Thursday, January 21, 2016

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30

© Stephen E. Jones[1]


This "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" has been superseded by my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present" series.


This is my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30," which is also the Main Index and part #1 of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud" series. This series supersedes the "Chronology of the Shroud" in my "Turin Shroud Encyclopedia." This chronology will be divided into a separate post for each time period, starting with AD 30 and working forwards. I have changed it from one post per century because I now realise that some centuries would be too long (like the 1st century), and other centuries would be too short, for a post. My chronology is inspired by Ian Wilson's "Highlights of the Undisputed History") but is not based on it. To save space throughout this chronology series I will assume, what the evidence overwhelmingly points to, that the man on the Turin Shroud is Jesus Christ. Some dates will necessarily be approximate.

Main Index
[AD 30] [31-176]


AD 30
[Next: 31-]

AD 30 On Friday, 7th April, AD 30[2] Jesus, the man on the Turin Shroud, after having been arrested on the previous night by Jewish Temple guards (Mt 26:47-50; Mk 14:43-46; Lk 22:47-48,52-54; Jn 18:2-8,12) and while bound (Mt 27:2; Mk 15:1, Jn 18:12,24), was struck on his face and head (Mt 26:67-68,27:30; Mk 14:65; Lk 22:64; Jn 18:22; 19:3) and beaten on his body (Mk 14:65; Lk 22:63). Having been sentenced to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, led by the High Priest Caiaphas (r. 18–36), for alleged blasphemy (Mt 26:63-66; Mk 14:53,61-64; Lk 22:66-71), Jesus was then sent to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate (r. 26–36) to ratify the Sanhedrin's death

[Right (enlarge): "Anatomy of the Shroud"[3], showing the wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud match those in the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' passion and death.]

sentence (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1-2; Jn 18:24,28-32). Jesus was then scourged on Pilate's orders with a Roman flagrum (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:16; Jn 19:1) and crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5). Pilate then reluctantly sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion (Mt 27:11-26; Mk 15:2-15; Lk 23:1-5, 18-25; Jn 19:1-16). Having carried his crossbeam a short distance (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26; Jn 19:17), at the site of crucifixion Jesus was stripped of his clothes (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:34; Jn 19:23-24) and nailed to a cross through his hands (wrists) and feet (Lk 24:36-40; Jn 20:19-20,24-28; Col 2:14). One of Jesus' last acts while He hung in agony on the cross was to commit His mother Mary, to the care and protection of her nephew and His cousin (see below), the Apostle John (see below) (Jn 19:25-27). Jesus died on that cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30) and because He was dead, Jesus' legs were not broken (Jn 19:31-33), which was to hasten death by asphyxiation[4]. Instead Jesus was speared in the [right] side to make sure he was dead (Jn 19:34-35). Jesus was then given a hasty and incomplete burial[5] because of the impending weekly Sabbath (Mt 27:62; Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54; Jn 19:31), which was also the annual Passover (Mt 26:2,17-19; Mk 14:1,12-16; Lk 22:1,7-15; Jn 13:1;18:28,39;19:14,31), and buried in a cave tomb (Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53-55; Jn 19:41-42). Jesus was buried according to the burial custom of the Jews (Jn 19:40), therefore His hands and feet would have been bound (Jn 19:40) with strips as Lazarus' were (Jn 11:44)[6], to prevent them moving and a Pontius Pilate lepton coin was placed over each eyelid to keep it closed[7]. On the top [epi[8]] = "on, upon" - see below] of his head was a bloodstained face cloth [soudarion] (Jn 20:7; 11:44), the Sudarium of Oviedo (see below), and over all, enveloping his entire body[9], was a large linen sheet [sindon] (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Mk 14:51).

Sunday, 9th April, 30 At dawn on Sunday, three of Jesus' women disciples: Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of James the younger and Joseph; and Salome the mother of the Apostle John and sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (Mt 20:20; Mk 10:35; Mt 27:55-56; Mk 15:40; Jn 19:25)[10], went the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). They found that the large stone which Joseph of Arimathea had rolled across the entrance of the tomb (Mt 27:60; Mk 15:46;16:3) had been rolled away (Mk 16:4; Lk 24:2; Jn 20:1) by an angel (Mt 28:2-4) causing the guards who had been set on Saturday (Mt 27:62-66) to flee (Mt 28:4,11). And when the women went in to the tomb, Jesus’ body was not there (Lk 24:3). While they were in the tomb the angel(s) told them that Jesus had risen from the dead (Mt 28:5-6; Mk 16:5-6; Lk 24:4-6). The women left to tell the other disciples (Mt 28:7-8; Mk 16:7-8; Lk 24:9; Jn 20:1-2) and on the way the risen Jesus met them, spoke with them and they touched him (Mt 28:9-10; Mk 16:9; Jn 20:11-17). The women continued on to tell the other disciples that Jesus' body was not in the tomb and that He had appeared to them (Mt 28:11; Mk 16:8-11; Lk 24:10-11; Jn 20:2,18).

In response to the women's report that Jesus' body was not in the tomb (Lk 24:10-11; Jn 20:1-2; Mk 16:9-11), Peter and "the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved," i.e. John[11], ran to the tomb but John reached it before Peter (Jn 20:4). Then "stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths [othonia = "strips of linen"[12], "linen bandages"[13]] lying there, but he did not go in" (Jn 20:5) (because John was a priest - see future below). Peter then arrived at the tomb, and also "stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths [othonia "strips of linen"[14]] by themselves" (Lk 24:12). Then Peter, "went into the tomb" and "saw the linen cloths [othonia "strips of linen" NIV] lying there" (Jn 20:6). Peter also saw "the face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi "on, upon" not peri "around," "about" [15]] Jesus' head (see below), not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself." (Jn 20:7). Then "the other disciple" (John - see above), "who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed" that Jesus had risen "from the dead." (Jn 20:8-9).

There is no mention of the sindon (Shroud) having been seen by Peter and John in the empty tomb[16], which there surely would have been, because of its dominating size, if it had been there. The eminent pro-authenticist Irish theologian Patrick A. Beecher (1870-1940) in 1928 pointed out that "The Sindon was a large white linen sheet that covered the entire body" but "After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb" (my emphasis):
"THE three Synoptic Evangelists, Saints Matthew, Mark and Luke, tell us that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Our Lord in a Sindon (Matt. 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53). The Sindon was a large white linen sheet that covered the entire body. The Evangelists carefully distinguish between it and the sudarium (napkin), which latter was in shape and size like a handkerchief, and was used for the head. In addition, as we know from St. John (Jn 19:40), linen cloths (ta othonia) were used, with spices, according to Jewish custom. After the resurrection there is no mention of the Sindon as having been found in the tomb. St. John tells us that Peter `saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place' (20:6,7). And St. Luke tells us that `Peter rising up, ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths laid by themselves' (24:12)"[17].
And as Beecher further pointed out, that Luke in 24:12 did not mention the sindon being present in the empty tomb after Jesus' resurrection, despite having previously mentioned it in Lk 23:53 as being present in the tomb at Jesus' burial, indicates that "the Sindon was not in the [empty] tomb" (my emphasis):

"What became of the Sindon? Saints Matthew and Mark are silent and make no reference to any cloths in the tomb. St. John still speaks of bandages and of the napkin. His silence about the Sindon would have no special significance, inasmuch as he did not refer to it before. But the fact that St. Luke does not now mention the Sindon [in Lk 24:12], which had occupied his attention previously [in Lk 23:53], but speaks of cloths (othonia) instead, would indicate that the Sindon was not in the tomb."[18].
Attempts to include the sindon in the othonia, or identify it as the soudarion, have failed. It has been claimed that othonia in Lk 24:12 and Jn 20:5 are to be understood in a collective sense as "linen cloths"[19] or "[linen] cloths in general"[20]. But my New Testament Greek lexicons are unanimous in stating that othonia is a plural of othonion, which is a diminutive of othone, "a linen cloth," hence othonion is "a small linen cloth," "a bandage," and othonia its plural, are "strips of linen," "bandages."[21]. This is clear also from the "strips of linen" [othoniois] in which the spices were bound to Jesus' body (Jn 19:40 NIV). Both othoniois and othonia denote the same thing, the only difference being that othoniois is the dative (indirect object) plural of othonion and othonia is the accusative (direct object)) plural of othonion[22].

Likewise attempts to identify the Shroud with "the face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi] Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7)[23] also fail. Again my lexicons are unanimous in stating that the soudarion, is a "face-cloth" corresponding to our "handkerchief" (Lk 19:20, Acts 19:12), and "used as a head covering for the dead" (Jn 11:44; 20:7)[24]. Moreover, the discovery in 1965 by Giulio Ricci (1913-95) that there

[Above (enlarge): "Comparison of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin"[25]. "The most striking thing about all the stains [on the Sudarium of Oviedo] is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud."[26] (my emphasis).]

was a "perfect correspondence" between the bloodstains on the face and head of the man on the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo[27],

[Above (enlarge): The Sudarium of Oviedo[28]. "It was originally a white linen cloth with a taffeta texture, now stained, dirty, and wrinkled"[29]. Its dimensions are "84 cm. x 53 cm. or 2 feet 9 inches x 1 foot 9 inches"[30]. Unlike the Shroud, the Sudarium bears no image[31], so there is no reason why such an unimpressive, bloodstained and dirty cloth would have been kept in the first place unless it was known by the earliest Christians to have been "the face cloth [soudarion] which had been on Jesus' head" and found in the empty tomb "not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself" (Jn 20:7).]

meant that both cloths covered the same face[32]. And since the Sudarium of Oviedo has been in Spain since 616, and indisputably in Oviedo since at least 1075, this is further evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[33] must be wrong[34]! Therefore, in addition to the above negative linguistic evidence that the soudarion ("face cloth") of Jn 20:7 could not have been the sindon ("shroud") of Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53[35]; the positive scientific evidence is that the Sudarium of Oviedo IS the soudarion of Jn 20:7!

Unlike the soudarion which was wrapped around [peridedeto = "bound about"[36]] Lazarus' face (Jn 11:44), Jesus' soudarion had been on His head (Jn 20:7)[37]. The Greek is epi tes kephales ="on the head of him"[38], which is identical to the placing of the crown (which was a cap[39]) of thorns on Jesus' head in Mt 27:29: "and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head" [epi tes kephales][40]. And as Prof. Werner Bulst (1913-95) pointed out (although arguing for the "sweat cloth" [soudarion] being a chin-band) there is a space between the frontal and dorsal head images wide enough to allow for the soudarion having been on the crown or top of the man on the Shroud's

[Above (enlarge)[41]: Gap of about 6½ inches (~16.5 cms) (see below) between the front and back head images, where the bloodstained "face cloth [soudarion] which had been on [epi] Jesus' head", but the image being vertically collimated[42], i.e. straight up and down from the body[43], no image would have been formed there.]

head, since there no image would have been formed:

"Still more interesting, there is no imprint of the crown of the head between the forehead and the dorsal view. If the sweat cloth was tied above, no imprint could be formed there on the Shroud. The space between the frontal and dorsal view is wide enough to allow for the sweat sweat cloth, especially if we suppose that the Shroud was not loosely laid, but drawn quite taut over the head"[44]
Agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow, also arguing for a chin-band, agrees that "something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head":
"There is, in fact, clear evidence that such a band covered the crown of the head: the gap between the frontal and dorsal images. If the Shroud had lain directly on the man's crown, the body-image would have formed here as elsewhere, joining the two figures via a long, sausage-shaped head. The length of the gap, roughly 6½ inches, is too short to allow the cloth to have been raised beyond the range of the image-forming process (somewhere in the order of 2 inches). Therefore, something fairly thin must have lain across the crown of the head, preventing the imprint forming on the Shroud. Given its apparent shape and the ritual requirement to bind up the jaw, this can hardly have been anything other than a bandage."[45]
However, unlike a normal Jewish death, such as that of Lazarus, "a chin band ... would have served no useful purpose, since, by virtue of the rigor mortis when Jesus was lowered from the cross, where He had remained with the head inclined on the chest, the mouth could not be open."[46]. Furthermore, as Wilson pointed out, albeit arguing wrongly (see above) that the Shroud was the soudarion ("a sweat-cloth"), Jewish law prescribed that if a Jew died a bloody death, then "any clothes, however bloodstained" were to be with the body inside "an all-enveloping ... single sheet," called a sovev, that went "right round ... the entire body":
"But why should Jesus have needed a sweat-cloth [sic] for his entire body and not Lazarus? The answer lies in the fundamentally different circumstances of the two burials. Lazarus died a natural death. ... Jesus, in contrast, died a very bloody death ... In his case Jewish law prescribed something very different. ... In these circumstances, therefore, those preparing the dead person for burial had to wrap a `sheet which is called a sovev' straight over any clothes, however bloodstained. This sovev had to be an all-enveloping cloth, that is a `single sheet ... used to go right round' the entire body. Such a sovev readily corresponds to the `over the head' characteristics of Turin's Shroud."[47]
That same Jewish law would have required the bloodstained soudarion to be inside the sovev/sindon) and in contact with Jesus' body[48], which the top of His head was. So there is no need to posit a hypothetical chin-band. The "face cloth [soudarion], which had been on [epi] Jesus' head" and found in the empty tomb "not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself"(Jn 20:7), that is, the Sudarium of Oviedo, fits all the evidence, Biblical, linguistic, historical, Jewish and scientific, perfectly!

From the above and below, what Peter and John saw in the empty tomb, and my reconstruction of what had happened in the tomb immediately after Jesus' resurrection, as recorded in Lk 24:12 & John 20:6-9, is as follows:

• The "strips of linen" [othonia] were "lying by themselves" (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6). The linen strips which had bound Jesus' hands and feet (see Jn 11:44) and the spices (Jn 19:40), were "lying by themselves" [mona = "alone"] (Lk 24:12). There was no body[49] and nor was there the sindon which Luke had only just (Lk 23:53) mentioned that Jesus had been wrapped in[50]. Since the Shroud had fallen through where Jesus body had been (as per Jackson's "cloth collapse theory"[51]) it would also have fallen through these linen strips which had bound Jesus' hands and feet. So they would have been lying there still "looped together and knotted exactly as they had bound the hands and the feet"[52]. The strips binding Lazarus' hands and feet had to be untied by others (Jn 11:44) but those which had bound Jesus' hands and feet were lying on the floor of the tomb untied[53].

• The "face cloth [soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head [epi tes kephales], not lying with the linen cloths [othonia = strips"] but folded up in a place by itself" (Jn 20:7). The Greek is alla choris entetyligmenon eis ena topon = "but apart having been wrapped up into one place"[54]. John's emphasis is on the soudarion which had been on Jesus' head, under the sindon, was now apart from the linen strips and had been folded up and put in a separate place. John "saw [eide = "saw the meaning of"[55]] and believed" (Jn 20:8) that Jesus had risen from the dead (Jn 20:9).

• Both the Shroud [sindon] and the linen strips [othonia] under it, which were binding Jesus' hands and feet, fell through the space where Jesus' supine body had been. The soudarion was also under the sindon but being on the top of Jesus' head, was not vertically over His body, and so did not fall through the space where His body had been, but just settled down inside the Shroud, in the space between the front and back head images, which had just been imprinted on both inside surfaces of the Shroud as "a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection"[56]. The risen Jesus, being outside the Shroud, reached inside one edge of it and took out the soudarion, folded it up and placed it on a separate, but nearby part of the tomb. Then Jesus extracted the Shroud from the still looped and knotted linen binding strips [othonia] and walked out of the tomb with the Shroud[57] through the opening that the angel had made by rolling away the large stone that had been across its entrance (Mt 28:2; Mk 16:3-4; Lk 24:2).

Sundays 23rd - 30th April, 30[58] According to the late first century/early second century[59] writing, "The Gospel of the Hebrews," preserved only in fragments in some Church Fathers, notably St Jerome (c.347–420)[60], Jesus "had given the linen cloth [sindon] to the servant of the priest" (see 06Nov14 & 15Nov14):

"The Gospel that is called `according to the Hebrews,' which I have recently translated into both Greek and Latin, a Gospel that Origen frequently used, records the following after the Savior's resurrection: `But when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went and appeared to James.' (Jerome, Illustrious Men, 2)"[61]
In Jerome's Greek translation of the gospel, "linen cloth" renders sindon[62]. The Gospel of the Hebrews originated in early Judaeo-Christian circles[63]. In fact, many of the Church Fathers believed it was the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew[64]. However, since this seems to say that the risen Jesus appeared to a servant of the High Priest, Caiaphas (or Annas - Lk 3:2), who had recently sentenced Jesus to death (see above), which makes no sense[65], other explanations have been proposed. The most popular being that "servant of the priest" is a copyist error of an original "Simon Peter"[66]. In favour of this is that Peter was the first Apostle to whom Jesus appeared after His resurrection (1Cor 15:5; Lk 24:34) [67]. Jerome believed that "the priest" was James, Jesus' brother (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19)[68], to whom also Jesus did appear (1Cor 15:7). However, attempts to amend either the Greek, the Latin, or the presumed Hebrew text of the gospel have failed[69]. This passage is the first of many statements (see a future "Chronology `2nd century'" post) in early Christian extra-biblical writings that Jesus' burial shroud (sindon) had been preserved from His empty tomb[70]

There are multiple lines of evidence that "the servant of the priest" was the Apostle John, of whom there is historical and Biblical evidence that he was a priest and that he had been a servant in the High Priest's household (see 23Nov14 for full quotes of references):

• Historical evidence that the Apostle John was a Jewish priest. Early Church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340) quoted from a letter by Polycrates (c.130–196), a Bishop of Ephesus (where John had ministered and died), who wrote that "John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, and bore the sacerdotal plate (petalon) ..."[71]

• Biblical evidence that John was a servant of the High Priest. John "was known to the high priest" (Jn 18:15-16), and was also known to the High Priest's servant girl (Jn 18:17), who let him through the door into the High Priest's courtyard (Jn 18:15), and then let him bring Peter in also (Jn 18:16). John knew the name of the High Priest's servant Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off (Jn 18:10) and Jesus had healed (Mt 26:51-52; Mk 14:47-48; Lk 22:49-51) and John also knew that one of the High Priest's servants was a relative of Malchus (Jn 18:26). This depth of detailed knowledge of the the High Priest's household is beyond what a fish supplier, or even a relative of the High Priest, would know, let alone write about. The only plausible explanation is that the Apostle John was himself a member of the the High Priest's household, that is, John was himself a servant of the High Priest.

• Biblical evidence that John was a priest. Kruse asks, "how do we account for him [John], as a Galilean fisherman, being 'known' to the high priest?" and his only answer is that, "Someone in the fishing industry could have friends among the chief priests"[72]. Hendriksen has no answer and says it "remains a mystery"[73]. Tenney's answer is that:

"... it may be that the [John's] family had connections with the priesthood, either by business relationships or possibly by marital ties. Salome, the mother of John, was a sister of Mary, Jesus' mother (cf. John 19:25 with Mark 15:40), and would have been equally related to Elizabeth, whose husband, Zechariah, was a priest (Luke 1:36)."[74]
Morris' answer also is that John "came from a priestly family" and he also accepts the historical evidence "that John was a priest":
"John seems to have come of a priestly family. The woman Salome, who stood by the cross of Jesus, appears to have been his mother, as a comparison of Mark 15:40 and Matt. 27:56 shows. John does not mention Salome, nor his own mother specifically, but he does speak of the Virgin Mary's sister (John 19:25) in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that she is Salome. Now Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) who is called one `of the daughters of Aaron' (Luke 1:5). Salome thus had priestly connections. The conclusion is that John was of a priestly family and could well have come in contact with the high priest in connection with his priestly duties. This is supported by the passage in the letter of Polycrates (c. 190 A.D.) which says that John `was a priest wearing to petalon (Eusebius HE, III. xxxi, 3) ... Polycrates certainly supports the view that John was a priest"[75]
• The Jewish High Priest was commonly called simply "the Priest"[76]. Examples include: Aaron, the first High Priest was called "Aaron the priest" (Ex 31:10; 35:19; 38:21, etc); "Hilkiah the high priest" (2Ki 22:4,8; 23:4; 2Chr 34:9) was called "Hilkiah the priest" (2Ki 22:10,12,14; 23:24; 2Chr 34:14). There are examples in the Bible where a High Priest is never called "High Priest" but only "the priest": Eleazar (Num 16:39; Josh 14:1); and Phinehas (Josh 22:30). So the Apostle John could have been a servant of the High Priest (either Annas or Caiaphas - Lk 3:2) and be called "the servant of the Priest."

• Further Biblical evidence that John had been a servant of the High Priest. Although John and his brother James had helped their father Zebedee in his fishing business on the Sea of Galilee, they had left it to follow Jesus (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20) and John had a home in Jerusalem (Jn 19:27)[77]. John had a detailed and accurate knowledge of the geography of Judea and the features of Jerusalem before its destruction in AD 70, which one would not expect from a Galilean fisherman[78]. The Gospel of John, much more than the other gospels, gives details of Jewish feasts and purification rites, which would have been especially important to a Jewish priest: the Passover (Jn 2:13,23; 5:1; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28); the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2, 37, 38); and the Feast of Dedication (Jn 10:22, 23)[79]. This is further Biblical evidence that John was a priest and had been based in Jerusalem, as would be the case if he had been a servant of the High Priest.

• Jesus appeared to the Apostle John before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother. The Apostle Paul, quoting a list of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, stated that Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" (1Cor 15:3-7), which included John (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16-17, Lk 6:13-14), before He appeared to James, Jesus' brother (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3; Gal 1:19)[80]. Jesus could have given His shroud to John when He appeared to the Twelve. Or, since Paul lists only five of the ten recorded post-resurrection appearance of Jesus[81], and since Acts 1:3 states that Jesus appeared to His apostles after His resurrection over a space of "forty days," it is possible that Jesus appeared to John alone, but unrecorded, to give His shroud to him, before He appeared James.

• That Jesus took His burial shroud (sindon) with Him out of the empty tomb and later gave it to the Apostle John, is the most likely explanation of all the evidence. See above and also my "Servant of the priest" series: (1), (2) and (3). It is therefore proposed that the term "servant of the priest" was a pseudonym of the Apostle John, necessary to preserve the security of the Shroud from the far more numerous and powerful enemies of the early Church, the Romans and the Jews, who if they knew the Shroud existed with Jesus' image on it, they would demand it be handed over to them under threat of torture and death[82].

To be continued in part #2, "31-176" of this "Chronology of the Turin Shroud."

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 here. [return]
2. Finegan, J., 1964, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, pp.296,300; Doig, K.F., 2015, "New Testament Chronology: Part IV, The Crucifixion of Jesus" & "The 30 CE Crucifixion," 22 April. [return]
3. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve ... The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.736-737. [return]
4. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, pp.84-87; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, pp.22-23; 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.48-49. [return]
5. Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.24-25; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.87-88; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.116-117,120. [return]
6. Except in Lazarus' burial the strips binding his hands and feet [Gk keiriais] were primarily bands and not necessarily linen: "a band, either for a bed-girth ... or for tying up a corpse" (Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.343); "bandage, grave-clothes" (Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, p.427). That John uses a different word "keiriais" of Lazarus' gravecloths instead of othonia which he used of Jesus' gravecloths (see above) implies that Lazarus' were not linen. [return]
7. Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J., Mottern, R.W. & Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image On Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, 1977, pp.290-291; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.38-39; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, pp.30-31; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, pp.107-108. [return]
8. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Second edition, p839. All New Testament Greek words in this post are from Green, 1986, at the respective verses, unless otherwise indicated. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.45-46; Wilson, 1998, pp.54-55. [return]
10. Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Two Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One," [1959], Banner of Truth: London, Third Edition, Vol. II, p.978; Morris, L.L., 1971, "The Gospel According to John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1984, pp.810-811; Tenney, M.C., "The Gospel of John," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1981, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9: John - Acts," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.182. [return]
11. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. II, pp.23-25, 448; Tenney, 1981, pp.5-7, 188; Morris, 1971, pp.8-11; Barker, K., ed., 1985, "The NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.1591; Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.28-30, 375. [return]
12. Jn 20:5 NIV; Tenney, 1981, p.187; Kruse, 2003, p.375. [return]
13. Hendriksen, 1964, II:448. [return]
14. Lk 24:12 NIV; Liefeld, W.L., "Luke," in Gaebelein, 1984, p.1049. [return]
15. Thayer, 1901, p.231, 501; Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, pp.166, 231; Bauer, et al., 1979, pp.285-286; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.51. [return]
16. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.82. [return]
17. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.16. Footnotes omitted and verse references modernised. Transliterations mine. [return]
18. Beecher, 1928, pp.16-17. Greek othonia has been substituted for Beecher's Latin "linteamina" error. [return]
19. Bulst, 1957, p.88; Ruffin, 1999, pp.46-47; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.33. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.58; Wilson, 2010, p.50. [return]
21. Bagster, S., ed., 1870, "The Analytical Greek Lexicon," Samuel Bagster and Sons: London, c. 1960, reprinted, p.283; Thayer, 1901, p.439; Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.411; Bauer, et al., 1979, p.555; Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.1028. [return]
22. Bagster, 1870, p.283. [return]
23. Wilson, 1979, pp.58,60; Wilson, 1986, p.45; Wilson, 1998, p.55; Wilson, 2010, pp.51-52, 297. [return]
24. Thayer, 1901, p.439; Abbott-Smith, 1937, p.311; Bauer, et al., 1979, p.759; Zodhiates, 1992, p.1028. [return]
25. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.122. [return]
26. Guscin, 1998, p.27. [return]
27. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.137; Bennett, 2001, p.17. [return]
28. Guscin, M., 1997, "The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin," Shroud.com. [return]
29. Bennett, 2001, p.13. [return]
30. Ricci, 1981, p.137; Guscin, M., 1996, "The Sudarium of Oviedo," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 43, June/July. [return]
31. Whanger, A.D. & M.W., "A Quantitative Optical Technique for Analyzing and Authenticating the Images on the Shroud of Turin," 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.303-324, 312-313; Guscin, 1996. [return]
32. Guscin, 1998, pp.28,32,64,87; Guscin, M., 1999, "Recent Historical Investigations on the Sudarium of Oviedo," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.122-141, 124-125; Bennett, 2001, p.79. [return]
33. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, , pp.611-615, 611. [return]
34. Guscin, 1998, pp.32,64,110; Bennett, 2001, p.79. [return]
35. Bennett, 2001, pp.146-148. [return]
36. Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.207. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, p.59; Wilson, 2010, p.51. [return]
38. Robinson, 1977, p.26. [return]
39. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.35; Barbet, 1953, p.94; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.34; Wilson, 1986, p.20; Guscin, 1998, p.30; Ruffin, 1999, pp.42-43; Wilson, 2010, p.44. [return]
40. Barbet, 1953, pp.34,51. [return]
41. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
42. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," 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.184-189, p.188; Adler, A.D., "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, p.18. [return]
43. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.118; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.35, 130. [return]
44. Bulst, 1957, pp.95-96. [return]
45. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.147-148. [return]
46. Bennett, 2001, p.150. [return]
47. Wilson, 2010, p.52. [return]
48. Whanger & Whanger, 1991, p.313. [return]
49. Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, p.292; Liefeld, 1984, p.1049. [return]
50. Beecher, 1928, pp.16-17; Bulst, 1957, p.142. [return]
51. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," 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, p.325-344; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.240-241. [return]
52. Bulst, 1957, p.99; Wilson, 1979, p.60; Iannone, 1998, p.90. [return]
53. Kruse, 2003, p.376. [return]
54. Marshall, A., 1966, "The Interlinear Greek - English New Testament," Samuel Bagster & Sons: London, p.454. [return]
55. Tenney, 1981, p.188. [return]
56. Wilson, 1979, p.251. [return]
57. Robinson, 1977, p.29. [return]
58. Assumed, since according to 1Cor 5:7, Jesus appeared to James, after He had "appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time" (1Cor 5:6), which presumably was His Great Commission appearance in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20 - see Mt 28:7,10; Mk 14:28; 16:7). Which would take those in Jerusalem about a week to walk there (the distance by road between Jerusalem and Capernaum in Galilee being ~196 kms or ~120 miles). [return]
59. Bulst, 1957, pp.87, 144; 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; Guscin, M., 2004, "The History of the Sudarium of Oviedo: How It Came from Jerusalem to Northern Spain in the Seventh Century A.D.," Edwin Mellen Press: Lewiston NY, p.18. [return]
60. Beecher, 1928, p.17; Barnes, 1934, p.50. [return]
61. Ehrman B.D., 2003, "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did not Make It into the New Testament," Oxford University Press: New York NY, p.16. [return]
62. Barnes, 1934, p.50; Bulst, 1957, p.87; Green, 1969; Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.69-81, 75. [return]
63. Bulst, 1957, p.142. [return]
64. Schonfield, H., "Historical Supplement," in Proszynski, K. & Schonfield, H., ed., 1932, "The Authentic Photograph of Christ: His Face, and Whole Figure as Marvellously Appearing on the Shroud which was Thrown Over His Body after the Crucifixion," The Search Publishing Co Ltd: London, p.54; Green, 1969; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.74. [return]
65. Barnes, 1934, p.50. [return]
66. Schonfield, 1932, pp.54-55; Barnes, 1934, p.50; Humber, 1978, p.74; Wilson, 1979, pp.92-93; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.74. [return]
67. Guscin, 200, p.18. [return]
68. Ruffin, 1999, pp.52-53. [return]
69. Guscin, 2004, pp.18-19; Fulbright, D., 2008, "A Note on `the Servant of Peter'," in Fanti, G., ed., 2009, "The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, p.435. [return]
70. Scavone, 1989, p.74; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.14. [return]
71. Eusebius, "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus," Cruse, C.F., transl., 1955, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth printing, 1966, Book V, Chapter xxiv, p.208. [return]
72. Kruse, 2003, p.353. [return]
73. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. II, pp.390-391. [return]
74. Tenney, 1981, p.182. [return]
75. Morris, 1971, p.752. [return]
76. "High Priest of Israel: Biblical narrative," Wikipedia, 23 December 2015. [return]
77. Tenney, 1981, p.182. [return]
78. Kruse, 2003, p.30; Tenney, 1981, p.6. [return]
79. Hendriksen, 1964, Vol. I, p.18. [return]
80. Grosheide, F.W., 1954, "Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians," [1953], The New London Commentary on the New Testament," Marshall, Morgan & Scott: London, Second edition, pp.351-352; Mare, W.H., "1 Corinthians," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1978, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 10 - Romans - Galatians," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.282; Morris, L.L., 1985, "The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1958], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, Reprinted, 1987, p.203. [return]
81. Robertson, A.T., 1931, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume IV: The Epistles of Paul," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, pp.187-188. [return]
82. Ricci, 1981, p.xxi; Scavone, 1989, pp.70-71. [return]

Posted: 21 January 2016. Updated: 19 September 2016.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F

This is my alphabetical index, A-F, to where mentions of "forger," "forgery," etc, occur in Shroud literature on my system. This will help speed up finding references for the "Problem for the forgery theory" sections in my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series. To save space I will use an abbreviated in-line referencing format, with a link to each reference, but no return. This post was originally "A-Z" but it grew too long, so I progressively split it into "A-F," "G-M," "N-R" and "S-Z." I have added this page to "My Links" (right) so readers can more easily find it. Entries may be incomplete and disjointed-this is a work in progress! Links to "New/updated" topics are listed in chronological order (most recent last to help readers find what they hadn't yet read), will be re-started each month.

New/updated: .


PROBLEMS OF THE TURIN SHROUD FORGERY THEORY:
INDEX A-F
© Stephen E. Jones

[Above [enlarge) [LM10]: Bloodstains on the forehead of the man on the shroud, including the "reversed `3'", which perfectly show the distinction between arterial and venous blood, discovered by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603) in 1593 [RS81p5]. So in addition to his many `accomplishments', the unknown medieval or earlier forger of the Shroud would have discovered the circulation of blood, at least ~238 years before Cesalpino!]


alternatives The Shroud is either the burial shroud of Jesus Christ or it it the most ingenious and perplexing forgery the world has ever seen[HT78p15-6]. Is this burial cloth a silent witness to the resurrection of Jesus, or is it the greatest art forgery known to date?[JG99p114]. "the image ... Are we dealing with a miracle? A chance natural occurrence? A clever medieval forgery?[MC81p44].

anatomical Medieval forger's understanding of anatomy would have been far in advance of that of all his contemporaries[CT99p291]. The blood flows are physiologically convincing to some of the best medical minds of our time[WI79p32].

asymmetry if the Shroud was proven to be a mediaeval forgery it would have no impact on the core beliefs of Christians[OM10p280]. But if the Shroud was proven to be authentic (which it has) it would have a major impact on the core beliefs of non-Christians[OM10p280]. Which explains why so many non-Christian Shroud sceptics have been so vehement in their scepticism[OM10p280].

before 1355 Forgery would have had to be in the 14th century[BP53p30] before the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France, in c. 1355 [AF82p88].

blood
- arm There is a blood mark behind the man's right elbow but no body image[AM00p79]. Forger would not have painted a blood mark where there is no body image[AM00p79].
- distinction between arterial and venous The forger would have had to know about the circulation of human blood and the difference between arterial and venous blood, which was discovered only in 1593 by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603)[TF06p99] (see above).
- first No image under blood, so blood was on cloth before image and prevented image forming[AA99p104]. Forger would have had to paint with blood around image[AA99p105], which was virtually impossible[AA00p129].
- reversed `3' A modern painter, unless he had a thorough knowledge of the physiology of coagulation, could not portray this frontal clot (above) without making a blunder [BP53p96-7].
- serum ring Every blood clot has a serum retraction ring, visible in ultraviolet[AA99p104]. Forger would have to paint a near-invisible serum ring around every clot, which he would not know was required[AA99p105], and was virtually impossible[AA00p129].
- stereoregister Blood is out of stereoregister with body image[AA99p104]. Forger would have to paint with blood around image out of stereoregister[AA99p105], which was virtually impossible[AA00p129].

burden of proof has shifted onto those who claim that the shroud is a forgery[CJ84p54]. The onus is on anti-authenticists to explain how, when and why the Shroud was made; for whom it was made; and who was this unknown genius who created it[CN88p31].

coins over eyes Two button-like objects, one over each eye of the man on the Shroud, were found after the discovery that the Shroud image is three-dimensional[JJ77p88-9]. These were the same size and shape as Pontius Pilate lepton coins minted in AD 30-31[JJ77p90]. What artist or forger in the 14th century would have thought to place [coin sized and shaped] objects on the eyes of Jesus?[JJ77p91]. In 1982 Fr Francis Filas (1915-85) identified the `button' over the right eye as a lepton coin struck during the rule of Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judaea from AD 26–36 (who had Jesus crucified in AD 30), with a misspelling "U CAI" for "U KAI" in the Greek inscription "TIBERIOU KAISAROS"[IJ98p36] (Tiberius Caesar (42BC–AD37) [AF82p90]. Leptons were later found with that misspelling [AF82p90]. Excludes forgery as forger would have had to obtain a rare misspelled lepton and imprint its image on the Shroud[AF82p90]. But such a coin is very unlikely to have been owned by a forger in the 13th-14th centuries[MM91p295]. Let alone two, because later computer enhancement found that the coin image over the left eye was of a Julia lepton, struck only in AD 29 to mark the death of Tiberius' mother, Julia[GV01p99]. These details on coins over these eyes were only discovered by three-dimensional relief and enlargement of Shroud negatives[AM00p108] and computer enhancement[GV01p99]. Also no mediaeval forger could know these coins, as they were only identified by numismatists in the 19th century[BP00p135]. Impossible for forger to encode such tiny (~1/32 in. = ~0.8 mm[IJ98p44]), near-invisible details over the Shroud eyes[AM00p108], in photographic negative, with no pigment, and in three-dimensional relief[IJ98p44]

crucifixion A medieval forger would also need to have been the only human being between the time of the Emperor Constantine (c.272–337) and our own to have been completely conversant with the details of Roman crucifixion[CT99p292].

d'Arcis, Pierre According to the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377–1395), one of his predecessors Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) had "thirty-four years" earlier, i.e. in 1355[GV01p14], discovered the forger who had painted the Shroud which had been exhibited in the Lirey church in 1355[AM00p152]. But this predates the benevolent letter from Bishop Henri of Poitiers of 1356[GV01p14] in which he had praised the Lirey church[AM00p152], the indulgences granted by Pope Clement VII to pilgrims in 1357[GV01p14]. Also, if the Shroud had been painted by a then living forger, the Lord of Lirey, Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56) and the canons of the Lirey church, would have known that and would not have exhibited the Shroud in 1355[BW57p13]. If someone in the 1350s had publicly confessed to having painted the Shroud's image, why did pilgrims flock to see the Shroud when it was again exhibited in 1389[DR84p13]? Nor would Pope Clement VII (1478-1534), having heard Bishop d'Arcis' objections, enjoined "perpetual silence" about this matter on Bishop d'Arcis[WI79p89] and "allowed the second exposition to continue in 1389[BW57p13] until at least 1390 since there was in 1390 a Papal Bull granted new indulgences to those who visited the Lirey church and its relics[OM10p59]. Neither Pope Clement VII nor Bishop d'Arcis' successor as Bishop of Troyes, Bishop Louis Raguier[OM10p59], considered the Shroud a fraud[DR84p24-25]. Pope Clement VII was Robert of Geneva (1342–94), who was a nephew and neighbour of Aymon of Geneva (c. 1324-88), the second husband of Geoffroy I de Charny's widow, Jeanne de Vergy[WI98p279]. So presumably the future Pope Clement VII had been given a private viewing of the Shroud[WI91p18] in the ~20 years the Shroud was with Jeanne and Aymon in High Savoy from c. 1358 and Robert becoming Pope in 1378, and so knew about the Shroud, its history and how it came into the possession of Geoffrey de Charny and why this had to be kept secret[CN88p43]. D'Arcis himself produced no proof that the Shroud was a painting nor did he mention the name of the supposed forger[OM10p59]. There is no written record of any confession nor the name of the alleged artist[GV01p14]. In fact the d'Arcis memorandum is the only medieval document alleging forgery of the Shroud[SH90p71]. The most serious difficulty with Bishop d'Arcis' claim that Bishop Henri de Poitiers had discovered "the artist who had painted it" is that the Shroud's image is not painted (see painting)[DR84p26]. If d'Arcis had gained possession of the Shroud he would have found that it was not a forgery but the genuine burial cloth of Christ, which would have brought substantial financial benefit to his Troyes Cathedral[OM10p60]. The coincidence between Bishop d'Arcis' false claim that the Shroud was painted in about 1355 and the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390, i.e. 1325 ±65 (see radiocarbon dating) is used as the basis for claims that the Shroud is a medieval forgery[OM10p60-1]. "But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence ... Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve"[DT12p170].

de Charny, Geoffroy I One would not expect Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56), who in the early 1350s owned the Shroud and built the Lirey church, of complicity in a forgery[DR84p24]. To suggest that Geoffrey de Charny would willfully have used a forgery of no value to try and extract money from gullible pilgrims is to totally misunderstand the type of man he was[OM10p49]. He was not only one of France's most trusted and gallant knights, but also a devout author of religious poetry[DR84p24].

de Poitiers, Henri Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) whom one of his successor Bishop d'Arcis claimed had condemned as a forgery the Shroud exhibited at the Lirey church in 1355, had no problems with that exhibition. A year later in 1356 de Poitiers consecrated that same Lirey church[CN88p49], praising the church's canons and its founder Geoffroy I de Charny[WI79p193]! Contradicting d'Arcis, contemporary documents indicate that the cult was approved by the bishop of Troyes, Henry of Poitiers and by a council of bishops at the Avignon papal court [in 1357][DT12p14-5]. Bishop d'Arcis' claim that a forger confessed to Bishop Henri de Poitiers that he had painted the Shroud is worthless since the Shroud is not painted and is a photographic negative[VP02p58]. That d'Arcis had no official document to send to Pope Clement VII shows there never had been a legal process in 1355[VP02p58].

dirt STURP's Roger and Marty Gilbert discovered by reflectance spectroscopy traces of dirt on the feet of the Man on the Shroud[HJ83p112]. There is not enough dirt to be seen, so no forger would have put it there[HJ83p112]. Further analysis of this dirt by crystallographer Joseph Kohlbeck revealed that it contained travertine aragonite, a comparatively rare form of limestone, which is found near Golgotha[GM98p79] (where Jesus was crucified - Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Jn 19:17 and was near to His tomb - Jn 19:41). Those who believe that the Shroud is a forgery need to explain how the very rare aragonite found its way to the surface of the Shroud[RC99p103]. But no medieval forger would ever think of including such details, visible only under a microscope[GM98p79], which was not invented until the 1620s.

faint How did a medieval artist know how to paint a pale, diffuse yellow image that disappears if you look at it close-up[CT96p25]? It would be impossible for a forger to produce the Shroud's faint image on its herringbone weave[MG99p3].

forger Why should an unknown forger have gone to such elaborate lengths to produce an image capable of being comprehended only from the twentieth century[WI79p32]? Forger must have known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century[HT78p16]. He must have had the medical knowledge of a modern master surgeon[HT78p16]. He must have used an art process unknown to any artist before or since[HT78p16]. He must have known principles of photographic negativity not otherwise discovered for centuries[HT78p16]. He must have used a coloring agent that would be unaffected by intense heat[HT78p16]. He must have been able to incorporate into his work details that the unaided human eye cannot see and are only visible with modern technology[HT78p16]. He must have been able to reproduce flawlessly on linen, in a single color, a three-dimensional human body[HT78p16-7]. All of this had to have been done prior to 1355, for since that date the Shroud has a clearly documented history[HT78p16]. But all this is impossible[HT78p16]! Forger would have made a blunder which would have betrayed him[BP53p90,97]. If a fourteenth century artist had invented a process for producing the Shroud, he would have used the process again to produce shrouds of apostles, saints, and martyrs[DR84p26].

forgery Critics who denounce the Shroud as a forgery have been unable to agree on a method, a place, or an artist[AM00p154]. Questions for those who claim the Shroud is a forgery include: How was the forgery committed[CN84p154]? By whom was the forgery committed[CN84p154]? What was the forger's motive[CN84p154]? When was the forgery committed[CN84p154]? How did the forger commit it undetected[CN84p154]? It is impossible to forge the Shroud with today's technology, much less during medieval times[AM00p154,234].

To be continued in the background.

REFERENCES [top]
AF82. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
AA99. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112.
AA00. Adler, A.D., 2000, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
BP00. Baima Bollone, P., "Images of Extraneous Objects on the Shroud," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, Italy
BP53. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963.
BW57. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI.
CT99. Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY.
CT96. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH.
CJ84. Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN.
CN84. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK.
CN88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
DR84. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
GM98. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK.
HJ83. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA.
HT78. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
JJ77. Jackson, J., et al., "The Three Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.74-94.
JG99. Jeffrey, G.R., 1999, "Jesus: The Great Debate," Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON, Canada.
LM10. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org.
MW83. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311.
MG99. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ.
MM91. Moroni, M., "Pontius Pilate's Coin on the Right Eye of the Man in the Holy Shroud, in the Light of the New Archaeological Findings," 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.
MC81. Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous-the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-65
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
RS81. Rodante, S., 1981, "The Coronation of Thorns in the Light of the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #1, December, pp.4-24.
RC99. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
VP02. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI91. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London
WI98.Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.
[top]

Posted: 20 January 2016. Updated: 24 January 2017.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Summary of evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first "1350" date

I was emailed on 13 January 2016 by leading pro-authenticist Joe Marino to let me know, and presumably for me to share on this blog, that he had "put online pt 1 of 3 part article dealing with the politics of the Shroud dating: http://newvistas.homestead.com/C-14PoliticsPt1.html."

[Above (enlarge): Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory staff and Rochester laboratory's Prof. Harry Gove (second from right) around the AMS computer control console terminal, after, or before it had, on 6 May 1988 displayed the alleged hacked radiocarbon age of the Shroud, "640 years", which was then calibrated to the `too good to be true' date "1350 AD" (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.176H, 264). The alleged leaker and hacker, Timothy W. Linick, is in the black shirt, most prominently in the foreground (which is presumably significant-see future part #6, "Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the hacker").]

A few hours later I emailed Joe the following reply (with my emphases and minor corrections). This was a summary of my "Evidence that Timothy W. Linick was the leaker of Arizona laboratory's first `1350 AD' date" in my recent post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #5." I did that because, even if one does not accept my full theory that Timothy W. Linick was the alleged hacker who computer-generated the Shroud's "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date, one should at least accept that Linick was the primary leaker of Arizona's "1350" date, as that is (as can be seen below) simpler, straightforward, and free of complex `conspiracy theory' objections.

Joe emailed me back with no commitment to include it in subsequent parts of his three-part article (which is up to him and they may have already been written) but he did promise to "look closely at all the excerpts" I provided. Which is something!


Joe

Thanks. I will mention it in my January 2016 Shroud of Turin News post, in mid-February. [I later thought of instead posting it this way before then].

Are you going to mention in subsequent parts that Timothy W. Linick (whom I allege was a hacker who computer-generated the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date) was inexplicably mentioned in Sox's August 1988 book?:

"The night before the test Damon told Gove he would not be surprised to see the analysis yield a date around the fifth-century, because after that time the crucifixion was banned and a forger would not have known of the details depicted so accurately on the Shroud. Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'" (Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.147)
And since Sox was undoubtedly the secondary source of the leak of Arizona's first-run "1350" date [added below in square brackets]:
"[Hardly had this wave of publicity died down before on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran as its front-page lead story `Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake'. Accompanying this was a seemingly authoritative article by librarian Dr. Richard Luckett of Magdalene College, Cambridge, cryptically remarking that `laboratories are rather leaky institutions' and `a probable date of about 1350 looks likely'. ...] On 18 September the Sunday Times carried the front page headline `Official: Turin Shroud is a Fake', accompanied inside by the Science Correspondent's full page feature `Unravelled: The Riddle of the Shroud'. This included some of the background material supplied by me, plus the new `leaked' information on the dating, which although described as `official' was backed up by no directly quoted source. Since checks with Professor Hall of Oxford and Dr. Tite of the British Museum again established that neither had been responsible, I complained to the Sunday Times Editor with particular regard to the `official' headline. This prompted a conciliatory phone call from the Science Correspondent who when challenged directly, admitted that his source had been the Revd. David Sox. He said he had in front of him the Revd Sox's already complete book about the Shroud's mediaeval date, awaiting publication the moment this news becomes formally released. Sadly, as evident from a Daily Mail article of September 19, Professor Gonella and Cardinal Ballestrero in Turin have attributed the succession of apparent `leaks' emanating from England to malicious breaches of confidentiality on the part of the Oxford laboratory scientists and Dr. Tite. It seems clear that they have been mistaken, and that the true source of possibly all the leaks is the single non-English clerical gentleman whose identity will now be self-evident.' (Wilson, I., 1988, "On the Recent `Leaks' ...," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [Emphases "Revd. David Sox" added])
the inference is irresistible that Linick was the original source of the leak of Arizona's first run "1350" date [to Sox].

And Gove at least (and presumably many others in the laboratories since Sox's was the first book published about the radiocarbon dating), who is mentioned in Sox's book, on that same page, as telling his partner Shirley Brignall the 1350 date:

"Donahue's wife, who believed the Shroud was genuine, was going for 2000 years. So was Shirley Brignall. She and Gove had a bet. Gove said 1000 years although he hoped for twice that age. Whoever lost was to buy the other a pair of cowboy boots. The calculations were produced on the computer, and displayed on the screen. Even the dendrochronological correction was immediately available. All eyes were on the screen. The date would be when the flax used for the linen relic was harvested. Gove would be taking cowboy boots back to Rochester." (Sox, 1988, p.147)
had to admit in his 1996 book that he had done that:
"I had a bet with Shirley on the shroud's age-she bet 2000 ±100 years old and I bet 1000 ±100 years. Whoever won bought the other a pair of cowboy boots. Although my guess was wrong, it was closer than Shirley's. She bought me the cowboy boots. The reader, by now, will have guessed that despite the agreement I had signed, I told Shirley the result that had been obtained that day. She and I had been associated with this shroud adventure now for almost exactly eleven years-there was no way I could not tell her. I knew she would never violate my confidence and she never did. (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.265)
must have realised that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's first run "1350" date, since Gove by a process of elimination had worked out that the leaker was "someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement":
"I must say I wondered about Luckett's date of 1350 because it was the date Donahue announced to me when I was present at the first radiocarbon measurement on the shroud in 6 May 1988. Of course, it also corresponds very closely to the shroud's known historic date. However, I still assumed Luckett had said he got the number from Oxford. When I read that he claimed he got it from one of the other two labs I worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement. However, it did not really matter now since all three labs had submitted their results to the British Museum and so none of them could be influenced by this real or imagined leak. Shirley convinced me that it was, in fact, a guess as Hall had stated. After all, the historic date for the shroud was circa 1353 when de Charny founded the church in Lirey, France purportedly to house the shroud. (Gove, 1996, pp.279-280)
but Gove pretended it "did not really matter" and was just "a guess."

So there must have been repercussions against Linick for breaching his signed confidentiality agreement, "not to communicate the results to anyone":

"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility. I had asked Donahue to let Shirley attend this historic event since she had been involved in the shroud dating enterprise from the beginning. He said he had been asked to allow the Bishop of Arizona to be present and had turned him down. Under these circumstances he regretted he could not make an exception for Shirley-a deep disappointment for her. I would be the only one present outside the Arizona AMS group. Doug immediately asked me to sign the following statement:`We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the results to anyone- spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public.' It had been signed by D J Donahue, Brad Gore, L J Toolin, P E Damon, Timothy Jull and Art Hatheway, all connected with the Arizona AMS facility, before I signed. My signature was followed by T W Linick and P J Sercel, also from the Arizona facility." (Gove, 1996, p.262)
which presumably contributed to Linick' suicide in 1989, mentioned in his half-brother Anthony's (they had the same father but different mothers) biography of his stepfather Ingolf Dahl):
"Ten years earlier, to follow some of the characters who peopled the early pages of this book, Dora Linick, my step-grandmother, if there is such a designation, died. Adolph Linick, my grandfather, died in 1967 at the age of 97. On my rare visits to Laurel Avenue during his old age he would always slip me a dollar bill. Once I heard him complain, in the wake of the Holocaust,`God must hate the Jews!' His son, my father Leroy, died in 1986. His son, my half-brother Timothy, took his own life at age 42 in 1989." (Linick, A., 2008, "The Lives of Ingolf Dahl," AuthorHouse, p.619. Emphasis original)
[Anthony Linick confirmed to me by email that this "Timothy" was indeed the Arizona radiocarbon dating physicist Timothy W. Linick. But I already knew that because the "W" stands for "Weiler" and at page 539 of the book it states that Anthony Linick's father Leroy divorced his mother Etta and married again a "Delphine Weiler" who later gave birth to Timothy Weiler Linick.].

See my recent post, "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #5."

Regards.

Stephen

Posted: 19 January 2016. Updated: 27 September 2016.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Double image #10: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
DOUBLE IMAGE #10
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #10 of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" See the Main index for more information about this series.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Naked #9] [Next: Faint #11]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. Double image #10

Introduction. The man on the Shroud is a double image[2]: front and back, head to head[3].

[Above (enlarge): "The Holy Shroud" by Giovanni Battista della Rovere (1561-1627) in the Galleria Sabauda, Turin, Italy[4]. Della Rovere showed how the double image of the man on the Shroud (held by angels) came to be imprinted on the cloth[5]. His body was first laid on one end of the cloth, then the remainder was drawn over his head and down to his feet[6].]

Front and back The double image of the man on the Shroud is of his front and back[7] (or frontal and dorsal[8]).

[Right (enlarge): 1931 negative photograph by Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961) of the man on the Shroud's double image: front and back, head to head[9]. As can be seen, at the top of the back image there is a blank space over the feet[10]. This is due to the man having been laid on the back half of the cloth with his feet too far (~8-10 cms[11]) from the edge, leaving the front half not long enough (~2.5 cms short[12]) to cover his feet[13]. So the back end was brought up over his toes to overlap the front end[14], hence the blank area. This is very significant (see below).]

Head to head. As can be seen [right], the front and back images are head to head[15], which indicates that the body was laid on one end of the cloth while the remainder was drawn over the head and down to the feet[16] (see above). There is a gap of about 6½ inches[17] (~16.5 cms) between the two head images[18], which is the top of the head[19] and which bears no image[20]. The apparent image between the front and back head images is a waterstain from extinguishing the 1532 fire[21].

The first known depiction of the Shroud's double image. The first known depiction[22] of the Shroud's double image[23], front and

[Above: (enlarge)[24]: Pilgrim's badge, found in the mud of the River Seine, Paris, in 1855[25].]

back[26], head to head[27], was on a lead badge (above), preserved in the Musée de Cluny, Paris[28], which was worn by a pilgrim[29] to or from the Shroud's to the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud in c. 1355 at Lirey, France[30].

Problem for the forgery theory. This is yet another (see previous three #6, #7 & #9) problem for the medieval forgery theory. Since the Cluny Museum's Lirey pilgrim's badge is the first known depiction of the Shroud's full-length, double body image, a medieval forger would not have had any Christian work of art on which to base his forgery of the Shroud. But then, as Paul Vignon (1865-1943) pointed out, "departure from tradition ... can never have been knowingly done by a forger, whose ... intention would have been to appeal ... to the imagination of his public":

"Now let this be well noted: every time that we find in the Holy Shroud some strangeness, some departure from tradition, we may feel assured that such strangeness, such departure, can never have been knowingly done by a forger, whose direct intention would have been to appeal forcibly to the imagination of his public."[31]
And as Alfred O'Rahilly (1884–1969) observed, the Shroud was not "in accordance with contemporary and previous portrait painting" and amongst other disadvantages, its "two full body-lengths would make exposition very difficult":
"Our difficulties continue when we come to consider the alleged anonymous painter of about 1350. Previously to 1898, a shroud more impressive to the eye, more in accordance with contemporary and previous portrait painting, would have been far more popular. What could have induced an artist to give us these obscure smudges whose details have been unravelled only in our own time? He chose a most inconvenient size; the two full body-lengths would make exposition very difficult. Five visible wounds would have better satisfied the devotional requirements of the time; yet on the shroud the wound in one hand is completely covered by the other hand, and only in our day has the wound in the right sole been located. He broke with traditional iconography; Our Lord's body was depicted nude, so copyists hastened to add a loin-cloth; the wound in the right hand is located in the wrist; the sufferings were depicted with brutal realism. Moreover, there was a waste of incredible subtlety; for all the various physiological and anatomical details, presumably inserted in defiance of current artistic procedure, remained entirely unnoticed and unknown for about 550 years."[32]
Further, as as we saw in part #4, the Shroud's weave was expensive, so a double body length sheet of it would be an unnecessary additional expense for a forger. And as Noel Currer-Briggs (1919-2004) points out by asking, "Why did he [the forger] draw Christ in this particular way - with frontal and dorsal image of the body? ... Hardly for monetary gain":
"There is simply no genius of this calibre known to art historians capable of creating such a masterpiece at this period. But that does not mean there was not such a genius; after all, he could have worked in total isolation and produced no other work of a comparable nature. So let us assume that he did live in some remote monastery or castle unknown to the rest of the world outside. Why did he draw Christ in this particular way - with frontal and dorsal image of the body? what could his reasons have been? Hardly for monetary gain. There is no record of the Shroud having been bought or sold before the mid-fifteenth century."[33]
Finally, as mentioned above as "very significant," the man was laid on the back half of the cloth with his feet too far from the edge, leaving the front half not long enough to cover his feet, so the back end was brought up over his toes to overlap the front end. As Ian Wilson points out, "this is just the sort of mistake that someone enshrouding a genuine body might easily have made" but "an artist-forger would ... have made sure he 'imprinted' ... the body's front half in full":
"No less convincing a pointer to the Shroud being genuinely an ancient Jewish grave cloth, rather than a faked semblance, is the fact that its imprints are not just a straightforward 'front-half' and `back-half' of the `sandwich-board' variety, as any artist-forger would have concocted it, and as artists indeed sometimes unthinkingly copied it during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Instead the front half, rather than, as might be expected, extending all the way down to and beyond where the man of the Shroud's toes would have been, stops at least 2.5cm short, with the recently discovered hem showing that it never had any more length in its `finished' form. Yet in the case of the back half a region of blank cloth carries on for as much as 8 or 10cm beyond where the toes can be seen. Because of this overlap, the Shroud would therefore have been turned back over the short front half in order to make a neat funerary 'parcel'. Although this is just the sort of mistake that someone enshrouding a genuine body might easily have made, since after all, they would hardly have been expecting any image to form, an artist-forger would almost certainly have made sure he 'imprinted' at least the body's front half in full, leaving any 'skimping' to the less important back half."[34].

Continued in part #11 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted 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 post. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.2; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.12; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.2; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.7. [return]
3. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, p.18; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.33. [return]
4. "The Holy Shroud (oil on canvas)," by Giovanni Battista della Rovere, (1561-1627)," Bridgeman Images, Berlin, Germany. [return]
5. Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, pp.19-20; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.164; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.176. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.21; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.12; 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.12; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.169. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.113; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.1; Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.3; Zugibe, F.T., 2005, "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry," M. Evans & Co.: New York NY, p.3; 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.4; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.12. [return]
8. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.39; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.1; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.31; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, pp.2, 11; Adler, A.D., 1996, "Updating Recent Studies on 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.81-86, p.81; Baima-Bollone, P. & Zaca, S., 1998, "The Shroud Under the Microscope: Forensic Examination," Neame, A., transl., St Pauls: London, p.6; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.60; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.1. [return]
9. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Horizontal," (rotated left 90 degrees), Sindonology.org. [return]
10. Wilson, 2010, p.10. [return]
11. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B.M., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.46. [return]
12. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.46. [return]
13. 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.36. [return]
14. de Wesselow, 2012, p.13. [return]
15. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.9; Wuenschel, 1954, p.14; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.12. [return]
16. McNair, P., 1978, "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.23; Heller, 1983, p.vii; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.4; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.33; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.12; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.18. [return]
17. de Wesselow, 2012, p.148. [return]
18. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.12; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.37; Wilson, 1979, p.54. [return]
19. Wilson, 1986, p.4. [return]
20. Bulst, 1957, p.96; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.164. [return]
21. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve...The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-753, 740; Brooks, E.H., II., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., 1981, "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago IL, p.13. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.224d; Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.12. [return]
23. Foster, A., 2012, "The Pilgrim's Medallion / Amulet of Lirey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 75, June. [return]
24. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
25. Wilson, 1991, pp.21, 78C; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127. [return]
26. Adams, 1982, pp.30-31; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.97. [return]
27. Scavone, D.C., 1995. "Letter To The Editor From Professor Dan Scavone," BSTS Newsletter, No. 41, September; Tribbe, 2006, p.42. [return]
28. Wilson, 1979, pp.194, 224D; Adams, 1982, p.30; Wilson, 1979, p.194; Wilson, 1986, p.4; Wilson, 1991, p.78C; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127; Ruffin, 1999, p.64; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Oxley, 2010, pp.49, 106; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
29. Adams, 1982, p.31; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.15; Wilson, 1991, pp.20-21; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, pp.126-128; Ruffin, 1999, p.64; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Oxley, 2010, pp.49, 52, 106; Wilson, 2010, p.222; de Wesselow, 2012, p.14; Foster, 2012. [return]
31. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.32. [return]
32. O'Rahilly, A. & Gaughan, J.A., ed., 1985, "The Crucified," Kingdom Books: Dublin, p.53. [return]
33. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.155. [return]
34. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.45-46. See also Wilson, 1998, pp.36-37; Wilson, 2010, p.10. [return]

Posted: 13 January 2016. Updated: 26 October 2017.