of both the public and the larger scientific community. Certainly for a relic as fraught with controversy and claimed by many to be an authentic relic of the historical Jesus, every effort should have been taken to make the results as credible as possible if they are expected to be received as such by the general public. As Dr Robert Otlet of Harwell noted upon learning of the exclusion of his lab from the C-14 testing :-
"We are not protesting through sour grapes ... the final result will not be as precise as it could have been because only one technique has been used."
5) Contrary to assurances that there would be "blind testing", we now know that such was not the case. Each test sample was delivered to each laboratory completely intact, its 3/1 herringbone twill clearly visible to the scientists. Further, each control sample provided by the British Museum was clearly identified as to the century within which its date should fall. While not impugning the integrity of the three labs involved, certainly there was an absence of rigid empirical methodology in the functional as opposed to the written protocol.
Regarding, "four of the labs learned in a letter dated October 10, 1987 that they had been excluded from the testing" (see above), acccording to my hacker theory (see 05Jul14 footnotes omitted):
"On 10 October 1987 the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (r. 1977-89), advised the seven laboratories that were originally proposed to carbon-date the Shroud, using two different methods, that their number had been reduced to three AMS laboratories: Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. So after that Linick [Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist, Timothy Weiler Linick (1946-89)] could have realised that it was feasible for him to write a program to be installed on the AMS control console computers at the three laboratories (which were effectively clones of each other), to replace the Shroud's carbon 14 dates coming from their AMS systems, with computer-generated dates which would ensure the Shroud appeared to date a plausible time before the Shroud's debut in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in about 1355."
-3-

OPERATION "COUNTER-ATTACK"

The following strategy considerations are submitted to the Shroud Crowd in light of the imminent release of the "medieval" (sic) date resulting from recent C-14 "testing." Given both the general public and the "man-in-the-pew's" likely supine credulity in swallowing the initial media release, the need for immediate and effective "damage control" should become our #1 priority of the moment. Failure to seize the initiate at this time can only serve to compound the problem and require greater effort in the future to regain the "beachhead" now held by those who argue against the Shroud's authenticity.

Many of you have already advocated the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE ploy as the main vehicle for such a "counter-attack." While l agree that it is our best "cerebral" line of defense, I worry that: 1) FACTS ALONE WILL NOT WIN THE HEARTS OF THE PUBLIC AND/OR PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ASSURANCE FOR THE FAITHFUL; 2) UNLESS THE "SHROUD CROWD" USES THE MEDIA AS EFFECTIVELY AS OUR DETRACTORS, THE "FACTS" WILL NEVER BE KNOWN TO THE MASSES. One of the significant factors in launching an effective "COUNTER-ATTACK" is the determination of who is to be its "spokesperson(s)?" Though STURP may well be the most experienced and qualified to advocate an "empirical" rebuttal, their personal reluctance and the political reality of the situation may well preclude their "upfront" participation. Professional reputations are on the line; and some of their number may not wish to remind the public of the depth and extent of their involvement in the investigations. Add to this fact that STURP would then also be involved in internecine "warfare" with its fellow scientists in the C-14 community; and we have identified another limitation. Thirdly, should STURP ever be allowed to return to Turin for further on-site testing, any attempt to become "advocates of authenticity" would be perceived by both the larger scientific community and the general public as naive "sour grapes" at best or, at worst, as "proof positive" that STURP all along has been a group "kept" by the Roman Catholic Church to verify conclusions already held by that branch of Christendom; but certainly not to conduct "empirical" studies which would prove the Shroud to be a fraud.

If, on the other hand, a group such as the HOLY SHROUD GUILD were to take the lead in such a rebuttal, its very religious nature would vitiate its effectiveness in the eyes of both the public and the larger scientific community. It would thus draw the fire of those who saw it as religiously biased and as scientifically incompetent to offer an unbiased rebuttal.

Who then is to be the "lightning rod" in the midst of this current storm? What follows is a list of possibilities which is far from complete and in no wise is to be considered exhaustive:

1) ASSIST [The Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin] - If rumors are correct, this group has not endeared itself to the Cardinal's scientific advisor; and thus is unlikely ever to be admitted to any future on-hands testing. Still in all, ASSIST was founded to serve as a "peer-review group" to settle conflicting conclusions within the scientific community (i.e. Heller and Adler vs. McCrone). Certainly no more "significant difference" could be imagined than a C-14 conclusion that the Shroud is medieval vs. the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE built since Pia's 1898 photograph arguing for its authenticity. In acquiring the MAX FREI POLLEN COLLECTION in July of 1988, ASSIST currently owns and controls the largest -and most significant collection of specimens taken from the Shroud's surface. (Note: A fact confirmed by both Mccrone and Adler during confirmation of this collection’s authenticity held at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences· on July, 23, 1988. Also, it was ASSIST's General Projects Director, Paul Maloney, who authored and circulated a 25-page paper to both the Vatican and the Turin authorities questioning the current C-14 protocol prior to any of the samples being taken on April 21, 1988. Turin chose not to heed the caveats contained in this paper - many from other "experts" within the worldwide C-14 community - and now is "paying the price" for its cavalier rejection of these warnings.

In one sense, ASSIST has everything to gain and nothing to lose in assuming the "point" in this "counter-attack." Its contact network is such that it has the potential to enlist non-STURP members of the scientific community to join the fray, possibly even playing the role of a "Trojan Horse" within the C-14 community now dominated by Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. Though ASSIST may have no "standing" within the scientific community at this time, the general public is unlikely to give it any less credence than they would to STURP or the above-named labs. Should ASSIST choose to assume this leadership role at this crucial moment in the Shroud's history, it would truly take on the mantle which its· very name implies.

2) An AD HOC COMMITTEE drawn from significant sub-fields of sindonology chosen for their expertise and their ability to persuade (i.e. in writing, on the air, and before TV). Such a group could theoretically contain members of STURP who would make quite clear that they were participating as individuals and not as official STURP representatives. (Note: There is no indication at this time that any member of STURP has considered and/or would be willing to be identified in this capacity.) Such an AD HOC COMMITTEE might well provide the broadest spectrum of expertise in the field of sindonology - ranging from the hard sciences to history to theology. Such a group should possess the empirical integrity of an Eric Jumper, the organizational thoroughness and competence based on years of experience of a Fr. Adam Otterbein, and the venerable pastoral sensitivity of a Fr. Peter Rinaldi.

-4-

EFFECTIVE USE OF THE MEDIA

The very protocol of the release of the C-14 "date" precludes a "first strike" possibility for those of us who are advocates of the Shroud's authenticity. Reality dictates that we must take the first blow. Having to forego the initiative makes it even more important that we are then ready to do some effective "counter punching." But, being fair and decent doesn't mean that we can't throw a few "blows" of our own within the limits of the Marquis of Queensbury's rules. The opening statement/paragraph should take dead aim on the violations of the C-14 protocol known to have been committed by the 3 labs (i.e. sample taking from but a single site, and that the most contaminated one; failure to follow "blind testing'" - the Shroud sample was never unravelled and was thus clearly identifiable via its 3/1 herringbone twill; alleged collusion among the labs via the use of the same newly-developed cleansing technique; the "leaking" of the date (i.e. by Hall to Luckett [It was by Sox to Luckett – see 24 Jun14 & 22 Nov16]), prior to its official announcement by the Cardinal, etc.). Having thus revealed that our opponents were "using horseshoes in their gloves" as an opportunity for the "referee" (i.e. the general public and the larger scientific community) to stop and take a look", we return to center ring with a flurry of arguments from the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE arsenal (See attached sheet bearing that title}.

It would be extremely valuable and helpful to have in our possession an English translation of the Cardinal's press release announcing the "alleged" C-14 results. Even without same, I believe that we should have one of our own prepared -· yea, even "planted" - for simultaneous release in this country. Through the years a local contact on Atlanta's UPI desk has proven to be both a trusted and competent "friend of the Shroud." He is discreet and can be counted upon to "salt" both the national and international wires with the full text of any release which we provide to him. If there are those reading this memo who have similar contacts with AP or REUTERS, they are advised to go and do likewise. We all are painfully aware of how the press can "screw things up royally"; but such "pre-planted" script of our own composition would seem to minimize the extent of such damage.

Those who have been involved in STURP fund raising will remember that national columnist William F. Buckley, Jr. was in attendance at our Union League Club presentation in New York. I believe that he was there because of a request of Fr. Rinaldi who, hopefully, might "persuade" him to devote one of his nationally syndicated columns to a defense of the Shroud. Through the years, Mr. Buckley has written many fine editorials in the New Republic advocating the Shroud's authenticity. Obviously, the time for another is NOW!·

Another contact here in Atlanta has offered to get us on the CBN Network out of Virginia Beach. Granted, this is not everyone's theological "cup of tea'"; but fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and Gary Habermas [sic] have been some of the Shroud's strongest supporters over the last decade. I believe that we should take maximum advantage of this opportunity to provide a positive influence for our brothers and sisters of the right. Shifting to a Roman Catholic charismatic context, we should have little trouble in obtaining an hour's slot on Mother Angelica's cable ETERNAL WORLD NETWORK. The Shroud of Turin was the subject of her very first television broadcast, and both Frs. Otterbein and Dreisbach have previously appeared as guests on her show. Though appearances on both CBN and ETW may be judged as efforts to convert the already converted, both could be subsumed under the rubric of "holding our ground" in the face of the flood of anti-Shroud sentiment following on the heels of the "medieval" (sic) C-14 date. Carefully planned, such appearances could "arm'" the uninformed faithful with. salient "facts" arguing for the Shroud's authenticity. At the very least, these, appearances would serve to "equip the saints" in many communities served by these networks- so that; they could keep the debate alive rather than surrendering without a whimper to the "scientific" fiat of the three C-14 labs.

Finally, I believe that consideration should be given to actively seeking "panel" appearances on quality major network shows such as Ted Koppel's "Night Line," "20/20" and "60 Minutes." Each of the above allows for greater "in depth'" coverage of the debate than is possible via snippets on normal news broadcasts. If such shows are considered geared to the more "cerebral' members of the public, thought might also be given to the more "popular" shows like Phil Donahue, Oprah Winfrey, Sally Jessy Raphael and Geraldo Rivera. Also Larry King is another possibility. Anyone reading this memo who has contacts with "gatekeepers" on any of these shows is requested to make contact with the AICCSST immediately. This would also hold true for anyone having entree to print media such as Newsweek, Time, Life, People Magazine, etc.

NOTE: Dr. Daniel Scavone raised an obvious but highly significant point in noting the key importance of "visuals" (i.e. slides and video clips) and their impact on the viewer when debating the PREPONDERANCE OF-EVIDENCE vs. the "MEDIEVAL"·(sic) C-14 date. Even for St. John at the Empty Tomb and St. Thomas in the upper room, "Seeing is Believing" has- proven to be a powerful tool in "conversion."' Clips showing the Shroud's 3-D properties via. the VP-8 Image Analyzer, the Iconographic Theory, including numismatic evidence like the solidus of Justinian II (A.D. 692-695) , the 4 right angle burn holes ("spy clues"). on the Hungarian Pray Ms. (A.D. 1192-1195) and the Lierre copy (A.D. 1516), and many other pieces of evidence have much greater impact when presented visually than in oral or escritorial form. Lawyers and other debaters have long known that the "impact on the jury" is much more than a mere presentation of the "facts." As is the case with the Shroud itself, often the. "medium is the message;" and we should take full advantage of such visual persuasion when given the opportunity to appear on TV.

Continued in part two of this series.

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Bibliography
DP89. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, 611-615.
RPW. "Reproducibility," Wikipedia, 17 November 2023.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
TJ96. Tyrer, J., 1996, “Is It Really A Fake?,” from Textile Horizons, March 1989, Shroud News, No 62, December, 6-9.
WI98. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.
WI10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London.

Posted 21 November 2023. Updated 29 December 2023.

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

The Shroudman and Jesus were resurrected! #43: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!

THE SHROUDMAN AND JESUS WERE RESURRECTED! #42
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #43, "The Shroudman and Jesus were resurrected!," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!." For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: The Shroudman and Jesus were buried in a rock tomb #42] [Next: Prehistory of the Shroud (1) #44]


  1. The Bible and the Shroud #33
    1. The Shroudman and Jesus were resurrected! #43

[Above (enlarge)[MR86]: A painting by English artist Thomas Frank Heaphy (1813-73) in the 1850s, of a fresco in the ceiling of the earliest Orpheus Cubiculum section of the Catacomb of Domitilla, Rome, dated to the time of Nero (r. 54–68)[MR93, 28]. Heaphy wrongly thought he was in the catacomb of Saints Nereo and Achilleo[MR93, 28]. A Shroud-like Jesus is uniquely depicted in profile[WI92, 8], naked with a white cloth over his shoulder. Presumably Jesus sitting up at His resurrection with the Shroud still partly covering Him! If so, this is the earliest, mid-first century, depiction of the Shroud! See 05Jun21; 13Jul22 & 21Mar23]

Jesus was resurrected
• Jesus predicted his death and resurrection (Mt 16:21; 17:9, 22-23; 20:18-19).

• Jesus died on a cross (see 23Jan23a).

• Jesus' body was not in his tomb because he had "risen" (Mt 28:6; Mk 16:6; Lk 24:6).

• Jesus had "risen from the dead" (Mt 28:7; 2Tim 2:8).

• Jesus was "raised from the dead" (1Cor 15:3-4, 12, 20).

• God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30,34,37).

• Jesus was resurrected (Acts 2:31; 4:33; 1Pet 3:21).

• Jesus was resurrected from the dead (Acts 4:2; Rom 1:4; 1Pet 1:3).

• Jesus' body did not experience corruption because he was resurrected (Acts 2:27, 31; 13:34-37; Ps 16:10)[SH90, 91; IJ98, 181].

• At his resurrection, Jesus' body did, as his followers' bodies will, change state from "perishable" to "imperishable," from "mortal" to immortal (1Cor 15:51-53), from "lowly" to "glorious" (Php 3:21).

• Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection[WE54, 52-53; IJ98, 57]: Mary Magdalene (Mk 16:9-11; Jn 20:11-18)[IJ98, 181]. The two other women who had been to the tomb (Mt 28:1,8-19). The apostle Peter (Lk 24:34; 1Cor 15:5). Two on the road to Emmaus (Mk 16:12-13; Lk 24:13-32). The apostles, except for Thomas (Lk 24:36-49; Jn 20:19-25). The apostles including Thomas (Jn 20:26-29; 1Cor 15:5). Seven disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1-23). The apostles on a mountain in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20). To over 500 disciples (1Cor 15:6). His brother James (1Cor 15:7). Jesus' disciples at his ascension (Mk 16:19-20; Lk 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-12).

• Jesus' resurrection body was "mechanically transparent": after his resurrection, on two separate occasions, Jesus suddenly appeared to his disciples inside a locked room (Jn 20:19, 26)[OM10, 244]

The Shroudman was resurrected
• The Shroudman died on a cross.(see 23Jan23b).

• There is no evidence of bodily decomposition on the Shroud[SH81, 127, 155, 218; SH90, 91, 138 AM00, 33; HG84, 159].

• The bloodstains are intact, unbroken and unsmeared[SH81, 127, 156, 218; SH90, 138; AM00, 33], indicating the body was not unwrapped[SH81, 156, 218; HG84, 159; SH90, 138-139].

• The Shroudman's fingers, handbones (see below), and teeth (20Apr17) are visible under his skin due to x-rays generated by his resurrection[CG82, 445-446; SH90, 136].

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a positive photograph of the Shroud showing the finger (phalanges) and the hand (metacarpals) bones beneath the skin[LM10]. See 20Apr17]

• A dead body would not leave such an image on the Shroud[AM00, 234].

• The man's image is the result of a scorch[DR84, 18; HG84, 159]. In both color and character the image resembles the portions of the cloth that were scorched by the fire of 1532[DR84, 18; PM96, 221]. A scorch can produce an image that reproduces details as small as an ninth of an inch (~3.2 mm)[DR84, 18]. And when photographed, yields a positive image on the photographic negative[DR84, 18]. A burst of radiation at the moment of resurrection would cause a scorch[DR84, 18]. But it was not heat radiation because the blood was not scorched[HT78, 199]. Also, the image does not fluoresce under ultraviolet light whereas the areas of the Shroud scorched by the fire of 1532, do fluoresce in ultraviolet light[SH90, 204; PM96, 221].

• Only some form of radiation could have caused the Shroudman's image[AM00, 234]. The image is present even where the cloth could not have been in direct contact with the body[SH90, 205; AM00, 309].

[Above (enlarge[JJ77, 76]): Microdensitometer scan along the ridge line of the points of contact of the body with the Shroud. As can be seen, there could not have been direct contact of the body with the Shroud between the chin and chest, and the legs betwen the knees and toes, yet there is an image of such low points on the Shroud (see Shroud Scope).]

• Only a cloth collapsing through a `mechanically transparent' body giving off uniform radiant energy can explain all the Shroud image's features[AM00, 234].

Conclusion
In conclusion, as we can see above, both Jesus and the man on the Shroud:
• Died on a cross.
• Did not undergo bodily decomposition.
• Their bodies became "mechanically transparent."
• Were resurrected!

Therefore they are one and the same! Jesus is the Man on the Shroud!!

Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]

Bibliography
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
CG82. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., 425-446.
DR84. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD.
HG84". Habermas, G.R., 1984, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
HT78". Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY.
IJ98". Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
JJ77". Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J., Mottern, R.W. & Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY.
LM10. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org.
MR86. Morgan, R., 1986, "The Holy Shroud and the Earliest Paintings of Christ," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia.
MR93. Morgan, R.H., 1993, "New Evidence for the Earliest Portrait of Jesus," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 42, December, 28-29.
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
PM96. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta.
SH81. 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.
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, -91.
WI92. Wilson, I., 1992, "Still in Rome: Rediscovery of 'Oldest Painted Likeness of Christ'?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 32, 7-10.
WE54. Wuenschel, E.A. 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961.

Posted 8 November 2023. Updated 2 January 2024.