Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Mark Oxley, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin" (2010)

I have recently bought a new book on the Shroud by a Mark Oxley, entitled, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, 2010, 348 pages, paperback.

[Right: "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," by Mark Oxley: Amazon.com]

I have only dipped into it, but it is evidently pro- authenticity, although Oxley's approach is to present the evidence and leave it to the reader to choose whether to accept or reject it. Oxley concludes:

"Yes, I personally believe that the Shroud is genuine, as I said right at the beginning of this book, and my views may be apparent in the style and content of the book, but it is not up to me to force my beliefs on others. Matters of faith are matters of individual choice. The words of the American writer John Walsh, written in 1963, remain as relevant today as they were then. He wrote that the Shroud is either `one of the most ingenious, most unbelievable products of the human mind and hand on record' or it is `the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence'. Which is it?" (Oxley, M., "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, 2010, p.282).

Here is my scan of the book's Contents pages:

INTRODUCTION ix
PART 1 - INTRODUCTION TO THE SHROUD
Chapter 1 - The Shroud of Turin 3
PART 2 - THE SHROUD AND HISTORY
Chapter 2 - Jerusalem, Antioch and Edessa 13
Chapter 3 - From Edessa to Constantinople 28
Chapter 4 - Geoffrey de Charny and the Shroud of Lirey 44
Chapter 5 -The Later Years in Lirey 54
Chapter 6 - From the de Charny Family to the House of Savoy 64
Chapter 7 - To the Present Day 73
Chapter 8 - The Missing Years: Cathars or Templars? 86
Chapter 9 - The Missing Years: From Athens to France 100
PART 3 - THE SHROUD AND THE CRUCIFIXION
Chapter 10 - Death on the Cross 119
Chapter 11 - The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ 157
Chapter 12 - The Evidence of the Man on the Shroud 169
Chapter 13 - The Sudarium of Oviedo 182
PART 4 - THE SHROUD AND SCIENCE
Chapter 14 - The First Investigations 195
Chapter 15 - The Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) 207
Chapter 16 - Dating the Shroud 221
Chapter 17 - Image Formation: Radiation Hypotheses 237
Chapter 18 - Image Formation: Contact and Chemical Hypotheses 252
Chapter 19 - Preservation, Restoration and the Future for Research 261
PART 5 - THE CHALLENGE OF THE SHROUD
Chapter 20 - Heroes, Sceptics and Challenges 277
NOTES 283

And here is what Amazon.com says about the book (from its back cover):

Product Description
The book addresses the many challenges posed by the Shroud. If, for example, it really was the work of a 14th century forger, how did such a person, with the limited scientific knowledge of his time, produce an artifact that can still not be replicated or even explained by 21st century science? If the Shroud is evidence of an event that could be called supernatural - the resurrection of a dead man - what does this imply for scientists studying it? If the Shroud is evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, what are the implications of this for those who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God or that he was anything but a rural Jewish teacher? What are the challenges facing researchers and theologians today both in preserving the Shroud and in carrying out further scientific research? The book is in three main parts - a complete review of the history of the Shroud - both known and speculated; a study of crucifixion as a method of execution and its relationship to the image and markings on the Shroud; and a review of the scientific studies carried out on the Shroud over the past century, together with the various hypotheses that have been advanced as to how the image was formed. The book concludes with some suggestions as to how conflicting demands for preservation of the Shroud and for further scientific studies can be reconciled and carried forward. Is the Shroud the genuine burial cloth of Jesus Christ? This question is left to the reader to answer.

and its author:

About the Author
Mark Oxley is a Zimbabwean businessman who has spent over three years carrying out detailed research on the history of the Shroud of Turin and on the scientific studies that have been carried out on it. A scientist by training with an avid interest in both classical and mediaeval history, he has used both disciplines to carry out an in-depth review of the current state of knowledge about the Shroud. He has been interested in the Shroud since he was a schoolboy, when he saw a film about the Shroud in which the late Lord Cheshire explained the Shroud, its history and what was known at the time about the image on it. Over the years he has followed the scientific debate on the Shroud and particularly the controversy over its radio-carbon dating. It was this controversy in particular and some of the hypotheses that arose from it that eventually led to his decision to carry out further research and write his own book on the subject of the Shroud.

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & Jesus is Jehovah!

Saturday, April 17, 2010

`Ian Wilson's Turin Shroud theories are the worst kind of junk history'

Ian Wilson's Turin Shroud theories are the worst kind of junk history, Telegraph.co.uk, Guy Walters, April 13th, 2010.


Walters' critique of Wilson and Wilson's response are no longer online, but I had saved each of them as a text file. Because of the continued interest in this 2010 post (according to Google Analytics), I have now (5 August 2016) posted as a comment below Walters' critique of Wilson and Wilson's response to Walters.

This is a good (or bad) example of a modern scoffer's (2 Peter 3:3; Jude 1:18) attack on the

[Right: Ian Wilson. Rear cover of "The Shroud: The 2,000 Year Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, 2010.]

authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, through a sustained ad hominem personal attack:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)." ("Fallacy: Ad Hominem," The Nizkor Project, 14 April 2010);

on leading Shroud theorist Ian Wilson. Wilson's attacker is Guy Walters, who "is a British author and journalist." ("Guy Walters," Wikipedia, 23 March 2010).

[Left: Guy Walters: www.guywalters.com.]

Significantly, Walters presents no actual facts or even arguments that the Shroud of Turin is not the burial sheet of Jesus, but instead tries to discredit Wilson personally, presumably so that readers will not bother reading Wilson's new book, "The Shroud: The 2,000 Year Old Mystery Solved" (2010).

While I was putting the finishing touches to this my own response to Walters' attack on Wilson, and through him the Shroud itself, I discovered that in the meantime Ian Wilson had himself responded to Walters' article, so I will also quote Wilson to support my points and to add information that I was not sure of. Walters' words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

If one object encapsulates the practice of junk history more than any other, then it's the Turin Shroud, which is currently on display until May 23.

Because Walters is merely an "author and journalist," he therefore has no standing as a leading professional historian to determine what is, or is not, "junk history." It seems that "junk history" for Walters is what he does not personally like or want to be true.

According to Walters' (presumably) own self-description above this article, he "sees it as his personal mission to wage war on ignorance and misconceptions about the past":

"Guy Walters is the author of nine books, which include four wartime thrillers and the critically acclaimed histories Hunting Evil and Berlin Games. Frustrated at the enormous amount of junk history around, Guy sees it as his personal mission to wage war on ignorance and misconceptions about the past. His website is www.guywalters.com."

But if the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus (and the evidence is overwhelming that it is - see my "The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus!"), then Walters is himself perpetrating "ignorance and misconceptions about the past"!

Now that would not really matter much about most things. But again if the Shroud is the burial sheet of Jesus, and bears the image of His crucified and resurrected body (as again the evidence overwhelmingly indicates it is and does), then to be in "ignorance" and have a "misconceptions about the past," of not believing that in "Jesus Christ ... God really lived on earth as a man and said and did the things that the Gospels report":

"What is the most important event in recorded history? ... Christians should be able to give a confident answer to the ultimate question on the premise that the Gospels, summarized in the introductory verses of the Gospel of John, tell the truth. The incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, is undoubtedly the most important event in the history of mankind if it actually happened as the Bible says. One may not know all sorts of things and be none the worse for it, but if God really lived on earth as a man and said and did the things that the Gospels report, then not to know these sayings and deeds, or to disregard them, is to be missing the one key that is capable of unlocking everything else. That is why it is of supreme importance that the good news must be made available to everyone, whether or not they choose to believe it. The most devastatingly negative judgment must be made of any educational system which insists, as the schools of most nations do now, that students should not be taught the information they need to give an informed answer to the question posed by Jesus: 'Who do you say that I am? [Mat. 16:15-17]'" (Johnson, P.E. 2002, "The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.172-173).

is the most important "ignorance and misconceptions about the past" of all!

Those who study this piece of cloth grandly call themselves sindonologists, as if concocting crackpot theories about a 13th or 14th century hoax were a legitimate branch of academia.

Walters continues with his ad hominem fallacy `arguments,' i.e. "crackpot," "hoax" and "high priest" (see below). But irrespective of Walters' disdain for the term, "sindonology," it has entered the dictionary as a legitimate field of study, "the scientific study of the Shroud of Turin":

"sin·do·nol·o·gy ... - noun the scientific study of the Shroud of Turin. ... Origin: 1965-70; < It sindon(e) the shroud in which Christ was interred (< Gk (NT) sindon winding sheet, Gk: muslin sheet; cf. sindon) + o + -logy - Related forms sin·do·nol·o·gist, noun" ("Dictionary.com Unabridged," Random House Dictionary: Random House, 14 April 2010).

But in fact Wilson points out that he does not use of himself, or like, the term "sindonologist":

"Nor in four decades of Shroud researches have I ever called myself a `sindonologist', a term I dislike as much as he does." (Ian Wilson, "My response to Guy Walters and his critique," Telegraph.co.uk, 15 April 2010).

And no one yet (including Walters) has shown the Shroud to be "a 13th or 14th century hoax." Indeed, the idea that an unknown forger in the "13th or 14th century" perpetrated a "hoax" that the science of the 20th-21st centuries still has not been able to explain how it was done, or who did it, is itself increasingly bordering on a hoax!

Classics scholar Mark Guscin, in his book on the Sudarium of Oviedo, points out (with satirical "embellishments"), what a forger

[Above: Perfect match of bloodstains on the Sudarium of Oviedo (which has been in Spain since at least "AD 840") and the Shroud of Turin, proving that they once covered the head of the same crucifixion victim: Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image" Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.122]

would have to do, to fit the known facts about the Shroud and concludes that "Such a story ... is more incredible than the Shroud's authenticity" (my emphasis below):
"However, let us suppose for a while that the results obtained from the carbon dating of both the sudarium and the Shroud are accurate, and neither cloth ever touched the body of Jesus. In that case, the following story would have to be true. Sometime in the seventh century, in Palestine, after reading the gospel of John, a well known forger of religious relics saw the opportunity of putting a new product on the market - a cloth that had been over the face of the dead body of Jesus.

This forger was also an expert in medicine, who knew that a crucified person died from asphyxiation, and that when this happened, special liquids fill the lungs of the dead body, and can come out through the nose if the body is moved.

The only way he could get this effect on the cloth was by re-enacting the process, so this is exactly what he did. He crucified a volunteer, eliminating those candidates who did not fulfil the right conditions - swollen nose and cheeks, forked beard to stain the cloth, etc. When the body was taken down from the cross, he shook it around a bit with the help of a few friends, holding the folded cloth to the dead volunteer's nose so that future generations would be able to see the outline of his fingers.

He even stuck a few thorns in the back of the dead man's neck, knowing that relic hunters would be looking for the bloodstains from the crown of thorns.

Being an eloquent man, he convinced people that this otherwise worthless piece of cloth was stained with nothing less than the blood and pleural liquid of Christ, and so it was guarded in Jerusalem with other relics, and considered so genuine and spiritually valuable that it was worth saving first from the invading Persians and later from the Arabs.

A few hundred years later, some time between 1260 and 1390, another professional forger, a specialist in religious relics too, decided that the time was ripe for something new, something really convincing. There were numerous relics from various saints in circulation all round Europe, bones, skulls, capes, but no, he wanted something really original. Various possibilities ran through his mind, the crown of thorns, the nails from the crucifixion, the table cloth from the last supper, and then suddenly he had it - the funeral shroud of Jesus! And not only that, but he would also put an image on the Shroud, the image of the man whom the Shroud had wrapped!

The first step was difficult. Being an expert in textile weaves, (one of his many specialities, the others being pollen, Middle East blood groups, numismatism of the years of Tiberius, photography, Roman whips, and electronic microscopes) he needed linen of a special kind, typical of the Middle East in the first century.

Once this had been specially ordered and made, he folded it up before starting his work, as a neighbour had suggested that such a cloth would have been folded up and hidden in a wall in Edessa for a few hundred years, so the image would be discontinuous on some of the fold marks.

Leaving the cloth folded up, he travelled to Oviedo in the north of Spain, where he knew that a forerunner in his trade had left a cloth with Jesus' blood stains.

On obtaining permission to analyse the sudarium, he first checked the blood group - AB of course, common in the Middle East and relatively scarce in Europe - then made an exact plan of the blood stains (carefully omitting those which would have already clotted when the sudarium was used) so that his stains would coincide exactly.

After his trip to Oviedo, he went on a tour of what is now Turkey, forming a composite portrait of Jesus from all the icons, coins and images he could find. After all, he needed people to think that his Shroud had been around for over a thousand years, and that artists had used it as their inspiration for painting Christ. He didn't really understand what some of the marks were, the square box between the eyes, the line across the throat, but he thought he'd better put them on anyway. He didn't want to be accused of negligence, because he was an internationally famous forger and had a reputation to maintain.

Once he was back home, he somehow obtained some blood (AB, naturally) and decided to begin his work of art with the blood stains, before even making the body image.

Unfortunately, he miscalculated the proportions, and the nail stains appeared on the wrist instead of on the palms of the hands, where everyone in the fourteenth century knew that they had been. `Well', he thought, `it's just a question of a few inches, nobody will notice.'

Now, even the omniscient author is forbidden to enter in the secret room where the forger `paints' the image of Christ, a perfect three dimensional negative, without paint or direction. His method was so secret that it went to the tomb with him.

After a few hours, he opened the door, and called his wife, who was busy preparing dinner in the kitchen. `What do you think?' `Not bad. But you've forgotten the thumbs' `No, I haven't. Don't you know that if a nail destroys the nerves in the wrist, the thumbs bend in towards the palm of the hand, so you wouldn't be able to see them?'

`But didn't the nails go through the palms?' `Well, yes, but I put the blood on first, and didn't quite get the distance right'

`Oh, in that case ... and what about the pollen?' `What pollen?' `Well, if this Shroud has been in Palestine, Edessa, and let's suppose it's been in Constantinople too, it's going to need pollen from all those places.' Our forger loved the idea, got the pollen from all the places his wife had indicated, and delicately put it all over his Shroud.

And then, the final touch. Two coins from the time of Christ, minted under the emperor Tiberius, to put over the man's eyes. Our man had a sense of humour too - he decided that the coins would be included in the image in such a way that they would only be visible under an electronic microscope.

Such a story, even without the embellishments, is more incredible than the Shroud's authenticity."

(Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.84-88. My emphasis).

Their high priest is one Ian Wilson, who the BBC flatteringly refers to as a "historian".

Another ad hominem personal attack as a substitute for argument by Walters. Ian Wilson is not the "high priest" of "Those who study this piece of cloth." And Wilson is a historian, in that he "graduated in Modern History from Magdalen College, Oxford":

"Ian Wilson (born 1941) is the prolific author of religious and scientific books. He often mixes the two while examining his various topics, whether it's the Shroud of Turin or life after death. He graduated in Modern History from Magdalen College, Oxford. He has written and presented a three part Channel 4 TV series based on his book Jesus: The Evidence. He converted from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism." ("Ian Wilson (writer)," Wikipedia, 22 March 2010).

and he is writes about "history," the "study of the human past":

"History (from Greek ...historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation" is the study of the human past. Scholars who write about history are called historians. It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the sequence of events, and it sometimes attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events." ("History," Wikipedia, 5 April 2010 ).

Wilson himself makes further points in defense of his right to be called "a historian":

"First, Walters questioned my right to be `labelled a historian'. The facts are that I am a history graduate of Magdalen College, Oxford, where I studied under A.J.P.Taylor and others. I graduated with honours in 1963, and was conferred an M.A. in 1977. Walters fails to mention the historical biography of Shakespeare, Shakespeare: The Evidence, which I wrote in 1994. No-nonsense Oxford historian the late Dr. A.L. Rowse, reviewed this in the London Evening Standard as: `Full of good sense. The reader will not go wrong with it Ian Wilson is conscientious, as a good Oxford man should be." (Wilson, Ibid.).

Walters' here attempts to demarcate what is, and is not, "history," and who is, and is not, a "historian," so that one does not then have to listen to the arguments of those whom he decrees are not "historians" and do not write "history." But, apart from Walters being merely an "author and journalist," with no authority to decide what and who is in, and out, of those categories, what Walters and his Shroud anti-authenticity ilk need to do is provide a comprehensive, testable, alternative theory that fully and plausibly explains all the major features of the Shroud and how they were created by the perpetrator of "a 13th or 14th century hoax." That Walters is reduced to ad hominem personal attacks against Ian Wilson only shows the bankruptcy of the anti-authenticity position.

Quite why Wilson deserves this job description is unclear, because his works have little to do with history, and instead are books that hail from a strange sector of publishing nicely captured by Peter Wilson in The Independent in 2001:

Pick an ancient riddle to unravel. Mix together a pinch of history, a splash of archaeology, a soupçon of theology, lashings of first-person travelogue and a hefty dose of maps. Then flavour it with talk of the pyramids, the Inca sacred sites, the truth behind the Bible and obstructive, conspiratorial clerics. Finally, garnish in a bold cover with gold letters and a sensational title about a lost civilisation, a missing continent or extra-terrestrial life. Watch the copies walk out of the bookshops.

Actually it was "Peter Stanford" (unless he and "Peter Wilson" are one and the same) and he was writing about Wilson's book on Noah's Ark, Before the Flood, not one of his books on the Shroud. But Stanford also concluded in the same review:

"I am inclined to give Ian Wilson the benefit of the doubt. As he points out a little too often, he is a trained historian (though the training turns out to be as a history undergraduate at Oxford). More important, there is his evident sincerity in an area where that quality is at a premium. In the course of writing The Turin Shroud, for instance, he became so close to his subject that he abandoned his lifelong atheism and became a Catholic. It is hard to imagine some of the young pretenders taking what they write that seriously." ("Ian Wilson: When mystery drowns history," The Independent, Peter Stanford, Saturday, 24 November 2001).

Wilson makes a living as a writer on controversial historical topics, for which he clearly takes great pains to research and tries to present the evidence honestly and factually. That he may be wrong on some of those topics, has no bearing on whether he is right (or wrong) about the Shroud.

A look at Wilson's back catalogue sheds little light on why he should be labelled a historian.

It is significant that Walters needs to "label" Wilson as not "a historian." That is another an ad hominem fallacious attempt to prevent readers taking seriously Wilson's arguments in favour of the Shroud's authenticity (see below on the "poisoning the well" fallacy). But as any fair-minded person, who has taken the time and effort to read through Wilson's books on the Shroud (as Walters hasn't-see below), they are models of well-researched works of history.

My favourites are The Turin Shroud: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ? (1979); The Evidence of the Shroud (1986); Holy Faces, Secret Places: An Amazing Quest for the Face of Jesus (1991); The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence That the World's Most Sacred Relic Is Real (1998); The Turin Shroud: Unshrouding the Mystery (2000); and his latest shlockbuster, The Shroud : the 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved (2010). Are you spotting a pattern here?

Note the derogatory term "shlockbuster" for Wilson's latest book, "The Shroud : the 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved (2010)." which I am currently reading and finding very well-researched and well-written, with new facts which I was not aware of.

I thought it impressive that Walters had actually read all those books of Wilson's. But later in this same article, Walters lets it slip that: "I don't have time to read Wilson's books ..." So in what sense are they Walters' (sarcastic) "favourites"? It can only be that he is prejudiced against the titles of these books, or rather against the idea that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus (see below on Walters' presumed Metaphysical Naturalism, the view that "nature is all there is," i.e. there is no supernatural).

Wilson adds, "The first rule of the professional historian is surely to familiarise himself with what he is writing about, thus avoiding the sort of `ignorance and misconceptions' that Walters says he so abhors":

"Surprising as it may seem, I share Guy Walters' frustrations at `the enormous amount of junk history around'. This therefore makes it all the more galling that Walters should have chosen me, Ian Wilson, as his number one target, lumping my books into this category without, on his own admission, having bothered to read a single word of them. The first rule of the professional historian is surely to familiarise himself with what he is writing about, thus avoiding the sort of `ignorance and misconceptions' that Walters says he so abhors. Yet Walters clearly saw no need to follow this rule when he rushed out his blog about me, condemning my standards as a professional author."(Wilson, Ibid.).

The "pattern" that Walters finds so reprehensible in Wilson's books he has listed, seems to be that Wilson is open to evidence of the supernatural, whereas Walters appears to be a Philosophical Naturalist, i.e. a believer that "nature is all there is" (i.e. there is no supernatural, including God):

"Metaphysical naturalism, (or ontological naturalism or philosophical naturalism) which focuses on ontology: This stance is concerned with existence: what does exist and what does not exist? Naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature." ("Naturalism (philosophy)," Wikipedia, 14 April 2010).

and so he has a closed mind on the existence of the supernatural in general and on the supernatural origin of the image on the Shroud, in particular.

Wilson has also written about stigmata, reincarnation, and yep, you guessed it, Nostradamus.

This is a form of ad hominem argument called "poisoning the well," i.e. "a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is ... presented ... with the intention of discrediting ... everything that the target person is about to say" (my emphasis):

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem ..." ("Poisoning the well," Wikipedia,19 December 2009).

Walters attempts to discredit Wilson's argument in favour of the Shroud, by telling his readers that Wilson had "written about stigmata, reincarnation, and ... Nostradamus." But Sir Isaac Newton wrote commentaries "on the prophetic Books of Daniel and Revelation" and in fact "wrote more on religion than he did on natural science" (Wikipedia). Does that make his other writings on Gravity and Optics false? Cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle wrote fictional works like A for Andromeda and The Black Cloud (Wikipedia). Does that make his other writings on Cosmology false?

Apart from it being irrelevant as to the truth or otherwise of the Shroud, Walters does not say what Wilson's conclusions were about those topics. I myself don't know and don't have the time or inclination to find out, but unlike Walters I would not find Wilson guilty by association, just because he had "written about" those topics.

Indeed, as Wilson points out, he is not an "adherent of every topic" that he writes about and in fact does not believe in "stigmata, reincarnation, and ... Nostradamus":

"Second, and compounding his ignorance, Walters has assumed that I must be a card-carrying adherent of every topic that I write about. Had he actually consulted the books he might have found this to be very far from the case. In my book on reincarnation (Mind out of Time? 1981), I debunked the then popular myth that hypnotic regression could lead back to past incarnations. In Stigmata I showed this phenomenon to have a psychological rather than any spiritual origination. In Nostradamus: The Evidence I expressly showed the falsity of Nostradamus' prophetic reputation." (Wilson, Ibid.).

It's clear that Wilson's "historical" enquiries are little more than excuses to peddle the type of bilge that appeals to those who believe in The Da Vinci Code.

This last is a falsehood, by which Walters discredits himself in his attempt to discredit Wilson and his writings, and ultimately the Shroud. There would be little correlation (if any) between "those who believe in The Da Vinci Code" and those who believe in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.

I don't have time to read Wilson's books, but it's clear from their reviews that his imagination easily outstrips that of Dan Brown.

This is truly an amazing admission. I had wondered whether Walters had really read all of Wilson's books on the Shroud (not to mention his other non-Shroud books). But here he answers my unspoken question. All he has done is read "reviews" of Wilson's books! Walters should be ashamed of himself, and so should the Daily Telegraph for allowing someone to write an article under their name, condemning Wilson's theories on the Shroud as "junk history," when he has never read first-hand from the original source what those theories actually are and the evidence which supports them.

For example, in Before the Flood (2001), Wilson speculates on the existence of Atlantis.

So what? Whether Atlantis existed or not, and whether Wilson believes it existed or not, is irrelevant as to whether the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus. This is just more "poisoning the well" by Walters.

But in fact, Wilson states that his "Before the Flood" did not speculate "on the existence of Atlantis" and that Wilson himself is not "a believer in Atlantis":

"Third, Walters is completely misinformed in supposing that Before the Flood speculated on the existence of Atlantis. I am no more a believer in Atlantis than Walters is." (Wilson, Ibid.).

But my favourite is The Blood and the Shroud, in which Wilson wonders whether the resurrection of Jesus took the form of a small thermonuclear reaction that corrupted the carbon-dating tests made on the Shroud.

Again, how can this book be Walters' "favourite" (even sarcastically) when by his own admission he has never "read Wilson's books"?

Wilson, in his response wrote:

"Likewise my The Blood and the Shroud did not argue for a `thermonuclear reaction' having corrupted the carbon-dating tests." (Wilson, Ibid. Typo corrected).

This surprised me, because I was aware that in Wilson's The Blood and the Shroud, in the context of "arguments for how the Shroud carbon dating might have been in error" Wilson presented an "argument, by some high-level scientists... that if there were anything thermonuclear to the circumstance by which the crucified body image was created on the Shroud, then this ... could have made the Shroud appear younger than its true age":

"But what if Dr Garza-Valdes is found to be wrong? Would that mean the end of all arguments for how the Shroud carbon dating might have been in error? Another argument, also advanced by some high-level scientists, has been that if there were anything thermonuclear to the circumstance by which the crucified body image was created on the Shroud, then this in itself, by adding to the cloth's low-level radioactivity levels, could have made the Shroud appear younger than its true age. A letter from Dr Thomas J. Phillips of Harvard University's High Energy Physics Laboratory, published in the very same issue of Nature which carried the formal report of the radiocarbon-dating findings, commented: `If the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial-cloth of Christ ... then according to the Bible it was present at a unique physical event: the resurrection of a dead body. Unfortunately this event is not accessible to direct scientific scrutiny, but ... the body ... may have radiated neutrons, which would have irradiated the Shroud and changed some of the nuclei to different isotopes by neutron capture. In particular some carbon 14 would have been generated from carbon 13. If we assume that the Shroud is 1950 years old and that the neutrons were emitted thermally, then an integrated flux of 2 x 1016 neutron cm-2 would have converted enough carbon 13 to carbon 14 to give an apparent carbon-dated age of 670 years [i.e. fourteenth century].' [Phillips, T.J., "Shroud Irradiated With Neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, p.594]" (Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.232-233).

But on reading more carefully, I found on the next page that Wilson makes it clear that he is not himself actually arguing for that hypothesis:

"The great difficulty in such a hypothesis, whether it comes from me or from a trained scientist, is that it demands that 2000 years ago something far beyond the normal order happened to the body of Jesus as it lay in apparent death. That something of this kind indeed happened has of course been claimed by Christian believers throughout those 2000 years. But the honest agnostic can understandably only throw up his hands in horror at what he must instinctively reject as scientific heresy, calling, as it does, for the occurrence of a 'miracle'. As Dr Robert Hedges of the Oxford radiocarbon-dating laboratory commented, back in 1989, on Dr Thomas Phillips's arguments: `If a supernatural explanation is to be proposed, it seems pointless to make any scientific measurement on the Shroud at all.' [Robert Hedges, Letter to the Editor, Nature, 16 February 1989.]." (Wilson, 1998, p.234).

This is supported by the fact that in his latest book, "The Shroud : the 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved" (2010), in his Chapter 7, "What's in a Date?" regarding the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "between 1260 and 1390" (p.84), as far as I can see, Wilson does not even mention the "thermonuclear" argument.

You couldn't make it up. Neither could I. But Mr Wilson can.

If Walters had actually read Wilson's book, he would have realised that Wilson did not "make it up" but in fact a physicist, "Dr Thomas J. Phillips of Harvard University's High Energy Physics Laboratory" in a letter published in Nature, arguably the world's leading scientific journal, made the argument and Wilson was merely reporting what he wrote.

Actually Walters is the one who is making it up. He presents himself as a critic of Ian Wilson's theories on the Shroud of Turin, but on his own admission he has never "read Wilson's books" but only "reviews" of them. So it is Guy Walters who is here writing "junk," not Ian Wilson!

As Wilson concluded his response to Walters' article, "Mr.Walters has acted recklessly and in complete ignorance - thereby abandoning his own professed historical standards" (my emphasis):

"Professing Christianity these days does not court popularity, and some of the subjects that I write about are undeniably controversial. However if Mr. Walters actually deigned to read my latest book The Shroud, published last month by Bantam Press, he would see that, although it is directed to the general reader, I maintain the critical standards appropriate to a trained historian. The extensive historical references that I have cited are not the garbage sources that typify true `junk history'. They are solid academic publications in every instance. Mr.Walters has acted recklessly and in complete ignorance - thereby abandoning his own professed historical standards." (Wilson, Ibid.).

PS: It is significant that the above article by Walters, and Wilson's response to it, are no longer at the end of the above links to them and cannot be found in searches of the Telegraph.co.uk site. It therefore appears that the Daily Telegraph has retracted Walters' article as sub-standard and possibly even defamatory of Wilson!

Posted 17 April 2010. Updated 9 March 2025.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

New dating technique could establish age of the Turin Shroud

This is an article that I was commenting on at Dan Porter's Shroud of Turin Blog, when I decided to post it with my comments here on my own blog! My comments are bold to distinguish my words from the article's.

[Above (click to enlarge): Diagram including Texas A&M's plasma chamber: Tabacaru, G., et al., "The Light Ion Guide CB-ECRIS Project at the Texas A&M University Cyclotron Institute," Proceedings of ECRIS08, pp.194-197, p.195. Note the plasma chamber's very small size.]

"New dating technique could establish age of the Turin Shroud," Telegraph.co.uk, Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent, 24 Mar 2010 ... The Turin Shroud could finally be dated accurately thanks to new technique that determines the age of ancient artefacts without damaging them, claim scientists. This tacitly admits that the Shroud was not "accurately dated" in 1988 (see further below)!

See also the same story at: "Could new test settle Shroud of Turin debate?," Discovery News, March 24, 2010; "Researchers Introduce `Non-Destructive' Carbon Dating" Scientific Blogging, March 23rd 2010; "New Method Could Revolutionize Dating of Ancient Treasures," ScienceDaily, March 23, 2010 & "Method would `revolutionize' dating of ancient treasures," World Science, March 23, 2010.

The researchers said the new method was so safe it could allow scientific analysis of hundreds of artefacts that until now were off limits because museums and private collectors did not want the objects damaged. For those who are new to the Shroud and/or radiocarbon-dating, a major limiting factor in radiocarbon-dating the Shroud of Turin, or any priceless artifact, is that the sample must be reduced to carbon by burning it, which totally destroys that part of the artifact (see below).

"This technique stands to revolutionise radiocarbon dating," said Dr Marvin Rowe,

[Right: Dr. Marvin Rowe: Professor Emeritus, Texas A&M University.]

who led the research team at the Texas A&M University. It expands the possibility for analysing extensive museum collections that have previously been off limits because of their rarity or intrinsic value and the destructive nature of the current method of radiocarbon dating. "In theory, it could even be used to date the Shroud of Turin." This last is highly significant coming from a senior Professor in the field of radiocarbon-dating archaeological artifacts, as Dr Rowe is. That is because it is a tacit admission by him of what is probably now widely accepted in the radiocarbon-dating community, that the 1988 carbon-14 dating of the Shroud as "AD 1260-1390 ... mediaeval":

"The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval." (Damon, P.E., et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, pp.611-615, p.614).

was flawed, otherwise why bother proposing to radiocarbon-date the Shroud again?

Traditional carbon dating involves removing and burning small samples of the object. Scientists remove a small sample from an object, such as a cloth or bone fragment. Then they treat the sample with a strong acid and a strong base and finally burn the sample in a small glass chamber to produce carbon dioxide gas to analyse its C-14 content. Although it sometimes requires taking minute samples of an object, even that damage may be unacceptable for some artefacts. The Shroud could still be radiocarbon-dated conventionally by taking tiny samples of a few threads each from several different inconspicuous areas (e.g. under the side-strip's seam, at the sheet's ends and sides, etc) with no significant visual loss or risk (see next) to the Shroud itself. In fact, even the charred areas from the 1532 fire, that were removed in the 2002 restoration and have been kept, could be carbon-dated, with no loss to the Shroud, whatsoever:

"A significant amount of charred cellulose was removed during a restoration of the shroud in 2002. Material from different scorch locations across the shroud was saved in separate containers. The elemental carbon could be completely cleaned in concentrated nitric acid, thus removing all traces of foreign fibers, sebum from repeated handling, and adsorbed thymol from an unfortunate procedure to sterilize the shroud's reliquary in 1988. In addition, the separate samples would give a `cluster' of dates, always a desirable procedure in archaeology. A new radiocarbon analysis should be done on the charred material retained from the 2002 restoration." (Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin," Thermochimica Acta, 425, pp.189–194, pp.193–194).

The new method does not involve removing a sample of the object. Scientists place an entire artefact in a special chamber with a plasma, an electrically charged gas similar to gases used in

[Above (click to enlarge): University of Arizona's similar plasma oxidation chamber for radiocarbon-dating: Jones, K.B., et al., "A new plasma oxidation apparatus for radiocarbon dating," University of Arizona, October 1, 2005]

big-screen plasma television displays. The gas slowly and gently oxidises the surface of the object to produce carbon dioxide for C-14 analysis without damaging the surface, he said. As I commented on Dan Porter's blog (with corrections):

"I cannot imagine that the Roman Catholic Church would ever allow the entire Shroud to be placed in a chamber of gas which is then electrically charged up to a plasma state. Nor should us Shroudies want them to take the risk, if there was even the slightest chance that something could go wrong and the Shroud be destroyed or permanently changed (e.g. the image disappear into the background). I personally do not want to gain a 1st century radiocarbon dating of the Shroud but lose it in the process."

and:

"... there is effectively zero probability that the Pope would allow the whole Shroud to be put in a chamber of gas which was then electrically charged up to a plasma state."

This was confirmed by what I later read, "it would take a significant amount of data to convince museum directors, art conservators and ... the Vatican that the ... method ... causes no damage":

".... Rowe and his colleagues ... conceded, however, that it would take a significant amount of data to convince museum directors, art conservators and possibly the Vatican that the non-invasive method indeed causes no damage." (Lorenzi, R., "Could new test settle Shroud of Turin debate?," Discovery News, March 24, 2010).

The problem is, as I commented above, there would always be a possibility of something going wrong, and the artifact being damaged or destroyed. I predict that few (if any) museum directors (let alone the Vatican) would consider that the risk, no matter how small, of losing one of their priceless artifacts, is worth knowing more precisely how old it is.

Anyway, having now seen how small the plasma chambers are in the above diagram of Texas A&M's and photos of the University of Arizona's, and reading another article on this "small ivory figurine called the `Venus of Brassempouy'" which "is small enough to fit into the chamber used for analysis" and that, "The chamber" would have to "be sized to accommodate large objects, such as ... the Shroud of Turin":

"The chamber could be sized to accommodate large objects, such as works of art and even the Shroud of Turin, which some believe to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, Rowe said. He acknowledged, however, that it would take a significant amount of data to convince museum directors, art conservators, and others that the new method causes no damage to such priceless objects The scientists are currently refining the technique. Rowe hopes to use it, for instance, to analyze objects such as a small ivory figurine called the `Venus of Brassempouy,' thought to be about 25,000 years old and one of the earliest known depictions of a human face. The figurine is small enough to fit into the chamber used for analysis." ("New Method Could Revolutionize Dating of Ancient Treasures," ScienceDaily, March 23, 2010)

I realised that it is not currently possible to date the Shroud using this method, and it remains to be seen if it ever will be.

Dr Rowe and his colleagues used the technique to analyse the ages of about 20

[Right: Venus of Brassempouy: Wikipedia, 24 March 2010. Note this figurine's tiny size: "She is 3.65 cm high, 2.2 cm deep and 1.9 cm wide" or 1.44 x 0.87 x 0.75 inches.]

different organic substances, including wood, charcoal, leather, rabbit hair, a bone with mummified flesh attached, and a 1,350-year-old Egyptian weaving. The results match those of conventional carbon dating techniques, they say. The chamber could be sized to accommodate large objects, such as works of art and even the Shroud of Turin, which some believe to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, Dr Rowe said. Again, why would Dr Rowe even bother to date "the Shroud of Turin" by this method if the 1988 radiocarbon dating had provided "conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval"? Presumably he knows it didn't.

The origins of the shroud and its image are the subject of intense debate among scientists, theologians, historians and researchers. Some contend that the shroud is the cloth placed on the body of Jesus Christ at the time of his burial, and that the face image is the Holy Face of Jesus. The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus!

Others contend that the artefact postdates the Crucifixion of Jesus by more than a millennium. They are simply wrong. The only evidence that the Shroud "postdates the Crucifixion of Jesus by more than a millennium" is the 1988 radiocarbon-dating and that has been found to be wrong because what was dated was a medieval patch, not the Shroud itself:

"Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin ... Once generally accepted by the scientific community by those who consider the shroud to be inauthentic, and by some members of the Catholic Church, these results have since been questioned in peer-reviewed journals by Raymond Rogers in Thermochimica Acta and by M.Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Chemistry Today. Criticisms have been raised about aspects of the study as doubts were raised regarding the original nature of the sample that was taken for testing, not the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself." ("Shroud of Turin: Radiocarbon dating," Wikipedia, 31 March 2010. Footnotes omitted).

Moreover, a thread from the Shroud itself has been radiocarbon-dated at "about AD 200" (my emphasis)!:

"A very interesting finding is that a single weft thread has been extracted at about the midway level of where the Raes sample was removed, beginning about 1 cm medial to the rolled seam that reattached the Shroud to the backing cloth. The space of the missing thread appears to be about 8 cm in length. We do not know the history of this particular thread, but Dr. Alan Adler had a thread about 8 cm in length that came from the Shroud that he acquired in the early 1980s from an unidentified source. He detected what he referred to as starch on one end of this thread. He then had a very unofficial and admittedly inadequate radiocarbon dating done on each end of this thread in 1983. Reportedly, the starched end tested about AD 1000 and the other end of the same thread tested about AD 200. At a minimum, this would indicate that carbon dating the Shroud might be very technically problematic. Assuming that the thread that Dr. Adler had might have been the one that had been extracted at this site, we may have a highly significant, even if inadequate, finding, since the lateral 1 to 2 cm of this thread would have been in the continuation of the area from which the 1988 specimen was extracted. If this scenario is correct, we may not only have evidence that the 1988 sample-extraction-area is abnormal, but we may also have a much more accurate dating of the body of the Shroud, namely, in the range of AD 200." (Whanger A.D. & Whanger, M., 2005, "Excerpt from Radiological Aspects of the Shroud of Turin," Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin: Durham NC, pp.1-15, p.5).

[Left: Missing 8 cm thread near where the Raes' sample was taken, which is presum- ably the 8 cm thread that the late Dr. Alan Adler had privately carbon-dated in 1983, and which returned a date at one end of AD 1000 and at the other end AD 200: Figure 19 in Whanger & Whanger, 2005, "Excerpt from Radiological Aspects of the Shroud of Turin," p.15.]

And since contamination by newer carbon-14 (e.g. by human handling, microbe and fungal invasion, smoke, etc) makes an artifact's radiocarbon age appear more recent than it actually is, a radiocarbon dating of AD 200 is consistent with the linen of the Shroud dating from the time of Jesus!

Posted 1 April 2010. Updated 19 December 2023

Friday, March 12, 2010

Robert K. Wilcox's new book: "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin"

In this exhibition year of the Shroud of Turin, another (besides Ian Wilson's) book on it has just been published.

[Right: Robert K. Wilcox, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," Regnery Press, Revised edition, 2010: Amazon.com]

Journalist Robert K. Wilcox has revised and updated his important 1977 book, "Shroud."

Wilcox's new book is available from major online booksellers, including Amazon.com (US$11.53), Barnes & Noble (US$12.20) and Borders (US$16.95). It is also available from Human Events (US$12.95) and AbeBooks (US$11.45).

Here is it's Contents page:

Preface xi

PART I: 1898-1902, THE PHOTOGRAPH
Chapter 1: A Startling Discovery 1
Chapter 2: Vignon and Delage 9
Chapter 3: A Case of Scientific Bias 23

PART II: 1973, A REPORTER'S SEARCH
Chapter 4: An Exposition 33
Chapter 5: Secret Commissions, Evasive Responses 43
Chapter 6: Seeing the Shroud 59
Chapter 7: Face Veils and Visionaries 71
Chapter 8: Hans Naber and Leonard Cheshire 81
Chapter 9: Ancient Images, Crusader Monks 99
Chapter 10: The Shroud in America 113
Chapter 11: What Key Scientists Have to Say 129
Chapter 12: More from the Experts 143
Chapter 13: Mysterious Leaves, Ghostly Photos 151
Chapter 14: Space-Age Science 159
Chapter 15: Back East 169
Chapter 16: Drawing Conclusions 185

Here are Amazon.com's Editorial Reviews about the book:

Product Description The shroud of Turin is one of history's most controversial and perplexing relics. Many believe it to be the genuine burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Some hypothesize the image on the shroud was created through a rare scientific phenomenon. Still others think the shroud is a fake, proven-through carbon tests in 1988-to be a clever forgery. In The Truth About the Shroud of Turin, investigative reporter Robert K.Wilcox-author of the successful Target: Patton-applies his investigative eye and compelling writing style to this mysterious artifact. Featuring new evidence and new chapters, The Truth About the Shroud of Turin offers new insight into this baffling mystery and offers compelling evidence that the shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus Christ.

From the Inside Flap Is the shroud of Turin-an ancient linen bearing the mysterious image of a man, purported to be Jesus of Nazareth-the ingenious work of an artist, or the true shroud of Christ? For centuries, this question has perplexed and enticed the most brilliant minds. Now, in The Truth about the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery, journalist Robert K. Wilcox investigates every aspect of the shroud's history, from the ancient Egyptian weave of the cloth to the possible role of radiation in forming the image on its surface. Drawing on evidence collected over thirty years of travel, interviews with experts, and painstaking research, Wilcox presents the full story of the shroud in astonishing detail. The Shroud of Turin-a clever hoax or the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ? Read this reporter's journey and discover the truth.

And here is a media release about it:

New Book Reveals Evidence that Proves Life and Death of Jesus, Christian Newswire, Sally Brock ... WASHINGTON, March 8 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Shroud of Turin, one of history's most controversial and perplexing relics, is set to draw a crowd more than 5 times as big as the Olympic Games in Vancouver. Two million people are expected in Turin, Italy to see the ancient burial cloth when it goes on display in April. While some believe that purported image of Jesus is a fake, investigative journalist Robert K. Wilcox, author of The Truth About The Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery, says the authenticity of the burial cloth of is no longer overshadowed by doubt. "For the first time mounting evidence and amazing new technology proves in my mind that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus," says Wilcox. "Throughout history the shroud has changed the minds of many hardened scientists and even today many skeptics now count themselves as believers." Wilcox is the only journalist to tackle this controversial subject and examine both the science and the faith fueling the debate. Using his investigative eye and compelling writing style, Wilcox unravels the mystery behind the artifact. While many books cite only studies, The Truth About The Shroud of Turin contains interviews with scientists and researchers using cutting-edge technology to look into the scientific facets of this historical mystery and reveal the latest evidence behind the claim that the shroud is actually the cloth that was placed over Jesus' tortured body. The Truth About The Shroud of Turin exposes new evidence including:
  • Skeptics have long cited Carbon 14 tests performed in 1988 as proof the shroud did not belong to Jesus--Wilcox proves that test was done on a small corner of cloth restored in the 13th century.

  • Using the latest photographic capabilities and the science of radiation Wilcox reveals the shroud's mysterious photographic properties no medieval or modern forger could create.

  • Science shows the images on the shroud were formed from real blood--giving evidence that the shroud covered a real human tortured in the same brutal way Jesus was said to be.

  • Amazing new technology helped scientists detect on the shroud the type of thorns left around Jesus' head and the flowers placed on his body--all plants found to bloom only in Jerusalem at the same time of year and day when Jesus was reportedly crucified.
The Truth About The Shroud of Turin not only convinces the reader of the shroud's authenticity and the existence of Jesus, but also exposes the scientific bias that rules today's modern age. Wilcox's research shows how many scientists today base their research on their own desired outcome rather than allowing the scientific method to determine the truth. ...

Here is another review of the book:

"The Shroud of Turin: A medieval fraud -- or the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ?," Human Events Book Service. The Truth about the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery by Robert K. Wilcox. Is the Shroud of Turin -- an ancient linen bearing the mysterious image of a man, purported to be Jesus of Nazareth -- the ingenious work of an artist, or the true shroud of Christ? For centuries, this question has perplexed and enticed the most brilliant minds. In The Truth about the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery, reporter Robert K. Wilcox (formerly for the New York Times and Miami Herald) investigates every aspect of the Shroud's history, from the ancient Egyptian weave of the cloth to the possible role of radiation in forming the image on its surface. Drawing on evidence collected over thirty years of travel, interviews with experts, and painstaking research, Wilcox presents the full story of the Shroud in astonishing detail: The Shroud of Turin -- a clever hoax, or the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ? Revelations in The Truth about the Shroud of Turin:
  • The Shroud debunked by Carbon 14 dating -- but then the debunkers themselves are debunked by later analysis The "3-Dimensionality" of the Body image, a quality found elsewhere only in images of deep outer space

  • The probable link between the Shroud and the Knights Templar, which fills in the most important gap in the history of the Shroud

  • The purely "natural" explanations of the Shroud -- even more outlandish than actual miracles
"I come at this subject as a reporter," writes Wilcox. "I know, from my own sifting of the evidence, what I think to be true. But his book is not an attempt to present you with my opinions as fact. It is an attempt to present a true portrait of one of the most breathtaking relics of the past -- whether one thinks that past takes us into the shop of a medieval forger or to a burial ground in the Holy Land." Follow this reporter's journey and discover the truth.

"Wilcox weaves an intriguing detective story, utilizing over 30 years of research including trips the world over, seeking to unravel the secrets of the world's most intensely-studied artifact, giving readers much evidence to decide if the Shroud is just an elaborate hoax or the actual burial cloth of Jesus." -- Joseph Marino, Shroud scholar

"Bob has taken his 1977 milestone book, Shroud, refined it, expanded it and brought it up to the minute, including details on the latest scientific research and the scientists who performed it." -- Barrie Schwortz, Shroud scholar and editor and founder of The Shroud website

I first learned about this new Wilcox book at Dan Porter's Shroud of Turin Blog: "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery - Exciting New Book" and ordered it immediately (8th March). Hopefully it will arrive next week down here at the Antipodes!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & Jesus is Jehovah!

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Book wanted: Scannerini & Savarino, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future" (2000)

I today (4th February 2013) finally hold in my hand this rare book which I have long sought! What's more it appears to be as new, to have never been read. Praise to Him whose image He caused to be imprinted on His Shroud!

I have for a long time been trying, but without success, to buy the

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future" (2000): Effatà Editrice]

book, Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International Scientific Symposium, Torino 2-5 March 2000: Effatà: Cantalupe, Italy.

Effatà Editrice has it on its website but I cannot understand Italian to work out how to buy it (if indeed it can be bought from them). Besides Effatà Editrice replied to my email that they don't post books to Australia, and thereafter has ignored my subsequent emails.

I have also tried Internet book searches, including Advanced Book Exchange, Amazon.com, BookFinder, and eBay, but all these to date have drawn a blank.

So if anyone knows where or how this book can be bought, whether new or second hand, could they please indicate it in a comment to this post below? Thanks.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign (inactive) & Jesus is Jehovah! (inactive)

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Ian Wilson's new book: "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved"

I suspected that Ian Wilson might write a new book on the

[Above (click to enlarge): Cover of Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press, 2010]

Shroud, to coincide with its exhibition from 10 April to 23 May this year.

Well this morning (4 February) I was searching for newly listed books on the Shroud, using Advanced Book Exchange's Most Recently Listed option, which I rarely do, when I hit the jackpot:


The Shroud (ISBN: 0593063597 / 0-593-06359-7 ) Ian Wilson ... Bookseller: El Pinarillo Books (member of IOBA) (London, UK, United Kingdom) ... About the Book Bibliographic Details Publisher: Bantam Press Publication Date: 2010-03-04 Binding: Hardcover Book Condition: New Edition: Book Type: Book Description: Preorder your copy. Published on 2010/03/04. ... Editorial Reviews: Synopsis:

The tide has turned. Two decades after radiocarbon dating declared the Turin Shroud a mediaeval fake, brand-new historical discoveries strongly suggest that this famous cloth, with its extraordinary photographic imprint, is genuinely Christ's shroud after all: in Turkey, the recent finding of a 6th century mosaic face of Christ has startling implications for the Shroud's veracity; in the Sinai desert recent manuscript discoveries provide evidence which refute scientific claims that the Shroud can date no earlier than 1260; in Rome a Vatican archivist has discovered a hitherto unknown manuscript that sheds exciting new light on the Shroud's authenticity; and, in Bern, Switzerland the veteran textile specialist who gave the Shroud its 2002 'makeover' has uncovered hitherto hidden technical features linking it to first century Palestine. In 1978 in his international bestseller The Turin Shroud Ian Wilson ignited worldwide public debate with his compelling case endorsing the shroud's authenticity. Now, 30 years later, he has completely rewritten and updated his earlier book to provide fresh evidence to support his original argument. Shroud boldly challenges the current post-radiocarbon dating view - that it is a fake. By arguing his case brilliantly and provocatively, Ian Wilson once more throws the matter into the public arena for further debate and controversy.


I then Googled: Ian Wilson Shroud "Mystery Solved" and I hit my second jackpot:


The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved
Ian Wilson

Two decades after radiocarbon dating declared the Turin Shroud a mediaeval fake, brand-new historical discoveries strongly suggest that this famous cloth, with its extraordinary photographic imprint, is genuinely Christ's shroud after all.

In 1978 in his international bestseller The Turin Shroud Ian Wilson ignited worldwide public debate with his compelling case endorsing the shroud's authenticity. Now, 30 years later, he has completely rewritten and updated his earlier book to provide fresh evidence to support his original argument. Shroud boldly challenges the current post-radiocarbon dating view - that it is a fake. By arguing his case brilliantly and provocatively, Ian Wilson once more throws the matter into the public arena for further debate and controversy.

RRP:$45.00ISBN:9780593063606
Format:Trade PaperbackImprint:Bantam Press
Subject:Non-Fic GeneralRelease:05 March 2010


Borders is also listing the book as "coming soon." Amazon.co.uk; Amazon.com and Booktopia are now listing the book for pre-order. Australian Christian bookseller Koorong Books, is also listing the book for pre-order.

I predict that, given the renewed public interest in the Shroud, that this will be a best seller, if not a blockbuster!

Maybe Wilson's new book will help fulfill his 1991 feeling (which I take as a prediction) that, "the shroud, even now, frail and discredited as it might seem, is part of a cosmic drama not yet played out":

"In the shroud we have a piece of cloth that men cast lots over when they put it to the test (remember the cowboy boots?). A piece of cloth they mocked when their instruments of destruction showed it, seemingly, as of mere human frailty. Is it not all strikingly evocative of what they did when they committed the body of Jesus himself to crucifixion and the grave? And did not something mind- blowingly unexpected happen to this, just when Jesus's followers felt at their most defeated? It all gives one the unnerving feeling that the shroud, even now, frail and discredited as it might seem, is part of a cosmic drama not yet played out." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.189).

Posted 4 February 2010. Updated 9 March 2025

Monday, January 11, 2010

The Pray Codex (or Manuscript)

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

The Pray Codex, or Hungarian Pray Manuscript, is named after

[Above (enlarge): Hungarian Pray Manuscript or Pray Codex (1192-1195): Berkovits, I., 1969 , "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, pl. III. Some of my other posts on the Pray codex are (recent first): 28Oct18, 04Oct18, 21Aug18, 23Sep17, 21Jun17; 11Apr17; 07Aug16; 07May16; 27Dec15; 27May12; 08Oct09 & 03Apr08]

György Pray(1723-1801), a Hungarian Jesuit historian,[27] who drew attention to its Funeral Oration as being the oldest surviving text in the Hungarian language.[9]

[Right (enlarge): Pray Codex: Funeral Oration and Prayer: Wikipedia]

[36] Since 1813, the codex has been kept in the Hungarian National Széchényi Library in Budapest. [20] [26] [33]

The codex was prepared at the Boldva Monastery (1175-1285) in Hungary [1] [33] and has been reliably dated to 1192-1195 [1] [9] [36] However, the style of the codex's miniatures indicate it may have been copied from a more elaborate end-11th or early-12th century work. [1] [21] [33]

The codex contains four pages of pen-and-ink drawings depicting the crucifixion, descent from the cross, entombment and enthronement of Christ. [1] [9] The third of those pages (plate III) has two scenes: The Entombment (upper) and Visit to the Sepulchre (lower). [1] [9] [36] The fourth page (plate IV - see below) depicts Christ enthroned and an angel holding His cross with three nails. [1]

In 1978 historian Ian Wilson pointed out that the Pray Manuscript was one of a small number of 11-12th century deposition scenes (i.e. depictions of Christ's descent from the cross), that were strongly reminiscent of the Shroud of Turin in that they depicted the dead Christ being laid onto a large, double-length piece of linen intended to envelope His body over his head, with His hands crossed in front, right hand over the left, as on the Shroud. [28] [30] [33]

One of those deposition scenes, clearly based on the Shroud of Turin, and earlier than the Pray Codex, is the 1181 Entombment of Jesus, by Nicholas of Verdun (1130–1205) in Klosterneuburg Abbey, Vienna.

[Above (enlarge): Entombment of Jesus, 1181, by Nicholas of Verdun, Klosterneuburg Abbey, Vienna. See BSTS Newsletter, No. 67, June 2008]

Note that:

"again we see the so distinctive crossed hands burial pose, also a shroud of double body length proportions." [39]
Of these clearly related deposition or entombment scenes, i.e. they are all based directly or indirectly on the Shroud of Turin, the Pray Manuscript is unique in Jesus being totally nude, as He is on the Shroud. [28] [30] [33] [36] [40]

In 1986, the late Fr. André Dubarle (1910-2002), a

[Left (enlarge): Pray Manuscript `L'-shaped patterns of circles: Berkovits, 1969, pl. III]

Dominican priest and philosophy professor was informed by a correspondent that the Pray Codex's shroud had two sets of four tiny circles in an `L'-shaped pattern. [14] [34]

This was the clincher

[Right (enlarge): Back two of four sets of `L'-shaped burn holes on the Shroud: Wikipedia]

because the Shroud has four sets of this same `L'-shaped pattern of burn holes.[2] [20] [25] [38] [40]

There is no record of how these burn holes in the Shroud were made [25] but proposed explanations include: sparks from a censer, a "trial by fire" test of authenticity using a red hot poker, and hot pitch. [11] [40] The repeated pattern was due to the Shroud being folded in four and the burns penetrating through the folded cloth. [34]

There is also no record of when these `L'-shaped pattern of burn holes happened to the Shroud but they are on a 1516 copy of the Shroud attributed to Albrecht Dürer in the church of St.

[Left: Part of front of 1516 Lierre copy of the Shroud showing two of its four groups of `L'-shaped burn holes: Sugar Coated Shroud of Turin for Journalists]

Gommaire, Lierre, Belgium. [11] [14] [21] [34] The Pray Manuscript proves they are pre-1195.[16] [20] [25]

The leading geneticist, the late Prof. Jerome Lejeune (1926-1994),

[Above (enlarge): Pray Manuscript: Berkovits, 1969, plate IV (top)]

after personally inspecting the Codex, in 1993 published a list of common characteristics between the Pray Manuscript's third and fourth drawings and the Shroud: 1. the shroud is twice the length of the man; 2. a herringbone weave pattern; 3. an `L'-shaped pattern of holes on the front and back; 4. beard and long hair; 5. mark above the right eye corresponding to the reverse `3'-shaped bloodstain on the Shroud; 6. body naked; 7. right hand over the left; 8. long fingers; 9. no thumbs; 10. nail wound on the wrist of the right hand (pl. IV); and 11. three nails used for crucifixion (pl. IV). [2] [10] [20] [25] [37] [38] Professor Lejeune therefore concluded:

"Such precise details are not to be found together on any other known [Christ] image - except the Shroud which is in Turin. One is therefore forced to conclude that the artist of the Pray manuscript had before his eyes ... some model which possessed all the characteristics of the Shroud which is in Turin." [11] [38]

The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud found "a calibrated

[Above: Triumphant announcement by Prof. E. Hall, Dr. M. Tite and Prof. R. Hedges in 1988 that the Shroud was carbon-14 dated to "1260-1390!": Ian Wilson, 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," pl.3b.[8] [31] [35] ]

calendar age range ... for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390" which it was claimed, provided "conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval." [3] [12] [13] [15] [32]

Shroud critics make much of the middle date of 1325 (i.e. 1260 - 1390 is 1325 plus or minus 65 years), even claiming that was the date of the Shroud and highlighting the close agreement of this date with the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France in 1355. [7] [17] [18] [24]

But the Pray Manuscript: 1. with its at least eleven common characteristics with the Shroud, including the artist's representation of what are `L'-shaped burn holes on the Shroud, can only be based on the Shroud or a faithful copy of it; and 2. is dated at the latest 1192-95 (and probably at least a 100 years before that for the religious tradition to arise and become widespread that the cloth was the burial sheet of Christ [16]); which is is at least 65 years before the earliest radiocarbon date of 1260 [16] [34] [41] and at least 130 years before the middle date of 1325, about when critics claim the Shroud was forged.

Also, since the Pray Manuscript proves that the Shroud of Turin was already in existence before 1195, then Bishop Pierre d'Arcis's Memorandum of 1389 claiming that the Shroud was "cunningly painted" and that "thirty-four years" earlier (i.e. 1355) his predecessor Henri de Poitiers knew "the artist who painted it" [6] [19] is false.[22] In fact, doubly false because it now "is the consensus that the image was not painted on the cloth" which "is now conceded by virtually every observer, even those who believe that the image is somehow the result of human artifice," including leading Shroud sceptic "Joe Nickell [who] ... excludes the possibility that the image was painted."[4] Yet "it is this memorandum of Bishop d'Arcis ... on which the sceptics' case formally rests"! [5]

Moreover, dating from 1192-95, the Pray Manuscript is confirmatory evidence that the Shroud was in Constantinople from 944-1204 [2] [21] [34] and if so, it bridges the gap forward from Constantinople 1204 to Lirey, France in 1355, and also backward from Constantinople, through Edessa to Jerusalem in c. 30AD!

Pray Manuscript links:
Clues from the Hungarian Pray Manuscript (YouTube): Shroud of Turin - Russ Breault.
Hungarian Pray Manuscript: Shroud of Turin Story.
Illustration Three from the Hungarian Pray Codex: The Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ.
Picture of Jesus on the Hungarian Pray Manuscript: Pictures of Jesus.
Pray Codex: Shroud of Turin Facts Check.
Pray Codex: Sugar Coated Shroud of Turin for Journalists.
Pray Codex Illustration with Fabric Pattern and Burn Holes: Shroud of Turin Skeptical Spectacle.
Hungarian Pray Manuscript: Shroud of Turin Story.
The Hungarian Pray Manuscript and the Poker Holes: Shroud of Turin Story.
The Hungarian Pray Manuscript in the Quest for the Historical Jesus: CSI Forensic Science Quest.
What is the Hungarian Pray Codex?: The Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ.
What is the Hungarian Pray Manuscript or Codex?: Shroud of Turin Skeptical Spectacle.

Related links:
George Pray: The Catholic Encyclopedia.
György Pray: Wikipedia
Pray Codex: Metropolitan Ervin Szabo Library.
Lierre 1516 Copy of the Shroud Attributed to Albrecht Durer or Bernard van Orley: Sugar Coated Shroud of Turin for Journalists.

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]

Posted 11 January 2010. Updated 6 July 2025.


[1] "The Pray Manuscript was prepared at Boldva in the ancient Benedictine monastery. Its date is considered to be the end of the 12th century, between 1192 and 1195, but the style of its miniatures shows resemblance to the art associated with the middle of the century. It is not impossible that the miniaturist followed the illumination of an earlier, more elaborate manuscript, from the end of the 11th or the beginning of the 12th century, which has since been lost, and copied its compositions. On four pages of this volume, after the Micrologus and before the Calendar, there are large pen-and-ink drawings. Two of them cover a whole page, Christ on the Cross (fol. 27; Plate I) and the Deposition (fol. 27v; Plate II). On the next page the illuminator has depicted two scenes, such as may also be seen in some miniatures of the Csatar Bible, one, the Entombment, above, the other, the Visit to the Sepulchre, below (fol. 28; Plate III). Finally, on the upper part of the page is represented Christ enthroned with the Angel Holding the Instruments of Torture (fol. 28v; Plate IV)." (Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, pp.19-20).

[2] "This article cannot tackle the Shroud's entire history. However, it would be instructive to see if the history of the cloth pre-dates the alleged carbon date range of 1260 to 1390. ... About thirty years ago an important picture was discovered within the pages of the Hungarian Pray Manuscript. This was the first book ever written and bound in the Hungarian language. Inside is a picture showing two distinct scenes. Scene one shows Jesus laid out on his burial cloth showing only four fingers and no thumbs- same as the Shroud. Scene two shows the cloth wrapped around Jesus with a face image crudely showing that the cloth contains an image. Here is the clincher; the picture also shows an `L' shaped pattern of burn holes exactly as we see them on the Shroud. Lastly, the picture clearly portrays the distinctive herringbone pattern weave of the Shroud. It couldn't be any clearer. This picture dating from 1192 is depicting the Shroud that was kept in Constantinople and is the same cloth that resides in Turin today. ... Is the Shroud medieval? Not a chance. As long as we keep pretending the carbon date is somehow accurate despite the bad sample, we will continue to look for the alleged medieval artist who created it. If you are looking for the artist, start looking in the sixth century." (Breault, R., 2009, "Is the Shroud of Turin Medieval? History Tells a Different Story," EzineArticles.com, 18 October).

[3] "Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval... The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval." (Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.612, 614).

[4] "As for the image itself, what meets the eye is intelligible, but how it was formed is a matter of vigorous debate. We shall need to review, although necessarily in a superficial way, the scientific analyses of the Shroud's image (detailed discussions, by writers competent in these matters, are available elsewhere). The battery of sophisticated and expensive tests conducted in 1978 by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) has yielded a few significant conclusions, and these have been admirably presented by L. A. Schwalbe and R. N. Rogers. [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49] ... But although much remains unclear, considerably more is known now than was known when the Shroud was shown on television in 1973. Most important, perhaps, is the consensus that the image was not painted on the cloth. This is now conceded by virtually every observer, even those who believe that the image is somehow the result of human artifice. Painters outline a figure before painting it, but there is no tell-tale outline on the Shroud. Nor is there a hint of the directionality that brush-marks would produce. Finally, there is no clear evidence of any pigment on the Shroud, although here there is some disagreement. The STURP team, using microscopic, chemical laser microprobes, concluded that the Shroud shows no trace of `any of the expected dyes, stains, pigments, or painting media.' [Schwalbe & Rogers, p.27] .... In his recently published Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, Joe Nickell ... excludes the possibility that the image was painted, and concedes that `ferric oxide contributes less than about 10 percent to the overall image intensity.' [p.133]" (Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, pp.16-17).

[5] "Before seeing what sort of case the believers can present, we must nonetheless acknowledge that the sceptics' case would today be more difficult to make than it was when Chevalier and Thurston were writing. Those scholars rested their case primarily on a memorandum written in 1389 by Pierre d'Arcis, bishop of Troyes, to Pope Clement VII in Avignon. Bishop d'Arcis was distressed that `a certain cloth cunningly painted' was once again exhibited in his diocese and was popularly regarded as `the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour has remained thus impressed together with the wounds that he bore.' ["Memorandum of Pierre D'arcis, Bishop Of Troyes, to the Avignon Pope Clement VII," 1389, Thurston, H., transl., "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, 1903, pp.17-29] The Shroud had first been displayed some thirty years earlier, and had immediately attracted attention not only in all of France, but also "so to speak, throughout the world." D'Arcis went on to recount how the then bishop of Troyes, Bishop Henri, was told by the theologians and other wise men that the claim for the Shroud could not be true, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. It is this memorandum of Bishop d'Arcis that Chevalier called to the world's attention in 1900 and on which the sceptics' case formally rests." (Drews, 1984, pp.23-24).

[6] "STURP is young, but the Shroud is old, and ... we would do well to review some historical facts about the relic in question. Around the middle of the fourteenth century there appeared in France a cloth which its exhibitors claimed was the true Holy Shroud. No attempt was made by the object's owners to establish a provenance for it, and its authenticity was dismissed by Henri de Poitiers, the Bishop of Troves, as well as by his successor, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis. In 1389, d'Arcis sent a memorandum to Clement VII in Avignon, the Pope of the Great Western Schism, charging that the Shroud was a fake. In this letter, the earliest extant written document dealing with the Shroud, the Bishop declares it to be a `cloth cunningly painted upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man .' D'Arcis says that it had been determined how the cloth had been painted, `the truth being attested by the artist who painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.' (Clement eventually issued an edict declaring that whenever the cloth is exhibited it be announced that `it is not the True Shroud of Our Lord, but a painting or picture made in the semblance or representation of the shroud.')" (Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin." Review of Report on the Shroud of Turin, by John H. Heller, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 & Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, by Joe Nickell, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1983. Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 23, pp.243-255).

[7] "Postscript, 2005: In 1986, reviewing Ian Wilson's Evidence of the Shroud for the Christchurch Press, I predicted that if the cloth ever were to be carbon-dated it would come in at A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years. When the Shroud was finally dated and the results came back from the participating laboratories, the collated result was A.D. 1325, plus or minus 65 years. I was ten years off. " (Dutton 1984, p.245).

[8] "On October 13, 1988, at nearly simultaneous conferences in Turin and London, the results of the three laboratories were released. In London the press conference, held at the British Museum, was headed by the museum's Dr Michael Tite, who had been the overall supervisor of all three research teams. He was joined by Oxford's Professor Edward Hall and by Dr Robert Hedges, the chief Oxford technician. Behind them on a blackboard someone had triumphantly chalked, in very large letters, 1260-1390! As the three men explained, the datings independently arrived at by all three laboratories were so similar as to indicate, with a certainty close to 95 per cent, that the Shroud's flax had been cut down to be made into linen sometime between these dates. As might have been expected, some devotees tried to suggest that there had been a switching of samples, inadvertent or otherwise. Several books have been written to explore this idea. However, I believe that the scientists who worked on the carbon dating were honest men and good scientists who carried out their procedures as thoroughly as could be done at the time." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp.8-9).

[9] "The Pray Manuscript In his book on the history of the Shroud of Turin, a Dominican priest, Fr. Andre M. Dubarle, O.P. remarked that an image of the Shroud appears in the first extant book in the Hungarian language. This manuscript is known as the Pray Manuscript or Codex, named after Georgius Pray, who discovered it in the eighteenth century. [Dubarle, A. M., Storia Antica della Sindone di Torino fino al XIII secolo," Edizioni Giovinezza: Roma, 1986, pp.48-51] This codex, kept at the Budapest National Library, is believed to have been written between 1192 and 1195 because of the historical details it relates. The manuscript contains four pen and ink drawings pertaining to the death of Jesus. The first panel depicts the Crucifixion; the second shows the descent from the Cross with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus holding the body of Jesus while the Virgin Mary holds His head; the third panel is divided into two, the top section showing the body of Jesus laid out on a cloth for burial, and the lower section depicting the arrival of the holy women on Easter morn who find an angel at the empty tomb; and the fourth panel is that of the glorified Christ." (Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.104. Emphasis original).

[10] "The French geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune delivered a paper at a conference in 1993 in which he discussed the Pray Manuscript. ... He remarked that the artist's attention to details suggested he was familiar with the image on the Shroud. Lejeune noted the following common characteristics between the Pray Manuscript and the Shroud [Lejeune, J. "Unfolding the Shroud," The Catholic World Report, July 1994, pp. 51-52].

o The Shroud was twice the length of a man.
o The Shroud has a herringbone weave.
o The cloth had `L'-shaped hole marks on the front and back.
o Jesus wore a beard and long hair.
o There is a scar above the right eye corresponding to the "3"-shaped bloodstain on the Shroud.
o The body was completely naked.
o The right hand was laid over the left.
o The fingers were unnaturally elongated, and the thumbs invisible.
o The wound on the left hand is in the palm, but on the right hand the wound is on the wrist.
o One panel shows only three nails used for crucifixion.

One of the most minute yet most revealing similarities between the Pray Manuscript and the Shroud of Turin is what Wilson refers to as the `poker holes' on the Shroud. These two parallel groups of small puncture-like burn marks are located near the hands of the man on the Shroud and on the dorsal image on each side of the man's thighs. On the panel of the codex depicting the arrival of the three holy women, similar `poker holes' formed like an inverted, upside down `L' can be seen on the top sheet which represents the Shroud partly folded over. Other small holes can be seen on the bottom part of the cloth between little red Greek crosses representing bloodstains." (Guerrera, 2000, pp.104-105. Emphasis original).

[11] "According to Fr. Dubarle, these puncture-like burn marks were probably caused by sparks from a censer. Wilson suggests that they were caused by some sort of test for authenticity using a red hot poker, perhaps when the Shroud was supposedly subjected to a `trial by fire' in 1503. In all likelihood these burn marks were caused by pitch, which can be detected near the holes. Evidence of these `poker holes' pre-dating the 1532 fire can be seen on a copy of the Shroud reportedly made by Albrecht Durer in 1516 and kept at the Church of St. Gommaire in Lier, Belgium. Tests conducted on the Shroud of Turin by Vern Miller in 1978 showed that the burn marks of the 1532 fire fluoresce due to the fact that the fire occurred in a closed box. The burn marks of an earlier fire did not fluoresce, possibly because the fire took place in open air with ample supply of oxygen. In the words of Dr. Lejeune: `The artist who produced the Codex of Pray had before his eyes . . , a model that possessed all of the unique characteristics of the Shroud of Turin.' [Lejeune, J. "Unfolding the Shroud," The Catholic World Report, July 1994, p.52]" (Guerrera, 2000, pp.105-106. Emphasis original).

[12] "The first lab to report its results to Tite was the Tucson laboratory on May 6, 1988. The second lab to submit its data was Zurich on May 26. Finally, Oxford submitted its results several months later on August 8, more than ample time to hear of the results of the other two labs. Subsequently, the journal Nature reported that `the results of radiocarbon measurements in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of A.D. 1260-1390... . These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.' [Nature, February 16, 1989, p.614] Even before the data was officially reported to the proper Church authorities, there were leaks in the media. Sox, who was privy to the tests in Zurich, anticipated the publication of the results by producing a program for the BBC which aired on July 27, 1988. The program, originally entitled Verdict on the Shroud, was surreptitiously renamed Threads of Evidence when the results were not forthcoming. The following month, on August 26, the headline for London's Evening Standard was `The Shroud of Turin is a Fake.'" (Guerrera, 2000, p.131).

[13] "The report by the 21 scientists was finally made public in the journal Nature, February 16, 1989, five months after the announcement of the test results was made. Standard scientific procedures call for a critique of the data through peer review; this was not followed in this case. On October 14, 1988, the day after Cardinal Ballestrero issued his press release, the British Museum held its own press conference. Seated at table were Tite flanked by Hedges and Hall. Behind them on a blackboard was written the estimated date: `1260-1390!' The non-professional addition of the exclamation mark is an indication of their unrestrained jubilation over the results." (Guerrera, 2000, p.133).

[14] "The Hungarian Pray Manuscript: Four Fingers and Four Circles On the Shroud today one notes that, in addition to the distinctive marks of the 1532 fire, there are four sets of triple burn holes that are the result of some incident previous to the famous fire that damaged the Shroud. This prior existence is known because a painting of 1516 from the Church of Saint Gommaire, in Lierre, Belgium, clearly shows the four sets of triple holes. In 1986, the French Dominican Father A.M. Dubarle, corresponding on the subject of the Shroud-like figure on the Hungarian Pray Manuscript (1192-1195), had his attention drawn to some curious holes noted on the Shroud in the illustration. Wilson points out that `clearly visible on the sarcophagus in the scene of the three Marys visiting the empty tomb was a line of three holes, with an extra one offset to one side.' [Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.160] Even more curious, though almost vanishingly tiny, was a similar set of three holes to be seen on the Shroud or napkin-like cloth depicted rolled up on the sarcophagus. It appears that the artist of 1192 who illustrated the Hungarian Pray Manuscript was aware of the `burn-holes' on the Shroud in his day. If correct, it would set the Shroud's date nearly a hundred years earlier than the very earliest date allowed by Carbon-14 dating. Significantly, Jesus is depicted as naked and laid on a Shroud. His arms are crossed, with the right hand placed over the left, and the hands show only four fingers. There is a herring-bone weave in the lower illustration. There is an imprint of a body on the inside and not on the outside of the Shroud. However, on the illustration there are four circles that appear to be burn holes on the Shroud. The othonia (other burial cloths) are rolled up separately. The appearance of only four fingers and four circles on the illustration and matching the same on the Shroud is highly significant. Pathologists studying the Shroud noted that only four fingers appear to the viewer, and the thumb is not seen, as we noted earlier. Moreover, the four burn holes seen in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript correlate to four holes found in the corresponding area of the Shroud and predate the fire of 1532." (Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.154-155. Emphasis original).

[15] "The C-14 Laboratory Test Results Unfortunately, as often happens, the newspapers printed the results prematurely. The London Times stated on August 27, 1988 that Oxford scientists had leaked the results. Shortly thereafter, the Vatican made an announcement in Turin, Italy on October 13, 1988. The results of the test were first officially published in an article entitled `Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin' in 1989 in Nature Magazine. [Damon, P.E., et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature February 16, 1989, p.612] The official report stated that the Shroud of Turin was dated between 1260-1390, and this would make the Shroud between 607 to 737 years old. ... The report stated the following conclusion: `The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95 percent confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of A.D. 1260-1390. These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is medieval.' [Ibid.] Headlines all over the world jumped on this report and, ignoring the vast body of evidence to the contrary, and the warnings of the perils of the C-14 test, prematurely accepted the results of this one test to condemn the Holy Shroud as a `fake or fraud.' Sensationalism was the operative word. The newspapers in New York, as an example, capitalized on the negative test results of the Holy Shroud. Some headlines read as follows: `Test Shows Shroud of Turin to be Fraud, Scientist Hints,' read the New York Times on September 22, 1988. `Turin Shroud Made After Crucifixion,' was the Associated Press headline in the Daily News, September 28, 1988, which went on to explain that the Shroud was created almost a millennium after the death of Jesus. `Shroud of Turin Legend in Tatters: Carbon Tests Date it to the 14th Century,' was the headline in the New York Post on September 28, 1988." (Iannone, 1998, pp.164-165. Emphasis original).

[16] "There is no longer any question but that the artist's rendition preserved in the Hungarian Pray Codex [1192-95 AD] represents the cloth we now recognize as the Shroud of Turin. Moreover, by that rendition we know that this is the earliest firmly documented demonstrable viewpoint that the cloth we know as the Shroud of Turin was the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. In color photographs of the Codex even one set of the angular flows of blood down one of the arms is clearly visible-an observation I believe was first made by the Belgian scholar, Jef Leysen (personal communication, Spring, 1998). And here is shown-as already noted-a comparatively accurate portrayal of two different sets of holes that represent the pre-1516 burns at the two ends of the Shroud. Therefore, the pre-1516 burn marks are more accurately termed pre-1192 burn marks. But, most importantly, their existence some 65 years prior to the first bracket of the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date creates a problem for the 95 percent confidence level claimed by the three labs because one must conservatively add at least 100 years onto the above date to allow for the development of a tradition that the cloth portrayed by the artist was in fact the burial cloth of Christ. On the other hand it would be commensurate with a 68 percent level of confidence which expands the window to a 500 year opening that would encompass that date. Still, the labs have insisted that the 95 percent confidence level is the level achieved by their tests." (Maloney, P.C., 1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.33-34).

[17] "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.xx"Finally, Father Rinaldi had to endure the pain of having three top carbon-dating laboratories date the `Shroud' to 1325. ... I am especially grateful to a group of scientists who carefully evaluated the publications of the Shroud, both STURP's and my own and wrote to me with their considered conclusions regarding my conclusion that the Shroud is a fine medieval painting; the personnel of the University of Arizona, Oxford, and the Zurich Technological Institute who did such a fine job of carbon-dating the Shroud and, incidentally, agreeing on a date only 30 years different from mine (1325 versus 1355)." (McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.xx-xxiii).

[18] "Many other points along the way may be appreciated more, I think, if I tell you now that: 1.) My microchemical analyses led me to publish in 1980 my conclusion that the Shroud is a beautiful medieval painting; 2.) The Shroud was carbon-dated in 1988 and found to date from 1325 ±65 years. The Shroud was most likely painted by an artist about 1355 probably as a decoration, perhaps as a relic, for a newly built church in Lirey, France. It was first exhibited there in 1356 and immediately accepted by devout pilgrims as the true Shroud. Only Henri, Bishop of Troyes, tried to stem the tide by claiming that `he knew the artist who had painted it.' 3.) All of the image substance on the Shroud proves the Bishop was right. The image is due to two paint pigments in two very dilute collagen tempera paints; there is no blood in the Shroud image. The Shroud was first painted with a dilute red ochre paint. Then, the blood stains were added with a second dilute vermilion paint." (McCrone, 1999, p.1).

[19] "I began my tests expecting the `Shroud' would be authentic, in spite of Bishop Henri claiming it to be a forgery. ` ..... Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. ` These words, written in 1389 by the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (d'Arcis, 1389), described the efforts of his predecessor Bishop Henri de Poitiers in 1356 to halt the exhibition of the Shroud in a new church in Lirey, not far from Paris. As had his predecessor, Bishop D'Arcis was writing to the Pope to enlist aid in preventing further exploitation of the Shroud for personal gain: `...now again the present Dean of the said church with fraudulent intent and for the purpose of gain suggested ...to have the said cloth replaced in the said church, that by renewal of the pilgrimage the church might be enriched with the offerings made by the faithful.' Both Bishops failed in their earnest efforts to prevent exhibitions of the Shroud." (McCrone, 1999, pp.1-2).

[20] "In the National Szechenyi Library in Budapest, Hungary, there is a book dating to the 1190s known as the Pray Manuscript. One of its illustrations has two panels. In the upper panel, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are shown preparing Jesus' body for burial. The lower panel depicts an angel showing three women the empty tomb of Christ. There are certain features of the portrayal that are reminiscent of the Shroud of Turin. First, the dead body of Christ is depicted without thumbs, although in other illustrations in the book, all five fingers are shown. Second, over the right eye is a bloodstain in the same position as the `3'-shaped stain on the Shroud. Third, in the lower panel is depicted a shroud partly rolled up on the lid of Jesus' tomb. The cloth has a set of little holes that correspond exactly to the four groups of `poker holes' that are not associated with the 1532 fire. Fourth, the shroud in the picture is represented with the herringbone pattern seen on the Shroud. [Wilson, I., The Blood and the Shroud, Free Press: New York, 1998, pp.146-147]" (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, pp.59-60).

[21] "Ilona Berkovits, the premiere interpreter of the Pray Codex wrote: `It is not impossible that the miniaturist followed the illumination of an earlier, more elaborate manuscript, from the end of the l l th or the beginning of the 12th century, which has since been lost, and copied its compositions.' This burn-pattern ... was already present on the TS before the Lierre copy (dated 1516) was made ... The Pray Codex is evidence that this pattern was seen on the TS even earlier-when the Shroud would have been in Constantinople, where a shroud of Christ was, in fact, amply documented." (Scavone, D.C., "Greek Epitaphoi and Other Evidence for the Shroud in Constantinople up to 1204," in Walsh, B., ed., "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, 2000, p.196).

[22] "Mario Latendresse, a computer scientist from the University of Montreal, has reminded us (personal letter) that if the Pray Codex, in fact, proves the Shroud in Eastern Europe (and more precisely in Constantinople) in 1192, where a shroud was documented by Robert of Clari and numerous others from 944 to 1204), then the artist of Bishop d'Arcis's Memorandum (1389) could not have created the original shroud thirty-four years earlier, in 1355, no matter what he told Bishop Henri de Poitiers. The word `depinxit' in the Memorandum then must mean `the artist copied,' and not `the artist painted' the Lirey Shroud." (Scavone, 2000, pp.196-197.

[23] "In the crucial illustration from the Pray Codex, the tomb slab is strangely decorated. What is one to make of the very `noisy,' unusually flamboyant Greek key motif? As in so many cases, to cut to the point, obscurities such as this often become brightly lit when one inserts the Shroud into the context. Arguably, then, it is possible that this naive artist was naively representing the herring-bone twill of the TS. The early date of this Codex and the presence of these several Shroud elements strongly suggest that the artist of the Codex saw the Shroud during its Constantinople period." (Scavone, 2000, p.197).

[24] "The Shroud's Medieval Radiocarbon Date Without question, the most spectacular refutation of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin was the determination that the linen on which the image lies dates from approximately 1325. The Shroud was sampled and the dates determined by the most scrupulous and scientifically-valid techniques and procedures that are possible. Sampling was carefully conducted and witnessed, the samples were properly cleaned and prepared, and three different laboratories performed the 14C dating using blind control samples in addition to the Shroud samples. All the dates were consistent among the labs. ... the quality of the radiometric data are so rigorous that no objective, rational person can reasonably deny them." (Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2. Emphasis original).

[25] "Triple Burn-Holes Depicted in a Twelfth-Century Manuscript In the book Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI - XVI by Ilona Berkovits, published in the early 1970s, there is a colour illustration from a `Pray' (Codex) Manuscript of Jesus being placed on His burial shroud. His arms are shown folded at the wrists and His fingers appear unnaturally long, as they are on the Shroud, and there are no visible thumbs. Although undetectable in the reproduction overleaf, there are three tiny holes on the herringbone weave of the shroud at the foot of the picture. These are identical to the three tiny burn-holes showing in one of the copies of the Shroud that was painted around 1516 ... This finding was confirmed by Professor Jerome Lejeune, who examined the `Pray' Manuscript which is preserved in the National Szechenyi Library in Budapest. There is no historical record of how and when these so-called `poker holes' were made on the Shroud, but from the `Pray' Manuscript illustration it is clear that this damage occurred before 1195." (Whiting, B. , 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.91. Emphasis original).

[26] "The Funeral Sermon and Prayer ... is an old handwritten Hungarian text dating to 1192-1195. It was found on the 154a. page of the Codex Pray. The importance of the Funeral Sermon comes from that it is the oldest surviving Hungarian, and Finno-Ugric text (although the first records of Hungarian are in a charter dated to 997). The whole sermon has two parts: the sermon's text (26 lines and 227 words) and the prayer (6 lines and 47 words). If one does not count repeated words, there are 190 individual terms in the script. The work was written after a Latin version (whilst the Hungarian edition is a particular writing rather than a translation). Since 1813, the manuscript has been kept in Budapest, Hungary." ("Funeral Sermon and Prayer," Wikipedia, 10 December 2009).

[27] "György Pray (also: George Pray, 11 September 1723 - 23 September 1801) was a Hungarian Jesuit Abbot, canon, librarian of the University library of Buda and important historian. ... His literary activity embraced the history of Hungary, especially the early centuries, the history of the Catholic Church in Hungary, and editing the sources of Hungarian history. He was the first to draw attention to the oldest coherent text in the Hungarian language, Funeral Sermon and Prayer (Latin title "Orati' o funebris", meaning 'funeral oration'), dating probably from 1199, in a manuscript which was called after him the Pray Codex." ("György Pray," Wikipedia, 24 December 2009).

[28] "Closely related to these are equally innovative Deposition scenes, one at Nerezi, another forming part of the fresco decoration of the tiny Chapel of the Holy Sepulcher, Winchester Cathedral, England. The common factor to all these is the use of a large, double-length piece of linen, obviously intended to envelop the body over the head, a cloth we would unhesitatingly identify as a shroud. At precisely this same eleventh- to twelfth-century period, no fewer than three separate but related types of representation of the body of Christ, closely associated with this same development, appeared in Byzantine art. One group consisted of the Lamentation scene showing Christ's body in a very stiff attitude, with, as a complete innovation in art, the hands crossed over the loins. The Victoria and Albert Museum in London has an ivory of this type dating from the eleventh century. [Weitzmann, K., "The Origins of the Threnos," De Artibus Opuscula, XL, Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, New York, 1961, fig, 15, p. 165.] The State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad has a cross reliquary of the eleventh century, formerly in the Count Stroganoff collection, with a scene of this type in enamel carrying the significant inscription `Christ lies in death, manifesting God.' [Schlumberger, G., Mélanges, Paris, 1895, pl. XI] The Pray Manuscript in Budapest, dated reliably to the years 1192-95, has on the reverse of one page a drawing of the same type, unusual for the total nudity of the Christ figure. [Berkovits, I., Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, 1969, plate III] On all of these examples, the hands are crossed consistently, the right over the left with an awkward crossing point at the wrists, all forcefully reminiscent of the Shroud." (Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.137).

[29] "The earliest Grail romance is the Perceval, or Conte del Graad by Chrétien de Troyes, a Northern French poet of the late twelfth century. ... Chrétien's patron was Henri, Count of Champagne, nephew of Henri of Blois, the Bishop of Winchester who commissioned the Shroud-figure style frescoes in the Holy Sepulcher Chapel, Winchester Cathedral, England." (Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.312-313).

[30] "Obviously, it would be considerable support to such a theory if there is direct evidence that at some time while still in the possession of the Byzantines the Image's still hypothetical full-length imprint was suddenly revealed. There indeed seems evidence for this, beginning with sometime in the eleventh century. Without any explanation given, artists at this time begin to show scenes of Jesus' entombment in which, instead of being shown wrapped mummy-style as previously, his body is depicted enveloped in a specifically Shroud-type winding sheet. Several examples of this type feature, for the first time ever, his hands crossed Shroud-style over the loins, a particularly striking example of this being the Hungarian Pray manuscript, reliably dated 1192-95, which, like the Shroud, shows Jesus completely naked." (Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.114).

[31] "The same afternoon Dr Michael Tite provided further details at a crowded press conference held at London's British Museum, accompanied on the platform by the Oxford laboratory's Professor Hall and Dr Robert Hedges. To minimize the possibility of anyone getting the results wrong, Tite or someone else had scrawled on the blackboard in large numerals: 1260-1390! According to Tite the three laboratories' datings were `all within a hundred years of each other' and made it 95 per cent certain that the shroud had originated sometime between the years 1260 and 1390, and 99.9 per cent certain that it dated `from about 1000 to 1500 AD'. The laboratories also exhibited a satisfying accuracy in their results from the control samples." (Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.8-9).

[32] "There followed in February 1989 a formal paper in the highly respected, international scientific journal Nature, carrying as its signatories the names of twenty-one of those most closely involved in the carbon dating. After carefully setting out all the procedures that had been followed to obtain the dating result, the paper commented: `These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval.' [Damon, P.E., et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, pp.611-615, p.614]" (Wilson, 1991, pp.9-10).

[33] "Although this is one of the earliest epitaphioi known, there is a consensus among scholars that it must have had antecedents, as is certainly indicated by the same type of figure being found in other art forms. A particularly notable example occurs in a work entitled the Funeral Oration, forming part of the Pray manuscript [Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár (National Széchényi Library), MNY I] preserved in the National Széchényi Library of Budapest. Four pages of pen and ink drawings accompany a text that is among the very earliest in the Hungarian language, and in one of these ... we see Jesus's body being laid out full length on a shroud, entirely naked, and with the hands crossed over the pelvis in precisely the manner so characteristic of the Turin `shroud' image. [Berkovits, I., "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., trans., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, 1969, pl. III] This drawing can be accurately dated, being reliably thought to have been made at the ancient Benedictine monastery of Boldva in Hungary between the years 1192 and 1195. And according to the specialist of Hungarian medieval manuscripts, Ilona Berkovits: `... the style of its miniatures shows resemblance to the art associated with the middle of the [twelfth] century. It is not impossible that the miniaturist followed the illumination of an earlier, more elaborate manuscript, from the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century, which has since been lost, and copied its compositions.' [Ibid., p. 19]" (Wilson, 1991, pp.150-151).

[34] "Despite these difficulties, however, all is by no means as unforthcoming as might at first appear. For instance, long recognized on the shroud as preceding the very distinctive scars of the 1532 fire are four sets of triple burn holes that derive from some unrecorded damage incident that was certainly before 1516, as the marks are clearly visible in a painted copy of that year. [In the Church of St Gommaire, Lierre, Belgium.] The four sets back each other up, indicating that the damage was sustained when the cloth was folded in four, and they appear almost as if a sputtering red hot poker was thrust through the cloth three times, the topmost of the three holes having next to it an extra one, as if created by a stray spark. In 1986 French Dominican monk Pere A. M. Dubarle, a former scholar of the Jerusalem Ecole Biblique, was corresponding on the subject of the shroud-like figure on the Pray manuscript of 1192 ... when his correspondent drew his attention to some curious holes indicated on the illustration below this figure. Clearly visible on the sarcophagus in the scene of the three Marys visiting the Empty Tomb was a line of three holes, with an extra one offset to one side .... Even more curious, though almost vanishingly tiny, was a similar set of three holes to be seen on the shroud or napkin-like cloth depicted rolled up on the sarcophagus .... Could these have been intended to represent the `poker hole' marks that the artist of 1192 knew to be on the Christ shroud of his day, the one preserved in Constantinople? If this could be believed, then even on its own it would at a stroke set the shroud's date nearly a hundred years earlier than the very earliest date allowed by carbon dating." (Wilson, 1991, pp.160-161).

[35] "As the laboratory representatives returned home with their canisters, the Turin authorities released the news of their mission to the world and during the succeeding months, first the Arizona laboratory personnel, then Zurich's, then Oxford's ran their particular samples through their equipment. Despite the fact that they had all been sworn not to disclose their findings until these could be collectively released, all sorts of rumours began circulating, almost all of them suggesting that the Shroud had been found to date to the Middle Ages. During the second week of October 1988 press personnel of the English-speaking world were notified that the results would be announced on Thursday, 13 October in the British Museum's Press Room, with a near-synchronous press conference to be held in Turin that same day. ... At one end of the room had been set a low platform which three men mounted ... They were the already mentioned Dr Michael Tite, with the Oxford radiocarbon-dating laboratory's Professor Edward Hall and Hall's chief technician, Dr Robert Hedges. Nor did they have any Shroud to display. Instead their only `prop' was a blackboard behind them on which someone had rather crudely scrawled: `1260-1390!' .... For as Dr Tite explained, these numbers represented radiocarbon dating's calculation, to a ninety-five per cent degree of probability, of the upper and lower dates of when the Shroud's flax had been harvested. Representing an average of the laboratories' findings, which had proved in excellent agreement with each other, they indicated that the Shroud's raw flax had most likely been made into linen on or about the year AD 1325, give or take sixty-five years either way. .... The radiocarbon dates matched unerringly closely to the time in the 1350s when the Shroud had made its European debut in the suspiciously tiny French village of Lirey." (Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.7-8).

[36] "However, if we look to images from this time of Jesus laid out Shroud-like in death with crossed hands - the Shroud pose that has so unjustifiably been criticised as indicative of artistic `modesty' - we are far from disappointed. In Budapest's National Széchenyi Library is a book called the Pray Manuscript [It is so named after its eighteenth-century discoverer Georgius Pray], greatly prized by Hungarians as the first surviving text in their language, and reliably thought to have been created at their Boldva Benedictine monastery between 1192 and 1195. But from the Shroud point of view by far its greatest interest is its four pages of coloured drawings, and in particular the third of these ..., which shows in its upper register Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus preparing Jesus's dead body for burial, with in the lower register the three Marys visiting the angel-guarded empty tomb. When I first came across this back in the 1970s, I was particularly struck by the way, in the upper register, Jesus's dead body is depicted in a quite unmistakably Shroud-like pose and totally nude, this latter feature alone certainly atypical of most Byzantine art. This seemed sufficient reason in itself for including it in my first book published in 1978." (Wilson, 1998, pp.145-146).

[37] "However, what I had failed to spot were other features linking it and its associated drawings even more closely to our Shroud, features which subsequently came to be noticed by French scholars, most notably by ... Professor Jerome Lejeune ... For instance, first, and specifically in the case of the manuscript's Shroud-like depiction of Jesus's dead body, the drawing shows all four fingers of each of Jesus's hands, but no thumbs, exactly as on the Shroud. Whereas in the manuscript's other drawings Jesus's thumbs are depicted perfectly normally. Second, in this same drawing of Jesus's dead body, just over Jesus's right eye there is a single forehead bloodstain, delineated in red, located in exactly the same position as the very distinctive `3'-shaped stain on the man of the Shroud's forehead. Third, in one of the manuscript's other drawings, of Christ Enthroned, while Jesus's left hand is depicted with the nail wound through his palm, the wound in his right hand appears unmistakably, and most unusually, to be through his wrist." (Wilson, 1998, p.146).

[38] "Possibly the most tell-tale feature of all, however, is one that was first reported in 1986 by the Dominican monk Pere A. M. Dubarle of St Joseph's Convent, Paris. In the lower register of the manuscript's page with the Shroud body there can be seen a shroud, obviously Jesus's, partly rolled up on the lid of the sarcophagus representing Jesus's tomb. If this piece of cloth is studied very closely, it can be seen that it bears a set of tiny `poker holes', three in a line and then one offset ... precisely corresponding to the four groups of these still visible on the Shroud ... and known to predate the 1532 fire. Another, larger, set of this same arrangement of holes can be seen on the sarcophagus lid itself. As Professor Lejeune felt bound to conclude from his study of all these different features: `Such precise details are not to be found together on any other known [Christ] image - except the Shroud which is in Turin. One is therefore forced to conclude that the artist of the Pray manuscript had before his eyes ... some model which possessed all the characteristics of the Shroud which is in Turin. [Lejeune, J., "Etude topologique des Suaires de Turin, de Lier et de Pray', L'Identification Scientifique de 1'Homme du Linceul Jesus de Nazareth: Actes de Symposium Scientifique International, Rome 1993, Upinsky, A.A., ed., CIELT, François-Xavier de Guibert: Paris, 1995, p.107]" (Wilson, 1998, pp.146-147).

[39] "Nearly four decades ago, casually browsing through Ilona Bercovits' newly published Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary in Bristol Central Library, I came across the now famous Pray manuscript drawing of Jesus's Entombment ... and immediately recognised its significance for Shroud studies. ... the Pray manuscript drawing, firmly dateable back to 1192-5, helps to push the Shroud back significantly earlier than the date ascribed to it by carbon dating ...Yet often overlooked in this context is a very equivalent Entombment scene ... on a champlevé panel that forms part of the decoration of a magnificent 12th century pulpit preserved at Klosterneuburg, near Vienna. The entire pulpit, incorporating many similar panels, was completed by the master decorator Nicholas of Verdun no later than 1181 (therefore yet earlier than the Pray manuscript), and on its Entombment panel again we see the so distinctive crossed hands burial pose, also a shroud of double body length proportions." (Wilson, I., 2008, "Nicholas of Verdun: Scene of the Entombment, from the Verdun altar in the monastery of Klosterneuburg, near Vienna," BSTS Newsletter, No. 67, June).

[40] "Perhaps most pertinent of all, however, is a discovery made by the distinguished French medical expert the late Prof Jerome Lejeune from studies of a very Shroud-like figure that is one of the illustrations in a Hungarian manuscript, the so-called Pray Manuscript of Budapest, datable to c. 1192-5. [Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, X-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., trans., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland] I had first come across this manuscript illustration in the 1960s and had immediately been struck by the figure's very accurate Shroud-like pose and similarly Shroud-like total nudity. I had also seen in the `Discovery of the Empty Tomb' illustration below this that there was a cloth depicted on the tomb lid, clearly intended to represent Jesus' shroud discarded after the Resurrection. But it was Prof. Lejeune who on a personal visit to the National Szechenyi Library in Budapest, where the manuscript is housed, spotted several crucial features that had escaped me. First, the Shroud-like depiction of Jesus' dead body features four fingers, but no thumbs, exactly as on the Shroud. Second, just over the dead Jesus' right eye in the manuscript illustration is a single bloodstain in exactly the same position as the distinctive three-shaped one on the Shroud. Third, and not least, the `shroud' cloth lying on the tomb lid clearly bears a group of holes that are just like the Shroud's so-called `poker holes' - damage marks that, whatever their causation (we noted that Dr Mechthild Flury-Lemberg suggested some liquid spillage), would have been the Shroud's most distinctive feature prior to the 1532 fire. And another, similar set of marks can be seen on the tomb lid, along with a pattern again distinctively reminiscent of the Shroud's herringbone. As a pointer to the Shroud's existence as early as the twelfth century, the evidence of the Pray Manuscript is therefore strong." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.114,116).

[41] "The Pray Manuscript drawing of scenes of Jesus' burial (upper register), and empty tomb discovered by the three Marys (lower register). The manuscript can be dated no later than 1195, yet the Christ figure exhibits several striking affinities to the Shroud. Most striking of all, however, the cloth `shroud' depicted in the lower register seems to exhibit a set of poker holes (arrowed A on detail), identical to those of as yet undetermined date and origin, which are visible on the Shroud. A similar set of holes also appears on the tomb lid (arrowed B on detail) This alone seems striking evidence for the Shroud's existence well before the 1260-1390 date ascribed to it by radiocarbon dating." (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115).