Problems of the forgery theory #1: Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is "Problems of the forgery theory #1," which is based on, and will help me write, Chapter 19 of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" (see

[Right (enlarge[SU91]): The planned cover of my book.]

06Jul17, 03Jun18, 04Apr22, 13Jul22 & 8 Nov 22). See also my 2016 series, "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F" and my 2020 series, "Problems of the forgery theory A-Z: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!." Last week (9 June) I did a word count of my book in Google.docs and it was 83724 words or 101.5% of a 300-page book of 82500 words! But I have much to include in it, and therefore much to edit out. I am aiming for 360 pages, including front and back matter. The in-line references clutter this post, but in my book they will mostly be in the chapters referred to, will be in unobtrusive endnotes, and due to limitations on space in the book, there will be less of them. I include them here to help me write my book.

[Next #2]

---

PROBLEMS OF THE FORGERY THEORY #1
© Stephen E. Jones

"At first sight it would seem that the image on the shroud is ... a painting made for the purpose of a pious fraud. But when this hypothesis is examined with care, we see that it must be rejected for the following reasons: (1) As the shroud is authenticated since the fourteenth century, if the image is a faked painting, there must at this epoch have existed an artist - who has remained unknown - capable of executing a work hardly within the power of the greatest Renaissance painters" (Delage, 1902)[DY02, 72].

"Also is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us[SR88], a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?" (Wilson, 1998)[WI98, 59-60].

Theory That the Shroud is a 14th century or earlier forgery is only a theory[GM69, 7], not a fact. Moreover, it is a weak theory. The forger is unknown[WI79, 32; CN88, 30; DT12, 17] and therefore merely hypothetical[AF82, 70]. He would have been at least the equal of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)[CN84, 155] but the Shroud was undisputably exhibited in c. 1355[GV01, 14; OM10, 52-53; WI10, 222], which was ~98 years before Leonardo was born[RC99, 139]!

Forgery The essence of forgery is the intent to deceive[MP78, 32]. Sceptics and shroudies agree that if the Shroud is not the burial sheet of Jesus, then it is a forgery, not simply a work of art[CN84, 154-155]. The Shroud does not purport to be a depiction of Jesus' burial shroud, but to be actually Jesus' burial shroud[WI79, 210, 266]! The Shroud has no signature of an artist who created it[RC99, 161]. There is no record of the Shroud having been sold by an artist, or donated to a church[CN84, 155]. The first undisputed owners of the Shroud, Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428), were comparatively poor[BM95, 18; DT12, 14] and they could not have afforded to buy the Shroud for the king's ransom price it would have fetched[WI79, 87; SH81, 109].

Unknown Who was the pre-1355 artistic genius who forged the Shroud[BA34, 15; CN88, 31]? Where are the other examples of his work[GD07]? Where are the contemporary references to him and his Shroud[PM96, 15]? How could he be unknown[PM96, 15]? Medieval artists did not, like the Greek goddess Athena, spring into existence, fully-formed[ATW]. They served an apprenticeship under a master artist[LJ98; FA20]. They increasingly produced their own improving works of art, under the guidance of their master[LJ98; FA20]. Then when the apprentice artist had served his apprenticeship and had become a master, he was supported by a wealthy patron[LJ98; FA20]. Eventually the now master medieval artist established his own studio and took in his own apprentices[LJ98; FA20]. Each of these steps were public, involving a great many contemporaries. So an unknown medieval artist who created the Shroud is an unrealistic impossibility!

Why only one? If there was a multi-million-pound equivalent business in making forgeries during the 14th century[WI98, 7] then why did the forger stop at one shroud[GD07; WS00, 37]? Churches then did not care that other churches claimed to have the same relic[SH90, 77].

No consensus Sceptics claim that the Shroud was forged using different, mutually exclusive techniques[SD96]: painted (McCrone)[MW99, 122], powder rubbing (Nickell)[NJ87, 101-106], photograph (Allen)[AN98, 32-45]. They cannot all be right but they could all be wrong! What Ian Wilson (1941-) wrote over a quarter century ago is still true today:

"Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen" (my emphasis)[WI98, 235].

The following are problems of the forgery theory from previous chapters. In the book these problems will be understandable to readers because they will have read the previous chapters referred to, and can refer back to them, if need be. That is not possible here, but I will try to link back to where those problems are mentioned elsewhere.

Central dilemma of the Shroud (Ch. 2). [18Jul20] The Shroud either is a forgery of Jesus burial shroud or it is Jesus' burial shroud[MP78, 23]. There is no realistic third alternative[MP78, 33; WJ63, x-xii]. This was, and is, admitted by leading Shroud sceptics Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939)[TH03], Steven Schafersman (1948-)[SS82], and Joe Nickell (1944-)[NJ87, 141]. So, evidence against the Shroud being a forgery is evidence for it being Jesus’ burial sheet!

Linen cloth (Ch. 3). Fine linen The Greek word translated "linen shroud" in the Gospels[Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53] is sindon, which means "fine linen"[AG37, 311], especially that which was fine and costly[TJ01, 576]. But how would a pre-1355 forger have known that? The first published Greek New Testament, that of Desiderius Erasmus (c.1466-1536), was in 1516, which was 161 years after the first undisputed exhibition of the Shroud in c. 1355 (see above). In the first century fine linen ranked in value with with gold and silver[DI90, 10-11], so it may have been even more valuable in the fourteenth century. The Gospels only say that Jesus was buried in a “linen shroud”[Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53][SH81, 47; TF06, 64], so any sheet of linen would suffice for a medieval forger to pass off as being Jesus' burial shroud. Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory Director Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) correctly stated that a medieval forger of the Shroud would have: "... just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged (sold) it" (my emphasis)[WI98, 7]. That is, a medieval forger would have used the least expensive and smallest size linen cloth on which he could have depicted Jesus’ crucified body.

Flax The Shroud’s flax contains calcium, strontium and iron which is consistent with it having been retted in a natural body of water[HJ83, 174; WM86, 91], as was done in Antiquity (before the 5th century). But not in medieval Europe when, because of water pollution, retting of linen was done in vats of water[TF06, 64].

Yarn The Shroud's linen is comprised of variegated bands of colour, as

[Left (enlarge[LM10a]): Shroud near bottom left corner, compared to the medieval Holland cloth linen backing (bottom left). As can be seen, the Shroud's linen is strongly banded lengthwise, but the Holland cloth is not banded.]

do ancient linen cloths, but not medieval linen cloths[RR08, 18; DT12, 110]. This is because each hank of ancient linen yarn was bleached separately, whereas medieval linen was bleached as the whole cloth, and does not show bands of different-colored yarn in its weave as the Shroud does[RR08, 18].

Weave The Shroud's weave is three-to-one herringbone twill[WI79, 68; WI98, 68; AM00, 98; WI10, 74], which was expensive[DR84, 12; AM00, 98; DT12, 109] and rare[WI98, 68]. A medieval forger would not likely have found a rare herringbone twill fine linen sheet on which to depict his forgery, especially a 4.2 by 1.1 metre (~14.5 x ~3.7 foot) one (see next), and if he did it would have been too expensive for him to use as his first and only forgery of the Shroud

Dimensions A medieval forger could not likely obtain a fine linen sheet, the dimensions of which are close to 8 x 2 Assyrian Standard Cubits (which the Shroud is - see 10Jul15 and 08Apr20),

[Right (enlarge)[LM10b]: Shroud photograph with an 8 x 2 grid overlay showing that the Shroud divides evenly into 16 squares, each 442/8 = 55.25 cm = ~21.7 in. long by 113.35/2 = 56.7 cm = ~22.3 in. wide. This is only 0.15 in. longer and 0.7 in. wider than the Assyrian Standard cubit of 21.6 in! These units are too close to the Assyrian Standard Cubit of Jesus' day (see 10Jul15) to be a coincidence[CM93, 6!]

because it is not a medieval unit of length and nor would he cut his cloth to Assyrian Standard Cubits lengths because he would not know how long that was (the Bible doesn't say and its length was only discovered in the 19th century). If Shroud sceptics resort to McCrone's pre-radiocarbon dating fall-back position, that "a first century cloth could have been found and used by a 14th century artist to paint the image"[MW99, 141], apart from its unlikeliness, it would mean admitting that both Bishop d'Arcis and the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud were wrong! A ~4 metre (~14 foot) long sheet is difficult to display[RTB], so it would be a negative selling point for a forger[RTB]. And cutting a ~4 metre sheet in half lengthways would allow two ~2 metre frontal image shrouds to be forged[RTB]!

Wide loom How did the medieval forger obtain a large linen sheet that

[Left (enlarge[WI10, 73]): "... for the production of the Shroud a length of fabric, 350 cm wide and 440 cm long, would have been cut first into two sections, 104 and 9 cm wide, each one having a selvage [sic] and a cut edge. The cut edges would then have been sewn together to form the Shroud of 114 cm width with two selvages at both lengthwise edges. The remainder, 230-250 cm of the original width of fabric could then either be cut again to make two more similar pieces of cloth, with two cut edges each which needed to be hemmed ..." [FM01, 58].]

had been woven on an extra-wide loom, which are only known from Roman Egypt and Syria, and not from medieval Europe[FM01, 58; WI10, 71-72]? See 31Oct12; 11Sep15, 08Oct16; 24May20 & 18Apr21.

Stitching How did the medieval forger obtain a linen sheet with a seam,

[Right (enlarge): Sketch of unusual stitching found on cloth fragments at the first-century Jewish fortress of Masada[WI10, 74], which is "identical to that found on the Shroud and nowhere else" (my emphasis)[DT12, 109]. See 24Aug15, 08Oct16; 24May20; 21Mar23 & 04Jun24].

the stitching of which has only been found in first-century Masada?

Continued in part #2 of this series.

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]

Bibliography
AF82. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
AG37. Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
AN98. Allen, N., 1998, "The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens: Testament to a Lost Technology," Empowerment Technologies: Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
ATW. "Athena," Wikipedia, 12 March 2024.
BA34. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London.
BM95. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, 18-51.
BW57. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI.
CN88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
DI90. Dickinson, I., 1990, "The Shroud and the Cubit Measure,"BSTS Newsletter, No. 24, January, 8-11.
DR84. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
CM93. Clift, M., 1993, "Carbon dating - what some of us think now," BSTS Newsletter, No. 33, February, 5-6.
CN84. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK.
DY02. Delage, Y., 1902, "Letter to M. Charles Richet," in Review scientifique, 31 May, in OG85, 72.
FA20. "From Apprentice Artist to Master: Art Lessons From Da Vinci," Milan Art Institute, 20 November 2020.
FM01. Flury-Lemberg, M., 2001, "The Linen Cloth of the Turin Shroud: Some Observations of its Technical Aspects," Sindon, New series, No. 16, December, 55-76 (not online).
GD07. Goska, D.V., 2007, "The Shroud of Turin???," 11 April..
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
GM69. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, No. 3, Autumn, 319-345.
HJ83. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA.
JP78. Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK.
LJ98. "The Medieval Artist's Apprentice," HumanitiesWeb.org, 6 September.
LM10a. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org.
LM10b. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org.
MP78. McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?," in JP78, 21-40.
MW99. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY.
NJ87. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000.
OG85. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin.
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.
RTB. Reference(s) to be provided.
RC99. 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.
RR08. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC.
SD96. Scavone, D.C., 1996, "Book Review of `The Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?," Shroud.com.
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.
SS82. Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, 37-56, 42 in NJ87, 141.
SR88. Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., 1988, "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," Independent, 14 October.
SU91. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
TH03. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19 in WI79, 52.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
TJ01. Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clovis Novi Testamenti Translated Revised and Enlarged," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961.
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.
WI00. Wilson, I., 2000, "``The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," BSTS Newsletter, No. 51, June.
WI10. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London.
WJ63. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY.
WS00. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London.
WM86. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London.

Posted 20 June 2024. Updated 29 September 2024.