Friday, April 13, 2018

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourteenth century (2)

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
FOURTEENTH CENTURY (2)
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the twelfth (and an update of the sixth) installment of part #15, "Fourteenth century (2)" of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 14th century (1) #14] [Next: 15th century #16]


14th century (2) (1351-1400).

[Above (enlarge): Lead pilgrim's badge or medallion in the Cluny Museum, Paris[2] from the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France from c.1355-56[3]. [See below "c.1355-6".]

1351 Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–1356) returned to France from his captivity in England [see "1349d"] in July after his huge ransom of 12,000 ecus was paid by King John II (r.1350–1364)[4].

c.1351 Around 1351-1352 a painted copy of the Shroud with the frontal image only began to be exhibited in Besançon[5] [see "1349b" and future "1375"].

1352 In January Geoffroy I was created a founding member of the knights of the Order of the Star[6], members of which, like the Knights Templar, took a vow never to flee in battle[7].

c.1352 Birth of Geoffroy II de Charny (1352-98) to Geoffroy I de Charny and Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428)[8].

1353 According to its Act of Foundation, construction of the Lirey church began on 20 February 1353 and was completed on 20 June 1353[9]. In June 1353, King John retrospectively granted Geoffroy I permission to build a collegiate church in Lirey[10]. See Introduction and "c.1343" where, according to my theory, Geoffroy by now had the Shroud[11].

1354a In January Geoffroy resubmitted his petition of five years previously to Pope Clement VI (r. 1342-1352) [see "1349c"] to the new Avignon Pope Innocent VI (r. 1352-1362), for approval that the by now built Lirey church be elevated to the status of a collegiate church[12]. Its clergy had increased to six canons, one of whom was the ruling Dean, together with three assistant clerics[13] - for a tiny a village of only ~50 houses [14][see "1343c"]!

1354b Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) was appointed Bishop of nearby Troyes[15].

1354c In August Pope Innocent VI recognised the Lirey church's canons and its collegiate status and granted indulgences to pilgrims visiting the church[16]. Yet despite extant lists of the various relics held by the Lirey church in 1354, none mention the Shroud[17]! There is an explanations for this: as we shall see the Shroud never was the property of the Lirey church but remained the private property of Geoffroy I de Charny and/or Jeanne de Vergy and their heirs[18].

1355 On 25 June Geoffrey I was again [see "c.1347"] appointed bearer of the Oriflamme, the French sacred battle standard.[19].

c.1355 First exposition of the Shroud in undisputed history at Lirey,

[Right (enlarge)[20]: Rebuilt Church of St. Mary, Lirey, France. It was on these grounds in c.1355 that the Shroud was first exhibited in undisputed history.]

France[21]. This date is based on a 1389 memorandum by the then Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395) [see future "1389"], to Pope Clement VII (r.1378-94), which stated that the Shroud had been exhibited in Lirey "thirty-four years or thereabouts" previously[22], that pilgrims were told it was "the true shroud of Christ" and that "from all parts people came together to view it"[23].

c.1355-6 Pilgrim's badge or medallion in the Cluny Museum, Paris [see above][24], from the first exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France, in c.1355-56. It was found in 1855[25] by a French archaeologist, Arthur Forgeais (1822-78) in the mud of the Seine River, Paris[26], under the Pont au Change bridge[27]. Forgeais found hundreds of pilgrim's medallions to various holy places at that location (but only one of the Lirey Shroud exposition), which indicates it was a pilgrim `wishing well' site[28]. The badge depicts the actual Lirey exposition[29], with the arms and hands of two clerics (whose heads have broken off[30]) holding the Shroud[31] as well as the exposition platform and its support posts (the tops of which have also broken off) are on either side[32] (see below). The clerics are holding a full-

[Above (enlarge)[33]: The top `third' of the Lirey pilgrim's badge showing part of the arms and the hands of two clerics holding the Shroud, between the broken off support posts of the Lirey exposition platform.]

length representation of the Shroud[34] (below), the first known[35].

[Above (enlarge)[36]: The middle `third' of the Lirey pilgrim's badge depicting the full-length Shroud.]

The man on the Shroud is depicted front and back, head to head[37] and naked[38]. Despite the tiny about 6cm w by 4cm h (or 2½ w by 1¾ in h) size of the badge[39] the mold maker has even depicted the Shroud's herringbone weave[40] [see 16Jul15]. Under the Shroud is a depiction of the reliquary (below) in which the Shroud was then kept[41]. That this is a depiction of the Shroud's reliquary and not a

[Above (enlarge)[41a]: The bottom `third' of the Lirey pilgrim's badge showing the reliquary in which the Shroud was then kept. The coat of arms of Geoffroy I de Charny are on the right of the reliquary and that of Jeanne de Vergy is on the left.]

depiction of the de Charny and de Vergy coats of arms themselves, solves the apparent problem of Jeanne's coat of arms seeming to be on the right and Geoffroy's on the left[42]. That the reliquary has Geoffroy I's and Jeanne de Vergy's coats of arms[43] indicates that Geoffroy I was still alive at the time of the exposition[44] and therefore the badge (and the exposition) must be dated before his death at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356[45] [see "1356b"]. It is most unlikely that the exposition took place or continued after Geoffroy I's September 1356 death in the Battle of Poitiers [see below] because not only would Jeanne have been grieving the death of her husband, but King John II had been captured [see below], the French army had been decimated and roving bands of English "companies" remaining behind in France after the Battle of Poitiers [see below], would have made it too dangerous for pilgrims to travel, let alone the danger to the Shroud [see below].

1356a In a letter dated 28 May 1356[46], Bishop Henri de Poitiers, writing from his diocese of Aix (presumably Aix-en-Othe)[47] formally ratified Geoffroy I's letters instituting the Lirey church, praised him and approved its "divine cult":

"Henri, by the grace of God and of the Apostolic See, confirmed bishop elect of Troyes, to all those who will see this letter, eternal salvation in the Lord. You will learn what we ourselves learned on seeing and hearing the letters of the noble knight Geoffrey de Charny, Lord of Savoysy and of Lirey, to which and for which our present letters are enclosed, after scrupulous examination of these letters and more especially of the said knight's sentiments of devotion, which he has hitherto manifested for the divine cult and which he manifests ever more daily. And ourselves wishing to develop as much as possible a cult of this nature, we praise, ratify and approve the said letters in all their parts a cult which is declared and reported to have been canonically and ritually prescribed, as we have been informed by legitimate documents. To all these, we give our assent, our authority and our decision, by faith of which we esteem it our duty to affix our seal to this present letter in perpetual memory. Given in our palace of Aix of our diocese in the year of Our Lord 1356, Saturday, the 28th of the month of May"[48].

1356b Death of Geoffroy I de Charny on 19 September 1356 in the Battle of Poitiers[49].

1356c King John II was taken captive in the same Battle of Poitiers[50]. The Treaty of Brétigny in 1360 set John's ransom at 3 million crowns, so leaving his son Duke Louis I (1339–1384) in English-held Calais as hostage, John return to France to raise the funds[51]. However in 1363 Louis escaped and John for reasons of "good faith and honour" voluntarily returned to England[52] where he died in 1364 and his body was returned to France[53]

1356d Marauding bands of English soldiers, called "companies," after the Battle of Poitiers, began roaming the French countryside looting towns[54].

1357a On 5 June twelve bishops of the pontifical court at Avignon grant indulgences to all who visit the church of St Mary of Lirey and its relics[55].

1357b Also in June there was a peasants' revolt, known as the Jacquerie, which spread into Lirey's Champagne region, and although it was directed primarily against the nobility in manors and castles, there was also indiscriminate looting[56].

c. 1358 Due to the threats of the "companies" [see "1356d" and "1359"] and the peasants' revolt [see "1357b"], presumably the Shroud was taken in c. 1358 by Geoffroy I's widow Jeanne, with her two young children Geoffroy II (1352–1398) and Charlotte (c.1356-1398), to a safer region of France[57]. Such as her castle at Montfort-en-Auxois [Left (enlarge)[58].] (aka Montfort near Montbard)[59] which was ~93 km (~58 mi) south of Lirey. [see 16Feb15a].

1359 A "company" (see "1356c") under English knight Robert Knolles (c.1325–1407) attempts to capture Troyes but under the leadership of Bishop Henri de Poitiers, the attack failed[60]. Lirey is only ~12 miles (~20 km) from Troyes[61] and such a valuable and well-known religious artifact as the Shroud would have been a prime target for one of "the companies" so presumably it had already been taken to a safer region of France [see "c. 1358"].

c. 1359 Jeanne married the wealthy Aymon IV of Geneva (c. 1324-1388) and took Geoffroy II and the Shroud from Montfort to one of Aymon's estates in High Savoy (that part of France bordering both Switzerland and Italy), probably Anthon[62][see 16Feb15b].

1370 Geoffroy I given a hero's reburial at the Abbey of the Celestins in Paris by John II's son, King Charles V (r.1364-1380)[63].

1375 Archbishop Guillaume (William) de Vergy (r. 1371–1391)[64], claimed to have found the original Besançon shroud lost in the 1349 fire [see above][65] and `verified' it by a `miracle' of laying that `shroud' on a dead man who immediately revived[66]! Guillaume was a favourite of John II's older son King Charles V[67] and came into conflict with John II's youngest son Duke Philip II of Burgundy (1342–1404), whom he excommunicated and took refuge at Avignon[68]. Where he was in 1391 made Cardinal of Besançon by Avignon Pope Clement VII (r.1378-94)[69].

c.1375 Only known other example of herringbone twill linen weave in Victoria and Albert Museum ref. no. 8615-1863[70].

To be continued in the thirteenth installment of this part #15 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.221-222. [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.197; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.30-31; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.277; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.10; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.231; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.44-45; Wilson, 2010, p.218. [return]
5. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.9; O'Connell, P. & Carty, C., 1974, "The Holy Shroud and Four Visions," TAN: Rockford IL, p.8; Guerrera, 2001, p.11. [return]
6. Wilson, 1979, p.198; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.31; Wilson, 1998, p.277; Wilson, 2010, p.218. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.198; Wilson, 2010, p.218. [return]
6. Crispino, D.C., 1982, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 4, September, pp.32-35, 34; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.35; Wilson, 1998, p.279. [return]
8. Crispino, D.C., 1982, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 4, September, pp.32-35, 34; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.35; Wilson, 1998, p.279. [return]
9. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.6, 9; Rinaldi, P.M., 1978, "The Man in the Shroud," [1972], Futura: London, Revised, p.20; Crispino, D.C., 1981, "Why Did Geoffroy de Charny Change His Mind?," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 1, December, pp.28-34, 30-31. [return]
10. Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.37, 49; Guerrera, 2001, p.10; Oxley, 2010, p.48. [return]
11. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.28; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.97; Oxley, 2010, pp.46, 48. [return]
12. Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.31; Tribbe, 2006, p.41; Oxley, 2010, p.111; Wilson, 2010, pp.220, 277, 302. [return]
13. Wilson, 2010, p.220; Tribbe, 2006, p.41. [return]
14. Wilson, 2010, p.219. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, p.278; Wilson, 2010, p.220. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.20; Wilson, 1998, p.278; Wilson, 2010, p.220. [return]
17. Wilson, 1991, p.20; Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
18. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.101; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.44; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.32; Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.36-37; Piana, A., 2007, "The Shroud's "Missing Years," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 66. December, pp.9-25, 28-31. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.259. [return]
20. "Lirey, France," Google Street View, August 2008. [return]
21. Oxley, 2010, pp.4, 49; Wilson, 2010, pp.221-222, 302. [return]
22. Humber, 1978, p.96; Wilson, 1979, pp.91, 267; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.14; Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.171-204, 174; Wilson, 1991, p.19; Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, 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.58-70, 66; Wilson, 1998, pp.111, 122, 126; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.14; Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
23. Wilson, 1979, p.268; Guerrera, 2001, p.14; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.14. [return]
24. Adams, 1982, pp.30-31; Wilson, 1998, p.127; Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
25. Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127. [return]
26. Bonnet-Eymard, B., "Study of original documents of the archives of the Diocese of Troyes in France with particular reference to the Memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.233-260, 245; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.194; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.5. [return]
28. Foster, A., 2012, "The Pilgrim's Medallion / Amulet of Lirey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 75, June. [return]
29. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.12. [return]
30. Adams, 1982, p.31; Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.246; Wilson, 1998, p.127; Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, p.127. [return]
32. Scott, 2003, p.12. [return]
33. Latendresse, 2012. [return]
34. Adams, 1982, pp.30-31. [return]
35. Adams, 1982, pp.30-31. [return]
36. Latendresse, 2012. [return]
37. Adams, 1982, p.31; Wilson, 1998, p.127; Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
38. Wilson, 1998, p.127; Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
39. Wilson, 1998, p.126; Wilson, 2010, p.221; Foster, A., 2012. [return]
40. Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Scott, 2003, p.12; Foster, A., 2012; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
41. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.246; Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
42. Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
43. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.128; Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
44. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.246; Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
45. Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
46. Bulst, 1957, p.9; Wilson, 1979, pp.90, 193, 259; Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.65; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.49; Scavone, 1989, pp.15-16; Wilson, 1991, p.20; Wilson, 1998, p.128; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.10; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
47. Wilson, 1998, p.278; Wilson, 2010, pp.224, 229. [return]
48. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.242; Wilson, 1991, p.20; Wilson, 1998, pp.128, 278; Guerrera, 2001, p.11; Wilson, 2010, p.224. [return]
49. "Geoffroi de Charny: Death," Wikipedia, 17 April 2018. [return]
50. "John II of France: Surrender and capture," Wikipedia, 6 April 2018. [return]
51. "John II of France: Treaty of Brétigny," Wikipedia, 6 April 2018. [return]
52. "John II of France: Louis' escape and returning to England," Wikipedia, 6 April 2018. [return]
53. "John II of France: Death," Wikipedia, 6 April 2018. [return]
54. Oxley, 2010, p.51. [return]
55. Wilson, 1998, p.279. [return]
56. Oxley, 2010, p.50. [return]
57. Oxley, 2010, pp.51-52. [return]
58. "Château de Montfort," Tourisme en Bourgogn, 2014. [return]
59. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
60. Oxley, 2010, p.51. [return]
61. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
62. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
63. Wilson, 1991, p.21; Wilson, 1998, p.279. [return]
64. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.245; Scavone, 1991, p.199. [return]
65. Scavone, 1991, pp.199-200. [return]
66. Scavone, 1991, pp.199-200; Guerrera, 2001, p.12. [return]
67. "House of Vergy: Notable members," Wikipedia, 18 November 2017. [return]
68. "Guillaume de Vergy," Wikipedia, 8 March 2018 . [return]
69. "House of Vergy: Notable members," Wikipedia, 18 November 2017. [return]
70. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]

Posted: 13 April 2018. Updated: 27 April 2018.

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Water stains #28: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

WATER STAINS #28
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #28, "Other marks and images: water stains," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Again see also, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (1): Burns and water stains."

[Main index #1] [Previous: Burns #27] [Next: "Poker holes" #29]


  1. Other marks and images #26
    1. Water stains #28

Introduction As well as burns from the 1532 Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry fire (see previous part #27) there are water stains on the Shroud from extinguishing that fire[2]. But the most prominent,

[Right (enlarge): Water stains on the Shroud. According to photo- grapher Aldo Guerreschi and writer Michele Salcito, only the small water stains marked in red are from the 1532 fire. The rest of the large stains marked in blue are from a previous unrecorded, presumably ancient, water staining when the Shroud was kept in a Middle-Eastern type pottery jar[3]! (see below).]

large water stains [right] are, according to Guerreschi and Salcito, from a previous, unrecorded, presumably ancient, water staining when the Shroud was tightly rolled up inside a Middle-Eastern pottery jar[4]! (see future below).

Note: Even though I had saved Guerreschi and Salcito's two papers in 2015, and I had read about and accepted their ancient pottery jar experiment in Ian Wilson's "The Shroud" (2010), I hadn't mentally connected their findings with the burns marks in part #27. So after this post I will go back and update part #27 to take account of Guerreschi and Salcito's findings.

Water stains from the 1532 fire In 1931 Fr. Antonio Tonelli (1877-1938), based on the pattern of the burns from the 1532 fire, proposed that at the time of the fire the Shroud had been folded in 48 layers[5], "four times across the breadth and twelve times across the length"[6]. Even though he accepted Tonelli's reconstruction, Dr R.W. (Rudolf Maria) Hynek (1883-1952) considered it a "strange fact" that the water stains were from "water thrown over" the Shroud to extinguish the 1532 fire, yet the burns marks on the Shroud "remained dry, untouched by the water which soaked the rest of the Shroud"[7]. And in 1985, British Society for the Turin Shroud member, Dr. Michael Clift (1928-2016), later to become the Society's General Secretary, asked a `the Emperor has no clothes' question:

"... why are the water stains not directly over the fire damage? They are indeed so separated from it that one can fairly ask how was the fire extinguished?"[8].
By superimposing the 1931 Enrie photographs of the burned areas [Left (enlarge)[9].] over Barrie Schwortz' transparency photographs taken during STURP's 1978 Turin investigation,[Right (enlarge)[10].] Guerreschi and Salcito were able to `see through' the patches sewn over the burned areas by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns in 1534, and determine with precision the exact contours of the 1532 burn holes and so discover the real burn damage to the Shroud [Left (enlarge)[11].] caused by the 1532 Chambéry fire[12].

Then by superimposing the first four burn holes in order of decreasing charring [Below (enlarge)[13]. Note the water stains in blue, realistic- ally around the burned areas.], Guerreschi and Salcito were able to determine the correct folding sequence of the first four layers of the Shroud at the time of the 1532 fire[14]. Then by repeating this process, Guerreschi and Salcito found that the Shroud had been folded in 32 [Left (enlarge)[15].] (not 48) layers of four layers of four thicknesses on one side and eight layers of four thicknesses on the other side, at the time of the 1532 fire[16]. That would make the Shroud pack length about 75 cm and its width about 29 cm[17]. These dimens- ions are more in proportion with the Chambéry chapel niche [Below (enlarge)[18].](165 cm L x 50 cm H x 60 cm D)[19], which held the Shroud's casket donated by Margaret of Austria (1480–1530)[20].

Ancient water stains Having accurately reconstructed the damage to the Shroud caused by the 1532 fire and from that the 32-layers in which the Shroud had then been folded, Guerreschi and Salcito saw clearly that the large water stains (in blue above) did not have any connection with those burns and that folding system[21]. They therefore realised that these large stains could not have been from the same incident[22]. The large water stains were similar and equidistant [Left (enlarge)[23].], with very irregular edges[24] [Below (enlarge)[25].] After numerous experiments Guerreschi and Salcito found that the folding pattern which fitted the large water stains was if the Shroud had been folded accordion-style in 52 layers [Above (enlarge): the first 13 of 52 layers[26].] resting against each other [Left (enlarge)[27].] in a near vertical slanting position[28]. Guerreschi and Salcito found with a sheet of linen having the same dimensions (436 cm by 111 cm) as the Shroud and the same herring bone weave, that the first section tended to collapse (see below)[29]. This explains that section's irregular water stain (see above top)[30]. [Below (enlarge): Collapse of the first section of a Shroud-like cloth folded accordion- style in 52 layers[31].]

Guerreschi and Salcito then considered what kind of receptacle could have been used to store the Shroud in a slightly curved slanted near vertical position, as indicated by the large water stains[32]. They reasoned that it could have been an ancient earthenware jar like those which were common in antiquity[33]. They then found on the website of the Israel Antiquities Authority an earthen- ware jar [Left (enlarge)[34].] found at Qumran (which was destroyed by the Romans in c. AD 68[35] and thus overlapped the time of Christ[36]) with the characteristics and dimensions to explain the large water stains on the Shroud[37]. Guerreschi obtained an exact replica of one of these ancient jars and fitted into it a cloth of exactly the same dimensions as the Shroud, folding it in the accordion-style arrangement that the large water stains indicated[38]. It was a perfect fit, and held the arrangement perfectly[39]! Guerreschi then repeated the experiment, this time with a puddle of water in the bottom of the jar and when he removed the cloth and opened it out, there was an identical pattern of water stains[40]! Ian Wilson personally verified a further repeat of Guerreschi's experiment:

"This is no anecdote. Guerreschi repeated it in April 2004, with me acting as his assistant, for a British-made television documentary produced by Pioneer Productions [Secrets of the Dead IV: The Shroud of Christ] As the production team can confirm, the filming occurred at the very end of the day, with no possible opportunity for a second 'take'. Again, an identical pattern was produced"[41]!
Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #24, #25 and #27). That the Shroud has water stains which perfectly fit it having been stored in a first-century earthenware jar is yet another problem for the medieval forgery theory. That is because a medieval forger would have been most unlikely (to put it mildly) to forge water stains on the Shroud to match its linen having been kept in a first-century earthenware jar, when it was not until the 21st century that it was worked out that was what they indicated. The only other alternative is that the forger went to the time, trouble and expense of finding a first-century linen cloth (which just happened to have those water stains) on which to imprint his forgery. But apart from then the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud's linen would be wrong, it again would be most unlikely for a medieval forger to do that. After it was announced on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"[42] journalists linked the Shroud to products of "mediaeval tricksters" such as "a feather from the Archangel Gabriel" and "the last breath of St Joseph"[43]. To which Ian Wilson responded:
"... is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us, a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?"[44].
Similarly when Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Professor Edward Hall (1924-2001) claimed in the same newspaper article that: "Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged [sold] it[45], as I pointed out in "Weave" #4 of this series:
"... in a sense Hall was right! If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, then the forger, to maximise his profit, would have `just got a bit of linen.' That is, he would have used the least expensive `bit of linen' he could find that would still deceive his prospective buyers ... But the Shroud is not just any `bit of linen.' ... the Shroud would have been expensive and rare in the first century. And it would have been even more expensive and rare in the 14th century ... So the medieval forger would have been most unlikely to have obtained a fine linen herringbone twill sheet the size of the Shroud in the first place. And if the forger did have the opportunity to obtain the 8 x 2 cubit (see `Dimensions #3") ancient Syrian or Palestinian fine linen sheet that the Shroud is ... he would not have bought it for the very high price it would have been, as that would have severely reduced the profit margin on his planned forgery of the Shroud image upon it."
So neither of the two medieval forgery alternatives can plausibly explain why the Shroud has water stains which perfectly fit it having been stored in a first-century earthenware jar!

To be continued in the next part #29 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.34-57, 35; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 18; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.48; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 13. [return]
3. Guerreschi, A. & Salcito, M., 2002, "Photographic and computer studies concerning the burn and water stains visible on the Shroud and their historical consequences," IV Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, April 25-26, 2002, Paris, France, pp.1-14. [return]
4. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, pp.1-14; Guerreschi, A. & Salcito, M., 2005, "Further studies on the scorches and the watermarks," The 3rd International Dallas Conference on the Shroud of Turin, September 8 through 11, 2005, The Adolphus Hotel, Dallas, Texas, pp.1-10. [return]
5. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.3; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.105; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.24; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.45; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.2; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.65; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22; Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002; Guerreschi & Salcito, 2005, p.1; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.4. [return]
6. Hynek, 1951, p.3. [return]
7. Hynek, 1951, pp.3-4. [return]
8. Clift, M., 1985, "Contributions from B.S.T.S. members," BSTS Newsletter, No. 10, April, pp.11-13, 12. [return]
9. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.2. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.3. [return]
14. Ibid. [return]
15. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.4. [return]
16. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, pp.4-5. [return]
17. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.5. [return]
18. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2005, p.2. [return]
19. Ibid. [return]
20. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.5. [return]
21. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.7. [return]
22. Ibid. [return]
23. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.8. [return]
24. Ibid. [return]
25. Ibid. [return]
26. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.10. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. Ibid. [return]
29. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.12. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Ibid. [return]
33. Ibid. [return]
34. Ibid. [return]
35. "Qumran," Wikipedia, 21 February 2018. [return]
36. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.83. [return]
37. Guerreschi & Salcito, 2002, p.12. [return]
38. Wilson, 2010, p.83. [return]
39. Ibid. [return]
40. Ibid. [return]
41. Ibid. [return]
42. Wilson, 1998, pp.6-7. [return]
43. Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., 1988, "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," The Independent, 14 October in Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, pp.59-60. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]

Posted: 5 April 2018. Updated: 18 April 2018.

Monday, April 2, 2018

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, March 2018

Shroud of Turin News - March 2018
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: February 2018, part #1] [Next: April 2018, part #1]

This is the second and final installment of my "Editorial and Contents," part #1, of the March 2018 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed below linked news article(s) about the Shroud in March as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing any of them.

Contents:
Editorial
"Traveling Shroud of Turin education exhibit to visit St. Philip Church," The Rhode Island Catholic, Laura Kilgus, 1 March 2018
"The Turin Shroud: Divine Likeness or Bogus Relic?," Historical Blindness, Nathaniel Lloyd, 5 March 2018
"Blood on the Shroud: An Interview with the Blood Investigator of the Shroud of Turin Research Project," Ancient Origins, 6 March 2018, Dr Peter J Shield
"Shroud of Turin's 3D encoded info -- how'd it get there?," WorldNet Daily, Myra Adams, 22 March 2018
"This 3D `carbon copy' of Jesus was created using the Shroud of Turin," Aleteia, Lucandrea Massaro, 28 March 2018
"Shroud of Turin inspires professor to create a 3D image of Jesus," Daily Express, Laura Mowat, 29 March 2018


Editorial
Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of the 118 issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in March up to issue #98, October 1996. [Right (enlarge)], i.e ~83% completed. Issues in that archive are up to #93, February 1996.

News: As mentioned in my "25 March 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," I was emailed on 26 March by ["STOP PRESS"[2].] a leading Shroud pro-authenticist who told me that he has been "repeatedly mulling over" my "Linick/computer hacking hypothesis," and as October this year will be the thirtieth anniversary of the announcement on 13 October 1988 [see 23Jul15] that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390", he is likely to be talking on this topic in both the UK and USA. In those talks he is thinking of suggesting my Linick/computer hacking as one of two scenarios he most favours for having skewed the Shroud's radiocarbon date! I thanked him for taking my hacking theory seriously. That led me to start preparing a media release outlining my hacking theory which I will post here when it is completed. I may then email a copy of it to news outlets in anticipation of an upsurge in media interest in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating as 13 October draws near. Arising out of this, I also on 31 March emailed the "well-known Shroud author" for clarification of the April 1989 phone call he received from a male with a German accent who said had committed "espionage" in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating. I will post any response I receive from him.

Posts: In March I blogged 4 new posts (latest uppermost): "25 March 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" - 25th; "11th-10th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (4): Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #12" - 18th; "Obituary (3): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)" - 3rd; and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, February 2018" - 2nd.

Updates in the background of past posts in March: I continued adding footnotes to my "Chronology of the Shroud ... First century."

Comments: On 10 March I received an Anonymous comment under my 17 April 2010 post "`Ian Wilson's Turin Shroud theories are the worst kind of junk history'." The comment started with (my numbering in square brackets):

[1]"You raise some fine points, but frustratingly neglect the role of bias in judging the usefulness and reliability of historians and their contributions. [2]You seem fine to frequently, incessantly point out Walters' Metaphysical Naturalism, [3]yet conveniently fail to examine your pro-Wilson, pro-Shroud, pro-Christianity bias, [4]Wilson's bias (and how it's made evident by his other texts), and even his former Oxford teacher's bias in his endorsement of him ..."
My response included:
[1]"That was irrelevant to the purpose of my post, which was to respond to Walter's article critical of Wilson." [2]"I only pointed out Walters' Metaphysical Naturalism ONCE (or twice if my `see below' sentence is counted)." [3]"I don't `fail to examine' my `pro-Wilson, pro-Shroud, pro-Christianity bias,' I am well aware of each of them. But again that was not the purpose of my post (see above)." [4]"EVERYONE is biased, and it gets us nowhere debating it. Wilson and I present EVIDENCE for our positions and leave it at that. We also take the time to read the other side. I (and I am sure Wilson) own and have read every anti-Shroud book available. See my online "My Shroud of Turin books and articles" in which my anti- or non-authenticist books and articles are marked `(A)'. But Walter's bias in his criticism of Wilson was EXTREME and UN-SCHOLARLY in that he admitted he had not read ANY of Wilson's books! The Telegraph.co.uk website presumably thought so too because it took Walters' article off-line..."

Then on 12 March, I received a comment from a Dillon under my 22 March 2008 post, "Shroud News - January 2008," that started, "[1]You said that the Man in the Shroud has a ponytail. [2]Bear in mind that Jesus was a 1st century Galilean. Is there any evidence that Galilean men had ponytails?" My response included:

[1]"That was in 2008. I no longer maintain that the vertical feature below the man's hair in the back image is a ponytail. For example, I did not include it under "The man on the Shroud #8" in my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series. See Shroud Scope https://goo.gl/qf4FDY As can be seen, it is NOT a ponytail (it does not even come from the centre of the man's hair as a ponytail would) but is a feature of the weave. I have added to my post above in square brackets: `I no longer maintain that this is a ponytail.'" [2]"According to Stevenson and Habermas they did:
"As a matter of fact, the traditional style for an orthodox Jewish man of two thousand years ago is much the same for him today: a ponytail of hair and sidelocks-precisely what we see on the Shroud." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.151)
But since it is now clear that what was once thought to be a ponytail is NOT part of the image of the man on the Shroud, I don't care to argue it, one way or the other. ..."
My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, I blogged about my radiocarbon dating of the Shroud hacker theory in the STOP PRESS" above my ""25 March 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" post, about "a leading Shroud pro-authenticist who" is going to start publicly supporting my "Linick/computer hacking hypothesis"! Also, at the end of that post, I pointed out that, after Dr Michael Tite's letter to Nature of 7 April 1988, the alleged hacker, Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)'s programing task would have been made easier by Tite's confirmation that: 1) there would indeed be only "three ... radiocarbon laboratories ... Arizona, ... Oxford and ... Zurich"; 2) each laboratory would test "a sample from the shroud, together with two known-age control samples"; and 3) the test would not be "blind" ..." In that post I also promoted a point that I had made in a footnote [24] of my, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #11" that:
"... it is significant that Linick is standing in front of his Arizona laboratory leaders and colleagues in this historic group photograph (taken by Gove who is not in it) of the very first `1350 AD' dating of the Shroud[46], because this is evidence that Linick was in charge of the actual AMS computerised dating process at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that."

My book: In March I continued to give this a higher priority and completed the "Fourth century" and "Fifth century" in "Chapter 6, "History and the Shroud," in the dot-point

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

outline of my book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" (see 06Jul17).

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 March 2018, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 871,539. This compares with 718,747 (up 152,792 or 21.3%) from the same time in March 2017. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "The Shroud of Turin: 3.3. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were scourged," July 15, 2013 - 343; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 266; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.5. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crowned with thorns," Sep 8, 2013 - 166; "`according to John chapter 20, Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural) ... If Scripture is correct ... lets throw out the shroud'," Jul 11, 2012 - 123; "Three-dimensional #20: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Feb 5, 2017 - 106." This is the first month that I can remember where none of the most viewed posts were current ones!


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]
2. "STOP PRESS – AG Opinion in Huawei v ZTE published today," The CLIP Board, 20 November 2014. [return]

Posted: 2 April 2018. 3 April 2018.

Sunday, March 25, 2018

25 March 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

STOP PRESS [2]! I was emailed today (26 March 2018) by a leading Shroud pro-authenticist who told me that he has been "repeatedly mulling over" my "Linick/computer hacking hypothesis". He said that as October this year will be the thirtieth anniversary of the announcement [on 13 October 1988 - see 23Jul15 - that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390"] and he is likely to be talking on this topic in both the UK and USA, he is thinking of suggesting my Linick/computer hacking as one of two scenarios he most favours for having skewed the Shroud's radiocarbon date! I thanked him for taking my hacking theory seriously. That led me to start today preparing a media release outlining my hacking theory which I will post here when it is completed. I may then email a copy of it to news outlets in anticipation of an upsurge in media interest in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating as 13 October draws near.


This is part #9, "25 March 1988," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. Today being 25 March 2018, I have finally caught up! Hereafter I will post each day in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 22Jan88 #8] [Next: 21Apr88 #10]

25 March 1988 Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) [Below[3].], posted his personal[4] letter to Pope John Paul II (r. 1978- 2005)[5]. It was Dr Vittorio Canuto, a NASA astro- physicist and a scientific aide to Prof. Carlos Chagas Filho (1910-2000), the President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences[6], who on 26 January 1988, had suggested that Gove (Rochester) should send a joint letter with Otlet (Harwell) and Harbottle (Brookhaven) to the Pope as a "last resort before the death sentence was carried out"[7]. This followed Gove being told the day before that the three chosen AMS laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, had accepted the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero's decision that only they would date the Shroud[8] [see 22Jan88]. The purpose of the letter was to outline to the Pope "all that had happened" and "appeal... to him to persuade Cardinal Ballestrero to revert to the original [1986 Turin Workshop] protocol"[9]. But Otlet and Harbottle subsequently declined to sign Gove's letter[10]. Gove himself expected that the Pope "will probably not even read" the letter[11]. But to increase the chance that Gove's letter would reach the Pope, Gove childishly stuck "Colourful

[Left (enlarge): 1988 United States 22¢ cats series stamps[12]. Presumably these were the "4 cat stamps" that Gove had (amongst others) stuck on the envelope of his letter of 25 March 1988 to Pope John Paul II.]

postage stamps" on the envelope:

"On 25 March 1988 the letter to the pope with the three enclosures was mailed from the main Rochester post office on Jefferson Road. Colourful postage stamps that included 4 cat stamps, 2 T S Elliott [sic] stamps, 2 William Faulkner stamps, and 1 stamp commemorating lace-making in the US were affixed. The clerk at the post office was really intrigued by this and she helped me select the stamps and helped me apply them to the envelope in an artistic manner. They were hand postmarked and sent first-class airmail. I did it this way in the hopes that, with such a strikingly stamped cover, it might actually get to the pope rather than being thrown in a Vatican wastebasket"[13]!

Before that, on 24 January, Gove had phoned Victor Weisskopf (1908-2002), an "elder statesmen in nuclear and particle physics"[14]. Weisskopf was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences[15] whom Gove had known since the late 1940s when he did graduate work at MIT[16]. Gove had hoped that Weisskopf would "intervene in some way or other"[17] but Weisskopf "gently rebuffed" Gove[18] and advised him "to stop fooling around with the shroud"[19]!

On 27 January 1988 Gove wrote a "last-gasp" letter to Sir David Wilson (1931-), the Director of the British Museum, pointing out that Oxford's Prof. Hall was on the board of the British Museum, which made the proposed dating by only three AMS laboratories including Oxford, certified by the British Museum's Dr Tite (which is what eventually happened), "a somewhat shoddy enterprise"!:

"One of the next things I did-another last-gasp effort-was to write a letter to Sir David Wilson, the Director of the British Museum ... I enclosed a copy of the press release issued by the British Museum following the 22 January meeting. I said that I had no reservations whatsoever concerning Dr Tite's honesty, integrity and credibility as a representative of the British Museum in this enterprise. However, there were many people who were overly suspicious of the entire operation. The situation was particularly exacerbated by the fact that the head of one of the three laboratories to be involved, Professor E T Hall of Oxford, was also on the board of directors of the British Museum. I pointed out that the original protocol called for a third person to be involved in both the certification and data analysis, namely the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences or his representative. I said that Dr Chagas was such a distinguished scientist that if both he and Dr Tite had been involved and if the original seven labs had participated, the enterprise would have been as credible as possible. I was astonished that Wilson would permit the British Museum to risk having its reputation called into question in what had become a somewhat shoddy enterprise ... I ended by saying that I feared, sadly, that Mike Tite had taken on a responsibility which he and the British Museum might live to regret"[20].
Wilson replied to Gove's insulting letter on 2 February with a terse, "Thank you for your letter of 27 January 1988, I have noted the contents"[21]! In mid-October 1988, Gove received a letter from the pro-authenticist archaeologist William Meacham, who was a member of the 1986 Turin Workshop [see 18Nov87], enclosing a copy of Gove's letter to Wilson[22]! Gove was mystified how Meacham obtained Wilson's letter, but given that Wilson and Meacham are both archaeologists, presumably Wilson had sent it to Meacham for his comments. If so, Meacham's comments can be inferred from Wilson's brush-off reply to Gove!

On 28 March Gove, at the suggestion of Harbottle[23], wrote to Senator Daniel Moynihan (1927– 2003)[24], who along with Senator Al D'Amato (1937-) were the two senators representing Gove's New York State[25]. As previously mentioned [see 22Jan88], Gove lied to the senators, falsely pretending and concealing from them that Gove and Harbottle had received no explanation ("inexplicably") why their laboratories were excluded from the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud:

"We could note that we are the two New York laboratories who had made the first proposal to date the shroud. We were the developers of both the AMS and the small-counter technique and inexplicably we have been excluded from the dating endeavour. Could the senators by inquiry through our Ambassador to the Holy See find out why two such distinguished laboratories were summarily excluded?"[26].
When they both knew Cardinal Ballestrero's explanation why Gove's AMS Rochester and Harbottle's non-AMS Brookhaven laboratories were excluded from dating the Shroud, because in Gove's book, he had already quoted Cardinal Ballestrero's explanation to the participants in the 1986 Turin Workshop, which included representatives of the seven laboratories, why he chose only the three AMS laboratories, Arizona, Oxford and Zurich to date the Shroud. It was because non-AMS laboratories like Brookhaven needed a larger sample, and Gove's AMS Rochester, despite having invented AMS radiocarbon dating, was far less experienced in it than the three laboratories chosen:
"The choice of the three laboratories among the seven which offered their services was made, after long deliberation and careful consultation, on a criterion of internationality and consideration for the specific experience in the field of archaeological radiocarbon dating, taking also into account the required sample size. On this criterion [sic] the following laboratories are selected: Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Arizona Research Laboratory for Archaeology, Oxford University Radiocarbon Laboratory, ETH, Zurich"[27].
The Italian-American Senator Al D'Amato[28] repeatedly ignored Gove and Harbottle's false claim[29], presumably because he had checked with his Port Chester, New York constituent Fr Peter Rinaldi (1910-93) and discovered that it was false, and D'Amato could hardly reply to Gove telling him that he was lying! On 28 March 1988, three days after Gove sent his letter to the Pope (see above), and after trying unsuccessfully to phone Senator Moynihan[30], Gove wrote a letter to him as follows:
"Dear Senator Moynihan: The attached letter and enclosures were airmailed to His Holiness Pope John Paul II on 25 March 1988. ... I fear it still may not come to His Holiness' attention. Hence this appeal to you ... that you might ask the US Ambassador to the Vatican to, in turn, inquire of the Cardinal Secretary of State for the Vatican why the two laboratories in New York State at the University of Rochester and at Brookhaven National Laboratory, were not chosen to participate in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud. The technique for accommodating small enough samples to permit an essentially non-destructive carbon dating of the shroud was invented at Rochester using a fundamentally new technique involving nuclear accelerators and, somewhat later, at Brookhaven where the standard decay counting technique was pared down in terms of sample size. `It occurred to me that the best procedure at this late date (samples may be removed around Easter) would be for you, if you were kind enough, to forward this copy of my letter and the enclosures to the U S Ambassador to the Vatican with a request that he bring to the attention of the Vatican Secretary of State the fact that this material had been sent directly to the pope. `I am sorry to trouble you with such an apparently inconsequential request but I feel that the Archbishop of Turin Cardinal Ballestrero is receiving incredibly bad advice from his science advisor Professor Gonella on the most credible way to date the Turin Shroud. Furthermore, it is unbelievable that the laboratories which invented this new technique not be permitted to be amongst those applying it to such an important artifact. The fact that they are both located in New York State emboldens me to bring the matter to your attention. Yours sincerely, H E Gove, Professor of Physics and Director"[31]
But again Gove was lying by concealing from Senator Moynihan the reasons (above) why Cardinal Ballestrero accepted the recommendation of his science advisor Prof. Luigi Gonella (1930–2007) that only the three AMS laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, would date the Shroud. It is not "unbelievable" but a non-sequitur that just because AMS was invented at Rochester and decay counting was improved at Brookhaven, that they should date the Shroud. In this Gove also concealed from Moynihan that the three chosen laboratories were more experienced in radiocarbon dating than Rochester and Brookhaven[33]. Finally Gove concealed from Moynihan that "the Vatican Secretary of State," Cardinal Agostino Casaroli (1914–98), was fully aware of and had explicitly approved by letter of 21 May 1987, Turin's decision to reduce the number of laboratories from seven to three (see 29Jun87), as Gove well-knew, it being in his book[34]!

Gove wrote to Arizona's Doug Donahue on 30 March asking for an invitation to be an observer at the first dating of the Shroud, so that, "After having played a significant role in getting the shroud to the point of being dated ... at least actually seeing the AMS technique applied to its most famous sample"[35].

In a letter to Nature of 7 April 1988, the coordinator of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating, the British Museum's Dr. Michael Tite [Right (original)[36].], gave the procedures that would be followed in dating the Shroud as agreed to at the 22 January meeting in London[37]. Tite's letter included:

"Of the seven original offers to undertake the dating of the Shroud, three have been accepted by Cardinal Ballestrero, Archbishop of Turin ... The radiocarbon laboratories concerned are at the University of Arizona, the University of Oxford and the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich ... Each laboratory will be provided with a sample from the shroud, together with two known-age control samples, one of which will have been independently dated by conventional radiocarbon dating. The shroud samples will be taken from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. In order to ensure that ample carbon for dating survives after pretreatment, the weight of each cloth sample (that is, shroud and controls) will be 40 mg. All the samples will be given to the laboratories as whole pieces of cloth without being unravelled or shredded. A blind test procedure will be adopted in that the three samples given to each laboratory will be labelled 1, 2 and 3 and the laboratories would not be told which sample comes from the shroud. Even if the samples were shredded, it would still be possible for a laboratory to distinguish the shroud sample from the others. It is therefore accepted that the blind test depends ultimately on the good faith of the laboratories"[38].
So even though "the laboratories would not be told which sample comes from the shroud" they would be able "to distinguish the shroud sample from the others" by the Shroud's distinctive weave (as had been

[Above (enlarge): Extract and rearrangement of photos of the Shroud's distinctive weave in the June 1980 issue of National Geographic[39].]

published in National Geographic - see above)! But there was no "good faith of the laboratories" in respect of the test being blind. They closely inspected the samples to discover which was from the Shroud, as Zurich did:

"The samples were photographed by normal and microphotography. By this time Wolfli and several others had a good look at the three. Anyone who knew the texture of the Shroud was aware which was from the relic. Wolfli joked: `All you would need is to look at the pictures in the National Geographic. It didn't take me long to know - Z1. Z1 and Z3 were both twill weave. Z2 was a tabby weave like mummy cloth. Unlike Z1, Z3 had irregular edges. Z1 was carefully trimmed piece as if to make absolutely certain it was an exact third. I could imagine the `code' for the three Shroud samples of the three labs as: A3 (Arizona); O2 (Oxford) and Z1 (Zurich)"[40].
As previously mentioned in 10Oct87, according my hacker theory, when the seven laboratories using two different methods had been reduced to three laboratories using the one AMS method, the alleged hacker, Arizona laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89),

[Above (enlarge): "Those present at the Arizona AMS carbon dating facility at 9:50 am on 6 May 1988 when the age of the shroud [sic] was determined"[43]. The alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is the one in a black shirt standing significantly most prominently in the foreground[44]. The 1989 Nature article in footnote 9 acknowledged that Linick wrote the paper which described in detail the AMS radiocarbon system at Arizona[45]. So it is significant that Linick is standing in front of his Arizona laboratory leaders and colleagues in this historic group photograph (taken by Gove who is not in it) of the very first "1350 AD" dating of the Shroud[46], because this is evidence that Linick was in charge of the actual AMS computerised dating process at Arizona laboratory and those present were acknowledging that. See also my 22Nov16 where Gove must have realised by September 1988 that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350 AD" date to David Sox (1936-2016), the further evidence of which is that Gove had `airbrushed' Linick out of his book but he couldn't take him out of this photograph!]

would have realised that it was feasible for him to write a program to be installed on the AMS computers at the three laboratories (which were effectively clones[47]), that would substitute the Shroud's actual carbon-14 dates with computer-generated dates, which would make the Shroud seem to date from just before it's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355[48]. Linick's hacker programing task would have been made easier by Tite's confirmation (above) that: 1) there would indeed be only "three ... radiocarbon laboratories ... Arizona, ... Oxford and ... Zurich"; 2) each laboratory would test "a sample from the shroud, together with two known-age control samples"; and 3) the test would not be "blind" because "Even if the samples were shredded, it would still be possible for a laboratory to distinguish the shroud sample from the others."

To be continued in the next part #10 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "STOP PRESS – AG Opinion in Huawei v ZTE published today," The CLIP Board, 20 November 2014. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 2009, "Obituary - Professor Harry Gove," BSTS Newsletter No. 69, June. [return]
4. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.246. [return]
5. Gove, 1996, p.249. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, p.84. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, p.241. [return]
8. Gove, 1996, pp.239-240. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.324. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, pp.244-246. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, p.246. [return]
12. "1988 22c Cats for sale at Mystic Stamp Company," Mystic Stamp Company, n.d.. [return]
13. Gove, 1996, p.248. [return]
14. Gove, 1996, p.236. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, pp.236, 241. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, p.85. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, p.236. [return]
18. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.86. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.241. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.242; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.56; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 39; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.51; Meacham, 2005, p.95. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.242. [return]
22. Gove, 1996, pp.283-284. [return]
23. Gove, 1996, pp.228-229. [return]
24. Gove, 1996, p.249. [return]
25. Gove, 1996, pp.228-229, 244-246. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, p.229. [return]
27. Gove, 1996, p.214. [return]
28. "Al D'Amato quote," 7 wallpapers, 2018. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, pp.229-230, 236, 242. [return]
30. Gove, 1996, p.246. [return]
31. Gove, 1996, p.249. [return]
33. Gove, 1996, pp.155-157. [return]
34. Gove, 1996, pp.193-194. [return]
35. Gove, 1996, p.250. [return]
36. "Michael S. Tite-2008 Pomerance Award for Scientific Contributions to Archaeology," Archaeological Institute of America, 2008. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.250. [return]
38. Tite, M.S., 1988, "Turin Shroud," Nature, Vol. 332, 7 April, p.482; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.53. [return]
39. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve ... The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, p.742. [return]
40. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, pp.137-138. [return]
43. Gove, 1996, p.176H. [return]
44. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E., 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
45. Linick, T.W., et al., 1986, "Operation of the NSF-Arizona accelerator facility for radioisotope analysis and results from selected collaborative research projects," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, No. 2a, pp.522-533. [return]
46. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
47. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178; Wilson, 2010, p.281. [return]
48. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.91; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.14, 30; Wilson, 1991, p.19; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127, 278; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.64; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.59; Oxley, 2010, pp.4, 49, 52, 73; Wilson, 2010, pp.221-222, 302; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.14, 51. [return]

Posted: 25 March 2018. Updated: 17 April 2018.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

11th-10th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (4): Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #12

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #12, "11th-10th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (4)," in my "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory," series. For more information about this series see part #1, "Hacking an explanation & Index." References "[A]", etc., will be to that part of my original post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: "12th-11th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (3)" #11] [Next: "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #1" #13]

[Above (enlarge): A Russian Orthodox cross, dated second half of the 12th century (i.e. 1150-1200), and therefore ~sixty years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[2]), in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia[3]. This shows the Russian Orthodox cross' unique footrest, or suppedaneum, which is inclined with the left side higher than the right. This matches the Shroud, in that the man's left leg, seems to be shorter than his right. See below. [A].]

Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Shroud hacker theory in my early 2014 posts (last three): "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1"; "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #2 (Vignon markings)"; "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #3." and now "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #4" combined with "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #5"

This post continues from my previous "... against the preponderance of the evidence (3)", and before that "... against the preponderance of the evidence (2), and "... against the preponderance of the evidence (1), which presented historical evidence for the Shroud's existence in the 13th-12th centuries. As I had previously explained, my purpose of documenting all this historical evidence of the Shroud's existence from long before the 13th century is to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[4] must be wrong. And then [since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic] the key questions would be (and are): 1. "How could the 1st century Shroud (absent fraud) carbon-date to the 13th-14th century?"; and 2. "How could the midpoint of that date range, 1325 ±65[5], `just happen' (absent fraud) to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355"?[6] Especially given that the unofficial leader of the Shroud carbon-dating project, Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009)[7], pointed out that the improbability of the Shroud being first century (which it is), yet its radiocarbon date was "between 1260 and 1390," is "about one in a thousand trillion"[8]).

c. 1001a The Russian Orthodox cross (late 10th-early 11th century)[9] has a footrest, or suppedaneum[10], which uniquely is inclined so that its left side is higher than its right[11] (see above). This matches the Shroud, in that the man on the Shroud's left leg appears to be shorter than his right[12]. This is

[Right (enlarge)[13]: The man on the Shroud's left leg (which looks to be his right because of mirror reversal[14]) appears to be shorter than his right.]

due to his left foot having been superimposed over his right[15], and both feet fixed by a single nail[16]. The man's left leg was therefore bent more and remained fixed in that position after death by rigor mortis[17] [see 02Dec13].

This presumably is the source of the 11th century Byzantine legend that Jesus actually had one leg shorter than the other and therefore was lame[18]. As this form of the cross is universal among the Russians[19] it must date from at least the beginning of the national conversion to Christianity, when missionaries in 988 came from Constantinople[20]. One of the oldest churches in Russia, the 10th-century Byzantine style Shoana Church[21], near Karachayevsk, Russia, has a Russian cross with an

[Left (enlarge): Russian cross atop the 10th-century Byzantine style Shoana Church, Russia. (For different views of the church and its cross see here).]

inclined footrest. This is probably not the original late 10th-early 11th century cross, but it is reasonable to assume that there was originally a Russian cross where the current cross is. And because its inclined footrest would have matched the apparently shorter right (but actually left) leg of the Shroud (see above), this is further evidence that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud is wrong! [B]

c. 1001b Closely related to the Russian cross is the "Byzantine curve"

[Left (enlarge): "Byzantine Crucifix of Pisa," ca. 1230[22]. Note that Christ's right leg (corresponding to the Shroud's left leg - see above) is shorter than the other leg and His body is curved (the "Byzantine curve"[23]) to compensate.]

in Byzantine Christian iconography[24]. After the year 1000, a striking change occurred in Byzantine depictions of Christ on the Cross[25]. Christ's two feet were nailed separately at the same level but his left leg is bent (based presumably on the Byzantines realising that the Shroud's image is laterally inverted) which meant that Jesus' body needed to curve to His right to compensate[26]. This "Byzantine curve" became the established form of Eastern depictions of Christ at the beginning of the eleventh century and made its way also into the West and became the recognized form in Italy in the early mediaeval period[27]. As with the strange design of the Russian cross, so this strange belief that Jesus had to have a curved body on the Shroud because one foot was shorter than the other and the Romans would have crucified Jesus' feet at the same level[28], has its most likely common origin in the Shroud[29]. But then again that means the Shroud was known in the Byzantine world (the centre of which was Constantinople), in the year 1000, nearly three centuries before 1260, the earliest possible radiocarbon date of the Shroud[30]! [C]

c. 1000 Tenth-century "Christ Enthroned" fresco on the apse of the church of Sant'Angelo in Formis, near Capua, Italy[31] has 14 out

[Above (enlarge): Christ's face part of a larger 10th century fresco in the church of St. Angelo in Formis, Capua, Italy[32].]

of the 15 Vignon markings found on the Shroud (see #10)[33], many of which are just incidental blemishes on the cloth[34]. These include:

"... a transverse line across the forehead, a raised right eyebrow, an upside-down triangle at the bridge of the nose, heavily delineated lower eyelids, a strongly accentuated left cheek, a strongly accentuated right cheek, and a hairless gap between the lower lip and beard ..."[35].

One of these, the upside-down triangle at the bridge of the nose (VM #3)[36] is particularly important because it has no

[Above (enlarge): Upside-down triangle at the bridge of the nose on the Shroud, just below the base of the `topless square'[37].]

logic as a natural feature of the face, yet it recurs on several other works, for example, the eleventh-century mosaic Pantocrator in the dome of the church at Daphni, near Athens (see #11), where, being a mosaic, pieces of black material have been specially selected and arranged into the shape of a triangle in convey it[38].

Significantly the upside-down triangle is on several early copies of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion, notably on the twelfth-century fresco at [Spas Nereditsa[49], but that was destroyed[40] in World War II[41]. However, other icons from the same place and time still exist, for example the twelfth century Christos Acheiropoietos ("not made with hands") that was in the Assumption Cathedral, Moscow but is now in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow (see below). That icon has, by

[Above (enlarge): Christ Acheiropoietos (not made with hands), ~1100 from the Assumption Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin, now in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow[42].]

my count, 12 out a possible 14 Vignon markings (since there is no throat for the transverse line across it, VM#13, to be depicted), including, as can be seen above VM#3, the upside-down triangle.

This is one of a few Image of Edessa/Mandylion icons which contain most of the 15 Vignon markings, and are, together with all the other evidence for it, prove that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion was the face panel of the tetradiplon ("four-doubled") Shroud (as we shall see below). This is more evidence that 10th century artists saw the Shroud[43], centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[44].] And, as we have seen and will see, this is but one in a family of Byzantine likenesses of Christ, from the thirteenth century to as far back as the sixth century[45]! [D]

c. 990 Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus[46], or Leo the Deacon (c. 950-)[47], was a deacon in the imperial palace at Constantinople[48]. After 992 he began writing a ten-volume history of the Byzantine empire, in Constantinople, but he died

[Right (enlarge): "The History of Leo the Deacon," Amazon.com[49].]

before he could finish it[50]. In his history [51], Leo wrote that the image of Jesus in the Abgar V (c. 4 BC-AD 50) story was imprinted on a peplos, a full-length robe[52]. This can only be the Shroud, in Constantinople, in the tenth century (see also below), nearly three centuries before 1260, the earliest radiocarbon date of the Shroud[53]! [E]

958 In 958, a year before he died, Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913-959)[54], sent a letter of encouragement to his troops who were campaigning around Tarsus[55], telling them that he was sending them holy water that had been

[Left (enlarge): "Christ Crowning Constantine VII (945)": A piece of carved ivory dated 945, in the Pushkin Museum, Moscow, depicting Christ having just crowned Emperor Constantine VII[56].]

consecrated by various relics of the Passion, including "the sindon which God wore"[57]. The actual Greek words are, theophoron sindonos, the "God-worn linen sheet"[58]. This is clear evidence that the sindon seen by Robert de Clari (c.1170-1216) in 1203 (see #8) was in the imperial relic collection by the mid-tenth century, a full 300 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[59]. Also, Constantine VII, who as we shall see, viewed up close the Image of Edessa on its arrival in Constantinople in 944 [see "944b"], did not mention it in his 958 letter, which is inexplicable unless it and the full-length burial shroud were one and the same[60]. [F]

c. 950 Mid-tenth century depiction of the Edessa cloth/Mandylion being held by Edessa's King Abgar V (4BC–AD50) after he had been handed it by the disciple

[Right (enlarge): Icon of Abgar V holding the Mandylion bearing an image of Christ, 10th century, Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai[61].]

Thaddeus (Addai), in this mid-tenth century encaustic (hot wax painting) icon at St. Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai[62]. Abgar's face is that of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913-959), as is evident from other works depicting him (see above)[63].

And the face of Jesus is in landscape aspect[64], confirming Ian Wilson's theory that the Edessa Cloth/Mandylion was the Shroud tetradiplon ("four-doubled") (see below)[65].

[Above (enlarge): Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin illustrated: The full-length Shroud of Turin (1), is doubled four times (2 through 5), resulting in Jesus' face within a rectangle, in landscape aspect (5), exactly as depicted in the earliest copies of the Image of Edessa, the 11th century Sakli church, Turkey (6) and the 10th century icon of King Abgar V of Edessa holding the Image of Edessa, St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai (7).[66][G].

c. 950b A tenth century fresco of the Edessa cloth is in the Saklı Kilise (Hidden Church) at Sakli, in the ancient Cappadocia, now Goreme

[Above (enlarge): Image of Edessa from wall-painting in the Sakli or 'Hidden' Church, Goreme[67].]

region of central Turkey[68], about halfway between ancient Edessa and Constantinople[69]. The church and its frescoes have escaped the Islamic destruction and neglect which has befallen almost everything Christian in Turkey[70], by it having only been discovered in 1957 after a landslide had blocked its entrance for about 500 years[71]. This Edessa cloth fresco is painted above an arch in the Sakli `Hidden' church[72] and despite damage to the face, its resemblance to the face of the Shroud is remarkable[73]. It has the same sepia-coloured, disembodied, rigidly frontal face as the Shroud[74], in landscape aspect cloth, strikingly resembling the equivalent area on the Turin Shroud[75]. Its shape may be evidence of the frame which held the Mandylion[76]. This mural dates no later than the mid-eleventh century, at least two centuries earlier than the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[78].[H]

c. 950c Codex Vossianus Latinus Q 69 is a tenth-century manuscript

[Above: "Vossianus Latinus Q69 is a tract dating to the 10th century that translates a probable 8th century Syriac text describing the Edessa cloth as containing a whole-body Christ image"[79].]

preserved at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands[80], mentions an eighth-century Syrian report that Jesus had left an imprint of his whole body on a cloth which was preserved in the big Church of Edessa, Turkey[81]. Adding to Jesus' legendary reply to Abgar V, the codex reads:

"...If you really want to see what my face looks like, I am sending you this linen cloth, on which you will be able to see not only the form of my face but the divinely transformed state of my whole body"[82].
This is an unmistakable reference to the Shroud[83] and reflects a changed understanding that the image was of the full body, not just the face[84]. And because of its Carolingian handwriting, the manuscript cannot date much later than the tenth century[85]. This supports Ordericus Vitalis 1130 variation of the Abgar story that, "...the Lord Jesus sent him [Abgar V] ... a beautiful linen cloth ... The image of the Saviour was miraculously imprinted on to it and shines out, displaying the form and size of the Lord's body..." (emphasis original)[86][I].

But these are only some of the "lot of other evidence" which "suggests ... that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow," as admitted even by Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Prof. Christopher Ramsey[Left[87].]:

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information"[88].[J]
To be continued in the next part #13 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.3; Wilson, I., 1996, "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, p.134; 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.125, 141; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.113; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.108. [return]
3. The Adoration of the Cross," Second half of the 12th century, "Christian Art: Icons, Murals, Mosaics," The Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia, 2 April 2014. [return]
4. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
5. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1, 141, 178, 246; Wilson, 1998, p.7; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.169; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.170; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.87. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.91; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.14, 30; Wilson, 1991, p.19; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127, 278; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.64; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.59; Oxley, 2010, pp.4, 49, 52, 73; Wilson, 2010, pp.221-222, 302; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.14, 51. [return]
7. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.95; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.192-193. [return]
8. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
9. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.65. [return]
10. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.47. [return]
11. Barnes, 1934, p.65. [return]
12. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.196; Tribbe, 2006, p.234. [return]
13. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical". [return]
14. Barnes, 1934, p.64. [return]
15. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.196; Tribbe, 2006, p.234. [return]
16. Barnes, 1934, p.64. [return]
17. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.196. [return]
18. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.195-196; Ruffin, 1999, p.111. [return]
19. Barnes, 1934, p.65. [return]
20. Barnes, 1934, pp.65-66. [return]
21. "Shoana Church," Wikipedia, 13 June 2017. [return]
22. "Byzantine Master of the Crucifix of Pisa," Wikipedia, 14 April 2017. [return]
23. Barnes, 1934, pp.67, 68; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1993, "Shrouded in Mystery," Shroud News, No 76, April, pp.14-21, 16; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.195-196. [return]
24. Barnes, 1934, p.66. [return]
25. Barnes, 1934, pp.66-67. [return]
26. Barnes, 1934, p.67. [return]
27. Barnes, 1934, pp.67-68. [return]
28. Barnes, 1934, p.68. [return]
29. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.195. [return]
30. See reference 2. [return]
31. Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
32. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.110A. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.102. [return]
34. Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
35. Wilson, 1991, p.165. [return]
46. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82e. [return]
37. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Face Only Vertical". [return]
38. Wilson, 1991, p.165. [return]
39. Ibid. [return]
40. Wilson, 1979, p.192f. [return]
41. "Saviour Church on Nereditsa," Wikipedia, 16 February 2018. [return]
42. "File:Christos Acheiropoietos.jpg," Wikipedia, 2 July 2008. [return]
43. Wilson, 1986, p.110A. [return]
44. See reference 2. [return]
45. Wilson, 1979, p.102. [return]
46. "Leo Diaconus," New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, 21 December 2017. [return]
47. "Leo the Deacon," 2013, Wikipedia, 20 December 2017. [return]
48. "Leo Diaconus," New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia,. [return]
49. Sullivan, D.F. & Talbot, A-M., eds, 2005, "The History of Leo the Deacon," Amazon.com. [return]
50. "Leo Diaconus," New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, 2017. [return]
51. Guscin, M., 2009, "The Image of Edessa," Brill: Leiden, Netherlands & Boston MA, p.161. [return]
52. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.39; Wilson, 1998, p.152; Antonacci, 2000, p.132; Sullivan & Talbot, 2005, p.121; Oxley, 2010, p.36; de Wesselow, 2012, p.383. [return]
53. See reference 2. [return]
54. "Constantine VII," Wikipedia, 6 February 2018. [return]
55. Wilson, 1991, p.153; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.257; Wilson, 2010, pp.168-169. [return]
56. Constantine VII, Wikipedia. [return]
57. Wilson, 1991, p.153; Whiting, 2006, p.257; Wilson, 2010, p.169. [return]
58. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.177-178. [return]
59. de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. See also reference 2. [return]
60. Wilson, 1991, pp.153-154; Whiting, 2006, p.257; Wilson, 2010, p.169. [return]
61. "Abgar V," Wikipedia, 16 March 2018. [return]
62. Wilson, 1986, p.110E. [return]
63. Wilson, 1979, p.155; Whanger, A.D. in Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 304. [return]
64. Wilson, 1979, pp.119-120; Wilson, 1986, pp.111-113; Wilson, 1991, pp.141-143; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 35; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.104-105; Wilson, 1998, pp.151-153; Antonacci, 2000, p.132; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.110-111; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.186-187; Wilson, 2010, p.140-141. [return]
65. Wilson, 1998, p.152. [return]
66. Jones, S.E., 2012, "Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin," Blog post, September 15. [return]
67. Wilson, 2010, p.210F. [return]
68. Scavone, 1989, p.75. [return]
69. Wilson, 1998, p.151. [return]
70. Wilson, 1998, p.112. [return]
71. Wilson, 2010, p.172. [return]
72. Wilson, 1998, p.151. [return]
73. Ibid. [return]
74. Ibid. [return]
75. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.109. [return]
76. Scavone, 1989, p.75. [return]
78. Wilson, 2010, p.112. See also reference 2. [return]
79. Long, J., 2013, "The Shroud of Turin's Earlier History: Part Two: To the Great City," Associates for Biblical Research, March 20. [return]
80. Wilson, 2010, p.177. [return]
81. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.250-251. [return]
82. Guscin, 2009, p.207. [return]
83. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.251. [return]
84. Wilson, 2010, p.177. [return]
85. Ibid. [return]
86. Ibid. [return]
87. Prof. Christopher Ramsey, Merton College, Oxford, n.d.. [return]
88. Ramsey, C.B., 2009, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 17 July. [return]

Posted: 18 March 2018. Updated: 2 April 2018.