Wednesday, July 19, 2017

"Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud," Shroud of Turin News, June 2017

Shroud of Turin News - June 2017
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: June 2017, part #1] [Next: July 2017, part #1]

This is the third installment of part #2 of the June 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Footnotes have been omitted. Typos have been corrected. The article's words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

Carlino, E, De Caro, L, Giannini, C, & Fanti, G., 2017, "Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud," PLoS ONE, 12(6), June 30.

Abstract. We performed reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine bounded with small nanoparticles of iron oxide. The kind, size and distribution of the iron oxide nanoparticles cannot be dye for painting but are ferrihydrate cores of ferritin. The consistent bound of ferritin iron to creatinine occurs in human organism in case of a severe polytrauma. Our results point out that at the nanoscale a scenario of violence is recorded in the funeral fabric and suggest an explanation for some contradictory results so far published.

[Above (original): Extract of Fig 1: Low-magnification, light microscopy image of a fibre from the Shroud, the arrows indicate some of the blood particles on the surface of the fibre.]

This discovery of particles of "creatinine ... an important indicator of renal health[2]," in the Shroud man's blood, has been reported in many news articles, including: "Shroud, new study: there is blood of a man tortured and killed," Vatican Insider, Andrea Tornielli, 11 July 2017; "New research: Shroud of Turin bears blood of a torture victim," Catholic News Agency, Turin, Italy, July 14, 2017; "Experts in HUGE Turin Shroud discovery – is this proof at last Jesus WAS wrapped in cloth?," Daily Express, Joey Millar, July 17, 2017; "Turin Shroud is stained with the blood of a torture victim, new research shows - supporting the belief that it DOES show the face of Jesus," Daily Mail, Jay Akbar, 18 July 2017; "The Shroud of Turin is stained with the blood of a torture victim, a new study claims," The Sun, July 18, 2017. I will comment on some of them in July's Shroud of Turin News. Not only is creatinine in the man on the Shroud's blood: 1) an indicator that he was a real man, not a painting; 2) his blood is real blood, not paint or pigment; 3) he had been subject to trauma, as a crucifixion victim, including Jesus, would have been; and 4) a medieval forger would have known nothing about creatinine, which was only discovered in 1832[2].

But if the image of the man on the Shroud is not "a product of human artifice" then leading Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman and Joe Nickell (who quoted Schafersman approvingly) have admitted that "the image is that of Jesus" and there is no "possible third hypothesis":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[3] and Stevenson and Habermas[4] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[5]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus'[6]."

Introduction. The Turin Shroud (TS) is a handmade 3–1 twill linen cloth, 4.4 m long and 1.1 m wide, showing the double image of a dead body of a scourged, thorn-crowned man who was stabbed in the side and crucified. It is believed by many that it was the burial cloth in which Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped about 2000 years ago. Conversely, others think that it is a fake. However, the TS image has not been explained nor reproduced so far by science, although some hypotheses have been proposed. There are some indications that the TS was in Palestine in the first century A.D. and then taken to Edessa, now Sanliurfa (TR). The similarity of many details of the TS face with the Christ on Byzantine coins in use from the VII century A.D. is a clue that the TS were already known during the Byzantine Empire" is After the sack of Constantinople in 1204 the "Shroud of Christ" appeared in Europe in 1353 at Lirey (F) and in 1532 at Chambéry (F) where it was fire damaged. It was taken to Turin in 1578 where it is still now.

In the article, "The similarity of many details of the TS face with the Christ on Byzantine coins in use from the VII century A.D." (above) is referenced by footnote "[3]." That footnote refers to the book, Fanti G & Malfi P., "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford, Singapore, 2015. That book has an entire chapter, "3. Numismatic Investigation" (pages 81-140), with photographs of a great many Byzantine coins each with a Shroud-like face of Christ. One of these (see below) is a gold solidus coin minted in 692 during the reign of Byzantium Emperor Justinian II (685-695, 705-711).

[Above (enlarge): "Gold solidus of ... the first period of Emperor Justinian II, minted in 692, depicting a Shroud-like face of Christ ... we find ourselves in front of a Shroud-like face of Christ. Shroud resemblances of this face" include "the swelling on the cheeks caused by the suffered blows, the asymmetrical tear on the right side beard, and the asymmetrical hair shape."[7].]

In 1988 the linen fabric of the TS was radiocarbon dated to the Middle Ages. This result is considered wrong by some authors claiming the presence of systematic errors. Another work indicated an age for the TS "between 1300-and 3000-years old." A mechanical analysis coupled with opto-chemical measurements has recently dated the TS to 90 AD ±200 years.

There may well have been "systematic errors" in the 1988 Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, but that does not explain how the radiocarbon date of the authentic first century Shroud could be shifted 12-13 centuries into the future to not just any date, but to 1269-1390, the mid-point of which, 1325 ± `just happens' to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c. 1355. But my theory that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking does explain it.

The "work [which] indicated an age for the TS "between 1300-and 3000-years old" with the footnote "[9]" was the 2005 paper by STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005), in the peer-reviewed journal Thermochimica Acta, in which Rogers reported that the vanillin content of the Shroud's linen was too low (i.e. undetectable) for it to have been harvested between 1260-1390:

"In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between A.D. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin ... Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses ... The lignin at growth nodes on the shroud’s flax fibers ... did not give the usual chemical spot test ... for vanillin ... The Holland cloth and other medieval linens gave a clear test. This suggested that the rate of loss of vanillin from lignin could offer a method for estimating the age of the shroud ... If the shroud had been produced between A.D. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported ... Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test, the [Shroud] cloth must be quite old. It is thus very unlikely that the [Shroud] linen was produced during medieval times ... The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old[8]."
This was the subject of a 2005 BBC news article:
"The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal. A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. The author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake ... Raymond Rogers ... is a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, US ... In the study, he analysed and compared the sample used in the 1988 tests with other samples from the famous cloth ... microchemical tests - which use tiny quantities of materials - provided a way to date the shroud. These tests revealed the presence of a chemical called vanillin in the radiocarbon sample and in the Holland cloth, but not the rest of the shroud. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a chemical compound found in plant material such as flax. Levels of vanillin in material such as linen fall over time ... The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibres, Dead Sea scrolls linen and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old," Mr Rogers writes. `A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.'[9]."

To be continued in the fourth installment of this part #2 of my June 2017 Shroud of Turin News.


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. "Creatinine," Wikipedia, 10 July 2017. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
4. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.121-129. [return]
5. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
6. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42; in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
7. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, pp.86. [return]
8. Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, 425, pp.189–194. [return]
9. "Turin shroud 'older than thought," BBC, 31 January, 2005. [return]

Posted: 19 July 2017. Updated: 21 July 2017.

Friday, July 7, 2017

c.15 June 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #4, "c.15 June 1987," 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, Index. As explained in part #1, the first few significant days 30 years ago have already passed but I will catch up and thereafter publish each day's post as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 06May87 #3] [Next: 29Jun87 #5]

Background Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the unofficial leader of the radiocarbon dating laboratories, recorded in his 1996 book, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," he had been told that in the Italian newspaper La Stampa of 27 April 1987, Prof. Luigi Gonella (1930-2007), the Archbishop of Turin's scientific adviser, had said that only two or three laboratories would be involved in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, not seven as had been agreed at a Turin workshop of October 1986. Gove, an anti-Christian agnostic, was also troubled that the predominantly (but not exclusively) Christian Shroud of Turin Project (STURP) would conduct its own scientific tests on the Shroud in conjunction with the radiocarbon dating [27Apr87]. Gove, realising that due to his clashes with Gonella, his Rochester laboratory would not be one of the two or three laboratories chosen to date the Shroud, sent a telegram on 6 May 1987, with a letter to follow, to the heads of the six other laboratories and Dr Tite of the British Museum. The joint letter would be delivered to the President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Prof. Carlos Chagas Filho (1910- 2000) [Right [2]]. In the telegram Gove stated, "If the Turin workshop agreement is not followed to the letter, I am no longer willing to be involved ..." and his following letter demanded that, "... all seven laboratories must be involved in the tests" and that "... two or three laboratories ... so directly contravenes the Turin workshop agreement that it could severely jeopardize the carbon dating enterprise." But two of the six other laboratories, the non-AMS Harwell and Brookhaven, declined to allow their names to be used in Gove's letter, which was sent to Prof. Chagas on 11 May 1987 [06May87].

c. 15 June 1987 On 19 May Gove had met with Prof. Chagas in Boston [3], and received from him a `these things take time' explanation to Gove's question as to why there had been a delay since the Turin Workshop of October 1986 in dating the Shroud[4]. Chagas also told Gove that the Pope had given the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero (1913-1998), the "complete right to make decisions regarding the Shroud tests"[5]. Following Gove's meeting with Chagas almost another month passed and still there was no decision on dating the Shroud, which Gove in his anti-STURP paranoia, put down to:

"Clearly it was due to STURP's implacable desire to be part of the process"[5].
Gove's anti-Christian bias is evident in that it was not STURP's tests that Gove objected to but that they would be "part of the process"!

In his "frustration and annoyance"[6], Gove wrote:

"I decided to write a firm letter to Professor Chagas, which I sent to Canuto in mid-June. He had agreed to deliver it when he met Chagas in Rome in a couple of days"[7].
"Canuto" is Dr Vittorio Canuto, an astrophysicist at the NASA Institute

[Left: Astrophysicist Dr. Vittorio M. Canuto, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies[8].]

for Space Studies in New York City, was a scientific aide of Prof. Chagas[9].

Gove continued:

"In the letter, I sharply criticized the way in which the Turin authorities had handled matters concerning the shroud in the past and the way they were continuing to mishandle them[10]."
The egotistical Gove[11] is blind to his own part in creating difficulties for the Turin authorities in arranging the Shroud's radiocarbon dating by (as we shall see) his campaign to exclude STURP from the testing altogether and his attempt to get Rome to override Turin. Gove's "mid-June" letter to Chagas continued:
"I noted that the shroud had been subjected to a number of scientific tests of dubious value carried out in ill conceived ways by scientists of unknown reputation[12]."
This is both "untrue and unsubstantiated"[13]. In fact "the STURP members came from some of the most prestigious U.S. institutions, including Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia Laboratory, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Air Force Academy and others, most of which were and are involved in the U.S.' nuclear and space programs"[14]. And what's more they knew vastly more about the Shroud than Gove and the other members of the radiocarbon dating laboratories.

Gove continues with his "untrue and unsubstantiated" dismissal of past Shroud pro-authenticity research:

"First was the investigation by Professor Gilbert Raes of shroud samples removed in 1973. Not only were his discoveries of minimal significance, but his care of the samples and their subsequent control by Turin was so careless that the samples were judged not to be suitable for carbon dating[15]."
This is both false and unfair. It is false beause Raes was a textile expert and his discoveries about the Shroud as a textile were significant. Indeed Gove himself mentions one:
"His examination of the samples under an electron microscope convinced Raes that there were trace amounts of Egyptian cotton present in the predominant linen of the shroud. This could constitute evidence that the shroud was woven on a loom in the Near East previously used to weave cotton[16]."
And it is unfair because as the Foreword to Gove's book states, before the invention in 1977 by Gove and others of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating, it was not feasible to radiocarbon date the Shroud because the amount of cloth required to be destroyed was unacceptably high[17]. To expect a textile expert in 1973 to make provision for the future radiocarbon dating of his Shroud samples by a method that hadn't yet been invented, is just one example in his book of Gove's extreme and unscientific prejudice against the authenticity of the Shroud!

Besides, as Gove's own book states, Raes "stored the samples in a stamp box in his desk"[18]. So if that made them "not ... suitable for carbon dating," then how much more was the eventual radiocarbon dating sample "not ... suitable for carbon dating," when "hundreds of depictions of the Shroud being held up before the crowds during past centuries" shows the Shroud being held at that very same corner (see below) from which the radiocarbon dating sample was cut, resulting in

[Above (enlarge): "Ostension of the Holy Shroud" (1579) engraving by Carlo Malliano of the 1578 Exposition of the Shroud in Turin[19]. The radiocarbon dating sample came from the top left hand corner being held by a cleric's "sweaty hands".]

a cumulative "contamination from hundreds of sweaty hands at this corner"[20] of the Shroud!

Gove in his letter to Chagas next vented his "frustration and annoyance" at STURP:

"This was followed in 1978 by the STURP tests carried out by people who were already convinced they were dealing with Christ's shroud"[21]
This is simply false. Members of STURP included not only Christians but also Jews and agnostics:
"FOR THE PAST three years, this case of identity has absorbed the spare time of the thirty men and women associated with the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc. (STURP). With respect to the hereafter the group is an ecumenical one — among its members are Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, Episcopalians, Jews, Roman Catholics, and agnostics ..." (emphasis original)[22].
And even most of the Christians were not initially convinced that the Shroud was Christ's. In fact the initial attitude of many (if not most) members of STURP, including the Christians, was skepticism as expressed by the late Ray Rogers (1927–2005):
"The attitude of many of these scientists toward the central question posed by the Shroud of Turin-is it real or isn't it?-was well expressed by Ray Rogers when he joined the team: `Give me twenty minutes and I'll have this thing shot full of holes'"[23].
That initial scepticism included Ken Stevenson who became STURP's most outspokenly Christian member[24]:
"Like many who have studied the Shroud, the authors were initially skeptical of it. Stevenson first heard about it while a cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy. He later returned to the Academy to teach on its faculty. Studies of the Shroud by his friends at the Academy persuaded him to examine the facts carefully and eventually drew him into the Shroud of Turin Research Project."[25].
Besides, since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic, it is Gove's naturalistic (nature is all there is, there is no supernatural) starting point, and its corollary, that they were not dealing with Christ's Shroud, which requires justification!

Gove's "untrue and unsubstantiated" attack on STURP continued:

"Not only did these measurements yield negligibly significant results, but they subjected the shroud to a number of intrusive stresses."
These are both false. Among STURP's highly "significant results," were: 1) the Shroud is not a painting; 2) the image is a physical change of the linen fibrils (i.e. dehydration, oxidation and conjugation); 3) the Shroud had covered a real human body; 4) the blood is real human blood; 5) the image is three-dimensional; and 6) no known naturalistic process or combination of processes can account for the totality of the image:
"A Summary of STURP's Conclusions ... No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils [that constitutes the image]. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography... The scientific concensus [sic] is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately[26]."
Since Gove must have known this, his anti-Christian prejudice directed at STURP had evidently overridden his scientific objectivity in this matter. And as for Gove's unsubstantiated claim that STURP had "subjected the shroud to a number of intrusive stresses," to give one example of the lengths to which STURP went to minimise stress to the Shroud, instead of using metal tacks to secure the Shroud as past expositions had done, STURP in their 1978 examination of the Shroud used magnets to position the cloth on their own stainless steel examination table[27].

"Gove's incredible letter continued..."[28]:

"I stated that almost every aspect of the STURP organization was distasteful to many other scientists. This included their clear religious zeal, their questionable sources of support, their military mind set and, last but not least, their assumption that the Turin Shroud was their property as self-appointed investigators of its origins and properties."
Gove the agnostic[29] anti-Christian (see above) forgets that he is writing to a representative of a Christian church, criticising STURP for allegedly having "religious zeal"! Since many (if not most) scientists are atheist/agnostics[30], it would not be surprising if those who knew about STURP would find their taking the Shroud seriously as the very burial sheet of Jesus (rather than rejecting it out of hand), as "distasteful." But so what? Since when has personal "distaste" been a scientific criterion to exclude qualified scientists from carrying out a scientific investigation?

It is not clear what Gove meant by STURP's, "questionable sources of support." But whatever Gove meant, there was nothing "questionable" about STURP. Everything STURP did was at the highest scientific and ethical plane. All STURP's scientific findings were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals[31]. And as for ethics, Gove's `snake in the grass,' undermining of STURP, without STURP's knowledge so it could respond was highly unethical:
"Until Gove's book was published in 1996, STURP scientists were at a complete loss to explain their elimination from the testing and dating of the Shroud or to explain fully the controversy surrounding the removal and dating of the Shroud sample. Gove's book supplied many answers. From the beginning of STURP's carbon dating efforts in 1979 until the publication of Gove's book in 1996, STURP scientists were unaware of Gove's deep-seated animosity toward them and of his efforts behind the scenes to eliminate them[32]"
Gove personal distaste of STURP having a "military mind set" is actually a backhanded compliment! STURP's founding members John Jackson and Eric Jumper were US Air Force officers as well as scientists[33]. And if it were not for their military-trained planning and and organisation, the transporting of STURP's eight tons of equipment[35] [Right (enlarge)[36].] and over 30 team members[37] to Turin in October 1978, to carry out 120 hours of round-the-clock examination of the Shroud[38], would not have happened.

As for Gove's "their [STURP'S] assumption that the Turin Shroud was their property as self-appointed investigators of its origins and properties," it is self-evidently false that STURP assumed that the Shroud was its property. And the fact is that STURP was appointed by the Archbishop of Turin in 1978 to investigate the Shroud, and STURP had submitted a proposal to the Archbishop of Turin to carry out further tests in conjunction with the radiocarbon dating, and that proposal was under active consideration. Indeed if anyone was self-appointed and considered the Shroud to be his property, it was Gove! Who appointed him? On what authority did Gove write his letter to Chagas, threatening that, "if STURP participates in the carbon dating enterprise in any way" he would "guarantee" the withdrawal of all the laboratories from the Shroud's radiocarbon dating?

Gove in his letter to Chagas then made "comments and suggestions" that even he realised were "presumptuous":

"Now, however, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, under Chagas, had a chance to change all this. I went on to make some comments and suggestions noting that, in so doing, Chagas might consider me presumptuous. Among these were the following: 1. Without the continued leadership of Chagas as president of the Pontifical Academy, the present carbon dating consortium would probably become disenchanted and withdraw their participation[39]."
This is tantamount to blackmail by Gove, but there is no evidence that the other laboratories cared whether or not Chagas and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences were in control of the dating. And in fact when it was announced by Turin Archbishop Cardinal Ballestrero on 10 October 1987, "that only the Oxford, Arizona and Zurich laboratories would take part in the testing" and "that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (and thereby Professor Chagas), should have no further part in the project"[40], the three chosen laboratories had no problem with that.

Continuing with Gove's point "1." above:

"This action would be guaranteed if STURP participates in the carbon dating enterprise in any way[41]."
So such was Gove's anti-Christian animosity (if not hatred) towards STURP that if it participated in the carbon dating "in any way," Gove would try to get the laboratories to "withdraw their participation" in the carbon dating! Again, it is unlikely that the laboratories would have agreed with Gove's ultimatum. Turin's eventual cancellation of STURP's proposed tests was presumably nothing to do with Gove's threats but, consistent with the reduction from seven laboratories to three, a need to assert control over the entire testing which had grown too large and complex.

Gove's remaining points "2" to "4" are a rag-bag of his personal complaints about STURP that, even if they were true, were comparatively trivial:

"2. If the delays in carrying out the carbon dating were sudden concerns for conservation, then conservation experts should be contacted by the Pontifical Academy and not by STURP. 3. At the American Chemical Society meeting in Denver, it was stated that shroud samples would be removed from behind the patches for stable isotope ratio measurements by STURP. Such measurements would tell whether the flax from which the shroud linen was made was grown in a climate that was warm or cold, wet or dry! I described this, quite charitably, as outrageous nonsense and asked whether there was nothing that could be done to hold STURP in check. 4. I also reminded Chagas of the pressure STURP representatives had subjected Madame Flury-Lemberg to at the time of the Turin workshop and, exaggeratedly, compared it to the Spanish Inquisition. I noted that Madame Flury-Lemberg was a gentle person quite unschooled in dealing with people like Mr Lukasik and his colleagues like the Reverend Dr Dinegar. I observed that the STURP members had been extremely discourteous to Madame Flury-Lemberg and had pressured her unduly. I had hoped the involvement of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences under Chagas' leadership would bring a proper degree of international scientific dispassion and integrity to the scientific endeavours to solve the mystery of the Turin Shroud. So far it had not because, clearly, he was unable to control the antics of STURP."
It is further evidence of Gove's blindness to his own attitude towards STURP that he sees no contradiction in comparing STURP with "the Spanish Inquisition" and his claim to, unlike STURP, possess "scientific dispassion"!

Gove concluded his account of his letter to Chagas with, "I never received any reply from Professor Chagas nor any indication of how he reacted to it":

"One would be amused by the whole farce if one did not feel so saddened by the consequences STURP's activities would have in elucidating the mystery of the most important relic or icon — whichever it turned out to be — in the Christian world. "In conclusion, although I am sure all of us who will be directly involved in the carbon dating hope the shroud will be subjected only to sensible and prudent scientific examination and testing, there is nothing we can do about whatever activities are being planned by STURP. What is in our power, however, is to ensure that STURP plays no role in carbon dating. STURP is nowhere mentioned in the Turin Workshop Protocol. We count on you to ensure that at least this one measurement will be carried out in a credible way without being tainted by STURP. After a sample is removed for carbon dating STURP can carry out any measurement they wish, however frivolous, as far as I am concerned." It was a tough letter — not couched in diplomatic niceties — but it reflected the frustration and annoyance I felt at the way things were going. I never received any reply from Professor Chagas nor any indication of how he reacted to it. By then he may have realized, as I did not at the time, that his boss, the pope, had cut him out of the action."
Presumably Prof. Chagas, who "was deeply religious and sought to reconcile science and religion as best as possible"[42] would have been deeply disappointed with Gove's extremely (if not fanatically) antagonistic attitude towards STURP, as revealed in his letter. Indeed, if the decision had not already been made (see next 29Jun87) it may well have led to Chagas recommending to the Pope that, to minimise further conflict, neither Gove, nor STURP, nor even the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, be involved in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating!

To be continued in the next part #5 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. "Carlos Chagas Filho," Academia Brasileira de Ciências, n.d. [return]
3. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.190. [return]
4. Gove, 1996, p.191. [return]
5. Ibid. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, p.193. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, p.191. [return]
8. "Speech by Vittorio Canuto, Session III," YouTube, October 11, 2011. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.84. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.191. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 1997, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 45, June/July; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.164. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, pp.191-192. [return]
13. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.199. [return]
14. Marino, J.G., 2016, "The Politics of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud," Part I: Pre-April 21st, 1988, p.8. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.192. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, p.6. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, pp.ix, 7. [return]
18. Gove, 1996, p.6. [return]
19. "Books," Geocities, October, 2009. [return]
20. 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.192, 227. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.192. [return]
22. Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous-the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-65, 43. [return]
23. Murphy, 1981, p.44. [return]
24. Morgan, R.H., 1982, "Legal Action in USA," Shroud News, No 11, p.5. [return]
25. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.9. [return]
26. "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October 1981, Shroud.com. [return]
27. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.33; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.132. [return]
28. Antonacci, 2000, p.200. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, p.101; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.9. [return]
30. Masci, D., 2009, "Scientists and Belief," Pew Research Center, November 5. [return]
31. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.184-185; Antonacci, 2000, p.234. [return]
32. Antonacci, 2000, p.196. [return]
33. Murphy, 1981, p.43; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.93; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 22; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.8, 33; Wilson, 1998, pp.26-27; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.60; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.202. [return]
35. Antonacci, 2000, p.47; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.67-68.; Tribbe, 2006, p.132; Oxley, 2010, pp.209, 212. [return]
36. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.67. [return]
37. Guerrera, 2001, p.60. [return]
38. Heller, 1983, pp.117, 201; Antonacci, 2000, p.234; Borkan, 1995, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.194; Guerrera, 2001, p.60; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.23. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.192. [return]
40. Wilson, 1998, p.183. [return]
41. Gove, 1996, p.192. [return]
42. "Carlos Chagas Filho: Scientific leadership and honours," Wikipedia, 30 June 2017. [return]

Posted: 7 July 2017. Updated: 20 July 2017.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, June 2017

Shroud of Turin News - June 2017
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: May 2017, part #1] [Next: June 2017, part #2]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the June 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I may comment on Shroud-related June 2017 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. I have listed some linked articles about the Shroud in June as a service to readers, without necessarily commenting on them. If I do comment on an article in a separate Shroud of Turin News post, I will add after it "- see Month year, part #n".

Contents:
Editorial
Longenecker, D., 2017, "The Shroud of Turin and the Facts," National Catholic Register, June 23, 2017.
Carlino, E, De Caro, L, Giannini, C, & Fanti, G., 2017, "Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud," PLoS ONE, 12(6), June 30. [see 19Jul17]


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 June up to issue #79, October 1993 [Right (enlarge)], i.e 67% completed. Issues in that archive are now up to #76, April 1993.

Tenth anniversary On 30 June 2017 it was this blog's tenth anniversary. On 30 June 2007 I published my first post here, "Introduction to my The Shroud of Turin (TSoT) blog!" [Left: "MN Community Measurement"] My thanks to Jesus, the Man on the Shroud!

Posts: In June I blogged 4 new posts (latest uppermost): "Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #8" - 21st; "6 May 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" - 19th; "Real human blood #23: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 3rd; "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, May 2017 - 2nd. I am going to post several each month of the "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud" series until I catch up with the actual 30th anniversary of each post.

Updates in the background. In my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present: 1st century and Index," I originally wrote, "To save space I won't normally have references but rely mostly on links." But in later centuries I started footnoting references. So to be consistent I have started footnoting the 1st century page and will do the same for later centuries until I reach the century where I started footnoting.

Comments: In June I published a comment from a Kyle Wright:

"I recently reading about the Sudarium of Oviedo and noticed that it is almost universally accepted that the radiocarbon dating tests performed on it were inaccurate. I have been able to find very little information on it besides that. Do you have an opinion on the accuracy of this test and do you think its inaccuracy has any bearing on your theories regarding the carbon dating of the Shroud?"
I responded:
"It wasn't that it was `inaccurate' but according to the then Director of the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory, Paul Damon, "the dating was never carried out." See my post 28Jul12 (words in bold are the Shroud sceptic Charles Freeman's):
Freeman continues to mislead his readers by selectively concealing from them relevant information in his claim that the Sudarium has had "a radiocarbon-14 dating apparently of c. 700 AD":"

Those trying to assess the authenticity of the Sudarium of Oviedo have to contend with a radiocarbon-14 dating apparently of c. 700 AD."

But Freeman's claim is misleading (and what's more, since he surely must have read Guscin's book, he knows it is misleading) that "the Sudarium of Oviedo "had ... a radiocarbon-14 dating ... of c. 700 AD." What Freeman does not tell his readers is that Guscin went into this very thoroughly in his book, detailing his correspondence with the Tucson Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory, and he concluded:

"The only conclusion that can be drawn from this, and the Tucson laboratory would seem to agree, is that the whole affair was something of a shambles. Mr Jull ends his fax to me offering to carry out a serious radiocarbon dating on a sample of interest. The samples were not taken with permission for radiocarbon dating, and had presumably been taken by Monsignor Ricci about 15 years before being sent to Tucson. When sent, insufficient provenance information accompanied them; one of the samples was even stated to be 11th century. Paul Damon says the dating was never carried out, and in the results sent to Italy the sample numbers do not coincide. The laboratory suggests a serious experiment. Taking all this into account, the supposed results of the carbon dating of the sudarium can safely be ignored." ([Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK,] pp.83-84).

>Do you have an opinion on the accuracy of this test ...

See above that there was no test, or if there was one, it was so flawed that the Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory has disowned it.

But in general, if a radiocarbon date disagreed with other historical information (e.g. the Sudarium of Oviedo left Jerusalem in AD 614 - see my 24Jan17) then it is the radiocarbon date that is wrong, presumably due to contamination with younger carbon.

>and do you think its inaccuracy has any bearing on your theories regarding the carbon dating of the Shroud?

This is particularly so with the Shroud. The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic and the laboratories and Nature should have taken that into account. It is a form of scientific fraud to state the result of a scientific test without acknowledging the evidence against your result.

The standard of scientific honesty that all scientists, including those involved in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, should adhere to is that set by the late Professor of Physics at Caltech, Richard P. Feynman (1918–1988) (my emphasis):

"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, And how they worked-to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can-if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it ... the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another ... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist." (Feynman, R.P., 1985, "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!," Unwin Paperbacks: London, Reprinted, 1990, pp.340-343)

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, in June I blogged only one post about my hacker theory: "Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #8."

My book: I have decided to first write a dot-point outline of my book, The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus! (see 09May17). I am writing this outline mostly `off the top of my head' on my smartphone in Gmail and then emailing it to my computer. This may seem strange but I spend a lot of time away from home taking my wife, who has MS, to doctor and physiotherapy appointments, etc, so in this way I am "making the best use of the time" (Eph 5:1). I have made good progress since 9 June when I started the outline. I have resolved to only start writing the book proper (which at this stage will be a free PDF first edition), when I have fully completed this outline and can think of no other topic to be in this first edition of the book.

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 June, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)]gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 764,259. This compares with 544,771 (up 219,488 or 40.3%) from the same time in June 2016. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'," Apr 19, 2017 - 209; "X-rays #22: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Apr 20, 2017 - 142; "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Ninth century" Mar 25, 2017 - 141; "Dr Jull's and Prof. Ramsey's prompt, misleading and false replies: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #7" - May 10, 2017 - 115; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified.," Dec 2, 2013 - 113. As can be seen from the graph, pageviews peaked in the middle of the month and then settled down again.


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: 6 July 2017. Updated: 19 July 2017.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (1): Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #8

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #8, "Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (1)," 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: Dr Jull's and Prof. Ramsey's prompt, misleading and false replies #7] [Next: "Timothy W. Linick and Karl Koch" #9]

Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Shroud hacker theory in my early 2014 posts: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)," "(2)," "(3)," "Summary," "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey," and now "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #1".

The Shroud was radiocarbon dated to 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 On 13 October 1988 it was announced by the British Museum's Dr M. Tite, Oxford's Prof. E. Hall and Dr R. Hedges at a press conference in the British Museum, London, and simultaneously in Turin by Archbishop Ballestrero, that three radiocarbon dating laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, had radiocarbon-dated the Shroud of Turin as 1260-1390!"(See part #6)[2]. Then on 16 February 1989 the science journal Nature reported that:

"... samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[3].
The midpoint of 1206-1390 is 1325 ±65 years[4], which is only ~30

[Above (enlarge): Pilgrim's badge[5] from the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France in c.1355[6].]

years before the Shroud was first exhibited in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c. 1355[7].[A]

Against the preponderance of the evidence (1) This was against the preponderance of the evidence[8], including historical evidence (see following in reverse chronological order) that the Shroud existed many centuries before 1260, the earliest possible radiocarbon date[9].

c. 1225 Around 1225 the frescoes in the 12th century[10] chapel of the Holy Sepulchre in Winchester Cathedral, England, were repainted[11]. In the deposition scene of Jesus having been taken down from the

[Above (enlarge): Deposition fresco in Holy Sepulchre Chapel, Winchester Cathedral[12]. Note the double body length shroud about to be placed over Jesus, in a fresco painted in at least 1225, 35 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!]

cross by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, the unknown artist painted behind St John and Nicodemus a fourth man carrying a double-length shroud, intended to go over Jesus's head, body and down to his feet, exactly as the Shroud does[13].[B]

c. 1212 Gervase of Tilbury (c.1150 – c.1228), a widely travelled thirteenth century, English born but Rome-educated[14], canon lawyer, statesman and writer[15], referring in his Otia Imperialia which was written between 1210 and 1214[16], to the story of the cloth upon which Jesus had impressed an image of His face and sent it to King Abgar V of Edessa, added that:

"... it is handed down from archives of ancient authority that the Lord prostrated himself full length on most white linen, and so by divine power the most beautiful likeness not only of the face, but also of the whole body of the Lord was impressed upon the cloth"[17].
This is one of a number (see Ordericus Vitalis below) of altered versions of the Abgar story which substituted for the miracle of Jesus' pressing his face onto a cloth to explain Jesus' face on the Image of Edessa, a scenario by which Jesus laid his whole body upon a cloth in order to produce a likeness of his whole body[18]. This is so self-evidently preposterous that Jesus would have in life (let alone publicly!) laid His naked body on a cloth to imprint His image on it[19], that this can only be an early 12th century reference to the Shroud, nearly a half-century before the earliest radiocarbon date of 1260, and mentioned in archives which were "ancient"[20] even then![C]

1203: French crusader knight Robert de Clari, a chronicler of the Fourth Crusade (1202–4)[21], wrote in his 1204 diary The Conquest of Constantinople[22] what he saw in Constantinople in late 1203:

"... there was another church which was called My Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, where was kept the sheet [sydoines] in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday rose up straight, so that one could clearly see the figure [figure] of Our Lord on it; and no one, neither Greek nor French, knew what became of this sheet after the city was taken"[23].
The word sydoines is Old French for the Greek word sindon, a linen sheet, used in the Gospels for Jesus' burial shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53), and the word figure is Old French for "bodily form"[24]. So in 1203 there existed in Constantinople a linen shroud with an imprint of Christ's body on it, over a half-century before the earliest radiocarbon date, 1260[25]. But then it would be the "sindon which God wore," mentioned in a letter of of 958 by Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913-959) as already in the imperial relic collection[see "958"], over 300 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[26]![D]

1201-1204: The Holy Face of Laon (French: "Sainte Face de Laon"[27]) is a glazed panel painted presumably at Constantinople between 1201 and 1204[28], or even in the second half of the 12th

[Above (enlarge): "Icon of the Holy Face (Mandylion) of Laon. Purchased in 1249 in Bari (Italy) by Jacques Pantaleon, later to become Pope Urban"[29].]

century (e.g. c.1167-1198[30]). In 1249, Jacques Pantaleon (1195–1264), then Archdeacon of Laon[31], and later to become Pope Urban IV (r.1261–1264)[32], gave the icon to his sister Sibylle, the abbess of a nearby convent at Montreuil-en-Thierache[33]. It is now kept in the Cathedral of Laon, Picardy, France[34]. The icon is actually a copy of the Image of Edessa or Mandylion[35], as its background has a trellis pattern[36] like other depictions of the Image. It also shows a brown monochrome, rigidly front facing, disembodied head of Jesus on cloth, strongly reminiscent of the Shroud[37]. This icon corresponds more closely to the face on the Shroud than any other[38], having 13 of the 15 Vignon markings (see part #2)[39]. It also bears an inscription in ancient slavonic: OBRAZ GOSPODIN NA UBRUSJE "the portrait of the Lord on the cloth"[40], which must mean that the artist worked directly from the Shroud[41], which was in Constantinople between 944 and 1204[42]. But since the Sainte Face dates from the beginning of the thirteenth century (or even from the end of the 12th century), and it is a copy of the Shroud image, then the Shroud must date from well before 1200[43]. This cannot be reconciled with the 1260-1390 radiocarbon dating[44].[E]

1201: Nicholas Mesarites, the Keeper[45] of Constantinople's Pharos Chapel relic collection, in 1201 wrote:

"In this chapel Christ rises again, and the sindon with the burial linens is the clear proof ... The burial sindon of Christ: this is of linen, of cheap and easily obtainable material, still smelling fragrant of myrrh, defying decay, because it wrapped the mysterious [aperilepton], naked dead body after the Passion"[46].
The Greek word aperilepton means "un-outlined"[47], "uncircumscribed"[48] or "indefinable"[49] (Greek a = "not" + peri = "around" + "lepton" = "thin"[50]), and is a unique descriptor of the image on the Shroud which has no outline[51]. Moreover, Mesarites stated that Christ's body was naked but except for the Pray Codex (see below) not until the fourteenth century, and then only rarely, was Christ's body depicted as naked[52]. These two unique descriptors of the Shroud, "un-outlined" and "naked," which were also descriptors of Jesus' image on a "sindon" (shroud) in Constantinople's relic collection in 1201, are further evidence that the Shroud was already in Constantinople at the very beginning of the thirteenth century[53], nearly 60 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud![F]

1192-95 The Hungarian Pray Manuscript, or Codex, is dated 1192-95[54], having been made at the Benedictine monastery of Boldva in Hungary between those years[55]. Hungary was then ruled by King

[Above (enlarge): "The Pray Codex, 1192-95:

"The Codex Pray, Pray Codex or The Hungarian Pray Manuscript is a collection of medieval manuscripts. In 1813 it was named after György Pray, who discovered it in 1770. It is the first known example of continuous prose text in Hungarian. The Codex is kept in the National Széchényi Library of Budapest. One of the most prominent documents within the Codex (f. 154a) is the Funeral Sermon and Prayer ... It is an old handwritten Hungarian text dating to 1192-1195. Its importance of the Funeral Sermon comes from that it is the oldest surviving Hungarian, and Uralic, text ... One of the five illustrations within the Codex shows the burial of Jesus. ... the display shows remarkable similarities with the Shroud of Turin: that Jesus is shown entirely naked with the arms on the pelvis, just like in the body image of the Shroud of Turin; that the thumbs on this image appear to be retracted, with only four fingers visible on each hand, thus matching detail on the Turin Shroud; that the supposed fabric shows a herringbone pattern, identical to the weaving pattern of the Shroud of Turin; and that the four tiny circles on the lower image, which appear to form a letter L, `perfectly reproduce four apparent "poker holes" on the Turin Shroud', which likewise appear to form a letter L. The Codex Pray illustration may [sic does] serve as evidence for the existence of the Shroud of Turin prior to 1260–1390 AD, the alleged fabrication date established in the radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 ..."[56].]
Bela III (c.1148–1196), who had spent six years (1163–1169) as a young man in the imperial court at Constantinople[57]. So during Bela's reign there were strong cultural links between Constantinople and Hungary[58]. The codex contains four pen and ink drawings (see my 11Jan10) pertaining to the death of Jesus[59]. The first panel depicts the Crucifixion; the second shows the descent from the Cross; 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[60]. Of particular relevance to the Shroud is the third drawing with two scenes, one above the other, of the deposition of Jesus' body from the cross and His entombment[61]. Together they share the following eight features in common with Shroud: 1. Jesus' wrists are crossed, right over left, at the groin; 2. He is naked; 3. there is a red mark over Christ's right eyebrow where the reversed `3' bloodstain is on the Shroud; 4. Christ's hands lack thumbs; 5. His burial sheet is long and bi-fold; 6. He has a sarcophagus with crosses and zigzags imitating the herringbone weave of the Shroud; 7. the sarcophagus has angular blood flows matching those on the arms of the man on the Shroud; and 8. there are two sets of tiny circles which match the sets of L-shaped `poker holes' on the Shroud[62]. These eight correspondences between those drawings in the Pray Codex and the Shroud are together conclusive proof that the 12th century artist of the Pray Codex had seen the Shroud[63] in 1192-95, at least 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[64]. So the Pray codex `poker holes' are the final nail in the coffin of the carbon-dating result[65]. In 1993 Nobel prize-winning geneticist Jérôme Lejeune (1926-1994) was granted a rare private viewing of the Pray codex in Budapest[65a]. In an interview a month later he said:
"But the most extraordinary image of all is to be found in the lower foreground of the image: an angel is pointing out the Shroud to the pious women who had come to the tomb with perfumed oils on Easter morning. Well, in that design the four `L'-shaped holes are perfectly visible, the holes the Turin Shroud still has today. And they can even be seen, perfectly superimposable, on the back of the cloth, which is also represented in the design. It is absolutely unthinkable that a painter could design, without ever having seen it, an image showing holes of the same size and in the same place (and which are the result of the rather anomalous folds of the cloth so that the holes can be superimposed one on the other) as the holes that the Turin Shroud still has today. In short, the Turin Shroud existed before 1192. This is a definitive historic certainty. There can be no further discussion on the point ... There is no doubt about it. The Carbon 14 dating by the three laboratories does not give the age of the Shroud of Turin. Their dating (1260-1390) is in disaccord with the historic certainty that between 1100 and 1200 a painter saw all the details of the Shroud today kept in Turin, including the burn holes which are not at all interesting from the artistic point of view"[65b].
So the Pray Codex alone proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud of Turin is the Shroud of Constantinople and therefore existed from at least 944 [see "944b"], more than three centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[66]![G]

1181 A champlevé enamel panel which forms part of the altar in the Klosterneuberg monastery, near Vienna, completed in 1181 by Nicholas of Verdun (1130–1205)[67]. As can be seen below, Jesus is being

[Above (enlarge): Entombment of Jesus, 1181, by Nicholas of Verdun, Klosterneuburg Abbey, Vienna[68].]

wrapped in a long burial shroud, with His hands are crossed over His loins, right over the left, crossing awkwardly at the wrists, exactly as on the Shroud[69]! Yet this was 79 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud![H]

1171: Chronicler William of Tyre (c.1130–1186), as Archbishop of Tyre[70], accompanied a state visit of King Amaury I, aka. Amalric I, (r. 1163-1174) of Jerusalem to Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1118–1180) in Constantinople[71]. William recorded his party being shown "the most precious evidences of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ" including "the shroud" [sindon][72]. However William did not mention an image on the shroud, but this can be explained either by him only seeing its reliquary within which was the folded cloth[73] or the light being too dim for him to distinguish the Shroud's faint image. [I]

c. 1150 The Christ Pantocrator ("Ruler of all"[74]) mosaic in the apse of Cefalu Cathedral, Sicily[75] is among the most recent of many such

[Above: (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator, Cefalu Cathedral, Sicily[76].

"... if the radiocarbon dating is to be believed, there should be no evidence of our Shroud [before 1260]. The year 1260 was the earliest possible date for the Shroud's existence by radiocarbon dating's calculations. Yet artistic likenesses of Jesus originating well before 1260 can be seen to have an often striking affinity with the face on the Shroud ... Purely by way of example we may cite from the twelfth century the huge Christ Pantocrator mosaic that dominates the apse of the Norman Byzantine church at Cefalu, Sicily ..."[77].]
works in the Byzantine tradition,which depict a Shroud-like, long-haired, fork-bearded, front-facing likeness of Christ[80]. But at c.1150 it is still over a century before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[81]. It has 14 out of 15 Vignon markings (see Revised #2)[82], including a triangle between the nose and the eyebrows, concave cheeks, asymmetrical and pronounced cheekbones, each found on the Shroud, and a double tuft of hair where the reversed `3' bloodstain is on the Shroud[83]. This means the artist was working from the face on the Shroud, copying each feature carefully, even though he did not understand what some of them were, for example the open, staring eyes are actually closed in photographic negative on the Shroud[84].[J]

c. 1150 A Christ Pantocrator fresco, dating back to the twelfth century, in the rupestrian (cave) Church of St. Nicholas in Casalrotto, Italy[85].

[Above (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator centre panel of fresco between Mary and John the Baptist (see here), in the twelfth century cave church in Casalrotto, Italy[86].]

Jesus' face is Shroud-like, rigidly forward-facing with Vignon markings including a forked beard, open staring eyes, a wisp of hair where the reversed `3' bloodstain is in the Shroud, and a triangle between the nose and the eyebrows[87].[K]

1140 "The Song of the Voyage of Charlemagne to Jerusalem" (known

[Above: The front cover of a 1965 French reprint of the poem, "Le Voyage de Charlemagne à Jérusalem et à Constantinople"[88]:

"Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne or Voyage de Charlemagne à Jérusalem et à Constantinople (Pilgrimage of Charlemagne or Charlemagne's Voyage to Jerusalem and Constantinople) is an Old French chanson de geste (epic poem) dealing with a fictional expedition by Charlemagne and his knights. The oldest known written version was probably composed around 1140"[89].]
by various names in French, including "Chanson du Voyage de Charlemagne à Jerusalem"[90] and "Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne"[91]), is an Old French epic poem about a fictional expedition by Emperor Charlemagne the Great (c.742-814) and his knights, composed around 1140[92]. But although imaginary it bears historical testimony to the existence of the Shroud, in that it reflects the accounts given by pilgrims at that time[93]. In it the Emperor asks the Patriarch of Jerusalem if he has any relics to show him, and the Patriarch replies:
"I shall show you such relics that there are not better under the sky: of the Shroud of Jesus which He had on His head, when He was laid and stretched in the tomb ..."[94].
While this contains an inaccuracy in that the Shroud was not in Jerusalem in Charlemagne's time (c.742-814) but continuously in Edessa from 544 to 944[see "544" and "944b"], the word "Shroud" is the Old French equivalent of "sindon"[95], the Greek word used in the Gospels for Jesus' burial shroud (see above). Also the pilgrim French Bishop Arculf had reported seeing a shroud in Jerusalem in c.670, but this cannot have been the Shroud [see "670a"]. So The Voyage of Charlemagne evidently reflects these mistaken pilgrims' reports of a shroud in Jerusalem in the Early Middle Ages. Moreover this Old French word for sindon, presumably is the same sydoines used by Robert de Clari over 60 years later (see above). So this is evidence that in 1140, well over a century before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud, it was common knowledge that the burial sindon of Jesus existed, upon which He had been laid stretched out in the tomb, and which had then covered His head![L]

c.1130-1140 An English-born Norman monk[96] Ordericus Vitalis (1075 - c.1142), in his History of the Church (Historia Ecclesiastica), written by 1140[97], when he came to the 1098 capture of Edessa in the First Crusade (1095-1099)[98], Ordericus updated the Abgar V story, that:

"Abgar the ruler reigned at Edessa; the Lord Jesus sent him a sacred letter and a beautiful linen cloth he had wiped the sweat from his face with. The image of the Saviour was miraculously imprinted on to it and shines out, displaying the form and size of the Lord's body to all who look on it"[99].
A cloth which displays "the form and size of the Lord's body" is clearly a full-length sheet, not a mere towel as in the original Abgar story[100]. As with Gervase of Tilbury (see above) about 80 years later, this is one of a number of altered version of the Abgar story which substituted for Jesus' imprinting his face onto a cloth, Jesus laying his whole body upon a cloth in order to produce an image of his whole figure[101]. In attempting to update the Abgar story with the new information that the Edessa cloth has not only an image of Jesus' face, but also of His whole body, Ordericus contradicted himself, since Jesus' pressing His face to a cloth would not thereby imprint His whole body onto that cloth[102]. Since Ordericus' History was widely read throughout France and England, this may be the earliest generally known reference to the Shroud in Western Europe[103].[M]

Pre-1130 Vatican Library codex (Vati. Lib. Codex 5696, fol. 35)[104] has an update of a sermon of Pope Stephen III (c.720-772), originally delivered in 769[105]. The original 8th century sermon mentioned only the Edessa towel with a miraculous image of Jesus' face imprinted on it [see "769"][106]. But sometime before 1130[107] an unknown copyist had interpolated into Pope Stephen's sermon, additional sayings of Jesus to King Abgar V of Edessa:

"For this same mediator between God and men [Jesus], in order that in all things and in every way he might satisfy this king [Abgar] spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvellous as it is to see or even hear such a thing, the glorious image of the Lord's face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred ..."[italics Wilson's]. [108]
The early twelfth century copyist had new information that in Constantinople the image of Edessa was now known to be not only of Jesus' face but also a "white linen" sheet upon which "the length" of Jesus' "entire body" had been "divinely transferred" [109]! Again this can only be the Shroud in Constantinople, at least 130 years before its earliest 1260 radiocarbon date! [N]

To be contined in the next part #9 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
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.7 & pl.3b; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.308. [return]
3. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
4. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
5. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
6. Wilson, 2010, pp.221-222. [return]
7. Ibid. [return]
8. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.67, 165, 190; Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, pp.110-111; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.172-173. [return]
9. 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, 1998, pp.125, 141; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.113; Wilson, 2010, p.108. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.160; Wilson, 1991, p.152; Wilson, I., 1994, "News From Home and Abroad," BSTS Newsletter, No. 38, August/September, p.5; "Medieval wall paintings," Winchester Cathedral, n.d. [return]
11. Wilson, 1998, p.139. [return]
12. "Reflecting back on this week of poems of the Passion," The Pocket Scroll blog, 19 April 2014. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.160; Wilson, 1998, p.139. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, p.139. [return]
15. "Gervase of Tilbury," Wikipedia, 19 November 2016. [return]
16. "Otia Imperialia," Wikipedia, 18 June 2017. [return]
17. Green, M., 1969, "Enshrouded in Silence: In search of the First Millennium of the Holy Shroud," Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, No. 3, Autumn, pp.319-345; Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.95; Wilson, 1979, p.159; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.48; Wilson, 1991, p.153; Wilson, 1998, pp.139, 144, 255n20; Guscin, M., 2009, "The Image of Edessa," Brill: Leiden, Netherlands & Boston MA, pp.206-207. [return]
18. 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, 195. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.159; Wilson, 1998, p.144. [return]
20. Scavone, D.C., 1989a, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.89. [return]
21. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.8; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, pp.57-58. [return]
22. Iannone, 1998, p.126; Guerrera, 2001, p.8; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.57. [return]
23. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.71; Iannone, 1998, pp.126-127; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.122-123; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.175. [return]
24. Iannone, 1998, p.127; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.175-176; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, pp.57-58. [return]
25. Wilson, 1991, pp.156-157; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
26. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.177-178. [return]
27. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.158; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988a, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.45. [return]
28. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, pp.58-59. [return]
29. "File:Icône Sainte Face Laon 150808.jpg, Wikimedia Commons, 13 September 2008. Translated from French by Google. [return]
30. de Riedmatten, P., 2008, "The Holy Face of Laon," BSTS Newsletter, No. 68, December. [return]
31. Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.21. [return]
32. "Pope Urban IV," Wikipedia, 21 August 2016. [return]
33. Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.45; Wilson, 1991, pp.47, 78. [return]
34. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.110F. [return]
35. Wilson, 1991, p.78. [return]
36. Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.60; Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.158; Wilson, 1991, p.136; Antonacci, 2000, p.131. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, pp.114-115; Wilson, 1998, pp.150-151. [return]
38. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.56. [return]
39. Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.58. [return]
40. Wilcox, 1977, p.97; Wilson, I., 1983, "Some Recent Society Meetings," BSTS Newsletter, No. 6, September/December, p.13; Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.21; Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.157; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988b, "Dating the Shroud - A Personal View," BSTS Newsletter No. 20, October, pp.16-17; Wilson, 1991, p.47; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.205; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.108. [return]
41. Wuenschel, 1954, pp.58-59; Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.158; Oxley, 2010, p.108. [return]
42. Wilson, 1991, p.78. [return]
43. Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.56. [return]
44. Currer-Briggs, 1995, pp.56-57]. [return]
45. Wilson, 1979, pp.167, 257; Adams, 1982, p.71; Scavone, 1991, p.195; Scavone, 1989a, p.89; Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, pp.145, 272; 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.58; Antonacci, 2000, p.123; Guerrera, 2001, p.7; Tribbe, 2006, pp.25, 29; Oxley, 2010, p.40; Wilson, 2010, p.185; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
46. Wilson, 1979, pp.167-168, 257; Scavone, 1989a, p.89; Scavone, 1989b, pp.320-321; Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; Wilson, 2010, p.185; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
47. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; de Wesselow, 2012, p.176. [return]
48. Scavone, 1989b, p.321; Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.272. [return]
49. Scavone, 1989a, p.89. [return]
50. Liddell, H.G. & Scott, R., 1871, "A Lexicon: Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon," Clarendon Press: Oxford, Reprinted 1935, pp.1, 545, 410. [return]
51. Wilson, 1991, p.155; Wilson, 1998, p.145; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.176-177, 181. [return]
52. de Wesselow, 2012, p.176, 380n11. [return]
53. de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
54. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, p.19; Wilson, 1979, p.160; "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. [return]
55. Wilson, 1991, p.151. [return]
56. "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. [return]
57. de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
58. de Wesselow, 2012, p.178. [return]
59. Guerrera, 2001, p.104. [return]
60. Guerrera, 2001, p.104. [return]
61. Berkovits, 1969, p.19; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115. [return]
62. Wilson, 1986, p.114; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.163-164; 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, p.33; Wilson, 1998, pp.146-147; Scavone, D.C., "Greek Epitaphoi and Other Evidence for the Shroud in Constantinople up to 1204," in Walsh, B., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.196-211, 196-197; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.116; Guerrera, 2001, pp.104-105; Scavone, D.C., "Underscoring the Highly Significant Historical Research of the Shroud," in Tribbe, 2006, p.xxvi; Oxley, 2010, pp.37-38; Wilson, 2010, pp.183-184, 300; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178-181. [return]
63. Wilson, 1998, p.147; Scavone, 2000, pp.196-197; Guerrera, 2001, p.106; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.92; Oxley, 2010, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
64. Iannone, 1998, p.154; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.115; Marino, J.G., 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion," Cradle Press: St. Louis MO, p.53. [return]
65. Guerrera, 2001, p.106; de Wesselow, 2012, p.183. [return]
65a. Lejeune, J., in Pacl, S.M., 1993, "All those carbon 14 errors," 30 Days, No 9, 1993, in Shroud News, No 80, December, pp.3-8, 6. [return]
65b. Lejeune, 1993, p.6-7. [return]
66. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.178, 183. [return]
67. Wilson, 2010, p.182. [return]
68. Wilson, I., 2008, "II: Nicholas of Verdun: Scene of the Entombment, from the Verdun altar in the monastery of Klosterneuburg, near Vienna," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 67, June. [return]
69. Wilson, 2010, pp.182-183. [return]
70. "William of Tyre," Wikipedia, 19 June 2017. [return]
71. Wilson, 1979, p.165; Iannone, 1998, pp.120-121; Wilson, 1998, p.271; Guerrera, 2001, p.6; Tribbe, 2006, p.25; de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
72. Wilson, 1979, pp.165-166; Scavone, 1989b, p.321; Iannone, 1998, p.121; Wilson, 1998, p.271; Tribbe, 2006, p.25; de Wesselow, 2012, p.177. [return]
73. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.8. [return]
74. Ruffin, 1999, p.110; Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, pp.1093-1094. [return]
75. Wilson, 1979, p.102; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.82; Wilson, 1998, p.141; Antonacci, 2000, p.126. [return]
76. "File:Master of Cefalu 001 Christ Pantocrator adjusted.JPG," Wikipedia, 15 June 2010. [return]
77. Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
80. Wilson, 1986, p.105; Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
81. Wilson, 1986, p.104. [return]
82. Wilson, 1979, p.105; Maher, 1986, p.82. [return]
83. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.193. [return]
84. Wilson, 1979, p.105. [return]
85. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.193. [return]
86. Martino Miali, 2014, "Mottolo (Taranto). Church of St. Nicholas: fresco depicting Christ Almighty between Our Lady and St. John the Baptist. Photo by Martino Miali," Bridge Puglia & USA. [return]
87. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.193. [return]
88. Aebischer, P., 1965., "Le voyage de Charlemagne à Jérusalem et à Constantinople," Librairie Droz: Amazon.com. [return]
89. "Le Pèlerinage de CharlemagneLe Pèlerinage de Charlemagne," Wikipedia, 29 February 2016. [return]
90. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.147. [return]
91. "Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne," Wikipedia, 27 February 2013. [return]
92. Ibid. [return]
93. Beecher, 1928, p.147. [return]
94. Ibid. [return]
95. Adams, 1982, p.17. [return]
96. Wilson, 1998, pp.144, 270. [return]
97. Adams, 1982, p.26; Ruffin, 1999, p.58; "Orderic Vitalis: The Historia Ecclesiastica," Wikipedia, 25 June 2017. [return]
98. Scavone, 1989a, p.89. [return]
99. Wilcox, 1977, p.95; Adams, 1982, p.26; Drews, 1984, p.47; Wilson, 1986, p.114; Wilson, 1991, pp.152-153; Wilson, 1998, pp.144, 270; Ruffin, 1999, p.58; Wilson, 2010, p.176. [return]
100. Iannone, 1998, p.120. [return]
101. Scavone, 1991, p.195. [return]
102. Guscin, 2009, p.206. [return]
103. Currer-Briggs, 1984, p.21. [return]
104. Wilson, 1979, p.257. [return]
105. Scavone, 1989a, p.88; Scavone, 1989b, p.318. [return]
106. Scavone, 1989a, p.88; Scavone, 1989b, p.318. [return]
107. Wilson, 1979, p.158; Adams, 1982, p.26; Scavone, 1989b, p.318; Wilson, 1991, p.152. [return]
108. Wilcox, 1977, p.97; Wilson, 1991, p.152. See also Wilson, 1979, p.158, 257; Adams, 1982, p.26. [return]
109. Scavone, 1989a, p.89. [return]

Posted: 21 June 2017. Updated: 7 July 2017.