The Shroud of Turin

Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin

2009-10-08T13:49:00.080+08:00

Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin, Reuters, Mon Oct 5, 2009 ... ROME (Reuters) - An Italian scientist says he has

[Above: The face of the Shroud (L) compared with Garlaschelli's shroud's image (R): Reuters]

reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake. It is now over 20 years since a report in Nature, the world's most prestigious scientific journal, declared that radiocarbon dating had provided "conclusive evidence" that the Shroud was "mediaeval":

"The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range .. for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 ... These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval." (Damon, 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, 337, p.614. My emphasis).

But that there is still a need to "prove... definitively" that the Shroud is a medieval fake, is tacit acknowledgment by Shroud sceptics (i.e. true believers in the Shroud's inauthenticity) that none of their previous `proofs' of the Shroud being a fake, including the above radiocarbon-dating (see below), hold water. And as we shall see, neither does this latest claim that the Shroud is a medieval fake hold water either.

The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ. This is one of the tests that those who claim they have reproduced the Shroud must meet: it must be "reversed like a photographic negative." It is not enough to produce an image that is only superficially like the Shroud. It must be exactly like the Shroud in its uniquely important details - down to the microscopic level. I here predict that if this claimed reproduction of the Shroud is submitted for microscopic analysis, it will be shown to be unlike the Shroud, and therefore itself just a fake copy of the Shroud original.

But there is no need to even do that. There is a major difference between Garlaschelli's description of how he made his shroud's image (see below) and the image on the Shroud of Turin, that totally disqualifies Garlaschelli's shroud from being a faithful and credible reproduction of the Shroud of Turin.

"We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli,

[Left: Luigi Garlaschelli, Researcher in Organic Chemistry, University of Pavia, Italy: Fifth World Skeptics Congress, 2004, Italy]

who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday. Note that Garlaschelli only claims vaguely that his alleged reproduction "has the same characteristics as the Shroud." Why doesn't he say, "has the exact same characteristics as the Shroud"? Because he knows it doesn't!

A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs. Superficially Garlaschelli's photographs look very convincing. It may even be that he has produced the best reproduction of the Shroud yet. If it is, and it fails to withstand microscopic analysis (as I predict it will-if it is ever submitted for such testing, which I predict it won't), that will be more evidence that the Shroud cannot be reproduced and therefore is the very burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of His crucified and resurrected body!

The Shroud of Turin shows the back and front of a bearded man with long hair, his arms crossed on his chest, while the entire cloth is marked by what appears to be rivulets of blood from wounds in the wrists, feet and side. These marks don't just appear to be blood; they are blood!:

"Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone's claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ocher and vermilion. Adler flashed on the screen the following table from our paper. Table 5 Tests confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud 1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence 2. Indicative reflection spectra 3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra 4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence 5. Positive hemochromogen tests 6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests 7. Positive detection of bile pigments 8. Positive demonstration of protein 9. Positive indication of albumin 10. Protease tests, leaving no residue 11. Positive immunological test for human albumin 12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls 13. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks Then, after explaining each item briefly, Al said, `That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!'" (Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," pp.215-216. Italics original).

Carbon dating tests by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona in 1988 caused a sensation by dating it from between 1260 and 1390. That dating is wrong. For one thing (and there are many)

[Right (click to enlarge): The Hungarian Pray Manuscript and the Poker Holes: Daniel R. Porter]

the Hungarian Pray manuscript (or codex) is dated 1192-95, or 65-68 years before 1260 the earliest possible radio- carbon date of the Shroud (and 130-133 years before the claimed middle date of 1325). Yet the Pray manuscript is obviously depicting the Shroud with its: 1. naked Jesus (otherwise unknown in the middle ages); 2. having his arms crossed in front; 3. hands with no

[Left: "L"-shaped pattern of Burn holes on the Shroud of Turin: Daniel R. Porter]

thumbs; 4. about to be covered by a shroud with the same rare herringbone weave pattern; and 5. (the clincher) the Pray manuscript's

[Left: The Shroud of Turin's "L"-shaped pattern of burn holes depicted on the Pray codex of 1192-95: Daniel R. Porter]

shroud depicts the same pattern of burn holes that are on the Shroud of Turin!

Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business. If the "sceptics" were truly sceptical (and not just true believers in the Shroud's inauthenticity) they would realise that it would take far less than the Shroud to make money in the gullible middle ages:

"Also is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us, a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?" (Wilson, 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," pp.58-60).

But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth. Yes! But given that:

"The Shroud of Turin is now the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world. Somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific man-hours have been spent on it, with the best analytical tools available." (Heller, 1983, Ibid., p.219. My emphasis).

how can it be that "scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth"? How could an unknown medieval forger create only one work such that the advanced science of the 20-21st century has been "at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth"? That alone is proof (if one thinks about it) that no medieval (or any time) forger created the image on the Shroud.

Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. That materials were available in the middle ages does not mean that someone then could have reproduced the Shroud. For starters it was not known the Shroud was a photographic negative until the end of the 19th century:

"The modern history of the Shroud might be said to have begun on May 8, 1898, when Secondo Pia was permitted to photograph the Shroud for the first time while it was being exhibited at the Cathedral in Turin. Pia was flabbergasted to find that his glass-plate photographic negative was turning out in the developing bath to show, in fact, a photographic positive image. The Shroud itself had somehow been stained in such a way that the body imprint on the cloth was a negative. This feature alone would seem to rule out the claim that the Shroud is an ancient or medieval forgery. What artist, centuries before, would have fabricated details that could only be discerned with the help of a nineteenth-century invention? And the photographic process, subsequently confirmed by the photographs taken by G. Enrie in 1931, brought out a wealth of hitherto concealed details." (Sullivan, B.M., 2005, "Reading the Shroud of Turin: How in fact was Jesus Christ laid in his tomb?," National Review, July 20, 1973, Reprinted March 24, 2005).

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. Note the "rubbed it." That means the pigment and acid marks on Garlaschelli's shroud's image would have, like all known works of human art, directionality. But the Shroud of Turin has no directionality:

"Still further, the shroud image is nondirectional. Now if one is going to put paint on a cloth, one moves the hand from side to side. When one gets tired, one often starts moving the hand up and down. But even if one only moves from side to side all of the time, that is directionality. One cannot generally apply paint without directionality. If one uses a spray gun it still involves directionality. But there is no directionality on the shroud image." (Habermas, 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?," p.119).

A mask was used for the face. ... The pigment was then artificially

[Above: The front body of the Shroud (L) compared with Garlaschelli's image (R): Reuters]

aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries. Note again "similar to" not "identical to"! And Garlaschelli's "the pigment on the original Shroud faded" is a tacit admission by him that there is no pigment on the Shroud of Turin:

"We do not have to know how somebody could have painted it, but science is adept at finding paint when it is present. But first, if the scientists have come up with one major conclusion, it is that the shroud is not a known fake. There is no paint, dye, powder, or other foreign substance on the image fibrils that could account for the image. Microchemical analyses revealed no paints or pigments ... A 1982 report from a team of scientists, released at a New London, Connecticut, meeting, states that, `No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found in the fibrils.' [Press Release, The Shroud of Turin Research Project, 8 October 1981] So again, we could falsify the shroud if there was paint. But they have not found any ... The shroud image does not appear to be painted at all." (Habermas, 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?," p.119).

but there is pigment on his shroud. After all, what is Garlaschelli's "fuzzy, half-tone image" if it is not a residue of the "pigment containing traces of acid" that he applied and then mostly washed off his shroud?

They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect. Here is a major difference between Garlaschelli's shroud and the Shroud of Turin. Garlaschelli "added blood stains" to his shroud after the image was created, but the blood on the Shroud of Turin is before its image, i.e. there is no image under its bloodstains (which fits the Shroud being Jesus' and its image being imprinted by His resurrection):

"Our hypothetical artist obviously must have used blood - both pre-mortem and post-mortem. And he had to paint with serum albumin alongside the edges of the scourge marks. Since serum albumin is visible only under ultraviolet, not white light, he had to paint with an invisible medium. If an artist had painted the Shroud, the blood must have been put on after the images. We decided to check that point. We took some blood- and serum-covered fibrils from a body image area. If the images were there before the blood, and if we removed the blood, we could expect to see straw-yellow image fibers. We prepared a mixture of enzymes that digest blood and its proteins. When all the blood and protein were gone, the underlying fibrils were not straw-yellow; they were ordinary background fibrils. This was strong evidence that the blood had gone on before the images. It suggested that blood had protected the linen from the image-making process. Surely this was a weird way to paint a picture." (Heller, 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," pp.202-203).

Shroud experts Dr John Jackson and Dr. Keith Propp also made this criticism of Garlaschelli's method, that on the Shroud of Turin, "the blood was on it first, then the body image came second" and "the blood contacted the shroud before the body":

"CNA spoke with Dr. John Jackson who runs the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado and is a physics lecturer at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Jackson led a team of 30 researchers in 1978 who determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained. He explained to CNA that based off the Reuters report as well as photos of Garlaschelli's shroud on the internet, it appeared that it doesn't exactly match the Shroud of Turin. Dr. Jackson first questioned the technique used by Garlaschelli's team, taking issue with the method of adding blood after aging the cloth. Jackson explained that he has conducted `two independent observations that argue that the blood features on the shroud' show `that the blood was on it first, then the body image came second.' Dr. Keith Propp, a physicist who is also a colleague of Jackson's, told CNA that while Garlaschelli's shroud `does create an image that could've been done in medieval times,' there are a many things that `are not consistent with what the actual shroud shows us.' For example, he continued, we know that the blood contacted the shroud before the body `because there's no image beneath the shroud.' He added that this image pattern would be difficult to duplicate `because it would ruin the blood stains.' " ("Experts question scientist's claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin," Catholic News Agency, October 6, 2009).

Shroud photographer Barrie Schwortz also noticed this major discrepancy (amongst others):

"It has been demonstrated scientifically that the bloodstains on the Shroud came from direct contact with a body and are all forensically accurate. It has also been shown that the bloodstains were on the Shroud BEFORE the image was formed since the blood and serum acted to inhibit the image formation mechanism. There is NO image under the blood and serum stains on the Shroud. However, to make this new `reproduction,' the `blood' was added (using a different pigment) AFTER the image was created. Obviously, it is much easier to add the blood to the image than to first create the blood stains and then create the forensically accurate image around them, which is exactly what a medieval forger would have had to do to duplicate the actual physical properties of the Shroud! Many of the bloodstains on the Shroud show a surrounding halo of serum stains that are ONLY visible with UV fluorescence photography. Also, the blood has been chemically analyzed and determined to include components of actual blood, NOT pigment." ("Science by Press Release? An Editorial Response by Barrie Schwortz," Shroud.com, 7 October 2009. Emphasis original).

As did Shroud lecturer and researcher Russ Breault:

"We can make an artificial diamond that looks real, but it is still not an authentic diamond. Making something that looks like the Shroud does not prove it is a medieval fraud. The qualifying criteria are very specific. The image must be so superficial that it penetrates only the top two microfibers, about the depth of a single bacterium. There can be no coloration beyond the crowns of the fibers and no image on the side of the fibers or under the fibers. For this we need a microscope to validate. The image must demonstrate to be an accurate negative image and also possess accurate distance information where parts of the body still reveal an image even though not in direct contact with the cloth of distances up to 4 cm. However this is only half the problem. There are two sets of images: body image and blood image. Interestingly, there is no image under the blood meaning that the order of events is blood first followed by image. This is the correct sequence if authentic but nearly impossible for an artist. As such, according to the article, they added blood after the image was already created. That fact alone invalidates their claim." (Russ Breault, "Is the Shroud of Turin a Fake?," EzineArticles.com, 11 October 2009).

The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic nor that it is a matter of faith, but says it should be a powerful reminder of Christ's passion. This is an important point for Protestants (like me) who may be opposed to the Shroud because it is a `Catholic relic' (as I originally was), that the Roman Catholic Church has only owned the Shroud since 1983 when it was bequeathed to it by its owner ex-king of Italy, Umberto II of Savoy (see also below), and has always hedged its bets on the Shroud's authenticity.

One of Christianity's most disputed relics, it is locked away at Turin Cathedral in Italy and rarely exhibited. It was last on display in 2000 and is due to be shown again next year. Garlaschelli expects people to contest his findings. Garlaschelli does not sound supremely confident that he would be if he knew he had duplicated the Shroud! "If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me," he said. Its not a question of belief but what explanation best fits all the evidence of the Shroud. And neither the 1988 radiocarbon age of 1260-1390 nor Garlaschelli's shroud does. The accuracy of the 1988 tests was challenged by some hard-core believers who said restorations of the Shroud in past centuries had contaminated the results. There is in fact strong evidence that the part of the Shroud that was radiocarbon-dated in 1988 was a medieval patch and not part of the original Shroud.

[Above: Medieval Reweaving the Shroud of Turin: Shroud of Turin Skeptical Spectacle.]

The history of the Shroud is long and controversial. After surfacing in the Middle East and France, it was brought by Italy's former royal family, the Savoys, to their seat in Turin in 1578. In 1983 ex-King Umberto II bequeathed it to the late Pope John Paul. See my above point that only since 1983 has the Shroud actually been owned by the Roman Catholic church. The Shroud narrowly escaped destruction in 1997 when a fire ravaged the Guarini Chapel of the Turin cathedral where it is held. The cloth was saved by a fireman who risked his life. It is further evidence of the Divine origin of the Shroud and therefore its providential protection, that there have been many attempts and events that could have destroyed the Shroud, but it has outlasted them all:

"It is ironic that every edifice in which the Shroud was supposedly housed before the fifteenth century has long since vanished through the hazards of time, yet this frail piece of linen has come through almost unscathed ... one cannot help feeling that it has its role to play, and that its hour is imminent." (Wilson, 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," p.251).

Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results. So Garlaschelli's is just the latest in a long line of anti-Christian (and I assume ultimately Satanic) attempts to destroy the Shroud! "Money has no odor," he said. "This was done scientifically. It wasn't. If Garlaschelli's work was truly scientific he would submit it to a peer-reviewed journal (as all Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) papers were):

"Jackson noted that he or his colleagues would be open to testing the Garlaschelli shroud or any other `idea about the shroud relative to the scientific characteristics that have been documented in respect to the shroud,' however to do so they would need `more detailed information about what was specifically done.' ... Jackson also pointed out that Garlaschelli's findings have yet to be peer reviewed. What scientists need `to do is present their work for publication before their peers.' He explained that any person can conduct his or her own research, but it doesn't matter whether or not the author believes his or her hypothesis was proven. In the end, what the scientific community decides `upon seeing and reviewing the work' is what counts, he said." ("Experts question scientist's claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin," Catholic News Agency, October 6, 2009).

If the Church wants to fund me in the future, here I am." Here and above Garlaschelli admits he was paid by atheists (and presumably he is one) to debunk the Shroud!

For other (mostly uncritical) news articles on this see also: AP, BBC, CNN, Daily Mail and The Australian. For news articles pointing out the flaws in Garlaschelli's `reproduction' see: "Study debunks Shroud of Turin's authenticity; Springs believers not swayed," Colorado Springs Gazette, October 6, 2009; "Mexican expert on Shroud points out flaws of supposed 'duplicate'," Catholic News Agency, 12 October 2009; and "Experts question scientist's claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin," Catholic News Agency, 6 October 2009.

There has been huge interest in this. Barrie Schwortz in the above "Editorial Response" reports that his Shroud.com website had 20,000 hits the day the story broke. This my own blog's Sitemeter jumped from last week's average visits per day of 44 and total for the week of 306, to average visits per day of 278 and a total this week of 1,946! So if nothing else, Garlaschelli has re-kindled widespread public interest in the Shroud.

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

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

"We do not have to know how somebody could have painted it, but science is adept at finding paint when it is present. But first, if the scientists have come up with one major conclusion, it is that the shroud is not a known fake. There is no paint, dye, powder, or other foreign substance on the image fibrils that could account for the image. Microchemical analyses revealed no paints or pigments. Also, fraud is refuted by the shroud's 3-D characteristics. Paintings do not produce a 3-D effect, but the shroud image is 3-D. This has been checked out in a laboratory. In addition, the shroud image is superficial, which means that it is only on the top few fibrils of the affected threads. Each thread has about 200 fibrils, and the image is on the top few fibrils only. It does not even soak to the back threads, let alone to the back of the cloth. Paint is not superficial, and reproducing the shroud has not been possible in the laboratory. Further, there are no plateaus or saturation points on the shroud image. But if you apply any pigment or dye there will naturally be saturation points. Still further, the shroud image is nondirectional. Now if one is going to put paint on a cloth, one moves the hand from side to side. When one gets tired, one often starts moving the hand up and down. But even if one only moves from side to side all of the time, that is directionality. One cannot generally apply paint without directionality. If one uses a spray gun it still involves directionality. But there is no directionality on the shroud image. Also, there is no capillary flow on the shroud, which rules out any liquid movement. In addition, the 1532 fire that the shroud was involved in would have caused chemical changes in organic pigments, but there are no changes in the shroud. Further, the water applied to the shroud to put out the 1532 fire would usually cause chemical changes, but there are no such changes observed on the shroud. Finally, the shroud image is nontraditional. For instance, the nail wounds are in the wrists and the crown of thorns appears to be a skullcap. Someone painting the shroud in the Middle Ages would presumably not have known that the nails were placed in the wrists. A 1982 report from a team of scientists, released at a New London, Connecticut, meeting, states that, `No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found in the fibrils.' [Press Release, The Shroud of Turin Research Project, 8 October 1981] So again, we could falsify the shroud if there was paint. But they have not found any. Now maybe they will find some in the future. I am open to that, but right now that is a weak hypothesis. I cannot speak for anybody on the team of scientists, but just judging from their publications, the fraud thesis is the one theory that, according to a recent survey, nobody on the team of scientists holds. I think I would even say that this would be the easiest theory to refute. The shroud image does not appear to be painted at all." (Habermas, G.R., 1987, "Discussion: Antony G. N. Flew, Gary R. Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," 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.119).

"We began our presentation. One by one, we gave our short talks with slides, graphs, spectra, and tried to make them intelligible to the nonscientist. Everything that had been done was included, from mathematical models, VP-8 and physical experiments, to pathology. ... We explained that we hoped to obtain permission to do a carbon 14 dating test some time in the future, but we had not yet received permission. We all wanted to be very careful that we did not overstate anything. We were extremely cautious to make no statement of any kind that could not be supported by the data. Bit by bit, the complex story involving optics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine unfolded. Most of the questions were excellent. Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone's claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ocher and vermilion. Adler flashed on the screen the following table from our paper. Table 5 Tests confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud 1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence 2. Indicative reflection spectra 3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra 4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence 5. Positive hemochromogen tests 6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests 7. Positive detection of bile pigments 8. Positive demonstration of protein 9. Positive indication of albumin 10. Protease tests, leaving no residue 11. Positive immunological test for human albumin 12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls 13. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks Then, after explaining each item briefly, Al said, `That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!'" (Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.215-216. Emphasis original).

"Epilogue So where does all this huge amount of science leave us? The Shroud of Turin is now the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world. Somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific man-hours have been spent on it, with the best analytical tools available. The physical and chemical data fit hand in glove. It is certainly true that if a similar number of data had been found in the funerary linen attributed to Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, or Socrates, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that it was, indeed, the shroud of that historical person. But because of the unique position that Jesus holds, such evidence is not enough. I have discussed with most of the team, during the interviews preceding my writing of this book, how they felt about the Shroud. Three of them, John Jackson, Robert Bucklin, and Barrie Schwortz, believe that it is probably the authentic, burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. The rest of us have to say that we do not know. There is no such thing as a scientific test for Jesus, and there probably never will be." (Heller, 1983, Ibid., p.219. Emphasis original).

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerializes, dissolved perhaps by the flash, while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection. However the image was formed, we may well be entranced by the fourteen-foot length of linen in Turin. For if the author's reconstruction is correct, the Shroud has survived first-century persecution of Christians, repeated Edessan floods, an Edessan earthquake, Byzantine iconoclasm, Moslem invasion, crusader looting, the destruction of the Knights Templars, not to mention the burning incident that caused the triple holes, the 1532 fire, and a serious arson attempt made in 1972. It is ironic that every edifice in which the Shroud was supposedly housed before the fifteenth century has long since vanished through the hazards of time, yet this frail piece of linen has come through almost unscathed. Frustratingly, the Shroud has not yet fully proven itself to us-not uncharacteristic of the gospel Jesus, who at certain times seems almost deliberately to have made his presence obscure, as in his post-Resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalen when she mistook him for a gardener, and in his walking, shortly after, as an unrecognized stranger with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. But one cannot help feeling that it has its role to play, and that its hour is imminent." (Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.250-251).

"Yet none of this, of course, means that the Shroud cannot be the work of a `cunning' mediaeval forger. Perhaps, whoever he was, this individual enjoyed such power that he could arrange for a six-foot man, possibly some prisoner, to be crucified in the exact manner of Jesus Christ? Perhaps he was able to obtain authentic ancient weaponry for the carrying out of details such as the scourging? Perhaps, given that Jews were well established throughout Europe during the Middle Ages, he knew the special burial requirements that pertained to those of this religion who had died a bloody death and arranged for an all-enveloping cloth accordingly? Of course, even if he had managed all this, how he managed to get the image onto the cloth still remains unexplained. Also is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us, a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?" (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.58-60).

Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #3

2009-07-21T21:52:00.009+08:00

Kris

Continuing from my Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #2,

[Above (click to enlarge): Shroud coins identified as Pontius Pilate leptons: T.V. Oommen]

"The following picture collage is based on images extracted from the Shroud eye area image by Jean-Philippe Fontanille in Montreal, Canada and sent to the author. In his book, `The Coins of Pontius Pilate' (Shangri La Publications, July 2001), Jean-Philippe has identified the right eye coin as in the collage, but the left eye coin was not clearly identified, though an attempt was made to identify the AD 29 Pilate coin known as Julia lepton with three barleys and a simpulum as claimed by Dr.Alan Whanger who had used his polarized overlay technique ... His later identification of the left eye coin as shown in the collage, not in his book, indicates that it is a Pilate lepton with a lituus similar to the one on the right eye."(Oommen, T.V., "The Coinage Evidence," The Mysterious Holy Shroud of Christ, 14 February 2007).]

which is part #3 of my multi-part response to your comment to my post: Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #10: The Shroud's blood and pollen closely matches the Sudarium of Oviedo's.

This part #3 is only about one of the last two of the at least twenty-three (23) separate and independent features on the Shroud of Turin that match the gospel's description of the crucifixion of Jesus, the coins in the eyes of the man in the Shroud. My conservative estimate of the proportion of Roman crucifixion victims that had that particular feature is in square brackets. My emphasis is bold.

22. The eyes have images of two coins minted by Pontius Pilate in AD 29 [1 in 1,000].

[Above: Image of lepton (Gk. lepton "mite" - Mark 12:42-44) on left eye of man of the Shroud: "Pilate's Coins and Turin Shroud," Jean-Philippe Fontanille. As a coin expert Fontanille writes:

"For my part, I must admit that I have failed to detect any trace of the year 29 coin on the right eye. On the other hand, the similarity of the centre left eye image to a coin bearing the lituus motif is actually more disturbing. The round form gives an impression suggestive of the lituus cross, (albeit a little less curved than in usual) surrounded by traces of letters which could be a vestige of the centre of the inscription `TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC [Tiberius Caesar (42BC-AD37)]'."(Fontanille, J.-P., 2007, "Pilate's Coins and Turin Shroud," Numismalink, 5 April).]

In 1977 STURP members, physicists John Jackson, Eric Jumper and Bill Mottern, after viewing high-quality photographs of the Shroud, reported, "over each eye appeared objects resembling small buttons" which "may be some kind of coins" in which case they could be "a Lepton of Pontius Pilate coined in A.D. 30-31":

"Another photograph of the Shroud which we subjected to relief enhancement ... was a close up of the face ... revealed something unexpected - over each eye appeared objects resembling small buttons ... we were left with but one conclusion - that the buttonlike features are what they seem to be, namely solid objects resting upon the eyelids. This identification agrees with ancient Jewish burial custom where objects ... were apparently sometimes placed over the eyes ... we propose that they may be some kind of coins since.: ... they are both nearly circular and approximately the same size ... " (Jackson., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image On Jesus' Burial Cloth," pp.90-91).

Medical examiner the late Dr Robert Bucklin confirmed that "rounded foreign objects can be noted ... in the area of the right and left eyes'":

"... medical examiner Robert Bucklin noted `rounded foreign objects can be noted ... in the area of the right and left eyes' ... Jackson and his colleagues also noticed `buttonlike objects' over each eye in their VP-8 relief.' ... Giulio Ricci ... examined five possible explanations for these objects ... there was but one conclusion possible ...`... the button-like features are ... solid objects resting upon the eyelids' ... Jackson believed [they] ...were ... coins ... to keep his eyes closed after death ... " (Ruffin, 1999, "The Shroud of Turin," p.105).

Jackson et al. also pointed out that if "these images" are "solid objects over the eyes" then "the image forming process" would have "acted uniformly through space over the body, front and back, and ... independently of the type of surface, organic and inorganic, from which the image was generated" (which would only be true of radiation)" :

"If the identification of these images as solid objects over the eyes is correct, then ... the image forming process, acted uniformly through space over the body, front and back, and even seemed to act independently of the type of surface, organic and inorganic, from which the image was generated." (Jackson, 1977, p.91).

It was subsequently discovered by a Fr. Francis L. Filas that there were tiny "letters arranged circle-wise" which means these were indeed "coins ... placed in the eye ... areas of the Shroud" and what's more, from their "irregular diameter, with a maximum axis of 16mm" and "the imprint of a staff in the shape of `a question mark' reversed" lead to "the ... conclusion that on the Shroud .. a coin really was imprinted ... minted by Pontius Pilate in ... 29-30 AD":

"The two roundish bodies in relief, pointed out by J. Jackson and G. Tamburelli, and a few alphabetical letters arranged circle-wise, detected by Father Filas, are the premises for considering that coins were placed in the eye-socket areas of the Shroud ... The coin, we have found out ... having an irregular diameter, with a maximum axis of 16mm, in addition to the imprint of a staff in the shape of `a question mark' reversed ... By radiographic experiments carried out on a skull and by using coins of that period, we also confirm that only a certain kind of small coins laid on the eyes can reach the medialis hollow of the skull .... Also the ... discovery of two skulls - both with two small coins of Christ's time - at ... Jericho, lead us to the irrefutable conclusion that on the Shroud cloth a decal of a coin really was imprinted which portrayed a `staff' or LITUUS, the symbol existing uniquely on very rare coins minted by Pontius Pilate in ... 29-30 AD. " (Moroni, 1991, "Pontius Pilate's Coin on the Right Eye of the Man in the Holy Shroud," pp.295-297).

Specifically, Filas identified "the letters UCAI and a design resembling a shepherd's crook, or lituus, in the coin area over the right ... eye" which "match those of a lepton of Pontius Pilate [AD26-36] struck in Israel during the time of Jesus":

"In a VP-8 relief made from a photograph of the Shroud face, researchers noted flat button-like objects over each eye ... Jackson theorized that these objects were coins placed on the eyes to keep them closed in death. In 1979, the late Francis L. Filas reported identifying the letters UCAI and a design resembling a shepherd's crook, or lituus, in the coin area over the right anatomic eye ... These patterns match those of a lepton of Pontius Pilate, struck in Israel during the time of Jesus ..." (Borkan, 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," p.28).

"Filas found the letters UCAI on the right eye, arranged in a coin-like curve. He thought that these might be the central letters of the coin inscription TIBERIOU CAISEROS - Greek for Tiberius Caesar, who was Roman Emperor during the time of Christ's ministry. He also found over the eye a tiny design that looked like a shepherd's crook. He was able to locate authentic Roman coins, minted between A.D. 29 and A.D. 32 (which was the time of Jesus' ministry) that contained a shepherd's staff as well as the Greek inscription TIBERIOU CAISEROS ... " (Ruffin, 1999, p.106).

As Antonacci points out the, "matching of four consecutive letters strongly suggests that this is not an optical illusion or coincidence" and together with "an astrologer's staff, or lituus" .were a "motif on coins minted by Pontius Pilate after A.D. 29" but "Following the rule of Pilate" (in AD36) it "was not used again ... anywhere in the Roman world":

"More evidence of the presence of a coin was found ... several features ... were uniquely characteristic of a Pontius Pilate coin, or lepton, issued between A.D 29 and 32 ... The first of the features noted ... were the letters UCAI ... on the coin over the right eye ... part of the inscription TIOUKAICAPOC ... Greek for `Of Tiberius Caesar' ... Both inscriptions have been identified on Pilate coins ... the size of the letters on the Pilate coin and the Shroud eye matched ... The matching of four consecutive letters strongly suggests that this is not an optical illusion or coincidence ... the letters UCAI on the Shroud face are located around the curve of an astrologer's staff, or lituus ... it was used as a constant motif on coins minted by Pontius Pilate after A.D. 29. Following the rule of Pilate, this lituus was not used again by a ruler in Palestine, nor anywhere in the Roman world ..." (Antonacci, 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud," pp.102-104).

Filas' discovery was confirmed by Dr. Alan and Mary Whanger who "found a very close match, noting at least 74 points of congruence" between the coin image over the man of the Shroud's right eye and that particular "Pontius Pilate lepton"which "was struck: the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, or 29 C.E." They also found "three additional letters in their proper positions":

"... the Whangers compared a photograph of Filas' coin with a computer-enhanced photo of the area over the right eye on the Shroud. .... They found a very close match, noting at least 74 points of congruence ... Image analysis revealed not only the letters UCAI but also three additional letters in their proper positions ... The ... coin image over the right eye `is so similar to [Filas' lepton] that the two coins must have been struck from the same die.' The pattern on the back of Filas' coin identifies the year in which it was struck: the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, or 29 C.E. This is also the only year in which another Pontius Pilate lepton, the Julia lepton, was struck; though the image over the left eye on the Shroud is less distinct than that over the right, the Whangers have reported 73 points of congruence between the image over the left eye and a Julia lepton. ... the images over the eyes on the Shroud are not anomalies in the cloth weave. ... this provides supportive evidence for the presence of coins on the eyes of the man in the Shroud ..." (Borkan, 1995, p.28).

"Whanger ... Comparing a photograph of the Tiberius Caesar coin, known as a lepton ... with a computer-enhanced photograph of the area over the right eye of the Shroud image ... found `a very close match,' noting at least seventy-four `areas of congruence.' In other words, the Whangers found seventy-four features on the coin that closely corresponded to features on the Shroud image ... ..." (Ruffin, 1999, pp.106-107).

The Whangers later found over the left eye a less distinct image of

[Above (click to enlarge): Julia lepton with three barley sheaves on one side and a simpulum (Roman vessel) and letters meaning "Tiberius Caesar" on the other, of which the catalogue says, "JUDAEA, PONTIUS PILATE, 26-36 AD. Lepton ... Excellent example of this coin struck under the authority of the Roman Procurator who condemned Jesus to the cross.]

another coin which has "73 points of congruence" with "another Pontius Pilate lepton, the Julia lepton" which was only minted in "... the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, or 29 C.E.":

"... the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, or 29 C.E. ... is also the only year in which another Pontius Pilate lepton, the Julia lepton, was struck; though the image over the left eye on the Shroud is less distinct than that over the right, the Whangers have reported 73 points of congruence between the image over the left eye and a Julia lepton...." (Borkan, 1995, p.28).

"The image of the object over the left eye on the Shroud is fainter ... but the Whangers found seventy-three points of congruence between that image and a Roman coin, contemporary to the time of Christ, known as a `Julia lepton.' ..." (Ruffin, 1999, p.107).

Dr. Robert Haralick then at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory in an analysis commissioned by Filas concluded: "...in the enlargement of the right eye image we find supporting evidence for a ... shepherd's staff pattern ... and ... the letters OUCAIC." Dr Haralick added that this "is definitely supporting evidence because there is some degree of match between what one would expect to find if the Shroud did indeed contain a faint image of the Pilate coin and what we can in fact observe in the original and in the digitally produced images":

"The Haralick Report ... Fr. Filas subsequently submitted the coin and Shroud image for comparative analysis at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory. Dr. Robert Haralick, then at the Institute, offered cautious support to Filas' hypothesis ... Dr. Haralick advises that: `A number of digital enhancements were performed on imagery digitized from the 1931 Enrie photographs of the Shroud ... The enhancements provide supporting evidence that the right eye area of the Shroud image contains remnants of patterns similar to those of a known Pontius Pilate coin dating from 29 A.D ... Dr. Haralick concludes: `Thus, in the enlargement of the right eye image we find supporting evidence for a bright oval area: a shepherd's staff pattern as the main feature in the bright area; and bright segment patterns just to the side and top of the staff pattern, which in varying degrees match to the letters OUCAIC. [p.34] ... the evidence is definitely supporting evidence because there is some degree of match between what one would expect to find if the Shroud did indeed contain a faint image of the Pilate coin and what we can in fact observe in the original and in the digitally produced images. [p.34]" (Iannone, 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin, pp.39-40. Italics original).

"... Haralick gave `cautious support' to the Whangers and to Filas ... He offered, `The evidence is definitely supporting evidence because there is some degree of match between what one would expect to find if the Shroud did indeed contain a faint image of the Pilate coin ... Archaeologists working in Israel have, in fact, found coins in the eye orbits of three skulls from the approximate time of Jesus ..." (Ruffin, 1999, p.107).

As originally pointed out by Jackson, the identification of "objects" (let alone coins minted just before the time of Jesus' crucifixion which was AD30 or 33), strengthens the authenticity of the Shroud, because "what ... forger in the Fourteenth Century would have thought to place objects on the eyes of Jesus?":

"In addition, this identification of the `objects' seems to strengthen the authenticity of the Shroud. For what artist or forger in the Fourteenth Century would have thought to place objects on the eyes of Jesus? " (Jackson, 1977, p.91).

considering that they are of "a coin" indeed coins "then unknown and that could not be discerned for at least another five hundred years ... in photographic negative ... reflecting letters 1/32 inches high with a rare misspelling, including an astrologer's staff existing practically nowhere else in numismatic history ":

"A Medieval or Renaissance Artist? ... since this unique coin, struck in 29 A.D., was not found until 1977, it is hardly plausible to claim that a medieval artist (or forger) would have included this tiny detail of a coin then unknown and that could not be discerned for at least another five hundred years when optical, photographic and computer imaging techniques would first be able to demonstrate such fine points ... The conclusion points in one inescapable direction: forgery of the Shroud is utterly impossible. No forger in the Middle Ages or even earlier would have been able to fabricate tiny imprints over both eyes on the Shroud cloth in photographic negative - with no pigment - reflecting letters 1/32 inches high with a rare misspelling, including an astrologer's staff existing practically nowhere else in numismatic history ... " (Iannone, 1998, pp.43-44).

Not only does this overwhelming evidence of images of coins dated to "the seven-year period from A.D. 29 ... to A.D. 36" on the eyes of the man on the Shroud, "completely eliminate the possibility of forgery of the Shroud" it also invalidates the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud linen to the 14th century because this gives "a verified date for the Shroud image that is far more precise than carbon-dating can ever be":

"Even more impressive is the coin-on-the-eye work of Professor Francis L. Filas ... which seems to give us a verified date for the Shroud image that is far more precise than carbon-dating can ever be ... Filas was enlarging his slides of the Shroud image to fill a twelve foot, closed-circuit television screen. He was startled to see what appeared to be Greek letters on the right eye of the Shroud Face. With ... assistance of coin expert Michael Marx, he discovered a 15mm (5/8 inch) disc inscribed with four recognizable Greek letters and an astrologer's staff, a lituus. ... the size of the coin, the size and shape and position of the inscriptions, and the sequence of the four letters, were all found to be exactly correct for a small bronze coin known as the Pontius Pilate coin, minted in Palestine from 29 to 32 ... The astrologer's staff was used as an independent symbol on no other coin in the Roman world at any time ... The odds in favor of the identification of the coin and its date are in the range of millions to one against any other interpretation ... Professor Alan Whanger ... finds the actual coin to be almost a perfect match for the markings on the Shroud face, so that the only reasonable conclusion he can come to is that they were coins struck from the same die ... Whanger's technique identifies the coin on the left eye as another Pontius Pilate lepton, known as the Julia coin, struck only in the year 29 ... Sheaves of grain and parts of eleven ... letters that appear on the coin are identified by Whanger ... the Filas/Whanger coin identification work would seem to completely eliminate the possibility of forgery of the Shroud ... Haralick's use of computer-enhanced digital image analysis now gives strong evidence for nine Greek letters in sequence on the perimeter of the coin appearing over the right eye ... This work would seem to historically pinpoint ... the seven-year period from A.D. 29, when these coins were first minted in Judea, to A.D. 36, when Pilate left office ...." (Tribbe, 2006, "Portrait of Jesus," pp.114-120).

To be continued in part #4 of this series with: 23. The Shroud's head bloodstains match those of the Sudarium of Oviedo.

Quotes below are hyperlinked to inline references above. I have left them in full for further reading.

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

"One indication of an even more specific date for the crucifixion of this particular victim may be available in the Turin Shroud image. It comes from the uncorroborated evidence of coin images found over the eyes of the man in the Shroud. The presence of coins was first suggested by the three-dimensional images of the Shroud face made with the VP-8 Image Analyzer in 1976. [Jackson, J.P., et al., "The Three-Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of The 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.74-94, pp.90-91] In these experiments, scientists were surprised to discover two small objects, both nearly circular and approximately the same size, over the eyes ... More evidence of the presence of a coin was found later when photographs were taken of an enlargement of the Shroud face made from a sepia print based on the original 1931 photographic plates of Giuseppe Enrie. These photographs suggested several features that were uniquely characteristic of a Pontius Pilate coin, or lepton, issued between A.D 29 and 32. These studies were conducted by the late Francis L. Filas, S.J., of Loyola University in Chicago, and several numismatists who assisted him. The first of the features noted by the Loyola team were the letters UCAI appearing at the 9:30 to 11:30 clock positions on the coin over the right eye. These letters seem to be part of the inscription TIOUKAICAPOC ... an abbreviation of TIBEPIOUKAICAPOC ('Tiberiou Kaisaros,' Greek for `Of Tiberius Caesar'). Both inscriptions have been identified on Pilate coins. Pontius Pilate coins that bear this first inscription have the same corresponding letters, UCAI or UKAI, appearing at the same 9:30 to 11:30 clock positions as those found on the coin over the right eye of the man in the Shroud. When a Pilate coin with this same inscription was enlarged on a screen to match the size of the enlarged right-eye area of the man in the Shroud, the size of the letters on the Pilate coin and the Shroud eye matched, with both measuring approximately 1½ mm. [Filas, F.L., "The Dating of the Shroud of Turin from Coins of Pontius Pilate," Cogan Productions: Youngstown AZ, Second edition, 1982] The matching of four consecutive letters strongly suggests that this is not an optical illusion or coincidence. According to Father Filas, for these letters to have appeared by accident, or as a result of a chance pattern in the weave of the cloth, is almost impossible; the odds of all four letters appearing in consecutive order are extremely remote. [Filas, Ibid.] An even more convincing point of authenticity to support the existence of a Pontius Pilate coin over the right eye of the Shroud image can be found in the letters UCAI. Prior to the identification of these letters on the Shroud, an interesting point concerning these Pilate coins had never been known to numismatists. The UCAI is actually misspelled and should read UKAI. The misspelling probably occurred because the pronunciations of `Caesar' in Latin and `Kaisaros' in Greek were identical, with both having the hard `K' sound (though the Greek C sounded like the Latin S). After finding this spelling over the right eye of the man in the Shroud, Pilate coins were checked for their spelling. It was discovered that at least four Pilate coins with this same misspelling exist today. [Otterbein, A.J., personal communication, September 23, 1986] Furthermore, the letters UCAI on the Shroud face are located around the curve of an astrologer's staff, or lituus. This lituus is another very important point of identification, for it was used as a constant motif on coins minted by Pontius Pilate after A.D. 29. Following the rule of Pilate, this lituus was not used again by a ruler in Palestine, nor anywhere in the Roman world, as a central independent symbol. [Filas, F.L., "The Dating of the Shroud of Turin from Coins of Pontius Pilate," Cogan Productions: Youngstown AZ, Second edition, 1982] Occasionally, it has been found as a small side decoration, but never more than that. On the Shroud image, the lituus is not as clear as the inscription, but the image on the coin is completely consistent with a lituus turned to the right, or clockwise, as was the lituus on the coin with the inscription TIOUKAICAPOC. When a photo of the Pilate coin was enlarged to match the size of the enlarged coin over the right eye of the man in the Shroud, the lituus measured 11 to 12 mm from its base to the top of its curve; this is the same measurement as the lituus on the coin found on the Shroud. [Filas, Ibid.] In addition, unlike the graceful curves of the lituus stem on most Pilate coins, the coin mentioned above with the abbreviated inscription has a cruder-appearing lituus that lacks graceful curves on its stem. Again, this design matches the lituus found on the coin over the right eye of the man in the Shroud. [Ibid.] ... Further comparison of the enlarged area over the right eye of the man in the Shroud with the enlarged Pontius Pilate lepton reveals even more similarities. The sizes and outlines of both are quite similar. [Filas, F.L., "The Dating of the Shroud of Turin from Coins of Pontius Pilate," Cogan Productions: Youngstown AZ, Second edition, 1982, pp. 11-12] Further, the right side of the rim of each has been clipped at the 1:30 to 3:30 o'clock position ... Father Filas summarized the many points of comparison: `To sum up, there exists a combination of size, position, angular rotation, relative mutual proportion, accuracy of duplication ... and parity [i.e., turned in the proper direction]. This combination concerns at least six motifs: a lituus or astrologer's staff, four letters, `UCAI,' and a clipped coin margin.' [Ibid., p.5] While these features are seen in varying degrees on numerous photographic negatives taken by different photographers, [Ibid., p.7] They are most clearly visible on an enlargement of the entire two thirds life-size photograph. The Enrie photographs were taken with film that emphasized contrast, whereas subsequent photographers used improved film that tended to downplay contrasts [Ibid.] . Also, subsequent photographers secured the Shroud to its frame with magnets, which produced tiny folds or draping effects rather than the stretched tautness of the Shroud cloth that was obtained by Enrie, who is thought to have used metal tacks.[Ibid., p.7] Unfortunately this means that STURP's many photos do little to prove or disprove the existence of these coins. Further imaging of the Shroud should take Ernie's method into account so we may learn more about this theory. The photographic negative from which all of the above-discussed features were found has been processed in a Log E Interpretation System, which is very similar to a VP-8 Image Analyzer. Pictures of the enlarged areas over the eyes were also processed with this system. The letters UCAI, the lituus, and the clipped edge at the 1:30 to 3:30 clock position are all apparent ... Furthermore, for the first time the clarity of the boundary of a coin over the left eye also became visible. These nondistorted features appear on the Log E Interpretation image in the same manner as found on the photographic negative; this only points further toward a coin with the same inscription, motifs, and designs." (Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.102-105).

"In a VP-8 relief made from a photograph of the Shroud face, researchers noted flat button-like objects over each eye. The characteristics of these images led the investigators to conclude that they were solid objects on top of the eyes of the man in the Shroud. In light of readings he made about Jewish burial customs, Jackson theorized that these objects were coins placed on the eyes to keep them closed in death. In 1979, the late Francis Filas reported identifying the letters UCAI and a design resembling a shepherd's crook, or lituus, in the coin area over the right anatomic eye. [Whanger & Whanger 1991:3, Whanger & Whanger 1985:767, Stevenson & Habermas 1990:66] These patterns match those of a lepton of Pontius Pilate, struck in Israel during the time of Jesus, with the exception that the Latin C is apparently a misspelling of what should have been the (identically pronounced) Greek K in KAICAROC (Caesar). Filas, however, managed to obtain a Pontius Pilate lepton with exactly this misspelling, and at least six others have been found, [Whanger in Meacham 1983 Comments, p.304] thus rendering academic any debate over the likelihood of a coin with such a misspelling being struck. Using their overlay technique, the Whangers compared a photograph of Filas' coin with a computer-enhanced photo of the area over the right eye on the Shroud. .... They found a very close match, noting at least 74 points of congruence. In order to demonstrate that it is not the case, as one critic of the Shroud has put it, that `the alleged coin-images are artifacts of observers' hopes and beyond the limits of photo enlargements and the coarseness of the Shroud weave,' [John R. Cole in Meacham 1983 Comments, p. 296] a number of confirmatory studies have been carried out. The Whangers twice repeated their polarized overlay comparison, first with a right-left reversal of the coin, and then with a top-bottom reversal. In the first case, they observed only ten points of congruence; in the latter, they observed six. They also performed a comparison with a lepton of the Procurator Coponius (C.E. 6-9) in place of the Pontius Pilate lepton (the two coins are nearly the same size and shape,) but were able to tabulate only 11 points of congruence. [Whanger & Whanger 1985:770] A series of computer-aided studies of the Shroud image carried out by Robert Haralick of the Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory at Virginia Polytechnic and State University also supports Filas' initial observations. Image analysis revealed not only the letters UCAI but also three additional letters in their proper positions. [Haralick 1983:34] The Whangers further noted that the coin image over the right eye `is so similar to [Filas' lepton] that the two coins must have been struck from the same die.' The pattern on the back of F'ilas' coin identifies the year in which it was struck: the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, or 29 C.E. This is also the only year in which another Pontius Pilate lepton, the Julia lepton, was struck; though the image over the left eye on the Shroud is less distinct than that over the right, the Whangers have reported 73 points of congruence between the image over the left eye and a Julia lepton. [Whanger & Whanger 1985:767, Whanger & Whanger 1991:4] Extensive debate has surrounded the discovery of coins on the eyes of the man in the Shroud. Critics have questioned both the reliability of the identification and the archaeological evidence for the practice of placing coins on the eyes of a corpse. The work of Haralick and the Whangers demonstrates that the images over the eyes on the Shroud are not anomalies in the cloth weave. In conjunction with the VP-8 analysis, this provides supportive evidence for the presence of coins on the eyes of the man in the Shroud. For several years after the initial identification of these images, the issue of archaeological justification for this discovery was hotly debated. It has become apparent in recent years that there is little archaeological support for a first-century Jewish practice of placing coins on the eyes of the deceased. [Hachlili and Killebrew 1983] However, there is neither a complete lack of support nor a strong theoretical argument against such an occasional practice." (Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Winter, Vol. X, No. 2, pp.18-51, pp.28-29).

"One might well say that the Turin shroud guards its mystery to this day. Could it be possible that new developments may come from so unexpected a field as numismatics ? Strange as it may seem, the possibility cannot be excluded. It all began at NASA in 1978. At this time researchers Jackson, Jumper and Stephenson wanted to test the capacities of their VP8 new computer, specially for three dimensional extrapolation, so they submitted the face on the shroud for analysis. The image obtained, now famous, distinctly revealed two circular protrusions on the eyelids. The experts immediately made a connection with an ancient custom which advocated the placing of coins on the eyes of the dead to keep them closed. Archaeological excavations have confirmed this tradition. Skeletons from the first and second century C.E. have been found with a coin in each eye-socket at Jericho and at En Boqeq. Everything then happened very quickly. The following year Professor Francis Filas, a teacher at Loyola University of Chicago, made an enlargement of the image of the left eye and noticed a strange curved shape with traces of letters above it. Intrigued, he went to an ancient coins expert from Chicago, Michael Marx, who concluded that it was probably the image of Pilate's lituus coin. I have reproduced the relevant illustration so that anyone may form their own opinion on the matter. In 1980, an electronic analysis performed in the Overland Park Laboratory in Texas confirmed not only the soundness of Professor Filas' findings, but also allowed the admission of evidence of another coin on the right eye, without however being able to identify why precise details were absent. Other researchers, Alan and Mary Whanger, took up the investigation in 1985, applying the technique of polarised light superimposition; they thought they detected on the left eye coin the three ears of barley encircled with faint traces of letters: this indicated that it could be the coin minted in year 29. What credibility may be given to these `discoveries' ? Like everything else touching on the Turin Shroud, each discovery, whether in favour of its authenticity or against, is immediately contested by supporters holding the opposite view. The thesis of Pilate's coins on the eyes is neither more or less argued about than any other discovery or supposition concerning this shroud. For my part, I must admit that I have failed to detect any trace of the year 29 coin on the right eye. On the other hand, the similarity of the centre left eye image to a coin bearing the lituus motif is actually more disturbing. The round form gives an impression suggestive of the lituus cross, (albeit a little less curved than in usual) surrounded by traces of letters which could be a vestige of the centre of the inscription `TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC'."(Fontanille, J.-P., 2007, "Pilate's Coins and Turin Shroud," Numismalink, 5 April).

"" The Haralick Report It became apparent that computer enhancement or some such sophisticated technique might be an important avenue to allow identification. Fr. Filas subsequently submitted the coin and Shroud image for comparative analysis at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory. Dr. Robert Haralick, then at the Institute, offered cautious support to Filas' hypothesis while stressing the fundamental problem that science has no way of determining whether what appears as a coin inscription is anything but a random quirk of the Shroud's weave. In the abstract introducing his report, Dr. Haralick advises that: `A number of digital enhancements were performed on imagery digitized from the 1931 Enrie photographs of the Shroud and a 1978 S.T.U.R.P. photograph taken by Vernon Miller. The enhancements provide supporting evidence that the right eye area of the Shroud image contains remnants of patterns similar to those of a known Pontius Pilate coin dating from 29 A.D. [Haralick, R.M., "Analysis of Digital Images of the Shroud of Turin," Spacial Data Analysis Laboratory, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Blacksburg VA, December 1983, p.2] After extensive study, Dr. Haralick concludes: `Thus, in the enlargement of the right eye image we find supporting evidence for a bright oval area: a shepherd's staff pattern as the main feature in the bright area; and bright segment patterns just to the side and top of the staff pattern, which in varying degrees match to the letters OUCAIC. [p.34] Haralick goes on to caution the reader that: This evidence cannot be said to be conclusive evidence that an image of the Pontius Pilate coin appears in the right eye of the Enrie Shroud Image... however, the evidence is definitely supporting evidence because there is some degree of match between what one would expect to find if the Shroud did indeed contain a faint image of the Pilate coin and what we can in fact observe in the original and in the digitally produced images. [p.34]" (Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.39-40. Emphasis original).

"A Medieval or Renaissance Artist? Dr. Whanger observes that, since this unique coin, struck in 29 A.D., was not found until 1977, it is hardly plausible to claim that a medieval artist (or forger) would have included this tiny detail of a coin then unknown and that could not be discerned for at least another five hundred years when optical, photographic and computer imaging techniques would first be able to demonstrate such fine points. [Whanger, A. & M., "Polarized Image Overlay Technique," Applied Optics, March 15, 1985, p.767] Fr. Filas supports the authenticity also by saying that: `The conclusion points in one inescapable direction: forgery of the Shroud is utterly impossible. No forger in the Middle Ages or even earlier would have been able to fabricate tiny imprints over both eyes on the Shroud cloth in photographic negative - with no pigment - reflecting letters 1/32 inches high with a rare misspelling, including an astrologer's staff existing practically nowhere else in numismatic history in full size of 1/2 inch, from one Roman coin (Pilate lepton) issued certainly in Palestine in 29 A.D. - and a second Roman coin (Julia lepton) whose traces point again to Palestine and 29 A.D.' [Filas, F., "The Dating of the Shroud of Turin from Coins of Pontius Pilate," Cogan Productions, 1984, p.20] (Iannone, 1998, pp.43-44. Emphasis original).

"Another photograph of the Shroud which we subjected to relief enhancement with the relief purposefully somewhat suppressed was a close up of the face. .... The suppression revealed something unexpected - over each eye appeared objects resembling small buttons. Though it seemed natural on the basis of the computer generated picture to interpret these features as objects resting atop closed eyelids, we felt compelled to consider several alternative explanations: ... we were left with but one conclusion - that the buttonlike features are what they seem to be, namely solid objects resting upon the eyelids. This identification agrees with ancient Jewish burial custom where objects (potsherd fragments or coins) were apparently sometimes placed over the eyes. Detailed identification is not possible without further investigation, but we propose that they may be some kind of coins since: (1) they are both nearly circular and approximately the same size, and (2) scriptural accounts indicate that Joseph of Arimathaea, a wealthy man, was responsible for burying Jesus. He obviously had money on his person at the time of Jesus' burial for he was able to purchase a linen burial cloth. Thus, if Joseph followed Jewish burial custom to cover the eyes, then it is not unreasonable that the most natural and convenient thing for him to use would have been coins rather than pottery fragments. If our conjecture is true that these images are of coins, then we may have a truly unique method of dating the image. Computer enhancement of high quality closeup photographs of the eye region followed by a statistical correlation with known coinage of a given era and locality may be able to: (1) identify the objects as coins and (2) date and locate the probable time and place the image and not just the cloth was formed. Indeed, we have some computer enhancements which, though lacking sufficient resolution for positive identification, indicate a possible structure on the surface of the objects. In addition, Ian Wilson has suggested several Judean Bronze Lepton coins which are about the correct size as the buttonlike images. In particular, a Lepton of Pontius Pilate coined in A.D. 30-31 seems to agree especially well. .... According to Wilson, a Lepton would probably be a likely candidate for Joseph of Arimathaea, an orthodox Jew, to use since it was acceptable as a Temple offering. .... If the identification of these images as solid objects over the eyes is correct, then another significant aspect of the image forming process comes to light: whatever process formed the image had to have acted the same way not only over the body and hair, but also over presumably organically inert fragments situated atop the eyes. This conclusion, we believe, is of significance, for it places great restrictions on the possible image formation processes. In short, three dimensionality implies that the image forming process, acted uniformly through space over the body, front and back, and even seemed to act independently of the type of surface, organic and inorganic, from which the image was generated. In addition, this identification of the `objects' seems to strengthen the authenticity of the Shroud. For what artist or forger in the Fourteenth Century would have thought to place objects on the eyes of Jesus?" (Jackson, J.P., et al., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image On Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.74-94, pp.89-91).

"As we have seen, medical examiner Robert Bucklin noted `rounded foreign objects can be noted on the imprint in the area of the right and left eyes.' [Bucklin, R., "Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May 1997, p.3] Jackson and his colleagues also noticed `buttonlike objects' over each eye in their VP-8 relief.' [Borkan, M., "Ecce Homo? Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University Magazine of Science, Technology, and Medicine, Winter 1995, Vol. X, No. 2, p.28] ... Giulio Ricci ... examined five possible explanations for these objects ... Ricci insisted that there was but one conclusion possible, and that was `that the button-like features are ... solid objects resting upon the eyelids.' [Ricci, G., "Historical, Medical, and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.89-90] Jackson believed that the button-like objects were in fact coins placed by Jesus' family and friends to keep his eyes closed after death. Research by Francis L. Filas, a professor of theology at Loyola University in Chicago, tended to support this hypothesis. Using high-magnification photography, Filas found the letters UCAI on the right eye, arranged in a coin-like curve. He thought that these might be the central letters of the coin inscription TIBERIOU CAISEROS - Greek for Tiberius Caesar, who was Roman Emperor during the time of Christ's ministry. He also found over the eye a tiny design that looked like a shepherd's crook. He was able to locate authentic Roman coins, minted between A.D. 29 and A.D. 32 (which was the time of Jesus' ministry) that contained a shepherd's staff as well as the Greek inscription TIBERIOU CAISEROS ... Alan and Mary Whanger ... Comparing a photograph of the Tiberius Caesar coin, known as a lepton, or `widow's mite,' with a computer-enhanced photograph of the area over the right eye of the Shroud image .. found `a very close match,' noting at least seventy-four `areas of congruence.' In other words, the Whangers found seventy-four features on the coin that closely corresponded to features on the Shroud image. ... [Borkan, M., "Ecce Homo? Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University Magazine of Science, Technology, and Medicine, Winter 1995, Vol. X, No. 2, p.28] The image of the object over the left eye on the Shroud is fainter than that over the right, but the Whangers found seventy-three points of congruence between that image and a Roman coin, contemporary to the time of Christ, known as a `Julia lepton.' [Borkan, pp.28-29] The Whangers sent their findings to be checked by Robert Haralick of the Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory of the Virginia Polytechnic and State University (Virginia Tech). Haralick gave `cautious support' to the Whangers and to Filas ... He offered, `The evidence is definitely supporting evidence because there is some degree of match between what one would expect to find if the Shroud did indeed contain a faint image of the Pilate coin and what we can in fact observe in the original and in the digitally processed images.' [Whanger, A.D., "A Reply to Doubts Concerning the Coins Over the Eyes," The Holy Shroud Guild Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 56, December, 1997, p.7] ... it seems to have been a Jewish custom to close the eyes of the deceased, and the placement of coins was a practical way of keeping the eyelids shut. Archaeologists working in Israel have, in fact, found coins in the eye orbits of three skulls from the approximate time of Jesus. [Moroni, M., "Pontius Pilate's Coin on the Right Eye of the Man in the Holy Shroud in the Light of New Archaeological Findings," Berard, A., ed., "Symposium Proceedings: History, Science, Theology, and the Shroud, St. Louis, MO, USA, June 22-23, 1991," The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo: Amarillo TX, 1991, p.278]." (Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, pp.105-108).

"SUMMARY The two roundish bodies in relief, pointed out by J. Jackson and G. Tamburelli, and a few alphabetical letters arranged circle-wise, detected by Father Filas, are the premises for considering that coins were placed in the eye-socket areas of the Shroud. Now this hypothesis is beginning to consolidate: the shape of the `K' letter, a small `pastoral' or `shepherd's' staff with a crooked end, and two faint parallel segments just under the vertical line, are imprinted on the right eye: it is missing the rim of the coin, but there is the presence of a roundish halo reveals its rim. The coin, we have found out, never known before by numismatists, having an irregular diameter, with a maximum axis of 16mm, in addition to the imprint of a staff in the shape of `a question mark' reversed, has also the imprint of two segments, only a few millimeters long, which certainly do not belong to the `shepherd's staff' outline, but are part of the stamp. Furthermore, the discovery of an ancient stone, used to found coins of the first century, explains the possible rare presence of the two segments: these segments be imprinted on any point on the rim of the coin, caused by tongs which are used during the final step of coinage. By radiographic experiments carried out on a skull and by using coins of that period, we also confirm that only a certain kind of small coins laid on the eyes can reach the medialis hollow of the skull when these coins come out of the `superior orbitalis fissure.' Moreover, it will be explained that the coins placed in the mouth fall, in the contrary, outside the skull due to decay. Also the well-known discovery of two skulls - both with two small coins of Christ's time - at the Jewish Community Cemetery of Jericho, lead us to the irrefutable conclusion that on the Shroud cloth a decal of a coin really was imprinted which portrayed a `staff' or LITUUS, the symbol existing uniquely on very rare coins minted by Pontius Pilate in the XVIth year of the Tiberius Kingdom, 29-30 AD." (Moroni, M., 1991, "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., "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.295-297. Emphasis original).

"Even more impressive is the coin-on-the-eye work of Professor Francis L. Filas of Loyola University, Chicago, which seems to give us a verified date for the Shroud image that is far more precise than carbon-dating can ever be. [Filas, F.L., "The Dating of the Shroud of Turin from Coins of Pontius Pilate," 1982] Three-dimensional enlargements of the Face of the Shroud are like relief maps, and there are some objects on the eyelids that stand up like thick buttons. During their early 3-D work, Drs. Jackson and Jumper noted these definite protuberances and tentatively concluded that they might be coins placed on each eyelid to keep them closed, as was a common burial practice in the first half of the first century in Judea. [Marino, J., "First Century Jewish Burial Customs," Saint Louis Priory, St. Louis, MO, n.d.] Thereafter, tentative validation came by happenstance in August 1979 when Professor Filas was enlarging his slides of the Shroud image to fill a twelve foot, closed-circuit television screen. He was startled to see what appeared to be Greek letters on the right eye of the Shroud Face. With better enlargements and the technical assistance of coin expert Michael Marx, he discovered a 15mm (5/8 inch) disc inscribed with four recognizable Greek letters and an astrologer's staff, a lituus . After research on historic coins, the size of the coin, the size and shape and position of the inscriptions, and the sequence of the four letters, were all found to be exactly correct for a small bronze coin known as the Pontius Pilate coin, minted in Palestine from 29 to 32. (Pilate was procurator of Judea from A.D. 26 to 36). The astrologer's staff was used as an independent symbol on no other coin in the Roman world at any time (it occasionally appeared as a small side decoration). The odds in favor of the identification of the coin and its date are in the range of millions to one against any other interpretation. Although the coin is very rare, copies of it are available and have been compared with the Shroud by Filas. However, the coin of the Shroud has a misspelling: magnification shows the Greek letters `Y CAI' but should read, `TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC' (meaning, `Of Tiberius Caesar'). Some variations of the coin show only IOY instead of the full name of Tiberius (language specialists use different letters for transliteration of the Greek characters; IOY, end of first word, is rendered IOU by some). All coin experts know that coins of that period and coinage did sometimes contain spelling errors, and now, even more spectacularly, Filas has found three actual Pontius Pilate coins that do have that error, a C instead of K ... The very strong evidence presented by Filas in dating the Shroud was supported in spring 1982 by the independent research of Professor Alan Whanger of Duke University. Whanger developed a photographic technique ... using polarized light and computer enhancement. Using one of Filas's actual Pontius Pilate coins to superimpose over a right-eye enlargement of the Shroud face, he states that he has found seventy-four points of congruence between the two. He finds the actual coin to be almost a perfect match for the markings on the Shroud face, so that the only reasonable conclusion he can come to is that they were coins struck from the same die. Whanger was able to extend the findings of Filas by identifying six Greek letters (IOY CAI) on the Shroud, whereas Filas had been able to discern only four. Whanger's technique identifies the coin on the left eye as another Pontius Pilate lepton, known as the Julia coin, struck only in the year 29, in honor of Caesar's mother, who died that year. Sheaves of grain and parts of eleven (out of a total of fourteen) letters that appear on the coin are identified by Whanger. This is not as certain an identification as the coin on the right eye, but no other coin of the period will fit at all. Filas now owns two Pontius Pilate coins with the C for K misspelling ... Even the critics do not say the 3-D protuberances over the Shroud eyes are not coins; the disagreement is whether a particular coin is proven. ... In any event, the Filas/Whanger coin identification work would seem to completely eliminate the possibility of forgery of the Shroud. Such a forger/artist would have had to execute, without pigment and in photographic negativity, tiny coin imprints on each eye containing letters one-thirty-second of an inch (one millimeter) high. The three scientific techniques ... identifying the Pontius Pilate coins of A.D. 29-31 on the eyes of the Man in the Shroud, have been further validated and extended by Dr. Robert M. Haralick of the Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (four different techniques). Haralick's use of computer-enhanced digital image analysis now gives strong evidence for nine Greek letters in sequence on the perimeter of the coin appearing over the right eye, expanding the four-letter sequence found initially by Filas, who died February 15, 1985. This work would seem to historically pinpoint the death of Jesus to the seven-year period from A.D. 29, when these coins were first minted in Judea, to A.D. 36, when Pilate left office (since his coins then would no longer be legal tender) ... Subsequently, in 1985, Italian numismatist Mario Maroni announced confirmation of these findings." (Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.114-120).

Leonardo da Vinci 'faked Turin Shroud and used his own features as the face of Jesus'

2009-07-14T14:43:00.042+08:00

This is my comment on the latest explaining away of the Shroud of

[Above: Comparison of Leonardo da Vinci's self-portrait and his Mona Lisa, based on "Mona Leo" speculation of Dr. Lillian F. Schwartz of Bell Labs: Wikipedia. Note that the two faces have little in common apart from they are both human. Note also Mona Lisa's upturned and Leonardo's downturned corners of their mouths and the deep creases in Leonardo's forehead and cheek compared with their lack in Mona Lisa's. And also Schwartz's careful avoidance of placing too much of Mona Lisa's nose on Leonardo's face when it would be even more obvious that these are two very different faces! Schwartz is deluding herself in this.]

Turin (actually it is not new-see my previous posts: Shroud News - July 2007, Shroud News - November 2007, and my 2007 series Leonardo: The Man Behind the Shroud? #1, #2, #3, #4, #5) in the Daily Mail of 30th June 2009 . My comments are in bold to distinguish my words from the article's.

Leonardo da Vinci 'faked Turin Shroud and used his own features as the face of Jesus, Daily Mail, 30th June 2009. I have no URL link to this article (which I saved when it first appeared) because the Daily Mail now diverts the original URL to another story, "Is the Turin Shroud really a self-portrait by Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci?" which turns the original assertion (the title of this post) into a question and now has a rebuttal by Shroud researcher John Jackson (see below).

A ground-breaking study has found the first evidence that the Turin Shroud features the face of Leonardo da Vinci, a TV documentary will reveal tomorrow. Unless Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) invented a time machine, the face on the Shroud could not be Leonardo's because, as leading Shroud researcher Prof. John Jackson pointed out, "The earliest known record of the shroud appears on a commemorative medallion ... It clearly shows ...

[Above (click to enlarge): Exposition Medallion of Shroud ca. 1356: Shroud of Turin Skeptical Spectacle. Note the two full length front and back images head-to-head and the herringbone weave pattern.]

the shroud and is dated to around 100 years before Leonardo was born":

"But Professor John Jackson, director of the Turin Shroud Centre of Colorado, who believes the item dates from the time of Jesus's crucifixion, dismissed the Leonardo hypothesis. 'It is based on some very poor scientific and historical scholarship,' he said. The earliest known record of the shroud appears on a commemorative medallion struck in the mid-14th century and on display at the Cluny Museum Paris, he added. 'It clearly shows clerics holding up the shroud and is dated to around 100 years before Leonardo was born." (Derbyshire, 2009, "Is the Turin Shroud really a self-portrait by Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci?," Daily Mail, 1 July).

which was apparently near the end of the documentary: "After all that evidence, it turned out that there's a medallion showing the shroud a century before Da Vinci was born":

"Yet, for once, the series had a reasonably strong case to make with The Da Vinci Shroud: Revealed ... Until ah. They got me again, didn't they? After all that evidence, it turned out that there's a medallion showing the shroud a century before Da Vinci was born. This is the Revealed way, hiding rather crucially important details until late on so that those new to the subject are carried along blithely only to be brought suddenly down ... It's a cheat's way of making historical documentaries, with standards of proof which would be laughed out of court or academia." (Mullaney, 2009, "TV review: The Da Vinci Shroud - Revealed," The Scotsman, 2 July. My emphasis);

that is, "a pilgrim's medallion dating from about 1357 which was found in the Seine River in Paris ... It depicts the frontal and dorsal image of a body on a long sheet being held out for veneration by two clerics ... The image is an uncanny replica of what is now known as the Shroud of Turin":

"Pilgrim's Medallion A fortuitous discovery which adds another piece to the case for the Shroud's historicity concerns a pilgrim's medallion dating from about 1357 which was found in the Seine River in Paris ... This small lead object, most likely a souvenir of a pilgrim's visit, is now kept in the Museum of Cluny. It depicts the frontal and dorsal image of a body on a long sheet being held out for veneration by two clerics ... The image is an uncanny replica of what is now known as the Shroud of Turin ... Of striking note are the two coats of arms represented on the reliquary beneath the Shroud on the medallion ... that of Geoffrey I de Charny ... [and] Jeanne de Vergy... Clearly visible are the flagrum, the scourging column, the lance, nails ... a cross upon which is hung a crown of thorns ... Since Geoffrey I de Charny was Lord of Lirey, the medallion probably came from that region ... Geoffrey I de Charny died on September 19, 1356; therefore, it is highly unlikely that his crest would have been engraved on a medallion produced after that year." (Guerrera, 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," pp.103-104).

The medieval painter and scientist has long been suspected of faking the image of Jesus Christ's face using pioneering photographic techniques. This `Leonardo da Vinci faked the Shroud' theory is rejected by most Shroud anti- authenticity theorists, even by Prof. Nicholas Allen whose support it relies on (see below). The theory was invented by conspiracy theorists Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince who are patent liars in this matter in that they claim that they received information about Leonardo faking the Shroud from a "Giovanni" of the "Priory of Sion":

"... Lynn received a letter from a complete stranger ... Signed simply `Giovanni,' it dealt with Leonardo and the Shroud ... He said that Leonardo had put the image of his own face on the Shroud. That serene, gaunt, bearded face so widely believed to be that of Jesus himself was in fact Leonardo da Vinci, perpetrating a sacrilegious joke on posterity ... He claimed that the body on the Shroud from the neck down at the front and all of the back image was that of a genuinely crucified man, a fifteenth-century victim ... Our informant also told us that Leonardo had not created the Shroud image by painting or any other known technique ... the image had been created using `chemicals and light, a sort of alchemical imprinting:' In other words, the Shroud image is actually a composite photograph of Leonardo da Vinci together with some hapless crucifixion victim, whose every contusion was recorded for posterity by a fifteenth-century camera! ... Leonardo faked the Shroud in 1492. It was a composite creation: he put the image of his own face on it together with the body of a genuinely crucified man. It was not a painting; it was a projected image `fixed' on the cloth using chemicals and light; in other words, he used a photographic technique ... Giovanni also claimed to have been high in the ranks of a schismatic faction of the Priory of Sion ..." (Picknett & Prince, 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," pp.87-88, 90,93).

which however is a fictitious organisation. So I assume that Ian Wilson from what he says below (Wilson, 1998, pp.211-212) is thinking primarily about Picknett and Prince when he wrote about "certain plausible-sounding and publicity-seeking people with absolutely no concern for truth":

"Speaking personally, one of my most painful and yet illuminating experiences, having as a writer expressed my beliefs in Jesus in the 1984 version of this book and also in the ... Turin Shroud, has been to be most deviously targeted in efforts to undermine these beliefs by certain plausible-sounding and publicity-seeking people with absolutely no concern for truth ... they actually do recognize truth, but ... see it as too threatening to their own quite different priorities for it to be allowed to live." (Wilson, 1996, "Jesus: The Evidence," pp.178-179).

But what is good about Picknett and Prince's `Leonardo faked the Shroud by photography' theory for which "There is no evidence whatsoever ":

"But Professor John Jackson, director of the Turin Shroud Centre of Colorado ... dismissed the Leonardo hypothesis ... 'There is no evidence whatsoever that Leonardo was involved in the shroud' " (Derbyshire, 2009, "Is the Turin Shroud really a self-portrait by Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci?," Daily Mail, 1 July).

is that it admits that the image on the Shroud: 1) is not a painting; 2) would require the artistic and technological genius of a Leonardo da Vinci to make it (but there was no Leonardo or equivalent in the 14th century when the Shroud first appeared in France); and 3) there are no good alternative theories because "if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally":

"As for the fundamental questions for anyone adopting the forgery hypothesis - for example: `Who forged such an extraordinary image?' 'How did he do so without betraying any obvious sign of his artifice?' 'How did he manage to get so much right medically, historically and culturally?' - if you ask yourself whether .. any of the other current detractors ... has yet offered any genuinely satisfying answers, the response has to be no. Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen." (Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," pp.234-235).

But now a new study of his facial features suggest the image on the

[Above: The face on the Shroud and Leonardo's face (painted 1512-1515): Daily Mail]

Shroud is actually da Vinci's own face. Just looking at the two faces above shows that they are very different. The Shroud face is long and Leonardo's face is round, for starters. Significantly of the examples Picknett and Prince cite of people they asked whether the faces were the same, those who know least about the Shroud (fashion models!) thought they could see a resemblance and those who know most about the Shroud (members of the British Society for the Turin Shroud) stated "I can't see the similarity myself" and "The man on the Shroud looks nothing like Leonardo":

"At the time Lynn was a freelance feature writer on a women's magazine ... She took the portrait of Leonardo and the postcard into the models' dressing room ... Lynn just showed them the two pictures and asked, `What do you think?' The response was instant and extremely gratifying. Out of fifteen who came and went during the afternoon ... eleven of them said straightaway, `It's the same man.' ... months afterward, Rodney Hoare and Michael Clift of the BSTS said, respectively, `I can't see the similarity myself' and `The man on the Shroud looks nothing like Leonardo.'" ("Picknett & Prince, 2006, pp.90-91).

The discovery was made by Lillian Schwartz, a graphic consultant at the School of Visual Arts in New York, whose previous work famously claimed that da Vinci used a self-portrait as the basis for the Mona Lisa. It is not a "discovery." It is a theory, and what's more a theory that is refuted by the facts that: 1) the similarity between the Leonardo's portrait and Mona Lisa is more simply explained as either "due to both portraits being painted by the same person using the same style" or Mona Lisa "depicts the artist's mother Caterina" which "would account for the resemblance between artist and subject" and also "why Leonardo kept the portrait with him wherever he travelled, until his death":

"Which lead to the theory that it was a self-portrait as Dr. Lillian Schwartz of Bell Labs suggested. Critics of this theory suggest that the similarities are due to both portraits being painted by the same person using the same style. Additionally, the drawing on which she based the comparison may not be a self-portrait. Serge Bramly, in his biography of Leonardo, discusses the possibility that the portrait depicts the artist's mother Caterina. This would account for the resemblance between artist and subject observed by Dr. Schwartz, and would explain why Leonardo kept the portrait with him wherever he travelled, until his death." ("What is the secret about 'Mona Lisa'?," WikiAnswers, 2009)

2) as pointed out by art critic and artist Joan Altabe, "By digitizing the features of both Leonardo's face and Mona's and merging them, she said, they line up ... so what?":

"No less silly is the theory of Dr. Lillian Schwartz of Bell Labs, a pioneer in computer graphics and computer art. She said that Mona is really Leonardo. By digitizing the features of both Leonardo's face and Mona's and merging them, she said, they line up. I feel a "so what?" coming on. How about you?" (Altabe, J., "You Can Tell By The Way She Smiles," 5 March 2009).

and 3) the portrait of Leonardo is dated 1512-1515, about 150 years after the Shroud's first appearance in Lirey France in the 1350s, which alone is a reductio ad absurdum of Schwartz's entire method. She used computer scans to reveal the faces of the Mona Lisa and Turin Shroud share the exact same dimensions as those of Leonardo da Vinci himself. Of course they do. Schwartz's method guarantees it. But she is deluding herself since the Shroud was in existence at least in the 1350s and Leonardo was not born until the 1450s. Experts have described the breakthrough as the 'most exciting' discovery ever in the history of the Shroud's mysterious origins.Who are these unnamed "experts"? They are not experts in the Shroud, or they would not spout such nonsense.

According to the Channel Five documentary, da Vinci created a sculpture of his own head and 'scorched' his facial features onto

[Above: How a camera obscura supposedly created the Shroud's image: Daily Mail]

the linen using a primitive photographic device called a 'camera obscura' The camera obscura was discovered centuries, if not millennia, before Leonardo, and was known to Europeans by at least the 13th century:

"Although the pinhole camera and camera obscura are credited to Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen, 965-1039) ... Euclid's Optics (ca 300 BC), presupposed the camera obscura ... Ibn al-Haytham ... stated ... `we did not invent this' .. While these earlier scholars described the effects of a single light passing through a pinhole, none of them suggested that what is being projected onto the screen is an image of everything on the other side of the aperture. Ibn al-Haytham ... was ... the first scientist to successfully project an entire image from outdoors onto a screen indoors with the camera obscura ... In 13th-century England Roger Bacon described the use of a camera obscura for the safe observation of solar eclipses. Its potential as a drawing aid may have been familiar to artists by as early as the 15th century; Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519 AD) described camera obscura in Codex Atlanticus." ("Camera obscura," Wikipedia, 9 July 2009)

so it is not surprising it is in Leonardo's notebooks. But what is conspicuous by its absence is there is no reference in Leonardo's notebooks to him making photographic images with a camera obscura (which would make him the inventor of photography, three centuries before "The first permanent photograph" was "produced in 1825 by the French inventor Nicéphore Niépce"):

"Photography is the result of combining several technical discoveries. Long before the first photographs were made, Chinese philosopher Mo Ti described a pinhole camera in the 5th century B.C.E, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) (965-1040) studied the camera obscura and pinhole camera, Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) discovered silver nitrate, and Georges Fabricius (1516-1571) discovered silver chloride. Daniel Barbaro described a diaphragm in 1568. Wilhelm Homberg described how light darkened some chemicals (photochemical effect) in 1694 ... Photography as a usable process goes back to the 1820s with the development of chemical photography. The first permanent photograph was an image produced in 1825 by the French inventor Nicéphore Niépce." ("Photography," Wikipedia, 3 July 2009).

let alone him making: 1) photographic images on linen; 2) of a crucified man; 3) who was intended to be a fraudulent image of Jesus. Anyone who did that in 15-16th century Catholic Italy would be guilty of blasphemy for which the penalty was burning at the stake - which actually happened ~50 years later to Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) . Apart from that, while Leonardo may have been the greatest painter, as artist-physicist Isabel Piczek points out he was also among the slowest and "The image shows a cadaver in the state of rigor mortis. He would have had to finish his work before that condition changed, and that is a very limited time, too fast for the slow Leonardo":

"Isabel Piczek, an artist and physicist, said that `... Leonardo ... despite the fact that he was one of the greatest masters of all time ... could he have created the Turin Shroud? ... not very likely ... The image shows a cadaver in the state of rigor mortis. He would have had to finish his work before that condition changed, and that is a very limited time, too fast for the slow Leonardo ...' [Piczek, I., "Why Leonardo da Vinci Could Not Have Painted The Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 28, April/May 1991, p.15]" (Guerrera, 2000, pp.69-70).

Turin Shroud researcher and author Lynn Picknett said: 'It is spooky, it is jaw-dropping, and it is, I think, the most exciting thing that has ever happened.' Picknett is no "Turin Shroud researcher" any more than Dan Brown is a Christianity researcher! She is, like Brown, a writer of religious conspiracy theories, of fiction masquerading as fact, to make money. He hung the fabric over a frame in a blacked-out room and coated it with a substance to make it light-sensitive, like photographic film. No mention of the fact that the Shroud is not just a head but a fourteen-foot (4.4 metre) sheet of linen with a full-length image of a man, both front and back! Nor that the Shroud's image is over its bloodstains: "scientists have discovered there are no signs of any body image beneath the bloodstains, meaning that the blood wounds penetrated the fibres before the image appeared on the cloth, " i.e. Leonardo (or whoever supposedly made this image) would have had to first apply blood to the linen and then hang a crucified man in the sun, front and back, for many hours in front of the bloodstained linen and yet "without displaying any sign of decay, and also produce subtle photographic details, like scourge wounds and bloodstains, all from a total distance of 10 metres".:

"The Camera-Obscura Theory In 1995 a theory that the Shroud image might have been created through the application of an early, crude form of photography known as camera-obscura - supposed to have been utilised in the Middle Ages - was tested by Professor Nicholas Allen ... Not only would it have required the procurement of a Jewish male corpse, crucified in the same way as Jesus, with the nail and lance wounds, and for it to be suspended for several days in sunshine, facing the aperture, then for several days more with its back facing the aperture, without displaying any sign of decay, and also produce subtle photographic details, like scourge wounds and bloodstains, all from a total distance of 10 metres ... Allen wrote: `The stigmata and other areas of the blood of the Shroud were probably added with the aid of a paintbrush and real blood, after the negative image had been obtained'. This was not possible, for the simple reason that scientists have discovered there are no signs of any body image beneath the bloodstains, meaning that the blood wounds penetrated the fibres before the image appeared on the cloth." (Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," pp.158-161).

When the sun's ultra-violet rays passed through a crystal lens in one of the walls, da Vinci's 3D model was projected onto the material to create the permanent image, which can only be seen in detail as a photographic negative. This also is false and anachronistic in that Leonardo did not combine a lens with a camera obscura, but it was not until ~1600, or ~80 years after Leonardo's death, that "Giambattista della Porta add[ed] a lens to the pinhole camera" and "It was not until 1850 that ... David Brewster actually took the first actual photograph with a pinhole camera":

"Around 1600, Giambattista della Porta add a lens to the pinhole camera. It was not until 1850 that a Scottish scientist by the name of Sir David Brewster actually took the first actual photograph with a pinhole camera. Sir William Crookes and William de Wiveleslie Abney were other early photographers to try the pinhole technique. Pinhole cameras were also used by Leonardo Da Vinci,as he was one of the first artists to use the pinhole camera."("Pinhole camera," Wikipedia, 9 July 2009).

What is also good about Picknett and Prince's apparent unacknowledged `borrowing' in their 1994 book, "Turin Shroud: In Whose Image" of Prof. Allen's 1993 Shroud photograph theory is that it "has demonstrated that the Shroud's image really is photographic in character" which "is in fact something that those in favour of the Shroud's authenticity have been saying for years and ... bad news for" those like McCrone who have claimed, against all the evidence, that the Shroud was a painting:

"Now it can also be said unreservedly of Professor Allen that more than anyone else before him he has demonstrated that the Shroud's image really is photographic in character. This is in fact something that those in favour of the Shroud's authenticity have been saying for years and is certainly bad news for Walter McCrone and others." (Wilson, 1998, pp.216-217).

Schwartz came to prominence in the 1980s when she stumbled on the Mona Lisa revelation after making a series of detailed scientific measurements of the priceless painting and da Vinci's self-portrait and scanning them into a computer. To her amazement, the two faces lined up perfectly, which meant he must have used the self-portrait as a model for the Mona Lisa. As can be seen above, the two faces do not line up perfectly but only at a carefully selected line can they appear to line up and even that imperfectly. If the two faces did "line up perfectly" then at any line at random, e.g. half Leonardo and half Mona Lisa, they would be identical but it can be easily seen they would not be, their noses for only one feature are completely different. When she was asked earlier this year to compare another da Vinci self-portrait to the face on the Turin Shroud, she was stunned to discover the proportions of the key facial features were again identical. Again it is a reductio ad absurdum of Schwartz's method that Leonardo's portrait painted in the 16th century is "identical" to the face on the Shroud which dates from at least the 14th century. She said: 'It matched. I'm excited about this. She should be chastened by this. There is no doubt in my mind that the proportions that Leonardo wrote about were used in creating this Shroud's face.' Schwartz' "no doubt in my mind" says more about her lack of self-critical faculty in this than it does about the Shroud!

Da Vinci made thousands of sketches of faces and was obsessed with finding the formula with the correct proportions to draw the perfect one. Which alone would refute Schwartz's theory about Mona Lisa being Leonardo's self-portrait because if Leonardo was aiming to "draw the perfect" face, then both Mona Lisa's and Leonardo's face would be artistic variations on his theme of the perfect face and so would not be `photographic' images of either face. The programme claims he used this formula to sculpt a model of his own face which became the image on the shroud. Even Leonardo could not sculpt an image that already existed at least a century before he was born. The only way the Shroud could be resemble Leonardo's alleged perfect face formula is if Leonardo based his formula on the Shroud! After all, there is no reason why Leonardo could not have personally seen the Shroud. It says da Vinci was a heretic with no ethical qualms in faking Christ's burial cloth and was the only person in that era with the talents and knowledge to produce it. There is no evidence that Leonardo was a "heretic." His biographer Vascari records that Leonardo died a Christian:

"Finally, in his old age Leonardo lay sick for several months, and feeling that he was near to death he earnestly resolved to learn about the doctrines of the Catholic faith and of the good and holy Christian religion. Then, lamenting bitterly, he confessed and repented, and, although he could not stand up, supported by his friends and servants he received the Blessed Sacrament from his bed ... Leonardo breathed his last ..." (Vasari, 1971, "The Lives of the Artists," p.270).

He was not only fascinated with optical equipment and lenses - his notebooks contain one of the earliest drawings and descriptions of a camera obscura - Yes but nothing about the Shroud of Turin:

"First, we would expect to find hundreds of sketches in his notebooks, describing the project from every angle and giving long instructions. We would also expect to find meticulously written records of the cost of the linen and all other materials used. He never once missed such information ..." (Guerrera, 2000, pp.69-70).

but he dissected bodies at a hospital morgue, so he knew how anatomy worked and had access to corpses and blood for the shroud. Leonardo did not work alone in some secluded hermitage but in major cities like Florence and Milan surrounded by apprentices. There is no way that he would, or could, commit the capital crime of crucifying a body and hanging it for hours in the sun to fake an image of Jesus.

The theory is that da Vinci's forgery was commissioned to replace an earlier version that was exposed as a poor fake, which had been bought by the powerful Savoy family in 1453 only to disappear for 50 years. To get around the problem of the Shroud existing at least a century before Leonardo was born, Picknett and Prince have to claim, without a shred of evidence that: 1) the current Shroud is not the original; and 2) the original Shroud disappeared for such a long time, i.e. "50 years" that when Leonardo's replica replaced it in 1492 no one could remember what the original looked like to detect the switch. But why would "the powerful Savoy family" want a "poor fake" in the first place and pay "elderly French widow Margaret de Charny ..."a small castle and some estate revenues" for it? And then in 1464 (when this "poor fake" Shroud was supposed to have disappeared), why would "Duke Louis... compensate the Lirey canons for their loss of" this "poor fake" Shroud?:

"The year 1453 marks one of those major changes of ownership episodes ... a petition from the dean and canons of the tiny French church of Lirey, urging the elderly French widow Margaret de Charny to return the Shroud to them ... the conveyance by Duke Louis I of Savoy of a small castle and some estate revenues to this same Margaret in return for some unspecified `valuable services' ... and finally for the year 1464 an agreement on Duke Louis's part to compensate the Lirey canons for their loss of the Shroud." (Wilson, 1998, p.117).

And the Shroud did not "disappear for 50 years." Here is an extract from the Shroud's "Highlights of the Undisputed History" by Ian Wilson:

1452: Margaret de Charny shows the Shroud ... in a public exposition ...
1453: Margaret de Charny ... Duke Louis I of Savoy ... bequest of the Shroud.
1464: ... record that the Shroud has become Savoy property ...
1471: Shroud transferred from Chambéry to Vercelli.
1473: Shroud transferred from Vercelli to Turin.
1473: Shroud transferred from Turin to Ivrea.
1474: Shroud transferred from Ivrea to Moncalieri.
1474: Shroud transferred from Moncalieri to Ivrea.
1475: Shroud transferred ... from Ivrea back to Chambéry.
1477-8: Shroud at Susa-Avigliano-Rivoli.
1478 ... Shroud exhibited at Pinerolo.
1483: ... inventory in which the Shroud is described ...
1488 ... Shroud exhibited at Savigliano.
1494 ... Duchess Bianca of Savoy exhibits the Shroud at Vercelli ...
1498: ... inventory detailing the Shroud when at Turin ...
1502: ... Shroud ... given a permanent home in ... Chambéry Castle ... is displayed on the Chapel's high altar ...
1503 ... Exposition of the Shroud at Bourg-en-Bresse ...
1509: ... New casket ... for the Shroud ... installation in ...
1511: ... Private exposition for Anne of Brittany, Queen of France, and for Francesco of Aragon.
1516: ... King Francis I of France journeys ... to Chambéry to venerate the Shroud ...
1518: ... Shroud exhibited from castle walls at Chambéry ...
1521: ... Duke Charles III ... pilgrimage ... to Chambéry to venerate the Shroud. Shroud exhibited ...

which shows that the Shroud was continuously known from 1453 through the 37-year period of Leonardo's "Professional life, 1476–1513 until after his death in 1519. So this is another falsehood by Picknett and Prince:

"To support their theory of Leonardo having made the Shroud in 1492 they have repeatedly quoted me as having told Lynn Picknett, `Yes, the Shroud did disappear around then.' With due deference to Ms Picknett's reporting skills, I have equally consistently insisted that I would never in my right senses have made this statement, as ought to be obvious from the chronologies of the Shroud set out both in my 1978 book and this present one. For in my lengthy chronicling of the Shroud's two `disappearances', the year 1492 most certainly does not figure and never has.." (Wilson, I., 1998, pp.211-212).

When it returned to public view, it was hailed as a genuine relic, and experts say it was actually da Vinci's convincing replica. This is obviously false. First it would require the entire Savoy family to enter into a criminal conspiracy with Leonardo, which if it was found out (as it surely would be), would result in them being burned at the stake for blasphemy, just to get a "replica" of the original ancient Shroud. Why would they do that? The Shroud today is very faint but the Vatican would never swap it for a clearer replica and then destroy the original. Second, it would require no one to notice that the Shroud had changed markedly (otherwise why do it at all?), which included the many artists who had painted copies of the Shroud (at least 52 copies of the Shroud are known).

American Professor Larissa Tracy, of Longwood University in Virginia, told the programme: 'Da Vinci had the necessary skills. He knew enough about anatomy and about the physical muscular structure of the body. 'Da Vinci had all the skills to create an image like the shroud. What would this English professor know about the Shroud? About its perfect anatomical detail down to the microscopic level that no human artist, not even Leonardo, could create? That Leonardo was born in 1452, a century after the Shroud first appeared in the European historical record? If anybody had the capacity to work with camera obscura or early photographic technique, it was Leonardo da Vinci.' This is just idle speculation. There is no evidence that Leonardo did "work with early photographic technique." But again the good point this tacitly makes is that it would require an unknown 14th century artist with the genius of 15-16th century Leonardo to fake the Shroud.

Turin Shroud researcher and author Lynn Picknett said: 'The faker of the shroud had to be a heretic, someone with no fear of faking Jesus's holy redemptive blood. Picknett is just projecting onto Leonardo her own anti-Christian and fraudster attitude. Even if Leonardo was "a heretic" (and there is no evidence he was), he would have to be a criminal fraudster as well as have a death wish to fake the Shroud, because he would have been caught if he did it. There is no way that a criminal conspiracy of that magnitude, involving many people, e.g. the entire Savoy family and their servants, could be kept quiet. 'He had to have a grasp of anatomy and he had to have at his fingertips a technology which would completely fool everyone until the 20th century. This "technology" would include making a photographic negative, which did not exist until over 300 years later in 1840:

"After reading about Daguerre's invention, Talbot refined his process so that portraits were made readily available to the masses. By 1840, Talbot had invented the calotype process, which creates negative images. John Herschel made many contributions to the new methods. He invented the cyanotype process, now familiar as the "blueprint". He was the first to use the terms `photography', `negative' and `positive'." ("Photography," Wikipedia, 3 July 2009).

and there is no evidence that Leonardo invented that:

"The photographic hypothesis has been developed (so to speak) in some detail, notably by South African art historian Nicholas Allen. He has even used medieval materials to create faint photographic images on linen cloth saturated with silver nitrate. But Allen failed to convince other shroud scholars, who reasonably asked how an invention as marvellous as photography could have remained otherwise unknown until the nineteenth century." (Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005).

'When we look at the man on the shroud, we're looking at a photograph of a crucified man. ' Indeed! And since the Shroud was already in existence in the 14th century and photography was not invented until the 19th century, then the Shroud cannot be a human creation. Leonardo took a body from the stock of bodies he dissected for his anatomical research and he truly crucified it. There is no evidence for this but if it were true, it would make Leonardo doubly a criminal as crucifixion had been outlawed by Constantine since AD 337. 'If Leonardo could have known that 500 years after he died generations of pilgrims are still crossing themselves over the image, I think he would have laughed quite a lot and felt that he had succeeded in what he set out to do. ' Again Picknett is falsely projecting onto Leonardo her own anti-Christian, fraudster attitude. He had a hunger to leave something for the future, to make his mark for the future, not just for the sake of art or science but for his ego.' This projection tells us something significant about Picknett not Leonardo!

Although debate still rages over the shroud's authenticity, radiocarbon dating in 1988 showed it was made between 1260 and 1390. Which has since been refuted - see for example, Benford & Marino, "Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud" (2008). The image itself cannot be dated and may have been created much later, although most scientists are baffled about how it was produced. Indeed! Art historian Professor Nicholas Allen, of Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in South Africa, demonstrates in the documentary how da Vinci could have made it by using a sculpture and primitive camera equipment. I haven't seen the documentary but Allen is on record as having rejected the Leonardo theory: "Allen denies the possibility that Leonardo da Vinci was in any way involved in production of the shroud":

"According to the art historian Nicolas Allen the image on the shroud was formed by a primitive photographic technique in the 13th century. Contrary to similar proposals by others, Allen denies the possibility that Leonardo da Vinci was in any way involved in production of the shroud. He rather maintains that techniques already available before the 14th century, as e.g. described in the Book of Optics which was just in this time translated from Arabic into Latin, were sufficient for primitive photographic techniques and that people familiar with these techniques could be able to produce an image as found on the shroud. To demonstrate this, he has experimentally produced photographic images using only techniques available at that time. He described his results in his PhD Thesis, in papers published in several science journals, and in a book." ("Shroud of Turin," ,Wikipedia, 9 July 2009).

because "This is some 135 years after the Shroud was first exhibited at Lirey in c 1357!":

"One exception to this state of affairs came to light only quite recently. Indeed, in August 1994 two Britons, L Picknett and C Prince published a book entitled Turin Shroud: in whose image? The shocking truth unveiled. Although published a few months after the author's own independent findings, Picknett and Prince claim that since 1988 they have also been exploring the possibility that the Shroud of Turin had been produced by photographic means. However, although at first appraisal this claim would seem to be supportive of the author's own conclusions, it should be appreciated that these two researchers' adhere to the somewhat sensationalist notion that the Shroud of Turin is a self-portrait produced by none other than Leonardo da Vinci in 1492. This is some 135 years after the Shroud was first exhibited at Lirey in c 1357!" (Allen, N.P.L., 2009, "Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photo-negative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin," University of South Africa).

He said the cloth could have been covered in silver sulphate, which was readily available in 15th-century Italy, making it light-sensitive. That the individual components of photography were "readily available" in Leonardo's time does not mean that they were brought together to create photography itself. Professor Allen is urging the Catholic Church to allow further scientific research on the shroud to test for the presence of this chemical, which causes a reaction with the sun's UV rays to create the permanent scorching marks on the fabric, but it has refused. In 1978 the Shroud was subjected by STURP to extensive visual, physical and chemical tests. If there was any silver sulphate or silver nitrate they would have found it. He said: 'If you look at the Shroud of Turin as it appears to the naked eye, you see a negative image of a human being, and if you take a photograph of that you produce a positive image of that human being, which means the shroud is acting as a negative. 'That in itself is a very good clue that it was made photographically.' Indeed! But that does not mean that Leonardo or any human `took the photograph" of the man on the Shroud. If the Shroud is the very burial sheet of Jesus that covered His body which was then resurrected through it, then the image would be "a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection":

"This explanation, proposed completely independently of each other by Drs Phillips and Little, potentially accounts both for how the radiocarbon dating could have erred and for how the crucified body image could have been formed on the cloth, all in one neat single package. It is also a view to which I can hardly object, given that twenty years ago, when I wrote my 1978 book, I specifically suggested the image came to be formed by some such nuclear-type blinding flash from the body. As I then hypothesised: `In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerialises, dissolved perhaps by the flash, while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection.' [Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Victor Gollancz: London, 1978, p.211]." (Wilson, 1998, pp.233-234).

The Da Vinci Shroud: Revealed is on Channel Five at 8pm tomorrow. Picknett, Dan Brown, and their ilk, think they are being so clever attacking Christianity by this fiction masquerading as fact, but they are unwittingly confirming Christianity to be true, in that they are fulfilling the Bible's prediction that before Jesus returns there will be a Great Apostasy (2Th 2:3), which I believe we are now in, that includes people rejecting "sound doctrine" and gathering "around them ... teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" but which are "myths":

2Tim 4:3-4 "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths

The full quotes below are hyperlinked from the brief quotes above.

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

"Two English researchers, Clive Prince and Lynn Picknett, have suggested that the Shroud image was painted by none other than Leonardo da Vinci. According to Picknett, da Vinci created the image using an early photographic technique. Supposedly, a recently crucified body was used for the main image while Leonardo used a self-portrait for the face. [Prince, C., "Did Leonardo da Vinci Fake the Shroud?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 28, April/May 1991, p.12] This hypothesis completely lacks credibility, for we know that there is documentary evidence that the Shroud was in Lirey in the 1350s and that it was given to the House of Savoy on March 22, 1453. Leonardo da Vinci was born in 1452. Isabel Piczek, an artist and physicist, said that `most of Leonardo's paintings are ... lost today because of his technical errors, despite the fact that he was one of the greatest masters of all time. So could he have created the Turin Shroud? It is not very likely. First, we would expect to find hundreds of sketches in his notebooks, describing the project from every angle and giving long instructions. We would also expect to find meticulously written records of the cost of the linen and all other materials used. He never once missed such information... . The image shows a cadaver in the state of rigor mortis. He would have had to finish his work before that condition changed, and that is a very limited time, too fast for the slow Leonardo... . Working at Leonardo's speed the man of the Shroud would have been not much more than a skeleton.' [Piczek, I., "Why Leonardo da Vinci Could Not Have Painted The Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 28, April/May 1991, p.15]" (Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.69-70).

"Pilgrim's Medallion A fortuitous discovery which adds another piece to the case for the Shroud's historicity concerns a pilgrim's medallion dating from about 1357 which was found in the Seine River in Paris in 1855 by Arthur Forgeais. This small lead object, most likely a souvenir of a pilgrim's visit, is now kept in the Museum of Cluny. It depicts the frontal and dorsal image of a body on a long sheet being held out for veneration by two clerics vested in copes. It is obvious that the heads are broken. The image is an uncanny replica of what is now known as the Shroud of Turin. The double body image depicts a naked figure with crossed hands and trickles of blood on the back and feet. As an added touch of realism one can also detect the herringbone weave pattern that appears on the Shroud. Of striking note are the two coats of arms represented on the reliquary beneath the Shroud on the medallion. The one on the left (as viewed by reader) is that of Geoffrey I de Charny, represented with three small inner shields. The original would have been silver on a red background. The one on the right is that of Jeanne de Vergy, represented with three flowers which would have been gold. Flanked between the coats of arms are the instruments of the Passion. Clearly visible are the flagrum, the scourging column, the lance, nails, and, in the middle of the two shields, a roundel symbolizing the empty tomb surmounted by a cross upon which is hung a crown of thorns. Although the exact date or origin of the medal is not certain, the coats of arms give us a clue. Since Geoffrey I de Charny was Lord of Lirey, the medallion probably came from that region. Humbert de Villersexel, the second husband of Marguerite de Charny, to whom various relics were entrusted for safekeeping in 1418, acknowledged receiving `a cloth, on which is the figure or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is in a casket emblazoned with the de Charny crest.' Geoffrey I de Charny died on September 19, 1356; therefore, it is highly unlikely that his crest would have been engraved on a medallion produced after that year." (Guerrera, 2000, pp.103-104. Emphasis original).

"But Professor John Jackson, director of the Turin Shroud Centre of Colorado, who believes the item dates from the time of Jesus's crucifixion, dismissed the Leonardo hypothesis. 'It is based on some very poor scientific and historical scholarship,' he said. The earliest known record of the shroud appears on a commemorative medallion struck in the mid-14th century and on display at the Cluny Museum Paris, he added. 'It clearly shows clerics holding up the shroud and is dated to around 100 years before Leonardo was born. 'There is no evidence whatsoever that Leonardo was involved in the shroud.' The professor believes the radiocarbon dating of the shroud was wrong because the sample was contaminated." (Derbyshire, D., "Is the Turin Shroud really a self-portrait by Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci?," Daily Mail, 1 July 2009).

"Yet, for once, the series had a reasonably strong case to make with The Da Vinci Shroud: Revealed which, as the title suggests, argued that while it now seems that the famous Turin Shroud cloth image of 'Jesus' is a medieval forgery ... the forger was, of all people, the equally famous Leonardo.This initially sounded like wishful thinking ... In his undoubtedly busy life, how could Da Vinci have had time to fake a religious icon ... Yet it wasn't just that computer mapping shows the image said to be Jesus has the same dimensions as a self-portrait of Leonardo (after all, a lot of faces are similarly proportioned), but the actual technical challenge of creating such a clear negative image on linen could only have been done by very few people. The forger would have had to be in the right place, with knowledge of both anatomy and art, as well as a technical imagination which could have conceived of a form of photography, in effect, centuries before it was actually invented. The attribution suddenly began to seem much less coincidental. Until ah. They got me again, didn't they? After all that evidence, it turned out that there's a medallion showing the shroud a century before Da Vinci was born. This is the Revealed way, hiding rather crucially important details until late on so that those new to the subject are carried along blithely only to be brought suddenly down. By that time, you've invested almost an hour in the theory ... It's a cheat's way of making historical documentaries, with standards of proof which would be laughed out of court or academia. Yet these programmes don't actually lie; perhaps the sensational revelations promised draw in gullible viewers but they do at least get a fair amount of information about the subjects in order to make up their own mind. And, well, they are on Five: don't expect BBC4 levels of intellectual rigour, because it's not going to happen. Still, it was disappointing to have been temporarily taken in. Next time I'll take advice from the theme tune to Five's other most implausible show, CSI Miami: I won't get fooled again." (Mullaney, A., "TV review: The Da Vinci Shroud - Revealed," The Scotsman, 2 July 2009).

"Shortly after doing both these broadcasts [1989], Lynn received a letter from a complete stranger ... The letter was intriguing. Signed simply `Giovanni,' it dealt with Leonardo and the Shroud but took the story much further into the realm of what appeared to be fantasy. On the radio Lynn had simply said that the Maestro might have been implicated in the fake, but this man claimed to have inside knowledge that Leonardo had been responsible. Giovanni said that she should read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln as background to the story of Leonardo and the Shroud, and that he would be in touch again. We have to admit that, both of us having read the book, we were no wiser about Leonardo and the Shroud, although he does figure in the story as grand master of a secret society ... Clearly there was a feeling that the events and theories outlined in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail had some connection with the Shroud, although quite what it was eluded everyone. In due course, however, we made that connection. Our mystery man, Giovanni, had made some astonishing claims about Leonardo and the Shroud ... He offered extraordinary pieces of information that, although seemingly outrageous, gave us real food for thought. He said that Leonardo had put the image of his own face on the Shroud. That serene, gaunt, bearded face so widely believed to be that of Jesus himself was in fact Leonardo da Vinci, perpetrating a sacrilegious joke on posterity. As if this were not enough in itself, he went further, much further. He claimed that the body on the Shroud from the neck down at the front and all of the back image was that of a genuinely crucified man, a fifteenth-century victim of the first-century legacy of man's inhumanity to man ... Our informant also told us that Leonardo had not created the Shroud image by painting or any other known technique such as brass rubbing. He said that it represented the Maestro's greatest and most daring innovation, as the image had been created using `chemicals and light, a sort of alchemical imprinting:' In other words, the Shroud image is actually a composite photograph of Leonardo da Vinci together with some hapless crucifixion victim, whose every contusion was recorded for posterity by a fifteenth-century camera! Over the months we received a total of thirteen letters from Giovanni, which gave us a great deal of information about Leonardo and the Shroud, most of which we have shown to be accurate through independent research and our own experiments. To sum up ... Leonardo faked the Shroud in 1492. It was a composite creation: he put the image of his own face on it together with the body of a genuinely crucified man. It was not a painting; it was a projected image `fixed' on the cloth using chemicals and light; in other words, he used a photographic technique ... Giovanni also claimed to have been high in the ranks of a schismatic faction of the Priory of Sion, claiming that his faction was purists who believed that the modern organization had moved too far from its original aims and beliefs." (Picknett, L. & Prince, C., 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, pp.87-88, 90,93).

"At the time Lynn was a freelance feature writer on a women's magazine, and that afternoon it was organizing a mammoth photo shoot for its fashion pages. She took the portrait of Leonardo and the postcard into the models' dressing room ... So Lynn just showed them the two pictures and asked, `What do you think?' The response was instant and extremely gratifying. Out of fifteen who came and went during the afternoon ... eleven of them said straightaway, `It's the same man.' Two said words to the effect of `I don't know what you want me to say ... apart from the fact that it's the same man.' One said she didn't know what Lynn was after and was busy, and the last one said she recognized the man on the Shroud because she was a Catholic ... This unofficial vox pop was hardly evidence, although it is true that the human eye is a better judge than almost any other monitoring, imaging, or matching equipment, from the camera to the computer. Lynn had been careful not to give the models any clues as to what reaction she was looking for. We regret not having taken their details for future reference, but even so that episode certainly added to the growing enthusiasm we felt for further investigation into Leonardo and the Shroud. And it certainly made us smile when, months afterward, Rodney Hoare and Michael Clift of the BSTS said, respectively, `I can't see the similarity myself' and `The man on the Shroud looks nothing like Leonardo.' On the other hand, even other believers have no difficulty seeing the resemblance. One of the most priceless moments in our career came in 2001, during the filming of a documentary about our work for the National Geographic Channel. The program also included a piece about the Italian sculptor Luigi Mattei, who specializes in life-size sculptures of-as he firmly believes-Jesus based on the image on the Shroud. During filming Mattei spontaneously declared that he had often remarked on the striking resemblance between the Shroud image of `Jesus' and Leonardo da Vinci." (Picknett & Prince, 2006, pp.90-91).

"Finally, in his old age Leonardo lay sick for several months, and feeling that he was near to death he earnestly resolved to learn about the doctrines of the Catholic faith and of the good and holy Christian religion. Then, lamenting bitterly, he confessed and repented, and, although he could not stand up, supported by his friends and servants he received the Blessed Sacrament from his bed. He was joined by the king, who often used to pay him affectionate visits, and having respectfully raised himself in his bed he told the king about his illness and what had caused it, and he protested that he had offended God and mankind by not working at his art as he should have done. Then he was seized by a paroxysm, the forerunner of death, and, to show him favour and to soothe his pain, the king held his head. Conscious of the great honour being done to him, the inspired Leonardo breathed his last in the arms of the king; he was then seventy-five years old." (Vasari, G., 1971, "The Lives of the Artists: A Selection," [1961], Volume I, Bull, G., transl., Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Revised Edition, Reprinted, 1987, p.270).

"The Camera-Obscura Theory In 1995 a theory that the Shroud image might have been created through the application of an early, crude form of photography known as camera-obscura - supposed to have been utilised in the Middle Ages - was tested by Professor Nicholas Allen, a dean of the Faculty of Art and Design at the Port Elizabeth Technikon in South Africa. [Allen, N., "Verification of the nature and causes of the photo-negative images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin," De Arte, April 1995, pp.31-34] Allen knew that the image on the Shroud was not a painting, and was aware that in medieval Europe, Italy in particular, there existed knowledge of the use of quartz for making lenses for magnification purposes. He was also aware that at that time there was knowledge of silver salts, which had the properties required for converting into light-sensitive chemicals. To test his theory Allen constructed a camera obscura in the form of a room that was totally dark except for an aperture in the front wall, in which he set a type of rock-crystal lens that he believed could have existed in the Middle Ages. He soaked a shroud-like cloth in light-sensitive silver nitrate, folded it in half across the middle, and installed it vertically in the middle of the room, some 5 metres from the aperture, while it was closed. For the subject to be `photographed' he made a plaster cast from a naked and bearded male life-model who had stood in a death-like pose, as similar as possible to that of the man of the Shroud. He suspended the plaster cast vertically in full sunlight, about 5 metres in front of the aperture outside the room, having precalculated that at this distance from the lens the subject's image would be exposed on the light-sensitive cloth life-size and upside-down. He opened the aperture and kept it open for several days, during which the plaster cast remained exposed to sunlight. The result was a `negative' exposure of the front of the cast-image on the cloth. To produce a double image, front and back, he repeated the process, closing the aperture, turning both the plaster cast and the folded cloth around, then opening the aperture for several more days. To complete his experiment he had the cloth washed in a solution of ammonia salts to remove the silver salts, thus `fixing' the exposures. The entire experiment was conducted according to his hypothesis that he had replicated a form of photography believed to have been known in some scientific circles in medieval Europe. The result was images which bore a number of similarities to the Shroud image when viewed by the naked eye. The cloth had developed a straw-yellow discoloration of its surface fibrils, and faint evidence of an image of the plaster-cast was apparent when the cloth was viewed from about 2 metre's distance. The most telling effect became evident when he photographed his cloth with a modern camera, using black-and-white film, and examined the negative. It revealed a `positive' image of the subject. While his experiment might have supported his conclusion, `that people in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century were privy to a photographic technology which was previously thought to be unknown before the beginning of the nineteenth century', it would be an extreme interpretation of his work for him or anyone to claim that the Shroud images could have been created in a similar way. Not only would it have required the procurement of a Jewish male corpse, crucified in the same way as Jesus, with the nail and lance wounds, and for it to be suspended for several days in sunshine, facing the aperture, then for several days more with its back facing the aperture, without displaying any sign of decay, and also produce subtle photographic details, like scourge wounds and bloodstains, all from a total distance of 10 metres. To have fulfilled such onerous requirements is beyond belief. Yet, in attempting to dispel disbelief that the Shroud image could have been formed in this way Allen wrote: `The stigmata and other areas of the blood of the Shroud were probably added with the aid of a paintbrush and real blood, after the negative image had been obtained'. This was not possible, for the simple reason that scientists have discovered there are no signs of any body image beneath the bloodstains, meaning that the blood wounds penetrated the fibres before the image appeared on the cloth. With all photography the choice of film and the purity of the developing emulsions define the degree of sharpness and clarity of a photographic image. The fact that no museum or library in the world possesses a medieval camera-obscura photograph or even a crude pre-1800 photograph is sufficient evidence that no one had produced one before the invention of photography." (Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.158-161).

"This clear recognition of the power of good by the power of evil, and the perennial and seemingly insatiable anxiety of the latter to stamp out the former, is supremely important because, as many a committed Christian of today can corroborate, it is very real and remains every bit as active as it was in Jesus' time ... Speaking personally, one of my most painful and yet illuminating experiences, having as a writer expressed my beliefs in Jesus in the 1984 version of this book and also in the otherwise so discredited Turin Shroud, has been to be most deviously targeted in efforts to undermine these beliefs by certain plausible-sounding and publicity-seeking people with absolutely no concern for truth. The illuminating aspect is that for modern-day people to be so motivated can only mean that they actually do recognize truth, but like Caiaphas, see it as too threatening to their own quite different priorities for it to be allowed to live." (Wilson I., 1996, "Jesus: The Evidence," [1984], Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, Revised, pp.178-179).

"The year 1453 marks one of those major changes of ownership episodes that requires special scrutiny in order to guard against any skulduggery or confusion, especially since there survives no actual deed of transfer as such. Instead, what we do have is a set of alternative documents which serve the same function. These comprise, from the year 1443, a petition from the dean and canons of the tiny French church of Lirey, urging the elderly French widow Margaret de Charny to return the Shroud to them; for the year 1453 the conveyance by Duke Louis I of Savoy of a small castle and some estate revenues to this same Margaret in return for some unspecified `valuable services' (this seems to have been what sufficed as the transfer); for the year 1457 an excommunication of Margaret for her failing to return the alleged Shroud to the Lirey clergy; for the year 1459 a lifting of the excommunication, apparently as a result of a deal having been struck; and finally for the year 1464, four years after Margaret de Charny's death, an agreement on Duke Louis's part to compensate the Lirey canons for their loss of the Shroud. Despite the lack of a formal transfer document, it is crystal-clear from all this data that a Christ shroud had been in Margaret de Charny's possession and passed into Duke Louis's. And from the fact that Duke Louis's Christ shroud passed all the way down through his descendants to become the Turin Shroud that we know today it follows, despite Margaret's and Louis's rather 'under-the-counter' way of conducting their transaction, that Margaret's Christ shroud must have been our Turin Shroud." (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.117).

"To support their theory of Leonardo having made the Shroud in 1492 they have repeatedly quoted me as having told Lynn Picknett, `Yes, the Shroud did disappear around then.' With due deference to Ms Picknett's reporting skills, I have equally consistently insisted that I would never in my right senses have made this statement, as ought to be obvious from the chronologies of the Shroud set out both in my 1978 book and this present one. For in my lengthy chronicling of the Shroud's two `disappearances', the year 1492 most certainly does not figure and never has. In that year the Shroud's technical owner was, in fact, a two-and-a-half-year-old boy, Duke Charles II, the cloth's effective control thereby being in the hands of his widowed mother the Dowager Duchess Bianca, a very devout woman who personally exhibited the Shroud at Vercelli in 1494, and who would hardly have failed to notice had this been a different cloth from the one that she and her retinue had carried around during their travels in the preceding years." Wilson, 1998, pp.211-212).

"Now it can also be said unreservedly of Professor Allen that more than anyone else before him he has demonstrated that the Shroud's image really is photographic in character. This is in fact something that those in favour of the Shroud's authenticity have been saying for years and is certainly bad news for Walter McCrone and others. Rather more serious, however, from the pro-authenticity camp's point of view is that he has demonstrated that it could have been achieved with materials and knowledge readily available in the Middle Ages. And while I for one would not wish to question that this indeed might have been possible, this is still very far from accepting that this actually was how (and when) the Shroud's imprint came into being. For Professor Allen himself has been more than a little hesitant with regard to certain details, not least whether, for the Shroud proper, the hypothetical mediaeval photographer used either an actual corpse or a plaster cast of the same. Among just some of the difficulties of the former method are that if an actual crucified human corpse really were suspended for `several days' in full sunshine, then its likely condition after such a length of time, particularly in any climate with the required sufficiency of sunshine, boggles both the mind and the olfactory system. This is quite aside from the offence it would have caused to every mediaeval religious sensitivity. An actual corpse must therefore be considered most unlikely, given that rigor mortis would in any case never have held sufficiently long to create the impression of the figure lying flat. Also, had the body been genuinely crucified, its correspondingly convincing `bloodstains' could hardly have become transferred to the Shroud over Professor Allen's required focal length of twice fifteen feet." Wilson, 1998, pp.216-217).

"As for the fundamental questions for anyone adopting the forgery hypothesis - for example: `Who forged such an extraordinary image?' 'How did he do so without betraying any obvious sign of his artifice?' 'How did he manage to get so much right medically, historically and culturally?' - if you ask yourself whether Sox, or any of the other current detractors, from McCrone and Hall to Picknett and Prince, has yet offered any genuinely satisfying answers, the response has to be no. Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen. Realistically, to date there has been only one genuinely satisfying, albeit still only partial, replication of the Shroud's image, that by Professor Nicholas Allen. And that demands so much ingenuity and advanced photographic knowledge on the part of someone of the Middle Ages that it may actually represent rather better evidence for the Shroud's authenticity than for its forgery." (Wilson, 1998, pp.234-235).

Re: The Shroud of Turin: Evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross, not a stake

2009-04-25T15:45:00.010+08:00

AN

Thanks for your message. I will respond to your question publicly

[Above: Shroud of Turin: World-Mysteries.com. The direction and patterns of the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin show that the man whose image is imprinted on it, died on a cross with both his arms outstretched to the side and nailed:

"In addition, by measuring the angle of dried blood on the wrist, one can reconstruct the angle at which this person hung from the cross. He mainly hung from a position 65 degrees from the horizontal. But there is another angle of dried blood at 55 degrees. This shows that this person tried to lift himself up by 10 degrees. Why? Medical studies show that if a person just hangs from a position of 65 degrees in would start to suffocate very quickly. Only if he could lift himself up by about 10 degrees would he be able to breathe. Thus he would have to raise himself up by this 10 degrees by pushing down on his feet which would have to have been fixed to the cross. He would then become exhausted and fall down again to the 65 degree position. Thus, he would continue to shift from these two agonizing positions throughout crucifixion. That is why the executioners of crucifixion would break the legs of their victims to speed up death. If they could not lift themselves up to breathe, they would suffocate very quickly." (Shroud of Turin: World-Mysteries.com).

See also `tagline' quotes at the end of this post. If this is Jesus, and the evidence is overwhelming that it is (see for example my also as yet unfinished series, Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #1, on my TheShroudofTurin blog), then this is further archeological and scientific evidence (if not absolute proof ) that Jesus was crucified on a two-beamed cross and not a single stake as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society claims].

via my blog, JesusisJehovah!, minus your personal identifying information, i.e. substituting "AN" for your name.

I am also copying this reply to my TheShroudofTurin blog,

[Right (click to enlarge): Jesus `impaled' on a single stake with both arms together over his head affixed by one nail: "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 2005, p.52. This is how the Watchtower Society has consistently depicted Jesus' execution since 1950 at least.]

because it may be of interest to my readers there. Although they may be unaware of (and astonished at) the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's (Jehovah's Witnesses') claim that Jesus was not crucified with both arms outspread and therefore affixed with two nails through both wrists on a cross, but was instead affixed by only one nail through both hands above His head on a single upright stake.

----- Original Message - ----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:09 AM
Subject: Stake/Cross comments continued?..

>Hello, Stephen!
>
>My name's AN and I'm from Russia (so excuse me, please, for my poor English). I've read with a great interest your articles (#1-#3) about stake/cross controversy in your blog.
>
>I've been waiting for continuation since autumn and so have a question: do you plan to publish new posts (as you stated: "#4 Patristic, #5 Archaeological, #6 Pagan, #7 Biblical and #8 Conclusion") on this theme?

Thanks for your reminder. Quite frankly I have been so busy, what with, researching and posting my Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament series, going back to university to become a science teacher and debating with JWs on Shazoolo's and Newagegamer's YouTube boards, that this had been moved to the backburner.

However, I do intend to continue with that series. I have now moved my draft next post in the series, "Was Jesus executed on a cross or a stake? #3D: Historical" out of my Drafts 2008 folder into my current Drafts folder and will try to finish it this Sunday, if not this week.

>Thanx for your work!
>Waiting for your reply,
>AN

Thanks again for your reminder and for your patience.

PS: Note in the `tagline' quotes below, that if the hands of the man on the Shroud had been affixed by one nail to a single upright pole, then the blood flows from his wrists would have been vertical, i.e. straight down the arms, not 65-55% to the vertical. So this is yet another nail (pun intended) in the Watchtower Society's coffin!

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & TheShroudofTurin

"We are now drawn to the wounds of the crucifixion itself. First we must establish that we can be quite confident we are dealing with a crucifixion victim. The principal evidence for this lies in the flows of blood from the wound in the left wrist. One of the most important aspects is the angle of the two streams of blood closest to the hand, flowing toward the inner border of the forearm.

[Left (click to enlarge): The 55-65% angle of the Shroud victim's arms on the cross, deduced from the paths of the bloodflows on them (Wilson, 1978, pl.12.]

Other, interrupted streams run along the length of the arm as far as the elbow, dripping toward the edge of the arm at angles similar to the original flows. The first two flows are about ten degrees apart, the somewhat thinner one at an angle of about fifty-five degrees from the axis of the arm and the broader one closer to the hand at about sixty-five degrees. This enables us to do two things: (1) to compute that at the time the blood flowed, the arms must have been raised at positions varying between fifty-five and sixty-five degrees from the vertical, i.e., clearly a crucifixion position; (2) to compute that because of the ten-degree difference the crucified man must have assumed two slightly different positions on the cross, that at sixty-five degrees representing full suspension of the body, that at fifty-five degrees a slightly more acute angle of the forearm produced by flexing the elbow to raise the body. We are enabled to deduce then that the crucifixion forced on the victim an up-and-down or seesaw motion on the cross-perhaps, according to one school of thought, in order to breathe, the arms in that position taking a tension equal to nearly twice the weight of the body, inducing near-suffocation if there was no crutch support; perhaps, according to another school of thought, by the victim attempting to relieve himself of one unbearable agony, the pain in his wrists, by raising himself, at the price of yet more pain, on the living wounds in his feet." (Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, pp.25-26).

"For the first clear evidence that the Shroud shows a victim of crucifixion, we now turn to the next group of injuries, which take the form of what appear to be blood flows in the region of the hands and lower arms. On the man of the Shroud's left wrist can be seen two separately angled blood flows, one broad, the other thin and long; then, after a gap of a few centimeters, at least six blood rivulets appear to flow on toward the elbow joint. Although the right wrist is obscured by the left, the presence of similar bloodstains on this arm suggests a similarly originating injury. As before, it is the underlying logic that is so compelling. Each rivulet of blood ends its course pointing in a specific direction, from which it can be calculated that when the majority of the rivulets flowed, the man of the Shroud's arms must have been at an angle of 65 degrees from the vertical-i.e., clearly a crucifixion position. Only one rivulet is different, the longer and thinner of those at the wrist, which indicates not 65 but 55 degrees from the vertical. To pathologists, this single flow almost certainly indicates the attitude the arms assumed at death, at which time the head would have been slumped and one elbow flexed at a more acute angle." (Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.22).

"Which leads us to the third category of injuries visible on the Shroud, the bloodflows as from piercings to the hands and feet. First let us take the trickles that can be seen on each forearm ... As various medical and other researchers have demonstrated, if these are, projected and painted onto a living model's arms and his arms are then moved to the position that their gravitational flow would seem to indicate, it can immediately be seen that at the time the blood flowed each arm must have been stretched out sideways at an approximate angle of sixty-five degrees, i.e. a crucifixion position ...

[Right (click to enlarge): Transpositions of the Shroud's forearms bloodflows onto a living man, showing the man on the Shroud's living (top) and dead (bottom) positions on the cross. (Wilson, 1998, pl. 18a-b).]

We cannot see the source of the trickle down the right forearm because its wrist and upper hand are covered by the fingers of the left hand. But this is more than compensated for by the fact that a `/\'shaped bloodstain is clearly visible on the left wrist, the apex of this, at the centre of the bending fold, being obviously the site of the puncture wound from which the blood flowed. The `/\' shape to the bloodstain also theoretically seems to indicate the two different positions that the man of the Shroud must have adopted while suspended, either denoting his agonising shifting from one position to another or, as some have suggested, the position his arms took at death." (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.34-35).

"Blood flowed along the arms while they were extended on the cross. At several points on the left forearm the blood was deflected and flowed vertically down the side. At the back of the left hand there are two trickles of blood which also flowed vertically during the crucifixion. These streams are still in their original position in relation to the arm and the hand. Thus they enable us to calculate the angle at which the arms were extended on the cross-about 65 degrees from the vertical. In the imprints of the Shroud we have an exact portrayal of the technique of crucifixion, and of one crucifixion in particular which supplies for the reticence of the Evangelists." (Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.45).

Knights Templar may have secretly held shroud, Vatican expert says

2009-04-14T00:13:00.014+08:00

Now that I have gone back to university to become a biology teacher, my time is limited, so I am not going to post any more items combined under the heading "Shroud of Turin News."

[Above: The Templecombe Head:

"The Shroud-like Templar panel painting discovered at Templecombe, England, during the Second World War. This represents the prime clue that the Knights Templar may secretly have owned the Shroud during the period immediately following the capture of Constantinople and up to their suppression in 1307." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.116).]

Instead I will just post significant items of Shroud news separately as they occur. This has the advantage of: being more timely, allowing a topic to be more fully stated and commented on, and any comments by readers can be specifically about that topic. My comments on this news item are [bold and in square brackets] below.

Knights Templar may have secretly held shroud, Vatican expert says, Catholic News Service, April 6, 2009, John Thavis ... A Vatican researcher has found evidence that the Knights Templar, the medieval crusading order, held secret custody of the Shroud of Turin during the 13th and 14th centuries. [This is an important confirmation of Ian Wilson's/Rex Morgan's theory that the Shroud of Turin, after being taken from Jerusalem to Edessa in Eastern Turkey in the 1st century as the Edessa Cloth or Mandylion, then to Constantinople in Western Turkey in 944, from where after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, it was kept secretly by the Knights Templars until their downfall in 1307, when it was taken for safekeeping to Templecome, England, after which it was returned to France in 1343 by Geoffrey de Charny, whose son Geoffrey II de Charny first displayed it at Lirey, France in 1357. ] The shroud, which bears the image of a man and is believed by many to have been the burial cloth of Jesus, was probably used in a secret Templar ritual to underline Christ's humanity in the face of popular heresies of the time, the expert said.

[Right: Prof. Barbara Frale: Arcade Publishing]

The researcher, Barbara Frale, made the comments in an article published April 5 by the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. The article anticipated evidence the author presents in an upcoming book on the Templars and the shroud.

[Left: Prof. Frale's book, "The Templars: The Secret History Revealed" (2009): Amazon.com ]

Frale, who works in the Vatican Secret Archives, said documents that came to light during research on the 14th-century trial of the Templars contained a description of a Templar initiation ceremony. The document recounts how a Templar leader, after guiding a young initiate into a hidden room, "showed him a long linen cloth that bore the impressed figure of a man, and ordered him to worship it, kissing the feet three times," Frale said. [A "long linen cloth that bore the impressed figure of a man" can only be the Shroud, in the custody of the Templars. And since the trial of the Templars was from 1307-1312, and this initiation ceremony then was a past event (actually 1287 - see below), this is further evidence of the existence of the Shroud, at least a half-century before it first appeared in the undisputed historical record in 1357.] The idea that the Knights Templar were secret custodians of the shroud was put forward by British historian Ian Wilson in 1978. [To be pedantic it actually was first in 1977:

"We have then the matter of the cloth's fate after 1204 ... This is the most mysterious period of all. But whoever came to possess it would seem to have possessed vast wealth, or otherwise they would have sold such a valuable relic; also they must have had some motive for keeping it secretly to themselves. To me the prime suspects seem to have been the Order of Knights Templar, who had a great veneration for the Holy Sepulchre, and built for themselves vast fortresses so heavily guarded that they became the banks of Europe, and so mysterious that rumours began to circulate of secret Templar ceremonies at which some great relic was venerated, a relic which had the appearance of the face of an unidentified bearded man upon a panel. ... Just one clue survives to the appearance of the last Templar `idol,' a clue found in the tiny village of Templecombe in England, once the home of a Templar preceptory. During the demolition of a cottage outhouse in the 1950's there came to light this oak panel painting ... undoubtedly Templar, answering exactly the documentary descriptions of the `idol' and with the uncanny appearance of being a copy of the face on the Shroud." (Wilson, 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," pp.47-49).

although Wilson first fully stated his Knights Templar custodians of the Shroud from 1204-1307 theory in his 1978 book, "The Turin Shroud," pp.153-165] Frale said the account of the initiation ceremony, along with a number of other pieces of evidence, supports that theory. The shroud's history has long been the subject of debate. It was believed by some to have been in Constantinople, now Istanbul, Turkey, when the city was sacked during the crusades in 1204. It turned up for public display in France in 1357, and today is kept in the cathedral of Turin, Italy.

'Missing' Turin shroud was in knights' safe keeping, The Australian, April 7, 2009, Richard Owen, Rome ... MEDIEVAL knights hid and secretly venerated the Holy Shroud of Turin for more than 100 years after the Crusades, the Vatican revealed yesterday, in an announcement that appeared to solve the mystery of the relic's missing years. [This is an important point. This discovery pushes the Shroud's existence in the historical record back to 1287 at least (see below) and therefore disposes of the 1389 hearsay claim by the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (1377-1395), so much relied upon by Shroud critics, that the Shroud was "cunningly painted" and his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (1354-1370), knew "the artist who had painted it":

"The Shroud first appeared around 1355 in Lirey, France. In 1389, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of that diocese wrote to Pope Clement VII objecting strenuously to the treatment of the Shroud as genuine. He said an official of the church at Lirey had, "falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, ..." Bishop d'Arcis went on to explain how a predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers, had "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, ..." (Castle, M.A., "600+ years of fakery: the Shroud of Turin," Atheists For Human Rights, 5 April 2009).

But clearly since the Shroud was in existence in or before 1287, then Bishop Henri de Poitiers 67+ years later could not have known the artist who allegedly painted the Shroud (apart from the fact that it has been conclusively proved the Shroud is not a painting), so either Bishop d'Arcis was mistaken or lying.] The Knights Templar, a crusading order suppressed and disbanded for alleged heresy, took care of the linen cloth, which bears the image of a bearded man with long hair and the wounds of crucifixion, according to the Vatican researchers. ... Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican Secret Archives, said the shroud disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and did not emerge again until the middle of the 14th century. Writing in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, Dr Frale said the shroud's fate in those years always puzzled historians. However, her study of the trial of the Knights Templar had brought to light a document in which a young Frenchman, Arnaut Sabbatier, who entered the order in 1287 [This is only 83 years after the Shroud disappeared from Constantinople in 1204, cutting in half the 153 `missing years' between 1204-1357.] , testified that as part of his initiation he was taken to "a secret place to which only the brothers of the Temple had access". There he was shown "a long linen cloth on which was impressed the figure of a man" and instructed to venerate the image by kissing its feet three times. [Contrary to conspiracy theorist, the Knights Templars were an orthodox Christian organisation, who would not commit idolatry by kissing the feet of an image, unless they were sure it was an image of Jesus.] Dr Frale said the Knights Templar had rescued the shroud to ensure it did not fall into the hands of heretical groups such as the Cathars, who claimed Christ did not have a human body, only the "appearance" of a man. She said her discovery vindicated a theory first put forward by Ian Wilson, a British writer, in 1978.

Researcher: Knights Templar trial records indicate possession of Shroud of Turin, Catholic News Agency, Vatican City, Apr 7, 2009 ... A researcher in the Vatican Secret Archives claims to have filled a gap in the known history of the Shroud of Turin, saying that rediscovered records of the Knights Templar trials show the Shroud had been in the possession of the order before it was suppressed. The Shroud had disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade and reports of it do not surface again until 1353, Researcher Barbara Frale said in L'Osservatore Romano. The Shroud was then displayed in a church at Lirey in France by descendants of Geoffroy de Charney,

[Right: The two leading Templars Jacques de Molay and Geoffroy de Charnay being burned at the stake in 1314, rather than falsely confess their order was guilty of the charges brought by King Philip IV of France so he could get their money and the Shroud.]

a Templar Knight burned at the stake with the last head of the order, Jacques de Molay. According to L'Osservatore, Frale has uncovered new evidence concerning the Shroud in the testimony surrounding the Knights Templar, a crusading order. Founded at the time of the First Crusade in the eleventh century, the Knights Templar protected Christians making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. They took their name from the Temple of Jerusalem, near which they were first stationed. After the crusaders lost the Holy Land with the fall of the city of Acre in 1291, support for them weakened. Accused of both heresy and engaging in corrupt and sexually immoral secret ceremonies, the order's leaders were arrested by King Philip IV of France. The king pressured Pope Clement V to dissolve the Knights Templar, which he did in 1307. Frale reported that a trial document recounts the testimony of Arnaut Sabbatier, a young Frenchman who entered the order in 1287. He testified that as part of his initiation he was taken to "a secret place to which only the brothers of the Temple had access." He was shown "a long linen cloth on which was impressed the figure of a man" and instructed to venerate the image by kissing its feet three times. Frale said that the Knights Templar had been accused of worshiping idols, in particular a "bearded figure."

[Left: Chinon Parchment: After Math News.]

According to Frale, the Knights took possession of the Shroud to rescue it from heretical groups such as the Cathars. In 2003 Frale rediscovered her trial document source, known as the Chinon Parchment,after realizing it had been wrongly cataloged in the Vatican Library.

Shroud of Turin Secretly Hidden, Discovery News, Rossella Lorenzi, April 6, 2009 ... The Knights Templar secretly guarded the Shroud of Turin -- an ancient linen cloth believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus -- for more than 100 years, according to the Vatican's in-house newspaper. Writing in L'Osservatore Romano, Barbara Frale, a scholar at the Vatican Secret Archives, said new archival documents reveal "missing clues" to the fate of the Shroud between 1204 A.D. and 1351, a period during which it cannot otherwise be accounted for. "These unpublished documents appear to solve the puzzle of the shroud's missing years from a purely historic angle," Frale told Discovery News. "Indeed, a linen cloth extremely similar to the shroud of Turin is clearly described in those records." Believers contend that the shroud, now kept in a silver casket in Turin's Cathedral, is the "cloth with an image on it" reported by the early Christian historian Eusebius to have been given to the Christian King Abgar V of Edessa in 30 A.D. The linen, known then as the Mandylion of Edessa, was taken to Constantinople in 944. It disappeared in the sack of the city in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and did not surface until 1357, when the widow of a French knight had it displayed in a church in Lirey, France. According to Frale, the newly discovered documents support a theory first put forward by the British historian Ian Wilson in 1978. He argued that the shroud and the Mandylion of Edessa were one and the same, and that the Templars were the custodians of the Shroud. [A good summary of Wilson's Edessa Cloth = Mandylion = Shroud theory.] .

Knights Templar hid the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican, The Times, April 6, 2009, Richard Owen in Rome Medieval knights hid and secretly venerated The Holy Shroud of Turin for more than 100 years after the Crusades, the Vatican said yesterday in an announcement that appeared to solve the mystery of the relic's missing years. [This Rome correspondent for The Times makes the point that it is "the Vatican" saying this. That is, Frale works for the Vatican and her account is in the Vatican's in-house newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.] ... In 2003 Dr Frale, the Vatican's medieval specialist, unearthed the record of the trial of the Templars, also known as the Chinon Parchment, after realising that it had been wrongly catalogued. The parchment showed that Pope Clement V had accepted the Templars were guilty of "grave sins", such as corruption and sexual immorality, but not of heresy. Their initiation ceremony involved spitting on the Cross, but this was to brace them for having to do so if captured by Muslim forces, Dr Frale said. Last year she published for the first time the prayer the Knights Templar composed when "unjustly imprisoned", in which they appealed to the Virgin Mary to persuade "our enemies" to abandon calumnies and lies and revert to truth and charity. Radiocarbon dating tests on the Turin Shroud in 1988 indicated that it was a medieval fake. However this had been challenged on the grounds that the dated sample was taken from an area of the shroud mended after a fire in the Middle Ages and not a part of the original cloth. [It is significant that even The Times of London now regards the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "medieval" was flawed.]

See also: Turin Shroud link with Templars proved by archives, claims historian, The Guardian, Monday 6 April 2009; Knights Templar worshipped the Turin Shroud, Telegraph.co.uk., 6 Apr 2009.

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

"We have then the matter of the cloth's fate after 1204 when according to the Crusader, `neither Greek nor Frenchman knew what became of it.' This is the most mysterious period of all. But whoever came to possess it would seem to have possessed vast wealth, or otherwise they would have sold such a valuable relic; also they must have had some motive for keeping it secretly to themselves. To me the prime suspects seem to have been the Order of Knights Templar, who had a great veneration for the Holy Sepulchre, and built for themselves vast fortresses so heavily guarded that they became the banks of Europe, and so mysterious that rumours began to circulate of secret Templar ceremonies at which some great relic was venerated, a relic which had the appearance of the face of an unidentified bearded man upon a panel. In 1307 the rumours were all that were needed to give the King of France the excuse to lay his hands on Templar wealth by arresting every member of the Order, not without a struggle, a struggle in which the mysterious `idol' the Templars were accused of possessing certainly disappeared. Just one clue survives to the appearance of the last Templar `idol,' a clue found in the tiny village of Templecombe in England, once the home of a Templar preceptory. During the demolition of a cottage outhouse in the 1950's there came to light this oak panel painting ... undoubtedly Templar, answering exactly the documentary descriptions of the `idol' and with the uncanny appearance of being a copy of the face on the Shroud. If the Shroud was indeed the idol possessed by the Templars, one further clue survives as to it's fate. In 1314 two of the last Templar dignitaries were brought out to be burnt at the stake, proclaiming to the last their innocence ... One was the Order's Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, the other the Order's Master of Normandy, Geoffrey de Charny. We do not know definitely if there was a family relationship between Geoffrey de Charny the Templar and Geoffrey I de Charny of Lirey, first known owner of the Shroud. But the likelihood is there. One may postulate the Shroud ripped or cut from it's panel at the time of the Templar capture, stuffed under a jerkin, and spirited away to safety with relatives of the Master of Normandy. The episode fits exactly the sort of murky past Geoffrey de Charny of Lirey would simply not have been able to reveal, particularly as a French King and Pope had been heavily implicated in the Templar demise. Such is the bizarre chain of events that I believe constitutes the hitherto `lost' 1300 years of the Shroud's history." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud's History Before the 14th Century," 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, 1977, pp.47-49).

I am training to be a high school biology teacher, so less blogging!

2009-03-12T05:16:00.005+09:00

In 2004 when I finished my biology degree, I originally intended to do further training to become a high school biology teacher.

[Above: Edith Cowan University, Joondalup: Wikipedia]

However, by then our superannuation was doing so well, I did not need to work, so I decided to retire instead.

But now due to the financial crash, I have had to revert to plan A, and am 3 weeks into a 1 year Graduate Diploma of Education (Secondary), majoring in Biological Science, at Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, where I did my biology degree.

So I now have a lot less time for blogging, although I should have more time in the semester breaks. Of course if I am successful and do become a biology teacher, I expect I will continue to be very busy, even in school holidays!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
Blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign, TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

Shroud of Turin News - October/November 2008

2008-12-13T22:34:00.026+09:00

Here is my Shroud of Turin News for October/November 2008. The previous issue was September 2008. Articles are in

[Above (click to enlarge): Entombment of Jesus, by Nicholas of Verdun, 1181, Klosterneuburg abbey church, Vienna. See about this at BSTS Newsletter No. 67, June 2008.]

reverse chronological order (most recent uppermost). My comments are in bold.

Discovery Channel's "UNWRAPPING THE SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE" Re-Opens One Of Christianity's Greatest Mysteries, Reality TV News, Nov 28, 2008 -... The Shroud of Turin is one of the great enduring mysteries of all time, with its authenticity debated for years. Many believe it's the burial cloth of Jesus and the only physical link to Him, while others maintain that it is nothing more than an elaborate hoax. In fact, in 1988, a team of scientists radiocarbon dated the Shroud and concluded it was fake, dating back to the Middle Ages (1290-1360), long after Jesus was crucified. The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming that the 1988 radiocarbon-dating of the Shroud to 1290-1360 was wrong. The above 1181 Entombment of Jesus by Nicholas of Verdun (1130-1205), like the Pray Manuscript (1192-1195), is clearly based on the Shroud (note the distinctive crossed hands and shroud), but is at least 109 years earlier than the earliest possible radiocarbon date 1290! And that's where the story stood, unchallenged -- until now. Discovery Channel's one-hour original special UNWRAPPING THE SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE attempts to unravel the truth about the cloth on Sunday, December 14, 2008 from 10-11PM ET/PT. The special event features the story of Ray Rogers, a respected chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and member of the original team of scientists who examined the Shroud. Rogers came across a paper written by a husband and wife from Columbus, Ohio that claimed the 1988 radiocarbon dating was inaccurate. That was Joe Marino and Sue Benford and their paper, Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G.. "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol. 26, No. 4, July/August 2008, pp.4-12:

"ABSTRACT Recent research reported new evidence suggesting the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud was invalid due to the intrusion of newer material in the sampling area. This evidence included the detection of anomalous surface contaminates in specimens from the sampling area. This paper reports new data from an unpublished study conducted by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) team in 1978 that supports the above-referenced research findings. Additionally, this paper reports evidence supporting the identification of replacement material in the Carbon-14 (C-14) sampling region along with previously-unreported radiographic findings, corroborative textile evidence from the adjacent `Raes' sample, blinded-expert analysis of the Zurich laboratory C-14 sub-sample, independent microscopic confirmation of surface contaminates in Holland cloth/C-14 region, and historical restoration information. Based on these new data, the authors conclude that the radiocarbon sampling area was manipulated during or after the 16th Century and that further testing on the Shroud is warranted." (Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol. 26, No. 4, July-August, pp.4-12, p.4).

See online Benford, M. S. & Marino, J., "New Historical Evidence Explaining the `Invisible Patch' in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud," Shroud.com, 2005. According to the couple, the test sample that was used had been taken from a section of the Shroud that had been repaired in the 16th Century, skewing the results. Expecting to prove this

[Above (click to enlarge): Medieval Reweaving the Shroud of Turin: Shroud of Turin Skeptical Spectacle]

couple wrong, Rogers went back to examine the sample of the Shroud he tested years earlier, and what he found astonished even himself. In his last days (he had been battling cancer), Rogers made a video -- which before now has never been seen -- detailing his conclusions. This is a pleasant surprise. It promises to be very significant, in this the 20th anniversary year of the radiocarbon-dating of the Shroud. Shot entirely in high-definition, UNWRAPPING THE SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE examines Rogers' findings and how they may unlock a mystery thousands of years in the making. UNWRAPPING THE SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE is filled with twists and turns, science and faith, and iron-clad evidence that may turn out to be less than meets the eye. Presumably that "iron-clad evidence" which turns out "to be less than meets the eye" is the radiocarbon-dating of the Shroud to the Middle Ages (1290-1360) . ...

Important New Scientific Article Added, The Shroud of Turin Website, November 26, 2008 ... The website has been updated and an important new article has been added to the Scientific Papers & Articles page. Co-authored by noted Shroud scholar Joseph Marino and retired NASA scientist Edwin Prior, the article is titled "Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous Nature of the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin." It provides a detailed and compelling summary of all the scientific evidence supporting the theory that an anomalous sample was used for the 1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud. One of the co-authors, Joe Marino, emailed me that this is:

"A significant new article ... which presents all the compelling evidence that indicates that the sample used to date the Shroud in 1988 was invalid, has just been published. One of the authors, Ed Prior, is a retired 40 year NASA scientist who is an agnostic, so he can't be accused of being religiously biased in favor of the Shroud's authenticity"

What is found particularly interesting in that paper is at page 14 (of 40):

Entry: #28 Date: 2000 Data Category: Possibility or direct evidence of invisible reweaving Evidence: Ronald Hatfield, a scientist at Beta Analytic, the world's largest radiocarbon dating service, performed a theoretical C-14 calculation that supports the theory of a 16th century patch. A merging of threads from AD 1500 into a 2,000 year old piece of linen would augment the C-14 content, such that a 60/40 ratio of new material to old, determined by mass, would result in a C-14 age of approximately AD 1210. Source: Beta Analytic Laboratories (Miami, Florida): Personal communication to M.Sue Benford and Joseph Marino June 9, 2000 ("Evidence For The Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin" by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf). Comments: The Hatfield calculation correlates very closely with the Oxford mean date of AD 1200 as reported in Nature and with the observed ratio of original versus medieval material in the C-14 sample." (Marino, J.G. & Prior, E.J., "Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous Nature of the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin," November 2008, p.14. Shroud.com)

The evidence just keeps mounting against the 1988 radiocarbon-dating claim that the Shroud was a "fake, dating back to the Middle Ages (1290-1360)." That is, it is not the Shroud that was the "fake" but the radiocarbon-dating!

Shroud of Turin astonishes chemist in a new test, inspires a Discovery Channel special, Orlando Sentinel, Hal Boedeker, Nov 25, 2008 ... A dying chemist took another look at the Shroud of Turin -- and came to surprising conclusions. His story will be detailed in a new Discovery Channel special with the working title "Unwrapping the Shroud: New Evidence." The program will premiere at 10 p.m. Dec. 14.

[Left: Ray Rogers (1927- 2005): Shroud University]

The chemist, Ray Rogers, had worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory. In 1988, he took part in tests on the shroud. The results revealed that it came from the Middle Ages and couldn't be the burial cloth of Jesus. But Rogers took another look at the cloth after suggestions that the test had been skewed. According to Discovery, "What he found astonished even himself. In his last days (he had been battling cancer), Rogers made a video -- which before now has never been seen -- detailing his conclusions." One of the earlier news items announcing the forthcoming Discovery Channel special. Rogers, even though he was pro-authenticity of the Shroud, was a particularly hard-headed, sceptical, scientist, who for years dismissed the re-weaving theory out-of-hand. For him to be "astonished" by this new evidence for re-weaving, means it must be very strong that the Shroud sample radiocarbon-dated in 1988 was re-woven with 16th century cloth and threads, thus adding new carbon and thus skewing the radiocarbon-date to the 14th century of what might well have been a 1st century linen cloth.

'Turin Shroud' set to come to Tamworth, Tamworth Herald, November 24, 2008 ... Tamworth people are about to get the opportunity to make their own decision, when one of only four exact replicas of the priceless relic comes to town this weekend.

[Right: Prof. Edward Hall (1924- 2001), Dr. Michael Tite and Prof. Robert Hedges (left to right), on 13 October 1988 triumphantly announcing the Shroud was "conclusively" radiocarbon- dated to "1260-1390!": Ian Wilson, "The Blood and the Shroud," 1998, pl.3b]

Debate continues to rage about the authenticity of the Turin Shroud, which bears the image of a crucified man with markings identical to biblical accounts of the wounds Jesus' bore at his death. Millions of Christians throughout the world are convinced the shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, although extensive carbon dating on fragments of the original seem to suggest a cunning medieval con. Another journalist who chooses to remain in blissful ignorance, mindlessly regurgitating 20-year-old news that the 1988 radiocarbon-dating suggested that the Shroud was "a cunning medieval con," while ignoring (or denying) the mountain of evidence that the Shroud really is the burial sheet of Jesus. Presumably they just don't want the Shroud to be genuine because, like the late Prof. Edward Hall of the Oxford laboratory that dated the Shroud admitted, "he was not disappointed in the result" because:

"'I have to admit I am an agnostic and I don't want at my time of life to have to change my ideas." (Radford, The Guardian, October 14, 1988).

Pam Moon will be showing the replica at St John the Baptist RC Church, Tamworth on Sunday, November 30. It will be on display from 12noon until 5pm and Pam will be giving a talk about the shroud in the church at 4pm. That's Tamworth, near Birmingham, England. An example of how Shroud replica exhibitions are constantly going on around the world.

Art and Science Converge in State Museum Exhibit, UANews, University Communications, November 3, 2008 ... A new Arizona State Museum exhibition showcases scientific research through the eyes of an artist.

[Left: Magnified linen fibers from the Shroud of Turin, image by Rachel Freer, visiting research fellow, Arizona State Museum]

Magnified linen fibers from the Shroud of Turin. It had been requested that the specific sample radio carbon dated by the Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory be examined for authenticity. This is very interesting. Presumably this request was part of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit's investigation into what could have gone wrong with its 1988 radiocarbon-dating of the Shroud. But because radiocarbon-dating necessitates burning the sample to reduce it to pure carbon, this particular sample cannot be one of the "specific" samples radio-carbon dated by the Arizona lab in 1988. Polarized Light Microscopy was used to confirm that the major fiber content of the sample is linen. Note: the MAJOR fiber content of the sample is linen. That is, the sample was not pure linen but was contaminated with other threads. This alone should discredit the 1988 "medieval" radiocarbon-date and confirm the Benford-Marino reweave theory. Scientific images are used to help researchers understand the chemical make-up, composition, texture, age, geology and other components of an object or material being studied. But when viewed through the eye of an artist, these images can take on another realm of importance, that of structural, compositional and vividly colorful beauty. Thanks to David Killick, professor of anthropology at The University of Arizona, and Kress Conservation Fellow Rachel Freer, some of the most visually astounding and scientifically important images taken at the UA have been put together as an art exhibit, which opens Nov. 8 at the Arizona State Museum. Researchers at the UA have been using many types of imaging technologies to reveal the structure of clothing threads, such as those found in the Shroud of Turin or to view the radiation emitted from quasars obtained by scanning a portion of the sky - neither of which is accessible to the unaided human eye.It is truly serendipitous that the University of Arizona has at this very time, just before the Benford-Marino reweave theory gets a major airing on the Discovery Channel, exhibited one of its 1988 samples of the Shroud, with the admission that the samples used to date the Shroud between 1260-1390 AD was contaminated with other fibres which would, if it were any other radiocarbon-dating but the Shroud, render scientifically invalid that radiocarbon-date.

Shroud of Turin expert has presentation, will travel, Florida Catholic, October 13, 2008 ... Gerri Bauer ... DELAND |

[Right: This image is a `negative' version of a photograph of the Shroud of Turin: Florida Catholic]

Florida resident John C. Iannone considers the study of the Shroud of Turin the "greatest CSI case in history." This is a very important point. Just as a pattern of forensic evidence can uniquely identify an individual, so does the pattern of at least 23 wounds and other markings on the Shroud of Turin, uniquely identify the image on it as that of Jesus. "You start to get the idea there's only one person in history" whose image is imprinted on a centuries-old cloth," he told a crowd of more than 100 gathered at St. Peter Parish in DeLand Sept. 23 to hear his presentation, "The Mystery of the Holy Shroud: A Case for Authenticity." For example, "only one person in history" is known to be crowned with thorns as both Jesus (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2) and the man on the Shroud were (see 5. He had been `crowned' with thorns of Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #1). ... Iannone ... started studying the shroud about 30 years ago. In 1998 he wrote a book, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," to help explain the subject in layperson's terms, then was invited to view the shroud in Turin during an international conference. I wholeheartedly recommend Iannone's book as being one of the best introductions to the Shroud. Seeing the cloth "was a defining moment in my life," he told the audience. .... His goal in each lecture is to explain the scientific evidence for authenticity in a manner easily understandable by people who aren't scientists. At the St. Peter's lecture, he showed slides that illustrated his point-by-point clarifications about specific aspects of study, such as the carbon testing of the 1980s that pinpointed the cloth's age as medieval. He cited early findings from the early 2000s that fibers from a medieval patch had intruded into fibers of the original cloth from which samples were removed for testing. A microphotograph detected the reweaving, he said. More about the re-weaving! Iannone's book has a section "Test Samples Taken from the Restored Area?" but being written in 1998, it does not have this latest information. He discussed such things as blood type, postmortem blood flow, median nerve damage, specific pollens from various flowers and their geographic distribution, and light and dark spots believed to illustrate rigor mortis setting in while Jesus was on the cross. He also addressed cultural aspects, burial customs and art history relating to how Jesus has been visually depicted over the centuries. ... Iannone said he finds a great deal of interest among people whenever he presents the program, not just about the shroud but about spirituality and religion in general. "People are struggling to get back to the roots of their religion in a very complicated world, especially with all the things that are happening today," he said. "For me, the shroud supports the fundamental points of Christianity." The Shroud is independent archaeological evidence that the Gospel's description of the scourging, crucifixion and resurrection is accurate:

"The extent to which the Shroud confirms the accuracy of even small incidents reported in the Gospels means that more reliance can be placed on those details which the Shroud is unable to confirm. So far as the Shroud is concerned, the evidence of the stains points with certainty towards their having been made by the body of Jesus." (Hoare, 1978, "Testimony of the Shroud," pp.41-42).

"But it is the bearing out of the New Testament evidence that is much the most significant. ... the light thrown by the Shroud can help us to understand how apparently discrepant accounts e.g., of the grave-cloths, are in fact compatible. ... the genuineness of the Shroud would shake is the theory that the whole story of the empty tomb is an invention of the early church. ... the Shroud unquestionably adds weight to the universal witness of the New Testament that there was a physical ... aspect to this event." (Robinson, 1978, "The Shroud and the New Testament," pp.77-78).

The quotes below (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine) are hyperlinked to references above.

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

"Even the use of the Shroud is explained, as there was no time for the proper burial rites because they obtained Jesus's body only shortly before the Sabbath; and the surprisingly fine texture of the material used for wrapping up the crucified man's body is explained by the reported wealth of Joseph of Arimathea. In all these points there is remarkable corroboration between the two sources of evidence, so that each seems to stand as guarantor of the other. Under Jewish law, a single witness had little value; at least two were required (Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15; Numbers 35:30). On these grounds, in view of the agreement of two widely different types of evidence, the written and the photographic, the historicity of Jesus and his Crucifixion may be taken as proven. Most appraisals of the Shroud have begun with an assumption of the complete accuracy of the Gospel accounts, and have tried to make the stains fit them. This has led to doubts of the Shroud's authenticity when certain stains, or the existence of the Shroud itself, have failed to match a particular description in a Gospel. However, the Shroud is material evidence that is available, and the marks on it can be seen, and prove themselves to have been formed on the day of the Crucifixion. It is therefore the Shroud which should stand as the measure of the accuracy of the Gospel stories, for there was plenty of opportunity for alteration and distortion in the decades before the traditions were first written down. The extent to which the Shroud confirms the accuracy of even small incidents reported in the Gospels means that more reliance can be placed on those details which the Shroud is unable to confirm. So far as the Shroud is concerned, the evidence of the stains points with certainty towards their having been made by the body of Jesus." (Hoare, R., 1978, "Testimony of the Shroud," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, pp.41-42).

"The Holy Shroud of Turin - revered by Catholics for centuries - is a piece of linen woven between AD1260 and 1390. Therefore the image it bears cannot be the imprint of the bloodstained body of the crucified Jesus Christ. The news, confirming rumours and leaks which began circulating from the first weeks of radiocarbon dating tests on the shroud, was announced yesterday by Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin. He said that scientists at laboratories in Zurich, Arizona and Oxford had checked the ages of historically authenticated samples of cloth and cuttings from the shroud and were '95 per cent' certain of their findings. The shroud, 14ft 3in long and 3ft 7in wide, bears a faint yellowish negative image of the front and back of a man whipped, speared, nailed to a cross and crowned with thorns. Cardinal Ballestrero said that the church had never claimed that the shroud was a holy relic: its symbolic importance remained. 'The church believes in the image and not in the history because this image of Jesus Christ in fact is very interesting and the people believe deeply in Jesus,' the cardinal said. At a press conference in London, Dr Michael Tite, keeper of the British Museum research laboratories, who masterminded the three tests, and Professor Edward Hall and Dr Robert Hedges of Oxford, who conducted the British radiocarbon dating, all confirmed that there could be no serious doubt in the results. They also denied knowledge of any of the 'leaks' which dogged the experiment. These, they said, were the result of informed guesses by the press. Their finding, they said, was consistent with the known historical evidence for the shroud, which was first recorded in about 1389 by the Bishop of Troyes. He described it as a cunning forgery and said his predecessor had met the forger. Professor Hall, who heads the Oxford research laboratory in archaeology and the history of art, said he was not disappointed in the result. 'I have to admit I am an agnostic and I don't want at my time of life to have to change my ideas.' But that is not likely to be the end of the story: there are still mysteries wrapped in the shroud. Pathologists, artists and scientists have been puzzled at how a 14th century forger could have simulated complex details such as gravity's effect on blood flows from wounds in the hands, feet and side. 'Essentially we have an incomprehensible, extraordinary object. We now know its age but not its origin,' Professor Luigi Gonnella, scientific adviser to Cardinal Ballestrero, said in Turin yesterday. 'It is not a painting, it has no pigments. We know the red stains are blood, but we do not know of any mechanism in the Middle Ages that could put blood on a cloth.' He said church officials are angered by claims that because the shroud has a medieval date it must be a fraud, a fake or a forgery. 'A forgery means it was made for the specific purpose of deceiving people. This is possible but there is no proof of that. It could be a medieval icon.'" (Radford, T., 1988, "Shroud dating leaves 'forgery' debate raging," The Guardian, October 14).

"But it is the bearing out of the New Testament evidence that is much the most significant. It does not of course prove the Gospels are, or set out to be, exact historical records. The well-known differences between them remain, though I am convinced that the light thrown by the Shroud can help us to understand how apparently discrepant accounts e.g., of the grave-cloths, are in fact compatible. The first thing that the genuineness of the Shroud would shake is the theory that the whole story of the empty tomb is an invention of the early church. Despite its advocacy by Bultmann and other distinguished scholars I have never regarded this in any case as in the least degree probable. The story is firmly entrenched in all the strands of the Gospel tradition, and I believe that Paul's statement of the common apostolic teaching, received after his conversion, that Christ `was buried ... and was raised to life on the third day' points to a connection between the Resurrection and the tomb (not merely the appearances) which takes us back to the very first years of the Christian movement. The survival of the shroud would simply add weight to the very strong presumption that the tomb of Jesus was found empty - though how it became empty neither the Gospels nor, I believe, the Shroud tell us. But somehow the body disappeared. The traditional challenge, that the authorities had only to produce the body to discredit the whole message that Jesus was risen, must, I think, be taken more seriously than I have tended to suppose. The argument certainly does not hold the other way round. The mere fact that it was not produced can never prove it could not have been produced, any more than the absence of Hitler's corpse to this day proves that he rose from the dead. But if a lifeless cadaver had been produced which could irrefutably have been identified with Jesus of Nazareth, then the proclamation that he was not dead but alive would have seemed as unconvincing to Jewish as to modern presuppositions. The Christian church would never have got off the ground. Positively this proves nothing about the mode or meaning of `resurrection'. But the Shroud unquestionably adds weight to the universal witness of the New Testament that there was a physical and not merely a spiritual aspect to this event." (Robinson, J.A.T., 1978, "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.69-81, pp.77-78).

Did Max Frei misidentify Carduus argentatus Shroud pollen as Gundelia tournefortii?

2008-11-26T05:56:00.022+09:00

It have been advised in a private email, which I am not at liberty

[Above (click to enlarge): Carduus argentatus, Silver Thistle: Flowers in Israel.]

to quote, that what the late Max Frei identified as Gundelia tournefortii pollen on the Shroud of Turin, had in 2001 been re-identified by a leading palynologist, Bonn University Prof. Thomas Litt, as within

[Right: Prof. Thomas Litt: Bonn University.]

the different genus Carduus.

It was not possible for Prof. Litt to identify that Carduus genus pollen down to the species level, because Frei used sticky tape to take his samples off the Shroud and then folded the tape over onto itself to preserve the pollen.

[Left: Max Frei using sticky tape to take pollen samples from the Shroud in 1978: Shroud.com]

But the tape glue has obscured the pollen's microstructure, which needs to be clearly seen under an electron microscope for a species-level identification.

The information itself in the email is not private, being in an 88-page book, Danin, A. & Guerra, H., 2008, "L'uomo della Sindone [Who is the Man in the Shroud?]," Edizioni ART: Rome, which however, as the title indicates, is in Italian. It is described in Google's translation as basically an interview with Israeli botanist Prof. Avinoam Danin:

In this book-interview, the expert botanist Prof. Avinoam Danin, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, presents the latest results of his research regarding the Shroud. Prof. Danin says that the only place in the world where people could gather fresh shares of at least four species of plants found on the Shroud and place them on the body, which was wrapped in it, is the area between Jerusalem and Hebron, and the weeks between the months of March and April are the only time of year in eight of the plants are identified on the Shroud in the same flower.

However, this reclassification by Prof. Litt of Frei's Gundelia tournefortii pollen to the Carduus genus may be a blessing in disguise for the authenticity of the Shroud. That is because there is a species in that genus, Carduus argentatus, which grows around Jerusalem, flowers in April-May, has a more attractive flower (see above), and is a much less thorny plant than Gundelia tournefortii.

[Above (click to enlarge): Gundelia tournefortii, Flowers in Israel. "an extremely fearsome-looking thorn ... it is certainly not obvious as the kind of plant that might have been used as a funerary bouquet," Ian Wilson (see below). ]

And most significantly, Frei did not identify any Carduus argentatus on the Shroud (see below). As can be seen, the only

[Above (click to enlarge): Part of a list of pollen species identified by Frei, in Bulst, W., "The pollen grains on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud Spectrum International, Vol. 3, No. 10, March 1984, pp.20-28].

Carduus species of pollen that Frei identified was Carduus personata, which however, although the above list does not indicate it, is a European plant.

Moreover, images of "plants from the Carduus genus of thistles" have been identified by Prof. Danin on the Shroud:

"Avinoam Danin, emeritus professor of botany at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has spent years examining images of plant life discovered on the shroud. He also has discovered additional pieces of plant life on the cloth, which has provided additional evidence to support his theory that the shroud was used somewhere in the area of Jerusalem. Over the years, Danin, co-author of `Flora of the Shroud of Turin,' noted he has discovered the presence of three plant species that indicate the shroud's origin was somewhere between Jerusalem and Hebron. Eight species also have been used to determine, through flowering characteristics, that the plant life placed on the body happened somewhere during March or April. Danin said he also recently has indicated more than 300 flowers and plant parts on the head area of the shroud. Those were discovered, he said, after studying photos of the cloth taken in the 1970s.Among the plant life identified are the Matricaria and Anthemis, two genera of the sunflower family. He also said he discovered plants from the Carduus genus of thistles, and pieces of the shrub Rhamnus lycioides - both potential evidence of a crown or helmet of thorns." (Brinker, J., "Plant life traces on Shroud of Turin draws local interest," St.Louis Review, September 5, 2008.).

including apparently Carduus argentatus:

"Capparis [sic] argentatus is one of the flower images identified on the Shroud by Avinoam Danin, a botany professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a leading authority on the flora of Israel, along with Uri Baruch, a pollen specialist with the Israel Antiquities Authority. The identifications of Carduus Argentatus confirmed some previous floral image identifications by Oswald Sheuermann, a German physicist, and Alan Whanger, a professor at Duke University." ("Carduus argentatus flower image," Sugar Coated Shroud of Turin, 2 September 2008),

although I have yet to find where Danin himself has claimed that particular identification at the species level.

And as Ian Wilson pointed out, there is a problem of why pollen of a not particularly pretty flowered, or pleasantly scented, and very thorny species like Gundelia tournefortii was in such abundance on the Shroud, because "it is certainly not obvious as the kind of plant that might have been used as a funerary bouquet":

"All of this raises the question of just what sort of plant is Gundelia tournefortii? At which point the surprise is that it is an extremely fearsome-looking thorn, with prickly leaves and a thistle-like head that bears the sharpest of spines. Its greatest known usefulness appears to be as a low-grade winter fodder for goats and sheep when there is nothing better available for them. So it is certainly not obvious as the kind of plant that might have been used as a funerary bouquet, even supposing there was evidence that the Jews of Jesus' time had such a custom. Likewise, while it is possible that the plant's spikiness might have caused it to be used for the `crown of thorns' laid on Jesus' head - a view certainly favoured by Dr Alan Whanger - Danin for one is ambivalent on this. And Dr Fred Zugibe, having carefully compared photos of Gundelia with the bloodstains around the back of the Shroud man's head, similarly expresses doubts. In fact the very distribution of Gundelia pollen grains as these occur on the Shroud is contra-indicative of any such scenario. The greatest concentration of specimens (fourteen) has been found on tape 4/3Aa, which Frei took from the very edge of the Shroud's front-of-the-body half, at the level of the crossed hands, with the next highest incidence ten specimens on tape 12 Cd, from the spillage of blood from the ankle on the back-of-the-body half of the cloth. Conversely only a few Gundelia have been found in the region of the head. ... But while it might resolve matters wonderfully if we knew Gundelia to have some perfuming or fumigatory properties, its odour is said to be very nondescript, the closest resemblance being artichoke." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.90-91).

So if Frei was wrong in his identification of Gundelia tournefortii pollen (as seems to be the case) and it is actually Carduus argentatus, then that would seem to be even better for the Shroud's authenticity, given that C. argentatus would be a much more likely flower for Jesus' disciples to place on His body as a funerary bouquet than G. tournefortii.

I look forward to an eventual (perhaps in conjunction with the next Shroud exhibition in 2010?) new extraction and identification of pollens directly from the Shroud, i.e. that are not from the Frei collection and so have not been embedded in obscuring sticky tape glue.

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

Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #2

2008-11-22T20:27:00.014+09:00

Kris

Continuing from Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #1 with this

[Left (click to enlarge): The only place on Earth, near Jerusalem (blue), where three plant species on the Shroud are found close together: Gundelia tournefortii (green), Cistus creticus (red) and Zygophyllum dumosum (dotted): Based on Danin, A., et al., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.41, and Danin, A. & Guerra, H., 2008, "L'uomo della Sindone," Edizioni ART, Rome, p.88 (see below)]

part #2 of my multi-part response to your comment to my post: Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #10: The Shroud's blood and pollen closely matches the Sudarium of Oviedo's.

Your words are bold to distinguish them from my comments. I have split my reply into multiple parts because of the size of my response (which involves a lot of quote material as documentation).

>.... I am a Christian who has drawn no real definitive conclusions about the authenticity of the Shroud. There is compelling evidence, however, that it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time and in that area. ...

Continuing with 18-21 of the at least twenty-three (23) separate and independent features on the Shroud of Turin that match the gospel's depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus. My conservative estimates of the proportion of Roman crucifixion victims that had each particular feature are in square brackets:

18. The body left an imprint on the Shroud like no other known [1 in 1,000] (HJ1983p220; IJ1998p10; S&H1990p127; VP1970p44);

19. The feet have limestone dust that has the same rare chemical composition as dust in the tombs around Jerusalem [1 in 1,000] (AM2000p109; P&M1996p206; RC1999p103; WB2006p129; WI1998p104; W&S2000p93);

20. The Shroud has images and pollen of flowers that together

[Above (click to enlarge): Distributions of Zygophyllum dumosum (blue), Cistus creticus (red) and Gundelia tournefortii (green): Danin, A. & Guerra, H., 2008, "L'uomo della Sindone," Edizioni ART, Rome, p.88]

occur only around Jerusalem [1 in 1,000] (AM2000p112; DA1999p18; IJ1998p25; ML2005p94; SD1999Aug3; WM1998p78; W&S2000p92);

21. The Shroud has images and pollen on it from plants that flower only March-April, in the afternoon, and Jesus was crucified early April in the afternoon [1 in 1,000] (AM2000p113; DA1999p18; IJ1998p25; WM1998p78);

Continued in part #3 of "Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time".

Quotes below are hyperlinked to inline references above (my emphasis bold).

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

"An important indication that the events depicted on the Shroud of Turin occurred not just in Palestine, but specifically in Jerusalem, is supported by an examination of the limestone in the Ecole Biblique tomb in Jerusalem. The Ecole Biblique provided researchers with access to the same rock shelf as the Holy Sepulcher and the Garden Tomb, both of which are considered the most probable choices for the actual tomb of Christ. Tombs in the Palestine/Transjordan area were carved out of limestone, which remains wet and pliable and which rubs off easily with the slightest contact. [Nitowski, E.L., "The Field and Laboratory Report of the Environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem," Carmelite Monastery: Salt Lake City UT, 1986] Calcium carbonate is the major component of limestone. The limestone in the Jerusalem tomb was determined to be in the form of travertine aragonite, rather than the more common travertine calcite. [Kohlbeck, J. & Nitowski, E., "New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin;" Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, July/August 1986] Aragonite is less common than calcite and is formed under a much narrower range of conditions. The Jerusalem sample also contained small amounts of strontium and iron. [Nitowski; Kohlbeck & Nitowski] A calcium sample taken from a Shroud fiber on the foot has been compared to the calcium sample from the Jerusalem tomb. The Shroud sample was found to be in the form of aragonite, not the more common calcite, and also exhibited small amounts of strontium and iron. [Kohlbeck & Nitowski] This match was confirmed by Dr. Ricardo Levi-Setti [Levi-Setti, R.G., et al., "Progress in High Resolution Scanning Ion Microscopy and Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry Imaging Microanalysis;" Scanning Electron Microscopy, Vol. 2, 1985, pp.535-552] of the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago. Dr. Levi-Setti analyzed the calcium from both the Shroud fiber and the Jerusalem tomb with a high-resolution scanning ion microprobe. The resulting graphs show that these samples are an unusually close match, except for minute pieces of flax that could not be separated from the calcium sample taken from the Shroud fiber and that caused a slight organic variation. [Kohlbeck & Nitowski] Limestone samples taken from other tombs located at nine different test sites in Israel were also analyzed by Dr. Levi-Setti - but only the sample taken from the Jerusalem tomb matched the limestone on the Shroud." (Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.109).

"In 1985, Whanger detected what he believed to be a clear flower image near the head of the Shroud image, whose presence was first suggested by Oswald Scheuerman's observations in 1983. After finding other similar images, Whanger thought they might have great relevance, so he acquired a six-volume set of the definitive study on the botany of Israel. Whanger spent the next four years painstakingly comparing the faint images on Shroud photographs with life-size drawings in the botany books, and using his Polarized Image Overlay Technique to check his findings. By 1989, he had tentatively identified twenty-eight species of plants that grow in Israel. [Whanger, M. & Whanger, A., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House: Franklin TN, 1998, p.78] Although Whanger showed his findings to other Shroud researchers, he did not publish them until they could be confirmed by Dr. Avinoam Danin, professor of Botany at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a world-renowned authority on the flora of Israel. Danin not only confirmed almost all of Whanger's identifications, but he also discovered a large number of additional flower images that were not found by Whanger. [Ibid., p.80] Of the twenty-eight plants, twenty-seven grow within the close vicinity of Jerusalem, where four geographical areas containing different specific climates and flora can be found. (The twenty-eighth plant grows at the south end of the Dead Sea.) All twenty-eight would have been available in Jerusalem markets in a fresh state, and most would have been growing along the roadside or in nearby fields. While three of these plants grow in France and nine grow in Italy, `half are found only in the Middle East or other similar areas and never in Europe' (italics added). [Ibid., p.79] One of these plants grows only in Israel, Jordan, or the Sinai, with its northernmost boundary between Jerusalem and Jericho. Danin concluded that there is only one place in the world where all of these flowers can be collectively found-Jerusalem. [Interview of Dr. Danin, CBS Evening News, April 12, 1997; Danin, A., Lecture at the Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO, June 6, 1997; Whanger, A., "Flowers on the Shroud: Current Research," CSST News Vol. 1, No. 1, November 1997; Danin, A. et al., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.18] Furthermore, the blooming season for all these plants is March and April. [Ibid.]" (Antonacci, 2000, p.112).

"Interestingly, one of the floral species on the Shroud that grows in Jerusalem and blooms in the Spring, Capparis aegyptia, provides further corroborating information of the events depicted on the Shroud. Damn, Baruch, and Whanger state: `Capparis aegyptia is also significant as an indicator for the time of the day when its flowering stems were picked. Flowering buds of this species begin to open about midday, opening gradually until fully opened about half an hour before sunset. Flowers seen as images on the Shroud correspond to opening buds at about 3 to 4 o'clock in the afternoon. This was confirmed by a two day experiment with, first, Capparis aegyptia, and later with Capparis spinosa Veillard.' [Danin, A., et al., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.22] Furthermore, after examining flowers at various stages after they've been picked, Whanger concluded that their images most closely matched those that had wilted for twenty-four to thirty-six hours. [Whanger, M. & A., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House: Franklin TN, 1998, pp. 74-75, 80] This gives an indication of when the flower images might have been formed. This time frame is consistent with the formation of the body images, which occurred within two to three days after the body was placed within the Shroud, due to the lack of decomposition. These flower images, like the possible coin images, do not contain all of the unique features found on the body image and are very difficult to discern. They are most likely secondary images that also formed at the time the primary images formed. Further study should be undertaken to confirm the flower images, but so far, all evidence points toward corroboration. Danin has identified flowers and thorns on the photos of Pia, Enrie, and Miller, as well as on the ultraviolet fluorescent photos. He has even been able to identify two floral images on the Shroud itself with binoculars. [Danin, A., et al., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, p.16] The implication of their identifications are enormous. In addition to confirming Frei's identifications, they could confirm the Jerusalem location, the period as the spring or Easter season, that different types of thorns were involved, that the flowers were picked around 3 to 4:00 in the afternoon, and that the images were encoded before two days had elapsed." (Antonacci, 2000, pp.113-114).

"The physical location of the bouquet containing Zygophyllum dumosum appears on the body image's upper chest (Figure 6, 10). Here, two young but well-developed succulent leaves are visualized. Each leaf has a terete petiole and a pair of flat leaflets (Figures 10 to 12). Such leaves, in the Near Eastern flora, are found only in the genus Zygophyllum. The images of two single petioles marked in this area are of at least 1-year-old leaves. The only species of Zygophyllum in Israel and its neighboring countries that sheds its pair of leaflets annually is Z. dumosum (Zohary, 1972; Feinbrun-Dothan & Danin, 1991). The top leaf in Figures 10 and 11 was seen in all the five kinds of photographs dealt with in Table 5. The fact that the Zygophyllum leaf image is black in the fluorescence photo means that the image is made up of the image-linen type fibrils that do not fluoresce. The chronological significance of Z. dumosum in the phenologic stage of bloom seen on the Shroud (it has a flower and two kinds of leaves) is that it was cut between the months of December and April (in the context of the Judean Desert). This is the particular season when both leaf types and flowers are found together on the plant. The geographical implications of Z. dumosum are significant beyond that of other species associated with the Shroud because the plant is endemic (Figure 9). Zygophyllum dumosum grows only in Israel, Sinai, and a small area of Jordan ... This assemblage of Z. dumosum and additional species such as Gundelia tournefortii, Cistus creticus, and Capparis aegyptia occurs in only one rather small spot on earth, this being the Judean mountains and the Judean Desert of Israel, in the vicinity of Jerusalem ... The distributional areas of the most significant species are used here to determine the proposed place of origin of the Shroud (the geographical fingerprint of the Shroud of Turin). Their significance is based on the following criteria: the highest frequency of pollen, endemism, and from which side of the Jordan river the first two were taken. A plant assemblage composed of two species is used for the first geographic approximation. These are Gundelia tournefortii, which has the highest frequency of pollen grains derived from the Shroud, and Zygophyllum dumosum, images of which are documented in both photographs and on the Shroud itself. Those biogeographic areas where the two species coexist are bounded by longitudinal lines linking Jerusalem and Hebron in Israel and Madaba and Karak in Jordan. Adding Cistus creticus as a third species to this plant assemblage anchors the area of origin toward the Jerusalem-Hebron zone. Future investigation of additional pollen grains from the Shroud may further pinpoint the place of origin indicated by the Shroud's flora. The species examined here have precise reproductive intervals or periods of times of blooming or of carrying leaves. Their phenology may serve as an indication of the time of year when they were brought to the Shroud. Table 6 indicates floral anthesis, after Feinbrun-Dothan and Danin (1991), for the eight most significant plants associated with the Shroud. For all eight plants, their concurrent blooming times fall in the months of March and April" (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, pp.18,.21-22).

"The images are the result of dehydrative acid oxidation of the linen. The blood is human blood. How the images got on the cloth is a mystery. We would love to have the answer to this mystery, to explain the science of it. If it turns out that some form of molecular transport we have not been able to fathom is the method whereby the images of the scourged, crucified man were transferred to the linen, we shall have solved only another little micropart of the puzzle. We do know, however, that there are thousands on thousands of pieces of funerary linen going back to millennia before Christ, and another huge number of linens of Coptic Christian burials. On none of these is there any image of any kind. A few have some blood and stains on them, but no image. The Shroud bears the images of a man who has had incredible, violent damage done to his body, yet whose face is filled with serenity and peace. It is an extracanonical witness to what happened to Jesus Christ, whether the man in the Shroud was Jesus or not." (Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.220).

"Some consider the images to have been formed by some as yet unknown `natural phenomena.' However, as ... Robert Wilcox states that `even if (researchers) come up with some `natural' process, the failure, so far, to find anything like the Shroud amongst the world's body cloths and artifacts leaves them with the further problem of why the process occurred only once in the history of the world, so far as is yet known.' [Wilcox, R.K., "Half of Shroud Scientists Say Image Is Authentic," The Voice, 5 Mar. 1982, p.13]" (Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.10).

"Floral Images on the Shroud? During his studies in 1983, Oswald Scheuermann made an observation that there seemed to be flowerlike patterns around the face of the Man of the Shroud. Two years later, Dr. Alan Whanger, while examining photographs of the Shroud with a magnifying lens, suddenly saw out of the corner of his eye the image of a large chrysanthemum-like flower on the anatomic left side about fifteen centimeters lateral to and six centimeters above the midline top of the head. [Whanger, A. & M., "Floral Coin and Other Non-Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," Duke University: Durham NC, 1989] ... While there are vague or partial images of many flowers on the Shroud, Dr. Whanger and Oswald Scheuermann believe that they have tentatively identified twenty-eight plants whose images are sufficiently clear on the Shroud to make a good comparison and to be compatible with the drawings in Flora Palaestina . Of the twenty-eight plants identified on the Shroud, twenty-three are flowers, three are small bushes and two are thorns. All twenty-eight plants grow in Israel and twenty grow in Jerusalem itself (i.e., the Judean mountains). The other eight plants grew either in the Judean desert or the Dead Sea area or in both. Hence, these plants or flowers would have been available in Jerusalem's market in a fresh state. [Whanger, ibid]. They noted that a rather high percentage of the flower images identified have corresponding Pollen found on the Shroud by Dr. Max Frei. Of the twenty-eight plants whose images they believe they have identified, Dr. Frei had already identified the pollen of twenty-five of them. In addition, they noted with great interest that twenty-seven of the twenty-eight plants bloom during March and April, which would correspond to the time of Passover and of the Crucifixion. Dr. Whanger also states that the age of the flowers between the time they were picked and the time that the image was formed can be reasonably determined. He notes that the evidence indicates that the image of the body was formed (mysteriously) in a very brief time by some type of high energy process sometime between twenty-four and forty hours after death when decomposition (not seen on the Shroud image) would have begun to be apparent. Whanger believes that most of the flowers whose images are on the Shroud would be between twenty-four and thirty-six hours old after picking." (Iannone, 1998, pp.25-26).

"During another visit to the Whangers, Danin identified leaves and flowers of bean caper plants, Zygophyllum dumosum, in the image of a bouquet on the chest area of the figure of a man on the Shroud. At that time Danin didn't know that Frei had reported pollen of Z. dumosum on the Shroud tapes. Similarly, an image of a bouquet of Rock Roses [Cistus credicus] was found near the left cheek of the figure. Frei had found Rock Rose pollen on the tapes too. Although pollen and images from many other plants that grow in the Middle East have been recognised on the Shroud, the independent identification of both pollen and images of Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum are the most significant. The thorn G. tournefortii is insect pollinated and flowers from February to May. Such great numbers of pollen from this species could only have arrived on the Shroud from a flower being placed on it. Zygophyllum dumosum is restricted to Israel, western Jordan and Sinai, and its northernmost distribution occurs between Jerusalem and Jericho. [Danin, A. & Baruch, U., "Floristic indicators for the origin of the Shroud of Turin," in Minor, M., et. al., eds., "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the mystery," Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium, Alexander Books: Alexander NC, 2001, pp.202-214] The natural distributions of G. tournefortii and Z. dumosum overlap in two small areas, both in the Holy Land. From studying distribution grids of all the plants identified by pollen or images, Danin reported that the area the Shroud may have originated from is 10-20 kilometres east and west of Jerusalem." (Milne, L., 2005, "A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice," New Holland: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, p.94).

"Aragonite as in Jerusalem ... The study of the area of the feet has been particularly interesting. In the greatly enlarged photographs, taken by Vernon Miller in 1978, one can see that the cloth looks dirty in the region corresponding to one of the heels. There, on the threads, is an exceptional amount of dust which helps one to think that the Man of the Shroud, very probably, had walked barefooted. [Archaeology, Vol. 34, No. 1, January-February 1981, p.41] Joseph Kohlbeck, an American crystallographer with the Hercules Aerospace Division, has identified a much greater concentration of calcium carbonate among the mineralogical particles present on the feet when compared with the other areas of the sheet. This calcium carbonate is, however, not the common calcite but a rarer form, the aragonite, with small amounts of strontium and iron. The comparison with samples of calcium carbonate taken from a tomb in Jerusalem has provided surprising similarities. Even in this case it is aragonite with small amounts of strontium and iron. Further chemical analyses, both on the aragonite found on the Shroud and that from Jerusalem, were carried out by means of a microprobe by Ricardo Levi-Setti of the University of Chicago. The two type samples have furnished extraordinarily similar results, which makes it highly probable that the aragonite on the Shroud came from Jerusalem. [Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, July-August 1986, pp.23-24]" (Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.206-207).

"Scientists found other interesting features connected with the Shroud. Joseph Kohlbeck, an optical crystallographer working for the Hercules Aerospace Divisions, which makes missiles, found particles of aragonite with small amounts of strontium and iron on the Shroud's fibers on the image of the foot. With the help of archaeologist Eugenia Nitowski, he obtained samples of limestone from inside ancient tombs in and near Jerusalem and subjected them also to microscopic analysis. He found the same substance. The aragonite on the Shroud and in the tombs was an uncommon variety, deposited from springs, typically found in limestone caves in Palestine, but not in Europe. The samples from the Shroud and the tombs provided `an usually close match,' suggesting to him and to Nitowski that the Shroud had once been in one of the `rolling-stone tombs' that were common in Palestine around the time of Christ and for several centuries before. Kohlbeck observed that 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. [Kohlbeck, J.A. & Nitowski, E.L., "New Evidence May Explain image on Shroud," Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August, 1986, pp.23-24]" (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.103).

"Another plant seen in a clear image on the Shroud is of the Zygophyllum dumosum species, according to the paper. This is a native plant with an unusual leaf morphology, displaying paired leaflets on the ends of leaf petiole of the current year during the beginning of winter. Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum coexist in a limited area, according to Danin, a leading authority on plants of Israel. The area is bounded by lines linking Jerusalem and Hebron in Israel and Madaba and Karak in Jordan. The area is anchored toward the Jerusalem-Hebron zone with the addition of a third species, Cistus creticus, identified as being placed on the Shroud through an analysis of pollen and floral imaging. `This combination of flowers can be found in only one region of the world,' Danin stated. `The evidence clearly points to a floral grouping from the area surrounding Jerusalem.' Danin stated that the evidence revealing these species on the Shroud suggests that they were placed with the body prior to the process that caused the formation of images on the cloth." (Science Daily, August 3, 1999, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century," XVI International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, MO).

"If this type of body-on-cloth action is natural, why are there so many burial garments that have no images of the person buried in them? Surely more than one burial cloth with a contact image on it would have been discovered. But so far as we know, the Shroud is unique in this regard. And even if another burial garment with an image caused by natural contact with a dead body were found, the image would still have to display the characteristics of the Shroud's image, which has been shown to be highly unlikely ... On the other hand, on a purely logical basis, if a completely natural process caused the Shroud image, why are there no others known in the entire world-especially since the Egyptians left us so many burial linens? Numerous sindonologists who believe in a natural process are troubled by this fact." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.127,201).

"The simple fact remains. No such impression on a winding-sheet has ever been found in any tomb, and we may add that it is materially impossible that such a thing should be found. Whatever may be the exact nature of the chemical process by which the impressions were produced, what concerns us now is the organic action exercised between a naked body and a prepared cloth. All such action is restricted by one essential condition, namely, that the body should have remained in contact with the cloth for too short a time to allow of putrefaction. If corruption set in, any impression previously made would be ipso facto destroyed. What indeed is found in a violated sepulchre ? A mummy or a skeleton. In either case the tomb could not have furnished a winding-sheet like the Holy Shroud. On the other hand, it is not possible for any one to have arrived at a method of producing such impressions, and this because of their altogether exceptional character." (Vignon, P., 1970, "The Shroud of Christ," [1902], University Books: New York NY, p.44).

"While there are images of hundreds of flowers on the Shroud, many are vague or incomplete. We feel Alan has identified, tentatively but with reasonable certainty, twenty-eight plants whose images are sufficiently clear and complete to make a good comparison with the drawings in Flora Palaestina. Of these twenty-eight plants, twenty-three are flowers, three are small bushes, and two are thorns. All twenty-eight grow in Israel. Twenty grow in Jerusalem itself, and the other eight grow potentially within the close vicinity of Jerusalem, either in the Judean Desert or in the Dead Sea area or in both. All twenty-eight would have been available in Jerusalem markets in a fresh state. Many would have been growing along the roadside or in nearby fields, available for the picking. A rather unique situation exists in that within Jerusalem and the surrounding twelve miles, four geographic areas exist with their differing specific climates and flora. Nowhere else are so many different types of species found so close together. Of these twenty-eight plants, Frei, working from the sticky tape slides, had previously identified the pollens of twenty-five of the same or similar plants. Twenty-seven of these twenty-eight bloom in March and April, which corresponds to the time of Passover and the Crucifixion. There are at least seven small bouquets in addition to the various bunched flowers. Some species of plants have wide geographic distribution. Using botanical references, Alan determined the ranges of the twenty-eight plants, noting whether they are found in central Europe, including France (botanical Zone I) or in the Mediterranean, including Italy (botanical Zone IV). Only three are found in central Europe. Nine are definitely found in Italy. Five more are found mostly in the eastern Mediterranean, which includes Israel, but might extend into Italy. Half are found only in the Middle East or other similar areas and never in Europe. Some skeptics have suggested that maybe the pollens were blown across the Mediterranean and deposited on the Shroud while it was on display in France or Italy. That is hardly likely, as many of these pollens are heavy pollens with prickly surfaces designed to be carried by insects, not by wind." (Whanger, 1998, pp.78-79).

"Considering that the underside of Christ's burial shroud had been in hard contact with the limestone burial platform of the cave-tomb, the intriguing question was whether the mineral coating on these pollens had come from rock in the same area. This question was taken up in 1986 by optical crystallographer Dr Joseph Kohlbeck, resident scientist at Hercules Aerospace, Colorado. He gained the support of archaeologist Dr Eugenia Nitowski, an expert in ancient Jewish tombs of Israel, who obtained for him some limestone samples from a first-century tomb in Jerusalem. Dr Kohlbeck closely analysed and compared his samples from the underside of the Shroud with Dr Nitowski's samples. In both instances he identified the calcium component to be of the aragonite variety, and in both he also uncovered traces of strontium and iron. In scientific terms, these points meant a close match. [Kohlbeck, J.A. & Nitowski, E.L., "New evidence may explain image on the Shroud of Turin," Biblical Archaeological Review, July/August 1986, p.23] There was still more that Dr Kohlbeck could do to test his evidence. He took his mineral-coated pollen samples and the limestone tomb samples to Dr Ricardo Levi-Setti at the Enrico Fermi Institute in the University of Chicago. The two scientists studied the patterns of spectra produced by the comparative samples through a high-resolution scanning ion microprobe. Although they were unable to prove beyond doubt that the Shroud aragonite had come from the Jerusalem area, the samples were found to be an unusually close match. This led Dr Kohlbeck to assess the strong probability that the Shroud limestone is of Jerusalem provenance." (Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.129-130).

"And there is one further supportive finding which has come to light ... which also takes us into yet another variety of extraneous material on the Shroud's surface: mineral deposits. ... back in 1982 STURP's Ray Rogers took some of the Shroud sticky-tape samples to his old friend optical crystallographer Dr Joseph Kohlbeck ... Kohlbeck began to take a lively interest in some of the particles of calcium carbonate (or limestone) that he immediately spotted among all the other debris on the tapes. ... these raised in his mind the interesting question of whether the chemical `signature' of these might in any way match that of the stone of the tomb in which Jesus was laid in Jerusalem. As ... the Church of the Holy Sepulchre... is at present so well protected against any further hacking about ... Kohlbeck ... reasoned that limestone rock inside other tombs in the Jerusalem vicinity ought to have roughly the same characteristics. ... archaeologist Dr Eugenia Nitowski ... was able to obtain for Kohlbeck the Jerusalem tomb limestone samples that he needed. He subjected them to microscopic analysis, quickly finding them to have precisely the sort of distinctive characteristics that he had hoped for. As he has explained: `This particular limestone was primarily travertine aragonite deposited from springs, rather than the more common calcite. Calcite and aragonite differ in their crystalline structure - calcite being rhombohedral [i.e. triangular] and aragonite orthorhombic [i.e. with three unequal axes at right angles to each other]. Aragonite is less common than calcite. Aragonite is formed under a much narrower range of conditions than calcite. In addition to the aragonite, our Jerusalem samples also contained small quantities of iron and strontium, but no lead.' [Kohlbeck, J.A. & Nitowski, E.L., "New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin," Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 1986, p.23] ... Kohlbeck proceeded to examine a sample of calcium taken from the Shroud in the very same foot area in which Roger and Mary Gilbert had come across the now famous `dirt'. This was chosen because it showed a larger and therefore potentially more significant concentration of calcium carbonate than other areas. To Kohlbeck's considerable satisfaction, the sample turned out to be of the rarer aragonite variety, exactly as in the case of the samples taken from the Jerusalem tombs. Not only this, but it also exhibited small amounts of strontium and iron, again suggesting a close match. But even these parallels were not enough to `prove' the needed signature, as a result of which Kohlbeck took both the Shroud samples and the Jerusalem tomb samples to Dr Ricardo Levi-Setti of the famous Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago. Here, Levi-Setti put both sets of samples through his high-resolution scanning ion microprobe, and as he and Kohlbeck studied the pattern of spectra produced by each ... it became quite obvious that they were indeed an unusually close match, the only disparity being a slight organic variation readily explicable as due to minute pieces of flax that could not be separated from the Shroud's calcium." (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.104-106).

"For, whatever anyone else may make of Danin's botanical `eye', what cannot be emphasized enough is that the location-type evidence, even from the pollens alone, is quite overwhelming. As Uri Baruch found, there are some instances in which he cannot be as specific about plant species as Frei was, but instead refers to a plant type. Possibly Frei may have been a little over-enthusiastic in his identification in these cases, or (since his death robbed us of ever knowing his full insights), it may have been because he found a way to manipulate the specimen in order to see it better. Either way, such differences are essentially minor, and the sceptics' slurs on Frei's memory are proved to be unfounded. As Danin sums up, particularly from superimposing the known distribution sites of Gundelia tournefortii, Zygophyllum dumosum and Cistus creticus, together with three further specific pollen types confirmed to be on the Shroud, [Lomelosia (Scabiosa) prolifera (L) Greuter et Burdet, Cistus incanus-type and Cistus salvifolius type] the very narrow geographical region that all these plants share in common is the mere twenty miles between Hebron and Jerusalem. [Danin, A., "Micro-traces of plants on the Shroud of Turin as geographical markers," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effat?: Cantalupa, 2000, pp.495-500] So the conclusion is inescapable, in the very teeth of the radiocarbon dating, that at some time in its history the Turin Shroud positively must have been in the same environs in which Jesus of Nazareth lived and died." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.92).

"Perhaps the most tantalizing glimpse of all, however, came from reflectance spectroscopy work carried out by the husband-and-wife team Roger and Marty Gilbert in the course of the 1978 STURP examination. As they ran their equipment up and down the man of the Shroud's image the spectra they obtained proved relatively regular except when they reached the sole of the foot imprint on the back-of-the-body half of the cloth. Suddenly the spectra changed dramatically. Something in the foot area, and particularly around the heel, was giving a markedly stronger signal than elsewhere, but what? When optical physicist Sam Pellicori was summoned to view the area under the portable microscope the answer proved as chilling as it was obvious. Dead-pan, Pellicori pronounced, `It's dirt!' As might have been expected in an individual who had had even his sandals taken away from him, the man of the Shroud had dirty feet. During the March 2000 Turin sacristy viewing I and others, even with the unaided eye, could see the Shroud is significantly dirtier at the soles of the feet than anywhere else on the cloth, this dirt very visible underlying the serum-haloed bloodstains that otherwise coat the same soles. So had the Gilberts stumbled upon the very dirt from the streets of Jerusalem that had blackened the feet of Jesus of Nazareth two thousand years ago? In fact analysis of particles of limestone also found adhering to the Shroud have been identified by optical crystallographer Dr Joseph Kohlbeck as travertine aragonite that spectrally has a `signature' strikingly similar to limestone samples from ancient Jerusalem tombs, taken by archaeologist Dr Eugenia Nitowski. [Kohlbeck, J.A. & Nitowski, E.L., "New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin," Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 1986, pp.18-29] From such a variety of different directions, there is therefore the most striking evidence that rather than being a `cunning painting', some time in its history the Shroud really was used somewhere in the environs of Jerusalem to wrap the dirty and bloody corpse of a man who had just been crucified." (Wilson, & Schwortz, 2000, p.93).

Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #1

2008-11-19T19:55:00.022+09:00

Kris

Thank you for your comment to my post, Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #10: The Shroud's blood and pollen closely matches the Sudarium of Oviedo's. As per my reply comment under that post, since my answer may be of interest to others, but would be

[Right (click to enlarge): "... markings on the shroud are medically consistent with biblical accounts of the crucifixion of Christ." (Brooks, E.H., Miller, V.D. & Schwortz, B.M., "The Turin Shroud: Contemporary Insights to an Ancient Paradox," Worldwide Exhibition: Chicago, 1981, p.13]

`buried' down there in comments to an old post, I am answering it here in a separate series of posts.

Your words are bold to distinguish them from my comments.

----- Original Message -----
From: Anonymous
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:00 PM
Subject: [The Shroud of Turin] New comment on Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #10: The Shroud's blood an....

>Hi Mr Jones, and whomever may be able to help answer this...
>
>I just came upon your site after watching a documentary that put a lot of focus on the Shroud. I am a Christian who has drawn no real definitive conclusions about the authenticity of the Shroud. There is compelling evidence, however, that it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time and in that area.

If the Shroud is of "a man crucified during that time and in that area" then it would have to be "the burial cloth of Christ". That is because the man on the Shroud has at least twenty-three (23) separate and independent features that match the gospels' description of the crucifixion of Jesus. Even a conservative estimate [mine are in square brackets below] of the proportion of Roman crucifixions that matched each of those at least 23 (or more) features, yields (as we shall see in part #3) an improbability of multi-billions to 1 that the man on the Shroud is not Jesus but another "man crucified during that time."

While I have documented these 23 different features from the Shroud of Turin literature, this list is, as far as I am aware, the first time they have all been brought together and added up to 23 (I was surprised there were so many).

This part #1 and the following parts #2 and #3 are very long due to the need to document each point by quotes from the Shroud literature. So to save some space in the hyperlinked references below, I have used a code based on the authors' initials, year, and first page:

1. His face is majestic [1 in 100] (HR1978p37; RJ1978p76; ZT1984p29);

2. He was semitic [1 in 10] (HR1978p37; S&H1990p89; WR1977p131; WI1986p15);

3. He was beaten [1 in 5] (AM2000p32; CA2002p15; GV2000p37; HR1978p37; IJ1998p64; RJ1978p76; S&H1990p89; WI1978p37);

4. He was scourged excessively with a Roman flagellum [1 in 100] (AM2000p32; CA2002p15; DR1984p27; GV2000p37; HR1978p37; HR1951p30; IJ1998p64; P&M1996p227; RJ1978p76; S&H1981p124; WI1978p37);

5. He had been `crowned' with thorns [1 in 1,000] (AM2000p32; DR1984p27; HR1978p37; GV2000p37; IJ1998p64; P&M1996p227; RG1977p67; RJ1978p76; S&H1981p124; S&H1990p89; WI1978p37; ZT1984p29);

6. He had carried his cross [1 in 5] (AM2000p32; CA2002p15; GV2000p37; HR1978p37; IJ1998p64; RJ1978p76; WI1978p37; P&M1996p227);

7. He had fallen on his face [1 in 2] (AM2000p32; IJ1998p64; WI1978p37);

8. He was crucified with nails through his wrists and feet [1 in 2] (AM2000p32; CA2002p15; GV2000p37; HR1978p37; IJ1998p64; P&M1996p227; RJ1978p76; S&H1990p89; WI1978p37; ZT1984p29);

9. His legs were not broken [1 in 10] (HR1978p37; IJ1998p64; S&H1990p89; RJ1978p76; WI1978p37; ZT1984p29);

10. He had been speared in the side by a Roman lance [1 in 10] (AM2000p32; CA2002p15; DR1984p27; HR1978p37; IJ1998p64; P&M1996p227; RJ1978p76; S&H1981p124; S&H1990p89; WI1978p37; ZT1984p29);

11. From which blood and `water' flowed [1 in 10] (AM2000p32; GV2000p37; HR1978p37; RJ1978p76; S&H1990p89);

12. He had been taken down from the cross within hours after death [1 in 100] (BJ2001p125; HR1978p37);

13. He was buried in a shroud [1 in 10] (DR1984p27; ZT1984p29);

14. Which is made of expensive, fine linen [1 in 100] (HR1978p37; HR1951p30; S&H1990p89);

15. The burial was incomplete, indicating the victim was buried in haste [1 in 100] (HR1951p30, 93-94; S&H1981p124; S&H1990p89);

16. The body had not decomposed, indicating it was separated from the shroud within 3 days [1 in 10,000] (AM2000p32; DR1984p27; P&M1996p227; RJ1978p76; S&H1981p124; HR1951p30, 93-94; RJ1978p76; VP1970p44; WJ1963p90; ZT1984p29);

17. The body was separated from the shroud without disturbing its blood clots [1 in 100,000] (AM2000p32; WE1954p51; ZT1984p29);

Continued in part #2 of "Re:There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time"

Quotes below are hyperlinked to inline references above (my emphasis bold).

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

"When we compile all the information about the wounds on the man in the Shroud with the knowledge that they were inflicted over a period of several hours, we can reconstruct what happened to him with some accuracy. Most likely, he was first beaten about the head, which caused swelling, bruises, and lacerations on his head and face. The scores of scourge marks all over his body attest to a whipping. Something made of sharp, thornlike objects placed over his head caused numerous piercing wounds on the front, top, and back of the head. Some of these wounds could have occurred from being struck on the head after the thornlike objects were placed over it. Other head wounds may have resulted from falling and being struck in the head by the crossbeam often carried by victims to the execution site, or from scraping his head against the cross when he pushed himself up and down to breathe. The shoulder abrasions could also have been imposed as he carried the crossbeam or later scraped his back during the up-and-down breathing motion. If some of these injuries were suffered while the man carried the crossbar, they may have occurred at the same time the victim apparently fell, as evidenced by the dirt in the nose and knee areas, as well as the scratches and cuts detected on his nose, cheek, knee, and leg. Such dirt and scratches suggest the man had been unable to break his fall with his hands. ... The man's foot and wrist wounds were next inflicted by large nails driven through his flesh between the metatarsal and wrist or forearm bones to anchor him on the cross. .... After he was dead, a spearlike weapon thrust into his right side pierced his heart, causing blood and watery fluid to escape. All of the data gleaned from extensive study of the pathology evident on the Turin Shroud tells us this piece of linen was wrapped around the corpse of a man who was crucified and died while still nailed to a cross. We also know that the man's corpse lay inside the burial linen for no more than two or three days. Had he been there longer, decomposition stains would be present on the cloth, but the Shroud contains no signs of bodily decomposition. It is also noteworthy that the bloodstains remain unbroken and unsmeared and appear to be exact mirror images of the man's wounds. This tells us that the blood marks could not have been transferred to the Shroud through direct contact between the body and the cloth alone; instead, some other process must have been at work." (Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.32-33).

"The Biblical account of the execution of Jesus agrees with the Roman method of execution, but there were, however, several concessions made because of Jewish custom: a) Jesus was given back his clothes after being scourged (Mk 15:20; Mt 27:31), b) He was given aid in carrying the cross (Mk 15:21), c) He was offered a drink of spiced wine which He refused (Mk 15:23; Mt 27:34), and d) Contrary to the Roman practice of leaving the body on the cross for days as a sign of disgrace and as a warning to others, that of Jesus was removed and buried before sunset of the same day, in accordance with Jewish law (Dt 21:23; Mk 15:42)." (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.125).

"The Shroud is in the form of a cloth strip, yellowish-white in colour, 4.37 metres long, 1.11 metres wide and 1.450 kg in weight. It shows, close to each other at the head, the front and rear imprint of the body of a man. From the archaeological standpoint, the Shroud is a burial-sheet, wrapped round a corpse on the table in the tomb where the body was laid. To forensic medical examination, the image of the body seems to be stiffened by rigor mortis, and reveals a whole series of wounds and injuries corresponding to those recounted in the Gospels as being inflicted on Jesus. Signs of flagellation over the whole body, small wounds in the scalp caused by a helmet of thorns, two torn areas in the left scapula zone and the right super-scapular zone, holes in the wrists and at the feet, which could be caused by the penetration of nails, and a wide injury caused by a steel weapon in the lower right rib region." (Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.15).

"The conventional argument that the image on the Shroud is the true image of Jesus assumes that we all agree, as perhaps we may, that the image came from a dead man's body. Most reasonable investigators have firmly ruled out the possibility that the image was painted, and they are also persuaded that it could not have been effected by means of a scorch from a hot statue. In addition, experts in anatomy and forensic medicine have concluded that the image on the Shroud could only have come from a human body, and in fact from the body of a man who had died (rigor mortis is evident) the violent death indicated by the visible wounds. ... In addition to this reasonable assumption, the argument that the image came from Jesus' body assumes ... that the image was not produced by human skill, but is either miraculous (if it is Jesus' image) or `natural' (if it is someone else's image). If this second assumption is conceded, the argument quickly and inexorably narrows to the desired conclusion. Of the millions who died in antiquity, a tiny minority died of crucifixion. Of the thousands of men who were crucified, only a few hundred would have been wrapped in a linen sheet, as the Gospels say that Jesus was. Of these few hundred buried in a shroud, only a fraction would have been scourged before crucifixion, as was Jesus and as was the Man of the Shroud. And of those who suffered those tortures, how many would have been wounded across the scalp, as though by a crown of thorns? How many bodies so abused were pierced in the side by a spear? And of all the bodies that meet these requirements, how many-here the odds rise to the maximum-would have been separated from their shrouds before decomposition began? In a recent book, Verdict on the Shroud, Gary Habermas thus fixes the statistical probability that a body other than Jesus' has left its imprint on the Shroud. Others have made the attempt before, and Habermas notes their conclusions: reckonings of the chance that a body, if it leaves an imprint at all, will leave this imprint, range from 1 in 225,000,000,000, at the lower end of the scale, to 1 in 10^26 at the higher. Habermas's own estimate is a much more conservative 1 in 82,944,000." (Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, pp.27-28).

"Good Friday and the Shroud Jesus was scourged by Roman soldiers prior to His Crucifixion (Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15; John 19:1). The Shroud shows evidence of about 120 scourge marks, some visible only under ultraviolet light. The instrument used to cause these marks was likely the Roman flagrum, which was a whip constructed from two or three leather strips with two small balls made of lead or bone tied at each end. When a flagrum was used to whip a person, it would tear off pieces of flesh. ... Jesus was struck at the head and spat upon (Matt. 26:68, 27:30; Mark 14:65, 15:19; Luke 22:63-64; John 18:22, 19:3). The image on the Shroud shows a bruised face, a broken nose and a swollen right eye that is almost closed. Jesus was crowned with thorns (Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2). The head of the man on the Shroud is covered with numerous puncture holes with blood trickling downward, which suggest a cap of thorns. This covered the entire head and was not just a circlet as is often depicted on a crucifix. According to Dr. Jackson, `these puncture-type wounds are consistent with thorns from a Jerusalem plant with vicious one to three-inch spikes.' [Scott, C., "Holy Shroud Research Continues in Colorado," Sindone Press: Colorado Springs CO, 1994, p.16] ... Jesus was made to carry His Cross (John 19:17). The Shroud image shows that the man must have carried a heavy object on his shoulders, for there are bruises and cuts on his shoulders and knees ... These wounds demonstrate that the man likely carried a cross-beam or patibulum, rather than a full-length `T' cross. ... Jesus was nailed to the Cross by His hands and feet (cf. Luke 24:39-40; John 20:20-27; Col. 2:14). The image of the man on the Shroud reveals that he had been pierced through the wrists and feet. The right wrist is hidden under the left hand (in negative photo), and a blood flow can be seen coming from the base of the left hand. ... His heart was pierced, and blood and water poured forth (John 19:34). This was the final mortal blow inflicted upon the crucified man to ensure he was dead. ... The correlations between the scriptural account of the sufferings of Christ on the Cross with those depicted on the Shroud of Turin are too compelling to be considered merely coincidental." (Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.37-40).

"What evidence is there in the Shroud that could help us to identify the person it contained? ... To begin with, the stains show a perfectly proportioned man with a remarkably majestic face. ... We can see that the man was crucified. The Shroud clearly shows bloodstains from the nail-wounds in the upper wrist and the soles of the feet. .... The shoulder-length hair and beard suggest a Jew ... There are visible on the body other signs of injury which might help in identification. First, there was extensive bruising, as if the person had been buffeted around the face and body. Damage to the skin on the shoulder-blades suggests that he may have had to carry the heavy cross-beam of the cross for some way. Secondly, there are marks over almost the entire body ... indicating scourging with a Roman flagrum... Thirdly, there are streaks of blood on the hair round the head ... These marks imply that he had to wear round his head something with sharp points digging into the skin. Lastly, there is a large bloodstain on the right side, not far below the armpit, indicating a serious wound. .... Almost as significant are certain wounds which we would expect to be present but which are not. The legs, for instance, were not broken. ... the prisoner was usually put out of his agony by having his legs smashed, so that he could no longer press up to breathe. Once dead, a body would then have been thrown into a communal grave, so the existence of the Shroud is an important clue in itself. ... At once the parallels become impressive. Christ was a Jew, of course, and he was crucified. We can consider the extensive bruising, and compare it with the Gospel accounts ... A crown of thorns, followed by a beating about the head .. It certainly explains the bloodstains on the Shroud, and what are the chances of another man having been given a torture that could have left those same marks? Already the agreement between the facts as we know them and the evidence of the Shroud is astonishing. Then there is the wound in the side .. And why were the legs not broken? Because it was the eve of the Passover, the Jews were anxious that the bodies should not remain on the cross for the coming Sabbath ... so they requested Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. ... but when they came to Jesus, they found that he was already dead, so they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers stabbed his side with a lance, and at once there was a flow of blood and water. .. Even the use of the Shroud is explained, as there was no time for the proper burial rites .. and the surprisingly fine texture of the material used for wrapping up the crucified man's body is explained by the reported wealth of Joseph of Arimathea. In all these points there is remarkable corroboration between the two sources of evidence, so that each seems to stand as guarantor of the other. ... On these grounds, in view of the agreement of two widely different types of evidence, the written and the photographic, the historicity of Jesus and his Crucifixion may be taken as proven. ... So far as the Shroud is concerned, the evidence of the stains points with certainty towards their having been made by the body of Jesus." (Hoare, R., 1978, "Testimony of the Shroud," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, pp.37-42).

"THE time has now come to ask ourselves the question-If the body imprinted on the Shroud is not that of Christ, whose could it have been? We know indeed that, in the past, hundreds of thousands of slaves and rebels were crucified. It was the most painful and humiliating form of execution known to the days of antiquity-a death so terrible that contemporary references to it are few and brief. Those condemned to the cross were regarded as having lost their human rights, and death did not restore them. The bodies of the crucified received varying treatment: sometimes they were thrown to dogs, or left to be devoured by birds of prey: or they might be burnt or buried in some pit. In the Shroud, however, we see the imprints of a crucified body which had been wrapped in costly linen, covered with anti-putrifying aromatic mixtures. The body was evidently quite incorrupt, and could therefore have remained in the linen only a short time. It bears the marks of innumerable bruises and wounds, and of blood, shed both before and after death: also of blood serum, spreading around the dark blood stains. It is quite clear that no attempt was made to wash the body, or this blood would have been blurred or even obliterated. This applies particularly to the face and the nape of the neck, which is covered with rivulets of blood. Had the head and hair been either washed or combed-a process prescribed by almost every burial rite in the world-all this valuable evidence would have been destroyed. The inference seems a fairly clear one: that for some reason, such as the need for haste, the body was given only provisional burial, which did not include the ceremonial washing and anointing prescribed by the law of the time. Moreover, we can be sure from the lack of any sign of corruption that the body did not remain in the Shroud for long ... Let us now consider the imprints on the Shroud with an especial reference to marks of identification. In the first place, there are the clear and unmistakable marks of a crown of thorns round the forehead and temples. There is no record in history of a crown of thorns being given to anyone under sentence of death except Our Lord Himself. This is not all. Christ was crucified on Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath, and according to the law of Moses the body had to be in the grave before the first star appeared in the sky. He was, therefore, given provisional burial in the utmost haste. All this is in complete agreement with the findings on the Shroud. According to the Gospels, Our Lord's body lay for about thirty hours in the sepulchre, and He then rose from the dead. The imprints on the Shroud, as we have already seen, are so distinct and unsmudged that it is quite certain that the body which caused them was free of any trace of corruption. If the physico-chemical process which caused the imprints had continued, they would have become more and more indistinct, and finally merged into a dark confused mass." (Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," Sheed & Ward: New York NY, pp.30-31, 93-94).

"The study of the testimony of the Gospels, when matched with Roman weapons and practices of crucifixion as well as with the findings of medical pathologists studying the Shroud, shows a strong correlation of these sources. The uniqueness of the markings on the Shroud, especially when taken in their totality, with the testimony of the Gospels provides the signature or the fingerprint of the Crucifixion that identifies the Man of the Shroud with Jesus. This is especially true of the capping of thorns to mock Jesus' `kingship,' a unique event never recorded with any other crucifixion victim; the lancing of the right side to assure that Jesus was dead instead of the usual crucifragium; the nails through the wrists; the scourge marks all over his back; the marks of the crossbeam (patibulum) on the shoulders, and the swollen face from the beating of the Sanhedrin guards. In all cases, the words match the wounds which match the weapons." (Iannone, 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.64).

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson [Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin," 1979, pp.51-53.] and Stevenson and Habermas [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," 1981, pp.121-129] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas [Ibid., p.128] even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate). I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.' [Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp.37-56, p.42]" (Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141).

"The Man of the Shroud executed by the Romans On looking closely at the Turin Shroud it is evident that the Man who was enshrouded in it had suffered injuries which resulted from a Roman crucifixion of the first century AD. The entire body is covered by wounds produced by a Roman flagrum. The scourge marks appear to exceed greatly the number of strokes that were normally give to a man condemned to a subsequent death; indeed 120 strokes can be counted. One can deduce that this scourging had originally been ordered to serve as a severe separate punishment; it shows, in any case, a particular fury on the part of the torturers. The absence of mutilations exclude an oriental type of crucifixion. The trickles of blood that cover the whole head and forehead of the Man of the Shroud, with the different morphology of veinous and arterial blood, are clear signs of a crowning with thorns, an unusual fact outside the normal procedure. As the Man was led to the place of execution, he was made to carry the beam of the cross and in doing so he fell to the ground. Very clear are the wounds on the left knee, the mark of a blow with a stick on the right cheek, the tumefaction and excoriation of the nose, and the swellings on the face. ... The wrists and the feet have been pierced with nails. In the case of the wrists, the nails have penetrated Destot's space, among the eight small bones of the carpus, causing an injury to the median nerve. As a result the thumbs have withdrawn inside the palms of the hand; they are indeed not visible on the Shroud. The feet have been nailed together, the left foot over the right, directly to the cross without a suppedaneum. The stabbing of the side made after the death of the condemned man rather than before in order to cause death, is unusual: this fact can be interpreted as a proof that death had already occurred. The burial sheet itself clearly shows that the corpse was immediately returned to the relatives; the absence of any sign of decomposition on it confirms the fact that the contact of the body with the cloth was only for a brief period of time. The presence of blood shows that the corpse was not washed, which can only be explained in the case of a burial in a Jewish cultural context before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The number of coincidences between this crucifixion and that as used by the Romans is high; this is enough to rule out any other type of oriental crucifixion. Finally, one should point out also the very remarkable correspondence between the details that are observed on the Shroud and the description of Jesus's crucifixion as narrated in the four gospels; this becomes all the more surprising when one remembers that each crucifixion was `personalized' according to the victim to he executed and the crime committed."(Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.227-228).

"The Crowning with Thorns The fact of the crowning with thorns and the way in which it was done are expressed concisely but precisely by the Gospel of John: `And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head' (Jn. 19,2). Students of law may be surprised by this punishment, which was not contemplated by the penal procedure of Rome. No other crucified man in history, in fact, is known to have been crowned with thorns! ... But the way in which it was carried out is unexpectedly documented by the marks on the Shroud: the whole top of the skull, in fact, from the occiput to the bregma, is covered with trickles of blood, while the dark colour of all the same area makes one think of sweat mixed with blood, in which the mass of the hair was steeped, creating the conditions for the resulting imprint." (Ricci, G., 1977, "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.67-68).

"There will never be final proof that this is the actual cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus of Nazareth. Even if all the tests proved positive there would only be a very strong possibility that it was the burial cloth of this man. If the date of the linen were to come out correct, then there is a pretty powerful concurrence of evidence that would point to this conclusion. Clearly it carries the image of a man, almost certainly a Jew, of the right age, who suffered death by crucifixion. Though most of the marks of this barbarous punishment would not point distinctively to this one man, the evidence of severe injury to the scalp by a `crown of thorns' surely cannot reasonably be posited of any usual victim: it was a mock coronation as King of the Jews. There is also the fact that, unlike any other shroud, it did not disintegrate with the corpse it covered. For some reason it became separated from its body prior to decomposition and was regarded by a long series of people in most hazardous circumstances as valuable enough to preserve. If then everything else were to prove positive, there must be a strong presumption that it belonged to this man. ... in regard to the death of Jesus, the Shroud bears out the reports in all the Gospels of multiple buffetings and Roman scourgings (far exceeding the Jewish thirty-nine strokes) and confirms how brutal these were. It supports a cap, and not merely as traditional art would have suggested, a circlet of thorns. The additional abrasions on the back of one shoulder could also bear out the tradition which John records [19.17], though not the Synoptists, that Jesus was compelled to carry his own cross at least part of the way. Again, the attachment of the body to the cross by nails, and not ropes, attested by John [20.25] and implicitly by Luke [24.39] is of course also confirmed by the Shroud. So are two important details strongly insisted upon by John on the evidence of eye-witness. The first is that the legs of Jesus were not broken, unlike those of the two crucified with him [John 19.32-3], a practice now confirmed by the mangled skeleton to which I have referred. The second is the lance-stab in the side with its effusion of blood and water which is clearly traceable on the Shroud [John 19.34]. ... Finally, though this is inevitably a subjective judgement, the image of the Shroud reveals a visage, like that of Hamlet's father, altogether `most majestical'. It is surely a face that could credibly have commanded the loyalty and faith which the Gospels describe. The image might have been terribly disillusioning. But no one, I think, since its full photographic likeness became revealed, from the agnostic Delage onwards, could say that it was out of keeping with the man of supreme inner authority whom the Gospel records present." (Robinson, J.A.T., 1978, "The Shroud and the New Testament," in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, pp.69-81, p.76,78).

"Before concluding that the man of the Shroud is Jesus, we must consider the possibility that he is someone else-another Jew tortured. and crucified by Romans and buried according to Jewish customs. ... We can do this because the crucifixion and burial of Jesus differed significantly from the ordinary ways the Romans crucified criminals and the Jews buried their dead. Jesus' case was irregular. He was scourged, crowned with thorns, nailed to his cross, stabbed in the side (instead of his legs being broken), buried well but incompletely, and his body left the cloth before it decomposed. Because we know a fair amount about Roman and Jewish customs in these matters, we can assess the probability that two men were crucified and buried this way. Such a probability, in reverse, would be the probability that the Shroud of Turin is the burial garment of Jesus Christ. Several Shroud researchers and scientists have already tried to computed such a probability. One is Francis Filas, professor of theology at Loyola University and a long-time investigator of the Shroud. Fr. Filas believes that there is very little chance that the man buried in the Shroud could be someone other than Jesus. Citing the correspondence between the Shroud anti the irregularities of Jesus' crucifixion, Fr. Filas computes tho total possibility [sic] that the man in the Shroud was not Jesus as 1 in 10^26, thereby virtually identifying the Shroud as Jesus' burial garment. [Filas, F., "Inquiry Into the Shroud of Turin," CBN University, April 4, 1980] A more conservative figure was devised by Vincent J. Donovan. Donovan was also impressed by the ways irregularities in Jesus' crucifixion correspond to the Shroud, especially the crown of thorns, the fact that Jesus' ankles were not broken, the spear wound, and the incomplete burial. Donovan concludes that there is a probability of 1 chance in 282 billion that the person buried in the Shroud was someone other than Jesus. [Donovan, V.J., "The Shroud and the Laws of Probability," The Catholic Digest, April, 1980, pp.49-52] French Jesuit and engineer Paul de Gail is another scholar who attempted to compute the probability that the Shroud wrapped someone other than Jesus. De Gail arrived at a much higher figure than Donovan's 1 in 282 billion, in spite of the fact that he performed his research in 1972, before some of the most surprising discoveries about the Shroud were made. [Donovan, Ibid., p. 51; cf. Wilcox, R.K., "Shroud," Macmillan: New York 1977, p.171] The most conservative probability arrived at thus far was computed in 1978 by Professors Tino Zeuli and Bruno Barbaris, two members of the science faculty at the University of Turin. Zeuli and Barbaris combined a skeptical approach with a mastery of statistics. They still concluded that the chances were 1 in 225 billion that someone other than Jesus was buried in the Shroud. [Donovan, Ibid] Statistical analyses such as these are not meaningless guesses. They are respectable scientific tools. Scientists employ them continually to weigh the merits of alternative theories to explain observed phenomena. These previous calculations about the Shroud-ranging from 1 in 225 billion to 1 in 10^26 virtually identify the Shroud of Turin beyond any reasonable doubt as Jesus' burial garment." (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.124-125).

"Why do so many researchers agree on identifying the two men? We will not reproduce here the basis for the probability we presented in Verdict, [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, pp.121-129] but we will briefly note the major irregularities that both the Gospels and the Shroud reveal. 1. Both the Gospels and the Shroud plainly concern cases of crucifixion. While it is true that many persons were crucified in ancient times, the number is small in comparison to those who died by all other means combined. In other words, if the Shroud belonged to some person other than Jesus, it would probably have been that of a noncrucified individual, but that is not the case. The probability of identification is increased, though only slightly, by the fact that both victims were males. Occasionally, some females were crucified-hence, a small increase in probability. 2. It is also unlikely that a random burial shroud, especially one surfacing in western Europe, would bear the image of a person of Semitic origin. Yet ... Harvard University ethnologist Carleton Coon concluded, `Whoever the individual represented may have been, he is of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs.' [Wilcox, R.K., "Shroud," Macmillan: New York, 1977, pp.130-31, 136] 3. The scourging and beating of Jesus at the hands of His enemies was unusual treatment for those marked for crucifixion. We are told that Pilate hoped in vain to satisfy the mob by punishing Jesus in these other ways, but the people demanded His crucifixion, rejecting the suggestion that Jesus be set free (John 19:1-16). Therefore Jesus was both seriously beaten and crucified. This was not a common procedure. A man who was to be crucified was generally not beaten nearly to death. Yet this double punishment was inflicted on both Jesus and the man in the Shroud. In fact, some believe that the man in the Shroud eventually died from the scourging while he hung on a cross. [Sava, A., "The Holy Shroud on Trial," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.50-57] 4. One of the most unusual similarities between the two men is in the head wounds. Since the Romans were, to some extent, emperor worshipers, it is plain that they crowned Jesus with thorns to mock His claims to be the Messianic ruler or King of the Jews. But would this treatment be given to the average criminal who was to be crucified? Probably not. Yet the man in the Shroud had injuries a crown of thorns would create all over his scalp. 5. Another similarity is that both men were nailed to crosses instead of being tied to them. This is not as irregular as some of the other points, for Yohanan, the first-century crucifixion victim whose bones were discovered in 1967, was also nailed to his cross. But tying was an option. 6. The Gospel of John agrees with the Yohanan archaeological find that normal Roman crucifixion procedure involved breaking the victim's legs to hasten death. But since He was already dead, this was not done to Jesus. The man buried in the Shroud did not have broken legs. 7. Besides the crown of thorns, the piercing of Jesus' side by a Roman spear is the most intriguing parallel. Since legs were regularly broken to hasten death, lancing the victim's side would be a superfluous procedure. But while neither of the two men had broken legs, both were wounded in the chest by a spear. Furthermore, it was reported that blood and water flowed from Jesus' chest wound as are visible from the wound in the man on the Shroud. The soldiers could have done nothing when they detected that the victims were dead, or they could have struck different areas of their bodies. The fact Jesus and the man in the Shroud were similarly wounded raises the likelihood that the two men are one and the same. Moreover, the flow of blood and water would not have occurred apart from the chest wound. John's description of Jesus' death coincides with the Shroud image in that a post-death wound was inflicted, the chest area was affected, and blood and water oozed from the wound. 8. Jesus and the man in the Shroud were both given fine, individual burials in linen, not the common burials generally given to crucifixion victims. 9. Jesus was buried hastily because of the oncoming Sabbath. Therefore, the women returned with spices on Sunday morning in order to finish the burial process. There are also signs that the man in the Shroud was buried hastily .... What are the chances that two men would he crucified, receive individual burials in fine linen shrouds, and still have to be buried hastily? 10. Last, the New Testament testifies that Jesus' body did not experience corruption (Acts 2:22-32), but that He was resurrected instead. No decomposition stains are present on the Shroud. Since many of the burial garments in existence have even visible decomposition stains on them, the absence of stains on the Shroud is enigmatic, especially in light of the New Testament testimony concerning Jesus' resurrection ... These ten similar crucifixion anomalies between Jesus and the man buried in the Shroud are strong arguments for the identification of the two men." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.89-92).

"But in his thoroughness he [Vignon] turned, at the last, to one final hypothesis that would still deny the cloth's connection with Christ. Suppose, someone had suggested, that another man sometime in the course of the early centuries-some poor criminal-had been crowned with thorns, scourged, crucified and lanced in the side. Why couldn't the Shroud of Turin be his winding sheet? A marvelous coincidence? Yes. But who was to say it couldn't happen? Vignon didn't even bother to calculate the enormous odds against it. His answer was more direct and convincing-and its implications devastating. There was one essential condition, he said, for the production and retention of the imprint on the cloth: `The body would have remained in contact with the cloth for too short a time to allow of putrefaction. If corruption set in, any impression previously made would be, ipso facto, destroyed.' There was no sign of corruption on the linen." (Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.90-9).

"The FBI, said Stewart, frequently asked him to identify the race of a person by bones that agents would bring in. `But we can't go beyond broad racial stocks with so little evidence. We can say, these are from a white man, a Negro, or a Mongoloid. But you really need to see a person in life to be positive. The shroud face is that of a white man. I think we can say that. But whether he was from Palestine or Greece, I don't know. I don't think you can be that specific. You'd be challenged. People would say, `How do you know? What's your proof?' Stewart suggested that I put the question to Carlton S. Coon, one of the world's most distinguished ethnologists. A former Harvard professor and ethnology curator at the University of Pennsylvania, Coon had written books on the racial classifications of people all over the world. `He'd be the man who might be able to give you some answers.' `Here are the pictures that you asked me to return,' Coon wrote back in a week's time. `Whoever the individual represented may have been, he is of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs. The soft parts of the nose have shrunken a bit, which is simply a sign of death. I have seen the same thing in the mummies of Egyptian pharaohs. `For what it is worth, that is my opinion.' Coon's opinion was worth a great deal, especially in view of the fact that he had traveled widely throughout the Middle East, Asia, South America, and Africa. He was also the author of fifteen books in the area of anthropology, including The Origin of Races, published in 1962; and The Living Races of Man, published in 1965." (Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, pp.131,136).

"The evidence seems, then, to indicate that the man of the Shroud was very probably a Jew crucified under the Romans. This draws us to the inevitable question, Could it have been Jesus? To what extent does the image on the Shroud correspond to the crucifixion of Christ as recounted by the Gospels? Given the premise that the Shroud is from all other points of view genuine, this presents us with virtually no difficulty. ... 1. Jesus was scourged (Mt. 27:26, Mk. 15:15, Jn. 19:1). The body is literally covered with the wounds of a severe scourging. 2. Jesus was struck a blow to the face (Mt. 27:30, Mk. 15:19, Lk. 22:63, Jn. 19:3). There appear to be a severe swelling below the right eye and other superficial face wounds. 3. Jesus was crowned with thorns (Mt. 27:29, Mk. 15:17, Jn. 19:2). Bleeding from the scalp indicates that some form of barbed `cap' has been thrust upon the head. 4. Jesus had to carry a heavy cross (Jn. 19:17). Scourge wounds in the area of the shoulders appear to be blurred, as if by the chafing of some heavy burden. 5. Jesus' cross had to be carried for him, suggesting he repeatedly fell under the burden (Mt. 27:32, Mk. 15:21, Lk. 23:26). The knees appear severely damaged as if from repeated falls. 6. Jesus was crucified by nailing in hands and feet (Jn. 20:25). ... There are clear blood flows as from nail wounds in the wrists and at the feet. 7. Jesus' legs were not broken, but a spear was thrust into his side as a check that he was dead (Jn. 19:31-37). The legs are clearly not broken, and there is an elliptical wound in the right side. Of these seven stages, it is possible that stages one, two, and four through seven could have occurred in the case of any crucifixion victim. But the third stage, the crowning with thorns, is virtually signatory. ... If the Shroud itself is genuine, the case for it being actually Jesus' shroud is very strong, as even one of those most convinced of its fraudulence, the Jesuit historian Herbert Thurston, felt obliged to admit in 1903: `As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished... If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified.' [Thurston, H., "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, 1903, p.19]" (Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, pp.37-38).

"As generally agreed by most observers, the visible body on the Shroud appears to be that of a thirty-to-forty-five-year-old male, quite naked, with beard and mustache and hair falling to the shoulders. At the back of the head seems to be visible a long, loose rope of hair extending down the spine to the level of the shoulder blades. Although anthropological deductions are inevitably subjective, ethnologist Carleton S. Coon has associated the man with the very pure Semitic type found today among noble Arabs and Sephardic Jews, and certainly there are at least broad hints of Jewishness in the hair styling. The seemingly unbound rope of hair at the back of the head accords with what German biblical scholar H. Gressman has referred to as one of the commonest fashions for Jewish men in antiquity, to which French scriptural authority Daniel-Rops has supportively added the information that the Jews normally wore this `plaited and rolled up under their headgear' except on public holidays." (Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.15-16).

"After-light of the Resurrection How did the body emerge from the Shroud at the right moment, when the two figures were perfectly formed with all their precise and varied details, and before corruption began? Vignon labored at this problem on the hypothesis that some human agent had removed the sheet. In the end he surrendered and called the attention of Science to a challenge of the Shroud: `Explain if you can how this sheet was separated from the body it had enveloped.' It was those extremely precise impressions of blood that created the difficulty. Remember, this blood had already clotted on the body. It had to be partially redissolved to be impressed on the Shroud, and it is there now entirely intact and with incredible exactness. Vignon succeeded in obtaining similar transfers of clotted blood, but never any as complete or precise as those on the Shroud. It was too difficult to time the process exactly, and he could never remove the cloth without disturbing the blood, although he worked under laboratory conditions with small quantities of blood, and with small pieces of cloth of a texture specially chosen for the purpose. Now here is a fourteen foot sheet which was originally longer, and this sheet retains complete and perfect transfers of clotted blood, varied in form, much of it extensive in area, and originally located on different parts of a human body. From his own experience Vignon was convinced that no human agent could have removed the frontal half of the sheet without destroying the extreme precision of the two trickles on the back of the left hand, the streams on the forearms, the large clot on the right side, and the clots and streams on the brow and the hair. But suppose that the frontal half of the sheet had been successfully removed-there was the body still lying on the lower half, where there are the many trickles at the back of the head, the blood on the soles of the feet, and the two intertwining streams across the loins beginning and ending with a large pool of blood and serum. Lift the body off the sheet? Turn it over and lift the sheet off the body? The thing was plainly impossible if that whole array of decalcomanias of blood was to be retained intact with the precision it has on the Shroud. So there was the challenge of the Shroud to Science: `... and if in the end you must confess that it is beyond your powers to explain how my mysterious guest departed, you will still have made a great discovery.' Christians, of course, know the answer. In fact, this and other `mysteries' of the Shroud seem natural enough to those who realize what this cloth is and whose blood it bears. For them, these `mysteries' are a confirmation of the authenticity of the Shroud for the very reason that they are inexplicable unless they be a distant afterlight of the resurrection of Christ." (Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, pp.51-52).

"Therefore-and also to round out this argument-let us look at a more recent and more precise example of a calculation relative to the problem under examination; we are indebted to Paul de Gail, S.J., French, who is an engineer in industrial technology, and for more than fifty years a most assiduous scholar of the Shroud. In his book, Le Visage de Jesus-Christ et son Linceul (France-Empire, Paris 1972), he takes up, among other things, this question we have been discussing, and offers a more complete and more accurate analysis, based on only seven independent elements. In words that we have heard before, he states: `It is Jesus Christ; considering all that I can now evaluate, the possibility that it is not is equal to (or less than) 1 chance in 225 billions.' Paul de Gail's study is very interesting, also for its clearness. I present it here most willingly. 1) The Man of the Shroud had a burial sheet. Many persons, after being executed on the cross, were abandonned [sic] to birds of prey and wild beasts, or thrown into a pit. Let us admit-a very wide hypothesis-that 1 in 3 crucified persons had a regular burial with a shroud. Probability of this event: 1/3. 2) The Man of the Shroud remained a short time in the sheet, otherwise the intensity of the marks produced by the body would have become illegible [through decomposition]. To how many of the crucified was a burial sheet given, only to have it removed after such a short time? Let us say, with abundant largesse, that there was 1 in 20. Probability of this event: 1/20. 3) The Man of the Shroud separated perfectly from the Shroud, with a technic which has left the imprints of blood clots on the fabric without leaving smears or streaks of blood, as would have happened if the clots had been moist, and without flaking or impairing these clots as would have happened if they had been dry. In how many cases could this operation have succeeded? The fact is so surprising that one can reply: This could happen once in a hundred times, or in a thousand. Let us limit ourselves to 1 in 50. Probability of this event: 1/50. 4) The Man of the Shroud was fixed to the cross with nails. It seems that this type of crucifixion was reserved to special cases, but let us admit anyway, with ample leeway, that crucifixions with nails occurred 2 times out of 3. Probability of this event: 2/3. 5) On the Man of the Shroud are seen the wounds of a crown of thorns. Some cases have been cited of Christian martyrs who, for derision, were crowned with thorns to make them resemble their Master more closely. Let us suppose, though it is certainly unrealistic, that this could have happened 1 time in 1000. Probability of this event: 1/1000. 6) The Man of the Shroud was pierced by a lance in the right side. It was the custom to break the legs of the crucified, to hasten their death. The lance thrust and the unbroken legs constitute an unexpected fact, without any doubt a rare exception. Given the lack of precise historical data on this point, let us confine ourselves to admitting-with wide liberality-that this could have happened 1 time in 5. Probability of this event: 1/5. 7) The face of the Man of the Shroud is of incomparable splendor, which thousands of artistic efforts have never attained. This man, crucified, found himself among criminals; but criminals do not have this expressive mask of majesty ... When we reflect on all his sufferings and tortures, then contemplate this countenance of nobility and serenity, we can be well assured that we would not find one such face in a million. And for good reason! Nevertheless, we will be content with the modest estimate of 1 in 10,000. Probability of this event: 1/10,000. What, then, is the probability that all these 7 characteristics, these 7 independent events to which we have limited ourselves, would be found simultaneously in any victim of crucifixion? Very simple: we need only to multiply all the single probabilities. For the coin and die, we had 1/2 x 1/6, which is 1/12. Here we multiply all the respective probabilities: 1/3 x 1/20 x 1/50 x 2/3 x 1/1000 x 1/5 x 1/10,000, and the product of these is 1 in 225 billions. And in his own distinctively provocative style, our Paul de Gail concludes: `We see that if, in all history there had been 225 billion persons crucified-which is manifestly absurd!-in this astronomical assembly we have one chance, one only, to find a victim identical to the one that the Gospels, in their historicity, describe as bearing these seven characteristics'. Pere de Gail assures us that in all these calculations on the probability, he took only a few elements into consideration, not more than seven; and for each one he wanted to reduce to the minimum the evaluation favorable to the result. With a more extended and more precise evaluation, it would not be difficult to ascertain the probability, not as 1 in 225 billions, but 1 in 50,000 billions, or more. `If the slightest trace of doubt is not pulverized and destroyed by these astronomical figures, it must be, perhaps, that for certain minds, too mathematical-or not mathematical enough?-numbers have nothing to say.' And he concludes: `One word suffices: The crucified man in the Shroud of Turin is Jesus Christ himself.'" (Zeuli, T., 1984, "Jesus Christ is the Man of the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Vol. 3, No. 10, March, pp.29-33, pp.32-33).

Index to my "Bogus: Shroud of Turin?" posts

2008-11-13T22:14:00.008+09:00

I am preparing a response to a comment under one of my posts, "Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #10: The Shroud's blood and pollen closely matches the Sudarium of Oviedo's," and am about respond

[Above: Giuseppe Enrie's 1931 photographic negative of the face on the Shroud of Turin, which was a positive image, meaning that the image on the Shroud was the equivalent of a photographic negative, Shroud of Turin Facts Check]

to another, when I remembered that the first 9 parts of that series of responses to a no-doubt well-meaning (but ignorant) article, "Bogus: Shroud of Turin," The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank (which I can now only find in Google's cache), was to my CreationEvolutionDesign blog (CED), because at the time it was the only one I had.

So here on this my TheShroudofTurin blog (TSoT) is an index of my "Bogus: Shroud of Turin" posts on CED:

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #1: Why don't people go to the original source ... the Bible?
Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #2: The results of C-14 tests showed the Shroud of Turin was a medieval fake? (1)
Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #3: The results of C-14 tests showed the Shroud of Turin was a medieval fake? (2)
Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #4: The results of C-14 tests showed the Shroud of Turin was a medieval fake? (3)
Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #5: Pollen on the Shroud from plants native only to the Middle East and Turkey
Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #6: Plants on the Shroud native to in and around Israel
Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #7: Dirt on the feet of the man on the Shroud matches Jerusalem's tombs
Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #8: The bloodstains on the Shroud are real blood
Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #9: Bloodstains on the Shroud are type AB, contain DNA and are anatomically perfect

And here is my as yet one and only post in that series on TSoT:

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #10: The Shroud's blood and pollen closely matches the Sudarium of Oviedo's

I have also just remembered that I had planned to continue that series with:

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #11: Coin images minted by Pontius Pilate between AD 29 and 32 cover the eyes of the man on Shroud.

So I hope to do that in the near future. When I do, I will add future posts in that series here on this index, for completeness.

[Right: Roman lepton coin minted by Pontius Pilate 29-32 AD, Shroud Story]

As it happens, only today I was reading in an articles that I had recently received from the USA (Borkan, M., "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Winter 1995, Vol. X, No. 2, pp.18-51), about the coins in the eyes of the man in the Shroud (see `tagline' quotes).

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

"As unexpected as the generation of a 3D image by the VP-8 analysis of the Shroud ... was, another observation made at the time proved equally surprising. In a VP-8 relief made from a photograph of the Shroud face, researchers noted flat button-like objects over each eye. The characteristics of these images led the investigators to conclude that they were solid objects on top of the eyes of the man in the Shroud. In light of readings he made about Jewish burial customs, Jackson theorized that these objects were coins placed on the eyes to keep them closed in death. In 1979, the late Francis Filas reported identifying the letters UCAI and a design resembling a shepherd's crook, or lituus, in the coin area over the right anatomic eye. [Whanger and Whanger 1991:3, Whanger and Whanger 1985:767, Stevenson and Habermas 1990:66] These patterns match those of a lepton of Pontius Pilate, struck in Israel during the time of Jesus, with the exception that the Latin C is apparently a misspelling of what should have been the (identically pronounced) Greek K in KAICAROC (Caesar). Filas, however, managed to obtain a Pontius Pilate lepton with exactly this misspelling, and at least six others have been found, [Whanger in Meacham 1983 Comments, p.304] thus rendering academic any debate over the likelihood of a coin with such a misspelling being struck." (Borkan, M., "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Winter 1995, Vol. X, No. 2, pp.18-51, p.28).

"Using their overlay technique, the Whangers compared a photograph of Filas' coin with a computer-enhanced photo of the area over the right eye on the Shroud. .... They found a very close match, noting at least 74 points of congruence. In order to demonstrate that it is not the case, as one critic of the Shroud has put it, that `the alleged coin-images are artifacts of observers' hopes and beyond the limits of photo enlargements and the coarseness of the Shroud weave,' [John R. Cole in Meacham 1983 Comments, p. 296] a number of confirmatory studies have been carried out. The Whangers twice repeated their polarized overlay comparison, first with a right-left reversal of the coin, and then with a top-bottom reversal. In the first case, they observed only ten points of congruence; in the latter, they observed six. They also performed a comparison with a lepton of the Procurator Coponius (C.E. 6-9) in place of the Pontius Pilate lepton (the two coins are nearly the same size and shape,) but were able to tabulate only 11 points of congruence. [Whanger and Whanger 1985:770] A series of computer-aided studies of the Shroud image carried out by Robert Haralick of the Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory at Virginia Polytechnic and State University also supports Filas' initial observations. Image analysis revealed not only the letters UCAI but also three additional letters in their proper positions. [Haralick 1983:34]" (Borkan, 1995, p.28).

"The Whangers further noted that the coin image over the right eye `is so similar to [Filas' lepton] that the two coins must have been struck from the same die.' The pattern on the back of F'ilas' coin identifies the year in which it was struck: the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, or 29 C.E. This is also the only year in which another Pontius Pilate lepton, the Julia lepton, was struck; though the image over the left eye on the Shroud is less distinct than that over the right, the Whangers have reported 73 points of congruence between the image over the left eye and a Julia lepton. [Whanger and Whanger 1985:767, Whanger and Whanger 1991:4]" (Borkan, 1995, pp.28-29).

"Extensive debate has surrounded the discovery of coins on the eyes of the man in the Shroud. Critics have questioned both the reliability of the identification and the archaeological evidence for the practice of placing coins on the eyes of a corpse. The work of Haralick and the Whangers demonstrates that the images over the eyes on the Shroud are not anomalies in the cloth weave. In conjunction with the VP-8 analysis, this provides supportive evidence for the presence of coins on the eyes of the man in the Shroud. For several years after the initial identification of these images, the issue of archaeological justification for this discovery was hotly debated. It has become apparent in recent years that there is little archaeological support for a first-century Jewish practice of placing coins on the eyes of the deceased. [Hachlili and Killebrew 1983] However, there is neither a complete lack of support nor a strong theoretical argument against such an occasional practice." (Borkan, 1995, p.29).

Are the three Hebrew letters on the Shroud tsade-'aleph-waw: `you will come out'?

2008-11-07T07:25:00.016+09:00

See update below. Further to my Shroud of Turin News-September 2008 comments on the article, "Plant life traces on Shroud of Turin draws local interest," St.Louis Review, September 5, 2008,

[Above (click to enlarge): 3D hologram showing three Hebrew letters under the beard of the man on the Shroud: "The Shroud of Turin: The Holographic Experience," Missouri Botanical Garden]

by Jennifer Brinker, where I showed that there were major problems with Dr Petrus Soons' identification of the three Hebrew letters on the Shroud as (from right-to-left) ayin-'aleph-nun, meaning, according to him, "small cattle, sheep, sheep and goats ... lamb." Nothing I said there and say here is meant to take away from Dr Soons' very important achievement of converting the Enrie photographs into a hologram of the man on the Shroud and finding that there are three Hebrew letters on His body.

As I had further stated in my comments:

I had thought the third (left-most) letter was gimel which made a word tsade-'aleph-gimel. I had then found what I thought was that word in one of my Hebrew lexicons, and it meant, "you will come out," which may have been the very Hebrew or Aramaic word that Jesus used when He commanded Lazarus to "come out" from the tomb (Jn 11:43). But alas, on closer inspection the word in my lexicon is tsade-'aleph-waw and the left-most letter on the Shroud does not look like waw. I will keep working on this, trying to accurately identify the letters and then check to see if they spell a Hebrew word. Of course it may be that the three letters are not a word but an acronym.

However, I had not then looked at the above 3D holographic image with 3D red and green spectacles, not owning any. But after I borrowed a pair of 3D spectacles and looked through them at the 3D image above, I saw that the left-most letter does in fact look like waw, if the indistinct

[Right: tsade-'aleph-waw (from right to left)]

blob at the bottom of that letter is not part of the letter itself but the raised edge of the amulet or plaque. So I will now largely reinstate what I originally posted, but had removed, substituting waw for gimel.

After many hours looking at Dr. Soon's holographic images (albeit via the Internet and not directly as Dr Soons can), especially the 3D image above, it seems to me that the first (right-most) letter is tsade, the middle letter is definitely 'aleph and the third letter seems to be waw, i.e. tsade-'aleph-waw (from right-to-left), forming the Hebrew word tse'w.

I then found in one of my Hebrew lexicons that tse'w was an imperative imperfect plural masculine verb of the Hebrew root yatsa' (yodh-tsade-'aleph). Yatsa' in turn means "to go out, come out, exit, go forth" (Davidson, 1966, pp.638,336; Strong's Concordance 3318; Tregelles, 1949, pp.359-360; Harris, et al., 1980, pp.1:393-394). And according to R.K. Harrison's, "Teach Yourself Hebrew," 1955, p. 69, the meaning of yatsa' in the imperfect plural masculine, i.e. tse'w, would be, "you will come out." So this may well be the very Hebrew or Aramaic word that Jesus used when He commanded Lazarus to "come out" from the tomb (Jn 11:43)!

If this identification of the Hebrew letters, the word they form and its meaning is correct (and I freely admit I am far from an expert in Hebrew), then the word tse'w may have been on an amulet or plaque placed on Jesus' body by the disciples as a prayer that He would indeed "come out" of the tomb on the third day, as He had predicted (Mt 12:40; 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:63-64; Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7; Jn 2:19-21). The gospel accounts of Jesus' burial (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:45-46; Lk 23:52-53; Jn 19:38-42) do not mention this, but they are very brief. Also, the letters appear to be raised, so the amulet or plaque probably would not be something hastily made on the day of Jesus' death specifically for Him, but rather may have been a generic Jewish burial plaque, the equivalent of our R.I.P.

Whether specifically for Jesus, or generic, the very presence of Hebrew letters on the Shroud (and the middle letter is definitely and unmistakeably aleph') no European 14th century forger would have gone to the trouble of inscribing Hebrew letters onto the Shroud, which could not be seen until a 21st century hologram revealed them, even if he could do it. Remember that artists down through the centuries have faithfully copied many incomprehensible marks on the Shroud but none of them, as far as I am aware, has depicted these Hebrew letters.

All this is necessarily speculative, but the fact is that the three Hebrew letters are there on the Shroud, and therefore require explanation. If there are any other suggestions, including corrections to my self-taught Hebrew, or a plausible three-letter acronym, I would appreciate being advised of them in comments below this post.

After this was posted, I received an email from Bishop Jacob Barclay of Jerusalem, an expert in Hebrew and Aramaic, who is cited in Dr Soons' "The Shroud of Turin, The Holographic Experience," as his Aramaic language authority. Bishop Barclay confirmed that ayin-aleph-nun means "flock" not "lamb," and that the last letter is unlikely to be nun because when it is at the end of a word it has a long, straight stem. However, Bishop Barclay also confirmed that while tsade-'aleph-waw would be the second person plural masculine imperative of yatsa', i.e. "go out, come out," it would never be used in addressing one person in the masculine. Bishop Barclay hopes, as I do, that experts in Israel (I suggested the Israel Antiquities Authority), may be able to decipher the three letters and then derive their meaning, whether that be a word or an acroynym.

Update: I have been subsequently advised by Bishop Barclay that there actually is an Aramaic word ayin-'aleph-nun which means "flock" and that its Hebrew equivalent is tsade-'aleph-nun. But that does change the main facts: 1) that Aramaic word is not in the four Hebrew-Aramaic lexicons I consulted; 2) neither that Aramaic word ayin-'aleph-nun nor its Hebrew equivalent tsade-'aleph-nun means "lamb"; and 3) the last (left-most) letter is probably not nun.

The `tagline' quotes below (emphasis bold mine) are hyperlinked to inline references above.

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

"tse'w ...Kal. imp. pl. masc.; waw bef. yatsa' ... yatsa' fut. yetse', imp. tse', inf. c. tse't (§ 95. No. 2d) -I. to go out, go forth; with sin, also acc. of the place whence, with b (rarely sin) of the place through or by which. one goes out.-II. to come forth, to issue, descend, of children, posterity.-III to escape, as danger, with 'et Ecc. 7:18.-IV. to rise, as the sun, stars, &c.-V. to shoot forth, spring up, as plants; to spring forth, of water.-VI. to go forth, be issued, published, as a decree.-VII. to go out, to end, of a period of time. Hiph. hotsiy'. to cause to go, come out or forth, to lead, bring forth or out.-II. to cause to spring up, to yield, as the earth plants.-III. to cause to lay out, as money, to exact, with `al, 2 Ki. 15:20.-IV. ta spread abroad, to publish, with `al, le of the person. -V. to produce, make, Is. 54:16.-VI. to take out, to separate, Je. 15:19. Hoph. to be led, brought forth or out." (Davidson, B., 1966, "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon," Samuel Bagster & Sons: London, pp.638,336. My transliteration).

"yasa' ... go out, come out, go forth.... yasa' ... has the usual causative meaning `cause to go out, bring out, lead out.' ... The basic notion of yasa' is `to go out.' It is used literally of going out from a particular locality or from the presence of a person. It is used of nature, i.e. water out of a rock, sun rising out of the east, etc. For our purposes we shall note the following uses. First, it is used frequently of the great exodus event which forms the major focus of theological attention in the OT. The Hiphil with its causative function is used extensively. .... `I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery' (Ex 20:2). The record shows that history is theologically related, the great `going out' event was to symbolize the mighty redemption of God's people from the shackles of sin by his sovereign powerful grace. ... Throughout Israel's history, the covenanted people of God are called to remember this God-initiated redemption and to live accordingly. (Cf. Deut 6:12; 26:8; Jud 2:12; I Sam 12:8; I Kgs 8:16; Jer 11:4; Dan 9:15 ... Ps 136:11, ... 106:6-12.) ... Another theological usage of yasa' is an extension of the exodus theme. The prophets see the irremediable corruption of Israel and Judah which inevitably leads to exile but after that a return. Ezekiel ... quotes the Lord's promise of a new exodus-like redemptive activity from the exile. `As a soothing aroma I shall accept you, when I bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered' (20:41; cf. v. 34). Its true fulfillment may only come after the good shepherd `will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land' (34:13). Hence, an eschatological note of hope is introduced." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, Twelfth printing, 1992, Vol. I, pp.393-394).

"yatsa' ... TO GO OUT, TO GO FORTH .... In Syriac and Chaldee the word which radically corresponds ... to germinate, to expand, as a plant, they use in the sense of going out, when speaking of men and other things ... Specially to go out, to go forth, is used--- (a) of soldiers-(a) to war, 1 Sa. 8:20; Job 39:21; Isa. 42:12; Zechariah 14:3 (and similarly shepherds against wild beasts, 1 Sa. 17:35).-(B)out of a city in order to surrender it, Isa. 36:16.-(b) merchants and sailors for purposes of trade, Deut. 33:18.-(c) slaves manumitted by their owners, Ex. 21:3, 4, 11; Lev. 25:41, 54 ... (d) children, descendants are said to come forth from their father, or the ancestor of the race; Gen. 17:6, ... to come forth from the womb, from the loins of any one, Job 1:21 ; Gen. 46:26.-(e) those who are delivered from danger are said to come forth ... Ecc. 7:18, ... 1 Sa. 14:41 ... It is applied to inanimate things. So- (f) the sun is said to go forth, i.e. to rise, Gen. 19:23; Ps. 19: 6; the stare, Neh. 4:15; the morning, Hos. 6:5. -(g) to plants which spring forth, 1 Ki. 5:13; Isa. 11:1 ; flowers, Job 14:2... (h) water flowing, gushing forth from a fountain, Gen. 2:10 ; Deut. 8:7; ... Isa. 41:18. It is used also-(i) of a boundary, terminus, running on, running through, Josh. 15:3, 4,9,11- (k) of money which is laid out, expended, 2 Ki. 12:13. ... (l) of things which go forth to the people, are promulgated; of an edict, Hab. 1:4; of the sentence of a judge, Ps. 17:2; compare Gen. 24:50.(m) of the outgoing, i. e. the end of a period of time; Exod. 23:16, ... Ezek. 7:10; hence of the end, the destruction of a city, Eze. 26:18. ... to cause to go out, or come forth, hence of animate beings; to lead out, e. g. the people from Egypt, Ex. 12:51; 16:6; of inanimate beings, to carry out, Gen. 14:18; to draw out, to take out, Ex. 4:6,7; Job 28:11; to take out as from a case, Gen. 24:53. Specially it is (a) causat. ... to put forth plants (as the earth), Gen. 1:12, 24; Isa. 61:11.-(b) .... to cause to lay out, to exact money, followed by .., to lay on a tribute, 2 Ki. 15:20 ... (c) ... to publish a report, followed by ... of the pers. concerning whom the report is spread, Nu. 14:37; Deu. 22:14, 19; to report words, followed by ... of the pers. to whom they are brought, Neh. 6:19; to promulgate doctrine, Isa.42:1, ... ... Isa. 42:3.-(d) to produce as an artisan, Isa. 54:16.(e) to lead forth, i.e. to separate, Jer. 15:19. ... to be brought forth, to be taken out, Eze.38:8; 47:8." (Tregelles, S.P., transl., 1949, "Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids: MI, Eighth Printing, 1967, pp.359-360. My transliteration. Emphasis original).

Shroud of Turin News - September 2008

2008-11-01T22:11:00.035+09:00

Here, again belatedly, is my Shroud of Turin News for September 2008, being only two articles. The previous issue was August 2008. My comments are in bold.

[Above (click to enlarge): Hologram showing three Hebrew letters under the beard of the man on the Shroud: "The Shroud of Turin: The Holographic Experience," Missouri Botanical Garden]

Plant life traces on Shroud of Turin draws local interest, St.Louis Review, Sep 5, 2008, Jennifer Brinker ... For decades, scientists have debated the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, believed to be the burial cloth Jesus Christ. Two researchers were in St. Louis to present their findings on the shroud. The event was held at the

[Left: Dr Petrus Soons presenting his "The Shroud of Turin: The Holographic Experience" at the Missouri Botanical Garden: St. Louis Review]

Missouri Botanical Garden. Some 400 people attended. Hear also Dr Soons' presentation at the Ohio Conference (mp3).

Avinoam Danin, emeritus professor of botany at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has spent years examining images of plant life discovered on the shroud. He also has discovered additional pieces of plant life on the cloth, which has provided additional evidence to support his theory that the shroud was used somewhere in the area of Jerusalem. Dr. Petrus Soons, a

[Right: Dr. Petrus Soons (left) and Prof. Avinoam Danin stand before the Shroud of Turin: Missouri Botanical Garden]

native of the Netherlands and retired doctor, has used digital photos of the shroud to create three-dimensional holograms, which have provided new and unique views of the cloth. While neither Soons nor Danin attempted to prove that the image of the man found on the shroud indeed was that of Christ, both agreed that their research provides additional insight into the history of the cloth. Missouri Botanical Garden president Peter Raven noted to the audience: "You will walk away with a tremendous amount of food for thought." Soons said it was after an injury that he began searching for authentic images of Christ and ... he came across the Shroud of Turin ... Using photos taken of the shroud in 1931, Soons enhanced them to improve the details and translated the grayscale images into depth data. He also worked with computer expert Bernardo Galmarini to produce from those images three-dimensional holographs of the shroud. Among his findings from the images, Soons discovered an oval-shaped plaque or medallion placed at

[Left: Dr Soon's depiction of what he believes are the three Hebrew letters on the Shroud.]

the bottom of the face that displays the word "lamb" in Hebrew. To know the meaning we go to religion" and the Gospels, said Soons, a Catholic. The word lamb, he noted for example, is used just before Communion, when the priest says, "this is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." I agree that on the hologram below the beard of the man of the Shroud there are three Hebrew letters, which itself is further evidence that the Shroud is that of Jesus, because why would, or even could, a forger add three Hebrew letters to his forgery, such that they could only be detected by 21st century science?

However, there are problems with Dr Soons' claim that the letters are, from right to left (as Hebrew is) `ayin-'aleph-nun: 1. there is no such word as `ayin-'aleph-nun, in my three Hebrew / Aramaic lexicons and another I consulted; 2. While the two Hebrew / Aramaic lexicon pages Soon's shows are too blurry for me to distinguish the letters, one of them (Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English"), clearly has the Hebrew letter tsade in large print at the top of the page, indicating that the key words on that page start with tsade, not `ayin; and 3. The Hebrew word for "small cattle, sheep, sheep and goats" is another word tsade-'aleph-nun (ts'n):

"ts'n ... small cattle, sheep and goat ... flock, flocks of sheep and goats" (Davidson, 1966, p.638); "s'n ... flock, sheep. ... the generic term for `small cattle' comprised mostly of sheep and goats" (Harris, et al., 1980, p.2:749); "ts'n ... small cattle, i.e. sheep & goats" (Holladay, 1971, p.302) and "small cattle, sheep, sheep and goats, flock" (Strong's Concordance 6629); "ts'n ... flocks, small cattle, i.e. sheep and goats" (Tregelles, 1949, p.698).

But ts'n is a collective plural and (apart from Ex 12:21 which should be "flock" as per The Interlinear Bible and Young's Literal Translation), is never rendered "lamb" in the Bible, the latter having its own Hebrew word seh. I have emailed Dr Soons advising him of these problems.

I had thought the third (left-most) letter was gimel which made a word tsade-'aleph-gimel. I had then found what I thought was that word in one of my Hebrew lexicons, and it meant, "you will come out," which may have been the very Hebrew or Aramaic word that Jesus used when He commanded Lazarus to "come out" from the tomb (Jn 11:43). But alas, on closer inspection the word in my lexicon is tsade-'aleph-waw and the left-most letter on the Shroud does not look like waw. I will keep working on this, trying to accurately identify the letters and then check to see if they spell a Hebrew word. Of course it may be that the three letters are not a word but an acronym.

Dr. Soons also discovered several areas of the images in which data seemed to be missing. Those placed were marked with empty, black holes. Eventually, Soons learned of Danin and his research, and the two discovered that those places were perhaps areas that were once covered in flowers that Danin was researching.

[Left: Flower images on the Shroud discovered by Danin which are information`black holes' in Sooon's hologram]

Over the years, Danin, co-author of "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," noted he has discovered the presence of three plant species that indicate the shroud's origin was somewhere between Jerusalem and Hebron. Prof. Danin said in his talk that the three species are Gundelia tournefortii, Zygophyllum dumosum and Cistus creticus, and their distributions overlap only in the tiny area between Jerusalem and Hebron, which are only ~20 miles / ~30 kilometres apart! Eight species also have been used to determine, through flowering characteristics, that the plant life placed on the body happened somewhere during March or April. Jesus was crucified in early April (Finegan, 1964, p.296). No medieval forger would have known all this about these plants, and even if he did, why would he bother adding images of plants to the Shroud that: a) are only found together around Jerusalem; and b) flower only during the very month that Jesus was crucified! Danin said he also recently has indicated more than 300 flowers and plant parts on the head area of the shroud. Hear also Prof. Danin's presentation at the Ohio Conference (mp3).Those were discovered, he said, after studying photos of the cloth taken in the 1970s. Among the plant life identified are the Matricaria and Anthemis, two genera of the sunflower family. He also said he discovered plants from the Carduus genus of thistles, and pieces of the shrub Rhamnus lycioides - both potential evidence of a crown or helmet of thorns. This fits with Jn 19:40, "Taking Jesus' body, the two of them [Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus] wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen" where "spices" is Gk. aromaton, i.e. aromatics, and includes "flowers, perfumes, etc" (Robertson, 1932, p.307).

Shroud Of Turin Is Fake, Mindanao Examiner, Philippines - September 9, 2008. The image of a man on the Shroud of Turin,

[Right: A bas-relief `duplicate' of the Shroud, by Paul-Eric Blanrue and Patrick Shepherd,"A false Shroud of Turin carried out in five minutes" Science et Vie, June 2005. Its gross inferiority to the Shroud face (see below) is obvious.]

believed by many Christians as the so-called Jesus Christ, their god, turned out to be a fake. This is old news that keeps getting recycled, having been published in 2005, e.g.: "Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake," PhysOrg.com, "Shroud of Turin 'a fake'," News24 and "Turin Shroud 'confirmed as fake'," NEWS.com.au ... In 2005, a French magazine said ... it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religion's holiest relic, was a fake. I have been unable to find a picture of this claimed duplicate of the Shroud, unless the above is it. A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue. .... Drawing on a method previously used by skeptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, Science & Vie got an artist to do a bas-relief -- a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background -- of a Christ-like face. First this was just a face. Not a full-length body, front and back. A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face. There is nothing knew in this. As this translated French pro-Shroud web page critique points out, "But the technique has been developed in the 80s by Walter McCrone, an American chemist." But even Shroud anti-authenticity proponents Picknett and Prince point out that McCrone's iron oxide on linen bas-relief `Shroud' face, even though "he got an artist, Walter Sanford,

[Above (click to enlarge): Negatives of McCrone's bas-relief (left) and the Shroud (right) compared: Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," 2000, pp.120-121]

to produce it, was "nowhere near the quality of the original" (Picknett & Prince, 2006, pp.74-75). Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ. This is false unless the image had all the major features of the Shroud. And as the above French translated web page noted: "This is not a 3D image and the image of the Shroud is in 3D" (see further below). Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood. The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide. This was McCrone's method, to duplicate the work of a hypothetical "mediaeval artist" who supposedly "created the Shroud by simply painting its image onto the cloth using iron-oxide pigments in a gelatin binding medium" (Wilson, 1998, p.9). But:

"Because of the [1532] fire that the Shroud had been exposed to, there must have been a temperature gradient .... The binders most often used were egg white, gelatin, milk products, and oil. Any of these would have changed color along the line of the heat gradient. But the Shroud showed no color change of this kind ..." (Heller, 1983, pp.85-86).

The experiments, said Science & Vie, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth. For one thing, the Shroud's defenders argue, photographic negatives and scanners show that the image could only have derived from a three-dimensional object, given the width of the face, the prominent cheekbones and nose. In addition, they say, there are no signs of any brushmarks. And, they argue, no pigments could have endured centuries of exposure to heat, light and smoke. This is correct, but the bas-relief method uses a "pigment," yet there is none on the Shroud, i.e. that comprises its image. For Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital, southern France, who carried out the experiments, the mediaeval forger must have also used a bas-relief, a sculpture or cadaver to get the 3-D imprint. Costanza did not use a "cadaver" but only a "bas-relief," so to save space I will ignore the problems of using a cadaver to duplicate the Shroud.

Some of the major problems with using a bas-relief or sculpture to duplicate the Shroud are: 1) there is no powder or pigment comprising the image as there would be if a bas-relief or sculpture was used (Antonacci, 2000, pp.73-74; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.122); 2) bas-relief `shrouds' do not reproduce the real Shroud's 3D, superficial and non-directional properties (Picknett & Prince, 2006, pp.76-77; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.109-110; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.122); 3) the bas-relief technique was unknown in the 14th century (Meacham, 2005, p.47; Picknett & Prince, 2006, pp.76-77; Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.122); 4) the bas relief would be a the real great masterpiece of art and it should still exist (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.109-110); 5) there would be many Shrouds mass-produced from the same bas-relief (Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.109-110); 6) the anatomical accuracy of the Shroud's wounds and blood flows have never been duplicated in bas-relief carving or sculpture (Meacham, 2005, p.47).

The faker used a cloth rather than a brush to make the marks, and used gelatine to keep the rusty blood-like images permanently fixed and bright for selling in the booming market for religious relics. The bloodstains on the Shroud are not "blood-like images". They are stains of real blood:

"... the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!" (Heller, 1983, pp.215-216).

To test his hypothesis, di Costanzo used ferric oxide, but no gelatine, to make other imprints, but the marks all disappeared when the cloth was washed or exposed to the test chemicals. And see above that there is no "gelatine" or "ferric oxide" on the Shroud. He also daubed the bas-relief with an ammoniac compound designed to represent human sweat and also with cream of aloe, a plant that was used as an embalming aid by Jews at the time of Christ. He then placed the cloth over it for 36 hours -- the approximate time that Christ was buried before rising again -- but this time, there was not a single mark on it. So, Far from proving the Shroud is a fake, Costanzo has helped confirm it is genuine, as every failed attempt at duplicating the Shroud has inadvertently done! "It's obviously easier to make a fake shroud than a real one," Science & Vie report drily. So even Science & Vie does not regard Costanzo's `Shroud' as "a real one" but just another "fake"! ...

The quotes below (emphasis bold mine) are hyperlinked to references above.

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

"Joe Nickell, a former stage magician and amateur detective, has experimented with a proposed technique of image encoding. Nickell's technique involved conforming wet linen to a bas-relief while impressing all the relief's features onto the cloth. After the cloth dried, he used a cotton dauber covered with cloth to rub powdered pigment onto the impressions left on the linen. The results obtained by such a technique ... show what happened when STURP members tested Nickell's theory. As is evident in the VP-8 photograph, Nickell's powder-rubbing method does not produce a true three-dimensional image. A powdered bas-relief technique would involve the application of a substance to the Shroud. As discussed earlier, all the extensive scientific examinations of the cloth indicate that no powdered particles or foreign materials of any kind have been added to the body-image fibrils that could account for the coloring-and therefore visibility-of the image. Specifically, magnified photographs of the body image threads do not reveal any sort of applied particles or staining substance. The `natural experiment,' arising from the fire of 1532, also disproves Nickell's theory, as it did the painting theory. Nickell promulgates that the powdered pigments used were iron oxide, myrrh, or aloes. Yet if organic substances such as these had been used to encode the Shroud image, they would have been altered or decomposed during the fire, depending on their distance from the hottest areas of the cloth. However, no such alteration in the body image can be found on the Shroud when those image areas nearer the burn marks are compared to those areas farther away." (Antonacci, M. , 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.73-74).

"ts'n ... com. dec. 1 a, collect.-I. small cattle, sheep and goat. - II. flock, flocks of sheep and goats ; metaph. of a people. tso'n idem, Ps. 144:13 ... " (Davidson, B., 1966, "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon," Samuel Bagster & Sons: London, p.638).

"The Johannine requirement of having Nisan 14 fall on a Friday (and Nisan 15 on a Saturday) can be satisfied in A.D. 30 under (1) and in A.D. 33 under (1), both of which years seem to be well within the range of likelihood. Astronomically calculated, therefore, the likely dates for the crucifixion of Jesus appear to be either Friday Apr 7, A.D. 30, or Friday Apr 3, A.D. 33. Therewith, in terms of the standard Jewish calendar, the representation of the day in the Fourth Gospel appears to be confirmed." (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, p.296).

"Assumed root of the following. 1864a ... so'n flock, sheep. (ASV and RSV very similar.) so'n is the generic term for `small cattle' comprised mostly of sheep and goats, but the emphasis in the word is on sheep (cf. Gen 38:17; I Sam 25:2)." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, Twelfth printing, 1992, Vol. II, p.749).

"Because of the [1532] fire that the Shroud had been exposed to, there must have been a temperature gradient, from the hottest portion, where the molten silver burned holes through the folds of fabric, through the area of scorch, to that portion of the linen which was relatively unaffected. The gradient of temperature, Rogers had calculated, went from about 900?C to well below 200?C. If an inorganic color had been used on the Shroud, it would have had a binder of some type to make the color stick to the fabric. The binders most often used were egg white, gelatin, milk products, and oil. Any of these would have changed color along the line of the heat gradient. But the Shroud showed no color change of this kind, as evidenced by the color photographs that were available. Organic or biological colors could be ruled out by the same reasoning, for anything organic would have changed in hue; it would be darker, lighter, discolored. But there was no evidence of this kind of change, which seemed to rule out the use of any familiar coloring agent." (Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.85-86).

"Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone's claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ocher and vermilion. Adler flashed on the screen the following table from our paper. Table 5 Tests confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud 1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence 2. Indicative reflection spectra 3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra 4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence 5. Positive hemochromogen tests 6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests 7. Positive detection of bile pigments 8. Positive demonstration of protein 9. Positive indication of albumin 10. Protease tests, leaving no residue 11. Positive immunological test for human albumin 12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls 13. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks Then, after explaining each item briefly, Al said, `That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!'" (Heller, 1983, pp.215-216).

"ts'n (273 X) sf. ... Ne 10:37 ... Ps 144:13; f.: coll. small cattle, i.e. sheep & goats Gn 4:2; sheep only 1S 25:2; males only (thus m.) Gn 30:40; bene so'n individual animals Ps 114:4; metaph. = Isr. 2S 24:17." (Holladay, W.L. , 1971, "A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based upon the Lexical work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, p.302. My transliteration).

"In addition to the four unprecedented features described above, there is no rubbing from the entire medieval period that is even remotely comparable to the Shroud, nor is there any negative painting. Nickell's wet-mold-dry-daub technique was not known in medieval times, according to art historian Husband (cited in Sox 1981:88), and even that technique fails to reproduce the contour precision and three-dimensional effect, the lack of saturation points, and the resolution of the Shroud image. The bas-relief used would have been far more accurate than any example of 14th century wood carving or sculpture known; even later carvings by 15th / 16th century masters of bas-relief do not have the fine detail of wounds and postures which would translate into the undistorted three-dimensional projections of Tamburelli, confirmed as accurate anatomically by the forensic pathologist Zugibe (1982:169-76). Similarly, even the blood flows painted in the greatest 14th century works of art are not at all comparable to those on the Shroud." (Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.47).

"His [McCrone's] final conclusion was that the samples contained a pigment known as Venetian red, which was made by grinding iron oxide into a powder. He claimed that this alone was responsible for the Shroud image. The ground pigment would have been mixed with a liquid medium for application; his chemical tests revealed the presence of a protein, collagen, that he interpreted as being just that medium. To reinforce these observations, he got an artist, Walter Sanford, to reproduce the Shroud face using the same materials, with tolerably good results, although nowhere near the quality of the original. ... The dispute between McCrone and the rest of STURP turns on two questions: the origin of the particles of iron oxide on the threads and whether or not they were responsible for the creation of the image. .... It was not the presence of iron oxide that was disputed by the STURP scientists ... but rather McCrone's belief that it actually created the image that led to their disagreement. So they tested it without resort to microscopy to see if it was present in sufficient quantities to account for the image. X-ray fluorescence scans during the 1978 tests had revealed traces of iron, but there was no detectable difference in its density between the image and the nonimage areas-although there was more in the bloodstains. Several suggestions were made to account for the iron oxide; it could have come from the blood, spreading across the cloth due to years of folding and rolling. On the other hand, it could have been a byproduct of the manufacture of the linen itself (probably the most plausible explanation), or it could have been due to atmospheric contamination. In view of these objections, STURP declined to include McCrone's two papers in its final report." (Picknett, L. & Prince, C. , 2006, "The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History," [1994], Touchstone: New York NY, Second edition, Reprinted, 2007, pp.74-75).

"Nickell soaked a cloth in hot water and then pressed it over a bas-relief statue. When dry, the cloth was fitted closely over the statue's contours. He then rubbed the cloth with powdered pigment .... He claimed that the result is an image that looks very like that of Shroudman. It has a similar negative effect but no three-dimensional quality. It must be said that Nickell's results, like those produced by Walter Sanford under McCrone's direction ... are nowhere near as impressive as the Shroud, even though both attempts were produced by modern artists deliberately trying to create a negative image. Although they were much more familiar with negatives than any medieval artist would have been, the hypothetical early hoaxer managed to outdo them. Nickell's suggestion has been criticized for being too convoluted for any putative medieval artist and as having no parallel in art of that period. ... Although they do reproduce some of the characteristics of the Shroud image, neither McCrone's nor Nickell's method-nor that of any other technique yet suggested-is satisfactory, and both researchers have been forced to deny or belittle the significance of some of the Shroud's features, such as the negative effect." (Picknett & Prince, 2006, pp.76-77).

"[Jn 19:]40. In linen cloths (othoniois). Late diminutive for the old othone, used for ships' sails, in N.T. here and Luke 24:12. Case here either locative or instrumental. With the spices (meta ton aromaton). Late word aroma for spices, from fumes. To bury (entaphiazein). Late verb, from entaphia (en, taphos) the burial preparations of all sorts (flowers, perfumes, etc.), in N.T. only here and Matt. 26:12." (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.307).

"An artist who was good enough to create an image as impressive as the Shroud's would surely have made many copies of it. Shroud copies of this level of artistry would have demanded a king's ransom. Where is the statue or the bas-relief that the artist used? It would have graced the finest cathedral and become a famous image in its own right. And, to repeat a point made before, this artist would have had to have forged an image that, would not have been appreciated for hundreds of years after his death, until the invention of photography and other modern analytical techniques. The basic fact remains: neither Joe Nickell nor any other artist or forger has ever created an image showing all the characteristics of the image of the man of the Shroud. For example, none of them are three-dimensional, superficial, or non-directional." (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.109-110).

"One other well-publicized set of attempts to show how the image may have been faked came from artist Joe Nickell. His chief example involved applying a dry powder mixture of myrrh and aloes to a damp cloth which had been carefully fitted around a bas-relief face. The result is also an image of the face, created by the powder, which, to an untrained eye, resembles the face on the Shroud. [Nickell, J., "The Turin Shroud: Fake? Fact? Photograph?," Popular Photography, November 1979, pp.99,147] ... The absence of powder on the Shroud and the disproving of any artistic process by both chemical and physical testing wielded death blows to Nickell's theories. Also, Nickell's models failed the 3-D test and were badly distorted when checked by the VP-8 image analyzer, as pointed out by John Jackson. Problems with shading and the fact that Nickell's model is not superficial (despite his claims to the contrary) led to the assessment that it was `unacceptable.' [Jackson, J., in Murphy, C., "Shreds of Evidence," Harper's, November 1981, pp.42-65, p.55] Heller likewise listed as a major failure of both bas-reliefs and block prints the fact that they do not reproduce a 3-D image, as the Shroud does. He also pointed out that no such bas-reliefs or artistic method existed in medieval times. [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 1983, p.208]" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R. , 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.122).

"ts'n for ts'on; as Psa. 144:13 ... a collect. noun, flocks, small cattle, i.e. sheep and goats ... Gen. 4:2; 26:14; 29:2; and very frequently. Opp. to baqar herds, which 699 see, Gen. 27:9; Levit. 1:10; 22:21 (compare 19); rarely used only of sheep, 1 Sam. 25:2. To this collective (which is also used with numerals) corresponds the noun of unity seh a sheep, or goat. Exod. 21:37, `if any one steal a sheep (seh), he shall restore four sheep' ('arba' tso'n); Eze. 45:15. Note. As to gender, it is joined with a masc., where it means rams and he-goats. Gen. 30:39 ... `and the rams (and he-goats) rutted;' with a .fem., where it means ewes and she-goats; ibid., ... `and the sheep brought forth;' but, Gen. 31:10, it is joined, like epicoene nouns, with a masc., although it means ewes." (Tregelles, S.P., transl., 1949, "Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids: MI, Eighth Printing, 1967, pp.698-699. My transliteration).

"The Chicago microanalyst Dr Walter McCrone, for instance, had been vigorously maintaining from the early 1980s that a mediaeval artist created the Shroud by simply painting its image onto the cloth using iron-oxide pigments in a gelatin binding medium. According to him, this artist's so successful production of the negative was just a lucky chance deriving from his deliberately painting in reverse of positive tones.." (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.9).