Saturday, March 25, 2017

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Ninth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
NINTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the fifteenth and final installment of part #9, "Ninth century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "First century" and index. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 8th century #8] [Next: 10th century #10]


9th century (801-900)

[Above (enlarge)[2]: Extract from folio 43v of the 9th century (c. 820) Stuttgart Psalter, presumably painted by a Byzantine artist during the Carolingian period (780-900), in the Aachen, Germany capital of Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne (r. 800–814). Jesus is depicted uniquely fully naked from the back, being scourged with realistic bleeding scourge marks, realistically by two scourgers (as was discovered in the 20th century using the modern science of goniometry)[15Juy13], wielding two realistic three-thonged Roman flagrums (see "c. 820" below). The unknown 9th century artist must therefore have seen either the full-length Shroud, which was then in Edessa [see "544"], or an accurate copy of it. If so, this would refute that part of Ian Wilson's theory that only after the Image of Edessa was taken from Edessa to Constantinople in 944, [see future "944"], was it discovered that behind the face of Jesus was the full-length Shroud, "doubled in four" = tetradiplon (again see "c. 820" below).]

812 King Alfonso II of Asturias (c. 760–842), built a chapel in his capital Oviedo, which was later incorporated into Oviedo Cathedral. In

[Above (enlarge)[3]: The 9th century chapel built by King Alfonso II, within which was the Holy Chamber (Cámara Santa) that held the Holy Chest (Arca Santa), which in turn contained the "face cloth [Gk soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7) [see "30"], later known as the "Sudarium of Oviedo," and other relics (see below). See also 25May16]

that chapel was a Cámara Santa (Holy Chamber), to hold the Arca

[Above (enlarge): "The Camara Santa, or Holy Chamber, within the chapel built in 812 by King Alfonso II, to hold the Holy Chest (see below) which contained the Sudarium of Oviedo and other relics[4]. The chest can be seen past the metal bars in the centre background.]

Santa (Holy Chest) which contained the Sudarium of Oviedo and other

[Above (enlarge)[5]: The Holy Chest (or Arca Santa) in which the Sudarium of Oviedo was taken from Jerusalem in 614[6] [see "614"].

relics, that had been in the nearby Monastery of San Vicente since 761 [see "761"][7].

814 A second iconoclast period (814-842) (see ["723"] for the first) began early in the reign of Byzantine Emperor Leo V the Armenian (r. 813-820)[8]. However:

"Leo V ... was much milder in his enforcement of the ban than had been some of his predecessors and the attack was not so much on icons in general as upon some of the uses of them, especially in worship in private houses. The veneration of icons seems to have continued outside the capital, especially in Greece, the islands, and much of Asia Minor."[9]
The Patriarch of Constantinople (equivalent to Archbishop), Nicephorus I (r.806-815) was an early opponent of Leo V's

[Right (original): Extract of illuminated margin of mid-ninth century Chludov Psalter, depicting Nicephorus I upholding an icon and trampling John VII of Constantinople[10], who is lying on the ground with coins[11] (Judas' 30 pieces of silver?).]

iconoclasm but he died in 815[12]. A former painter of icons, the very learned John VII (nicknamed "Grammatikos"), had by 814 become an iconoclast and was later appointed Patriarch John VII of Constantinople (r.837-843) by Emperor Theophilos (r. 829-842)[13]. That the Image of Edessa/Shroud was, as in the first Iconoclastic Period [see "723"], cited as a major argument against the banning of images, is evident from Wikipedia's (garbled) summary of iconodule arguments:

"Much was made of acheiropoieta, icons believed to be of divine origin ... Christ [was] ... believed in strong traditions to have sat ... for [his] ... portrait .. to be painted"[sic][14]!
For the end of the second iconoclastic period see future ["842] below.

c. 820 Stuttgart Psalter On 20 October 2013, a Max Patrick Hamon (presumably this cryptologist) guest-posted on Dan Porter's now closed Shroud of Turin blog a post titled, "An Intriguing 9th Century Image Suggestive of the Shroud – A Guest Posting by Max Patrick Hamon".

[Above (enlarge): "The flogging of Christ, Carolingian iconography, early 9th c. CE, Stuttgart Psalter, fol. 43v, Wurttenmbergische Landesbibliothek, Germany": Max Patrick Hamon.]

Hamon asked the question: "Does the Turin Shroud predate more than half-a-millennium at least the radiocarbon date (1325±65 CE)?" and then he answered his own question (my summary with minor changes):

"A Shroud-like dorsal image of Christ? In 1998-2000, Pr. Heinrich Pfeiffer was the first to draw attention to the ca 800-814 CE Stuttgart Psalter miniature-Turin Shroud dorsal image connection. In a passing comment he just wrote: "... The numerous small wounds resulting from the flogging [on the Shroud] are already to be found ... in a representation of the flogging of Jesus in the Stuttgart Psalter of the early 9th century. The ... miniature clearly shows the whole dorsal image of the Shroud ..."

Could the ca. 800-814 CE Stuttgart Psalter stark naked flogged Christ back view really predate the carbon 14 dating result of 1325 ± 65 calendar years by no less than 510-515 years; more than half a millennium?

... Re the Stuttgart Psalter miniature of the Flogging of Christ-Turin Shroud (TS hereafter) man's dorsal image connection, to the astute observer [Below right (enlarge)]:

● Both men are stark naked with long flow of hair in the back ...
● Both have arm(s) bound/crossed in front ...
● Both have bloodied furrows/scourged marks in conjunction with two whips with lashes each
fitted with doubled (metal) pellets implying two executioners.
● Both have almost feminine curved left hip & thigh (to be called later “the Byzantine curve”)[05Feb14, 11May14].
● Both are/were tied at tibiofibular level with left leg in front of right leg (TS man accurate
Forensic description: left leg in front of right leg with rope-mark in the tibiofibular fleshes).
● Both show a most unnatural/awkward feet position.
● And last but not least, by means of a very curious tailed-Epsilon hand sign each time, the executioner on the left seem to point with his left hand index finger to his own head while the executioner on the right does point to Christ's head with his left hand index finger too. Both left hand signs cryptically echo the tailed-Epsilon-shaped like small blood rivulet we can observe on TS man's forehead, just above his left eyebrow.

All these pieces of evidence piled up into a crucial evidence: the bloodied body burial cloth now kept in Turin was already in existence early in the 9th CE. The Stuttgart Psalter miniature Shroudlike Christ does predate the radiocarbon date by no less than half-a-millennium."

On 21 October 2013, in my post "A 9th century depiction of Christ being scourged naked from behind with the scourgers' fingers in the shape of the reversed 3 bloodstain on the Shroud!," based on Hamon's above post, I made the following points (summarised):
● "Christ is depicted naked from the back, with realistic, bleeding scourge marks, something that is very rare, if not non-existent, in the Middle Ages ..."
● "... the artist accurately depicted a Roman flagrum, of the three-thonged, lead ball tipped, type which made the marks on the Shroud." [Left (enlarge)]
● "... the artist depicted two scourgers, which is not mentioned in the Gospels, but which can be deduced from the pattern of scourge marks on the Shroud" [15Juy13]
● "Jesus' feet are at an angle (as the man on the Shroud's appear to be)"
● "Jesus' hands would have been crossed in front of him (his right arm is not visible) at about his groin area as on the Shroud"
● "Jesus has long hair (as has the man on the Shroud)"
● "... as pointed out by Hamon, the unnaturally long and strangely configured fingers on the free hand of the scourger on the right, is in the shape of the epsilon (or reversed 3) bloodstain on the Shroud man's forehead! ...

[Above (enlarge): "... the fingers of the scourger on the left of Jesus on the Stuttgart Psalter (left) [see above]; the reversed 3 bloodstain on the Shroud horizontally flipped (centre); and the fingers of the scourger on the right of Jesus on the Stuttgart Psalter (right). As can be seen there is a close match between the shape of reversed 3 bloodstain on the Shroud and the fingers of the scourger on the right."]

[and] if that bloodstain photo is flipped horizontally (because the scourgers' fingers are at the back of Jesus but the reversed 3 bloodstain is at the man on the Shroud's front), it then has the same basic shape as the scourger's fingers!"
● "Additional evidence that the artist intended to depict the Shroud's reversed 3 bloodstain in the shape of the scourger on the right's fingers is that he is pointing to Jesus' head and the scourger on the left is pointing to his own head, but there would seem to be no other reason why they would be doing this during a scourging. Also the scourger on the right has no thumb visible on his free hand, when it should normally have been visible, but then that would have detracted from the hand's match with the Shroud's reversed 3 bloodstain."

As mentioned above, it is part of Ian Wilson's overall Jerusalem → Edessa → Constantinople theory that it was only after 944, when the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud had been taken from Edessa to Constantinople, it was discovered that behind the face of Jesus in landscape aspect was the "doubled-in-four" (Gk. tetradiplon), full-length, front and back, double image of Jesus imprinted on his burial Shroud:
"All this makes all the more intriguing the evidence that someone, sometime after the Mandylion's arrival in Constantinople [on "August 15, 944"], seems to have undone the gold trelliswork covering the cloth, untwined the fringe from the surrounding nails, carefully unfolded the cloth, and, for the first time since the days of the apostles, set eyes on the concealed full-length figure. Frustratingly, this is another of those moments in the Mandylion's history that has gone unrecorded, yet is crucial to it. It is attested as a real happening from an impressive array of circumstantial evidence"[15].
So on the same day, 21 October 2013, I emailed Ian Wilson (cc. Barrie Schwortz), drawing their attention to Hamon's post on Porter's blog:
"Re: A major discovery of a depiction of Christ being scourged naked from behind in the Stuttgart Psalter (820-830) and the two scourgers' fingers pointing to Christ's head are unnaturally in the shape of a reversed 3! ... A commenter on Dan Porter's "Shroud of Turin Blog" has posted, "An Intriguing 9th Century Image Suggestive of the Shroud – A Guest Posting by Max Patrick Hamon," regarding a 9th century depiction in the Stuttgart Psalter (820-830) of Christ being scourged naked, back facing, and the two scourgers' fingers pointing to Christ's head are unnaturally curved in the shape of an epsilon or reversed 3 (see attached images). I think this is a genuine major Shroud discovery, which according to your chronology Ian, pre-dates the Shroud being taken from Edessa to Constantinople in 944 and what's more shows that the Shroud had been seen full-length before 944 and allowed to be copied. I will be interested in your comments on this ..."[16]
The next day, 22 October 2013, both Schwortz and Wilson replied. Schwortz wrote that he found the `finger' issue to be rather dubious" and that he was "anxious to hear what Ian has to say"[17], ignoring what else I wrote about this being "a 9th century depiction ... of Christ being scourged naked ..."

Ian Wilson's reply was more comprehensive:

"... I certainly wouldn't scoff at the possible significance of this Stuttgart Psalter miniature. It's the first time that I have come across this image, and although like Barrie I'm very doubtful regarding the scourgers' fingers suggestion, I certainly wouldn't reject outright the idea that such a strikingly `dorsal' image may in some as yet undetermined way have been influenced by the Shroud. There's a useful website with a lot more of the images from the same Psalter, and so some careful further study is possible, and certainly called for. So I'll be sure to give it some further consideration when I can. As my 2010 book made clear (pp.147-8), I now support the idea that the Shroud was very likely brought out in full length form for the late seventh century Mu'awiyah `trial by fire' incident, so the dorsal image would have been viewable prior to the Stuttgart Psalter's creation. If there is to be another BSTS Newsletter, then I would certainly pitch for this intriguing news being included"[18].
But as can be seen above, like Schwortz, Wilson was "very doubtful regarding the scourgers' fingers suggestion," without giving any reason why. And Wilson was strangely guarded in his negative convoluted wording, "I certainly wouldn't reject outright the idea that such a strikingly `dorsal' image may in some as yet undetermined way have been influenced by the Shroud." As for Wilson's "late seventh century Mu'awiyah `trial by fire' incident" as an explanation of why "the dorsal image would have been viewable prior to the Stuttgart Psalter's creation," as we shall see below in my critique of Wilson's subsequent BSTS Newsletter article, this involves multiple implausibilities!

The following is my critique of Wilson's article, "The Stuttgart Psalter 'Discovery' - An exaggerated claim - Research article," BSTS Newsletter, No. 78, December 2013. Wilson's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine. First, it is disappointing to see Wilson, in an evident attempt to protect that part of his theory (which is not even essential to it), downplay as a 'Discovery' in quotes and "exaggerated," this very significant depiction in the early ninth century, of Jesus, completely naked (uniquely that early) being realistically scourged by two scourgers, who are wielding historically

[Above (enlarge): Close-up of the left scourger's, three-thonged, metal ball tipped, Roman flagrum in folio 43v of the 9th century (c. 820) Stuttgart Psalter. Compare its historical accuracy with the flagrum above which is a copy of one excavated from the 18th century the Roman city of Herculaneum which had been buried in the AD 79 eruption of Mt Vesuvius.]

accurate three-thonged, metal ball-tipped, Roman flagrums, causing realistic scourge marks on Jesus' back and legs.

"... a few weeks ago my fellow Australian Stephen Jones kindly drew my attention to an article by Max Patrick Hamon that had appeared on the Dan Porter 'Shroud Story' website. The article in question can be accessed at https://shroudstory.com/2013/10/20/an-intriguing-9th-century-image-suggestive-of-the-shroud-a-guest-posting-by-max-patrick-hamon/ [link corrected]" ... Hamon has stirred up quite a lot of Internet fuss over an illumination in a ninth century Carolingian manuscript that Professor Heinrich Pfeiffer first suggested several years ago might have a Shroud connection." Pfeiffer did more than than merely "suggest ... [it] might have a Shroud connection." See above where Pfeiffer wrote:

"... The numerous small wounds resulting from the flogging are already to be found ... in a representation of the flogging of Jesus in the Stuttgart Psalter of the early 9th century. The ... miniature clearly shows the whole dorsal image of the Shroud ..."
"The illumination in question (p. 25), on Folio 43 verso in the so-called Stuttgart Psalter preserved in the Württemberg State Library, Stuttgart, depicts the scourging of Jesus, as an illustration of the prophetic text of the Vulgate Bible's Psalm 34/35*, v.15 "et adversum me laetati sunt et convenerunt congregata sunt super me flagella et ignoravi." Dateable to between 820 and 830, this illumination is so graphic in its depiction of Jesus' scourge marks, also so emphatically 'dorsal' in its depiction of the fully naked back of Jesus' body receiving this flagellation, that it is certainly not unreasonable to suggest" Again Wilson strangely employs convoluted negative wording. Why does Wilson not then simply say, as Pfeiffer did, words to the effect that this "Stuttgart Psalter of the early 9th century ... clearly shows the whole dorsal image of the Shroud ..."?

"that it could derive from some Carolingian artist/monk's third or fourth hand knowledge of the scourge marks on Shroud image." Again, why does Wilson, with no evidence, downplay this as "third or fourth hand knowledge of the scourge marks on Shroud image"? That the artist's style is cartoon-like does not mean that he was not a first-hand viewer of the full-length Shroud. That the 11th century Pray codex's depiction of Jesus' image on the full-length Shroud is largely "symbolical"[19] and the artwork is "crude"[20], does not mean that the artist was not a first-hand viewer of the Shroud[21], which Wilson himself maintains[22]. And, after all, the production of such Carolingian art included "a number of Byzantine artists who appear to have been resident in Carolingian centres":

"Carolingian art comes from the Frankish Empire in the period of roughly 120 years from about 780 to 900 — during the reign of Charlemagne and his immediate heirs — popularly known as the Carolingian Renaissance. The art was produced by and for the court circle and a group of important monasteries under Imperial patronage; survivals from outside this charmed circle show a considerable drop in quality of workmanship and sophistication of design. The art was produced in several centres in what are now France, Germany, Austria, northern Italy and the Low Countries, and received considerable influence, via continental mission centres, from the Insular art of the British Isles, as well as a number of Byzantine artists who appear to have been resident in Carolingian centres"[23]
As we saw above, Wilson has his own explanation of how "the dorsal image would have been viewable prior to the Stuttgart Psalter's creation," which in downplaying Hamon's discovery, Wilson is evidently trying to protect:

"In chapter 11 of my most recent (2010) book on the Shroud I discussed the likelihood that it was our Shroud, temporarily brought to Jerusalem after an earthquake had devastated Edessa's Hagia Sophia cathedral on Easter Sunday 679, which received the 'trial by fire' on a sudarium of Jesus ordered at around that time by the Muslim Caliph Mu'awiyah, as described by direct eyewitness French bishop Arculf to Abbot Adamnan of Iona." This involves multiple implausibilities:

● That because of an earthquake which severely damaged Edessa's Hagia Sophia cathedral, where the Image of Edessa/Shroud was presumably kept, instead of finding a safer place in Edessa (e.g. in one of Edessa's many churches[24]), Edessa's custodians of the Image would not only send their palladium (guarantee of their city's divine protection)[25] outside their city, but would sent it ~974 km (~605 miles) to Jerusalem[26] where it would be out of their control and they would be unable to ensure that it would ever return to Edessa. Wilson's own documentation of the great reluctance of the Edessans to allow the Image to be taken to Constantinople in 944[27], should alone have caused him to reject this part of his theory.

● If this "sudarium" which Arculf saw in Jerusalem was the Image of Edessa/Shroud which had been sent there for safety, then by Wilson's own account it would have been far safer in Edessa than in Jerusalem where, at the whim of a Muslim Caliph, it could be subject to a "trial by fire," which involved making the cloth `fly' over a "great fire ... like a bird with outstretched wings"[28]!

Other implausibilities not mentioned by Ian Wilson in his BSTS Newsletter article above, include:

● Wilson admits in his 2010 book The Shroud but failed to disclose in his article that the "sudarium" described by Arculf was only 8 feet (~2.4 m) long, not the over 14 feet (~4.4 m) long Shroud[29]. It could not have been the Shroud folded "doubled" as Wilson proposed in his 2010 book[30] because Arculf described "the sudarium ... as fluttering above the fire 'like a bird with outstretched wings'"[31], during which it would have unfolded and been apparent that it had been doubled. Also, Arculf had kissed the cloth afterwards, which Wilson had mentioned in a previous book[32] but not his 2010 book, nor in his article, and up that close Arculf could not have failed to notice it was about twice 8 feet long.

● Besides, the "trial by fire" that Wilson is trying to make this Arculf account fit is that which explains the four sets of L-shaped `poker holes' on the Shroud[33]. But that would have required the Shroud to have been folded not "double" but quadruple: "folded in half down its length and half across its width"[34]. And there is nothing in Arculf's account about "thrusting through the cloth three times [with] something like a sputtering pitch-soaked red-hot poker"[35], which would have been needed to make the `poker holes' on the Shroud.

● As Wilson also admitted in his book, but failed to disclose in his article, Arculf said nothing about this "sudarium" bearing an image[36], and as Wilson said in an earlier book, "he would undoubtedly have mentioned" it if it had one[37].

● There is an `Official History' of the Image of Edessa (Narratio de Imagine Edessena)[38], written in Constantinople in 945, shortly after the Image of Edessa/Shroud arrived in that city[39]. An English translation of the `Official History' is Appendix C, pages 272-290 of Wilson's 1979 book The Shroud of Turin), but there is is no record in it of the Image of Edessa having been sent to Jerusalem (or anywhere) between the first mention of it at Edessa in repelling the Persian siege of 544 (pp. 282-285) and then the Image being taken to Constantinople in 944 (pp. 285-288). But if the Image/Shroud had been sent to Jerusalem in c.679 and had triumphed in a `trial by fire' over a Muslim Caliph, who then returned it to Edessa, that surely would have been recorded. That it wasn't means it didn't!

● In fact, Arculf is quoted by Wilson in his 2010 book as claiming that this cloth was "the sudarium of Our Lord which was placed over his head in the tomb"[40]. That is, the "face cloth" [soudarion of Jn 20:7, not the "shroud" [sindon] of (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53), which was placed over Jesus' entire body! So this may have been the Sudarium of Oviedo which was in Jerusalem up to 614 (see above and "614"]). This would explain why Arculf did not see any image on this "sudarium". However, the Sudarium of Oviedo is only ~2.8 feet long (85.5 x 52.6 cm or ~34 x ~21 inches)[41], so Arculf would have had to have been very wrong in his length estimate, or his translator, Abbot Adamnan of Iona, misunderstood him, for this to have been the Oviedo "sudarium".

In his previous books, for the above reasons, Wilson had concluded that the "sudarium" seen by Arculf in Jerusalem was not the Shroud, but was probably the "shroud of Compiegne," a gift to Charlemagne about 797, which was destroyed in the French Revolution"[42]. In his 2010 book, but not in his article, Wilson frankly admits that it "...remains highly speculative that the sudarium of Christ that Arculf saw in Jerusalem and the Image of Edessa, alias our Turin Shroud, were one and the same object"![43]. So Ian Wilson, by his own admission, has no viable alternative explanation of how this c.820 Stuttgart Psalter has such a realistic depiction of Jesus being scourged fully naked!

"So given that our Shroud had been viewed at full length by at least one western observer at the end of the seventh century," See above that this involves multiple implausibilities which together amount to an effective impossibility. And that even Wilson regards it as "...highly speculative that the sudarium of Christ that Arculf saw in Jerusalem and the Image of Edessa, alias our Turin Shroud, were one and the same object"!

"for there to appear in a manuscript of the early ninth century an image distantly based on that experience," This is sloppy thinking by Wilson in what he claims is a "research article! Even if the "sudarium" that Arculf saw in Jerusalem c.680 was the Shroud (and the evidence above is that it wasn't) it does not follow that this c.820 Stuttgart Psalter depiction of Jesus being scourged naked was based on it. For one thing, Arculf never mentioned an image on the cloth, let alone that it was of Jesus naked and bleeding from being scourged, which Wilson himself had admitted (as we saw above) Arculf would "undoubtedly have mentioned it" if there was one. For another, Wilson would have to show a plausible causal pathway from Arculf's account in Abbot Adamnan's De Locis Sanctis, to this c.820 full-length depiction of Jesus in the Stuttgart Psalter. While "Adomnán's De locis sanctis was recopied and widely read all over western Europe"[44], there is nothing in it that would have led an artist to depict Jesus being scourged naked in the Stuttgart Psalter. And if Arculf could have seen the full-length Shroud in Jerusalem (but see above the evidence that he didn't), so could have the artist who painted the image of a naked, scourged Jesus in the Stuttgart Psalter have seen the full-length Shroud in Edessa!

"even though not exactly headline-grabbing, is not totally beyond the bounds of possibility." This mere rhetoric by Wilson is both false and fallacious. It is false, because what Hamon wrote in Porter's blog was not in any way "headline-grabbing." And it is fallacious in that anything that is not logically impossible is "not totally beyond the bounds of possibility," But (as we saw above) the multiple implausibilities of Wilson's claim that Arculf saw the full-length Shroud in Jerusalem in c.680 render it effectively impossible!

"But where, in my view, Max Patrick Hamon goes way 'over the top' -thereby doing disservice to the scrupulous evidential approach that the subject of the Shroud so badly needs from its proponents" As a Christian Wilson needs to heed Jesus' warning to "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Mt 7:3-5; Lk 6:41-42). As we saw above Wilson's own claim that the "sudarium" that Arculf saw in Jerusalem in c.680 was the full-length Shroud is hardly a model of "the scrupulous evidential approach that the subject of the Shroud." Indeed, as we saw, Wilson himself regards it as "highly speculative!

"-is with regard to his claim that the exaggeratedly expressive hand of the man seen on the right wielding his scourge is a cryptic rendition of the shape of the 'epsilon-shaped blood rivulet over the eyebrow' as seen on the Shroud's frontal image." Wilson simply ignores the totality of the evidence that Hamon posted (see above) of which the "tailed-Epsilon hand sign" which "echo ... the tailed-Epsilon-shaped like small blood rivulet we can observe on TS man's forehead," was but one part. Instead of criticising Hamon, Wilson should have congratulated him for making a major Shroud discovery, as I did in a comment under Hamon's post on Porter's blog:

"I don't normally comment on Dan's blog, or even read the comments under his posts, but I must make an exception congratulate Max on his major discovery of this very realistic 9th century (820-830) depiction of Christ being scourged naked from behind, and particularly his noticing that the two scourgers' fingers pointing to Christ's head are unnaturally curved resembling the epsilon or reversed 3 bloodstain on the forehead of the man on the Shroud. This is more evidence that the Shroud was in existence and seen in its full length in the 9th century. According to Ian Wilson's chronology that would be even before the Shroud was taken from Edessa to Constantinople in 944. I have therefore taken the liberty of drawing Max's discovery to the attention of Ian Wilson and Barrie Schwortz. I will also take the liberty of commenting on Max's discovery on my blog. Again my congratulations to Max on his major discovery and also my thanks to Dan for posting it." (October 20, 2013 at 11:29 pm)

"Obviously if this argument could be sustained it would represent strong evidence for the Shroud's existence back around 820-30." Ignoring for the present (see next) Hamon's "tailed-Epsilon hand sign" argument, the rest of his argument self-evidently can be sustained and so it does, "represent strong evidence for the Shroud's existence back around 820-30"! Wilson's claim that this depiction on the Stuttgart Psalter of Jesus naked and bleeding from being scourged realistically is explained by "our Shroud had been viewed at full length by at least one western observer [Arculf] at the end of the seventh century" is self-evidently false and (as we saw) Wilson himself doesn't believe it!

"And if all the other hands depicted in the Stuttgart Psalter were of regular size and shape, the Fol. 43v illumination thereby being a single, striking exception to the rest, then there might be some serious justification for Hamon's argument." Wilson is here setting up a "strawman":

"... an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent"[45].
There is no requirement, nor claim, by Hamon or me, that "all the other hands depicted in the Stuttgart Psalter" are "of regular size and shape" nor that "the Fol. 43v illumination" is "a single, striking exception to the rest." Since Hamon had already shown in his first six lines of evidence (see above) that the Fol. 34v illumination of the Stuttgart Psalter was based on the Shroud, before we even get to his seventh "tailed-Epsilon hand sign" evidence; and Wilson's Arculf alternative fails (see above); it would not be surprising if the same artist drew hands of a similar style throughout the Psalter, and on that basic hand style superimposed the shape of the epsilon/reversed `3' bloodstain on the Shroud, pointing to other individuals throughout the Psalter.

"But it is a very simple matter for anyone to consult the entirety of other folios from the Stuttgart Psalter via the link: "http://digital.wlb-stuttgart.de/sammlungen/sammlungsliste/werksansicht/?id=6&tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=1343&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=90 [link corrected] "And as immediately becomes evident, exaggerated or caricature-like hands are effectively a very common motif for this particular monk illuminator. Even on the very next folio, illustrating the 21st verse of the same Psalm 34/35* (below), there appears a similar example, and there are plenty more to be found elsewhere." Having set up his "strawman" caricature of Hamon's argument it is no surprise that Wilson can easily knock it down! A "daveb of wellington nz," in a comment under a later Porter post about Wilson's "BSTS Newsletter article," titled "Ian Wilson Responds to a Posting in This Blog," January 30, 2014, responded:

"While agreeing with Ian Wilson that this particular monk illuminator often seems to make caricatures of hands a common motif in the illustrations of the Psalter, I am sympathetic to Max's perspective. Hand signals were a very common and accepted means of silent communication throughout the ancient world. Nor through scanning quickly through the Psalter did I come across another specific instance of the epsilon sign. It may well be that the other various hand signs shown also have their own particular significance which is now unknown to us" (January 30, 2014 at 8:37 pm).
I myself have started going through the online Stuttgart Psalter, starting from Fol. 1v, and like "daveb," although I have found hands of a similar basic style to those on Fol. 43v (which is not surprising since it is the same artist-see above), I have yet to find another hand that is the same as that folio's "tailed-Epsilon hand sign." But even if I do, it would be readily explained by the artist intending the blood trickle on Jesus' forehead to apply to that individual in the same sense that it applied to the two scourgers (e.g. "His blood be on us ...!" - Mt 27:25). However it is time-consuming, so I will report my findings here as a later update and notify readers of it in a subsequent "Editorial and Comments" in my Shroud of Turin News.

"So I am sorry, but much as I would like to be able to endorse Max Patrick Hamon's argument, it doesn't get any support from me..." Since this is major Shroud discovery of Hamon's (see above) it is Wilson's loss that he doesn't support it. In a comment under Porter's above 2014 post, Hamon (who evidently is this cryptologist) responded:

"... is Ian Wilson's disclaiming gospel Truth? Is he a Carolingian or medieval Art Historian? Is he familiar with Benedictine cryptography applied to Art works? ... Can Wilson ... tell me the real meaning then of such a hand gesture? ... can Wilson ... correctly discriminate between a natural similar hand gesture, a symbolic similar hand gesture and an encoded/cryptic symbolic similar hand gesture? ... done with the right or the left hand?" ... if there are that many examples of this same (unnatural) LEFT hand gesture made with a telescopic index finger pointing at the head of Christ in the whole Carolingian and Medieval iconographic corpus besides the Stuggart Psalter, can Wilson ... show them to me?" (January 30, 2014 at 6:23 pm).
842 The second iconoclast period ended with the death of Emperor Theophilos in 842 and his two year-old son Michael III (r.842-867) succeeding him[46]. During Michael III's minority the Empire was governed by his mother, the Empress Theodora (r.842-855) [47], as his regent[48]. Theodora was an iconodule[49] and in 843 she reintroduced the minting of coins bearing the face of Christ, with Shroud-like features[50]. Also, through her influential minister

[Above (enlarge)[51]: Solidus coin issued by Empress Theodora in 843, showing on the obverse (left) the face of Christ with Shroud-like "Vignon markings" features[52] and on the reverse (right) Michael III and Theodora, indicating her regency during her son's minority.]

Theoktistos (r. 842-855)[53], Theodora deposed the iconoclast Patriarch John VII of Constantinople (see above) and replaced him with the iconodule Patriarch Methodius I of Constantinople (r. 843-847)[54]. That and an 842 edict, "The Restitution of Images"[55] brought to an end the the second period of Byzantine iconoclasm[56].

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

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of 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. "Jesus being scourged," Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart (Wurttemberg State Library, Stuttgart), Stuttgart Psalter - Cod.bibl.fol.23, 43v. [return].
3. Ho Diéguez, C.V., 2011, "Patrimonio Ibérico – Monumentos de Oviedo y el Reino de Asturias," ("Iberian heritage - Monuments of Oviedo and the Kingdom of Asturias" - Google Translate), 26 May. [return]
4. 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, pl.3. [return]
5. "Arca Santa," Wikipedia, 29 November 2016. [return]
6. Guscin, M., 1996, "The Sudarium of Oviedo," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 43, June/July; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.14; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.91; Whanger, M.W. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.56; 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, 128-129; Bennett, 2001, pp.28-29, 102a, 194; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.41-42; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.322; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.182-183; Anderson, M.J., 2015, "The `Other' Shroud of Christ: The Sudarium of Oviedo," Catholic World Report, April 1; Klimczak, N., 2016, "The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus," Ancient Origins, 2 April. [return]
7. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
8. Latourette, K.S., 1953, "A History of Christianity: Volume 1: to A.D. 1500," Harper & Row: New York NY, Reprinted, 1975, p.296; Oxley, 2010, p.30; "Byzantine Iconoclasm: The second iconoclast period: 814–842," Wikipedia, 20 February 2017. [return]
9. Latourette, 1953, p.296. [return]
10. "Byzantine Iconoclasm," Wikipedia, 20 February 2017. [return]
11. "File:Chludov Nikephoros I of Constantinople.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 20 February 2017. [return]
12. "Nikephoros I of Constantinople," Wikipedia, 3 February 2017. [return]
13. "John VII of Constantinople," Wikipedia, 3 February 2017. [return]
14. "Byzantine Iconoclasm: Iconodule arguments," Wikipedia, 20 February 2017. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.116, 157-158; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.114; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.154-155; 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.153-154; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.114; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.182. [return]
16. Jones, S.E., 2013, Email to Ian Wilson, cc. Barrie Schwortz, "Re: A major discovery of a depiction of Christ being scourged naked from behind in the Stuttgart Psalter (820-830) and the two scourgers' fingers pointing to Christ's head are unnaturally in the shape of a reversed 3!," 21 October 2013, 11:50 AM. [return]
17. Schwortz, B., 2013, Email to Stephen E. Jones & Ian Wilson, Ibid, 22 October 2013, 3:59 AM. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 2013, Email to Stephen E. Jones & Barrie Schwortz, Ibid, 22 October 2013, 7:11 AM. [return]
19. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.181. [return]
20. de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
21. de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
22. Wilson, 1986, p.114; Wilson, 1991, pp.160-161; Wilson, 1998, p.147; Wilson, 2010, pp.182-183. [return]
23. "Carolingian art," Wikipedia, 3 January 2017. [return]
24. Wilson, 1998, p.156. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, p.137. [return]
26 "Map from Şanlıurfa, Şanlıurfa Province, Turkey to Jerusalem, Israel," Google Maps, 2 April 2017. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, pp.148-150; Wilson, 1998, pp.148, 267; Wilson, 2010, pp.157, 300. [return]
28. Wilson, 2010, pp.147-148. [return]
29. Wilson, 2010, p.109; Wilson, 1979, p.94; Wilson, 1986, p.103; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.77. [return]
30. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
31. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
32. Wilson, 1979, p.94; Scavone, 1989, p.77. [return]
33. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
34. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
35. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.94; Wilson, 1986, p.103; Scavone, 1989, p.77. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, p.94. [return]
38. Wilson, 1998, pp.256, 268. [return]
39. Wilson, 1979, pp.256, 272; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Oxley, 2010, p.24; Wilson, 2010, p.167. [return]
40. Wilson, 2010, p.109. [return]
41. Bennett, 2001, pp.13, 66. [return]
42. Wilson, 1979, p.94; Wilson, 1986, p.103. [return]
43. Wilson, 2010, pp.148-150. [return]
44. "De Locis Sanctis," Wikipedia, 2 March 2017. [return]
45. "Straw man," Wikipedia, 27 March 2017. [return]
46. "Michael III," Wikipedia, 14 March 2017. [return]
47. "Theodora (wife of Theophilos)," Wikipedia, 20 March 2017. [return]
48. "Michael III," Wikipedia, 14 March 2017. [return]
49. "Theodora (wife of Theophilos): Empress consort," Wikipedia, 20 March 2017. [return]
50. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.194; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, pp.116-117. [return]
51. "Michael III - Byzantine Coinage," SB 1687, WildWinds.com, October 25, 2016. [return]
52. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.194; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, pp.116-117. [return]
53. "Theoktistos," Wikipedia, 20 March 2017. [return]
54. "Michael III," Wikipedia, 14 March 2017. [return]
55. Manton, L., 1996, "The Cappadocian Frescoes and the Turin Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Monographs, No. 5, p.6. [return]
56. "Michael III," Wikipedia, 14 March 2017. [return]

Posted: 25 March 2017. Updated: 9 April 2017.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

No decomposition #21: 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
NO DECOMPOSITION #21
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #21, "The man on the Shroud: No decomposition," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "The man on the Shroud #8." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: Three-dimensional #20] [Next: X-rays #22]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. No decomposition #21

Introduction. The image of the man on the Shroud shows no signs of bodily decomposition[2], corruption[3], or putrefaction[4].

[Above (enlarge)[5]: Close-up of the Shroud man's face, which shows no evidence of decomposition at the mouth, nose or eyes. Yet decomposition first shows itself around the mouth[6]. This is even clearer on the counterpart Enrie negative photograph (see below).]

No signs of decomposition at the orifices There was no issue of

[Above (enlarge)[7]: Close-up of the Shroud man's face in negative, which also shows no evidence of decomposition at the mouth, nose or eyes.]

decomposition fluids and gases from the orifices (mouth, nose, eyes)[8], which usually occurs between 30 and 40 hours after death[9]. Decomposition would first leave a stain around the mouth[10], which would then have changed the outline of the face[11].

The man was in the Shroud no longer than three days The lack of bodily decomposition stains on the Shroud means that the man cannot have been in it longer than three days[12]. Even the agnostic art historian, Thomas de Wesselow, admits: "...the fact that the Shroud appears unaffected by any signs of liquid decomposition implies that the cloth was separated from the body within a few days ..."[13]. Any longer than three days, putrefaction would have set in and any image on the Shroud would have been destroyed[14] followed soon after by the destruction of the Shroud itself[15].

The man separated from the Shroud within three days without disturbing the dried blood As we saw above, the Shroud man's body separated from the cloth before putrefaction set in[16], which was within three days of death[17]. Moreover, the dried blood clots that had adhered to both the body and the cloth[18] remained intact[19] and unsmeared[20] on the cloth after that separation! [see future part #22, "Blood clots intact"].

Jesus' body did not undergo decomposition The New Testament eyewitnesses, quoting from Ps 16:10, recorded that Jesus' body "did not see corruption" (Acts 2:27, 31; 13:34-37)[21]. The original Greek is diaphthoran[22], which refers to "the change of the present constitution of the body" following death[23] and "that destruction which is effected by the decay of the body after death"[24]. Jesus' body escaped corruption by being resurrected (Acts 2:32; 13:34,37)[25], after about 36 hours in the tomb[26] and less than 40 hours after His death[27].

Problem for Maillard Reaction theory As we saw in part #18 of this series, a Mailard Reaction is a chemical reaction between amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and carbohydrates[29]. It is what causes the browning of food in cooking[30]. A STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005) proposed the theory that the image on the Shroud was the result of a Maillard Reaction between a carbohydrate, Saponaria officinalis or soapwort, which was used by the ancients in the production of linen[31], and both ammonia and amino acids which were given off by Jesus' (supposedly) decomposing body[32]. However, in addition to other problems of Rogers' Maillard Reaction image formation theory (e.g. vapors do not travel in straight lines but would diffuse in all directions to create a blurry, unclear and non-3D image[33] and they would not remain on the surface (see part #18) but would permeate down throughout the spaces in the weave of the cloth[34]: Rogers himself admitted that the "the discontinuous distribution of the color on the topmost parts of the weave," was a "perplexing" problem for his theory[35]); there is no evidence of decomposition on the Shroud man's body)[36] to produce the ammonia and amino acids required by Rogers' theory. Moreover, after Rogers' death, in 2013 Barrie Schwortz experimentally tested Rogers' Maillard Reaction theory on a decomposing pig and the theory failed that test[37]!

Problem for the forgery theory (see previous three: #18, a #19 and #20. The lack of signs of bodily decomposition on the Shroud is a particular problem for the Medieval Photography theory of Prof. Nicholas Allen (see 07Aug16, 01Sep16, 05Sep16 & 29Oct16), which requires a human body to be left hanging upright out in the sun for at least six days[38]. But a human body hung out in the necessarily bright full sunshine all day, for at least six days, to form an image in Allen's supposedly medieval camera, would have started decomposing[39], with unmistakable signs of decomposition[40] and loss of shape[41], not to mention being fly-blown with maggots eating the corpse's face[42], all faithfully recorded on Allen's hypothetical medieval photograph. But such decomposition and indeed putrefaction wasn't recorded on the Shroud image, so Allen's medieval photography theory is false!

The image of the man on the Shroud is that of a real human body In 1981, following an intensive series of scientific tests, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) reported:

"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin."[43]
Even some sceptics have now realised that, given its life-likeness and dissimilarity to any medieval work of art, the Shroud image can only be that of a real human body[44]. The agnostic de Wesselow points out:
"Every part of the body-image, then, even the remarkable image of the head, can be explained in terms of a stain produced by a real human body. Indeed, certain distortions and gaps in the image demand to be explained in these terms. The missing feet and neck of the frontal figure, the blank areas around the hands and forearms, the soles of the feet in the dorsal figure: these speak of the cloth having been draped loosely over the body of a man, not tinted by a medieval artist or subjected to a primitive form of photography"[45].
The image of the man on the Shroud is that of a dead man [see 13Dec13] The man on the Shroud is dead[46]. His body is in rigor mortis[47], fixed in the position that he was when he died[48] (except for the arms where the rigor of the shoulders has been broken for burial[49]), which is consistent with his death on a cross[50]. He has

[Above (enlarge): "G. Ricci, `Crucifixion,' sculpture in wood according to research carried out on the Holy Shroud"[51]. Italian artist Giulio Ricci (1913-95) reconstructed from the Shroud image the shape of the man's body, fixed in rigor mortis on a cross, at the moment of his death.]

post-mortem blood flows[52], which have oozed, not spurted as they would have had his heart been still beating[53], notably in the large bloodstain from the spear wound in his side[54]. That spear in his side punctured his heart and so would have been fatal had he not already died[55]. His legs are not broken[56] unlike other Roman crucifixion victims whose legs were broken while alive on their cross to hasten their death (Jn 19:31-33) [57] by asphyxiation[58].

The Man on the Shroud is the resurrected Jesus! Given that (as we saw above): 1) the man on the Shroud is a real, dead human body; 2) the lack of signs of decomposition gases and fluids around his mouth, nose and eyes, means that he separated from the Shroud within three days; 3) the dried blood that would have adhered to both his body and the Shroud are intact, unbroken and unsmeared (see future part #22); and 4) the Gospel eyewitnesses recorded that Jesus' body was resurrected before it "saw corruption"; then the only explanation that fits all these facts (and many others) is that the image of the Man on the Shroud is that of the resurrected Jesus!

[Above (enlarge)[59]: Photograph of Jesus' face imprinted on the Shroud at the moment [Greek atomos - 1Cor 15:52] of His resurrection!

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'"[60]. Yes indeed!!]

Continued in part #22 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 post. [return]
2. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.50; 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.127, 155; Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 284; Habermas, G.R., 1984a, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.158; Habermas, G.R., 1984b, "Turin, Shroud of," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker Book House: Grand Rapids MI., 1990, Seventh printing, p.1116; Habermas, G.R., 1987, "Affirmative Statement: Gary R. Habermas," in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.28; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.65; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.91; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.212, 229; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.3, 181; 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.54; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.33, 88; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.189; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.144; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.27. [return]
3. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, pp.30, 94; Wuenschel, 1954, pp.36, 50; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.107; Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.41; Iannone, 1998, p.88. [return]
4. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.58; de Wesselow, 2012, p.378n.36. [return]
5. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical.," Sindonology.org. [return]
6. Hynek, 1951, p.95; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.212. [return]
7. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
8. Wuenschel, 1954, p.50; Meacham, 1983, p.284. [return]
9. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.212; Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
10. Hynek, 1951, p.95; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.212. [return]
11. Hynek, 1951, p.95. [return]
12. Bulst, 1957, p.107; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.155-156; Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.41; 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.51; Antonacci, 2000, p.120; de Wesselow, 2012, p.144. [return]
13. de Wesselow, 2012, p.144. [return]
14. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970, p.44; Hynek, 1951, p.94; Wuenschel, 1954, p.20; Morgan, R.H., 1986, "Environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem," Shroud News, No. 37, October, pp.11-14, 13. [return]
15. Wuenschel, 1954, p.20; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.35; 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, 76; Morgan, 1986, p.13. [return]
16. Robinson, 1978, p.76; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.218; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.230; Wilcox, 2010, p.189. [return]
17. Habermas, 1984a, p.158; Habermas, 1984b, p.1116; Antonacci, 2000, pp.33, 235. [return]
18. Bulst, 1957, pp.74, 144n.219; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156. [return]
19. Bulst, 1957, p.74, 144n.219; Wuenschel, 1954, pp.51-52; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.156-157, 218; Habermas, 1984a, pp.158-159; Habermas, 1984b, p.1116; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
20. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156; Cruz, 1984, p.52; Habermas, 1984a, pp.158-159; Habermas, 1984b, p.1116; Habermas, 1987, p.28; Antonacci, 2000, pp.32, 120, 235; Tribbe, 2006, pp.100, 231; Wilcox, 2010, pp.19, 189. [return]
21. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.127; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.91; Iannone, 1998, p.88. [return]
22. Green, J.P., Sr., ed., 1986, "The Interlinear Bible: One Volume Edition," [1976], Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, Second edition, p.843. [return]
23. Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, p.446. [return]
24. Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Fourth edition, Reprinted, 1961, p.143. [return]
25. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.41; Iannone, 1998, pp.88, 181; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.127; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.91. [return]
26. Wuenschel, 1954, p.49; Iannone, 1998, pp.88, 181. [return]
27. Jesus died at the "ninth hour" (Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34; Lk 23:44-46), which was 3pm[28], on the eve of the Sabbath (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54), a Friday. And Jesus was resurrected at, or before dawn on the day after the Sabbath, the first day of the week, a Sunday (Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 24:1-6). Therefore Friday 3pm-12mn = 9 hours + Saturday 24 hours + Sunday 12mn - 6am = 6 hours, total 39 hours. [return]
28. Carson, D.A., "Matthew," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1984, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 - Matthew, Mark, Luke," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.577. [return]
29. Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.100; de Wesselow, 2012, p.155. [return]
30. Rogers, 2008, pp.100-101; de Wesselow, 2012, p.155. [return]
31. Rogers, 2008, p.102; de Wesselow, 2012, p.155. [return]
32. Rogers, 2008, pp.100-102; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.155-156. [return]
33. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.89; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.124; Iannone, 1998, p.182; Antonacci, 2000, p.84. [return]
34. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.89-90; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.124-125; Iannone, 1998, p.182; Antonacci, 2000, p.61. [return]
35. Rogers, 2008, p.102. [return]
36. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.153-154; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.27. [return]
37. Jones, S.E., 2013, "Shroud on SBS 1 Australia at 7:30 pm tonight Sunday 24 March," The Shroud of Turin blog, 24 March. [return]
38. Allen, N.P.L., 1995, "Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photonegative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin," De Arte, 51, Pretoria, UNISA, pp.21-35; Allen, N., 2009, "How Leonardo did not fake the Shroud of Turin," Unisa Press. [return]
39. Antonacci, 2000, p.89. [return]
40. Piczek, I., 1996, "Alice in Wonderland and the Shroud of Turin," Proceedings of the Esopus Conference, August 23rd-25th, Esopus, New York; Wilson, 1998, p.217. [return]
41. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.126. [return]
42. Major, R., 2016, "Movie: Stages of decomposition," Australian Museum, 23 February. [return]
43. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.219; Leafloor, L., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: Controversial Cloth Defies Explanation as Study Shows it Has DNA From Around the World," Ancient Origins, 21 October. [return]
44. de Wesselow, 2012, p.139. [return]
45. de Wesselow, 2012, p.148. [return]
46. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.45; Drews, 1984, p.27; Habermas, 1984a, p.158; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.26; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.112; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
47. Cruz, 1984, p.50; Drews, 1984, p.27; Habermas, 1984a, p.158; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.112-113; Bucklin, R., 1997, "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May; Antonacci, 2000, pp.32, 88. [return]
48. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.53; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.165; Oxley, 2010, p.130. [return]
49. Cameron, J. M., "The Pathologist and the Shroud," in Jennings, 1978, p.58; Wilson, 1986, p.26; Zugibe, F.T., 1988, "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition, p.132; Iannone, 1998, p.81; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.65; Tribbe, 2006, p.100; Oxley, 2010, p.168; de Wesselow, 2012, p.146. [return]
50. 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.150; Tribbe, 2006, p.126; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.145, 148. [return]
51. Ricci, G., 1978, "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1982, p.61. [return]
52. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113; Tribbe, 2006, p.101; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.120-121. [return]
53. Cruz, 1984, p.53; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113. [return]
54. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.113; Schiatti, L, 1998., "The Shroud: A Guide to the Reading of an Image Full of Mystery," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.30; de Wesselow, 2012, p.130. [return]
55. Cameron, 1978, p.59; Cruz, 1984, p.51; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.112; Antonacci, 2000, p.31; Tribbe, 2006, p.101; Oxley, 2010, p.167. [return]
56. Bulst, 1957, p.106; Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, 1978, p.78; Antonacci, 2000, p.102. [return]
57. Robinson, 1978, pp.77-78; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.226-227; Antonacci, 2000, p.24. [return]
58. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.81; Antonacci, 2000, p.32. [return]
59. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]
60. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]

Posted: 14 March 2017. Updated: 20 April 2017.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Another form of fraud - computer hacking: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #5

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #5, "Another form of fraud - computer hacking," 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 previous post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: Odds "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon dating! #4] [Next: Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory #6]

Another form of fraud - computer hacking Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my hacker theory in my early 2014 posts: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)," "(2)" and now "(3)."

[Above (enlarge: Schematic of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating system at the University of Arizona in 2005. Note the "Control Console" at bottom left next to the photograph of a computer. While this presumably is not the actual system used to radiocarbon date the Shroud of Turin in 1988, both then and now it is the AMS computer which displays at the control console a sample's radiocarbon date[A].]

■ As we saw in part #4, it is easier to believe that a fraud was committed in the radiocarbon dating of the first century or earlier Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" than to believe that by a "one in a thousand trillion" chance the three radiocarbon dating laboratories `just happened' to converge on that 1325 ±65 years date, which `just happens' to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France in c. 1355[B].

■ But leading Shroud pro-authenticist Ian Wilson knew some of the radiocarbon laboratory leaders and he considers it "as absurd and far-fetched as it is unworthy" that "these men may have `rigged' the radiocarbon dating." Accepting that at face value, there is another form of fraud that does not seem to have occurred to anyone, namely that the laboratories may have been duped by a computer hacker[C]!

■ In June 2007 I read David Sox's "The Shroud Unmasked" (1988) in which he described the results of the very first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud on 6 May 1988 at Arizona laboratory when the date (which Sox didn't give because he wasn't there) of the Shroud's flax appeared on the laboratory's computer screen and indicated that the Shroud age was closer to "1000 years" than "2000 years," which meant the Shroud was not authentic[D].

■ Later in 2007 I read Gove's own eyewitness account, in which he gave the date of the Shroud as "1350 AD":

"At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue. His face became instantly drawn and pale. At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first. ... Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began ... I had a bet with Shirley [Brignall] 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"[E].
But I left out of the Gove's above quote what immediately preceded it, that, "All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a ... screen":
"The first sample run was OX1. Then followed one of the controls. Each run consisted of a 10 second measurement of the carbon-13 current and a 50 second measurement of the carbon-14 counts. This is repeated nine more times and an average carbon-14/carbon-13 ratio calculated. All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen"[2]
Which indicates that I had not then fully appreciated the significance of Gove's words, which confirmed that between the AMS system actually dating the Shroud sample and the humans reading the numbers on the screen in the laboratory, was a computer and a computer is controlled by a program and a program is hackable[F]!

■ My original proposal (it was too early to call it a theory) was that "a hacker had logged in to each of the three radiocarbon [dating ] laboratories' AMS machine's computer while the Shroud's test was being run and had substituted the Shroud's actual dates coming from the AMS machine for bogus dates which agreed with the ~1350 date when the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France"[F]. And "The same presumably happened at the other two laboratories, Zurich and Oxford when they later ran their tests in May and August, respectively"[G].

But this reasonable assumption that the AMS computers would have been online turned out to be wrong, as Arizona's Prof. Jull and Oxford's Prof. Ramsey later stated that their AMS computers had never been online. So I modified my proposal to include that "the hacker, or hackers, would have had to insert a program, or modify the existing program, manually and locally in each of the three laboratories"[I].

■ Based on that wrong assumption that the three laboratories' AMS computers were online, I attempted to deduce whether the hacker was an "insider" or an "outsider":

"The hacker could have been someone inside one of the three laboratories or an outsider. In favour of it being an insider is that the hacker would have to produce an uncalibrated date which would then be calibrated to `1350 AD.' But any one of Arizona University's archeology or geophysics students would know how radiocarbon dating calibration worked and an especially computer literate one could gain access to each of the computer at the end of the accelerated mass spectrometers, not only at Arizona but also its counterparts at Zurich and Oxford laboratories. All three laboratories had AMS systems, presumably with the same hardware and software. And all would have been online, as [Clifford] Stoll [see 23Jan17] explained that all university computers were, and only those in military establishments with the highest need for security were offline[H]."
■ I also wrongly assumed that the hacker would more likely have been someone outside the laboratories because of the lack of sophistication in the "too good to be true" first run "1350" calibrated date:
"In favour of it being an outsider, is that the 1325 +/- 65 years average of the three laboratories' dates for the Shroud is (again) too good to be true. If the hacker was one of the laboratories' radiocarbon dating staff or graduate students he/she would more likely substitute the Shroud's AMS dates with more sophisticated bogus dates, like Gove's `1000 ±100 years', which would still appear to refute the Shroud's first century date, but would not look too good to be true. And an outsider would more likely feel the need to start with the `1350 AD' date and then vary that date slightly on successive runs to avoid anyone becoming suspicious"[J].
But I latter realised that, "if a hacker wanted to break down pro-authenticity psychological resistance then 1350 was the date he would have used for that very first dating"[08Jun14]. I also overlooked that the hacker "would have needed to create a climate of expectation that the Shroud was medieval, so his program's combined average 1325 ±65 calibrated date of the Shroud across the three laboratories would be unquestioned" and Linick did that by leaking to the media, through Sox, that Arizona's first date was "1350"[31Mar15].

■ Although I was wrong about the AMS computers being online, that early assumption enabled me to make the connection with the German hacker ring, whose member Markus Hess, Stoll had detected:

"The hacker whom Stoll detected, Markus Hess, was actually a German, living in Germany, and dialing in to a pre-Internet network in the USA, from where he could hop from one university and military network to another, due to their lax security in the 1980s"[K]
to which the alleged secondary hacker, Karl Koch (whom I would later first mention in my post of 31Mar14) belonged.

■ Hess was "a freelance spy who sold any secret information he discovered to the KGB"[L], from which I made the connection, which in my next post I will call, "My first embryonic statement of my hacker theory," that "the atheistic Soviet regime of the 1980s ... to discredit ... Christianity," was behind the 1988 hacking of the Shroud's radiocarbon dating:

"So it would not be surprising if the atheistic Soviet regime of the 1980s would see it as a legitimate target to discredit the Shroud, and through that Christianity, by one its agents hacking into each of the three radiocarbon dating laboratories' computers, and replacing the actual radiocarbon dates of the Shroud that the laboratories' accelerated mass spectrometers were determining, with bogus dates which when calibrated would cluster around 1325 +/- 65 years"[M]
■ At that early stage I could not see how I could provide any further evidence to answer my question, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" So I did not call my question a "theory" but merely a "proposal":
"I have presented this proposal as a question, `Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?' because in the nature of the case, barring a belated confession, my proposal is unlikely ever to be confirmed as correct, even if it is correct. The hacker would be unlikely to admit it because he would be prosecuted ... for breaking into government computers, as Hess was. And the laboratories would be unlikely to admit they had been duped by a hacker, even if they realised they had been. Whatever evidence there was in the laboratories' computers, the hacker would almost certainly have deleted it, and even if he didn't, it is most unlikely that it would still exist in the laboratories' 1988 computers"[N].
■ However, so as not to finish on that pessimistic note, I concluded with de Wesselow's point:
"... in the final analysis it is the Shroud anti-authenticists' problem to find a explanation for what went wrong with their carbon dating of the first-century Shroud to the 13th-14th centuries. As Thomas de Wesselow pointed out, we Shroud pro-authenticists don't need to find an explanation of what went wrong with the 1988 radiocarbon date of the Shroud. We can just dismiss it out of hand as a "'rogue' radiocarbon date" as archaeologists routinely do when a radiocarbon date is contradicted by the majority of the other evidence."[O]
Besides, as we shall see, my pessimism was unjustified as I was later to find, unexpectedly, a lot of evidence that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking!

Continued in part #6 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]

Posted: 10 March 2017. Updated: 14 April 2017.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Odds "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon dating!: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #4

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #4, "Odds `one in a thousand trillion' against the dating!" of 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 previous post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: My first use of the term "hacker" #3] [Next: Another form of fraud - computer hacking #5]

Odds "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon dating! Continuing in my post of 20 February 2014, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (2)," I

[Above (enlarge)[2]: Part of Victoria, Australia's Ninety Mile Beach. Ninety miles is ~145 kilometres. Best of luck finding in only one try a particular grain of sand, of 1 mm diameter, on this beach in a strip 145 kilometres x ~5.4 metres wide. Because that is about the probability, "one in a thousand trillion," of the Shroud being first century (as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), yet its radiocarbon date is 1260-1390![08Dec14]]

presented the following evidence and arguments:

■ Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) pointed out that the "probability that the shroud [radiocarbon] dates between 1260 and 1390" yet it is actually "first century" was "about one in a thousand trillion"[A]. But since the Shroud is authentic, according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and therefore its actual age is first century or earlier, the odds are "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon dating being 1260-1390!

■ Given the above it is easier to believe that a fraud was committed in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" than to believe that by a "one in a thousand trillion" chance the three radiocarbon dating laboratories `just happened' to independently converge on the 1260-1390 date range, the midpoint of which, 1325±65 years, `just happens' to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France in c. 1355[B].

■ Which 1325±65 years date the laboratories were aware of (as we saw in part #3). A leading Shroud sceptic, Denis Dutton (1944–2010), had publicly predicted in a journal two years before the 1988 tests, that if the Shroud "were to be carbon-dated it would come in at A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years"[C]. I didn't then know it but another leading Shroud sceptic Walter McCrone (1916-2002), had in 1981 publicly predicted in another journal that the Shroud image had been "painted ... about 1355"[D]. So a fraudster would know what date to aim for!

Agnostic but pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow, on the basis of the art history evidence, regards the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud to be the equivalent of claiming that "the Shroud was deposited in medieval France by aliens"[E}!

■ Therefore de Wesselow considers fraud in the Shroud's "1325 ± 65 years" radiocarbon date to be a real possibility, because "Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve."[F]

To be continued in part #5 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. "90-Mile Beach, Gippsland, Victoria," The Grey Nomads, Travel & Holiday Information Australia, 2017. [return]

Posted: 9 March 2017. Updated: 16 March 2017.