Report of the 1973 Turin Commission on the Shroud (3): Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the first installment of "Report of the 1973 Turin Commission on the Shroud (3)," part #29 of my Turin Shroud Encyclopedia. See part #26 for information about this series. Again I am going to first present each part of the report and then add comments at the end.

[Index #1] [Previous: Report of the 1973 Turin Commission on the Shroud (2) #28] [Next: To be advised]

---

57

MICROSCOPIC INVESTIGATIONS ON THE SHROUD
Guido Filogamo
Alberto Zina

We present the complete results of the investigations carried out on two threads taken from the Shroud which were made at the Institute of Normal Human Anatomy at the University of Turin during the last months of 1974.

The following examinations were made:
1. Microscopic examination of the untreated material.
2. Microscopic examination of the material treated with resin.
3. Ultra-structural examination with an electron
microscope.

E.M.O. [optical and electron microscope?]
The threads were placed under the slide and examined under a microscope before being coated with resin. The enlargements were 320 x 320 x 2 linear.

The threads were seen to be constituted of numerous vegetable fibres. In the case of both threads, on the surface of several fibres we noted the characteristic presence of Granules having different forms and diameter, and of a red colour.

The threads were then covered with resin according to the usual technical procedure followed by us for histological preparations of fresh biological material.

Technique
Fixing in glyceraldehyde ("glutaraldeide") at 3% diluted with phosphate tampon, cleaning with tampon plus saccharose, after fixing in osmium ("osmio") at 1%, dehydration in graded concentrations of alcohol, placed in resin. Sample sticks were cut with an LKB microtome[JM76, 57].

58

Semi-fine sections a micron in thickness covered with methyl blue and azure 11 were observed under the optical microscope.

Ultra-thin strands of 500 A treated with uranyl acetate and citrate of lead were observed with an electron microscope Siemens Elmskop 1, the enlargements used being between 17,000x and 50,000x.

M.O. [optical microscope?]
Longitudinal and transversal sections of the threads were employed. The single fibres were coloured uniformly in blue. In the transversal sections the fibres have an oval, or rather bi-concave form, and moreover they are hollow in the centre. Also in these preparations there were observed granules on the material on the surface of the fibres. The granules have absorbed the colouring and have resulted in a blue colour.

M.E. [electron microscope?]
The examination revealed the structure of the individual fibres of the threads. These do not show the traces of cellular organelles (organuli), but they are constituted entirely of some several hundred filaments of A, variously intertwined and comprised in an amorphous matrix. On the surface of the fibres, or near to it, one can see different formations of various structure, form and size.

Of these we noted three different types:
1. Granules of amorphous material dense with electrons.
2. Roundish or oval bodies of 0.5 to 0.7 micron in which were noted an external capsule, a membrane, and an opaque central portion.
3. Fat, roundish bodies of 2 microns diameter, apparently surrounded with membrane and constituted over material finely granular, dishomogeneously distributed, and of different electron density.

The material of the first type is of an indeterminable nature[JM76, 58].

59

The bodies of the second type, by their characteristics, can be identified with certainty as bacterial spores.

The bodies of the third type, given their internal structure, are probably of an organic nature.

It must be remembered that the problem put to us is: if there is or there is not on the threads material of haematic origin (red globules).

We should recall to mind keenly that morphological investigations carried out on haematic traces rarely produce positive results after a relatively short time.

The morphological examinations which were· carried out wherein we compared the usual appearance of the traces of blood, normal or decayed, in the air, or fixed in a material (like resin), with that of the corpuscles which we observed, brought us to the following conclusions:

1. The examination under the optical microscope has not revealed the corpuscles which can be identified with red globules. The ultra-structural investigation has shown that, as far as it could be seen with the naked eye, it is constituted in part of amorphous material devoid of any differentiating characteristics, partly of spores and bacterial bodies, and partly of roundish bodies, probably of an organic nature.

2. The possibility that formations of this kind may be red globules cannot be excluded with absolute certainty, but some signs, dimensions, the appearance of the granulation, make such a possibility improbable.

P.S. It may be that new data, perhaps more significant, might be furnished from a study of the threads under a scanning electron microscope[JM76, 59].

60

Signed: Guido Filogamo,
Professor of Normal Human Anatomy,
University of Turin.

Alberto Zina,
Institute of Normal Human Anatomy,
Turin.

Turin, January 1975.

Finally anyone wishing to have photographic documentation
should write to:

Dott. Alberto Zina,
Institute di Anatomia Umana Normale,
Corso Massimo d'Azeglio 52,
TORINO[JM76, 60].

Comments:
It must call into question the competence of Filogamo and Zina in this area. They actually were looking at what turned out to be ancient blood on their Shroud samples, but they didn't recognise it!:

"At the University of Turin, threads from the Shroud were examined under an ordinary high-magnification microscope. Professor Guido Filogamo noted nothing of interest except the presence of reddish granules of various shapes and sizes. It is of these unidentifiable units that the Shroud image seems to be constituted. Professor Filogamo and his assistant, Dr Alberto Zina, now fixed the threads in a resin which, hardening, enabled them to cut their specimens into slices down to one twenty thousandth of a millimeter thick. The optical microscope revealed nothing, of any significance; to everyone's intense chagrin the electron microscope, despite its much greater powers of enlargement, produced results no more decisive. There were bacterial and other organic spores and debris, but these, of course, were only to be expected on material so many centuries old. The red-brown granules, however continued to defy all examination. That these were the red globules which would have signified dried blood, report the scientists, 'cannot be excluded with absolute certainty' — but, they continued, their characteristics — and appearance `make such a possibility improbable'. They point out that attempts to study in such a way blood traces of any kind `rarely produce positive results after a relatively short time', but this elaboration of a negative does not take them any further towards explaining what the mysterious granules actually are"[BR78, 69-70].

To be continued in the second installment of this post.

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
BR78. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London.
JM76. Jepps, M., ed., 1976, "Report of Turin Commission on the Shroud," Turin, Italy.

Posted 26 July 2024. Updated 26 July 2024.

Problems of the forgery theory #2: Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the fourteenth and final installment of my "Problems of the forgery theory #2," which is based on, and will help me write, Chapter 19, "Problems of the forgery theory," of my book in progress, "Shroud of Turin: Burial Sheet of Jesus!" See part #1 for more information about this series.

[Previous #1][Next #3]

---

PROBLEMS OF THE FORGERY THEORY #2
© Stephen E. Jones

The Man on the Shroud (Ch. 4). Double image Why would a medieval forger depict the man's back, with its over 100 tiny scourge wounds[AF82, 70; AM00, 76; WI10, 44-45], when the front image, or even the face, would have sufficed for his gullible contemporaries[WI98, 59-60]? A

[Right (enlarge): "Full-length image of the Turin Shroud before the 2002 restoration" (Wikipedia)[STW]. Seriously, could an unknown medieval forger have created this? Negative? Three-dimensional? Non-directional? Extremely superficial? Not with paint, pigment or dye? X-rays? With real, human blood? Which was on the cloth before the image? Res ipsa loquitur!]

~4.4 metre (14.5 foot) long Shroud would be too large to easily display and so would detract from its sale value[OG85, 53]. A face only shroud "would have been much easier to make than a full-body image, and it would have been much more saleable"[DT12, 138]. In fact, a medieval forger of the Shroud could have subdivided his ~4.4 x ~1.1 m (~14.5 x ~3.7 ft) cloth into 16 face only shrouds of ~55.2 x ~56.7 cm (~21.7 x ~22.3 in.) each! [see 20Jun24]. All sceptics' `replications' of the Shroud are either face or front only[WI98, pl. 47c; DT12, 138]. But:

"If a modern debunker cannot be bothered to reproduce the whole figure, front and back, it is difficult to see why a medieval hoaxer would have been any more industrious"[DT12, 138]!

How did a medieval forger depict the more than 100 scourge wounds on the back, legs and chest of the Shroudman, when each of these has a serum halo [see 27Dec21], many of which are visible only under a microscope (invented c. 1609) and in ultraviolet light (discovered 1801)[AM00, 76; WS00, 70]!

Faint Why would a forger have depicted the man's image so

[Left (enlarge): Full-length double image of the man on the Shroud after the 2002 restoration[SU14], showing that the image is very faint (and photographs enhance the image[BM95, 32; WI98, 4]).]

faint[AF82, 5] that it cannot be seen close up[HJ83, 2; BM95, 32; WI98, 4; AM00, 37], but only at a distance of about about 10 feet (3 metres)[HJ83, 2; SD91, 192; OM10, 52-53; RC99, 12]? How could a forger depict the Shroudman when he could not see up close what he was depicting[HJ83, 202; WM86, 82; TF06, 152; DT12, 138]?

Colour Why would, and how did, a medieval forger use dehydrative oxidation and conjugation of the cellulose in the Shroud's flax fibrils[HA81, 35; HJ83, 198-200; BM95, 22, 40; AA99, 105; AA0a, 113, 120; AA0c, 22-25; AM00, 212, 221; GV01, 65; TF06, 187; OM10, 218] to create the man's uniform straw-yellow image[AA99, 104-105; AA0a, 116; AA0c, 15; AM00, 36; DT12, 106]? Why would a medieval forger have depicted the man by such a time-consuming method as an areal density image[AA99, 105; AA0a, 113, 116; AA0c, 15; ], that is, the body image is not variations in concentrations of applied pigment (of which there is none - see 11Jul16) but by variation in the number of uniformly colored image fibres per unit area[AA99, 105; AA0a, 113, 116 ; AA0c, 15]?

[Right (enlarge[HTW].): The first printed photo using a halftone (i.e. an areal density image), in the Canadian Illustrated News, 30 October 1869].

Which was only discovered in the 19th century (see above).

Hands Why would a medieval forger depict Jesus hands with his fingers unnaturally long[DD84; SH88, 70; SS98]? And with no thumbs[BP53, 106, 119; BR78, 44; DR84, 4; BM95, 24; AM00, 24]?

[Left (enlarge): The nail exit wound and bloodstain on the back of the left hand of the man on the Shroud[LM10a]. Only one nail wound is visible because the corresponding wound in the right wrist (inferred by identical blood flows down his right forearm[WI98, 34; DT12, 119]) is covered by his left hand[BP53, 106; WI98, 34; DT12, 119]. As can be seen, the thumbs are not visible and the man's retracted left thumb bones can be seen through the flesh of his left hand[JJ91, 334]! The man's fingers seem too long because they are x-rays of his under-the-skin hand bones [see 20Apr17]! A medieval forger would not know about, let alone depict, x-rays, as they were discovered in 1895[XRW] by Wilhelm Roentgen (1845-1923)[WRW]!]

Shroud sceptics Picknett and Prince claim that the forger was Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)[PP06, 91], but if these were mistakes, a high school art student would not have made them. However, French surgeon Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) found that when he drove a large Roman nail into the wrists of fresh cadavers, at the Space of Destot, where the nail exit wound is in the man's left wrist, the median nerve which controls the thumb was grazed, causing the thumb to contract inward and lie across the palm[BP53, 118-119; WI98, 35; AM00, 24]! "Could a [medieval] forger have imagined this?", Barbet asked[BP53, 119], and the answer clearly is NO!

Feet Why would a medieval forger depict the square cross-section

[Right (enlarge[LM10b]):
"Half-way along there is a rectangular stain, rather nearer to the inner than to the outer edge of the impression, and this is where the flows seem to have their centre ... This four-sided image is certainly the mark of the nail ..."[BP53, 125].]

imprint of a Roman nail in the man's right foot, when it was only discovered in the mid-20th century[BP53, 125]?

Non-traditional Why would a medieval forger depict the crucified Jesus non-traditionally? A medieval forger would need to conform to tradition for his forgery to be accepted[SH90, 93]:

"How could an artist, who was painting a shroud destined for public exposition, have dared to do an unheard-of thing, that of portraying a Christ who was entirely naked? How would he have come to contradict the traditional iconography, with a nail in the wrist, with a thumb hidden in the palm of the hand ... who only shows one pierced hand and one pierced foot ..."[BP53, 31].

"Now we come to a more important point. The nail-wound of the left hand is in the wrist, not in the centre of the palm, as demanded by tradition. In a forged relic such a parade of independence would scarcely have been tolerated. As it was, to have shown the public only one hand, and consequently only one wound, was remarkable enough. Such licences would be pardoned only in the most authentic relic. Yet anatomy proves that the nails must have been driven into the wrists, not into the hands. Here again tradition is contradicted" (emphasis original)[VP02, 40].

Naked A medieval forger would not have defied tradition by depicting Jesus entirely naked[BP53, 31; BR78, 44; DR84, 29; OG85, 53]. He would likely have been burned at the stake for blasphemy[WR10, 188], as would a buyer of his forgery who displayed it. A naked rear view of Jesus would be especially shocking to the medieval mind because that was the evident intent of the 2nd century Alexamenos graffito (below), to depict Jesus in that most degrading pose.

[Left (enlarge[AGW].): The c. 200 Alexamenos graffito, discovered in 1857, mocks Alexamenos, a second century Christian[OG85, 237; WI98, 49], who is depicted raising a hand in worship of a naked Jesus with a donkey's head, on a cross from the rear, with the caption, "Alexamenos worships [his] God"]

Nails in the wrists Why would a medieval forger contradict traditional iconography by correctly depicting Jesus with nails in his wrists, not his palms[VP02, 40; BP53, 31; BR78, 44; WI79, 40-41; DR84, 25; SH90, 92; BM95, 24; IJ98, 57-58; WR10, 188; DT12, 119]? See above on the nail wound in the hidden right wrist is inferred from identical bloodflows down the right forearm.

Cap of thorns Why would a medieval forger depict the man with numerous scalp puncture wounds consistent with a cap of thorns which covered his entire head rather than a traditional circlet crown of thorns depicted in medieval Christian art[BM95, 26; GM98, 30; GV01, 38]? See 02Jul24.

No right hand nor left foot nail wound Why would a medieval forger not depict the nail wounds in the man's right hand [see above] and left foot?

[Right (enlarge[LM10c]): Feet dorsal view showing the man's right foot (left-right reversed-see 05Jun22) with a nail wound but no complete left foot with a nail wound. See frontal view of the feet where none of the left foot is visible (due to the man's left foot having been nailed to the cross with a single nail through his right foot - see 23Jan23).]

"The lack of clarity regarding the stigmata in the feet is itself significant. If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, the wounds in the feet (along with every other wound) would surely have been clearly marked ... Christ's wounds were not just incidental traces of torture in the Middle Ages. As the source of the blood that bought salvation, they were considered profoundly meaningful and were a focus of devotion. Accordingly, when medieval artists depicted Christ's wounded feet, they were always careful to indicate the marks of the nails"[DT12, 121-122].

To be continued in a future "Problems of the forgery theory #3."

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
AA99. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in AC02, 103-112.
AA0a. Adler, A.D., 2000, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in AC02, 113-127.
AA0c. Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in AC02, 10-27.
AC02. Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy.
AF82. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
AGW. "Alexamenos graffito," Wikipedia, 25 June 2024.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
BA91. 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.
BM95. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, 18-51.
BP53. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963.
BR78. Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London.
DD84. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review, 23, 243-55.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
DR84. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD.
GM98. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
HA81. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in AC02, 34-57.
HJ83. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA.
HTW. "Halfton," Wikipedia, 6 July 2024.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
JJ91. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in BA91, 171-204., 325-344.
OG85. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin.
LM10a. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org
LM10b. Latendresse, M., 2010, Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical, Sindonology.org
LM10c. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
PP06. Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007.
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.
SD91. Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in BA91, 171-204.
SH88. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK.
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
SS98. Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2., 3 October 2002.
STW. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 20 June 2024.
SU14. "Image of Full 2002 Restored Shroud," High Resolution Imagery, Shroud University, 2014.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
VP02. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970.
WR10. Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
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.
WM86. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London.
WS00. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London.
WRW. "Wilhelm Röntgen: Discovery of X-rays," Wikipedia, 27 June 2024.
XRW. "X-ray: Discovery by Rontgen," Wikipedia, 17 July 2024.

Posted 10 July 2024. Updated 25 July 2024.

Shroud of Turin News, January - June 2024

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: 2023] [Next: July - December 2024]

This is my Shroud of Turin News for January - June 2024. My words are bold to distinguish them from the articles'.

---

"Leading apologist takes part in Shroud of Turin film, releases first volume in new work on the resurrection," Liberty University, Christian Shields, 26 January 2024. ... Professor Dr. Gary Habermas [Right (enlarge).], an esteemed apologist and recognized expert on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ ... recently provided his expertise for filmmaker Robert Orlando's new documentary "Shroud of Turin: Face to Face," [Below (enlarge)] about the famous artifact that has been the object of scientists and researchers worldwide for decades. The mysterious figure on the linen, along with blood stains, are used as evidence that it was once a burial cloth — and many have set out to prove that the markings, which correspond to crucifixion wounds, are those of Jesus Christ. The film was released in November ... Habermas said Christian scientists believe that the famous images on the centuries-old cloth are due to an excessive amount of radiation only made possible by a supernatural resurrection. I don't agree with the "excessive amount of radiation," unless by "radiation" is meant light. Luke's account of The Transfiguration in Lk 9:28-31:

28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. 30 And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure,[Greek exodus] which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem."

coupled with Mt 17:2, "he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun," indicates that The Transfiguration was a prefiguration of Jesus' resurrection, when his body would emit intense light... The film takes a scientific approach to analyze various characteristics of the shroud through digital technology and includes expert interviews to determine its significance to Christ and His burial. ... Habermas has cowritten two books on the shroud, ("Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," 1981, and "The Shroud and the Controversy," 1990). As I wrote in 2015:

"I already had a number of Habermas' works on Christian apologetics, and I knew him to be a sound, evidence-based, evangelical Christian philosopher, [so] when in 2005 I found his book, "Verdict on the Shroud" in a secondhand bookstall ... I set aside my Protestant prejudice that the Shroud was just another fake Roman Catholic relic, and bought and read it ... I accepted then provisionally, and later fully, that the Shroud is indeed the very burial sheet of Jesus, bearing His crucified and resurrected image!"

See my first introductory post to this blog."

"Supporters offer million-dollar prize to replicate Shroud of Turin," Catholic Review, Christian Shields, 26 January 2024. See also 240209DC & 240222CW. [Right (enlarge). David Rolfe [1951-], a British documentary film producer, speaks ... at a news conference ... to announce a $1 million challenge prize to anyone who can recreate the Shroud of Turin using only tools and techniques from the 14th century.] ... Are you looking to make an easy $1 million? All you have to do is recreate a photographic negative image of an apparently crucified man on a 14-foot-by-3-foot piece of linen. And it has to have ... features, so that when it is rendered as ... three-dimensional ... based on the intensity of the shading, it should produce an accurately contoured 3-D image of a human form. ... the linen ... will be provided – it ... has to be done using only materials and methods that would have been available in medieval times, specifically between AD 1260 and 1390. Maybe it’s not an easy million bucks after all ... Rolfe ... first announced the challenge to the British Museum in his 2022 documentary, "Who Can He Be?" See 22May22. The British Museum supervised a carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988, with a few labs from around the world. That testing pronounced that the shroud was not the genuine burial cloth of Christ, as many believe, because the testing showed it to be produced in the 13th or 14th century. However, since then, many researchers have noted that the testing was flawed. ... If, as museum officials said in 1988, some resourceful artist in the 1200s "Faked it and flogged it off," It was Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory Director Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001))[WI98, 7]. then ... it should be reproducible, including the unique characteristics that show the image of a man on the cloth does not contain any paint, ink, dye, stain or pigments, and that there is no image underneath the blood stains. After almost two years of no response from the British Museum, the challenge is being extended to the United States [on] Feb. 8. ... A donor who helped Rolfe finance his 2022 documentary also agreed to put up the money for the prize. The same donor agreed to cover the U.S. prize, if anyone succeeds. "He thinks his money is safe," Rolfe said. ... From my book, Chapter 2, "What is the Turin Shoud?":

"No explanation Modern science has no viable explanation of how the Shroudman's image was formed[TF06, 177], and neither has modern science been able to replicate the Shroud[BA11.]. In 2022, film-maker David Rolfe (1951-) offered the British Museum (which was involved in the 1988 radiocarbon dating)[DP89, 611], US$1M to replicate the Shroud[MJ22]. But neither the Museum nor other sceptics who claim to have replicated the Shroud, have taken up Rolfe's offer[GC24]! In February 2024 Rolfe extended his US$1M challenge to the USA[GC24]. It obviously is impossible that an unknown medieval artist could forge the Shroud and modern 21st century science cannot replicate it. But if the Shroud is acheiropoiētos ("not made with hands"), but made by God, as claimed for the Image of Edessa/Shroud since at least the sixth century[WI79, 138; WI91, 135; RC99, 55; WB06, 225; WI10, 128], then modern science may never be able to replicate it!"

"New evidence indicates Turin Shroud not a European forgery," Catholic Herald, Simon Caldwell, 26 March 2024 ... New scientific tests conducted on the famous Shroud of Turin have revealed that the flax used to make the linen was grown in the Middle East. The results of isotope tests provide new evidence that the shroud is the actual garment that was used to cover the body of Jesus Christ following his crucifixion – and is not a forgery that was created in medieval Europe. Fragments of cloth taken from the shroud show that

[Above (enlarge). Photograph Ray Rogers [1927-2005] took in 1979 showing the threads that came from the "Raes piece" – removed from the Shroud in 1973 for textile research – and from which William Meacham obtained his sample.]

its flax originated in the western Levant, a swathe of land occupied today by Israel, Lebanon and western parts of Jordan and Syria (see below).

[Above (enlarge)."Testing yielded the expected regional grouping. The two Shroud samples gave virtually identical results that fell into the cluster from Israel, as shown in the diagram" above. Linen is woven flax. Flax is mostly cellulose. Cellulose is repeating chains of molecules of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Ignoring carbon, ... hydrogen can be found either as deuterium (1 proton and 1 neutron) or protium (1 proton), and oxygen can be found either as oxygen-16 (8 protons and 8 neutrons), oxygen-17 (8 protons and 9 neutrons), or oxygen-18 (8 protons and 10 neutrons). Plants derive their oxygen and hydrogen by splitting water in photosynthesis. Therefore, plants in a region have a particular ratio of oxygen and hydrogen isotopes of that region, called an Isoscape. "There are several hypotheses to account for the outliers: linen fiber imported from another country, irrigation using water from deep ground, or contamination due to pest repellent or preservative." The Raes sample, of which these threads were a part, and the

[Left (enlarge). "Warp fibers from the radiocarbon sample ... The gum is swelling, becoming more transparent, and detaching from the fibers"[RR05, 191].].

radiocarbon dating sample, are covered with Alarizin (or Rose Madder) dye gum, which had been used in medieval Europe since 1291 [in fact more than 500 years before that - see below], as Rogers reported:

"All threads from the Raes sample and the yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample show colored encrustations (or coatings) on their surfaces .... The coating material ... consist[s] of a plant gum containing alizarin dye present in two forms. ... The main part of the shroud does not contain these materials. Alizarin and purpurin are extracted from Madder root and first appeared in Italy about A.D. 1291 ..."[RR05, 191].

"In the Middle Ages, Charlemagne [r. 768-814] encouraged madder cultivation. Madder was widely used as a dye in Western Europe in the Late Medieval centuries"[ALW]. So Madder Rose was being grown in Europe from at least the 8th century. And "Alizarin ... is an organic compound with formula C₁₄H₈O₄ that has been used throughout history as a prominent red dye, principally for dyeing textile fabrics"[ALW]. With 8 hydrogen, and 4 oxygen, atoms in every alizarin molecule, Madder Rose grown in Europe would take up water into photosynthesis containing oxygen-18 and hydrogen-2 (deuterium) and split them into H² and O¹⁸

[Above (enlarge[WSC]). Photosynthesis equations of experiments by Ruben et al. (1940) showing that plants derive their oxygen (and hydrogen - not shown) from soil water, not atmospheric carbon dioxide or water. And because soil water is regional, not global as atmospheric carbon dioxide is, the cellulose of plants, including flax, reflects their regional ratios of oxygen-18 and hydrogen-2.]

which would be incorporated into Madder Rose dye, in a European isoscape H² and O¹⁸ ratio. So the "Europe outlier" in the graph above is readily explained by contamination of the Raes threads with a medieval European Madder Rose dye. This leaves the Shroud's flax having been grown in "the western Levant, a swathe of land occupied today by Israel, Lebanon and western parts of Jordan and Syria"!

William Meacham, the American archaeologist who commissioned the study, said: "With a probable near Eastern origin, new doubts must be raised about interpreting the shroud as simply a fake relic made in medieval Europe, and new questions arise about what the image on the cloth signifies. "The possibility that this cloth is actually the burial shroud of Jesus is strengthened by this new evidence. "In my view, that remains the best explanation for the shroud." As a member of the board of directors of the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association (STERA), Meacham obtained permission to test five of seven threads in the possession of the group. The threads originated from a sample known as the "Raes piece" that was removed from the Shroud in 1973 for textile research. Fourteen threads were provided by the Turin archdiocese to the physicist [sic thermal chemist] Ray Rogers, a member of the American scientific team that had conducted an onsite study of the shroud in 1978, and which were later passed on to STERA. Testing was undertaken at the Stable Isotopes Laboratory of the University of Hong Kong, which is able to test very small samples of even less than 1mg. Meacham said the Eastern origin of the shroud is important because "it reinforces other features that point in that direction". He explained: "Most notable was the pollen. Even though many identifications have since been discounted, certain species taken together still indicate an Eastern Mediterranean presence. For example, pollen of halophyte (salt tolerant) plants which only grow around the Dead Sea:

"But as he [Frei] steadily identified one pollen after another ... there began emerging certain specimens that had to be of import ... In particular, he found himself identifying pollens from halophytes, that is, from plants typical of the desert regions around the Jordan valley and specifically adapted to live in soils with the high salt content found almost exclusively around the Dead Sea. In his own words: `These plants are of great diagnostic value for our geographical studies as identical desert plants are missing in all the other countries where the Shroud is believed to have been exposed to the open air. Consequently a forgery, produced somewhere in France during the Middle Ages in a country lacking these typical halophytes, could not contain such characteristic pollen grains from the desert regions of Palestine.' [Frei, "From a report to British film producer David Rolfe, January 1977"][WI98, 99-100, 252].

Similarly, the crown of thorns [on the shroud] in helmet style rather than Roman circlet is a feature characteristic of Asia Minor and the Levant. A positive photograph of the back of the man's head

[Right (enlarge[LM10]). "Close-up of the blood flows on the Shroud's back-of-the-head imprint. These appear to have derived from a cap of spikes ... rather than the neat circlet often imagined by artists"[WS00, 57].

(rotated 90 degrees because it is upside down - above right), shows trickles of blood consistent with a `cap of thorns' having been forced down upon his head. And also a horizontal band keeping the `cap' in place (consistent with the Crown of Thorns now in the Louvre, Paris - see 11Feb23):

"... all around the Shroud man's forehead and again around the back of his head, we noted a series of reddish-coloured, irregularly spaced trickles, as if something spiked had caused his scalp to bleed in several places. Even for a layman, these fairly obviously suggest the 'crown of thorns' that all four gospels describe as having been thrust on Jesus' head to humiliate him - although the Shroud indicates that this was very much more like a crude, tangled clump of some barbed plant, than the neat circlet imagined by most artists. However, it is again the medical specialist. who notes ... the medically convincing character of each blood trickle ..."[WS00, 57-58].

Another is the claim of coins on the eyes in the shroud image that matched a documented instance from a second century burial in Judea. "This was an impressive confirmation of a hypothesis generated by computer 3D analysis in 1977, at a time when there was no known

[Left (enlarge[JJ77, 88]). 1977 VP-8 Image Analyzer close-up of the Shroudman's face, showing circular bulges over each eye, which are the same size and shape of Pontius Pilate lepton coins, minted in AD 29! See 10May13 & 18Apr20]

instance (outside of Israel) of such a practice in antiquity." ... While the latest findings counter the accusation that the shroud is only a forgery, mystery remains and Meacham admits ... that "there is slight overlap of a couple of samples (of flax) from western Europe with those of Israel". See above that the "overlap" is explained by the Raes fibres being contaminated by medieval Rose Madder dye, with its European ratio of oxygen-18 and hydrogen-2. ...

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
ALW. "Alizarin," Wikipedia, 11 November 2023.
BA11. Boyle, A., 2011, "Was Holy Shroud created in a flash? Italian researchers resurrect claim," 22 December.
DP89. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, 611-615.
GC24. Gunty, C.,2024, "Supporters offer million-dollar prize to replicate Shroud of Turin," Catholic Review, 9 February.
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" (rotated 90 degrees), Sindonology.org.
MJ22. Moorhead, J., 2022, "The $1m challenge: `If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done'," The Observer, 17 April.
RR05. Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Nos 1-2, 20 January, 189-194.
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.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
WSC. "What is the correct balanced equation of Photosynthesis?," Biology4U, 2024.
WB06. Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI91. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London.
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.
WS00. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London.

Posted 2 July 2024. Updated 16 July 2024.

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?

To be 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 10 July 2024.

Further evidence that Heaphy's 1st century sketch of Jesus in the Domitilla catacomb is of him sitting up at his resurrection with the Shroud over his shoulder!

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

In my post of 05Jun21 I wrote: "One of Heaphy's [Thomas Frank Heaphy (1813-73)] watercolour paintings ... of a fresco in the" Orpheus Cubiculum of the Domitilla catacomb, I propose ... is a depiction of Jesus sitting up in the Tomb immediately after His resurrection, and the `white mantle' around His shoulder and back is the Shroud"!

[Above (enlarge): "Original [Heaphy] painting of fresco. Catacomb of SS Nereo and Achilleo [sic. it was the Orpheus Cubiculum of the Domitilla catacomb.]. Probably 1st century ..."[MR86, plate 1]. Ian Wilson (1941-) noted of this, "the Heaphy profile view" was an "odd-man-out" in depictions of Jesus[WI92, 8]. Rex Morgan (1936-) confirmed that Heaphy's painting was of the "three-quarters profile portrait of Christ, in a fresco ... in the ceiling of a vault in the Orpheus Cubiculum of the Domitilla catacomb," because "The figure [in the fresco] has long hair and a beard; a white mantle is clasped upon the right shoulder. Just as Heaphy had copied it" (my emphasis)[MR93, 28]. See also 21Mar23. Belgian industrial chemist, Remi Van Haelst (1931-2003), saw this fresco and was told by his guide, "This is the oldest representation of the Lord, made by an unknown artist ... who had know[n] Jesus" (my emphasis):

"On the sepulchral vault, in the light of his flashlamp, the guide showed me a very vague painting. In a kind of circular inset on the ceiling of the chamber I saw the figure of a human bust, looking from the left side. With a kind of sepulchral voice the monk told me: `This is the oldest representation of the Lord, made by an unknown artist, probably based on descriptions or perhaps a sketch or painting by someone who had know[n] Jesus or his disciples"[VR87]

My reasons for thinking that this is a depiction of Jesus sitting up in the Tomb immediately after his resurrection, and the "white mantle" around His shoulder and back is the Shroud, are: 1) The simplest way to show Jesus sitting up after his resurrection is by a profile view (see below); 2) Jesus is naked under the "white mantle" as he was when buried (Jn 19:23); and 3) There is no mention in Scripture (or elsewhere as far as I am aware) of Jesus wearing a white mantle, but the Gospels mention that Jesus was buried in a "linen shroud" (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) which would have been originally white (Rev 19:14)[AM00, 72, 212]. Therefore, I no longer propose, but claim that this is the earliest (during the reign of Nero r. 54-68)[MR93, 28]), first century depiction of the Shroud!]

The "further evidence" that the simplest way to depict Jesus immediately after his resurrection, is him sitting up in profile, as in the resurrection scene in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ":

[Above (enlarge): Jesus depicted in profile, sitting up immediately after his resurrection, in Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ." Watch the YouTube video here. I saw this harrowing movie on my own in a theatre in 2004-05 and I remember this scene as the ultimate happy ending!]

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
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
MR86. Morgan, R., 1986, "The Holy Shroud and the Earliest Paintings of Christ," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, plate 1.
MR93. Morgan, R.H., 1993, "New Evidence for the Earliest Portrait of Jesus," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 42, December, 28-29, 28.
VR87. Van Haelst, R., 1987, "Did I see the Lord?," Shroud News, No. 44, December, 11-15, 12.
WI92. Wilson, I., 1992, "Still in Rome: Rediscovery of 'Oldest Painted Likeness of Christ'?," BSTS Newsletter, No. 32, 7-10.

Posted 19 June 2024. Updated 20 June 2024.