The Shroud of Turin: Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-christ-s-evidence-of-the-resurrection

Could the Shroud be a forgery ?
Required Knowledge for a Medieval Forger to Create the Shroud of Turin and the Probability of Its Forgery
Is the man on the shroud Jesus ?
Images of the Shroud
Videos about the Shroud
Age of the shroud of turin
The 1988 Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud
How was the image made ?
Is the Body Image Formed by Pigment Substances?[/url
Shroud, new study: there is blood of a man tortured and killed
Pre 13th century history of the Shroud
Giulio Ricci: The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud
Jesus agony and death on the cross
The sudarium from oviedo
How can you explain the existence of other revered shrouds aside from the one in Turin?
THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE
Isn’t the Shroud a violation of the commandment that forbids making a graven image?
Botanical evidence on the Shroud of Turin
Barrie Schwortz testimony
Is it a painting ?
The Shroud is an ancient textile
Was Jesus wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, or, as John reports, tied by strips of linen in company with the spices?
The blood on the Shroud of Turin
Apocryphal  gospels mentioning the Shroud of Turin
Are the mandylion and the Shroud the same artifact?
The Image of Edessa
Shroud Expositions
Overview of the Infographic panels
Panel 1 Intro and history
Panel 2 History of the Shroud
Panel 3 6th. to 14th. century of the Shroud
Panel 4 Secondo Pia's 1898 discovery
Panel 5 3d information on the Shroud
Panel 6 STURP and Radiocarbon dating
Panel 7 The Shroud, a forgery? 
Panel 8 How was the image made?
Panel 9  THE FLAGELLATION
Panel 10 HEAD WOUNDS, AND THE CROWN OF THORNS
Panel 11 TOWARDS CALVARY
Panel 12 GOLGOTHA/CALVARY
Panel 13 THE CRUCIFIXION
Panel 14 THE DEATH
Panel 15 THE BURIAL
Panel 16 THE RESURRECTION
Panel 17 The Linen
Panel 18 The Blood
Panel 19: Pollen, Limestone, and micro traces
Panel 20 BOUGHT, PURCHASED, RANSOMED & REDEEMED
Panel 21 SOME RENDERINGS

The shroud is the greatest proof of God s love for mankind.

Updated challenge: 
https://www.whocanhebe.com/The_Challenge_2024.html?fbclid=IwAR04PeheZROQT9UaIc0-yTyLRl1xdMrXGozCF3vq4Segh4dhR8jwxxYPAOc

Who Can He Be? The Challenge to Replicate the Shroud

$1 Million Challenge to British Museum Now Expanded to USA

No response from British Museum to David Rolfe’s 2022 Challenge The Shroud of Turin is a mysterious 14 ft. long linen burial cloth bearing an unexplained bloodstained image of a crucified man that millions believe is the biblically-mentioned linen that wrapped Jesus in the tomb. Consequently, the Shroud is the world's most studied and revered artifact.

David Rolfe’s $1 Million Challenge to replicate the Shroud — first announced in his 2022 film Who Can He Be? — is now expanded to the USA. Rolfe’s Challenge is rooted in 1988 when the British Museum supervised a carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin. Then, with much fanfare, on Oct. 13, 1988, the Museum announced the Shroud as a fake produced between 1260 and 1390. In 2022 Rolfe’s 2022 Challenge received global media attention.

The British Museum’s press conference that announced the result of the Turin Shroud carbon-14 dating test in 1988

Immediately, scientists worldwide criticized their methodology, which compromised the accuracy of the Museum’s conclusions. Furthermore, the Museum refused to release the raw data until 2017, when the results were re-examined and their dates found to be unreliable. Click HERE for more details about the British Museum’s 1988 carbon-14 dating.

From 8th February 2024, any person, organisation, or institution in America can apply to undertake the $1 Million Dollar Challenge to create the image of a crucified man that appears on the linen Shroud. READ PRESS RELEASE HERE!

The winning copy of the Shroud of Turin must comply with established measurable criteria based on extensive modern analysis. IMPORTANT: Entries must not show the prominent linear burn marks from the well-documented 1532 fire in Chambery, France. These distinctive marks post-date the existing known and unquestioned minimum age of the Shroud, which is 1356 in Lirey, France.

Below is the list of known and verified characteristics of the image that must be reproduced.

Depth of colour penetration is equal to 0.2 micrometer, which corresponds to the thickness of the primary cell wall of the linen fiber. The cellulose of the medulla is colorless. There must be a half-tone effect, where the shading of the image is due to the areal density of the fibers that each have the same color, i.e., the same RGB value. This variation should be such that when rendered as a 3D profile based on the intensity of the shading, should produce an accurately contoured 3D image of a human form. The fibers are uniformly colored round their cylindrical surface. The front and back images of the body must show the same color intensity. There must be no visible trace of any paint, ink, dye, stain, or pigments. Contestants must match both the pattern of bloodstains seen on the Shroud of Turin, and the composition of blood, including hemoglobin, bilirubin, immunoglobulin, and albumin. In addition, the largest blood stains should exhibit surrounding areas of ultraviolet fluorescence as noted on the Shroud. When light and shade are reversed as in a photographic negative, the image must appear as a realistic and anatomically accurate representation of a body. Contestants must be able to replicate the above 7 features simultaneously in a single full-size front/back image, that is, with the same size and shape as the front/back figures of the Shroud of Turin using only materials and methods available to an alleged medieval forger.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13773733/Shroud-Turin-analysis-study-Medieval-forgery.html?


Shroud images in High Resolution:
https://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml

https://shroudphotos.com/gallery/

What is the Shroud of Yeshua? 

The Shroud of Turin serves as a tangible, empirical link that corroborates the accounts of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as described in the Gospels. 

The Shroud of Jesus presents an image that captures a pivotal moment, the most important event in human history: the resurrection of Christ. It acts as a physical validation of the narratives found in the New Testament, underscoring the veracity of the teachings and prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments concerning the Messiah. This remarkable relic is a divine testament, providing tangible evidence of Gods power. It is also the receipt of the unfathomably high price paid through the sacrifice made by Christ, shedding his blood on the cross for our sins. Those who investigate and study it will find undeniable evidence that strengthens their faith, alleviates uncertainties, dispels any doubts, and brings hope, joy, and peace into their hearts. We are not alone. The sentiment it evokes affirms the belief that we have a benevolent, loving creator, that has a plan individually for each of us, that extends into all eternity. We are created by Him, to live with Him and to be a part of His family. The purpose of our existence is simple and elegant: To love God, to love others, and to be loved by Him.

The facial features of the man on the shroud, while indistinct, convey a sense of nobility, Lordship, peace, serenity, and solemnity. The eyes are closed, giving an impression of peace or repose.

The Shroud, commonly called the Shroud of Turin is a piece of linen cloth that bears the image of a man who has been crucified. It is a rectangular linen cloth measuring approximately 14.3 feet by 3.7 feet and is kept in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. There is powerful evidence the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, that bears his actual image. The image on the shroud appears as a negative image ( like a negative of a photograph)  and has most likely been formed by the imprint of the body that had been wrapped in the cloth after death.  The Gospels do describe the burial of Jesus in a linen cloth, which is reference to the shroud. The Gospels describe Joseph of Arimathea taking Jesus' body, wrapping it in a clean linen cloth, and placing it in his own tomb (Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53). The Gospel of John also mentions the burial cloth, stating that Nicodemus helped Joseph of Arimathea prepare Jesus' body for burial by bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes. They took Jesus' body, and wrapped it in linen cloths with the spices, according to Jewish burial customs (John 19:38-40). Scientists have inferred that a burst of 34 thousand billion Watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.

The Shroud of Turin: Empirical Exploration into Jesus' Historical and Scriptural Identity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxb-ffdfV7U

Join on Facebook: The Shroud of Turin Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1251518529110294

Shroud of Turin, a forgery? Responding to the critics regarding the most common objections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZmIfQf1dM

21 Infographic Panels PDFs for Shroud of Turin Expositions
https://mega.nz/folder/xi4g1LLA#qXtqMYIWw7WoqeRWPpE_Qw

The infographic panels can be downloaded here in various languages:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yUUQfz_CGQejruIJwOKMMX8xNluAhPjL?usp=sharing


Powerpoint presentation about the Shroud of Turin
https://ln5.sync.com/dl/2982b4640/jwaj6sie-sp3f5d6t-5prunxdz-eh9qvaeu

Following is an extended PowerPoint presentation of the Shroud of Turin, and the Sudarium of Oviedo with over 200 slides: 
https://ln5.sync.com/dl/2d4f2c640/88v63847-5aiq8cbs-4t2jqqf4-kq8friup

You can use the following video in your evangelism. Please share with friends, church, colleagues, family:
The message of salvation through Jesus Christ. Images based on the Shroud of Turin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1PmTmigN24

For more information: 
The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-christ-s-evidence-of-the-resurrection

Scientists make a startling discovery after analyzing cloth 'Jesus was buried in'
Scientists have long been studying the Shroud of Turin with hopes of solving the centuries-old mystery. More than 170 peer-reviewed academic papers have been published about the mysterious linen since the 1980s, with many concluding it to be genuine. 

For the new study, scientists at Italy's Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council conducted a recent study using wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS). The technique measures the natural aging of flax cellulose and converts it to time since manufacture. The team studied eight small samples of fabric from the Shroud of Turin, putting them under an X-ray to uncover tiny details of the linen's structure and cellulose patterns. Cellulose is made up of long chains of sugar molecules linked together that break over time, showing how long a garment or cloth has been around.

To date the shroud, the team used specific aging parameters, including temperature and humidity, which cause significant breakdown of cellulose.
Based on the amount of breakdown, the team determined that the shroud of Turin was likely kept at temperatures at about 72.5 degrees Fahrenheit and a relative humidity of around 55 percent for about 13 centuries before it arrived in Europe. If it had been kept in different conditions, the aging would be different.  Researchers then compared the cellulose breakdown in the shroud to other linens found in Israel that date back to the first century. 'The data profiles were fully compatible with analogous measurements obtained on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55-74 AD, found at Masada, Israel [Herod's famous fortress built on a limestone bedrock overlooking the Dead Sea],' reads the study published in the journal Heritage:
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13758359/scientists-discovery-jesus-cloth-buried-shroud-turin.html

Atheist who set out to prove the Shroud of Turin was fake reveals why he's now 'convinced' it's the cloth Jesus was buried in
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13762095/atheist-shroud-turin-jesus-cloth-documentary.html?

New blood analysis of the Shroud of Turin 'supports Biblical story about Jesus' crucifixion'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13765919/shroud-turin-jesus-cloth-confirms-biblical-story.html

Is this the real face of Jesus? AI unveils image based on the Turin Shroud - as scientists claim to have new evidence the cloth was used to wrap the body of Christ after his crucifixion
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13768175/AI-face-Jesus-Turin-Shroud.html

Shroud Academy
Our aim is not only to share information here. We aim to share it worldwide. So we have created Shroud Academy.  https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61554932893751
At Shroud Academy, our mission extends beyond simply sharing information. We have a global vision to spread awareness about the Shroud of Turin, even in regions where the Christian faith is predominant but knowledge of the Shroud remains limited. Through our efforts, we aim to bridge this gap by reaching out to people worldwide. We have assembled a community of over 20 leading Sindonologists and Shroud scholars who actively engage in discussions and participate in Zoom meetings. Our collective goal is to organize seminars and educational events across different locations, bringing the knowledge of the Shroud to communities that have yet to discover its significance. Currently, we conduct these seminars through online Zoom meetings, allowing individuals from various parts of the world to participate. If you are interested in joining us and actively contributing to the dissemination of this valuable knowledge, please feel free to get in touch with me via email at otangelograsso@gmail.com or through Facebook Messenger. I will be delighted to send you an invitation to join our community and be part of our mission.
If you are interested in expanding your knowledge about the Shroud of Turin, I suggest exploring my books available on Amazon. These books delve into various aspects of the Shroud, offering in-depth insights and analysis. By reading these books, you can gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. To access my books, simply access this link:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=otangelo+grasso&i=stripbooks-intl-ship&crid=ONDNAADGTKQ5&sprefix=ota%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C1512&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

Happy reading and deepening your knowledge of the Shroud of Turin!

Why promote the Shroud of Turin? 

That's a story worth sharing: " I used to say, no no I think it's not authentic, but.. But then a wise man told me this, he said :
Do you have an experience that happened to you personally that totally convinces you of Jesus Christ?
I said - Yes I do, in fact, I've got a huge reason to believe in Christ, He lifted me out of the pit people get thrown into when they go to hell.
So I cannot deny Him, not just because of the Scripture and miracles I've heard, but because I've been where people don't come back from, and He helped me in that dept of darkness, He saved me beyond the point of no return, so I know.
Then, the Apostle said to me -
Okay, that's great and God doesn't mind if some people call you crazy for your story because you know and God knows you were there and you need no more convincing.
I said - Yes.
So he said - In the same manner, God doesn't mind if the shroud of Turin convinces people of Jesus Christ, because for them to believe in Christ and be saved is far more important than whether you think the shroud is authentic or not.
grimacing:Then I realized my error and changed my stance on such things.
Whether it ge the shroud, or a tree in Gethsemane or any other artifact that convinces people of Christ, as long as they believe, that's what God wants."

First of all, the aim of making the Shroud of Turin known is not to induce anyone to worship a linen cloth. I, for instance, worship the risen Lord, in truth and spirit. But the Shroud is a tremendous tool for apologetics. Many today doubt that Jesus Christ is a historical figure. More than ever, skeptics and unbelievers claim that Jesus was invented in the first century, for whatever reasons. Others claim, that the gospel is embellished accounts of a first-century preacher, and the miracles claimed are later additions, traditions, and myths. Others, like Muslims, claim, that God cannot die. That Jesus, therefore, was not God, and that it was not Jesus, that died on the cross, but someone else.

With the Shroud of Turin, we have material, empirical evidence, that confirms the authenticity of the Gospels, and the truthfulness of the eyewitness accounts, which reported what they experienced and saw, in the gospels. On the other hand, the biblical narratives related to the passion and death of Jesus confirm the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud of Turin provides evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ and refutes the claim that he did not die on the cross. The shroud bears the image of a man who appears to have suffered the same kind of wounds as Jesus did during his crucifixion, including the crown of thorns and the spear wound in his side. The image also shows bloodstains and other physical details that match the biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion.

Giulio Fanti, Shroud expert: The Shroud has been called the fifth Gospel. If we compare the Shroud, Gospels, and Bible in general, we find so many correspondences that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to think that this man was not Jesus described in the Gospels. Some people say, 'Yes, but who knew the Bible could have reproduced this image?' Apart from the fact that this image cannot be reproduced, it was even more difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce all these things. This is because we have additional information about the Shroud that complements what is written in the Gospels. This is why Berliner declared it the fifth scientific Gospel. For example, on the Shroud, we see the signs of a small whip, and here I have reproduced the various signs of the whip.

For those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Shroud of Turin holds immense significance. It is a tangible link to his physical presence on earth. The Shroud of Turin is a piece of history that has been studied for centuries. It is believed to date back to the first century and therefore, provides a window into the historical context of Jesus' life and death. The Shroud of Turin has been the subject of scientific research for decades, with researchers attempting to determine its age and authenticity. This research has led to discoveries about the shroud, such as the presence of pollen and the image of a crucified man.

The Shroud being authentic, then man did not make the image—God did. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD [YHVH] thy God am a jealous God . . . (Exod. 20:5‐6 KJV, emphasis added). Exodus 20:5‐6 explains that the prohibition against graven images applied to making images for idolatrous worship. If it were not for this Hebrew doublet clarification, then all images would be prohibited (including all photographs, paintings, statues, etc. of anything in heaven above, the earth beneath, or in the ocean).

Kenneth Stevenson, the co-author of The ‘Shroud and the Controversy’, who was a member of STURP as an engineer and the founder of ‘Everlasting Covenant Ministries’, observed that: ‘in over a decade of lecturing on the Shroud, I have found no episode of image worship or idolatry. On the other hand, countless numbers have written to me to proclaim that they have come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus through the story of the Shroud.’

John D. German, an agnostic and member of STURP said: ‘Strong Christians say, ‘I don’t need the Shroud for my faith.’ Some evangelical Christians get angry when I present this: ‘What are you showing me this for? I don’t need this’. They may not. I did. There are people like me who question a lot of things – whose minds get in the way of their hearts, I guess – and need this kind of thing to help them understand.’

His statement highlights how individuals with a questioning and analytical mindset might seek physical or empirical evidence to aid their understanding of faith-related matters.

While the Bible does not need confirmation and the true Christian does not need proof for his faith, the Shroud nevertheless enriches and strengthens that faith. Also, while miracles are not central to the Christian faith, they enhance faith and devotion.

In our study of the Shroud, belief in Christianity works as a visual aid, like the microscope and telescope that enables us to see what others cannot. However, I believe that Miracle in the Shroud is directed more to unbelievers and indifferent Christians who need an extraordinary jolt to open their eyes and touch their hearts and know the reality of Jesus Christ his divine power. The mysteriousness of the image in the shroud is an invitation to unbelievers to know about Jesus. The miracle in the shroud will prove to unbelievers that Jesus is truly God. Unbelievers with open minds will see in shrouds snapshot of Jesus' tiny drop in his power divinity intellect will compel them to ponder his miracle shrouds seek more knowledge about Jesus.

By discovering proof of resurrection shrouds experience the truth of reality event almost like Thomas touching wounds Jesus' death revealed shrouds also means death ends existence gives a message to us that death just transforms a higher level of existence and tells us to wait for eternal life.

If you don’t believe this is Jesus’ Shroud that’s fine by me, BUT the Shroud is the most accurate representation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that you will ever see! Note these WORDS:
John 3:16 (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So if you think it’s a fake…. It’s STILL the most accurate representation of the wounds described in the Gospels

If you believe it’s a deception it STILL REVEALS EXACTLY WHAT CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD!!
If you believe it’s an idol….it STILL DEMONSTRATES THE LOVE OF ALMIGHTY GOD BETTER THAN ANY “MAN-MADE IMAGE”

Jesus died so that YOU can live eternally…don’t miss out on GOD’S PROMISE:
2 Corinthians 9:15-15 (KJV) Thanks [be] unto God for his unspeakable gift.

Philip McNair, in Jennings, Peter (ed.) Face to Face with the Turin Shroud. (Great Wakering, Essex: Mayhew-McCrimmon Ltd), 1978, pg. 40.
QUOTATION: As a Christian I must declare my belief that the truth of Christianity does not require such signs as the Turin Shroud, for its proof is the living witness of the Spirit of God in all who receive Jesus Christ as Saviour, Lord and God; but perhaps from time to time we fallible human beings need such demonstrations of a reality which transcends our powers of explanation to jolt us out of our complacency of our agnosticism and confirm our faith. Lord, I believe: help thou mine belief!

The Shroud of Turin: A Sign of the Resurrection for Future Generations

Matthew 12:39-40: A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This Sign of Jonah refers directly to Christ's resurrection after three days in the tomb. The resurrection, in Christian theology, is the most crucial sign of Christ's divinity and mission as the Messiah. However, while Jesus often avoided giving superficial or miraculous signs to appease crowds, He provided one ultimate sign: His death and resurrection.

The Shroud as a Sign

1. Physical Evidence of the Resurrection: The Shroud of Turin, is a tangible sign pointing to the resurrection. While Jesus’ resurrection was a supernatural event that left the tomb empty, the Shroud offers a physical trace of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. The bloodstains, injuries consistent with crucifixion, and the lack of decomposition align with the Gospel accounts and support the unique claim of Christ's resurrection before bodily decay (Acts 2:31).

2. The Connection to the Sign of Jonah: Just as Jonah’s ordeal symbolized death and deliverance, the Shroud represents the moment between death and resurrection. Its possible preservation through the centuries symbolizes the lasting impact and presence of Jesus' sacrifice and victory over death, a perpetual reminder of the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise.

3. Theological Implications of a Physical Sign: While Jesus spoke of His resurrection as the ultimate sign, in His wisdom, God  allowed the Shroud to remain as further confirmation for future generations. For a world increasingly focused on empirical evidence, the Shroud serves as a bridge between faith and physical evidence. It doesn't replace faith but complements it, offering a sign that encourages belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

4. A Reflection of the Paschal Mystery: The Shroud encapsulates the mystery of the Passion — the suffering (as seen in the wounds and blood marks), death (the burial cloth), and resurrection (the absence of decomposition and miraculous image). For us believers, this is a visible reflection of the Paschal Mystery, where the suffering of Jesus leads to victory over sin and death.

Jesus’ Intent in Providing the Shroud

While Jesus did not explicitly mention a physical relic, like the Shroud, He certainly understood human nature and the need for signs. In His wisdom, He left the greatest sign—His resurrection—and the Shroud, being part of God's plan to leave a physical testimony to complement the scriptural testimony.

The Shroud itself may not have been left for immediate contemporaries of Jesus to see and verify, but it serves as a "sign for future generations, who, like Thomas (John 20:24-29), may struggle with doubt and look for tangible evidence to reinforce faith. Thomas, after touching Jesus' wounds, believed in the resurrection. Similarly, the Shroud, with its physical depiction of crucifixion wounds,  invites faith in those who come after the first witnesses of the resurrection.

Thus, the Shroud of Turin, with its enigmatic image, is a profound sign that reaffirms the central Christian belief in the resurrection, just as Jesus foretold. Its scientific mysteries that serve to continually point back to the ultimate sign of the resurrection, urging believers and skeptics alike to consider the deeper truth of Christ’s victory over death.


https://shroudphotos.com/

It was stated in the renowned journal Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, “The Shroud of Turin is the single, most studied artifact in human history” (page 200).
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/109/2/j92cur.pdf

If the Shroud of Turinis a forgery, show how it was done, and grasp your $1million dollar prize
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GfYMJT45MY&t=10s

The $1m challenge: ‘If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done’:  David Rolfe, a film-maker whose documentary The Silent Witness had brought the shroud into the public eye in modern times, and who had converted to Christianity as a result of his research – wasn’t prepared to give up on it. He was convinced the carbon dating, carried out in 1988 under the direction of the British Museum and Oxford University, had been flawed. And now he claims he has the evidence to prove it. This week sees the release of a new film, Who Can He Be?, in which Rolfe argues that, far from the shroud being a definite dud, new discoveries in the past few years have again opened the question of its authenticity. So convinced is Rolfe that he’s issuing a challenge worth $1m to the British Museum. “If … they believe the shroud is a medieval forgery, I call on them to repeat the exercise, and create something similar today,” he says. “Because from all the evidence I’ve seen, if this is a forgery it’s the most ingenious forgery in history – and of course it dates back almost 2,000 years, to a time of far less sophisticated forgery techniques. “They said it was knocked up by a medieval conman, and I say: well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. And if you can, there’s a $1m donation for your funds.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/17/the-1m-challenge-if-the-turin-shroud-is-a-forgery-show-how-it-was-done

The Most Significant Post-1960s Journal Articles on the Shroud of Turin -- a Bibliography
https://www.academia.edu/81579972/The_Most_Significant_Post_1960s_Journal_Articles_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin_a_Bibliography

A medieval artist or artists, would need to be proficient enough in over a 100 disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests performed on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.

https://www.academia.edu/81353305/The_Plethora_of_Disciplines_Used_to_Study_the_Shroud_of_Turin

The following passages collectively describe at least three distinct items used in the burial:

The Shroud: This is a large piece of cloth that envelops the entire body. In the case of Jesus, it's described as a clean, linen shroud. This shroud is the primary focus in most of the passages, particularly in Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and Luke 23:53.

The Sudarium or Facecloth: This is a separate piece of cloth, specifically used to cover the face of the deceased. In John 20:7, it's noted that this cloth was found folded up in a place by itself, separate from the other linens. The sudarium was a common part of Jewish burial practices, used to cover the face of the deceased, possibly out of respect or to fulfill specific religious customs.

Strips of Linen: These are mentioned in John 19:40, where it's said that the body of Jesus was bound in linen cloths with spices, as per Jewish burial customs. These strips of linen were likely used to wrap around the body, possibly to hold the shroud in place and to contain the burial spices that were traditional in Jewish burials of the time.

These references provide an insight into the complexity and ritualistic nature of burial customs in ancient Judaism. The use of multiple cloths – each with a specific purpose – reflects a deep respect for the deceased and adherence to religious traditions.

Bible References To The Burial Shroud Of Jesus
1. Matthew 27:59
And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud
2. Mark 15:46
And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.
3. Luke 23:53
Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid.
4. John 19:40
So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.
5. John 20:5
And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
6. John 20:6
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there,
7. John 20:7
and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.


The biblical narratives related to the passion and death of Jesus confirm the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. And the Shroud of Turin confirms the authenticity of the Gospels.
So  25 multi-disciplinary tests of the STURP team are simply dismissed, in favor of a highly debated Carbon C14 test for which there are excellent reasons to believe that it was invalid?

In the British Society for the Turin Shroud (BSTS) newsletter, Ian Wilson wrote an obituary for Teddy Hall. Hall, known for his contribution to the Shroud of Turin's radiocarbon dating through his team at Oxford, is remembered for his remark, "someone just got a piece of linen, faked it up and flogged it," following the conclusion that the Shroud dated between 1260-1390. This comment reflects Hall's perspective on the Shroud's authenticity, suggesting that his protocols for radiocarbon dating were specifically tailored to this artifact.



A Summary of STURP's Conclusions
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

There is a rich pre-13th century history of the Shroud, which is further evidence that the Radiocarbon dating from 1988 is inaccurate.

Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin's Appearance in France in the Mid-1350s
https://www.academia.edu/75771585/Documented_References_to_the_Burial_Linens_of_Jesus_Prior_to_the_Shroud_of_Turins_Appearance_in_France_in_the_Mid_1350

The Most Notable Figures in Shroud of Turin Research of the 20th and 21st Centuries
https://www.academia.edu/54701856/The_Most_Notable_Figures_in_Shroud_of_Turin_Research_of_the_20th_and_21st_Centuries

SHROUD ILLUSTRATED IN PRAY MANUSCRIPT FROM 1192
In the Budapest National Library is the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, or Pray Codex, the oldest surviving text of the Hungarian language.  It was written between 1192 and 1195 AD (65 years before the earliest Carbon-14 date in the 1988 tests).  One of its illustrations shows preparations for the burial of Christ.  The picture includes a burial cloth with the same herringbone weave as the Shroud, plus 4 holes near one of the edges.  The holes form an "L" shape.  This odd pattern of holes is found on the Shroud of Turin.

Liberato De Caro X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample 11 April 2022
The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47/htm

Was the Shroud’s First-Century Origin Really Debunked?
https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/culture/was-the-shrouds-first-century-origin-really-debunked/?fbclid=IwAR1Wl3zd4-3hQg-1WxAEnNAgx25DTgtDDlybRygZ2n8deiC2C21gAKN642g

https://www.facebook.com/paulbryhanson/videos/408821377878823/

BOUGHT, PURCHASED, RANSOMED & REDEEMED
For you were BOUGHT at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 6:20
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He PURCHASED with His own blood.
Acts 20:28
"...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a RANSOM for many."
Matthew 20:28
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a RANSOM for all, to be testified in due time,
1 Timothy 2:5-6
knowing that you were not REDEEMED with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
1 Peter 1:18-19
These are all terms used to describe a financial transaction.
When you complete a transaction at the store the cashier gives you a piece of paper that describes the details of the price paid
It's called a 'receipt'.

• The Shroud – a linen cloth – οθονιον -(othonion) though the word is used in the plural, the word “strips” is not used – that is supplied by translations like the NIV. An equally valid translation would be ” they bound him in linen”) ([url=https://biblia.com/bible/niv/John 19.40]John 19:40[/url]) This would parallel the plural use of the word in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Bible) in places like [url=https://biblia.com/bible/niv/Hos 2.5]Hos 2.5[/url] and [url=https://biblia.com/bible/niv/Hos 2.9]2.9[/url] where “strips” is not used:  “my wool and my linen” [url=https://biblia.com/bible/niv/Hos 2.5]Hos 2.5[/url]. This usage  assumes the use of the binding clothes below (though in John they are not specifically mentioned in Jesus’ burial, but they are for that of Lazarus).
  

• The Head wrapping (σουδαριον – soudarion) – this is the piece John indicates was lying separately ([url=https://biblia.com/bible/niv/John 20.7]John 20.7[/url]) from the οθονιον – notice the word “strips” is not used here either – even in the NIV- it’s simply “linen”. (NIV)
  

• The Wrapping clothes (κειρια – keiria) – The apostle John doesn’t mention these in the account of Jesus – using the verb “to bind” instead of “to wrap”, but as the CMI article points out, in the account of Lazarus, the apostle John uses this word (κειρια – keiria) – indicating Lazarus was bound in these wrapping clothes. According to [url=https://biblia.com/bible/niv/John 19.40]John 19.40[/url], Jesus was “bound” in the “linen” according to the “custom” of the Jews so it is reasonable to surmise that the (κειρια – keiria) clothes were also use to bind the body of Jesus.
  

Shroud of Turin DEBATE: Otangelo v. David P. Neff  Jun 9, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GepgplNXQvY&t=694s

Is it Jesus?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyCKit3ALt0

The Shroud of Turin - The Evidence of Authenticity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5NEY0NkPrw

A Grave Injustice
https://vimeo.com/326801807

The Shroud of Turin: Proof of Authenticity Beyond Reasonable Doubt (1 of 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJymwctqo-A

The Shroud of Turin 1988 Carbon Dating: Triumph or Travesty? (2 of 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBDuKZSgDSI

The Shroud and the jew: Barrie Schwortz at TEDx ViadellaConciliazione
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4sj8hUVaY

Is the Shroud of Turin a forgery? With Barrie Schwortz - member of the STURP team
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHHmiFbsxbw&t=3159s


The face of the man, Jesus, has a calmness and peace, and nobility that is incredible when one sees what has been done to Him.

One common claim of atheists is that 'there is NO evidence of the historical Jesus'' Because ALL the Bible and ancient writings of Jesus could be written by anyone and were written by so many people, years after the events, which could easily be made up.

The shroud provides to the lost world the forensic facts and evidence of the horror of Jesus going to the cross. The Shroud bears the ultimate triumph of the Resurrection of Jesus (Yeshua) meaning Salvation. All this is recorded supernaturally on The Shroud of Turin, which proves the Holy Bible to be forensically accurate and perfectly reliable in every possible way.

By virtue of their substance and form, physical objects require no faith whatsoever. They can be observed, examined, touched, and even smelled. -- This is the very opposite of "faith." Thomas was not commended or blessed because he had "seen" Jesus after the resurrection, but those who believe WITHOUT SEEING ARE! (John 20:29)

The Shroud of Turin is NOT A FORGERY FROM THE 14th century, as following amazing evidence will demonstrate. It is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man,  which based on overwhelming evidence points to be Jesus of Nazareth and the fabric is the burial shroud in which he was wrapped after the crucifixion.

The attributes of the image it's this:

- it's superficial penetrates only the top two microfibers is no directionality such as with brushstrokes
- there's no outline to the image
- is no cementing of fibers as with paint
- it's uniform and intensity top to bottom front to back you think you need a piece of technology to do that
- there are no variations in density as with known artworks every artist gets a little bit more they're a little bit less there
- there's no evidence of that there are no particles between the threads such as some kind of a dust rubbing
- there's no capillary action no evidence that any liquids were applied to the image to bring forth or to the image area
- there's no paint binder present nothing to bind any pigment to the cloth
- it's a negative image with distance information encoded into it
- it's blood from the actual wound it's a AB+ blood with human DNA and
- there's no image under the blood now

1. The blood strains can only be seen with UV light. Why would an artist ever put blood which would not be visible? The presence of a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering from strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these nanoparticles points a violent death.
2. There is pollen from Jerusalem, Palestine, and Edessa. Pollen is on the Shroud that is unique to the area around Jerusalem.  In 1973, Swiss criminologist Max Frei, a botanist by training, identified spores from forty-nine plants in samples taken from the Shroud.  Thirty-three of them came from plants that grow only in Palestine, the southern steppes of Turkey, and the area of Istanbul. 
3. Limestone from Jerusalem In 1982, Dr. Joseph Kohlbeck, a Scientist, compared dirt from the Shroud to travertine aragonite limestone found in ancient Jewish tombs in Israel. The particles of dirt on the Shroud matched limestone found in the tombs.’
4. Image on the outermost layer The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers and the image goes just two or three fibers deep into the thread. The superficial image then disappears if a colored thread goes under another thread. The polysaccharide cover is approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) the inner side is not.
5. The image is a photonegative Secondo Pia's first photograph in 1898 showed that the image on the cloth is a negative. The front and back (dorsal) images of the crucified man are negative images and contain 3D or topographical information content related to the distance of the cloth from the body. There are no pigments whatsoever on the Shroud. If it were a forgery, with high certainty, it would have been painted. Who of the lay population would have perceived it ?
6. Correct anatomy of the nails The place where the nails are in the hands is anatomically correct. Two nails are through one foot, but only one of the nails is through the other foot.  This allows one foot to rotate, so that the victim can push up and down on the cross in order to breathe during the crucifixion.  If the victim of crucifixion is not pushing up and down, then it is clear that he is dead.  The soldiers had no doubt that Jesus was dead. All paintings of the Middle Ages showed the nails through the center of the palms, but nails through the palms do not support sufficient weight since there is no bone structure above this location. 
7. Age of the shroud 
In 2013, a research team from the University of Padua conducted three tests on tiny fibers extracted from the shroud during earlier carbon-14 dating tests conducted in 1988 The first two tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy, respectively, while the third employed a test analyzing different mechanical parameters relating to voltage. The results date the cloth to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D.. Fanti said that researchers also found trace elements of soil "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem." "For me the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity.
8. Linen is from the first century Stitching used to sew on the 3-inch wide side piece onto the main Shroud is nearly identical to that found at Masada which was destroyed in 73-74 AD. The size of the Shroud being very close to 2 by 8 cubits - the ancient unit of measurement
9. Scourge marks from the Roman flagrum The Shroud shows 100 to 120 scourge marks from two Roman flagrum, one striking from each side, with dumbbell shaped weights on the ends of the straps.  The blood marks from these wounds show blood serum rings (visible only under UV) around the dried blood exudate. There are abrasions on both shoulders evidently caused by the victim carrying a heavy rough object.
10. Side wound from Roman Spear The side of the front image on the Shroud shows a 2 inch wide elliptical wound - the size of a typical Roman spear. The blood running down his arms is at the correct angles for a crucifixion victim.  Two angles for the blood flow can be seen on his arms.  These two angles are consistent with the crucifixion victim shifting between two positions while on the cross in order to breath.

IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN A FORGERY?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7128

The Cumulative Probability of the Shroud of Turin's Authenticity

The Shroud of Turin's authenticity can be evaluated through various features and scientific analyses, and odds calculations ( The odds estimates for each point individually are a guess ) Here are key points supporting its authenticity and connection to Jesus:

[1] Pollen granules (1 in 10) and soil samples (1 in 20) from Jerusalem suggest the Shroud's Middle Eastern origin. Rare limestone particles (1 in 50) match stones in ancient Jerusalem tombs.
[2] The Vignon markings, which are distinctive features shared between Byzantine Christ icons (Pantocrator) and the Shroud of Turin image, provide a remarkable visual and historical link. These markings include 15 oddities, such as the topless square between the brows, that appear on the Shroud and are repeated in Byzantine depictions of Christ from as early as the 5th century. The odds that Byzantine artists consistently reproduced these markings without access to the Shroud are extraordinarily low. Given the unique features of the Shroud and their repetition in Byzantine art, estimating the odds that these depictions of Christ, especially in the Pantocrator image, were created independently of the Shroud could be on the order of:

Odds Calculation for the Pantocrator Icon: Assuming 15 Vignon markings, each with a 1 in 20 chance: (1/20)^15 = 1 / 3.05 × 10^19
Odds Calculation for Byzantine Solidus Coins: Assuming 10 Vignon markings, each with a 1 in 20 chance: (1/20)^10 = 1 / 1.024 × 10^13

Pantocrator Icon: 1 in 3.05 × 10^19. Byzantine Solidus Coins: 1 in 1.024 × 10^13

These probabilities represent the chance of these images independently displaying the specific Vignon markings without influence from the Shroud of Turin. The Pantocrator icon, with more Vignon markings, shows a significantly lower probability compared to the solidus coins. Both results still suggest a very low likelihood of these images occurring by chance without influence from the Shroud.

[3] De Caro's X-ray scattering analysis points to a 1st-century origin, vastly increasing the likelihood of authenticity.
[4] High levels of creatinine in the blood  suggest severe trauma consistent with crucifixion. The bloodstains correspond accurately to crucifixion wounds.
[5] The Sudarium of Oviedo, with a verified history to the 6th century, matches the Shroud's bloodstain patterns and blood type.
[6] Scientific analysis shows no paint or pigment , ruling out medieval forgery techniques. The weave pattern and thread manufacturing are consistent with ancient linen production methods.
[7] The absence of body decomposition aligns with the biblical narrative of the resurrection.
[8] Additional features specific to Jesus' crucifixion include: crown of thorns (1 in 400), nailed to the cross (1 in 2), unbroken legs (1 in 3), side wound from a Roman spear (1 in 27), fine linen burial shroud (1 in 8 ), and hasty burial (1 in 8 ).

To calculate the odds that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic based on the given information, we'll multiply the probabilities of each independent piece of evidence occurring by chance. We'll use the inverse of the provided odds where applicable.

1. Middle Eastern origin: Pollen: 1/10 Soil: 1/20 Limestone: 1/50 Combined: 1/10 * 1/20 * 1/50 = 1/10,000
2. Byzantine art connection: We'll use the more conservative estimate from the solidus coins:   1/1.024 × 10^13
3. X-ray scattering analysis: Not quantified, so we'll omit this.
4. Blood analysis: Not quantified, so we'll omit this.
5. Sudarium of Oviedo match: Not quantified, so we'll omit this.
6. Lack of paint/pigment and ancient linen production: Not quantified, so we'll omit this.
7. Absence of decomposition: Not quantified, so we'll omit this.
8. Specific crucifixion features: Crown of thorns: 1/400 Nailed to cross: 1/2 Unbroken legs: 1/3 Side wound: 1/27 Fine linen shroud: 1/8 Hasty burial: 1/8 Combined: 1/400 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/27 * 1/8 * 1/8 = 1/4,147,200

Now, let's multiply these probabilities:
(1/10,000) * (1/1.024 × 10^13) * (1/4,147,200) = 1 / (4.2466 × 10^23)

Therefore, the calculated odds that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic, based on the provided information, are approximately: 1 in 4.25 × 10^23.  This means the odds are roughly 1 in 10 followed by 23 zeros, 1 to 10^23, or more precisely, 1 in 10 raised to the power of 23.63.

To match the 1 in 4.25 × 10^23 odds, you'd need to win about 3 lotteries at once, each with 1 in 100 million odds.

This extremely low probability suggests that it is highly unlikely for all these features to align by chance, supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. However, this calculation doesn't include all possible factors and assumes independence of events, which may not be entirely accurate in reality. The extremely low calculated probability of 1 in 4.25 × 10^23 strongly suggests the Shroud of Turin's authenticity. However, this number should be interpreted cautiously due to several factors: 1. Omission of some unquantified evidence 2. Assumption of event independence, which may not be fully accurate 3. Potential biases in probability estimates 4. Focus solely on supporting evidence 5. Simplification of complex historical and scientific factors. While these limitations mean the actual odds are likely less extreme than calculated, they would still be very low. Even accounting for these factors, the probability of all the Shroud's features aligning by chance remains extremely small, providing robust support for its authenticity. The key takeaway is that while the exact numerical odds are subject to uncertainty, the overall conclusion of likely authenticity remains well-supported by the available evidence.




If you believe the Shroud is a fake, then you must explain how: "Whoever fabricated it before 1353AD must have:

1. know the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century;
2. be proficient enough in over 100 scientific disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.
3. possessed the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon;
4. utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since;
5. be able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity that would not be discovered for centuries;
6. imported a piece of old cloth of Middle Eastern manufacture;
7. used a coloring agent which would be unaffected by intense heat;
8. be able to incorporate in his work details (that have only recently been discovered), that the human eye cannot see and that are visible only with the most advanced computer-scanning devices;
9. be able to reproduce flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted 3-D characteristics of a human body in a 'negative format' on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the 'blood' as positive and soaking all the way through.
10. Get somewhere the blood of a tortured man, and apply it before creating the image.
11. Create the Sudarium of Oviedo with all the intricacies that match the Shroud of Turin
12. Get limestone from Jerusalem, and pollen particles from the middle east, in special from plants with thorns, that flourish only between March and april

All of this had to have been done prior to 1353, for since that date the Shroud has a clearly documented and uninterrupted history. And even now, with all the scientific and technical skills at our command, our scientists and artists cannot duplicate the Shroud,"






The distortion argument is commonly used by skeptics of the Shroud of Turin to claim that the image must be a forgery. The idea is that when cloth is draped over a three-dimensional object, such as a face, the resulting image should display significant distortions, especially if it were painted or imprinted by direct contact with the body. This would lead to features like stretched or misshapen ears, noses, and other parts of the face, as depicted in the image you've shared. However,  the lack of expected distortions supports the idea that the image was formed by a unique process—likely some form of non-contact radiation or energy release. The image could have been created by ultraviolet (UV) radiation emitted in a perpendicular direction from the body.

1. **Perpendicular Radiation Hypothesis**  
The theory suggests that instead of the image forming from direct contact between the body and the cloth, it was caused by a burst of energy—possibly UV or vacuum UV (VUV) radiation—emitted perpendicularly from the body. This energy transfer would have been uniform and consistent across the entire surface of the body, allowing the image to be projected onto the cloth in a way that preserved the proportions of the body without distortion, as though the cloth were “hovering” slightly above the body.

2. **Avoiding Distortion through Radiation**  
If the image had been produced by direct contact (as in a traditional painting or by pressing the cloth against a body), the curvature of the face and body would have caused the features to be distorted when transferred onto a flat surface. However, by using a mechanism such as perpendicular radiation, the image would avoid this issue, as the radiation would travel in straight lines from the body’s surface to the cloth, avoiding the wrapping effect.

3. **Scientific Investigations into UV Radiation**  
Studies conducted by various researchers, including scientists at Italy's ENEA (National Agency for New Technologies, Energy, and Sustainable Economic Development), have demonstrated that high-energy ultraviolet lasers can create images on linen with similar characteristics to those seen on the Shroud. Their experiments revealed that only intense bursts of VUV radiation—far beyond what could be achieved with medieval technology—could reproduce certain qualities of the Shroud, such as the superficial coloration of the image that only penetrates the topmost fibers of the cloth.

4. **Absence of Directional Brush Strokes or Pigments**  
One of the strongest arguments against the Shroud being a painting is the absence of any brush strokes, pigments, or dyes typically found in medieval artwork. This further supports the idea that the image was not manually applied but was created by some other process, potentially involving radiation.

5. **Three-Dimensional Properties of the Image**  
Another interesting aspect of the Shroud’s image is its three-dimensional quality. When analyzed using VP-8 image analyzers, the Shroud’s image exhibits height or depth information, something not present in conventional two-dimensional paintings. This suggests that the image was encoded in such a way that it reflects spatial data from the body, which again points to an energy-based process.

6. **The Nature of Vacuum Ultraviolet Radiation (VUV)**  
VUV is a form of ultraviolet radiation with a wavelength shorter than the conventional UV range. This type of radiation could explain why the image is superficial, only affecting the outermost layer of fibers, and why no underlying pigments or materials are found beneath the surface. Additionally, the VUV radiation could have been intense enough to project the image without the need for physical contact, thereby reducing or eliminating any distortion caused by cloth curvature.

Conclusion  
The absence of distortions in the Shroud’s image, which should be expected if the image were a simple contact imprint, is a significant argument in favor of the hypothesis that the image was formed by a unique, energy-based process, possibly involving VUV radiation. While the exact nature of this radiation remains speculative, the fact that modern science can replicate certain qualities of the Shroud using UV lasers supports the idea that something far more advanced than medieval forgeries was at play in its creation.




Considerable efforts have been made to demonstrate that the Shroud is a fraud. The investigations to reproduce the Shroud of Turin only demonstrate that the best efforts do not suffice to come even close to the image of the original. The results are far away from the original, very poor, and can be easily identified as made by an artist. Copies have been made that look like it but they lack all of the image characteristics that make the shroud image unique. Science cannot explain nor replicate the image..the closest we have come to replicating it (allegedly) is by bombarding linen samples with VUV Excimer Lasers.

How was the image made?
1. It's not a painting  If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes.
2. The entire image is very superficial in nature, Around 20 - 30 microns in-depth is approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) only on the uppermost surface of the fibrils, the inner side is not, thus it could not have been formed by chemicals, The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers.
3. It's not a photograph: Secondo Pia's photograph showed that the image on the cloth is a negative: dark where it should be bright.
4. It was not made by a natural chemical process It has been confirmed that the image is the result of oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the fibers of the shroud themselves. It is like the imaged areas on the shroud suddenly rapidly aged compared to the rest of the shroud. The image on the shroud is the only one of its kind in this world, and there are no known methods that can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological, or medical circumstances explain the image adequately (S.T.U.R.P's conclusion)
5. The image was not produced by vapors from chemicals or vapors from the corpse itself. Vapors from chemicals, or from the corpse itself, do not explain how the image is present on parts of the body where the cloth clearly did not touch the body (i.e. areas on either side of Christ’s projected nose).
6.  A burst of 34 thousand billion Watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” We currently do not know of any natural cause for a human corpse producing ultraviolet radiation like this. A very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color the linen fabric. The total power of the VUV radiation required for instantly color the surface of a linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to the corporate body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts



" I’ve been involved in the invention of many complicated visual processes and I can tell you that no one could have faked that image. "

Leo Vala,  well-known London photographer and self-professed agnostic, 1967 was involved in the creation of three-dimensional photographs of the Shroud of Turin and he made an offer to donate proceeds from the public sale of his photographs to a Shroud investigation fund



In the fifties of the last century, LEO VALA, a professional photographer in London, did the first 3-dimensional experiments with the image on the Shroud of Turin. Vala employed a process that he called the Transflex Process of front projection. Using two positives of the 1931 Shroud photographs of the head, made by Giuseppe Enrie, and then projecting them on a bed of clay, using two projectors to create the matrix for a sculpture. After that he could sculpt the head. The result was quite stunning and showed the complete face image with lots of detail.
https://shroud3d.com/introduction/3d-studies-of-the-shroud-of-turin-history/



7TH APRIL 1967 Proceeds from the public sale of what Knightsbridge photographer Leo Vala claims to be a profile of Christ are to be donated to a Shroud investigation fund under which a photographic unit may be set up to make further studies of the Shroud in Turin. Mr. Vala made his offer to Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, V.C. who first obtained pictures of the Holy Shroud from which Vala produced his three-dimensional photographs. "I hope in this way to make some financial contribution towards helping to further the over-all investigation. Meanwhile I shall continue with my own photographic studies In a determined effort to establish how this remarkable image was formed."


If the Shroud of Turinis a forgery, show how it was done, and grasp your $1million dollar prize
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GfYMJT45MY

Is the Shroud of Turin a fraud? Refuting the most common objections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZmIfQf1dM&t=21s

A good collection of the most common objections:

The Shroud of Turin Burial cloth of Jesus or cheap fake?
http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html

A medieval artist or artists, would need to be proficient enough in over a 100 disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests performed on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.

The Plethora of Disciplines Used to Study the Shroud of Turin
https://www.academia.edu/81353305/The_Plethora_of_Disciplines_Used_to_Study_the_Shroud_of_Turin

Key points why the Shroud is not a forgery:

1. We have good evidence that the Shroud existed prior to 1260, the earliest dating of the carbon C14 test from 1988. The Hungarian Pray Manuscript, or Codex, is dated 1192-95. The Codex was compiled at the ancient Benedictine monastery in Hungary. Two pen and ink drawings on one page of the Codex document the existence of the Shroud in 1192. The upper drawing is a depiction of Jesus' body being prepared for burial. Correspondences between the Pray Codex and the Shroud include 1. Jesus is nude; 2. His hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right over left (as it appears on the Shroud), covering His genitals; 3. No thumbs are visible on Jesus' hands; 4. His hands and fingers are unnaturally long; 5. Jesus is about to be wrapped in a double body-length shroud and 6. Red marks on Jesus' scalp and forehead are in the same position as the bloodstains (including the "reversed 3") on the Shroud. In the lower drawing, an angel is showing three women disciples of Jesus' empty tomb symbolised by a sarcophagus with an open lid. Correspondences between this lower drawing and the Shroud include: 7. The sarcophagus lid has a herringbone weave pattern; 8. Red zigzags match the inverted V-shaped blood trickles down the Shroud man's arms and 9. L-shaped patterns of tiny circles in the herringbone weave of the sarcophagus lid match the `poker holes' on the Shroud. It is inconceivable that all these detailed links with the Shroud, several of which are found nowhere else, could have occurred on a single manuscript page by chance.

2. Christ Pantocrator, St Catherine's monastery, Sinai Dated c. 550, is nearly perfectly congruent to the Shroud-face, for example, the high right eyebrow, the hollow right cheek, and the garment neckline. Using his polarized image overlay technique, Dr Alan Whanger found over 200 points of congruence between this icon and the Shroud. Even creases and wrinkles on the Shroud cloth have been rendered by the artist. Flower images in the halo around the head (nimbus) of this icon are found at the same locations on the Shroud. The artist has even rendered the xray images of the Shroud man's teeth as chapped lips! This means that this icon must have been copied directly from the Mandylion/Shroud in the mid-sixth century and so, once again, refutes the radiocarbon dating's 14th-century date of the Shroud.

3. In the Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain, is a linen cloth called the Sudarium Christi, or the Face Cloth of Christ. The Sudarium Christi has a well-documented history.  One source traces the cloth back as far as 570 AD. According to Jewish custom, blood lost while a person was alive was not as important as blood lost after a person dies, when the death was violent. Any blood or bodily fluid which came after death had to be buried with the body, so it had to be recovered. Blood Type: The blood type of the shroud - namely AB blood - matches the blood type of the Sudarium. Dr. Alan Whanger performed Polarized Image Overlay Technology which revealed seventy points of congruence between the blood stains on the Shroud as compared to the Oviedo head cloth on the front of the head, and fifty points of congruence between the blood marks on the back of the head. There is deposit of dirt on the nose area bearing a large excess of calcium and low concentrations of strontium. This discovery matches the previous discovery of dirt on the nose of the Turin Shroud.

4. Bloodstains on the forehead of the man on the shroud, including the "reversed `3'", which perfectly show the distinction between arterial and venous blood, were discovered by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603) in 1593. So the unknown medieval or earlier forger of the Shroud would have discovered the circulation of blood, at least ~238 years before Cesalpino!

5. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. There are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.  It's not a painting.  If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes. The entire image is very superficial in nature, Around 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) only on the uppermost surface of the fibrils.   A burst of 34 thousand billion Watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” We currently do not know of any natural cause for a human corpse producing ultraviolet radiation like this. A very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color the linen fabric. The total power of the VUV radiation required for instantly color the surface of a linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to the corporate body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts. 

6. Botanist A. Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem determined the origin of the Shroud based on a comprehensive analysis of pollen taken from the Shroud and plant images associated with the Shroud. The most frequent pollen on the Shroud is identical to the most frequent pollen in sediments of the lake of Gennesaret sedimentary layers of two thousand years ago.  Danin's analysis suggests that flowers and other plant materials were placed on the Shroud of Turin, leaving pollen grains and imprints of plants and flowers on the linen cloth. 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. Frei was able to identify 49 species of plants, the pollen of which is represented in the dust of the Shroud. From the list of these plants it can be deduced that half of them do not grow in Europe, while it is present in the Middle East; in the other half, there are many Mediterranean plants. The first sampling on the Shroud On November 23, 1973, with the consent of the competent authorities, Frei took some dust samples from the Shroud’s margins using adhesive tapes. 

7. The yarn used to weave the Shroud of Turin is of very high quality, evenly spun, and it has been woven into an unusual, fancy weave for the time, called 3 to 1 herringbone twill.  There are no examples of herringbone twill weave from France up to and including the fourteenth century. The yarn was bleached before weaving rather than after the cloth was taken from the loom. This is a significant clue to the age of the cloth because medieval European linen was field bleached, a process that eliminates banding. The measurements of the Shroud are approximately 8 x 2 of the Assyrian standard cubit.  Such conformity to an exact 8 by 2 cubits is yet another piece of knowledge difficult to imagine of any medieval forger. A medieval artist/forger would be most unlikely to know the length of the standard cubit of Jesus' day, as this was only discovered by archaeologists in the 19th century!! Textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, revealed that the stitching of a seam on the Shroud that runs the entire length known as the side strip is typical of Jewish burial shrouds found in Masada, Israel.



Joe Marino: The Plethora of Disciplines Used to Study the Shroud of Turin Published 2022
https://www.academia.edu/81353305/The_Plethora_of_Disciplines_Used_to_Study_the_Shroud_of_Turin?fbclid=IwAR0XzA0P1zhyBZODDyMFT25_wW8eHjbxXL2VxyUgF81-seMTTOeSQJemF9M



What the Forger in the middle age would have needed to know

1. How to create image that is completely inverted (perfect negative)
2. The pathologic details of death by Roman crucifixion including
3. Flagra markings and dimensions
4. Blood Present on Cloth Before the Image
5. High blood bilirubin content indicative of trauma victim
6. Nail in wrist center causes thumb adduction
7. Lancea spear dimensions
8. Nails at appropriate sites
9. Specific goniometry of blood flow patterns from wrist
10. Post mortem pooling of blood
11. Distinct blood stains over cap of skull suggestive of “cap of thorns”

1. The Shroud of Turin is renowned for its unique characteristic: it bears a negative image of a man, where the dark and light areas are inverted compared to a normal photograph. This inversion means that what would typically appear light in a regular image appears dark on the Shroud, and vice versa. Replicating such an image requires a deep understanding of photographic negative techniques, a challenging feat in both historical and contemporary contexts. In traditional photography, negatives are used to achieve this effect. In these negatives, colors and brightness are inverted, making dark areas in the real world appear light, and light areas appear dark on the negative. However, translating this concept into painting or drawing is a much more complex task. It demands a meticulous and counterintuitive approach to the standard practices of art. An artist would need to intentionally reverse the usual patterns of light and shadow. This process requires visualizing the scene as if it were being viewed through a photographic negative, with every tone and shade flipped. Creating such an inverted image by hand, especially in historical times, presents a significant challenge. It necessitates not only exceptional artistic skill but also a profound understanding of how light interacts with objects and how this interaction would be represented in an inverted format. This knowledge of photographic techniques, which were not widely understood or available until centuries later, makes it exceedingly unlikely that a forger, particularly from an earlier historical period, could have accurately produced such an inverted image. The complexity involved in creating a perfect negative image by hand adds to the mystery and ongoing debate surrounding the Shroud of Turin. It underscores the enigmatic nature of the Shroud, contributing to its status as an object of enduring fascination.

2. The pathological details of crucifixion as observed on the Shroud of Turin provide a compelling, albeit gruesome, insight into the methods and consequences of Roman crucifixion practices. These details align with historical accounts and forensic analysis, adding a layer of authenticity to the Shroud's depiction.

Flagra Markings: The Shroud displays markings that are consistent with wounds inflicted by a Roman flagrum. This whip typically featured multiple leather thongs with metal balls or bone pieces at the ends. The markings on the Shroud reflect the distinctive size, shape, and pattern of these tips, suggesting a repeated lashing that was standard in Roman scourging practices. This would result in deep, contused lacerations across the body, particularly the back, buttocks, and legs, reflecting the brutal efficiency of the flagrum in inflicting pain and injury.The presence of flagra markings on the Shroud of Turin not only suggests the use of a Roman flagrum in the infliction of wounds but also raises a profound mystery about how these marks were accurately transferred from the body to the cloth. The Shroud displays a detailed and precise set of markings consistent with the size, shape, and pattern of a flagrum's tips, indicating a repeated lashing. These markings, observed as deep, contused lacerations, are especially pronounced across the back, buttocks, and legs, aligning with the known brutality of Roman scourging practices. The enigma lies in understanding how these detailed impressions could have been transferred onto the fabric of the Shroud with such accuracy and clarity. Traditional methods of contact transfer, such as pressing a cloth against a wounded body, are unlikely to yield such precise and well-defined imprints. Furthermore, the nature of the wounds, involving contusions and lacerations, complicates the idea of a simple direct transfer mechanism. Several theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, but none have been conclusively proven. Some suggest a chemical interaction between the body (possibly through post-mortem changes) and the fabric, while others hypothesize a yet-to-be-understood physical or energetic process that occurred at the moment of the body's wrapping or thereafter. What adds to the mystery is the consistency and uniformity of the wound imprints on the Shroud. If they were the result of a direct transfer from a body, the distortion and variance due to the folds and drapes of the cloth would be expected. Yet, the markings on the Shroud display a near-photographic precision that defies simple explanations based on known physical and chemical processes of image transfer from a three-dimensional body to a two-dimensional cloth. This unexplained aspect of how the flagra markings were accurately transmitted from the body to the Shroud remains one of the many enigmatic features of this ancient artifact, contributing to its enduring intrigue and significance in both religious and scientific communities.

Blood Evidence and Bilirubin: The presence of high bilirubin levels in the bloodstains on the Shroud could be indicative of severe physical trauma. Bilirubin is a byproduct of the breakdown of red blood cells, and its elevated levels are often found in individuals who have experienced significant physical stress or injury. In the context of the Shroud, these high levels suggest the individual had undergone severe physical abuse prior to death, consistent with the brutal nature of Roman crucifixion and scourging. The hypothesis of high bilirubin levels in the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin, indicative of severe physical trauma, adds a layer of complexity to the discussion of the Shroud's authenticity and the challenges a potential forger would face. If the presence of elevated bilirubin is accurate, it implies that the individual whose image is on the Shroud experienced extreme physical stress or injury, consistent with the brutal practices of Roman crucifixion and scourging.

To authentically replicate the bloodstains with high bilirubin levels, a forger would need access to the blood of a person who had undergone severe physical trauma, akin to the brutality depicted in Roman crucifixion. This requirement presents not only a logistical challenge but also a deeply unethical and criminal one, essentially requiring the forger to be complicit in murder or severe abuse. During the time periods when forgery of the Shroud is often hypothesized to have occurred (Middle Ages, for instance), there was no known scientific understanding of bilirubin or its relationship to physical trauma. A forger would have to possess advanced biomedical knowledge that was centuries ahead of its time, making it highly improbable. From a forger's perspective, there would be little to no benefit in going through the considerable trouble of obtaining blood from a tortured individual. The nuances of bilirubin levels and their implications would not have been understood or appreciated by observers at the time. Using blood from any source would have achieved the visual effect of bloodstains without the added complexity of ensuring it came from a specific type of trauma. The act of obtaining blood from a tortured individual would carry immense risk and complexity, far exceeding the challenges of traditional forgery techniques. It would involve not just the act of forgery, but also engaging in or commissioning acts of extreme violence, which would significantly increase the risk of exposure and punishment. In light of these hurdles, the theory that the bloodstains on the Shroud were the result of a forgery becomes increasingly implausible. The specific details, such as the elevated bilirubin levels indicative of severe trauma, add layers of complexity that would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate with the knowledge and resources available in historical periods when such a forgery could have been attempted.

Nail Wounds: Contrary to popular depictions of crucifixion, historical and anatomical evidence suggests that nails were driven through the wrists, not the palms. This method was more structurally sound for supporting the weight of a body during crucifixion. The Shroud shows evidence of nail wounds in the wrist area. Moreover, it depicts a specific detail - the adduction of the thumb (inward movement towards the wrist) - which is a known anatomical reaction when nails are driven through the wrist's median nerve. This detail corroborates the historical accuracy and physiological realism of the Shroud's depiction. The depiction of nail wounds in the wrist area on the Shroud of Turin, as opposed to the palms, is a significant detail that adds to the debate over its authenticity. This anatomical accuracy, particularly the specific detail of the thumb adduction (inward movement towards the wrist), is a crucial element that aligns with modern medical understanding but would have been highly unlikely for a forger from the Middle Ages to know or understand. During the Middle Ages, the common artistic representation of crucifixion almost invariably showed the nails being driven through the palms of the hands. This was the widely accepted and depicted method, influenced by religious iconography and theological interpretations rather than anatomical accuracy. A forger in this era, therefore, would likely have followed this conventional depiction and placed the nail wounds in the palms in any fabricated relic. The level of anatomical detail necessary to depict the effects of nailing through the wrists, including the thumb's adduction due to median nerve injury, was far beyond the medical knowledge of the Middle Ages. This specific detail is consistent with modern medical understanding but was not known or understood until much later. Therefore, a forger from this period would not have the requisite knowledge to accurately represent this detail. The medical understanding in the Middle Ages was rudimentary compared to modern standards. Knowledge of the intricate details of nerve damage and its specific effects on hand movement was not within the scope of medieval medicine. The depiction of such details in the Shroud suggests a level of anatomical and physiological understanding that would be extraordinary and highly unlikely for a forger of that era. Artists and craftsmen in the Middle Ages were heavily influenced by religious and cultural norms. The portrayal of crucifixion in art and artifacts was more about theological symbolism and less about historical or anatomical accuracy. A forger, seeking to create a believable relic, would likely adhere to these norms rather than deviate based on anatomical accuracy. If a forger had, by some chance, stumbled upon this anatomical detail, depicting the crucifixion in a manner contrary to the accepted norms would have been a significant risk. It could have led to skepticism and disbelief, as it would have contradicted the widely held and depicted beliefs of the time.

Lance Wounds: The Shroud features a side wound, likely inflicted by a Roman lancea. This type of wound is consistent with the historical use of a spear to either hasten death or confirm death in crucifixion victims. The size and shape of the wound on the Shroud align with the dimensions of Roman spears used during the period. The location of the wound, traditionally near the heart, suggests a deliberate action to either cause death or verify it, which was a common practice in Roman executions to ensure the victim did not survive the crucifixion.

Each of these details - from the flagra markings to the lance wound - contributes to a forensic narrative that aligns closely with what is known of Roman crucifixion methods. The accuracy of these details in the Shroud suggests a deep familiarity with these practices, further intensifying the mystery and historical significance of this enigmatic artifact.

Barrie Schwortz was a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (often abbreviated as STURP) a team of scientists which performed a set of experiments and analyses on the Shroud of Turin during the late 1970s and early 1980s. STURP issued its final report in 1981.

After 18 years as a skeptic, in 1995, when confronted with the evidence that the blood on the shroud was of a tortured man, he became convinced of the authenticity of the Shroud. 

"At the beginning of my work, I was very skeptical about its authenticity. I felt no particular emotion toward Jesus because I was raised as an orthodox jew. The only thing I knew about Jesus was that he was a jew, and this was all. Examining the Shroud ".
After 18 years of study, the full conviction came when "the Blood Chemistry Allen Adler, another jew who was part of the study group, I explained why the red blood remained on the Shroud. The old blood would have to be black or brown, while the blood on the Shroud is a red-crimson. It seemed inexplicable, instead it was the last piece of the puzzle. After nearly 20 years of investigation, it was a shock for me to discover that the piece of cloth was the authentic cloth that had been wrapped the body of Jesus. The conclusions I arrived were based exclusively on scientific observation ".
He has no doubt Schwortz: "Once we came to the scientific conclusion that the cloth was authentic, I have come to understand also the meaning. This is the forensic document of the Passion, and for Christians around the world is the most important relic, precisely because it documents everything you read in the Gospels of what was done to Jesus. I think there are enough evidence to prove that this is the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus ". The truth about Jesus is the task of faith, he states that "from the point of view of science that cloth wrapped the body of man spoken of in the Gospels".
The study of the Shroud has not only convinced of the authenticity, but it has also changed, evidently, also on a personal level.
"At the beginning of the investigation - said Schwortz -, I knew of God, but it was not very important in my life. I had not thought of God, when the avevo 13 years. I was not very religious, it was almost a requirement for my family. Since then I have moved away from the faith, religion and God, until I reached the 50 years. When in 1995 I came to the conclusion that the Shroud was authentic, I built the site www.shroud.com . I started to collect the material and put it to the public. I began to speak publicly about the Shroud around 1996 ".
This dualism, however, could not continue: "When people started asking me if I was a believer, I could not find the answer. At that point I questioned myself and I realized that God was waiting for me. I was really surprised to see that within me there was a belief in God. Fino a 50 years I had pretty much ignored the faith, and suddenly I found myself face to face with God in my heart. Basically I can say that the Shroud was the catalyst that brought me back to God ". He concluded amused: "How many Jews can say that the Shroud of Turin has led them to faith in God"?

Schwortz runs as well the website:
https://www.shroud.com/

The STURP Team
https://www.upra.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Lecture_1.pdf

1) The bloodstains on the Shroud have been forensically matched with the Sudarium of Oviedo which is inarguably centuries older than the Carbon test results.

2) There are pictures of the Shroud in the Hungarian Pray Codex which was written about 200 years before the results on the Carbon dating test.


What is on the Shroud?

1.   Rigor mortis in feet shows that the victim was on the cross for a significant amount of time after he had died.

2.  Two nails are through one foot, but only one of the nails is through the other foot.  This allows one foot to rotate, so that the victim can push up and down on the cross in order to breath during crucifixion.  If the victim of crucifixion is not pushing up and down, then it is clear that he is dead.  The soldiers had no doubt that Jesus was dead (Mark 15:43-45, John 19:31-35).

3.  In 1532, the church where the Shroud was located caught fire.  This fire produced two scorch lines on either side of the front and dorsal images.  Water stains can also be seen on the Shroud from water thrown onto the metal box containing the Shroud after it was rescued from the fire.  The heat from the fire did not produce a gradation in the intensity of the image discoloration, indicating that the image is not due to application of an organic compound.

4.  Shortly after the fire in 1532, charred material was removed and replaced by patches.  The repeating pattern of patches and scorch marks that can be seen on the Shroud resulted from the way in which the cloth was folded at the time of the fire.   One corner of the folded Shroud that burned resulted in the many areas that had to be patched.

5.  The Shroud has four sets of burn holes in an L-shaped pattern.  This same pattern of holes appears on a picture in a document known as the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, which is dated to 1192-1195 AD.  This indicates that the Shroud of Turin ought to be identified as the cloth, sometimes called the Mandylion, that was in Constantinople until the city was sacked during the fourth crusade in 1204 AD.  It is generally believed that this cloth was brought to Constantinople from Edessa, Turkey, in 944 AD.  In Edessa, it was called the Image of Edessa.  Thus, the Shroud of Turin is the same as the Image of Edessa, so it can be historically traced back prior to 944 AD.  This indicates that the C-14 date range of 1260 to 1390 AD for the Shroud of Turin is erroneous.  Other dating methods are consistent with a first century date for the Shroud:  1) test results of tensile strength and reflectivity of linen as it ages,  2) stitching used to sew on the 3-inch wide side piece onto the main Shroud is nearly identical to that found at Masada which was destroyed in 73-74 AD,  3) the size of the Shroud being very close to 2 by 8 cubits - the ancient unit of measurement,  4) crucifixion being outlawed after the fourth century, and  5) a possible Roman Lepton over one eye dating to 27 - 30 AD.  Several hypotheses have been made to explain the erroneous C-14 date, including an invisible reweave of the sample area and neutron absorption in the trace amount of nitrogen in the linen shifting the C-14 date by the (N14 + neutron --> C14 + proton) reaction.   Details of this last option are discussed further at RECENT RESEARCH.  Pros and cons of the various options will be considered at the conference.

6.  The back (dorsal) image on the Shroud shows a separation of blood & clear blood serum that flowed from the  wound in the his side that shows on the front image.  This separation indicates that the victim’s heart was not beating for long enough to allow the red blood cells to settle out of the clear blood serum before the side wound was made.  Compare this with the "blood and water" that is said to have exited from Jesus' side wound in John 19:34.

7.  The Shroud shows 100 to 120 scourge marks from two Roman flagrum, one striking from each side, with dumbbell shaped weights on the ends of the straps.  The blood marks from these wounds show blood serum rings (visible only under UV) around the dried blood exudate.

8.  There are abrasions on both shoulders evidently caused by the victim carrying a heavy rough object.  Compare this with Jesus carrying his own cross (John 19:17).  This refers to the horizontal piece (patibulum) but not the vertical piece, which would have been stationary in the ground at the location of the crucifixion.

9.  The front and back of the head show puncture wounds from sharp objects.  Jesus had a cap of thorns beat into his scalp with rods (Matthew 27:30, Mark 15:17-19).


10.  Pollen is on the Shroud that is unique to the area around Jerusalem.  Pollen from a plant with long thorns was found around his head.

11.  The front and back (dorsal) images of the crucified man are negative images and contain 3D or topographical information content related to the distance of the cloth from the body.  Of the 100 to 200 fibers in a thread, the images result from only the top one or two layers of fibers in a thread being discolored.  The thickness of discoloration in a fiber is less than 0.4 microns, which is less than a wavelength of light.  There is no indication of capillarity (soaking up of a liquied) between the fibers or the threads.  The discolored regions of the fibers in the image result from a change in the covalent bonding of the carbon atoms that were originally in the cellulose molecules in the linen.  This change in the covalent bonding of the carbon atoms is equivalent to a dehydration and oxidation of the cellulose molecule.  The conclusion is that an artist or forger could not have produced the bizarre characteristics of the images in any era, either ancient or modern.  How the image of a crucified man could have formed on the cloth with these image characteristics will be considered at the conference.

12.  The image on the Shroud has swollen cheeks and a possible broken nose from a beating (John 18:3) or a fall.  Abrasions on the tip of the nose have a microscopic amount of dirt in the abrasions.  Jesus probably fell while carrying his cross (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21).

13.  The side of the front image on the Shroud shows a 2 inch wide elliptical wound - the size of a typical Roman spear (John 19:34).  Post-mortem (after death) blood and watery fluid flowed down from this wound.

14.  The blood running down his arms is at the correct angles for a crucifixion victim.  Two angles for the blood flow can be seen on his arms.  These two angles are consistent with the crucifixion victim shifting between two positions while on the cross in order to breath.  (See #2 above)  What appears to be blood on the Shroud has passed 13 tests proving that it is real human blood.  The presence of "X" and "Y" chromosomes indicates that the blood is from a male.  The blood type is AB.  And most significantly, the blood is high in bilirubin which is a compound produced by the liver when it processes damaged red blood cells,  which occurs when a victim is severely beaten, as Jesus was.  Normal blood turns very dark brown to black as it ages over days and weeks, but the blood marks on the Shroud show a reddish hue.  There are multiple possible causes for this coloration.

15.  All paintings of the Middle Ages showed the nails through the center of the palms, but nails through the palms do not support sufficient weight since there is no bone structure above this location.  Archeology has confirmed that during crucifixion, the nails were driven through the wrists.  The Shroud shows the correct nail locations - through the wrist instead of through the palm.

16.  On the Shroud, the thumbs are folded under, contrary to all paintings of the Middle Ages.  Nails through the wrists

18.  The three-inch wide side strip is sown on with a unique stitch nearly identical to that found only at Masada which was destroyed in 73-74 AD.  This is evidence that the Shroud was made in the first century.  The reason for this three-inch side piece is not certain, but the most likely explanation is that it probably was sown on in the process of originally making the Shroud.

19.  Small chips of travertine aragonite limestone were found in dirt near the feet.  This rare form of limestone is commonly called "Jerusalem limestone" because Jerusalem is the main location in the world where it is found.  This limestone found in dirt on the Shroud had a spectral signature nearly identical to a sample of limestone taken from the Damascus Gate - the closest gate to Golgotha.  No other place on earth is known to have the identical spectral image.  This indicates that the victim whose image is shown on the Shroud almost certainly walked on the streets of Jerusalem before being crucified.

It is important to note that there is one item that should be on a burial cloth such as this that is not present.  That one item is the products of the body's decay.  There are no body decay products on the Shroud of Turin, in spite of the fact that the pristine nature of the blood marks indicates that this Shroud was not lifted off of the body from which the blood had come.


http://www.shroudconference2017.com/




Question: Is it warranted to call the Shroud " The holy Shroud" ?
Answer:  I hesitated to give to the Shroud the nomenclature "Holy Shroud". In my theological understanding, only the Spirit of God is holy - and those that received it, the church or body of Christ, but not an artifact - even less a cloth, even if having a portrait of God. But there is an important detail. The concept that the soul or life is in the blood is mentioned in the Old Testament.  Leviticus 17:11 states:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."

This verse is part of a larger context in Leviticus where God is giving the Israelites laws about sacrifices and the handling of blood. The verse emphasizes the significance of blood in the sacrificial rites of the Old Testament, where blood symbolizes life and is used for the atonement of sins. This concept is foundational in theological interpretations regarding sacrifice, atonement, and the sanctity of life. The Shroud contains the blood of Christ, and as such, it becomes not just a historical artifact but a sacred object, imbued with extraordinary significance. The blood of Christ is central to the narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection. It symbolizes the ultimate sacrifice for the atonement of humanity's sins. Since the shroud contains this blood, it becomes a direct and tangible connection to the pivotal event in Christian salvation history. Containing Christ's blood, the Shroud is a relic of the highest order.  The holiness of Christ's blood in Christian theology is a reflection of His divinity, the significance of His sacrificial death, the sacramental understanding of communion, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, the establishment of a new covenant, and its central role in Christian worship and devotion. As such, i consider it warranted to be called a holy object.



http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml

Gianni Barcaccia Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud 05 October 2015
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484?fbclid=IwAR17peNapvYavYHxr8xcoGTmirlWj_sdLD5Vw4wIdaFE4zquIV4YOqdkvAI

Wikipedia: Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theories_about_the_Shroud_of_Turin#Vanillin_loss_theory

Quinn Armstrong All The Evidence For And Against The Shroud Of Turin August 20, 2019
https://www.ranker.com/list/shroud-of-turin-evidence/quinn-armstrong

Knowing the evidence and facing the fact that to my knowledge nobody has been able to come up with a counterexplanation that explains away all of the strange "Shroud-properties" (photo negative, embedded 3D information, nails in the wrist, no paint on it but real human blood, realistic wounds from the flagrum,weaving pattern from antiquity, pollen and dust from the region of Jerusalem, forensic analysis that seems to show that the person on the shroud was tortured and crucified, probably depicted in art of the first centuries AD etc. etc. the list goes on and on)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/07/a-note-probably-not-my-last-about-the-shroud-of-turin.html

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rqNIdpA3_gnz4eSRmXMMTl3DmwsbirMUohAW7fHbNZA/edit?fbclid=IwAR0HmNicxe3J_mC0uyKU2Am8182fNQaYmh5s6IOTimauX0LGseMDtad_8b8

https://www.sindone.org/it/

Gianni Barcaccia Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud 05 October 2015
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484

Why are there no spices on the Shroud?
Barrie Schwortz: As for those spices, they are organic materials and would definitely degrade and dissipate over time. The fact that little was found in recent years does not mean it wasn’t there 2000 years ago. One Italian researcher (Baima-Bollone) claims to have found traces of them in his research, although STURP did not. Of course, STURP was focused on the image, not myrrh and aloes. One other point. Although 75kg was brought to the tomb, there was little time for a proper preparation of the body due to the approaching Sabbath so the women planned to come back on Sunday morning to finish the job. 



The Shroud of Turin as Evidence of Biblical Truth and Jesus Christ's Resurrection

The Shroud of Turin provides tangible evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible and the reality of Jesus Christ's divine nature and resurrection. Its unique characteristics defy conventional scientific explanation and align closely with the biblical narrative, suggesting a supernatural origin.

Firstly, the superficial nature of the image on the Shroud, which penetrates only the top microfibers without any directional marks like brushstrokes, challenges our understanding of historical image-making techniques. This suggests that the image was not created by human hands, as there is no known method from any period, especially the medieval era, that could replicate this effect.

The absence of artistic hallmarks, such as outlines, variations in density, and cementing of fibers, further supports the notion that the image was not made using traditional artistic methods. Its uniform intensity across the Shroud is unlike human-made artworks, which typically show variations.

The composition of the blood stains, visible under UV light, containing high levels of creatinine and ferritin, is consistent with victims of severe trauma, akin to the biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion. The presence of AB+ blood with human DNA adds to the biological authenticity of the Shroud.

Pollen and limestone traces found on the Shroud link it to the geographical and historical context of Jerusalem. The pollen is specific to the region around Jerusalem, and the limestone particles match those found in ancient Jewish tombs in Israel.

The photonegative quality of the image, with encoded 3D information, was a revelation brought forth by modern photography. This sophistication, unseen in any artworks of the medieval period, points to a creation beyond human capabilities of the time.

The anatomical accuracy of the nail wounds and crucifixion marks align with historical and archaeological knowledge of Roman crucifixion methods, diverging from artistic depictions of the era.

Recent research suggesting the Shroud's origin between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D. contradicts earlier carbon-14 dating and places it within the era of Christ. The linen and stitching patterns, consistent with first-century methods, add to its historical authenticity.

The Shroud's depiction of scourge marks and the side wound, consistent with Roman implements, and the correct anatomical positioning of these marks, lend further credibility to its connection with the crucifixion of Jesus.

These features collectively suggest that the Shroud of Turin is not only an authentic relic from the time of Christ but also a witness to the events of his crucifixion and resurrection. The complexity and depth of the image, appearing to be created without human intervention, point to a miraculous origin. This aligns with the biblical narrative of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, supporting the belief in His divinity and the existence of a God as described in the Bible. The Shroud stands as physical evidence of these biblical events, reinforcing the faith in Jesus Christ as a divine figure and in the reality of the God of the Bible.

Additionally, a published study found that the fragments tested in the Shroud were from a section of the Shroud that had been repaired in the middle ages.

The second mystery is related to the dating of the Shroud.  In 1988, samples were taken from the bottom corner opposite the feet and sent to three laboratories in Oxford, Zurich, and Tucson for C14 dating.  The average date from the three laboratories was 1260 ± 31 AD, which produced a two sigma (95% probability) range of 1260 to 1390 AD when corrected for the changing production of C14 in the upper atmosphere.  But the values from these three laboratories did not agree well with each other.  Statistical analysis of the average values from each laboratory indicated only a 5% chance that these average values are consistent with the measurement uncertainties.  When plotted, these average values from the three laboratories produce a slope for the C14 dates of about 40 years/cm as a function of the distance from the bottom edge of the Shroud, so that if the sampling location were moved about an inch closer to the center of the body mass, then the C14 date would increase by about 100 years.  This indicates that something probably caused a spatially dependent shift in the experimental C14 dates.  And the C14 date to the Middle-Ages contradicts other scientific and archeological dating methods noted above.  It contradicts the conclusions of historical investigation which indicates that the Shroud of Turin dates back prior to 944 AD.  It contradicts physical evidence that the Shroud could not have been produced in the Middle Ages due to the bizarre characteristics of the image, and it contradicts other evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.  Though multiple hypotheses (contamination, isotopic change, bio-plastic film, invisible reweave, and neutron absorption) have been offered to explain the C14 dating to the Middle Ages, this will remain an area of active research until conclusive evidence is obtained.

The third mystery is related to the blood marks on the Shroud.  Most of the blood would have dried on the body by the time that the body was placed into the Shroud in the tomb.  Dried blood will not soak into a piece of cloth placed over the blood.  In fact, blood that is dried on skin must be scrubbed off of the skin to remove it.  Yet the blood marks on the Shroud are not only on the surface of the linen but often soak through it to the other side, and the dried surface of the blood marks on the cloth are pristine in appearance with no cracking or chipping on the outer edge.  This indicates that the Shroud was not lifted off of a body from which it had soaked up the blood.  So the third mystery is how the dried blood could have transferred from the body to the cloth and produce the blood marks that can be seen on the Shroud.
The conference on the Shroud of Turin in Tri-Cities, Washington, in July of 2017 will present recent research related to these mysteries as well as other issues.  It is also intended to help form a basis for future research.

Photographs Below

The four photographs below show additional views of the Shroud of Turin.  The first photo is a close-up of the face taken by Giuseppe Enrie, who was the official photographer for the exhibition of the Shroud in 1931.  This is a negative based on front lighting of the image of the face.  The next photo down is a positive of the entire front image based on front lighting.  The next photo is a positive of the front image based on rear lighting.  And the last photo is a positive of the back (dorsal) image based on rear lighting.  The value of these last two photographs is that they indicate that no substance was transferred to the Shroud to form the images since no images can be seen in rear lighting, and that horizontal striations of the linen can be seen that are continuous across the width of the Shroud, including the area near the feet.  The horizontal striations are in the Shroud and not in the backing cloth because slight discontinuities in the striations can be seen where the 3-inch wide side strip is sown onto the main piece of the Shroud.  These continuous horizontal striations in the linen argue against the possibility that an invisible reweave or patch was made in the area from which the samples were removed in 1988 for the C-14 dating.

The Shroud of Turin, also commonly called the Turin Shroud, is a burial cloth that has been located in Turin, Italy, since 1578, and has a well-documented history back to about 1355.  The amazing thing about this burial cloth is that it contains full size good resolution images of the front and back of a naked man that was crucified exactly as the New Testament says that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.  When put on display in Turin, Italy, which usually occurs several times each century, millions of people file past the Shroud and see the images of the crucified man.  Long standing tradition maintains that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.  Ancient documentation and a variety of ancient coins and artistic works are consistent with this view.  The scientific investigation of the Shroud began in 1898 when Secondo Pia took the first photograph of the Shroud which revealed that the image was a good resolution negative image.  It has now been scientifically studied for over 115 years making it the most studied ancient artifact in existence.  This scientific research has shown that the characteristics of the image are so bizarre that it could not be the result of a human agent, either an artist or forger, because the technology to create this image did not exist in a previous era and still does not exist even today.  Based on this scientific research, the general consensus of Shroud researchers is that the Shroud wrapped the body of a real human being that was crucified, and that in some way this body encoded front and back images of itself onto the inside of the Shroud.  


"The presence of traces of whole blood must be considered as firmly established, with the probability that the blood is human. It is possible, of course, that an artist or forger worked with blood to touch up a body image obtained by other means. Attempts to ascertain how the image came to be imprinted on the cloth have not yielded definitive results. An impressive array of optical and microscopic examinations was conducted, including most of those used in testing for blood constituents, infrared thermography and radiography, micro-Raman analysis, and examination by ion microprobe and electron scanning microscope (Jumper and Mottern 1980). There was general agreement among researchers on the nature of the image - degradation and/or dehydration of the cellulose in superficial fibers resulting in a faint reflection of light in the visible range (Pellicori 1980). Only the topmost fibrils of each thread are dehydrated, even in the darkest areas of the image, and no significant traces of pigments, dyes, stains, chemicals, or organic or inorganic substances were found in the image. It was thus determined that the image was not painted, printed, or otherwise artificially imposed on the cloth, nor was it the result of any known reaction of the cloth to spices, oils, or biochemicals produced by the body in life or death. STURP concluded that "there are no chemical or physical methods . . . and no combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances which explain the image adequately" (Joan Janney, quoted in an Associated Press report, October 11, 1981). Two theories currently contend among STURP researchers: a "photolysis effect" (heat or radiation scorch) and a "latent image process" where by the cloth was sensitized by materials absorbed by direct contact with a corpse. Wags were quick to label these "the first Polaroid from Palestine" and "a Christ contact print."

https://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm
STURP determined that the image was caused by rapid dehydration, oxidation and degradation of the linen by an unidentified process, coloring it a sepia or straw yellow.  Several Physicists, including Dr. John Jackson of the Colorado Shroud Center, suggest that a form of columnated radiation is the best explanation for how the image was formed, leaving a scorch-like appearance (the scorch caused by light versus heat, as the image does not fluoresce).  Dr. Thomas Phillips (nuclear physicist at Duke University and formerly with the High Energy Labs at Harvard) says a potential miliburst of radiation (a neutron flux) could be consistent with the moment of resurrection.  Such a miliburst might cause the purely surface phenomenon of the scorch-like (scorch-by-light) images, and possibly add Carbon-14 to the Cloth.  As Dr. Phillips points out: "We never had a resurrection to study" and more testing should be done to ascertain whether a neutron-flux occurred.
The coloration on the linen fibers of the Shroud is extremely thin.  Sticky tape samples taken from different parts of the image on the Shroud's surface in 1978 were too thin to measure accurately with a standard optical microscope, which means they were thinner than the wavelength of visible light, or less than about 0.6 micrometers.  A more recent measurement of the coloration on one of the fibers was found to be about 0.2 micrometers thick




Consider the suggestion that an artist, skilled enough to be termed "talented" in the Middle Ages, could have painted the image on the Shroud of Turin, which exhibits a photonegative quality and a three-dimensional effect. If the Shroud were indeed created only 700+ years ago, this would imply the existence of an artist with extraordinary foresight and technical prowess. Such an artisan would need to understand the nuances of creating an image that subtly discolors linen fibers to produce a photonegative effect without applying any additional materials to the cloth. This task is compounded by the intricate details present on the Shroud, details that align with anatomical realism not widely understood at the time—such as the precise placement of crucifixion wounds—and which appear to be 'correct' only under modern scientific analysis.

The improbability of a medieval artist possessing such capabilities is considerable. During that period, there was a limited understanding of human anatomy, as evidenced by the historical inaccuracies in the depiction of the crucifixion wounds. The common belief was that nails were driven through the palms, whereas the Shroud indicates a more anatomically correct location through the wrists. Furthermore, the artist would have had to apply the bloodstains appropriately after creating the image, yet on the Shroud, the bloodstains precede the image, suggesting a sequence inconsistent with artistic methods.

Even with today's advanced technology and knowledge, no known method can replicate the Shroud's image. Attempts to recreate it, such as those by Garlaschelli, have resulted in outcomes that fail to capture the subtlety and detail of the original. These recreations often appear grotesque and lack the nuanced realism of the Shroud.

Taking into account the vast array of expertise that would have been necessary—spanning over a hundred different scientific and artistic disciplines—the hypothesis that a medieval artist or collective could create something so complex and accurate becomes increasingly tenuous. It would imply that such an individual or group not only possessed knowledge that seems to surpass that of their contemporaries but also anticipated future scientific discoveries and testing methods. The sheer volume and sophistication of the tests conducted by modern experts, which have yet to find conclusive evidence of forgery, further diminish the likelihood of the Shroud being the product of medieval artistry.




In October 2009, Luigi Garlaschelli, a Professor of Organic Chemistry at the University of Pavia in Italy known for debunking religious paranormal phenomena, claimed to have replicated the Shroud of Turin. Garlaschelli, who had previously investigated stigmata and bleeding statues, attempted to recreate the Shroud's image using a technique involving a linen sheet, a volunteer model, and a pigment containing acid. He placed the sheet over the model, rubbed it with the pigment, and then aged the image by heating the cloth in an oven before washing it. This process, he claimed, removed the pigment from the surface but left a Shroud-like image. Garlaschelli presented his findings at a conference in Italy, attracting global media attention. However, comparisons between his reproduction and the actual Shroud highlighted significant differences. Critics noted that Garlaschelli's version lacked the subtlety and gradations of tone found in the original, with the faces and chest areas appearing particularly dissimilar. This experiment, along with similar theories like that of Nicholas Allen, posits that a medieval artist might have created the Shroud's image before adding bloodstains for effect. Yet, such a method, if employed during the Middle Ages, would likely be detectable by modern forensic techniques. The complexity and authenticity of the bloodstains on the Shroud, as analyzed by contemporary experts, do not support the idea of a medieval forgery, suggesting a more intricate process behind the creation of the Shroud's image.


Question: Why is the right arm longer than the left arm ?
Answer: The observation that the right arm of the man depicted on the Shroud of Turin appears longer than the left has intrigued researchers and scholars. This apparent disparity in arm lengths is not merely an artistic anomaly but aligns with clinical findings associated with crucifixion, particularly when considering the physical ordeal that would involve carrying the patibulum (the horizontal beam of the cross).
Crucifixion, as a form of execution, was designed to be torturous and prolonged, causing extreme physical strain. Carrying the patibulum, often a heavy wooden beam, would have been an arduous task, especially after enduring severe physical abuse like scourging. This act of carrying the crossbeam to the crucifixion site, as described in the biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion, could lead to shoulder dislocation, particularly under the weight and stress placed on the arms. Clinical research into the effects of crucifixion reveals that the positioning and nailing of the wrists, combined with the weight of the body hanging from the cross, would likely result in dislocation of the shoulders. Dislocation can cause one arm to appear longer than the other, a condition known as "visually apparent limb length discrepancy." This condition is consistent with what is observed on the Shroud. The right arm's apparent elongation on the Shroud could thus be a direct consequence of the shoulder dislocation, likely exacerbated by the weight of carrying the patibulum and the subsequent crucifixion. This detail not only aligns with what is known about the physical effects of crucifixion but also adds to the Shroud's historical and anatomical accuracy. Such clinical correlations lend credence to the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and its depiction of a crucified man. The consistency of these findings with the known effects of crucifixion supports the argument that the Shroud is indeed a genuine relic of a crucifixion, closely paralleling the biblical account of Jesus Christ's death.

Claim:  pierre DRC's the catholic bishop in troy's wrote to pope clement the seventh that the shroud was a clever sleight of hand by someone falsely declaring this was the actual Shroud in which Jesus was unfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them
Reply: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present FOURTEENTH CENTURY Stephen E. Jones
D'Arcis provided no evidence in his memorandum to substantiate his claims[45], which he would have if there had been any[46]. D'Arcis did not provide the name of the artist[47], nor a record of his confession[48], nor the source of his allegations[49]. There is also no record of Henri de Poitiers conducting any inquiry into the origin of Shroud[50] and d'Arcis did not even know its date[51]! But there is a record of a letter of 28 May 1356[see "1356a"], from Bishop Henri de Poitiers, praising Geoffroy I, ratifying the Lirey church and approving its "divine cult"[52], which presumably refers to the Shroud[53]! It is also highly unlikely that Geoffrey I de Charny, the owner of the Shroud in the 1350s [see "c.1355"], one of France's most ethical knights, and a devout author of religious poetry, was complicit in forging Jesus' burial shroud[54]. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the image of the man on the Shroud is not painted

Was the “Painted” Cloth Mentioned in the d’Arcis Memorandum of c. 1389 the So-Called Shroud of Besançon? 2022 by Joseph G. Marino
https://www.academia.edu/73756878/Was_the_Painted_Cloth_Mentioned_in_the_dArcis_Memorandum_of_c_1389_the_So_Called_Shroud_of_Besan%C3%A7on?email_work_card=view-paper

It's not mentioned that d'Arcis was upset that de Charny had gone over his head directly to the Pope.  d'Arcis' own church was in dire need of expensive repair.  It's certainly possible that he was angling to get his own hands on cash offerings.  The d'Arcis memo isn't as black and white as it's made out to be.  See my article "http://The c. 1389 d’Arcis Memorandum and the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin – an English-Language Bibliography"
https://www.academia.edu/49761930/The_c_1389_dArcis_Memorandum_and_the_Authenticity_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin_an_English_Language_Bibliography

https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/search?q=Pierre+d%27Arcis


An Italian scientist says he has 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. The shroud, measuring 4.4 by 1.2 metres bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ. "We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday. 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. 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. Carbon dating tests by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona in 1988 caused a sensation by dating it from between 1260 and 1390. Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business.  But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth. Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face. The pigment was then artificially 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. They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect. 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. 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. "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. 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. 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. 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. Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results. "Money has no odour," he said. "This was done scientifically. If the Church wants to fund me in the future, here I am."


Sorry, the Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax
So, here’s the evidence I have presented for why the Shroud of Turin is clearly a hoax:

We have no reliable documentation of the Shroud of Turin’s existence until the fourteenth century.
The forger who made the Shroud of Turin confessed and the earliest definitive mention of the shroud in any historical source is a record of his confession.
The Shroud of Turin doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings used in Judaea in the time of Jesus or the description of Jesus’s own funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John.
The linen of the Shroud of Turin has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1260 and c. 1390 AD—well over a millennium after Jesus’s death.
The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions and much more closely resembles figures in fourteenth-century Gothic art than a real human being.
The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on.
The fabric of the Shroud of Turin is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used during the Late Middle Ages, but does not seem to have been used for burial shrouds in Judaea in the first century AD.
http://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/24/sorry-the-shroud-of-turin-is-definitely-a-hoax/?fbclid=IwAR2u_d-8vwlFoDa5nRuyC4BwoT5yXiu-KUR1rwYkJaDt7jYtnIoOQPhPIxY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLiY5df0f-
Debunking The Shroud: Made by Human Hands
https://www.shroud.com/bar.htm?fbclid=IwAR0fLwmPd7sk-gBjZtRQPA4aGk1iuZybicfZI38DTFQFsgnAUmJHq3LqC6A

The Shroud of Turin
https://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/Shroud/

L. Garlaschelli: Life-size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image 
https://sci-hub.ee/10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2010.54.4.040301

The opinion of many is that the "second" Shroud is so unsuccessful that it should not appear among the evidence against but among those in favor of the authenticity of the find. However, as could have been foreseen, the new building was soon archived and forgotten and a lot of criticism rained down on the association, especially from many experts, believers and non-believers. Several studies have also certified the total diversity between the Shroud of Turin and the aping of Professor Garlaschelli.
https://www.uccronline.it/2010/04/10/la-sindone-della-uaar-e-del-cicap-e-una-perfetta-bufala/

Problem for the forgery theory.

#34). The agnostic Yves Delage (see above), Professor of Zoology at the Sorbonne, Paris, then and now one of the world's leading universities, gave his reasons why the Shroud image is not a painting:
• The unknown 14th-century artist would have been greater than the Renaissance (14th-17th century) painters:

"At first sight, it would seem that the image on the shroud is ... a painting made for the purpose of a pious fraud. But when this hypothesis is examined with care, we see that it must be rejected for the following reasons: (1) As the shroud is authenticated since the fourteenth century, if the image is a faked painting, there must at this epoch have existed an artist-who has remained unknown-capable of executing a work hardly within the power of the greatest Renaissance painters"[7].
• It would have been impossible for a 14th-century forger to paint the Shroud image in a negative:
"While this is already very difficult to admit for an image painted as a positive, it becomes quite incredible in the case of a negative image, which lacks all aesthetic character in this form and assumes its value only when lights and shades are reversed, while strictly respecting their contours and values. Such an operation would be almost impossible except by photography, an art unknown in the 14th century. The forger, while painting a negative, must have known how to distribute light and shade so that after reversal they would give the figure which he attributed to Christ, and that with a perfect precision: for we know how little is required to change a beautiful head into a caricature, especially when its beauty is due to the expression"[8].
• Why would a 14th-century forger have depicted the Shroud image in a negative, when it could not have been appreciated by his contemporaries?
"I add this argument whose force will be felt on reflection: Why should this forger have taken the trouble to realize a beauty not visible in his work and discernible only after a reversal which only later was made possible? He was working for his contemporaries and not for the twentieth century and the Academy of Sciences" (emphasis Delage's)[9].
• The Shroud's negative image could not have been the result of a color reversal because (amongst other things) it is in monochrome:
"The idea that the image could have been painted in positive and changed to negative, as has happened to certain paintings on cloth and certain frescos, is contradicted inter alia by the fact that the image is in monochrome and consequently could not have undergone two inverse modifications from clear to shadow and from shadow to clear"[10].
• The Shroud's image has no outline [see #14], which is alien to the art of the 14th century:
"(2) The image results from the juxtaposition of graded tints, without definite delineation or sketching, like a badly focussed photograph: a procedure quite alien to the artistic conceptions of the fourteenth century"[11].
• The image is realistic, perfect and has no artisic style [see "#16"]:
"(3) The image is strongly realist, impeccable, without defect or omission: only imperfectly does it take account of tradition. it is neither schematic nor conventional: characteristics not to be found in any of the artistic productions of this epoch nor to such an extent in those of any epoch"[12].
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2021/07/



The 1mio$ challenge: If the Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done

"It was one of the most eagerly awaited scientific announcements of all time, and it pitted the world of faith against the world of rational thought, under the glare of the media. So when cutting-edge carbon-14 tests found that the Shroud of Turin was a forgery, it seemed like the final chapter for a relic that had been revered for centuries as the cloth in which Christ’s body had been wrapped when he supposedly rose from the dead at the first Easter almost 2,000 years ago.

But one man – David Rolfe, a filmmaker whose documentary The Silent Witness had brought the shroud into the public eye in modern times, and who had converted to Christianity as a result of his research – wasn’t prepared to give up on it. He was convinced the carbon dating, carried out in 1988 under the direction of the British Museum and Oxford University, had been flawed. And now he claims he has the evidence to prove it. This week sees the release of a new film, Who Can He Be?, in which Rolfe argues that, far from the shroud being a definite dud, new discoveries in the past few years have again opened the question of its authenticity.

So convinced is Rolfe that he’s issuing a challenge worth $1m to the British Museum. “If... they believe the shroud is a medieval forgery, I call on them to repeat the exercise, and create something similar today,” he says. “Because from all the evidence I’ve seen, if this is a forgery it’s the most ingenious forgery in history – and of course it dates back almost 2,000 years, to a time of far less sophisticated forgery techniques.

“They said it was knocked up by a medieval oilman, and I say: well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. And if you can, there’s a $1m donation for your funds.”

According to the gospel accounts, it was when they discovered Christ’s burial cloth on the floor of his tomb that his followers first believed he had risen from the dead. Across the centuries, the shroud has been venerated as that very piece of fabric.

Rolfe became aware of it about 45 years ago, after he put out a request for ideas for documentaries, and the writer Ian Wilson, who had investigated the shroud – by then being kept at Turin Cathedral – got in touch. Rolfe was not a believer, but he found the history of the shroud fascinating. The documentary he went on to make won a Bafta in 1978, and brought the relic to international attention.

“My programme at no point said it was authentic, it said it was authentic, but it did pose questions, such as how did the image of the crucified man get on to the cloth, and did its provenance fit with the timeline of Christ?" says Rolfe.

The most powerful moment for him came when he took photographs of the four-metre-long shroud for the first time, and saw that the image of the dead man’s face was much more pronounced in the negatives. “It was almost as though it had been created for the photographic age,” says Rolfe.

In the mid-1980s the Vatican, the owner of the shroud, agreed in principle that it could be dated using the latest technology. A few years later, the verdict made headlines around the world: the cloth dated from the 13th or 14th century, and could not possibly be authentic. It seemed the relic had had its day.

But Rolfe, who is now in his early 70s, was determined to debunk the debunking. “Five [testing] protocols were agreed on, but they were all abandoned,” he says. In the glare of world publicity, the tests became a political hot potato for the British Museum. The sample used for the tests, Rolfe argues in his new film, was too small and taken from a corner likely to have been repaired over the centuries.

Many would argue that, even if the shroud could be proved to be the burial cloth of the man named Jesus, that doesn’t amount to proof of his resurrection, the central tenet of Christian belief. “The carbon dating could show it was definitely from the time of Christ, but it’s still a stretch to go from that to seeing it as proof that he rose from the dead,” says Richy Thompson of Humanists UK. “What many non-religious people would say is, where is the evidence? Because if you’re going to make extraordinary claims, you need strong evidence to back it up.”

Rolfe is unperturbed: he says the image on the cloth seems to have come from a massive burst of radiation, emitted in a fraction of a second.

When it comes to the dating, he’s certainly not alone in his scepticism. Barrie M Schwortz, a photographer who documented the shroud in 1978, says “murky” would be a good word to describe the events of 1988. “Today there are at least six peer-reviewed scientific articles that challenge the results of the carbon dating,” he says. In his view, the players involved were in a hurry to get the job done, because they wanted to get carbon dating on the map. “Those tests made it a household name,” he says. “I’m Jewish, so I don’t have a horse in this race, but I’ve come to believe it’s the authentic burial cloth because I’ve looked at the science.”

The British Museum is less willing to get involved this time around. “Any recent questions about the shroud would be best put to those who currently care for it in the royal chapel of the cathedral of Turin,” a spokesperson said.

Updated challenge: 
https://www.whocanhebe.com/The_Challenge_2024.html?fbclid=IwAR04PeheZROQT9UaIc0-yTyLRl1xdMrXGozCF3vq4Segh4dhR8jwxxYPAOc








When she was 24, Emanuela Marinelli was walking near the Vatican in Rome when she caught a glimpse of a “beautiful face of Christ” printed on a souvenir in the window of a shop run by nuns. The image, she said, stood out among the other items for sale – a kitschy array of ashtrays with the face of the Pope and plastic representations of Jesus on the cross, with eyes that opened and closed. “It was black and white with his eyes closed, suffering but serene,” she said. Transfixed, she entered the shop and asked a nun who had painted the original version, only to be told there was no artist, it was a photograph of the Shroud of Turin. “I was surprised and disconcerted,” says Marinelli. “The idea that [this photo was of] the funeral sheet of Christ with his image printed on it seemed… ridiculous. I left the shop skeptical, and didn’t think any more of it.” That was back in 1975. Today, Marinelli is one of the world’s most prominent “shroudies” – people who believe that the 14’5” x 3’7” linen cloth, which bears an image of what appears to be the body of a man, is in fact the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. She isn’t alone. Many believers continue to revere the Shroud despite numerous scientific efforts to cast doubt on its provenance. In its own way, it’s become one of the world’s most unusual travel attractions, continuing to draw visitors despite the fact that few are now able to see it.



What, if the Shroud were a forgery ? 

In the middle ages, during centuries, indulgence was a BIG business for the catholic church. They were granted on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in exchange for money, which are claimed to allow a remission of  sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Typically a writ of indulgence was issued by the Church and given to an individual who had demonstrated some type of penance, or good work. 

Usually priests were travelling from one town to another in middle age Europe, visiting the four corners of the known world with an entire entourage.   One method employed to finance the building of St. Peter's Basilica was the granting of indulgences in return for contributions.  A succession of popes and architects took 120 years to build it, their combined efforts resulting in the completion in 1590. It would cost an estimate of 5,4 billion us$ today to build it. 

One of the tools to collect money was also when priests were travelling to carry  relics of the saints with them, usually consisting of the physical remains of a saint or the personal effects of the saint or venerated person preserved for purposes of veneration as a tangible memorial, and showing to the population.

Of course that was an important tool. To show a peace of wood that was claimed to pertain to the cross of Christ, or a spine of Christs crown, and so on. Now imagine, there would have been a way to produce such an amazing forgery of the linen cloth burial shroud in which  Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped after crucifixion. bearing his negative image. That, of course, would have been a tool of general amazement everywhere, were it would have been carried and shown. After showing it to the crowd, asking for indulgences and funds would have been much easier. 

If there were a method to produce such an inprint, Rome would have build a FACTORY to make the artifact in considerable numbers, and given it to the travelling priests as relic to be shown. There would not be just one shroud known, but hundreds, maybe thousands, and many still existing today. Each a littlebit different, but nonetheless, the technique, and consistency, the same, and as such, comparable one to each other. That would be a GREAT argument to denie the authentiticy ot all of them. 

But there are many  things unique on the shroud. 

The blood strains can only be seen with UV light. Why would an artist back then ever put blood there which would not be visible, and providing no advantage at all. But even more remarkable than that, the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.” What appears to be blood on the Shroud has passed 13 tests proving that it is real human blood.  The presence of "X" and "Y" chromosomes indicates that the blood is from a male.  The blood type is AB.  And most significantly, the blood is high in bilirubin which is a compound produced by the liver when it processes damaged red blood cells,  which occurs when a victim is severely beaten, as Jesus was. 

There is pollen from Jerusalem, Palestine, and Edessa. Pollen is on the Shroud that is unique to the area around Jerusalem.  Pollen from a plant with long thorns was found around his head. The place where the nails are in the hands is anatomically correct. The image is NOT  there are no pigments whatsoever on the Shroud. If it were a forgery, with high certainty, it would have been painted. Who of the lay population would have perceived it ? 

The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers and the image goes just two or three fibers deep into the thread. The superficial image then disappears if a colored thread goes under another thread. The polysaccharide cover is approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) the inner side is not.

Secondo Pia's first photograph in 1898 showed that the image on the cloth is a negative. The front and back (dorsal) images of the crucified man are negative images and contain 3D or topographical information content related to the distance of the cloth from the body. 

Two nails are through one foot, but only one of the nails is through the other foot.  This allows one foot to rotate, so that the victim can push up and down on the cross in order to breath during crucifixion.  If the victim of crucifixion is not pushing up and down, then it is clear that he is dead.  The soldiers had no doubt that Jesus was dead. All paintings of the Middle Ages showed the nails through the center of the palms, but nails through the palms do not support sufficient weight since there is no bone structure above this location.  Archeology has confirmed that during crucifixion, the nails were driven through the wrists.  The Shroud shows the correct nail locations - through the wrist instead of through the palm. On the Shroud, the thumbs are folded under, contrary to all paintings of the Middle Ages.  Nails through the wrists automatically fold the thumbs under due to contact of the nail with the nerve that goes through the wrist.

In 2013, a research team from the University of Padua conducted three tests on tiny fibers extracted from the shroud during earlier carbon-14 dating tests conducted in 1988 The first two tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy, respectively, while the third employed a test analyzing different mechanical parameters relating to voltage. The results date the cloth to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D.. Fanti said that researchers also found trace elements of soil "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem." "For me the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity," he wrote, adding that there also "no sure proofs. The 1988 carbon C14 results may have been contaminated by fibers used to repair the cloth during the Middle Ages.

The Shroud has four sets of burn holes in an L-shaped pattern.  This same pattern of holes appears on a picture in a document known as the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, which is dated to 1192-1195 AD.  This indicates that the Shroud of Turin ought to be identified as the cloth, sometimes called the Mandylion, that was in Constantinople until the city was sacked during the fourth crusade in 1204 AD.  It is generally believed that this cloth was brought to Constantinople from Edessa, Turkey, in 944 AD.  In Edessa, it was called the Image of Edessa.  Thus, the Shroud of Turin is the same as the Image of Edessa, so it can be historically traced back prior to 944 AD. 

Stitching used to sew on the 3-inch wide side piece onto the main Shroud is nearly identical to that found at Masada which was destroyed in 73-74 AD. The size of the Shroud being very close to 2 by 8 cubits - the ancient unit of measurement 

The Shroud shows 100 to 120 scourge marks from two Roman flagrum, one striking from each side, with dumbbell shaped weights on the ends of the straps.  The blood marks from these wounds show blood serum rings (visible only under UV) around the dried blood exudate. There are abrasions on both shoulders evidently caused by the victim carrying a heavy rough object.

The side of the front image on the Shroud shows a 2 inch wide elliptical wound - the size of a typical Roman spear. The blood running down his arms is at the correct angles for a crucifixion victim.  Two angles for the blood flow can be seen on his arms.  These two angles are consistent with the crucifixion victim shifting between two positions while on the cross in order to breath.

Claim:  It's because of this evidence, that Garlaschelli tried to remake a full-size shroud. Garlaschelli reproduced the shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. He placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A bas-relief was used for the face. The linen was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed the pigment from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. The pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries. Garlaschelli then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.
His replica is amazing, and even the shroudologist Mark Guscin has to admit it. As for those who claim that under the microscope the image cannot be identical to the Turin Shroud, one must consider that even two coins minted in the very same mint aren't identical under the microscope. The goal achieved by Garlaschelli was to show that such a relic could easily be produced in the Middle Ages.

Reply: In the Middle Ages there were the raw materials to build an airplane, but that doesn't mean it was built back then.  As mentioned above Garlaschelli used Shroud photos to make his, and while it's somewhat visually similar to the Shroud, it certainly does not contain all the characteristics.  We know from the Shroud that the blood went on 1st and then the image.  Garlaschelli did his image and then added his blood.  Not a match.


Claim:   There are many inaccuracies and the image is anatomically incorrect.
Reply: Joe Marino: Individual Medical Doctors' Viewpoints on the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin 2021

Starting with French biologist Dr. Paul Vignon in the early 20th-century, most medical doctors who have studied the Shroud believe that the image accurately depicts anatomically and physiologically an actual human body that has undergone the torture of crucifixion. Drs. Robert Bucklin and Dr. Frederick Zugibe, who each studied the Shroud about 50 years each and who performed a combined approximate 50,000 (!) autopsies, both believed that the Shroud image was that of a real, crucified man who died. It seems bizarre that some skeptics will bring up the aforesaid point about a difference of beliefs of where the hand wound was located as if that also practically disauthenticates the Shroud.  It’s fair to say that an overwhelming number of medical doctors believe that it’s not a forgery.



In 1933 Pierre Barbet, a surgeon who spent years of research and experiments to prove the medical accuracy of the image on the Shroud and published a book, “Doctor of Calvary” concluded: “It was the homogeneous group of verification without one single weak link among them that made me decide to declare that authenticity of he Shroud from point view anatomy and physiology is scientific fact. It is my firm opinion that this shroud has contained dead body Jesus as well as his divinity. I believe this just as I believe in law gravity.”

Barbet, Pierre. A Doctor at Calvary. New York: Image Books), 1963, pg. 185
Here, then, is the result of my anatomical and other research on the subject of the Wounds of Christ. I hope I have given the impression that I have conducted them with full independence of mind and with all possible scientific objectivity. I started out with a certain skepticism, more or less with a Cartesian doubt, to examine the images on the shroud; I was quite ready to deny their authenticity if they disagreed with anatomical truth. But, on the contrary, the facts gradually grouped themselves into a bundle of proofs, which carried increasing conviction. Not only was the explanation of the images so natural and simple that it proclaimed them to be genuine; but, when at first they seemed to be abnormal, the experiment demonstrated that they were as they should be, that they could not be different and as a forger would have portrayed them, following the current iconographic traditions. Anatomy thus bore witness to their authenticity, in full agreement with the Gospel texts. We possess, then, the shroud of Christ, bearing the image of His body and the marks of His blood. It is the noblest relic in the world, a corporal relic of Our Lord. For him who can read and can reflect, it is the most beautiful, the most moving of the meditations on the Passion.

GILBERT R. LAVOIE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LENGTH OF THE ARMS IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION 
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi30part3.pdf

Claim: most damning are the efforts of N.D. Wilson, who produced a replica of the Shroud, that is identical to it in every relevant way, by painting an image on a sheet of glass, placing it over a blank shroud, and leaving it in the sun for 10 days.
Reply: Episode #11: Has The Shroud Been Debunked? John Calvin vs. The Shroud Oct. 15, 2019
N.D. Wilson’s amazing 2005 article in Christianity Today, entitled “Father Brown fakes The Shroud” is a must read for Shroud enthusiasts. Unfortunately, the only possible way to read it is to get your hands on that 2005 magazine in a library somewhere, or pay CT $30 for a digital subscription - which is what I did. 15 years ago N.D. Wilson supposedly figured out how one might fake The Shroud of Turin, and since that time, I have heard several people say or intimate that The Shroud had conclusively been proven a fraud with the 1-2 punch of #1 1988 medieval dating and #2 Wilson’s reproduction.

Wilson’s method of duplicating The Shroud is ingenious. Basically, he and an artist friend painted a reverse image on a large pane of glass, and then had the sun shine through that image onto a Linen cloth over a period of several days. The sun bleached the cloth - lighter in areas of heavy paint and darker in areas of light paint. The resulting image does indeed look fairly authentic and Shroud-like to the naked eye. It does prove that it is possible, with the right equipment,  to put a negative-like image like The Shroud onto a linen cloth. Here are some objections that have been raised:

Claim: 
Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin
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. 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.

Reply: 
IMAGE FORMATION VERSUS WORK OF AN ARTIST
No one knows for sure how the images were created.  The images are scorch-like, yet not created by heat, and are a purely surface phenomenon limited to the crowns of the top fibers.  The Shroud is clearly not a painting; no evidence of pigments or media was found.  The blood was on the Cloth before the image (an unlikely way for an artist to work).  There is no outline, no binders to hold paint, no evidence that paint, dye, ink, or chalk created the images, and there are no brush strokes.  According to world-renowned artist Isabel Piczek, the images have no style that would fit into any period of art history.  The images show perfect photo-negativity and 3-dimensionality.  It is not a Vaporgraph or natural result of vapors.

Note: some microscopic particles of paint exist on the Shroud, but these do not constitute the image.  During the Middle Ages, a practice called the "sanctification of paintings" permitted about 50 artists to paint replicas of the Shroud and then lay their paintings over the Shroud to "sanctify" them.  This permitted contact transfer of particles, which then migrated around the cloth with the folding and rolling of the Shroud when it was opened for exhibit and closed again afterwards.

STURP determined that the image was caused by rapid dehydration, oxidation and degradation of the linen by an unidentified process, coloring it a sepia or straw yellow.  Several Physicists, including Dr. John Jackson of the Colorado Shroud Center, suggest that a form of columnated radiation is the best explanation for how the image was formed, leaving a scorch-like appearance (the scorch caused by light versus heat, as the image does not fluoresce).  Dr. Thomas Phillips (nuclear physicist at Duke University and formerly with the High Energy Labs at Harvard) says a potential miliburst of radiation (a neutron flux) could be consistent with the moment of resurrection.  Such a miliburst might cause the purely surface phenomenon of the scorch-like (scorch-by-light) images, and possibly add Carbon-14 to the Cloth.  As Dr. Phillips points out: "We never had a resurrection to study" and more testing should be done to ascertain whether a neutron-flux occurred.

The coloration on the linen fibers of the Shroud is extremely thin.  Sticky tape samples taken from different parts of the image on the Shroud's surface in 1978 were too thin to measure accurately with a standard optical microscope, which means they were thinner than the wavelength of visible light, or less than about 0.6 micrometers.  A more recent measurement of the coloration on one of the fibers was found to be about 0.2 micrometers thick (or one-fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter).

Italian scientists working at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted experiments on their own time between 2005 and 2010, applying ultraviolet radiation to strips of linen to see if they could match the coloration on the fibers of the Shroud of Turin.  In their ENEA technical report, published in November 2011, they wrote that particular doses of radiation left a thin coating on linen fibers that resemble the colored fibers on the image of the Shroud of Turin.  When questioned, the lead scientist in the study, Paolo Di Lazzaro, said that vacuum ultraviolet radiation (VUV, wavelength 200-100 nanometers) from laser pulses lasting less than 50 nanoseconds produced the best effect.
These findings support the idea that the image on the Shroud was made by a sudden flash of high-energy radiation.  They also refute the possibility of forgery, since lasers were obviously not available in medieval times.
The technical report: P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, E. Nichelatti, A. Santoni, G. Baldacchini: "Colorazione similsindonica di tessuti di lino tramite radiazione nel lontano ultravioletto: riassunto dei risultati ottenuti presso il Centro ENEA di Frascati negli anni 2005-2010" RT/2011/14/ENEA (2011).

Nicholas P L Allen's forgery hypothesis

This Photograph Could Be Older Than the Camera Obscura
Art Historian Nicholas Allen has a radical theory about the image on the Shroud of Turin; he believes it was the world's first photograph, taken 500 years before the known invention of photography.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/this-photograph-could-be-older-than-the-camera/

Sunlight-Based Hypotheses (Proto-Photo, Shadow & Solar Reflex Models)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zWEn8jz3rM


Nicholas P. L. Allen Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photo-negative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin 1995
https://doi.org/10.1080/00043389.1995.11761214





Hypothetical model. illustrating how the Shroud of Turin was manufactured c 1 260-1320 AD.

Nicholas Allen’s Photograph Theory Just Won’t Die
https://shroudstory.com/2009/02/21/nicholas-allens-photograph-theory-just-wont-die/

Professor Allen was notably reticent about certain details, particularly because it was contentious whether the supposed photographer used a real corpse or a human-like model. It's highly improbable that a corpse was used, considering that after "several days" in the blazing sun, it would likely have been half-decomposed and would have emitted an overwhelming stench. Additionally, this would have been a radical violation of medieval religious taboos. Moreover, a hung corpse, due to rigor mortis, wouldn't have remained in the same position for long and thus couldn't have looked like a lying figure. If it were a real crucifixion victim, the corresponding "bloodstains" wouldn't have likely transferred over the required focal distance of twice 15 meters onto the shroud. Another possibility is that the shroud was made in the Middle Ages using Allen's method, but with the aid of a plaster model of a living (or perhaps dead) man, which brings its own contradictions. As Cennino Cennini wrote in his work "Il Libro dell'Arte," the technical means to make plaster face masks of living people were only developed in the 14th century. The model would have had straws in their nose to breathe while the plaster set on the face. Still, it would have been challenging to make a truly good plaster model, even without the advanced process Professor Nicholas Allen suggested was used for the shroud, which would have required at least basic knowledge of techniques to create a photo-like image. However, it's critical to consider the following: Assuming, albeit very unlikely, that a person in the late Middle Ages had such extensive knowledge of photographic technique - only to then completely forget this knowledge! - why did this suffice only to produce a "negative" that wouldn't have convinced any viewer at that time? The hidden "positive," where everything is clearly visible, would have remained unseen for the next 500 years, even by the photographer themselves. Combining Professor Allen's theory that the shroud is the projection of a plaster model with the hypothesis that the shroud is a "virtuoso painting," the "bloodstains" on the shroud would be mere smudges applied for effect. Yet, pathologists and doctors have sufficiently confirmed the medical authenticity of the stains, not to mention historical evidence that such an object as the shroud was in circulation before it was supposedly made as an impressive forgery. Without diminishing Allen's contribution, it can be summarized that his thesis has significant weaknesses, as do all other theories circulating to date that suggest the shroud image originated in the Middle Ages or later.

Stephen Jones: My reply to Prof. Nicholas Allen (assumed)
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2020/11/stephen-e.html

Claim:  "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" FALSE
M.Borrini, Ph.D.; and L.Garlaschelli: A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin 2018
The inconsistencies identified by the authors seem not only to point against their own reality, but against the authenticity of the Shroud itself, suggesting that the Turin linen was an artistic or “didactic” representation from the XIV century. This new Bloodstain Pattern Analysis supports the historical records (27), the radiocarbon dating, and the chemical analysis.
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1111/1556-4029.13867

"Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake", October 9, 2009:
https://www.cnn.com/.../europe/10/07/italy.turin.shroud/
"Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine": https://www.independent.co.uk/.../turin-shroud-latest...
"study suggests Shroud of Turin a fake, supporting study": https://phys.org/.../2018-07-shroud-turin-fake-retracted...
"Study of Shroud of Turin Proves Again: Jesus Relic Is Fake": https://www.haaretz.com/.../MAGAZINE-csi-study-of-shroud...
"research (once again) suggests the Shroud of Turin is fake": https://www.nbcnews.com/.../forensic-research-once-again...
"tests suggest Shroud of Turin is fake": https://www.reuters.com/.../new-forensic-tests-suggest...
"The Bloodstains On The Shroud Of Turin Are Probably Fake, Say Forensic Experts": https://www.buzzfeednews.com/.../shroud-turin-jesus-fake...
"Ancient Shroud of Turin Is Likely Fake, Bloodstain Analysis Finds": https://www.newsweek.com/ancient-shroud-turin-least-half...
"Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest": https://www.livescience.com/63093-shroud-of-turin-is-fake...

"The Bloodstains On The Shroud Of Turin Are Probably Fake, Say Forensic Experts":  
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/shroud-turin-jesus-fake-bloodstain?fbclid=IwAR396GG6MuFxqWjBaNhLOGfyvK6N2EtNvGk5vdt_7WnNz8vsIbyYoqMoasI
"Ancient Shroud of Turin Is Likely Fake, Bloodstain Analysis Finds":
https://www.newsweek.com/ancient-shroud-turin-least-half-fake-bloodstain-analysis-finds-1026279?fbclid=IwAR3pUhM7VPMW8RZud_QJ9faOqFDKhjPmhEp_InyOoAdFHMlbUwXDtzTfFSg
"Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest":  
https://www.livescience.com/63093-shroud-of-turin-is-fake-bloodstains.html?fbclid=IwAR2Dt60jarXjV12KCSNRyIrXRBrZC47n5vZ-oqxKakhaPFeOKv7SYjfnJ0U
628-year-old fake news: Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)
https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turin-shroud-latest-fake-forgery-scientific-blood-pattern-spatter-study-carbon-dating-debunked-a8450101.html?amp=&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA=&fbclid=IwAR3p53pbmq6cjDKNT0AFHaY96BxrBwsHje9i2-qwy1iWLeTeDVtwsSI6x0c&amp_js_v=0.1#aoh=15868689159723&amp_ct=1586868931077&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fturin-shroud-latest-fake-forgery-scientific-blood-pattern-spatter-study-carbon-dating-debunked-a8450101.html

"My research - continues Garlaschelli - made possible also by the economic contribution of some entities, such as the UAAR (Union of Atheists Rationalist Agnostics), and many private individuals - aimed to verify whether an artist could have obtained it with methods also available in 1300.
https://www.massimopolidoro.com/blog/la-sindone-riprodotta-in-grandezza-naturale-al-convegno-del-cicap.html

Garlaschelli, professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia, told La Repubblica newspaper that his team used linen woven using the same techniques as those used on the shroud, and artificially aged by heating in an oven and washing.
http://www.italiaoggi.com.br/not10_1209/ital_not20091009d.htm

Reply:  Stephen E. Jones: My critique of Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July
Conclusion after a careful analysis of the claims in the paper: Borrini and Garlaschelli in their paper set up a strawman of the Shroud and refuted only that. And that they are guilty of either scholarly incompetence, in not being aware of the relevant Shroud literature, or scholarly dishonesty, in being aware of that literature but concealing it from their readers. Or both. They are an example of `the blind leading the blind'
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2018/08/my-critique-of-borrini-m-garlaschelli-l.html

“A BPA APPROACH TO THE SHROUD OF TURIN” by Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli 
The article presents numerous formal and conceptual errors that deprive it of scientific credibility. First of all, neither author is a forensic physician, so they lack the experience and knowledge necessary to successfully deal with any kind of investigation of human bloodstains. The “experiments” have been conducted on a living and healthy human being, without traumatic wounds of any kind and with a dummy vaguely reminiscent of a human trunk. But if it is not done with a living human being who has suffered the same wounds and the same chronology as the Man of the Shroud, nor with a corpse that meets the same requirements, then the experiment does NOT reproduce, not even approximately, the circumstances in which the bloodstains originated.

The blood on the Shroud was cadaveric blood, not living blood, or even chemically anticoagulated blood. Considering the above-reported statement, it is likely that the “blood belt” was not produced by the flow of blood between the corpse and the cloth, but while placing the body on the linen, the corpse bled and released a trail of blood that perfectly reproduces the relative path between the corpse and the textile material that absorbed this blood. This fact, too, was not taken into consideration. All these considerations together suggest that the study of Borrini and Garlaschelli presents several limitations and that the conclusions of the authors are not supported by the experimental data.
[url=https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Hermosilla EN.pdf]https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Hermosilla%20EN.pdf[/url]

Considerable efforts have been made to demonstrate that the Shroud is a fraud. Many books were written, attempts made to duplicate the image, but what these attempts have achieved is the contrary of the intent. Ini my opinion, the investigations to reproduce the Shroud of Turin only demostrate that the best efforts do not suffice to come even close to the image of the original. The results are far away from the original, very poor and can be easily identified as made by an artist.

All attempts to reproduce the shroud have failed. Copies have been made that look like it but they lack all of the image characteristics that make the shroud image unique. Science cannot explain nor replicate the image..the closest we have come to replicating it (allegedly) is by bombarding linen samples with VUV Excimer Lasers.

https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/AAFS-2019-E73.pdf


Commentary On: Borrini M, Garlaschelli L. A BPA approach to the Shroud of Turin. J Forensic 
https://sci-hub.ee/10.1111/1556-4029.13997

ANSWER TO THE ARTICLE “A BPA APPROACH TO THE SHROUD OF TURIN” by Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli
[url=https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Hermosilla EN.pdf]https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Hermosilla%20EN.pdf[/url] 





Physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro, deputy director of the International Centre of Sindonology,  told La Stampa:

We are in the field of pure hypothesis. Every new experiment is welcome, but before drawing any conclusions, a serious scientist must take into account the experimental limits, the unknown parameters and above all the different configuration of skin and blood between the drippings of the dehydrated and wounded and beaten man that we see on the Shroud and the drippings of fluidized blood on the skin of a person in good health. We cannot say that the Shroud‘s blood flows are not congruent with the position of a crucified man if we do not take into account the conditions of the dehydrated sindonic man, with the viscous blood and the swollen, dirty and sweaty skin. For this reason, I believe that the results of this research should be considered as less than preliminary, waiting for an experiment that attempts to reproduce the spots visible on the Shroud using parameters of blood and skin closer to those that they want to reproduce.
https://weirdcatholic.com/2018/08/07/the-latest-bogus-shroud-debunking/







On the left: Photograph of the life-size body cast of a human subject (1993-4) based on the image as found in the Shroud of Turin.
Middle: Photograph of the Shroud of Port Elizabeth showing the negative, frontal image of the body cast of a tortured man.
Right: Photograph of the Shroud of Port Elizabeth showing the negative, dorsal image of the body cast of a tortured man.[/size]

http://www.christ-aninventedmyth.eu/approfondimento.asp?ID=44
https://web.archive.org/web/20080905163030/http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/as/
Large positive image of the shroud
http://www.shroud.com/
http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html
The Origins of the Shroud of Turin By Charles Freeman | Published in History Today Volume: 64 Issue: 11 2014
]The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website
The Shroud of Turin from the McCrone Research Institute
The Fraud of Turin - by Joe Nickell 6 April 2010
The Holy Shroud (of Turin) from the Catholic Encyclopedia
Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin - Reuters Mon Oct 5, 2009
Shroud of Turin Not Jesus', Tomb Discovery Suggests - National Geographic News Updated December 17, 2009

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin by Damon et al., Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989
Shroud of Turin articles from CSICOP

Claims of Invalid "Shroud" Radiocarbon Date Cut from Whole Cloth
Shroud of Turin Exhibition Renews False Claims of Authenticity
New "Shroud" Claims Challenged as Spurious
[size=13]CSICOP on Turin Shroud[/size]

Books:
Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin : Latest Scientific Findings by Joe Nickell
Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin by Walter McCrone
Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud by Harry E Gove

Thats how a fake would look like: How Jesus Was Wrapped In Shroud Of Turin & Sudarium NEW HD VIDEO 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDRCVLOv1-w




The impressive Characteristics of the Shroud

1. ** The Image is a Photonegative**: The image on the Shroud of Turin is an optical negative, which becomes visually comprehensible when its light and dark areas are inverted in a photographic negative (a photographic negative of a negative results in a visual positive). It's only in this inverted form that the imprint appears realistic and detailed. The concept of photonegativity was not understood until after the invention of photography, making it highly improbable for a medieval forger to have intentionally created an optical negative image.

2. **Three-Dimensionality**: Perhaps the most astonishing characteristic is the image's three-dimensional quality. The intensity of the image varies in relation to the distance between the cloth and the body. This relationship is so mathematically precise that scientists can construct a three-dimensional replica of the "Man of the Shroud." The embedding of 3D information in the image is a phenomenon not replicated or understood in modern imaging technology, further complicating the theory of medieval forgery.

3. **Detailing**: The imprint on the Shroud shows extraordinary detail. For instance, not only are the contusions from scourging identifiable but within these marks, tiny lacerations from the Roman flagrum can also be discerned. The precision in transferring these specific marks to the cloth is unprecedented. Such detailing is especially complex, considering the variety of wounds depicted, which adds to the mystery of how the image was formed.

Cumulative Case corroborating the authenticity of the Shroud

The combination of these three characteristics – optical negativity, three-dimensional data, and detailed transfer of injury marks – in one artifact is exceptionally rare and complex. For a forger in the Middle Ages to have created an image with these properties would have required knowledge and technologies far beyond the era's capabilities. The photonegativity alone is a concept that only became understood with the advent of photography centuries later. The precision of the 3D information embedded in the Shroud's image is something that even modern technology struggles to replicate. Additionally, the detailed transfer of the marks of a Roman flagrum, with such precision and accuracy, is a feature not observed in any other known artifacts. These factors collectively enhance the Shroud's mystery, making it an object of intense study and debate. The complexity and uniqueness of the Shroud's image continue to challenge the understanding of how it was created, with no satisfactory explanation that encompasses all these aspects in a medieval context. This lack of explanation adds to the intrigue and significance of the Shroud in both scientific and religious circles.


Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?
A Critical Examination of the Theory Barrie M. Schwortz
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf

The proto-photography theory proposed by Prof. Nicholas Allen indeed demonstrated an ability to create images on linen cloth using medieval materials, but it fell short of replicating all the unique properties of the Shroud of Turin's image. To fully understand and provide a viable image formation mechanism for the Shroud, it's crucial to account for all of its distinctive features. Allen's approach, while impressive in its own right, may not have encompassed all the complexities of the Shroud's image. Just as it takes a professional artist to evaluate a painting comprehensively, the evaluation of a photographic theory like this should involve professional photographers who can scrutinize it from a technical perspective. Other professionals who have assessed Allen's theory have also arrived at similar conclusions. It's worth noting that while Allen was able to create a photographic image using medieval materials, he did so with the advantage of 21st-century scientific knowledge and techniques. It's akin to the idea that certain raw materials may exist on our planet today that could potentially lead to interstellar travel in the future, but their mere existence doesn't guarantee the immediate development of such technology. Achieving interstellar travel or replicating all aspects of the Shroud's image would require advancements in technology and knowledge that surpass our current capabilities. The argument that the mere existence of specific raw materials implies that someone from the past could have used them to invent technology far ahead of their time doesn't hold up. If we were to accept this premise, we might find ourselves searching archaeological sites worldwide for remnants of medieval cellular phones, microwave ovens, and nuclear weapons. Just because the raw materials for advanced technologies exist doesn't mean someone created them, especially if human knowledge and technological capabilities were not advanced enough to make it possible at that time.

Is the man on the shroud Jesus ?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7135

The correlation between the wounds inflicted upon the Jewish man buried in the shroud and the wounds the New Testament reports as having been inflicted upon Jesus is remarkable: ‘comparison of the gospel accounts with the sufferings and burial of the man in the Shroud points to the strong likelihood that the man is Jesus Christ. The evidence is consistent at every point. The man of the Shroud suffered, died, and was buried the way the gospels say Jesus was.’53 These similarities don’t fit any other known victim of crucifixion, except Jesus.

The sufferings, crucifixion and burial of Jesus, as described by the gospels, were different 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 [rather than tied], stabbed in the side (instead of his legs being broken), buried well [rather than thrown to the dogs] but incompletely, and his body left the cloth before it decomposed.’54 Because we know quite a lot about Roman and Jewish customs in these matters, we can estimate the probability of two men being treated, crucified and buried in this way, and hence the probability that the Jewish man in the Shroud was Jesus.

Peter S. Williams The Shroud of Turin: A Cumulative Case for Authenticity 
Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas note just eight irregularities present in both the New Testament and the Turin Shroud (there are others55 ) and make conservative estimates of the probability that these irregularities would occur in other crucifixion victims:

1.Both exhibit a severe beating and scourging (Matthew 27:26-30; Mark 15:15- 19; Luke 22:63-64; John 19:1-3). (1 in 2 probability that a crucified man other than Jesus was beaten in this way) 
2. Both had a crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29; Mark 15:17-20; John 19:2) – ‘Crowning indicates majesty and a crown of thorns would, of course, mock that proclaimed majesty. Jesus was crowned with thorns for this very reason. . . the man buried in the Shroud was also pierced through the scalp. If the man in the Shroud is not Jesus, what are the chances that this man, probably a criminal or slave, would have been crowned with thorns?’56 (1 in 400 probability) 
3. Many crucifixion victims were tied to their crosses with ropes, but both Jesus and the man in the Shroud were nailed there (Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 25- 27).57 (1 in 2 probability) 
4. Neither Jesus nor the man in the Shroud had their legs broken, the normal procedure for ensuring death (John 19:31-32). (1 in 3 probability) 
5. ‘To ensure that Jesus was dead, a soldier stabbed him in the side, and blood and water flowed from the wound (John 19:33-34). The same thing happened to the man in the Shroud.’ (The wound in the side of the Man in the Shroud exactly corresponds to the size of the tip of the lancia, a Roman spear with a long, leaf-shaped head.) (1 in 27 probability) 
6. Few victims of crucifixion were given individual burials in a fine linen Shroud (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50-55; John 19:38-42). (1 in 8 probability) 
7. Both Jesus and the man in the Shroud were buried hastily (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1). (1 in 8 probability) 
8. Neither man decomposed in their Shroud. (1 in 10 probability) Despite using ‘deliberately conservative’58 estimates of probability that ‘are most likely too low’59 , Stevenson and Habermas observe that: ‘multiplying these probabilities, we have 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus.’

Multiplying these probabilities, we have 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus.
http://docshare04.docshare.tips/files/14267/142675557.pdf

No substances were manually applied to the cloth. No artistic substances such as paint, ink, dye, pigments, or stain were used to constitute the image. No collagen binder as would be used with paint. No fibers cemented to each other as with paint. No capillary action -- meaning no liquids were applied to form the image. No substances were found between threads, as with a dust rubbing. Bloodstains on cloth test positive for heme, bile, serum albumin, and other human blood components. The blood is male type AB. “The blood marks seen on the shroud are consistent with a contact transfer to the cloth of blood clot exudates that would have resulted from major wounds inflicted on a man who died in the position of crucifixion.” Dr. Al Adler—Blood chemist STURP Team . The image is purely superficial. It does not penetrate the cloth – only rests on the top two microfibers. The image is a photographic negative that develops as a positive. The image contains 3D “distance information” similar to a topographical map. No directionality to the image, as found with a brush or any substance application tool. No variation in the depth of the image. (Virtually impossible with human hands.) The yellowing of the image is uniform in intensity. No outline or defined edges to the image.

No substances manually applied to the cloth.
No artistic substances such as paint, ink, dye, pigments, or stain were used to constitute the image.
No collagen binder as would be used with paint.
No fibers cemented to each other as with paint.
No capillary action -- meaning no liquids were applied to form the image.
No substances found between threads, as with a dust rubbing.
Bloodstains on cloth test positive for heme, bile, serum albumin, and other human blood components. The blood is male type AB.
“The blood marks seen on the shroud are consistent with a contact transfer to the cloth of blood clot exudates that would have resulted from major wounds inflicted on a man who died in the position of crucifixion.” Dr. Al Adler—Blood chemist STURP Team

The following are image characteristics found on or about the Shroud:
- The image is purely superficial. It does not penetrate the cloth – only rests on the top two micro-fibers. (Analogous to the Shroud image resting on the hairs of your forearm.)
- The image is a photographic negative that develops as a positive.
- The image contains 3D “distance information” similar to a topographical map.
- No directionality to the image, as found with a brush or any substance application tool.
- No variation in the depth of the image. (Virtually impossible with human hands.)
- The yellowing of the image is uniform in intensity.
- No outline or defined edges to the image.

STURP conclusion: “There are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological, or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.”

Medical forensics determined by STURP concluded that the cloth wrapped a human corpse. Blood chemistry indicates human blood from actual wounds. Botanical studies concluded that the cloth originated in Israel. Alternate dating methods (Professor Giulio Fanti, 2013-14) include the First Century within the range. However, can it be proved that the image of “the Man of the Shroud” is Jesus Christ? Only by inference according to the four gospels:

- Bloodstains on the head compatible with a crown of thorns.
- Over 120 scourge (whip) marks compatible with Roman flagrum.
- Nail wound in the wrists (more anatomically correct to hold the weight of the body than the palm of the hand).
- Nail wound in the feet. (The man’s feet were on top of each other.)
- Legs are pulled up due to rigor mortis. (A stiffness of muscles that sets in quickly after death and lasts less than four days.)
- Blood is sourced from actual wounds showing evidence of gravity from a vertical position. (On the cross?)
- No stains of body decomposition. (Resurrection happened on the third day before decomposition had time to occur?)
- Wound in the side compatible in size with a Roman spear tip.
- Post-mortem blood flow from the side wound that also flows across the back.

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html?fbclid=IwAR2Uns3ZPVtC1HFoR-jTDQc84a6PbbkkRCDiMFTwNVNaH-7HzTMv1OX22UU

Experts agree that facial features identify the man buried in the Shroud as a Caucasian. Carlton Coon, a leading ethnologist, says he has the physical features of a Jew or Arab. The man’s hairstyle, characterized by a beard and long hair parted in the middle, further identifies him as a Jew. In addition, the hair in back is cut in the form of a pigtail, a hairstyle very common in firstcentury Jewish men. It is thus probable that this crucified person was a Jew.

How can we be sure that the ‘Man of the Shroud’ is Jesus?
The latest and most dramatic discoveries concern a piece of writing on the Shroud itself. For years, people had been asking why below and to the sides of the chin there are three clear and regular lines where no imprint is present. The Paris-based organisation CIERT (Centre International d’Etudes sur le Linceul de Turin, The international centre of studies on the Shroud of Turin), which I represent in Italy, has conducted studies in the most advanced institute in Europe for image analysis via computer, the Institut Optique d’Orsay, whose director is Professor André Marion. All official photographs of the Shroud were divided into tens of thousands of squares which were then given a corresponding optical density and transferred onto a visualisation programme. By means of an extremely advanced programme, some letters gradually began to emerge, in Latin and in Greek: under the chin, we find written ‘Jesus’ and on one side, ‘Nazarene’. What is the explanation for this? The ‘exactor mortis’ the centurion charged with ensuring the execution of the condemned, had drawn strips of ‘glue’ onto the cloth on which he would write the name of the deceased with a red liquid. Where these strips were drawn, the cloth was impermeable and would not, therefore, be subject to the chemical process which subsequently formed the imprint.  I sent a photograph of these inscriptions to André Marion in Paris, and he has already discovered many similarities with the style of the writing only recently discovered on the Shroud.
https://www.messengersaintanthony.com/content/man-shroud-has-name

The Shroud of Turin: Proof of the Resurrection
http://www.british-israel.ca/shroud.htm

The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks: Writing
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-shroud-of-turin-26-other-marks-6.html

Certificado do enterro de Jesus Nazareno
https://sites.google.com/site/deciomedeiros/home/teologia/certificado-do-enterro-de-jesus-nazareno

Vatican researcher discovers Jesus death certificate on Holy Shroud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndGnEGCJuaA&feature=youtu.be

The Writing on the Shroud: A Stephen Jones Update
https://shroudstory.com/2013/06/04/the-writing-on-the-shroud-a-stephen-jones-update/
With the possible exception of the 11th century writing above the right knee (see above), there is no compelling evidence for, and much evidence against, the theory that there is writing on the Shroud of Turin. Even among scholars who believe in the Shroud’s authenticity, most have dismissed as unreliable the computer enhanced images of `letters’ on the Shroud upon which Marastoni’s, Marion and Courage’s, and Frale’s, theories are based[103]. As Dr Bruno Barberis, director of the International Center for Shroud Studies of Turin, commented, "There is no evidence that those letters do exist. Many have seen faint writings on the cloth. Rather than a shroud it looks like an encyclopedia"

Claim: THE MAN OF THE SHROUD HAS LONG HAIR, WHICH IS FORBIDDEN IN THE GOSPELS
Reply: We know from archeological materials such as Middle Eastern carvings and Egyptian tomb paintings that Jews wore what we would consider today as long hair and beards. Hair reached down to the shoulders on men. Women wore hair down to the waist.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/if-st-paul-says-long-hair-is-unnatural-for-men-why-do-our-portraits-of-jesus-show-him-with-it

Leviticus 19:27 “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.”



Question: What was the skin color of Jesus? 
Reply: The people of the Middle East, including the historical region of Judea where Jesus lived, typically have olive or darker skin tones, which would be more adaptive to the sunny, Mediterranean climate of the region. This would differentiate them from the lighter-skinned populations of Northern Europe.

While some Southern Europeans, such as those from Italy, might have olive or slightly darker skin tones due to the Mediterranean climate, it's important to differentiate between the diverse range of appearances found across Europe and the Middle East. The concept of race as understood today is also a social construct that doesn't neatly apply to historical populations.



https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-shroud-of-turin-32-man-on-shroud.html




The man on the Shroud was a Jew, according to the late Harvard physical anthropologist Carleton S. Coon. The man on the Shroud has shoulder-length hair which is parted in the middle, but of the numerous Greek and Roman portraits we have, there is not one of a man with middle-parted hair falling to the shoulders. Similarly, a full beard like that on the Shroud is rarely found in a Greek or Roman portrait, but Jews regarded a full beard as a mark of manhood. Also, the manner of the deceased lying on his back, his hands crossed in front covering his pelvic region, and his body covered with a single linen sheet.

Hair Style: The man has shoulder-length hair parted in the middle, which is not commonly seen in Greek and Roman portraits. Most depictions from those cultures show men with shorter haircuts and different styling, often without a middle part.
Facial Hair: The full beard represented on the Shroud is not typical of Greek and Roman portraiture, where beards, when present, were often closely trimmed or styled in a manner different from the full beard shown on the Shroud. In contrast, full beards were respected in Jewish culture as a symbol of manhood and maturity.

Nasal Features: While not explicitly mentioned in the excerpt, Middle Eastern individuals, including those of Jewish descent during the period, often had prominent nasal features. These are distinct from the typically depicted European features in Roman and Greek art, which tended to have straighter and narrower noses.
Burial Customs: The way the deceased is positioned — lying on his back with hands crossed covering the pelvic region, and the body covered by a single linen sheet — is consistent with Jewish burial practices of the period. In contrast, Roman and Greek burials often involved more elaborate practices, including the use of multiple garments and sometimes cremation, which was not a Jewish custom.

These observations are based on general historical and anthropological knowledge of the time and are used to differentiate cultural and ethnic characteristics commonly found in Jewish populations from those in Greek and Roman cultures.




"Anatomy of the Shroud"[3], showing wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud man's image which match the Gospels' accounts of the beatings (Mt 26:67-68; 27:30; Lk 22:64; Jn 18:22; 19:3), scourging (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:16; Jn 19:1), crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5), crucifixion (Mt 27:35,38,44; Mk 15:24-27,32; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:16-18), death (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37,39; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30), legs not broken (Jn 19:32-33), speared in the side (Jn 19:34) of Jesus. See 09Sep20]


We don't have definite records of the exact facial features of people from the first century in Judea. However, the image shows characteristics commonly associated with reconstructions of what a 1st-century Jewish man from Judea might have looked like. These characteristics include:

- Dark hair and beard: Common among men in the Middle Eastern region during that time.
- Olive or tan skin tone: Typical of people living in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern regions.
- Facial features: The man in the image has strong, Semitic facial features, which historical and forensic reconstructions suggest may have been common in that region during the 1st century.

Is the man on the Shroud Jesus ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugyztlHlfak

There are three main alternatives regarding the identity of the person depicted on the Shroud of Turin, but the most widely accepted view is that it is a portrait of Jesus of Nazareth. 

While the image on the Shroud is faint, there are 30 features that closely match the Gospel's description of Jesus' death. These features include the blood trails, which indicate the man's position when he bled, the puncture wounds on the forearms corresponding to crucifixion by wrists, the vertical torso indicated by the chest wound, the bloody feet and bent legs consistent with crucifixion on a vertical post, and the overall depiction of a crucified man. The facial abrasions and swollen features match the description of Jesus being beaten, the numerous scourge marks on the body correspond to the scourging Jesus endured, the head wounds align with the crown of thorns, and the scourge wounds on the shoulders and upper back suggest that Jesus carried his own cross. Furthermore, the Shroud portrays a naked man, in line with the Gospel accounts. It also shows no broken bones, which agrees with John's statement that none of Jesus' bones were broken. The wound in the side, resulting from a soldier piercing Jesus, is also evident on the Shroud. Finally, the Shroud depicts a body that shows no signs of decomposition or animal attacks, indicating that it was recently deceased and kept safe, potentially in a sealed tomb. These connections between the Shroud man and Jesus provide strong evidence for their correlation.

1. He was beaten
2. He was whipped and scourged
3. Crown of thorns
4. He carried the cross
5. He was crucified
6. He was pierced on the side
7. Legs were not broken
8. Naked
9. He was buried soon after his death

The mentioned details (such as the injuries, crucifixion, side piercing, and non-breaking of legs) align with the biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and burial. 

1. He was beaten

The New Testament includes several passages that mention Jesus being beaten prior to his crucifixion. Here are a few verses that describe this:

Matthew 27:26:
"Then he [Pilate] released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified."

Mark 15:15:
"So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified."

John 19:1:
"Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him."

These passages indicate that Jesus was subjected to scourging or flogging before being handed over for crucifixion. The details of the beating are not elaborated upon in the Gospels, but it is clear that Jesus endured physical suffering as part of the events leading up to his crucifixion.


The Shroud does show markings consistent with physical trauma, including facial injuries and wounds on the body, which some interpret as signs of beating. We see a large hematoma on his right cheek, probably a damaged cartilage of the nose, and a part of his beard missing. 

2. He was whipped and scourged

Jesus was subjected to scourging, which involved being whipped or beaten with a scourge—a type of whip or lash typically equipped with sharp pieces of metal or bone. This brutal act of punishment was intended to inflict great pain and humiliation upon the condemned person.

Matthew 27:26:
"Then he [Pilate] released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified."

Mark 15:15:
"Wishing to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified."

John 19:1-3:
"Then Pilate took Jesus and had Him scourged. And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and put a purple robe on Him; and they began to come up to Him and say, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' and to give Him slaps in the face."

The purpose of scourging was to further humiliate and weaken the condemned person before crucifixion. The scourging itself was a severe form of punishment involving a whip or a lash with multiple leather thongs, often embedded with sharp objects such as metal or bone fragments. The lashes would cause deep cuts, bruises, and excruciating pain.

The Roman authorities used scourging as a means to physically weaken and dehumanize the individuals who were about to be crucified. It served as a public display of power and a deterrent to potential criminals or rebels. The intent was to intensify the suffering and ensure a more prolonged and agonizing death on the cross.

The Shroud displays marks that are consistent with scourge marks. The abrasions on the chest, back, and lower limbs consisting of round, approximately 2cm long figures suggest injuries caused by a flagellum, a Roman torture instrument consisting of a wooden handle with cords at the end to which small metal balls were attached. The punishment was inflicted on a bent back and naked body, causing over a hundred such injuries. The detailed examination of the bloodstains and injuries on the subject's body provides valuable insights into the manner of his death and the torture he endured. 

3. Crown of thorns

The Gospel accounts mention the crown of thorns that was placed on Jesus' head as part of his suffering before the crucifixion. Here are the specific verses that describe this event:

Matthew 27:29:
"And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down before Him and mocked Him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!'"

Mark 15:17:
"They dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him."

John 19:2-3:
"And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and put a purple robe on Him; and they began to come up to Him and say, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' and to give Him slaps in the face."

These verses describe how the soldiers, as an act of mockery and humiliation, twisted together a crown of thorns and placed it on Jesus' head. They intended to mock Jesus' claim to kingship, and they also dressed Him in a purple robe, which was a color associated with royalty. The crown of thorns added to Jesus' physical pain and served as a symbol of the suffering and mockery he endured before his crucifixion.

The specific mention of a crown of thorns in relation to crucifixion is unique to the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion in the New Testament. There are no other documented cases in historical records or biblical accounts where the condemned individuals were specifically given a crown of thorns as part of their crucifixion.

The Shroud does show numerous sinuous bloodstains that can be seen on his forehead, the back of his neck, and throughout his hair, emanating from small wounds with pointed diameters. These stains radiate out from his head in a spoke-like pattern, suggesting that a helmet of sharp, pointed thorns was pressed onto his head.  The sinuous bloodstains on his forehead, neck, and hair suggest that the subject had a helmet of thorns pressed onto his head, causing small pointed wounds. The spoke-like pattern of the stains radiating from the head indicates the uniformity of the injury, possibly caused by the same object.

4. He carried the cross

The Gospel accounts describe Jesus carrying the cross or being made to carry the cross before his crucifixion. Here are the specific verses that mention this:

Matthew 27:32:
"As they were going out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross."

Mark 15:21:
"They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross."

Luke 23:26:
"When they led Him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, coming in from the country, and placed on him the cross to carry behind Jesus."

John 19:17:
"They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha."

These verses indicate that Jesus initially carried his own cross, but at some point during the journey to the crucifixion site, the soldiers compelled a man named Simon of Cyrene to help carry the cross. The weight and burden of the cross symbolize the suffering and sacrifice that Jesus endured in his crucifixion.

On the Shroud, at the height of the left scapular area and the right suprascapular area, quadrangular bruises can be observed. These marks are believed to have been left by the patibulum, the horizontal beam of the cross that the condemned sometimes carried on himself to the place of execution


5. He was crucified

Here are the verses from the Gospel accounts that describe Jesus being crucified:

Matthew 27:35:
"And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots."

Mark 15:24:
"And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take."

Luke 23:33:
"And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left."

John 19:18:
"There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them."

These verses explicitly state that Jesus was crucified, along with two other individuals who were criminals. 

The Shroud displays a full-body image that is consistent with the posture of a crucified individual. The long bloodstains on both forearms that appear to run upwards are actually formed when the body was hung on the cross, and therefore the wrists were higher than the elbows. The characteristic bloodstain on the left wrist formed by two divergent streaks is particularly noteworthy as it indicates two different positions assumed by the condemned on the cross. The characteristic bloodstain on the left wrist formed by two diverging streaks is particularly notable, as it indicates two different positions assumed by the condemned man on the cross. The blood flows from an oval-shaped wound caused by a pointed instrument, such as a nail. Particular attention should be paid to the location of this wound, which is not in the palm of the hand as depicted in the traditional iconography of crucifixion, but in the wrist. It is noteworthy that the image of the thumbs is absent from the shroud, which could be due to damage to the median nerve or tetanic contraction.


6. He was pierced on the side

John 19:34:
"But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water."

In John 19:34, it is mentioned that one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear while he was on the cross. This event occurred after Jesus had already died. The purpose of piercing his side was to confirm his death and ensure that he had not merely swooned or fainted.

On the Shroud: On the right side of his chest, there is a large bloodstain that flows from an oval-shaped wound caused by a pointed and sharp object that struck between the fifth and sixth ribs, penetrating deeply. The characteristics of this wound indicate that it was inflicted after the man's death.


7. Legs were not broken

In the historical context of crucifixion during the time of Jesus, it was common for the legs of those who were crucified to be broken. Breaking the legs of the crucified individuals was a method used to hasten their death. When a person was crucified, their body weight was primarily supported by their arms and legs. Breaking the legs of the crucified person would prevent them from pushing up with their legs to relieve pressure on their chest, making it difficult for them to breathe. This would eventually lead to asphyxiation and a quicker death.

John 19:31-33: "Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs."

John 19:36: "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken.'"

On the Shroud, the depiction does not show any apparent signs of broken legs on the man. This aligns with the Gospel accounts, specifically in John 19:32-33, which state that the legs of Jesus were not broken during his crucifixion, unlike the legs of the two criminals crucified alongside him.


8. Naked

There are a couple of passages that suggest that Jesus was crucified without clothing.

In the Gospel of Mark (15:24), it is written: "And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take." This passage indicates that Jesus' garments were divided among the soldiers, implying that he may have been left unclothed.

Additionally, the Gospel of John (19:23-24) mentions the soldiers dividing Jesus' garments among themselves, but it also states, "But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, so they said to one another, 'Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.'" This verse implies that Jesus was wearing only a seamless tunic, which suggests he may have been without any other clothing.

However, it is important to note that the Gospels do not provide explicit details about Jesus' state of undress during the crucifixion.

9. He was buried soon after death

Matthew 27:57-60:

"When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away."

Mark 15:42-46:

"And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb."

Luke 23:50-53:

"Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid."

John 19:38-42:

"After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there."

These verses describe how Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus, obtained permission from Pilate to take Jesus' body down from the cross and bury it. Joseph, with the help of Nicodemus, wrapped Jesus' body in linen cloths with spices and placed it in a new tomb. The burial took place quickly, as it was approaching the Jewish day of Preparation and the Sabbath.





Certain topics demand careful consideration and decision-making due to their global impact and the profound claims they make about eternal bliss or eternal despair. Christianity is one such topic, and the Shroud of Turin serves as a compelling starting point for this process. Now, let's delve into identifying the man depicted in the Shroud based on his portrait.

The first decision we can confidently make is that the man depicted was crucified. The blood trails and posture depicted on the Shroud strongly indicate crucifixion. No other form of violent death matches the nearly vertical torso, outstretched arms, bent knees, and one foot likely resting on top of the other. Supporting evidence, such as the wrist wound and missing thumbs, further reinforces this conclusion. By reaching this decision, our task is simplified, and we are left with three potential options regarding the identity of the man.

Option one suggests that the Shroud portrays Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of Christianity. Option two proposes that it depicts a typical victim of crucifixion, while option three suggests an anonymous individual. Out of the 30 features of the Shroud and the image it presents, several align closely with the accounts in the Gospels, providing strong support for the portrayal of Jesus. Moreover, additional evidence from Jewish burial customs, as well as biblical references like Matthew 27:32, could be considered to further strengthen this conclusion.

Although the Bible has certain gaps in its narrative, the Shroud fills some of these gaps, such as the indication that Jesus may have fallen while carrying the cross. The torn knee on the Shroud's depiction is consistent with such a scenario, implying the need for assistance. By combining the 30 features with other fields of investigation, we can reinforce our decision. However, let's focus solely on the 30 features for now.

Out of the remaining 16 features, three aspects are worth highlighting. Firstly, these 16 features reinforce the identification of the Shroud man with Jesus, as they align with the Gospel accounts. Secondly, they fill gaps in the Gospel narrative with authenticity, often contradicting long-standing traditions. For example, the Shroud man's wrist injury corresponds with anatomical evidence rather than artistic depictions or translations. Lastly, several of these 16 features are unique to Jesus in the historical record. While acknowledging that historical records are incomplete, it is reasonable to conclude that these distinctive features do not apply to others. Crucifixion victims were typically criminals, traitors, or captured enemies, and they were not likely to be crowned, buried in expensive fabric, or interred soon after death. The Romans intentionally left their crucified victims hanging to serve as deterrents and symbols of subjugation.

Considering the available options, let's examine them in detail. Option A suggests that the Shroud man is a typical or generic crucified individual. However, this contradicts the fact that many of the Shroud's details are unique to Jesus. By definition, something cannot be both unique or rare and typical at the same time, unless substantial evidence emerges indicating that many other victims share these same features. Therefore, the Shroud man cannot be considered a typical victim.

Option B proposes that the Shroud depicts an unknown victim. However, to support this claim, we would need to find another individual who satisfies all 30 features. Until such evidence is presented, this option remains speculative and lacks a strong foundation for decision-making.

Hence, the simplest and most plausible explanation, supported by all 30 observations without baseless assumptions, is Option C—the Shroud portrays Jesus. This conclusion carries significant implications, both simple and profound, regarding the Christian faith and its teachings.

The gospels are not the source of the image, and the image is not the source of the gospels. Instead, both the gospels and the Shroud of Turin portray Jesus, with the historical Jesus serving as the common source for both.

To determine the relationship between the Shroud and the gospels, we can apply Occam's razor, which suggests that the best explanation is the one that accounts for the most evidence with the fewest assumptions. In this video series, we have highlighted 30 features of the Shroud that align with the accounts in the gospels. Out of these, 14 features are self-evident and common to both the Shroud and the gospels, such as Jesus being beaten, crucified, stabbed, and wrapped in linen.

The remaining 16 features are bonus features, not explicitly mentioned in the gospels but compatible with and supplementing the narrative. These include details like the twisted crown of thorns, the three-pronged Roman flag used for scourging, Jesus being struck while vertical and naked, Pilate's surprise at Jesus already being dead, Joseph receiving the body, Jesus being placed on his back with crossed arms, and the piercing of Jesus's side with a spear. These bonus features not only complement the gospel accounts but also ground the Shroud's portrait in historical reality.

It may be tempting to think that the Shroud simply copied the gospels, but this explanation ignores key evidence. While the gospels can explain the 14 common features, the 16 bonus features are observations from the Shroud that are not found in the gospels. Likewise, it is not plausible to suggest that the gospel writers crafted their narratives based on the Shroud since many relevant Shroud details can only be seen through modern scientific techniques that were not available at the time the gospels were written.

So, while both the Shroud and the gospels portray Jesus, neither artifact merely copied the other. Instead, they both draw from the primary source, which is the historical Jesus himself. The Shroud represents Jesus's actual burial cloth, while the gospels recount the true and gruesome story of his death. This explanation also accounts for how the Shroud connects various disciplines, as they all stem from the same historical and physical reality.

In conclusion, the Shroud portrays Jesus, and when considered alongside the gospels, it points to the actual life and death of the historical Jesus. The second video series explores the authenticity of the Shroud, acknowledging the possibility of it being a fake. The third series delves into a profile of the potential faker, but ultimately presents an incoherent portrait. In the final series, the ancient origin of the Shroud and its image is summarized, providing a comprehensive case.

http://docshare04.docshare.tips/files/14267/142675557.pdf

1. The cloth contains pollen from plants only found in Palestine - that would be difficult for a European forger to get. For one, he would have no idea that such a thing could potentially authenticate The Shroud. Wilson notes that the cloth could have been procured from a first century, Jewish grave, which I suppose is technically possible.

2. The figure in the Turin Shroud is pierced through his wrists, not through his hands. In recent years, it has been discovered that crucified people would have to have been pierced through their wrists (and not their hands) in order to actually be suspended from a cross. This does not at all contradict the Passion accounts in all four Gospels in the Bible, because the Greek word used for ‘hands’ can also include the wrist area, unlike our English, which more clearly delineates between the two. Almost the totality of medieval art depicts the nails used during the crucifixion of Jesus being located in the hands, rather than the wrists. If the Shroud were a forgery, it is remarkable in the extreme that the forger would have known to include nail holes in the wrists, rather than in the hands.

3. I am not an expert on 1300s era glass technology, but some who are have argued that the kind of large and flat pane windows that would have been needed to sun-bleach the painted image of a man onto a large linen cloth would not have been available in the early medieval period. This is a fairly strong objection that I don’t believe Wilson’s article - as thorough as it is - addresses fully.

4. The figure on the Shroud has real wounds and real blood. This, of course, means that it was more than merely a sun-bleached image. Wilson contends that somebody had to have been murdered in order for forgers to make The Shroud using his method. Again, such a thing is technically possible.

5. It appears to some that the figure in The Shroud has coins in its eyes - and the type of coins appear to be first century coins that would have been commonly used in Israel during the time of Christ. That a medieval forger would be able to add such a detail is fairly astonishing. Of course, as with everything surrounding The Shroud, others (and Wilson, I presume) argue that there are no coin impressions in the eyes of the Shroud-figure.

6. Finally, if The Shroud is a forgery, those who painted the image on the glass had a remarkable and accurate knowledge of both the full details of Roman crucifixion and how the body would have responded to such crucifixion. Additionally, the anonymous forgers would have had to have a strong knowledge of anatomy and wound-effects, as the wounds on The Shroud figure are consistent with what modern medical technology would expect. Wilson contends that there were many medieval people with deep and accurate knowledge of anatomy, and the only reason we don’t expect the forgers to have such knowledge is because we have a sort of bias against people from the past and assume they are unsophisticated and unintelligent. Such bias is certainly real, I will readily admit, though it does seem that medical history of the last 500 years demonstrates that medieval medicine and anatomy was indeed quite primitive.

So - did Wilson definitively prove that medieval forgers could have produced The Shroud? Maybe, maybe not. Even Wilson admits, “I have not proved much. Or, I do not think that I have. Men and women who have believed in the Shroud will continue to believe. There is a fireman somewhere in Italy who risked his life to save the Shroud. I have a great deal of respect for that man. Perhaps I've given those who disbelieve more reason for noses lifted in the air, but I have not proved that the Shroud was faked. What I have done is crudely demonstrate that such an image could easily be produced in a matter of weeks by wicked men with no scruples, a little imagination, and a little more skill. The fact that it could have been faked does not mean that it was, though I believe it to have been. ”  

I’ll say this - Wilson’s supposed forgers would have had to be: remarkably intelligent, gifted with art, well supplied with very rare (if existent) glass panes, and have an astonishing - for the time - knowledge of medicine, Roman history and human anatomy. Additionally, they would have had to be in possession of a cloth from Palestine, and possibly even pollen that had come from Palestine as well.

There have been other attempts to recreate the Shroud as well. In 2009 the University of Pavia organic chemistry professor and skeptic society member Luigi Garlaschelli produced a fairly convincing (at first glance) reproduction.

He describes his attempt: "What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak image, Then for the sake of completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns, the scorching because there was a fire in 1532."

Garlaschelli says his work disproves the claims of the shroud's strongest supporters.

"Basically the Shroud of Turin has some strange properties and characteristics that they say cannot be reproduced by human hands,"For example, the image is superficial and has no pigment, it looks so lifelike and so on, and therefore they say it cannot have been done by an artist."

"The procedure is very simple. The artist took this sheet and put it over one of his assistants," "His good idea was to wrap the sheet over the person underneath because he didn't want to obtain an image that was too obviously a painting or a drawing, so with this procedure you get a strange image, Time did the rest,"

As you might imagine, there are several people who disagree that Garlaschelli has produced a convincing replica. Dr. Thibault Heimburger has written an extensive and scientific rebuttal of Garlaschelli’s method, essentially arguing that it does not really duplicate all of the elements of the Shroud, but is only a superficial likeness. His paper, linked in the shownotes, concludes:

L.G. concluded: “We have also shown that pigments containing traces of acidic compounds can be artificially aged after the rubbing step (…) in such a way that, when the pigment is washed away, an image is obtained having the expected characteristics as the Shroud of Turin. In particular the image is pseudo negative, is fuzzy with half-tones, resides on the top-most fibers of the cloth, has some 3D embedded properties and does not fluoresce”. I think to the contrary that the image has none of these characteristics (except negativity and nonfluorescence). L.G. used a sophisticated method and a new interesting hypothesis, and he got the best Shroud-like image today. It is interesting to notice that even so, the properties of his image remain in fact very far from the fundamental properties of the Shroud image. 9 For the moment, the Shroud image remains unfakeable.
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/bible-2021-10/episode-11-has-the-shroud-TLVEey6GpuM/



Videos about the Shroud

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin#7137

Di Buon Mattino (Tv2000) - La Festa dedicata al Volto Santo di Gesù ( after 29:00) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BQoV83bDRY



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKqUybInlM



Is the Shroud of Turin a fraud? Refuting the most common objections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZmIfQf1dM

Time stamps:  

Introduction - 0:00
Sudarium of Oviedo:- 2:46
The patch hypothesis - 32:09
Reliability of Radiocarbon dating - 47:25
The Carbon monoxide hypothesis - 49:30
Addressing the claim of inconsistent blood patterns on the Shroud ( BPA hypothesis by Luigi Garlaschelli ) - 50:25
Successful reproduction of the image on the Shroud?  53:48
The d'Arcis Memorandum from 1389- 58:25
The relics business: - evidence that the Shroud of Turin is a forgery from the Middle Ages? - 1:04:27  
Was Jesus wrapped in a linen cloth, or tied by strips of linen?  - 1:08:52
Is the image on the Shroud anatomically incorrect?  - 1:12:25
Does the Shroud violate the commandment that forbids making graven images?  - 1:15:14
The man on the Shroud has long hair. Does the Bible not forbid men to have long hair? - 1:31:17
The impossible feat for a 14th-century artist to forger the Shroud: - 1:18:54
Why promote, and defend the authenticity of the Shroud? - 1:21:52
Book announcements: - 1:25:07
End notes: - 1:30:00

The Shroud of Turin: Empirical Exploration into Jesus' Historical and Scriptural Identity




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3ZEkEjA4Uw


The Shroud of Turin - The Evidence of Authenticity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5NEY0NkPrw

https://vimeo.com/478203334



Turin Shroud: The New Evidence (Shroud of Turin) | History Documentary | Reel Truth History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVovTvDjjCg



The make of.... In this video, you can have an idea of how much work it goes to get to the accurate image of the man on the Shroud in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5CY9xbpCM8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OiKx7La4jU&fbclid=IwAR2C4IHpF5kTnbIa8EeicmcYL1rYv_URfHL_RFPJLX4oeICcCZxFQ03KALM


The attributes of the image it's this:

- it's superficial penetrates only the top two microfibers is no directionality such as with brushstrokes
- there's no outline to the image
- is no cementing of fibers as with paint
- it's uniform and intensity top to bottom front to back you think you need a piece of technology to do that
- there's no variations in density as with known artworks every artist gets a little bit more they're a little bit less there
- there's no evidence of that there's no particles between the threads such as some kind of a dust rubbing
- there's no capillary action no evidence that that any that any liquids were applied to the image to bring forth or to the image area
- there's no paint binder present nothing to bind any pigment to the cloth
- it's a negative image with distance information encoded into it
- it's blood from actual wound it's a AB+ blood with human DNA and
- there's no image under the blood now

that's interesting no image under the blood which tells you this that the order of events is is that is that the
blood was on the cloth first followed by the image when did the image get there we don't know maybe three days later I don't know just later and so so now that makes sense if it's authentic

Scroll down, and there are links to four movies on the Shroud, not on YouTube
https://www.shroudenigma.com/

https://vimeo.com/search?q=shroud+of+turin

How did the shroud of Turin get its 3D image of a crucified and tortured man ?

If the shroud portrays Christ, then he did ressurrect.

And you will meet him. Either as your judge for damnation, or as your savior for eternal life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9K3yw0oKr4


Turin Shroud: The New Evidence (Shroud of Turin) | History Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVovTvDjjCg&fbclid=IwAR32qrwJJK8z6ITkVzzaSBTZS2FeokrGIpz0A47uhC0v12oo7Z9Hv_xBgVI







Real Face of Jesus Project by Ray Downing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsQ1m_sGFt4&feature=emb_title



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IubZXanfXDc&t=43s&fbclid=IwAR0aJrPrJrg9R5JnNF8HZHcXNisG_mC1MUNhayX8bJ3mjDsqRP4Kg3xM1uU



Proof that the Shroud of Turin is the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRB16BARvz0



The Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus Christ! Here are two comprehensive detailed documentaries in which all the evidence is examined which is irrefutable in scientific and legal terms. I have studied this subject in detail for many years and have come to that conclusion based on all the available evidence.
It is God's miraculous photograph of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah of Israel, taken nearly 2,000 years ago which proves both the crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. It is also a 3-D hologram with encoded information that would not be revealed until our own time to further prove its authenticity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2swl6YLLb0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=EQjQ2A1_vOc&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0WB0-M0_16mhH2B-jOruzv90SqFHUPDm1Der8gHnL81TErX4DKsH4yQG0



LATEST: Shroud Of Turin Image was ALIVE & MOVING (Moment of Resurrection?) Jul 3, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgG9m7cqx68

The international institute for advanced studies of space representation scientists in paloma italy have presented research that the body of the man was in motion when the image was produced yes you heard me right the body appears to have been moving now we know that because the image isn't a single exposure but a combination of multiple exposures sort of the way a strobe light photography can follow the path of a tennis ball or a golf swing the image on the shroud shows various objects in motion like the nails in the man's wrist and feet the teflon on his arms and his belt buckle moving up and down with his breath the italian institute's research shows that multiple exposures of these very easy to track items on the body of the man are present in different positions showing that his hands and feet and his chest when he breathed were moving current theory is that the light that produced the image was oscillating producing light in bursts just like a strobe light would this accounts for the multiple exposures one with each burst of light which in turn accounts for why certain areas of the shroud image are somewhat fuzzy movement would make those areas seem out of focus now how could the body of a dead man be moving in the image this was obviously a burial shroud the eyes of the man are closed and covered with coins or buttons so if this is jesus and he is moving it is the exact moment of the resurrection prior to him opening his eyes can you see why god might want to keep evidence such as that to share with the world but where did the light come from this is something that no one can answer other than jesus himself one theory is that it came from his DNA activating it's an interesting theory studies from as far back as 1984 show that active dna produces laser light but a very low intensity now the dna of god might have quite a different intensity like we said greater than all the electricity on earth it is also thought that the body was levitating at the moment the image was being made and as we know the resurrection body of jesus was able to pass through solid objects like the door of the upper room where the disciples were hiding this could explain why john believed when he saw the burial cloth of jesus had the body of jesus actually passed directly through this cloth without it having even been opened and wasn't lying unopened but empty in the tomb now another theory is that john saw the image of his lord on the cloth the shroud of turin the same image we're talking about today now either theory could accountfor john's reaction but you know what i bet you're thinking hey wait a minute nelson you've been going on and on but what was that you said about nails coins and a belt buckleand what's a teflon are all these things on the image of the shroud the answer is yes they are and a whole lot more if this is the body of our lord which seems the only possible explanation these details tell us a great deal about what he suffered what he wore etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R4tI30Z5sI


The Shroud of Turin, Secrets of the Resurrection | Documented Miracles Feb 20, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUES9mMy14g
In the year 944 at the height of the byzantine empire in its capital Constantinople the archdeacon Gregory refendarius gave a sermon on christ's burial cloth today thought to be the first true reference to the shroud of Turin refendarius speaks in detail about the bloodstains from christ's wounds and that you can not only see the figure of a face but also the figure of a whole body. During the fourth crusade when Constantinople burned and citizens were cut down without mercy crusaders ransacked the city's holy archives and stole sacred artifacts it is thought that the shroud of Turin was among those taken in 1353 a devoutly religious member of the knight's templar joffra desharni came into possession of the shroud and had it transported to a monastery in lirey France for safekeeping.



[url=Joe Rogan say's]Joe Rogan say's "Show Me Physical Evidence 4 Christianity"! OK, Challenge Accepted![/url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHA_Y1jKfo4



SHROUD OF TURIN | CATHOLIC CHALLENGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-V3LyVDMU

Have you ever thought about what happened with Jesus' body at the resurrection?
Christ's body literally DEMATERIALIZED, and matter became energy.  So basically, the Shroud was wrapped around Christ's body, and when he dematerialized, the Shroud fell through his body, got flat, and the energy burst printed the image on the Shroud. Isn't that simply AMAZING?!! Watch after the 46th minute.

Shroud of Turin Expert Barrie Schwortz (1 of 12)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHaMEOPvbUA

The Shroud of Turin w/ Dr. Wayne Phillips - Sacred Heart Church, Tampa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K91jWtBTOFo


Shroud of Turin - Face in the Shroud - The Face of Jesus Christ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2swl6YLLb0

The message of salvation through Jesus Christ Nov 28, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1ycSnHpO9k

The message of salvation through Jesus Christ Dec 4, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-o8UUAPYug

The message of salvation through Jesus Christ Dec 11, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_a2PPW8ONI

The message of salvation through Jesus Christ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTqNu5WtlhY

Accoglienza e svelamento del Crocefisso Sindonico di Mons. Giulio Ricci
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE_T9m_lUYo

Who is the man of the Shroud?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZuTr02uic0

Studio ASA - The Holy Shroud, THE BODY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwdAXLLQf80&t=220s

Inauguración Exposición ‘El Hombre de la Sábana Santa’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5rbnXSOX6k

Miñarro: Explicación científico-artística del Santo Cristo de la Universidad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apzmbtNkC3c




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo-VhMI4JEU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPBpGxIYEOk&t=33s



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTf8-bMj8qU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxBIWC9b7H4


Historical References To The Shroud Of Turin Between The 1st — Mid-14th Centuries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25O0MJrmqUM

In memory of Barrie Schwortz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQQuJPeHCPw

Age of the shroud of turin

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7139

Claim: Unfortunately, we can be virtually certain that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax that was originally created in France in around the 1350s AD
Response:   Carbon dating controversy: The samples used for the testing came from the edge of the Shroud, which was reportedly fixed in the middle age, and therefore, the tests themselves are flawed. The 1988 Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7140

Historical records: There is a rich history of the Shroud that predates 1350. Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the 14th. century

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7144

Maybe the most throughout account of the pre-1350 history of the Shroud was compiled by Joe Marino, and published in the paper: Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin’s Appearance in France in the Mid1350s 2. He cites:

Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin's Appearance in France in the Mid-1350s
https://www.academia.edu/75771585/Documented_References_to_the_Burial_Linens_of_Jesus_Prior_to_the_Shroud_of_Turins_Appearance_in_France_in_the_Mid_1350

2 sources from the 2nd. Century, 1 from the 3rd. Century, 9 from the 4th. Century, 3 from the 5th. Century, 10 from the 6th. Century, 5 from the 7th. Century, 4 from the 8th. Century, 3 from the 9th. Century, 5 from the 10th. Century, 11 from the 11th. Century, 7 from the 12th. Century, and 15 from the 13th century, and 2 from the 14th. Century. In total 77 sources until 1350!! Marino writes in the concluding remarks: Despite conflicting theories of the Shroud’s “pre-history,” there is no doubt there is an abundance of evidence of the purported existence of Jesus’ burial linens.

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the 14th. century
by Stephen E. Jones 4
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2016/07/chronology-of-turin-shroud-ad-30.html#1


Claim: Radiocarbon dating from 1988 demonstrated that the shroud is a fabrication from the 13th century.
P. E. Damon et al.: Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin 16 February 1989
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1038/337611a0

Reply:  In 1978 a large team of American scientists traveled to Turin, Italy to conduct an in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud. In Turin they were joined by a number of international colleagues. The expedition, under the auspices of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), was the first such extensive scientific examination of the Shroud, and remains to this date the most extensive hands-on study of the Shroud ever undertaken. https://www.shroudofturin.com/sturp.html

A Summary of STURP's Conclusions
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

So  25 multi-disciplinary tests of the STURP team are simply dismissed, in favor of a highly debated Carbon C14 test for which there are excellent reasons to believe that it was invalid?

Was the Shroud’s First-Century Origin Really Debunked?
https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/culture/was-the-shrouds-first-century-origin-really-debunked/?fbclid=IwAR1Wl3zd4-3hQg-1WxAEnNAgx25DTgtDDlybRygZ2n8deiC2C21gAKN642g

Solving the Carbon Dating Problem for the Shroud of Turin Robert A. Rucker, MS (nuclear), July 12, 2022
https://0201.nccdn.net/1_2/000/000/0fe/927/solving-the-carbon-dating-problem-for-the-shroud-of-turin.pdf 

Liberato De Caro X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample 11 April 2022
The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47/htm


Samantha Kamman New technology challenges old scientific conclusions about historic Christian relic APRIL 28, 2022
Using a new X-ray technique called “Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering” to examine a sample of the linen, Liberato De Caro of Italy’s Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council and his colleagues determined in peer-reviewed research the shroud could be around 2,000 years old. “The new dating method, based on a technique called Wide Angle X-ray Scattering, was first tested on linen samples already dated using other techniques, on samples that had nothing to do with the shroud, and then applied to a sample taken from the Shroud of Turin,” De Caro told The National Catholic Reporter. “It is as if a photographic plate had been imprinted by radiation,” he continued. “By studying the traces left on the plate, one tries to trace the nature of the radiation and its properties. The same could be done for the Shroud’s image.”
https://www.christianpost.com/news/new-technology-challenges-old-conclusions-about-shroud-of-turin.html?fbclid=IwAR2uxMl_Vfy2WvVHBm5A036igor0S1mC9mCWTp_bHbt20FT3pEzzvmgfoiQ

Rainbowlightstudio The Shroud of Turin: Proof of Authenticity Beyond Reasonable Doubt (1 of 2) Aug 11, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJymwctqo-A

Rainbowlightstudio The Shroud of Turin 1988 Carbon Dating: Triumph or Travesty? (2 of 2) Aug 9, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBDuKZSgDSI

Raymond N. Rogers Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin  12 September 2004
Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1016/j.tca.2004.09.029

In 2017 French researcher, Tristan Casabianca filed a legal action against the British Museum, which oversaw the C-14 testing labs in 1988. The museum complied and finally released all the raw data. Casabianca’s research team ran new tests and conclude in their 2019 report that there were numerous dates that fell outside the range published in “Nature.” They prove that the Shroud cloth sample is not homogenous, and the 1988 results, famously reported with “95% confidence” are suspect. Casabianca’s team supports the widely-held belief that something went awry with the C-14 tests, which for the ensuing decades discouraged Shroud research and disparaged the Shroud as a medieval fake. Casabianca and his team are advocating that the Vatican authorize a variety of new 21st-century testing methods not available in 1988 or 1978 during STURP’s testing.
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html?fbclid=IwAR2Uns3ZPVtC1HFoR-jTDQc84a6PbbkkRCDiMFTwNVNaH-7HzTMv1OX22UU

RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE TURIN SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE FROM RAW DATA * 15 February 2019
Recently, we obtained the raw data and, for the first time, measured their convergence with the radiocarbon dates published in Nature.
Our results, which are compatible with those previously reported by many other authors (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013), strongly suggest that homogeneity is lacking in the data. The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.
http://sci-hub.st/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.12467

Bryan Walsh An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin    Accepted 24 September 2019
The Shroud is unique because on one surface it contains clearly visible front and back images of a man, apparently crucified. Quite apart from any religious significance, the Shroud became, and remains, the focus of scientific inquiry because it is not known how the images on it were formed.

Most recently Casabianca et al. (2019), based on information obtained after a legal filing with the British Museum, showed that some of the original Shroud date measurements reported by the three laboratories to the British Museum were modified from their original ‘raw’ laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an unstated methodology.

Our review and analysis of the Shroud radiocarbon data reveal a significant shortcoming in the original report by Damon et al. (1989). The shortcoming begins with the lack of adherence to the protocol that W-W define for combining the inter-laboratory data sets.

Rogers (2005) proposed a method for cross checking the dates of ancient textiles by measuring the loss of vanillin from residual lignin at the growth nodes of linen fibers. The tests he performed on the Shroud threads suggested to him a much greater age than the results Damon et al.

Fanti et al. (2013) developed a series of relationships between characteristics of fiber over time and a method of estimating the age of the fabric. He subsequently applied these techniques to a series of fibers extracted from the Shroud and derived an estimated calendar age of 90 AD +/− 200 yrs (Fanti et al., 2015).

https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X19301865#b0025

Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin 
The major problem in estimating the age of the shroud is the fact that the rate law is exponential; i.e., the maximum diurnal temperature is much more important than is the lowest storage temperature. However, some reasonable storage temperatures can be considered to give a range of predicted ages. If the shroud had been stored at a constant 25 ◦C, it would have taken about 1319 years to lose a conservative 95% of its vanillin. At 23 ◦C, it would have taken about 1845 years. At 20 ◦C, it would take about 3095 years. If the shroud had been produced between a.d. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in a.d. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

IS THE SHROUD REAL? POSSIBLY.
Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
https://shroudstory.com/2010/01/22/more-death-certificate-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ March 13. 2013
New scientific tests on the Shroud of Turin, which went on display Saturday in a special TV appearance introduced by the Pope, dates the cloth to ancient times, challenging earlier experiments dating it only to the Middle Ages. The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ. It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

Shroud Of Turin Real? New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ Mar 29, 2013
 Fanti and a research team from the University of Padua conducted three tests on tiny fibers extracted from the shroud during earlier carbon-14 dating tests conducted in 1988 The first two tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy, respectively, while the third employed a test analyzing different mechanical parameters relating to voltage. The results date the cloth to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D.. Fanti said that researchers also found trace elements of soil "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem." "For me the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity," he wrote, adding that there also "no sure proofs." Much of the controversy about the Shroud centers around carbon-14 dating tests from 1988 that concluded the piece of linen was a medieval forgery. However, those results may have been contaminated by fibers used to repair the cloth during the Middle Ages.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html

Giulio Fanti, Saverio Gaeta, The mystery of the Shroud The surprising scientific discoveries on the enigma of the cloth of Jesus, page 49
A linen fabric from Masada, the radiocarbon date of this Masada sample, assessed at the confidence level of the 95%, was between 59 A.D. and 213 AD: since the Jewish fortress was conquered by the Roman army in 74 AD, fabric fabrication cannot be assumed after this date.

Just in reference to the finding of Masada, it is remarkable the fact that numerous parameters derived from the FT-IR and Raman analyzes were very close to those of the Shroud linen. Even if you can't stating a priori that the two linen fabrics have comparable dates, in any case, is significant that the chemical characteristics of the two fabrics are comparable to each other. The final datum of this spectroscopic analysis, with reference to the linear combination of the ratios considered, has provided for the Shroud sample a value of 300 BC ± 400 years at the 95% confidence level. 

1988 CARBON-14 TEST REFUTED
The 1988 Carbon-14 tests done at Oxford, Zurich and Arizona Labs used pieces of the same sample cut from a corner (lower left of above pictures).
1. A Jan 20, 2005 paper in the professional journal ThermoChimica Acta by Dr. Ray Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and lead chemist with the original science team STURP (the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project, involving approximately 35 scientists directly examining the Shroud for five days), has shown conclusively that the sample cut from The Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from an area of the cloth that was re-woven during the middle ages.  Here are some excerpts:
"Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."
"As part of the Shroud of Turin research project (STURP), I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles in 1978."  "It enabled direct chemical testing on recovered linen fibers and particulates".
"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect.  A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978...  The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes.  The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
"The fire of 1532 could not have greatly affected the vanillin content of lignin in all parts of the shroud equally.  The thermal conductivity of linen is very low... therefore, the unscorched parts of the folded cloth could not have become very hot."  "The cloth's center would not have heated at all in the time available.  The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins of the scorches illustrates this fact."  "Different amounts of vanillin would have been lost in different areas.  No samples from any location on the shroud gave the vanillin test [i.e. tested positive]."  "The lignin on shroud samples and on samples from the Dead Sea scrolls does not give the test [i.e. tests negative]."
"Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test [i.e. test negative], the cloth must be quite old."  "A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old.  Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years."
"A gum/dye/mordant [(for affixing dye)] coating is easy to observe on... radiocarbon [sample] yarns.  No other part of the shroud shows such a coating."  "The radiocarbon sample had been dyed.  Dyeing was probably done intentionally on pristine replacement material to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth."  "The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about 1291 AD and was not common until more than 100 years later."  "Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating implies that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material."  "The consequence of this conclusion is that the radiocarbon sample was not representative of the original cloth."
"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth.  The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud."
"A significant amount of charred cellulose was removed during a restoration of the shroud in 2002."  "A new radiocarbon analysis should be done on the charred material retained from the 2002 restoration."
Raymond N. Rogers. 20 January 2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin. Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Issue 1-2, Pages 189-194.
2. The Fire-Model Tests of Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov in 1994 and Drs. John Jackson and Propp in 1998, which replicated the famous Fire of 1532, demonstrated that the fire added carbon isotopes to the linen.
Dmitri Kouznetsov, Andrey Ivanov, Pavel Veletsky. 5 January 1996. Effects of fires and biofractionation of carbon isotopes on results of radiocarbon dating of old textiles: the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 109-121. doi:10.1006/jasc.1996.0009
Jackson, John P. and Propp, Keith. 1997. On the evidence that the radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was significantly affected by the 1532 fire. Actes du III Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, Nice, France.

NEW TESTS DATE THE SHROUD
New experiments date the Shroud of Turin to the 1st century AD.They comprise three tests; two chemical and one mechanical. The chemical tests were done with Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy, examining the relationship between age and a spectral property of ancient flax textiles.The mechanical test measured several micro-mechanical characteristics of flax fibers, such as tensile strength.The results were compared to similar tests on samples of cloth from between 3250 BC and 2000 AD whose dates are accurately known.
FTIR identifies chemical bonds in a molecule by producing an infrared absorption spectrum. The spectra produce a profile of the sample, a distinctive molecular fingerprint that can be used to identify its components.
Raman Spectroscopy uses the light scattered off of a sample as opposed to the light absorbed by a sample.It is a very sensitive method of identifying specific chemicals.
The tests on fibers from the Shroud of Turin produced the following dates: FTIR = 300 BC + 400 years; Raman spectroscopy = 200 BC + 500 years; and multi-parametric mechanical = 400 AD + 400 years. All the dates have a 95% certainty. The average of all three dates is 33 BC + 250 years (the collective uncertainty is less than the individual test uncertainties).  The average date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus' death on the cross in 30 AD, and is far older than the medieval dates obtained with the flawed Carbon-14 sample in 1988.  The range of uncertainty for each test is high because the number of sample cloths used for comparison was low; 8 for FTIR, 11 for Raman, and 12 for the mechanical test.  The scientists note that "future calibrations based on a greater number of samples and coupled with ad hoc cleaning procedures could significantly improve its accuracy, though it is not easy to find ancient samples adequate for the test."
They used tiny fibers extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana, who gave them to Fanti.Riggi passed away in 2008, but he had been involved in the intensive scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin by the STURP group in 1978, and on April 21, 1988 was the man who cut from the Shroud the thin 7 x 1 cm sliver of linen that was used for carbon dating.
These tests were carried out in University of Padua laboratories by professors from various Italian universities, led by Giulio Fanti, Italian professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua's engineering faculty. He co-authored reports of the findings in 1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, July 2013, "Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy" by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61-70; 2) a paper titled "A new cyclic-loads machine for the measurement of micro-mechanical properties of single flax fibers coming from the Turin Shroud" by Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi for the XXI AIMETA (Italian Association of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics) congress in 2013, and 3) the 2013 book "Il Mistero della Sindone" (The Mystery of the Shroud), written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta in Italian.

Italian scientists have conducted a series of advanced experiments which, they claim, show that the marks on the shroud – purportedly left by the imprint of Christ's body – could not possibly have been faked with technology that was available in the medieval period.
The research will be an early Christmas present for shroud believers, but is likely to be greeted with scepticism by those who doubt that the sepia-coloured, 14ft-long cloth dates from Christ's crucifixion 2,000 years ago.
Sceptics have long claimed that the shroud is a medieval forgery, and radiocarbon testing conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona in 1988 appeared to back up the theory, suggesting that it dated from between 1260 and 1390.
But those tests were in turn disputed on the basis that they were skewed by contamination by fibres from cloth that was used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages.
The new study is the latest intriguing piece of a puzzle which has baffled scientists for centuries and spawned an entire industry of research, books and documentaries

"The double image (front and back) of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin, has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining ... is impossible to obtain in a laboratory," concluded experts from Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development.
The scientists set out to "identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a colour similar to that of the image on the Shroud." They concluded that the exact shade, texture and depth of the imprints on the cloth could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers – technology that was clearly not available in medieval times.
The scientists used extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light to replicate the kind of marks found on the burial cloth.
They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)." Although they stopped short of offering a non-scientific explanation for the phenomenon, their findings will be embraced by those who believe that the marks on the shroud were miraculously created at the moment of Christ's Resurrection.
"We are not at the conclusion, we are composing pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle," the team wrote in their report.
Prof Paolo Di Lazzaro, the head of the team, said: "When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things like miracles and resurrection." "But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes. We hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate but we will leave the conclusions to the experts, and ultimately to the conscience of individuals."
The research, conducted in laboratories in Frascati, a town outside Rome famous for its white wine, backs up the outcome of tests by a group of 31 American scientists between 1978 and 1981.
The Americans – who called themselves the Shroud of Turin Research Project or STURP – conducted 120 hours of X-rays and ultraviolet light tests on the linen cloth.
They concluded that the marks were not made by paints, pigments or dyes and that the image was not "the product of an artist", but that at the same time it could not be explained by modern science.
"There are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately."
The US team – which included nuclear physicists, thermal chemists, biophysicists and forensic pathologists – concluded: "The image is an ongoing mystery." One of Christianity's greatest objects of veneration, the shroud appears to show the imprint of a man with long hair and a beard whose body bears wounds consistent with having been crucified.
Each year it lures millions of pilgrims to Turin Cathedral, where it is kept in a specially designed, climate-controlled case.
Scientists have never been able to explain how the image of a man's body, complete with nail wounds to his wrists and feet, pinpricks from thorns around his forehead and a spear wound to his chest, could have formed on the cloth.
The Vatican has never said whether it believes the shroud to be authentic or not, although Pope Benedict XVI has said that the enigmatic image imprinted on the cloth "reminds us always" of Christ's suffering.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html

Shroud Of Turin Real? New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ  Mar 29, 2013
After decades of speculation, new research suggests that the Shroud of Turin, one of the Catholic Church's holiest relics, may be the real deal.
Believed by some to have been Jesus' burial cloth, the Shroud has been the subject of much research. The latest battery of experiments led experts to conclude the cloth may have come from the first century A.D., making it old enough to have been used to bury Jesus Christ Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua, announced the findings in a book that hit shelves Wednesday in Italy, reports Vatican Insider. Fanti has written several papers about the shroud, including one in 2011 that hypothesized how radiation could have caused the image of a man's bloody face and body to appear on the cloth. In his most recent effort, Fanti and a research team from the University of Padua conducted three tests on tiny fibers extracted from the shroud during earlier carbon-14 dating tests conducted in 1988, according to Vatican Insider. The first two tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy, respectively, while the third employed a test analyzing different mechanical parameters relating to voltage.

The results date the cloth to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D., per The Telegraph. In an email with The Huffington Post, Fanti said that researchers also found trace elements of soil "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem."
"For me the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity," he wrote, adding that there also "no sure proofs." "The tests will revive the debate about the true origins of one of Christianity's most prized but mysterious relics and are likely to be hotly contested by sceptics," The Telegraph's Nick Squires writes about Fanti's experiments. Much of the controversy about the Shroud centers around carbon-14 dating tests from 1988 that concluded the piece of linen was a medieval forgery. However, those results may have been contaminated by fibers used to repair the cloth during the Middle Ages, according to the BBC. Fanti's book, Il Mistero della Sindone (translated to The Mystery of the Shroud) , co-authored by journalist Saverio Gaeta, was released ahead of the Easter holiday, as Christians around the world prepare to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. The Shroud generally resides in a climate-controlled case in a cathedral in Turin, Italy, and is rarely viewed. It will make a rare televised appearance this year, however, on the Saturday before Easter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html

Problems with the 1988 Carbon Dating
In 1989, the results of 3 independent labs examining a sample of the Shroud taken from the lower left corner caused shockwaves even among agnostic investigators. Their findings indicated a date in the 1300’s.  Since the publication of their findings in 1989, however, several problems have been documented concerning the protocol the researchers used. These include:

The sample of cloth used by the three labs came from the same location on the Shroud, contrary to the protocol set up by STURP which recommended 7 sampling sites with each sample to be sent to 7 different labs.
The sample of cloth used for the carbon dating (known as the Raes sample) is not of the same composition of other areas of the Shroud. In fact, Joseph Marino and Sue Benford show that there are 16th Century fibers woven into the Raes samples and in the sample taken for the 1988 carbon dating (immediately above the Raes samples) – 2000.
Raymond Rogers conducted further research on the contested sample and offered the following conclusion:
“The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/mass spectrometry proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the Shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth.The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the Shroud.”  1

The Shroud of Turin FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST!, page 156
Very soon, the statistical calculations of the results related to radiocarbon test published by the review in Nature [44] were double-checked, and serious mistakes had been found. For example, engineer Ernesto Brunati, [29, pp. 51–52], [30, p. 37], [31], observed that the statistical parameter of the significance level, published in reference to the Shroud dating, is not 5% but 4.17%; therefore results had not to be combined each other but carefully reexamined.  Furthermore, making a new count of the average ages on the basis of the data published in Nature, Table 1, he obtained that the value of the sample of Arizona was different from that published, reducing the significance level to 1,04%. To put it simply, this significance level indicates that there are about 99 odds out of 100 that the radiocarbon result is not reliable. According to the scholar Remi Van Haelst , who reanalyzed the statistical calculations on the basis of the data published in Nature, the correct conclusion, which should replace the existing one, should be:

The results of radiocarbon measurements of Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated date of 1280–1300 with only a significance level of 1.2%. These results therefore furnish the conclusive evidence that the samples used by labs are NOT homogeneous in C-14 content.

On a Shroud sample, the existence of a biologic complex composed of fungi and bacteria, which covers as a coating the linen fibers and cannot be removed by the conventional cleaning methods
of most carbon dating labs; this, therefore, would have altered the radiocarbon dating.

The American researcher R. Villarreal, analyzing a thread declared coming from the Shroud, provided by R. Rogers and extracted by Professor Luigi Gonella Gonella from the sample taking in 1988, discovered that one end was made of linen but, instead, the other end was made of cotton. This would confirm the hypothesis, sustained by some scholars, that the majority of the samples taken from the Shroud for radiocarbon dating derived from a so-called invisible medieval patching. The fragment of the linen thread analyzed would belong to the Shroud, whereas the other end would be the result of the hypothesized patching.

There is also another hypothesis that states that the whole sample taken from the 1988 test was part of a repair made in the thirteenth century and not after the 1532 fire. This hypothesis would therefore explain why the Chamb`ery fire holes had not been repaired. Did there perhaps exist a document at the time of the sampling that reported this repair and that was used by someone to select the 1988 sampling area?
https://www.magiscenter.com/5-key-pieces-of-evidence-on-the-shroud-of-turin/?fbclid=IwAR1VwXNUczD8cMWhsRlVuIi51IR0QC9ljKSf1JoLfHV9Qn8BacCrCd9EXJ4


In 1988, three different, highly prestigious laboratories, in Tucson, Oxford and Zurich, dated the Shroud from the late Medieval period using the C14 radio-carbon dating method, which allows one to date an archaeological find by measuring how much radioactivity it loses each year. How can you refute such a precise test?
It was disproved by science itself, specifically by a Russian scientist, Dimitri Kuznetsov, a Lenin prize-winner. He had no idea what the Shroud represented, but he is one of the world’s foremost experts in the dating of cloth. His starting-point was the precept that, at just 300° Centigrade, there is isotopic exchange between materials in close proximity. And in 1532, the Shroud was only just saved from a fire in the chapel in Chambéry, in the Savoy region. There was some damage; the triangular burns which can be seen clearly on the Shroud, caused by the silver casket which contained it. But during the fire, the molecules of the cloth were affected by isotopic discharges from the silver, wood, silk and other materials of the casket. This increased the quantity of radiocarbon in the cloth, thereby ‘rejuvenating’ it.

To reinforce his theory, Kuznetsov took a piece of Jewish cloth, carbon dated to two thousand years ago, and subjected it to the same ‘heat treatment’: in subsequent C14 tests, it appeared to have come from a much more recent period.

So the scientists from the three laboratories mentioned made a mistake in their dating. But the margin of error was even greater because the piece of the Shroud which they examined was from the top left-hand corner, a portion which has been much-mended and heavily worn by the elements over the centuries. The average weight of the Shroud is 25 milligrams per square centimetre, but that of the sample examined was 43 milligrams. Basically, they examined a piece of cloth which had been mended many times. But in any case, even if they had chosen a better sample, the quantity of radiocarbon in the cloth had already been increased because of the fire, and so it would have been impossible to date the cloth correctly using this method. Who knows how much younger the Shroud will appear now, as a result of the third fire last year in Turin Cathedral?
https://www.messengersaintanthony.com/content/man-shroud-has-name


Shroud of Turin: Interview With Expert of New Book Disputing Medieval Date Test Dec 05, 2020
https://townhall.com/columnists/myrakahnadams/2020/12/05/shroud-of-turin-interview-with-expert-of-new-book-disputing-medieval-date-test-n2581008?fbclid=IwAR1vmFz6foE1nhW0CM8-3xAs40yY1EsgShMs2YMqVgxtKNIv_ZcKGyxcNjY

More sources:
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html?fref=gc&dti=1509309685785723

Why Shroud of Turin's Secrets Continue to Elude Science
As the venerated relic goes on public exhibition, its origin remains a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/

Larry Schwalbe On Cleaning Methods and the Raw Radiocarbon Data from the Shroud of Turin 1, June 2021
The collection of evidence should encourage researchers to begin reconsidering the validity of the assumption that this sample adequately represents the composition of the Shroud as a whole.
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=209&doi=10.11648/j.ija.20210901.12





Raymond N. Rogers Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin  12 September 2004
T Casabianca RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE TURIN SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE FROM RAW DATA  15 February 2019
Bryan Walsh An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin    Accepted 24 September 2019
Larry Schwalbe On Cleaning Methods and the Raw Radiocarbon Data from the Shroud of Turin 1, June 2021

Paolo Di Lazzaro: Statistical and Proactive Analysis of an Inter-Laboratory Comparison: The Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin 2020 Aug 24
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33286695/

The 1988 Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7140

Shroud of Turin: 1988 Carbon Dating
"Researchers, in large numbers, now believe that in the 16th century, a corner of the Shroud had been expertly repaired... leading to erroneous carbon 14 dating in 1988." -- Dan Porter, 2022
http://bereanarchive.org/articles/history/shroud-of-turin-carbon-dating

Study of data from 1988 Shroud of Turin testing suggests mistakes JULY 24, 2019
After studying the data for two years, the new research team announced that the study from 1988 was flawed because it did not involve study of the entire shroud—just some edge pieces. Edge pieces from the shroud are rumored to have been tampered with by nuns in the Middle Ages seeking to restore the damage done to the shroud over the years. In a recent interview with L"Homme Nouveau, Tristan Casabianca, team lead on the new effort, claimed that the raw data from the 1988 tests showed that the test samples were heterogeneous, invalidating the results.
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-shroud-turin.html?fbclid=IwAR0cGYfOsPP8PktjegE1C7YAiDFFO0zdRmZacaiU2hiJ4bL_IstUBMHb3xY

T. Casabianca et al. Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data, Archaeometry (2019)
A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered. Our results, which are compatible with those previously reported by many other authors (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013), strongly suggest that homogeneity is lacking in the data. The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval.
https://sci-hub.ee/10.1111/arcm.12467

S. E. Jones (2015): In 1988 the Shroud of Turin was radiocarbon dated to 1260-1390. Between May and August 1988, three radiocarbon dating laboratories at universities in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, all using the same new Accelerator Mass spectrometry (AMS) method, radiocarbon dated samples that had been cut from the Shroud on 21 April 1988. At a press conference in the British Museum, on 13 October 1988, following leaks that the Shroud had been dated "1350", Prof. Edward Hall (Oxford), Dr Michael Tite (British Museum) and Dr Robert Hedges (Oxford), announced that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!". In 1989 Nature reported that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... 1260-1390.". In February 1989 the scientific journal Nature reported:

"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 ...".

The invisible reweaving repair theory requires that the repair be "approximately 60 percent of the C-14 sample consisting of 16th-century threads while approximately 40 percent were 1st century in origin". Oxford laboratory did find some old cotton threads in their sample, but they were only "two or three fibers". It would require "65 percent of the mass of the shroud ... to give a date of 1350 to a fabric originally dating from the time of Christ" but there was "less than 0.1 percent" of such contamination in the Shroud. Textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg inspected the Shroud as part of its 2002 restoration and she denies there is any evidence of reweaving.

Invisible reweaving repair with 16th-century cotton. 

The Invisible Reweave and Other Challenges to the Turin Shroud's C-14 Medieval Dating: A Review
https://www.academia.edu/40272184/The_Invisible_Reweave_and_Other_Challenges_to_the_Turin_Shrouds_C_14_Medieval_Dating_A_Review?fbclid=IwAR0UeCuJz30oLDZXD2GYzczuKkUurljMmEoq8pr0wbe3N0AMlV7KHIUhg_4

Jim Bertrand wrote an article for the website "Insidethevatican", where he reports: It is well known that the Shroud has undergone several repairs throughout history, including after a fire in 1532. The Shroud was owned in the 1500s by Margaret of Austria, Duchess of Savoy, whose weavers were experts in the technique known as “French invisible reweaving.”

The late STURP chemist Raymond Rogers, who first called Marino and Benford part of the “lunatic fringe,” analyzed their hypothesis, and to his surprise, admitted they were probably right. After being given an actual leftover sample from the 1988 dating, he confirmed the hypothesis. In 2005, he authored a paper in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta. He concluded that the C-14 sample was not representative of the main cloth, thus invalidating the results. 2

Raymond N. Rogers (2004): Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.3

An article in 2010 reported: Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ. 8

Further robustness to the reweaving hypothesis comes from Eric Poggel's article in the website Bereanarchive:
http://bereanarchive.org/articles/history/shroud-of-turin-carbon-dating

1. King Umberto II of Italy, whose family used to own the shroud, says that in 1694 they repaired the shroud's heavily frayed and missing edges.

The first three Savoy Lords who possessed it, although they, unlike some of their predecessor Guardians, never purposely removed fragments from their areas with the image of the Corpus Sancti (Holy Body.)  Another fact confirmed by His Majesty was that it was traditionally affirmed, that at one point in the past, the edges of the Lenzuoli (Sheet) had become so tattered as to cause embarrassment or criticism of the Custodians, and those areas were repaired and rewoven using identical techniques, but obviously with similar, yet newer, materials containing dyes and other medieval manufacturing ingredients, in an attempt to better blend the new sections in, as best possible, with the original fabric.  In truth, the presence of medieval dyes was detected in these areas and this fact has been already pointed out by Scientists as additional proof of the inaccuracy of the 1988 Carbon 14 dating test results that placed the samples taken from these areas, as having been fabricated sometime in the middle ages.  In truth, any one of the aforementioned practices alone would also account, for not only the contamination of the fabric resulting in inaccurate Carbon 14 dating results but also, the different types of linen, dyes, resins, and fabric patches discovered to have been present on the outermost edges of the sheet that usually held by Bishops during the exposition of the Sacred Relic to the public for veneration."
From pages 265-267:  "The removal of all patches and of the reinforcement Holland Cloth backing of the Holy Shroud, in the year 2002, confirmed what King Umberto had stated, namely that small sections of the repaired and rewoven edges, had continually been removed from the Sacred Relic and probably as late as the second half of the 17th century. That the practice of removing small fragments and even full length or width threads from the outer edges [of] the Holy Shroud, was a family tradition only finally suppressed by Duke Vittorio Amedeo II of Savoy, was another fact Umberto II of Savoy confirmed to Blue Army Founder and Shroud Devotee John Mathias Haffert, in the mid 1960’s.  It was the same Vittorio Amedeo II, who along with his wife, the Infanta Anna d’Orleans, personally assisted Blessed Sebastiano Valfre on June 6th, 1694, in repairing the Sacred Burial Cloth of the The Christ, shortly before transferring the Sacred Relic to the new Chapel of the Guarini. Later, it became a tradition on June 6th of each year for the Savoy Royal Family to distribute relics of the backing cloth.  It was in 1694, that in accordance to the Savoy Family tradition, some of the removed sections of thread were then woven into full size replicas of the Sindone (Shroud) for private or public veneration in Convents and Cathedrals during popular Holy Week celebrations.  Unlike the meticulous repair work that had been carried out in previous centuries by religious expert weavers following the damage caused to the Shroud by fires and which left little trace of the removed sections, the intervention of the Savoy and the Blessed was aimed primarily at replacing the cloth backing of the Relic giving it added thickness and strength and also a better contrast to the image.  The last intervention by religious sisters had been considered poor by the various members of the House of Savoy since, rather than reweaving the areas nearest the outermost edges that were either missing or had frayed from manipulation and wear, they had camouflaged them with cloth coverings and patches.  The backing of black cloth added by Blessed Sebastiano Valfre was later removed by Princess Maria Clotilde di Savoia, (1843-1911) Consort of Prince Napoleon, who substituted it for a pink silk on April 28th, 1868, on account of the backing having also become deteriorated from manipulation and removal of pieces for relics."

2. Prior to the 1988 carbon dating, archaeologists William Meacham and Paul Maloney, as well as textile expert John Tyrer each independently warned that bottom left corner looked like it had non-original material added from a repair, and wouldn't be a good place to cut a sample for carbon dating.

3.  Chemists Ray Rogers, Robert Villareal, and Alan Adler, as well as microscopist John L. Brown, and Pam Moon each independently examined fibers from the shroud. They found pigments and large amounts of plant gum, likely from tempera paint, coating the fibers from the cloth near and on the carbon dating samples. This yellow coating was similar in color to the linen on the rest of the shroud but undyed white cotton was visible on inner fibers and where the thread passed below another (image below). Brown described this as "obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud."63a This dye/coating isn't found on the rest of the shroud.



4. Cotton fibers were found in the carbon-dated corner of the shroud by at least 8 different researchers, from 1975 to 2009. Not as a surface contaminant, but woven into the threads, and this cotton wasn't found in the rest of the otherwise linen shroud.

Problems with the 1988 carbon dating procedures

They didn't follow the proper pre-arranged protocol to take multiple samples from multiple areas rather than taking one sample from the location most likely to be contaminated.

Many suspicious and unscientific activities surrounded the 1988 carbon dating of the shroud, including:

The carbon-14 team excluded all previous researchers who had worked with the shroud, causing much protest.
There was a laborious search for a 13th-century linen cloth that had the same color and rare 3-in-1 herringbone weave as the Shroud of Turin. From the same time period when the Shroud was allegedly forged.19a 19b 19b 44
The entire ceremony to cut carbon-14 samples from the shroud was recorded on video, except when two men inexplicably took the cut samples to another room for 30 minutes and returned with them inside opaque containers.
Together this evidence makes a powerful case the 1988 carbon date cannot be considered accurate and therefore should not be used as an argument against the Shroud of Turin's authenticity.  The remainder of this article outlines this evidence in great depth.

Former BSTS (British Society for the Turin Shroud) editor Mark Guscin comments in reviewing Joe Marino's 2020 book on the 1988 carbon dating:

There is a very widespread idea that Shroudies are a group of religious fanatics, while "scientists" are a homogenous group of people (in clean white coats and in nice clean laboratories) who are extremely knowledgeable, calm and never moved by such earthly concerns as money, fame or personal ambition. And they all agree with each other, because science is one and true. No matter what you think about the Shroud, this book should shatter that illusion forever. The scientists involved in the carbon dating were as human as you could imagine; fame-seeking, selfish, money-grabbing and disloyal. They were hopelessly disorganized, seemed to have little idea about what they were dealing with and to care about it even less, they showed an unbelievable lack of respect for anyone who didn't share their own ideas, and that includes other scientists involved in the dating.

"Secret" 1982 carbon dating

A "secret" and poorly documented carbon dating was performed on two ends of an 8cm thread given to STURP chemist John Heller, who was given the thread by STURP chemist Alan Adler, who received the thread from yet another STURP chemist, Ray Rogers, who collected the sample.  John Heller gave the thread to mineralogist George Rossman, who used Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTMS), a non-typical carbon dating technique, to date each end of the thread separately.  One end of the thread which was covered in starch dated to either 1000 AD or 1200 AD (reports vary), while the other non-starchy end dated to 200 AD.  An 8cm thread can be seen missing from the shroud near the bottom left corner. 12

Recent tests contradict the C14 test from 1988

Robert J. Spitzer (2015): Four contemporary dating tests: The vanillin dating test of Dr. Raymond Rogers, the two spectroscopic analyses (of Dr. Giulio Fanti, et. al), and the compressibility and breaking strength tests (of Dr. Giulio Fanti, et. al) date the Shroud to a time commensurate with the life and crucifixion of Jesus.13

Myra Adams wrote an article for the website Christianity.com in 2019, where she reported: In 2017 French researcher, Tristan Casabianca filed a legal action against the British Museum, which oversaw the C-14 testing labs in 1988. The museum complied and finally released all the raw data. Casabianca’s research team ran new tests and conclude in their 2019 report that there were numerous dates that fell outside the range published in “Nature.” They prove that the Shroud cloth sample is not homogenous, and the 1988 results, famously reported with “95% confidence” are suspect. Casabianca’s team supports the widely-held belief that something went awry with the C-14 tests, which for the ensuing decades discouraged Shroud research and disparaged the Shroud as a medieval fake. Casabianca and his team are advocating that the Vatican authorize a variety of new 21st-century testing methods not available in 1988 or 1978 during STURP’s testing.4

T. CASABIANCA (2019): Recently, we obtained the raw data and, for the first time, measured their convergence with the radiocarbon dates published in Nature.
Our results, which are compatible with those previously reported by many other authors (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013), strongly suggest that homogeneity is lacking in the data. The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth. 5

Bryan Walsh (2019): The Shroud became, and remains, the focus of scientific inquiry because it is not known how the images on it were formed. Most recently Casabianca et al. (2019), based on information obtained after a legal filing with the British Museum, showed that some of the original Shroud date measurements reported by the three laboratories to the British Museum were modified from their original ‘raw’ laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an unstated methodology. Our review and analysis of the Shroud radiocarbon data reveal a significant shortcoming in the original report by Damon et al. (1989). The shortcoming begins with the lack of adherence to the protocol that W-W define for combining the inter-laboratory data sets.

The overall conclusion is that Damon et al. (1989) did not follow the W-W recommendation to reconsider the data. Rather, they chose to weight equally each of the three means – the scatter-weighted Tucson data and the quoted error-weighted Zurich and Oxford data – to find their arithmetic mean. They then estimated the standard error of that mean by combining the standard errors of those means as if all the data were drawn from the same population. This procedure is inappropriate since it deliberately ignores the heterogeneous nature of the data uncovered by the analysis and introduces error into the statistical analysis.

Our analyses correct this deficiency, and in the process identify a statistically significant heterogeneity in the dates reported for the Shroud sample.  ( heterogeneity: The quality or state of consisting of dissimilar or diverse elements) Technically, this finding would preclude the step of combining the individual data sets and reporting the mean date as was done. Lacking this adherence to protocol, the finding of heterogeneity should, at the very least, have prompted a strong qualification to the reported final result. At this time, the source of the heterogeneity is unknown, but we consider two hypotheses either of which could account for the effect. One is that some inherent variation was present in the carbon isotopic composition of the samples themselves. The other is that some differences in the sample cleaning may have introduced differences in residual contamination. As an example of the latter, we recall that Oxford used petroleum ether as part of its pre-cleaning procedure whereas the other two laboratories apparently did not.

Fanti et al. developed a series of relationships between characteristics of fiber over time and a method of estimating the age of the fabric. He subsequently applied these techniques to a series of fibers extracted from the Shroud and derived an estimated calendar age of 90 AD +/− 200 yrs (Fanti et al., 2015). 6

Quoting from the abstract of the article: Giulio Fanti ( 2015): The present paper discusses the results obtained using innovative dating methods based on the analysis of mechanical parameters (breaking strength, Young modulus and loss factor) and of optochemical ones (FT-IR and Raman). To obtain mechanical results it was necessary to build a particular cycling-loads machine able to measure the mechanical parameters of single flax fibers 1-3 mm long.  two optochemical methods have been applied to test the linen fabric, obtaining a date of 250 BC by a FT-IR ATR analysis and a date of 30 AD by a Raman analysis. These two dates combined with the mechanical result, weighted through their estimated square uncertainty inverses, give a final date of the Turin Shroud of 90 AD ±200 years at 95% confidence level. 7

The study from 2015 was preceded by Fanti et al., by an earlier study from 2013, which made the news in several newspapers. For example, the Huffington Post reported:  Fanti and a research team from the University of Padua conducted three tests on tiny fibers extracted from the shroud during earlier carbon-14 dating tests conducted in 1988 The first two tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy, respectively, while the third employed a test analyzing different mechanical parameters relating to voltage. The results date the cloth to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D.. Fanti said that researchers also found trace elements of soil "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem." "For me the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity," he wrote, adding that there also "no sure proofs." Much of the controversy about the Shroud centers around carbon-14 dating tests from 1988 that concluded the piece of linen was a medieval forgery. However, those results may have been contaminated by fibers used to repair the cloth during the Middle Ages.9

Above results were published in the book:  Il mistero della Sindone 10 



A press release about the book in 2013 reported:

The Shroud shows a not reproducible double image of a man who lived from 280 BC and the year 220 AD (rounded to the nearest tens), period compatible with the documented presence of Jesus in Palestine. The carbon 14 dating performed in 1988 is not statistically reliable. Mineralogical investigations on dusts vacuumed from the Shroud, show the coincidence in dozens of items with those made of dust picked up in Jerusalem and under the Holy Sepulchre. DNA studies on the same samples show an exposition of the Shroud to the middle East region. These are the sensational results reported in an Italian book entitled "IL MISTERO DELLA SINDONE – Le sorprendenti scoperte scientifiche sull’enigma del telo di Gesù (THE MYSTERY OF THE SHROUD – The amazing scientific discoveries on the enigma of the Jesus’ cloth) written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta.

The studies led by Professor Giulio Fanti have been performed by the Universities of Padua, Bologna, Modena, Udine, Parma and London. These studies show methodological errors in the radiocarbon data released in 1988 by three laboratories (Tuxon, Oxford and Zurich), who subjected to Carbon 14 test  samples of the Shroud, placing it an age between 1260 and 1390. Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermic measurements at the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padua studies the Shroud from fifteen years and thanks to a multidisciplinary project on the Shroud assigned to him by the University of Padua in 2009 has had the possibility to obtain these results. By means of this project it has also been possible to study and partially reproduce the doubly body image of the Shroud. Dozens of tests have been conducted in 2010-2013 in the Laboratory of High Voltages of Padua University to explain the origin of the mysterious image. If we want today to reproduce a quite similar image on a fabric in 1/2 scale, we require a voltage of about 300,000 V, but according to the american scientist Igor Bensen, a voltage of 50,000,000 would be necessary for the Shroud body image in a 1/1 scale.

Now Fanti focused his studies on the dating of the Shroud. After robust statistical analyses in collaboration with the Universities of London (Anthony Atkinsons), Parma (Marco Riani) and Udine (Fabio Crosilla), he has shown, through robust statistics, the origin of the difference of more than 200 years between the laboratories of Arizona and Oxford in the response of carbon 14 on the Shroud. A statistical model has highlighted the systematic tendency to change: if for a few centimeters of fabric there are differences in 200 years, it’s easy to think that there are thousands years of variations along the nearly 4.5 m of the Shroud, possibly caused by the mysterious energy that produced the image.

To date the Shroud using alternative methods both Raman and FT-IR tests have been used to obtain two different chemical datings with the collaboration of professors Anna Tinti and Pietro Baraldi respectively of the universities of Bologna and Modena. In addition, a multiparametric mechanical method have been used at Padua University after the construction of a new ad-hoc machine capable to acquire the results of loading and unloading cycles of single linen fibers. Using a petrographic microscope Fanti was able to separate Shroud linen fibers from dust particles vacuumed from Shroud; the fibers have been mounted on suitable supports and then, with Dr. Pierandred Malfi performed tests of tension and compression after analyzing about a dozen of antique fabrics (from bandages of mummies Egyptians of 3,000 BC, linens of Masada (Israel, 70 AD) and Medieval tissues up to recent ones.

Five mechanical parameters (tensile strength, Young’s modulus in direct and reverse cycle, loss factor and loss factor in reverse cycle) have been selected to obtain five different age-dependent curves of the samples. After this Fanti has measured the corresponding mechanical properties of the Shroud finding the corresponding point on the scales just determined. Combining the five mechanical results, the following date for the Shroud results: 400 AD with an uncertainty of plus or minus 400 years at a 95% confidence level. With Raman and FT-IR spectra the Italian team measured the concentration of particles of particular atomic groups of flax fibers. At the same confidence level, the first produced the date of 200 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 500 years, the latter that of the 300 BC with swings forward and back of 400 years. Combining the two chemical methods with the mechanical one it results a mean date of 33 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 250 years at 95% confidence level that is compatible with the period in which Jesus Christ lived in Palestine. In reference to the mineralogical investigations, the dust vacuumed from the Shroud revealed traces of limestone and clay minerals showing high iron content that is consistent with dust present in Palestine. 11

Liberato De Caro (2022): The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition.14 

In a private email exchange, Barrie Schwortz listed the following peer-reviewed papers as the five most important articles that challenge the c14 date:

ROGERS, Raymond N. - “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin” [January 20, 2005] Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) pp.189-194. (Includes 5 illustrations)
BENFORD, M. Sue and MARINO, Joseph G. - Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud - Chemistry Today, vol 26 n 4, [July-August 2008]
CASABIANCA, Tristan - MARINELLI, Emanuela - PERNAGALLO, Giuseppe - TORRISI, Benedetto - Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence From Raw Data - Archaeometry, 22 March 2019
WALSH, Bryan and SCHWALBE, Larry - An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 29, February 2020
SCHWALBE, Larry A. and WALSH, Bryan - On Cleaning Methods and the Raw Radiocarbon Data from the Shroud of Turin - International Journal of Archaeology 2021; 9(1): 10-16 - March 12, 2021.

Modern scientific Shroud Investigations

J.Marino (2022): The age of modern scientific investigation of the Shroud of Turin began in 1898, with Secondo Pia, an Italian amateur photographer, taking the first public photographs of the Shroud. When it was discovered that the Shroud image turned positive on the negative glass plate, science began to show an interest, primarily in finding how the image was imprinted on the cloth. Although the House of Savoy owned cloth until 1985 (the last King died in 1983 and willed it to the living Pope), the Church authorized a group known as the “Turin Commission” to do some limited scientific examination of the cloth in 1969 and 1973. According to archaeologist William Meacham in a 1983 article:

The Turin Commission conducted a series of tests aimed at clarifying the nature of the image. Thread samples were removed from the "blood" and image areas for laboratory investigation. Conventional and electron microscopic examination revealed an absence of heterogeneous coloring material or pigment. The image and "blood" stains were reported to have penetrated only the top fibrils; there had been no capillary action, and no material was caught in the crevices between threads. Both paint and blood seemed to be ruled out, and magnification up to 50,000 times showed the image to consist of fine yellow-red granules seemingly forming part of the fibers themselves and defying identification. Finally, standard forensic tests for haematic residues of blood yielded negative results.

In 1978, a group known as the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), mainly from the United States and most of whom worked in the U.S.’ space and nuclear programs, was given access to the cloth for five straight days (one hundred and twenty hours) to do non-destructive multi-disciplinary studies on the cloth. They published their findings in more than twenty peer-reviewed papers. Their conclusion stated:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

Since the testing had to be non-destructive, the much-hyped radiocarbon dating test (C-14), which had only been invented in the late 1940s, was believed to date most objects within about a one-hundred-year range accurately, was not done at that time. However after 1978, more scientists and researchers continued to study the cloth. It was stated in the renowned Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology that it’s widely believed: “The Shroud of Turin is the single, most studied artifact in human history” (page 200). 15


Cutting and weighing the sample for its subsequent division and distribution. After making the appropriate cut, Professor Testare weighs the removed fabric on a precision scale. This small strip was later divided into several fragments and sent to three laboratories. Unfortunately, four different official versions of the weights and measurements of each fragment were released, which at the time fueled rumors of a possible fraud in the laboratories' actions.


The particle accelerator used in the Oxford laboratory. Three laboratories volunteered to analyze the Shroud for free: those in Tucson (Arizona), Oxford (England), and Zurich (Switzerland). They used the carbon-14 dating method through the particle accelerator (AMS), which had recently been launched.


Clarification from Professor Michael Tite. As the coordinator of the test and the director of the research laboratory at the British Museum, Professor Michael Tite acknowledged - after the complete report was published in Nature - that the C-14 dating was not sufficient to establish that the Shroud of Turin was a fake. He clarified that such a claim goes beyond the evidential scope of the results obtained and attributed the misinterpretation of his words to the media. Presented here is the letter he sent to the scientific advisor of the Archbishop of Turin, apologizing for this misunderstanding. In it, he specified that he did not believe the Shroud to be a forgery.

He wrote in the letter , dated 14th of September 1989: 
Following our recent meeting in Paris, I am writing to put my record the fact that I myself do not consider that the result of the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud shows the Shroud to be a forgery. As you have correctly pointed out, to describe the Shroud as a forgery implies a deliberate intention to defraud and the radiocarbon dating clearly provides no evidence in support of such a hypothesis. I myself have always carefully tried to avoid using the word forgery in discussing the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud but I fear that description of the Shroud as a forgery has still crept into a number of newspaper articles based on interviews that I have given. I can therefore only apologise once again for any problems that such reports have caused you and others in Turin. I was very pleased to meet you and Professor Testore again in Paris.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n24part5.pdf




What are the main reasons for unreliable radiocarbon test results?



Rogue dates are common in archaeology and geology … Such has been my experience as an archaeologist who has excavated, submitted and interpreted more than one hundred carbon 14 samples from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Historical sites. Of these dates obtained, 78 were considered credible, 26 were rejected as unreliable and 11 were problematic. I mention this merely to inform the non-specialist …1
William Meacham, archaeologist, Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 2000

Carbon-14 dating, a widely used method in archaeology and other sciences, can be unreliable if the sample being tested is not in optimal condition. According to statistics from Professor William Meacham, the accuracy rate of carbon-14 dating is about 70%. This figure represents cases where carbon-14 dating confirms a date already established by other methods. However, there's more than a 9% chance of obtaining questionable results that don't match known data, and over 20% of the dates are deemed unacceptable because they contradict other reliable information. These statistics indicate that while carbon-14 dating is generally reliable, its effectiveness heavily depends on the sample's condition.  Contamination is a significant factor affecting the accuracy of carbon-14 dating. If a sample is not properly cleaned, contamination can introduce additional carbon, leading to a falsely younger date. The principle of carbon-14 dating is based on measuring the amount of carbon-14 in a sample; the more carbon-14 present, the younger the sample is deemed to be. Therefore, accurate dating relies not only on the method itself but also on the condition and treatment of the sample. Ensuring that the sample is free from contamination is crucial for obtaining accurate dating results.

The radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was conducted by three laboratories using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) and resulted in an age determination of AD 1260-1390, with a 95% confidence interval. However, there are several reasons to question whether the 95% confidence level was warranted.

Sample location and representativeness: The samples used for radiocarbon dating were taken from a corner of the Shroud that is believed to have been repaired in medieval times, leading to concerns that the samples may not have been fully representative of the original cloth. There are good reasons to conclude that this may have resulted in a skewed age determination.

Contamination: The Shroud of Turin has been handled by numerous individuals over the centuries, and there are concerns about potential contamination from modern materials, such as cotton fibers or conservation efforts, which can have affected the radiocarbon dating results.

Chemical composition of the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin may have undergone chemical changes over time, such as contamination with carbon-14-depleted materials or changes in the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 within the cloth, which could have influenced the radiocarbon dating results.

Historical considerations: The Shroud of Turin is a religious relic that has been venerated by many as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, and some critics have raised concerns about potential biases or motivations that may have influenced the radiocarbon dating process or interpretation of results.

For samples that are younger than about 5,000 years or older than about 50,000 years, the error percentage rate can be larger, reaching several hundred years or more, which corresponds to a higher percentage error. It's also worth noting that the error percentage rate is generally larger for older samples, as the amount of remaining C14 decreases and the measurement becomes more challenging. The percentage of error for radiocarbon (C14) dating of samples that are younger than about 5,000 years can vary depending on several factors, including the laboratory procedures and measurement techniques used, as well as the condition and quality of the sample being tested.

Contamination: Radiocarbon testing requires the sample to be free from contamination by carbon-containing materials that are not part of the original sample. Contamination can occur during sample collection, handling, or storage, and can lead to inaccurate results. For example, modern carbon from the environment, such as humic acids, can contaminate an ancient sample, resulting in a younger radiocarbon date.

Sample size and quality: The size and quality of the sample being tested can also affect the reliability of radiocarbon results. Radiocarbon dating requires a sufficient amount of carbon-14 to be present in the sample for accurate dating. Small sample sizes or samples with low carbon content may yield less precise results or may not produce measurable radiocarbon ages.

Carbon-14 fluctuations: Carbon-14 levels in the atmosphere can fluctuate over time due to various factors, such as changes in solar activity and the Earth's magnetic field. These fluctuations can affect the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, especially for samples with ages close to the present time. Calibration of radiocarbon results using calibration curves and other methods is typically done to account for these fluctuations, but uncertainties in calibration can still impact the reliability of the results.

Post-depositional processes: Organic materials can undergo post-depositional processes, such as contamination, decay, or diagenesis, which can alter the carbon-14 content and affect the accuracy of radiocarbon dating. For example, carbon exchange with groundwater or sediment can result in "old carbon" contamination, where the sample appears to be older than its true age.

Human error: Human error during sample collection, preparation, and analysis can also lead to unreliable radiocarbon results. Errors in sample identification, handling, or processing can introduce inaccuracies and compromise the reliability of the dating.

Sample suitability: Not all samples are suitable for radiocarbon dating. For example, materials with very low carbon content, such as shells or charcoal that has undergone extensive diagenesis, may not produce reliable radiocarbon results.


https://web.archive.org/web/20110812231027/http://www.suaire-turin.com/Resources/carbone.pdf

On September 28, Cardinal Ballestrero, Custos of the Holy Shroud, received a warning from Doctor Tite in a highly tense atmosphere, mainly due to the leaks that had occurred during the summer, especially in the English press. Professor Gonella later clarified that it was the laboratories, out of concern for publicity, that had requested the Church to announce the results. The official press release on October 13, 1988, underwent several revisions between Turin and Rome, all done in perfect communion with the Holy Father. The Pope himself "approved" all the words in this statement, which was ultimately provided by his spokesperson and personal physician, Doctor Navarro-Valls, who also chaired the subsequent press conference. Cardinal Ballestrero then read the following text: "This document, provided by Doctor Tite, specifies that the dating of the fabric of the Shroud, determined with a reliability rate of 95%, falls between the years 1260 and 1390 AD.

After informing the Holy See, the owner of the Holy Shroud, I am now making public what was communicated to me. At the same time, the questions surrounding the origin of the image and its preservation still remain unresolved and will require further research and subsequent studies." Regarding these two critical points, along with the Church's stance (as detailed in section 2), Cardinal Ballestrero expressed his personal regret that many details regarding this scientific research had been prematurely revealed in the press. On October 14, a televised press conference was held at the British Museum, where supporters of the Shroud's antiquity were met with significant challenges and criticism. A week later, the American journal "Nature" published a brief article,11 mentioning the recent announcement of the results made in Zurich.
In February 1989, the journal "Nature" published the official results12 under the collective signature of the 21 scientists who had taken part in the tests. This comprehensive review provided detailed results, presented in several tables and figures, which are further elaborated upon in section 10 of the publication.

The Church, including Cardinal Ballestrero, maintained a spirit of openness to scientific research while emphasizing that its position remained clear and serene.

The press release read on October 13, 1988, by the cardinal-custos affirmed the Church's respect and veneration for the Shroud as a true icon of Christ. It acknowledged that the image's value to the faithful surpassed its potential historical value.

The Church announced its willingness to consider future research proposals, demonstrating its commitment to the pursuit of truth.
Cardinal Ballestrero clarified that he did not personally accept or reject the results of the scientific tests. He emphasized the Church's serenity in the face of the results and reiterated the continuation of the cult and veneration of the Holy Shroud within the Church.
The Church's stance was to announce the scientific results without necessarily endorsing them or hastily accepting them as truth.
The Church did not bow to science but acknowledged the importance and value of the Shroud as a religious relic.
There was no indication of either haste or deliberate delay on the part of the Church in publishing the results, emphasizing a measured and thoughtful approach to the matter.

The publication of the results of the dating of the Shroud in 1988 triggered a series of reactions and conflicts, which can be summarized as follows:

Media Coverage: The release of the results led to extensive and triumphant media coverage on one side, with some presenting the findings as conclusive. On the other side, there were reactions of amazement, emotion, and doubt, reflecting the polarized public response to the findings.

Disinformation: Some individuals and groups, often claiming to be scientists, propagated misinformation about the Shroud study and made exaggerated claims in various areas related to the Shroud's study. This disinformation was spread through books, newspapers, films, and radio/television broadcasts.

Accusations of Fraud: Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard and Father Georges de Nantes quickly accused the laboratories of fraud and the substitution of the sample taken for dating. These accusations were made without concrete evidence (as mentioned in section 11), contributing significantly to the immediate creation of a climate of distrust and hostility between different camps. These attacks persist today and target not only the Church but also the C14 specialists.

Impact on Scientists: The scientists involved in the study were deeply affected by these attacks and the hostile climate they created. Some of them no longer wanted to be associated with the Shroud research due to the negative experiences and accusations.

Non-Scientific Circles: Some non-scientific circles amplified the conflict, particularly through the provocative remarks of Ms. van Oosterwick-Gastuche, a Belgian specialist in soils who lacked expertise in C14 dating. Her polemical book, which mixed scientific aspects with personal attacks against various individuals and institutions, contributed to prolonging the conflict.

Overall, the reactions to the Shroud's dating results led to a deeply polarized and hostile environment, with various parties making accusations, spreading disinformation, and engaging in personal attacks. This ongoing conflict has made it challenging to conduct further research and has strained relationships between different groups involved in the study of the Holy Shroud.

2005 Vanillin Chemical Test

A 2005 scientific study compared the shroud to ancient linens found with the Dead Sea Scrolls that are known to date back to the time of Christ.  This study measured the rate of loss of vanillin from lignin in old cloths. Vanillin is the main chemical we use to make the vanilla flavor and it comes from lignin which is a chemical on the cell walls of plants.

This study concluded that the Shroud could be anywhere from 1,300 to 3,000 years old, due to how the fibers in the shroud have lost their vanillin.

“The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old."  - Raymond N. Rogers, Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin, Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425, Issues 1–2, 2005, Pages 189-194,
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF




More:
https://scottmsullivan.com/why-the-shroud-of-turin-is-a-good-reason-to-think-christianity-is-true/



1. Stephen E. Jones: The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1 JULY 23, 2015
2. Jim Bertrand: Was the Shroud’s First-Century Origin Really Debunked?
3. Raymond N. Rogers: Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin   12 September 2004
4. Myra Adams: What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know 2019 8 Nov
5. T. CASABIANCA: RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE TURIN SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE FROM RAW DATA * 15 February 2019
6. Bryan Walsh: An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin    Accepted 24 September 2019
7. Giulio Fanti et. al.,: Mechanical ond opto-chemical dating of the Turin Shroud 2015
8. Shroudofturinblog: Death Certificate on the Shroud of Turin? 2010
9. Meredith Bennett-Smith: Shroud Of Turin Real? New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ Mar 29, 2013
10. Gulio Fanti: Il mistero della Sindone. Le sorprendenti scoperte scientifiche sull'enigma del telo di Gesù Mar 20 2013
11. Shroudofturinblog: Giulio Fanti: The Image of a Man Who Lived Between 280 BC and 220 AD March 27, 2013
12. Bereanarchive: Shroud of Turin: 1988 Carbon Dating  June 2022
13. Robert J. Spitzer: Science and the Shroud of Turin  May 2015
14. Liberato De Caro: X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample 11 April 2022
15. Joe Marino: Musings Regarding the Shroud of Turin – Including “How is it that Practically Everyone Thinks They’re an Authority?” 2022

Each micro-fibril in the linen threads is approximately the diameter of a human hair. A single thread contains around two hundred micro-fibrils, with only the top three micro-fibrils carrying the image. This level of superficiality makes it physically impossible for any artist to paint with such precision. The image on the Shroud of Turin is formed through a molecular modification of the surface linen fibrils. In this modification, single covalent bonds are transformed into double covalent bonds. As a result, it is the conjugated dehydrated cellulose within the linen that carries the image. Examining a photomicrograph of the nose region, one of the darkest areas of the image, it becomes apparent that the microfibrils are not held together with any paint or binder. Thus, it is the molecularly modified linen fibrils themselves that comprise the image visible on the shroud today.

The exact cause of this modification remains unknown. However, there are speculations that some form of radiation may have played a role. An Italian scientist demonstrated that ultrashort UV laser impulses can create images on linen fibers with similar microscopic properties to those observed on the shroud.

Despite this understanding, replicating a life-size image like the one on the Shroud of Turin currently exceeds our technological capabilities.


Magis Center  How did the image form on the Shroud? May 27, 2019
“According to Jackson, an intense burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” -Fr. Robert Spitzer
The startling discovery of an image on both the front and back of the cloth implies that the cloth collapsed into and through the body.
There is no scientific explanation of how this could have happened unless the body became mechanically transparent, causing the cloth to collapse into it. If the cloth did collapse into the body, then the ultraviolet light would have completely surrounded the body. This would produce a double image on both the front and the back of the cloth, but nothing on the fibers in the middle.  
“Currently, the known laws of physics cannot explain how a decomposing body can emit an intense burst of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, they cannot explain how such a body could become mechanically transparent and emit light from every three-dimensional point within it.”
https://blog.magiscenter.com/blog/how-did-shroud-turin-get-image?fbclid=IwAR1RJLWSf7m0agPDmLLoWcpmA_hE-wWJ14xceXPb9HCOQ8bzx9xLkQKyjPk

Robert A. Rucker, How the Image Was Formed on the Shroud July 31, 2020
https://0201.nccdn.net/1_2/000/000/174/1a8/how-the-image-was-formed-on-the-shroud.pdf

The Shroud of Turin, Secrets of the Resurrection | Documented Miracles Feb 20, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUES9mMy14g

In the year 944 at the height of the byzantine empire in its capital Constantinople the archdeacon Gregory refendarius gave a sermon on christ's burial cloth today thought to be the first true reference to the shroud of Turin refendarius speaks in detail about the bloodstains from christ's wounds and that you can not only see the figure of a face but also the figure of a whole body.  During the fourth crusade when Constantinople burned and citizens were cut down without mercy crusaders ransacked the city's holy archives and stole sacred artifacts it is thought that the shroud of Turin was among those taken in 1353 a devoutly religious member of the knight's templar joffra desharni came into possession of the shroud and had it transported to a monastery in lirey France for safekeeping.


Paolo Di Lazzaro Coloring of linen fabrics by ultraviolet radiation 2 Maggio 2015
From the chemical point of view, the image is due to a molecular modification of the surface of the linen fiber16 constituted of polysaccharides (chains of glucose). These polysaccharides underwent an alteration as a consequence of an acting-at-a-distance phenomenon. In particular, the chemical reaction consists of dehydration with oxidation and conjugation (acid–base reaction). The image is not composed of painting pigments or other substances of that kind.
https://www.academia.edu/12273176/Colorazione_di_tessuti_di_lino_tramite_radiazione_ultravioletta

Paolo Di Lazzaro Deep Ultraviolet Radiation Simulates the Turin Shroud Image July 2010
Our results show that a very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color a linen fabric in order to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image of the Shroud of Turin, including color tone, surface coloring of the outermost fibrils of the linen, and the absence of fluorescence. However, it should be noted that the total power of the VUV radiation required for instantly color the surface of a linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to IT corpor body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts

makes it impossible today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single excimer laser, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market reach a few billion watts). Rather, the work summarized in this Technical Report has demonstrated that laser radiation is a suitable tool for studying in detail the physical and chemical processes that they could be the basis of the production of the body image of the Shroud, regardless of the source of radiation (or energy) that may have generated this image.

The Shroud image presents some characteristics that we have not yet managed to reproduce, for example the nuance of the image due to a different concentration of yellow-colored fibrils alternating with non-fibrils colored. There are sophisticated diffractive optics that would allow to replicate these characteristics too, but this goes far beyond our intentions: our aim is not to demonstrate that a battery of ten thousand lasers excimer can exactly reproduce the body image of the Shroud. Our main purpose is to carry out accurate, controlled and reproducible experiments, suitable to understand the detail of the physical and chemical mechanisms that they produced the Shroud image, thanks to a powerful and versatile tool such as the excimer laser.

We are composing the pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle. The enigma of the origin of the image of the Shroud of Turin still remains "a provocation to intelligence"

The American scholar A. Adler, backing the image formation as a cause of the corona discharge, supposed the presence of a ball lightning in the sepulcher, referring to a one-of-a-kind phenomenon. The ENEA Frascati Center carried out coloration tests on the Linen on the basis of excimer lasers (emitting a UV spectrum) that gave satisfactory results. However, even in this case it was not clear which kind of physical phenomenon could have triggered the
laser radiation. According to the authors, who carried out an in-depth examination of the issue both from a theoretical and an experimental point of view, corona discharge is the best hypothesis to explain several peculiar features of the Shroud image. At the Department of Industrial Engineering of University of Padua (Padua, Italy), a group of scientists led by Professor Giancarlo Pesavento carried out some tests generating corona discharge on a 1:2 scale manikin covered with conductive paint and enfolded with a Shroud-like cloth.  In this case almost all the chemical-physics characteristics match to those of the Shroud, but one question remains: what could have developed a 300,000 V discharge in the sepulcher? Summing up, the radiation hypothesis, and among these, that stating corona discharge was triggered by an intense electric field, is the most reliable because, also on the basis of experimental
verifications, it allows one to obtain a result that gets close to the peculiar features of the Shroud.
[url=http://www.frascati.enea.it/fis/lac/excimer/sindone/Di Lazzaro - deep ultraviolet radiation - JIST.pdf[/url]]http://www.frascati.enea.it/fis/lac/excimer/sindone/Di%20Lazzaro%20-%20deep%20ultraviolet%20radiation%20-%20JIST.pdf[/url]

Conca, Marco The shroud of Turin : first century after Christ! 2016
The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers and the image goes just two or three fibers deep into the thread. The superficial image then disappears if a colored thread goes under another thread. A second level of superficiality consists of the fact that the coloration of every fiber constituting the image is only superficial: the polysaccharide cover, approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches), is colored; the cellulose in the inner side is not. Now that the so-called two-level superficiality of the Shroud image has been described, there is a very interesting and surprising further aspect to be taken into consideration: there are, it seems, actually two imprinted images on the cloth! In fact, from the analysis of the pictures of the dorsal side of the Shroud taken in 2002, it ensued that in correspondence with the face and the hands, there is an image also in the back. Since the Shroud image is superficial, the double image, front and back, implies a double superficiality that is, at least in correspondence with the face, an image on the cloth surface (the main one and most known) and another image, superficial, too, on the opposite side of the Sheet. Between the two sides, there is nothing. Making an analogy, you can imagine a book with the face of the Man of the Shroud on the cover; on the back, another, even fainter, image of the same face; and in the middle, only blanks pages, without any sign of the image.

The double, front and back, body image of the Man of the Shroud reveals such peculiar characteristics that, until now, modern sciences could not reproduce all together at one time on a single cloth. Currently, it is therefore impossible to explain how the Shroud image has been created. The image is not composed of painting pigments or other substances of that kind. the chemical reaction consists of dehydration with oxidation and conjugation (acid–base reaction).
https://3lib.net/book/2572242/382f91

1. It's not a painting 
If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes. In fact the image on the linen is barely visible to the naked eye, and wasn't identified at all until 1898, when it became apparent in the negative image of a photograph taken by Secondo Pia, an amateur Italian photographer. 

2. It's not a photograph
Secondo Pia's photograph showed that the image on the cloth is a negative: dark where it should be bright. This deepens the mystery, and Pia himself casually suggested that the shroud could have been made by some primitive kind of photography. That idea has been inventively pursued by South African art historian Nicholas Allen, who argues that it could in principle have been achieved using materials and knowledge available to medieval scholars many centuries before genuine photography was invented. The key to the idea is the light-sensitive compound silver nitrate, the stuff that darkened the emulsion of the first true photographic plates in the 19th Century, as light transformed the silver salt into tiny black particles of silver metal. 

3. It was not made by a natural chemical process
One of the strange characteristics that the image on the shroud possesses, is that the entire image is very superficial in nature, Around 20 - 30 microns in-depth and both facial images are like this, with nothing in between. It has been confirmed that the image is the result of oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the fibers of the shroud themselves. It is like the imaged areas on the shroud suddenly rapidly aged compared to the rest of the shroud. Professor Giulio Fanti did similar work but he was using a lower resolution image which I believe he scanned from a book. The image on the shroud is the only one of it's kind in this world,and there are no known methods that can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately (S.T.U.R.P's conclusion) I have some of the highest resolution images of the shroud ever taken. Which include G. Enries digitized images,Barrie Schwortz & Vern Millers STURP images, Giancarlo Durantes 1997,2000,2002 & 2010 images, and Haltadefiniziones (HAL9000) images.

If the coloured imprint comes from the darkening of the cellulose fibres of the cloth, what might have caused it? One of the doyens of scientific testing of the shroud, Raymond Rogers of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, argued in 2002 that a simple chemical transformation could do the job. He suggested that even very moderate heat - perhaps 40C (104F) or so, a temperature that post-mortem physicians told him a dead body could briefly attain if the person died from hyperthermia or dehydration - could be enough to discolour the sugary carbohydrate compounds that might be found on the surface of cotton fibres. It doesn't take a miracle, Rogers insisted. This is a reassuringly mundane idea, but there is little evidence for it in this particular circumstance - it's not as if it happens all the time on funeral shrouds. 

On the left, the first superficiality level is shown by the Shroud linen thread model, magnified 300 times, constituted of drinking straws; on the right, the second level of superficiality is highlighted by the fact that,
removed from the colored layer, the straw (fiber) is uncolored.

From a physical point of view, the body image has two levels of superficiality. The first level consists of the fact that the image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers and the image goes just two or three fibers deep into the thread (see Figure). The superficial image then disappears if a colored thread goes under another thread. A second level of superficiality consists of the fact that the coloration of every fiber constituting the image is only superficial: the polysaccharide cover, approximately 0.2 thousandth of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches), is colored; the cellulose in the inner side is not. Now that the so-called two-level superficiality of the Shroud image has been described, there is a very interesting and surprising further aspect to be taken into consideration: there are, it seems, actually two imprinted images on the cloth! In fact, from the analysis of the pictures of the dorsal side of the Shroud taken in 2002, it ensued that in correspondence with the face and the hands, there is an image also in the back. Since the Shroud image is superficial, the double image, front and back, implies a double superficiality that is, at least in correspondence with the face, an image on the cloth surface (the main one and most known) and another image, superficial, too, on the opposite side of the Sheet. Between the two sides, there is nothing. Making an analogy, you can imagine a book with the face of the Man of the Shroud on the cover; on the back, another, even fainter, image of the same face; and in the middle, only blanks pages, without any sign of the image.

The double, front and back, body image of the Man of the Shroud reveals such peculiar characteristics that, until now, modern sciences could not reproduce all together at one time on a single cloth. Currently, it is therefore impossible to explain how the Shroud image has been created. The image is not composed of painting pigments or other substances of that kind. the chemical reaction consists of dehydration with oxidation and conjugation (acid–base reaction).


https://shroudstory.com/



Was this some medieval artistic and scientific genius who knew how to get a dehydration effect WITHOUT burning the shroud he/she was working with??

Paolo Di Lazzaro
The body images on the Shroud looks like an imprint, yet there is no chance to obtain a 200 nm thick coloration depth on linen by using pigments. 200 nm is the depth of color of the body images on the Shroud, indeed. The color of the images on the Shroud is due to dehydration of the primary cell wall of linen fibers which allows formation of chromophores, it is a sort of accelerated aging which may be obtained by e.g., a weak acid, but again, acid acts on the whole linen yarn, not on a so thin depth. As a matter of fact, despite countless attempts, to date nobody was able to obtain a 100% Shroud-like coloration.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-is-the-Shroud-of-Turin-like-a-photograph-having-a-negative-image

Robert A Rucker: Forensic Science and the Shroud of Turin December 03, 2021 Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Michigan, USA
2017 to 2021: The 1988 measurement data was finally released for review in 2017. Statistical analysis of the data proved the samples from the lower corner were not homogeneous, i.e., representative of the rest of the Shroud. This non-homogeneity of the samples has been confirmed by four recent papers in peerreviewed journals and is consistent with previous statistical analysis of the measurement data. This indicates the presence of a systematic error in the measured (C14/C12) ratios of the samples evidently because this ratio in the samples was altered by something other than decay of the C14. This means the carbon date of 1260- 1390 AD for the Shroud should be rejected. This leaves us with three main questions: 1) How were the front and back images of the crucified man formed on the cloth? 2) How were the (C14/C12) ratios of the samples altered? 3) Why is the blood that would have dried on the body now on the cloth, since cloth does not absorb dried blood? Multiple answers have been attempted to answer these separate questions, but a recent hypothesis proposes a concept that could explain all three questions.
The images on the Shroud are made by the top one or two layers of fibers in a thread being discolored to a sepia or straw-yellow color. This discoloration of the fibers penetrates to less than 2% of the radius of a fiber. It is the pattern of these discolored fibers that form the images of the crucified man. Three things are needed to produce this pattern of discolored fibers: 1) a mechanism to discolor the fibers, 2) energy to drive the discoloration mechanism, and 3) information to control which fibers are to be discolored. Since the images are that of a crucified man, the information must be that which defines the form of a crucified man and could only have come from the body that was wrapped in the cloth. The only mechanism that could communicate this information from the body to the cloth and produce the good resolution image that can be seen, appears to be radiation. Thus, many if not most Shroud researchers now believe the images were formed by radiation. Research indicates this radiation was evidently low- energy, perhaps charged particles and/or electromagnetic radiation, and released in an extremely brief intense burst of energy from the body. If this burst of radiation included neutrons, a small fraction of the neutrons would have been absorbed in the trace amount of nitrogen in the cloth to form new C-14 atoms in the fibers. This new C-14 could have shifted the carbon date forward by thousands of years, depending on the location on the Shroud. To shift the carbon date forward from the time of Jesus’ death, about 33 AD, to the midpoint of 1260-1390 AD requires the C-14 concentration at the 1988 sample location be increased by only 16.9%. If the radiation burst from the body were sufficiently brief and intense, it would have thrust the dried blood off the body onto the cloth by a natural process called radiation pressure.
https://crimsonpublishers.com/fsar/fulltext/FSAR.000623.php?fbclid=IwAR3vXDB6QQjSpNesU--K1o9HIXjsi30wa8R8_PEklcT-EFhb4JV5iNSHx3o

Stephen Jones (2011):That there is no directionality in the image indicates that the image must have been formed by a release of radiation. Radiation would not cause any any directionality across the width and length of the image. That the Shroud image is consistent with having been caused by some form of radiation through space and was vertically directional is evidence for it having been the result of the resurrection of Jesus:

"The evidence ... clearly indicates that radiation caused the body images on the Shroud. This radiation came from the length and width of a real human corpse, including the internal parts of his body. Radiation does not naturally come from a dead body, and if we were to start a fire under a corpse or make it radiate in some way, we would not only create additional problems with the body, blood, and cloth, we still couldn't come close to making this kind of unique image on a cloth. Moreover, the radiation was vertically directional and encoded through space. Radiation coming from a corpse in such an unprecedented and unique manner is evidence of and consistent with the resurrection. Only a cloth collapsing through a wounded body giving off uniform radiant energy can explain the Shroud's more than twenty body image features, along with the more than one hundred blood marks ... this method not only can encode the mutually inconsistent primary body image features, but also the distracting and misregistered blood marks and body image features caused by the cloth's collapsing motion. Furthermore, this method not only explains how each of the complete and coagulated blood marks that formed naturally on a human got embedded into the cloth, but also how they separated from the body, leaving the original smooth surfaces between the wounds and the skin unbroken and intact on the cloth. Obviously the body has left the cloth. Obviously, each of the numerous wounds once had intimate contact with the cloth. However the cloth could not have been removed from the body by any human means without breaking or smearing many, if not all, these blood marks. Since there are no decomposition stains of any kind on the cloth, this body had to have left it in a unique manner within two to three days. The completely embedded blood marks in Jesus' burial shroud are also consistent with the historical descriptions of Jesus' appearance following his resurrection ... These facts, along with the image-encoding event and the body exiting the cloth within two to three days of death, are all consistent with and indicative of the resurrection.".

Radiation 

STURP leader Prof. John P. Jackson in his "cloth collapse theory" had proposed in 1991 that the image was produced by "shortwave ultraviolet radiation":

"Electromagnetic radiation that is absorbed strongly in air consists of photons in the ultraviolet or soft x-ray region. It happens that these photons are also sufficiently energetic to photochemically modify cellulose. Such photons are strongly absorbed in cellulose over fibril-like distances. Experiments performed by the author have shown that ... shortwave ultraviolet radiation produces a yellow-browned pattern like the Shroud body image composed of chemically altered cellulose. Thus, I posit that radiation from the body initially photosensitized the body image onto the Shroud. This pattern would have appeared, if the radiation was ultraviolet, as a white (bleached) image on a less white cloth. With time, natural aging would have reversed the relative shading of the image to its presently observed state where it appears darker than the surrounding cloth".

"Dr Jackson proposed the hypothesis that, at the time that the image on the Shroud was formed, the cloth collapsed into and through the underlying structure of the body in the Shroud. He did admit that, as a physicist, he had his own difficulties with this concept. Based on his observations of the image he further proposed that, as the body became mechanically transparent to its physical surroundings, it emitted radiation from all points within and on the surface of the body. This radiation interacted with the cloth as it fell into the mechanically transparent body, forming the body image. He also suggested that the radiation would have had to have been strongly absorbed in air. This, he suggested, could have been electromagnetic radiation in the shortwave ultraviolet region of the spectrum, which would have caused a chemical alteration of the cellulose in the cloth fibres."

The normally cautious STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005) was forced by this and other evidence to conclude that, "the image [on the Shroud] was formed by a burst of radiant energy — light ... such as Christ might have produced at the moment of resurrection":

"I am forced to conclude that the image [on the Shroud] was formed by a burst of radiant energy — light, if you will. I think there is no question about that. What better way, if you were a deity, of regenerating faith in a skeptical age, than to leave evidence 2,000 years ago that could be defined only by the technology available in that skeptical age. The one possible alternative is that the images were created by a burst of radiant light, such as Christ might have produced at the moment of resurrection".

Also Jesus' live body "emitted radiation," namely light, at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-13; Mk 9:2-13; Lk 9:28-36), where His "face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light" (Mt 17:2); "his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them" (Mk 9:3); "the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white" (Lk 9:29). And the Transfiguration was "a preview of the glorified body of Christ following his Resurrection". It is the view of many (if not most) Shroud scholars, including Ian Wilson, Rex Morgan, John Iannone, Mark Oxley, August Accetta and Giulio Fanti that the image on the Shroud is Jesus' imprinted on the cloth by the light of His resurrection.

It is also supported by the findings of scientists working under the auspices of Italy's ENEA agency, that the closest approximation yet to the colour, extreme superficiality, and other characteristics of the Shroud man's image, was obtained using an excimer laser delivering "a short and intense burst of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] directional radiation". But the only `problem' with that is, "to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height," would require "a total power of VUV radiation" of "34 thousand billion watts!.

The ENEA study

Significantly the ENEA scientists found in 2011 that only "a short and intense burst of VUV [vacuum ultraviolet] ... radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including ... the surface [i.e. "the uppermost fibers of the threads of the cloth" color of the fibrils":

"...a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence"

In 2011, the article: "Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe," published in The Telegraph reported about a new study that suggested that Christianity's most prized but mysterious relic - the Turin Shroud - is not a medieval forgery but could be the authentic burial robe of Christ. Italian scientists conducted a series of advanced experiments which, they claimed, showed that the marks on the shroud - purportedly left by the imprint of Christ's body - could not possibly have been faked with technology that was available in the medieval period. 

This group of scientists actually considered seriously what it would take to recreate the Shroud's image. And they found that "it could not possibly have been faked with technology that was available in the medieval period." 
 "The double image (front and back)  is impossible to obtain in a laboratory," concluded experts from Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development. 3

MARCO TOSATTI (2011):  Enea, the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, has published a report on five years of experiments conducted in the ENEA center of Frascati on the “shroud-like coloring of linen fabrics by far ultraviolet radiation”. “Simply put: we tried to understand how the Shroud of Turin was imprinted by an image so special that it constitutes its charm, and poses a great and very radical challenge, "to identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a color similar to that of the image on the Shroud. "

Scientists (Di Lazzaro, Murra, Santoni, Nichelatti and Baldacchini) start from the last (and only) comprehensive interdisciplinary exam of the sheet, completed in 1978 by a team of American scientists from Sturp (Shroud of Turin Research Project). A starting point that all too often those who write about and dissect the Shroud prefer not to take into account, in spite of what is evidenced by available information verified by an accurate control on “peer reviewed” journals, that is, approved by other scientists in objective and independent ways. The Enea report, with a lot of fair play and almost "en passant", very clearly refutes the hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin might be the work of a medieval forger. The hypothesis was supported – against many weighted arguments – by the results of the disputable and probably biased - C14 measurements; a test whose credibility has been rendered ​​very fragile not only by objective difficulties (the possibility that the fabric is contaminated is very high, especially since its historical journey is only partially known), but also from proven factual errors of calculation and the inability to obtain “raw data” from the laboratories for the necessary controls. In spite of repeated requests. An omission that in itself can throw a heavy shadow over the scientific accuracy of the episode.

The report notes: “The double image (front and back) of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining which is identical in all its facets, would be impossible to obtain today in a laboratory, as discussed in numerous articles listed in the references. This inability to repeat (and therefore falsify) the image on the Shroud makes it impossible to formulate a reliable hypothesis on how the impression was made.

In fact, today Science is still not able to explain how the body image was formed on the Shroud. As a partial justification, Scientists complain that it is impossible to take direct measurements on the Shroud cloth. In fact, the latest in situ experimental analysis of the physical and chemical properties of the body image of the Shroud was carried out ​​in 1978 by a group of 31 scientists under the aegis of the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc. (STURP). The scientists used modern equipment for the time, made ​​available by several manufacturers for a market value of two and a half million dollars, and took ​​a number of non-destructive infrared spectroscopy measurements, visible and ultraviolet, X-ray fluorescence, thermograph, pyrolysis, mass spectrometry, micro-Raman analysis, transmission photograph, microscopy, removal of fibrils and micro-chemical tests”. The analysis carried out on the Shroud did not find significant amounts of pigments (dyes, paints) nor traces of designs. Based on the results of dozens of measurements, the STURP researchers concluded that the body image is not painted nor printed, nor obtained by heating. Furthermore, the color of the image resides on the outer surface of the fibrils that make up the threads of the cloth, and recent measurements of fragments of the Shroud show that the thickness of staining is extremely thin, around 200 nm = 200 billionths of a meter, or one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter, which corresponds to the thickness of the primary cell wall of the so-called single linen fiber. We recall that a single linen thread is made ​​up of about 200 fibrils.

Other important information derived from the results of the STURP measurements are as follows: The blood is human, and there is no image beneath the bloodstains; the gradient color contains three-dimensional information of the body; colored fibers (image) are more fragile than undyed fibers; surface staining of the fibrils of the image derived from an unknown process that caused oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation in the structure of the cellulose of the linen”. In other words, the color is a result of an accelerated linen aging process”.

As already mentioned, until now all attempts to reproduce an image on linen with the same characteristics have failed. Some researchers have obtained images with a similar appearance to the image of the Shroud, but nobody has been able to simultaneously reproduce all microscopic and macroscopic characteristics. “In this sense, the origin of the Shroud image is still unknown. This seems to be the core of the so-called “mystery of the Shroud”: regardless of the age the Shroud, whether it is medieval (1260 - 1390) as shown by the controversial dating by radiocarbon, or older as indicated by other investigations, and regardless of the actual importance of controversial historical documents on the existence of the Shroud in the years preceding 1260, the most important question, the “question of questions” remains the same: how did that body image appear on the Shroud?”.

“The first method is supported by the fact that there is a precise relationship between the intensity (gradient) of the image and the distance between the body and the cloth. Furthermore, the image is also present in areas of the body not in contact with the cloth, such as immediately above and below the hands, and around the tip of the nose. The second method is less likely because the typical geometric deformations of a three dimension body brought into contact in two dimension sheet are missing. Moreover, there is no imprint of body hips. Consequently, we can deduce that the image was not formed by contact between linen and body”. 2

P. DI LAZZARO (2011): It is this observation, “coupled with the extreme superficiality of the coloring and the lack of pigments” that “makes it extremely unlikely that a shroud-like picture was obtained using a chemical contact method, both in a modern laboratory and even more so by a hypothetical medieval forger”. “There is no image beneath the blood stains. This means that the traces of blood deposited before the image was. Therefore, the image was formed after the corpse was laid down. Furthermore, all the blood stains have well-defined edges, no burrs, so it can be assumed that the corpse was not removed from the sheet. “There are no signs of putrefaction near the orifices, which usually occur around 40 hours after death. Consequently, the image is not the result of putrefaction gases and the corpse was not left in the sheet for more than two days”.

  One of the assumptions related to the formation of the image was that regarding some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength), which could fit the requirements for reproducing the main features of the Shroud image, such as superficiality of color, color gradient, the image also in areas of the body not in contact with the cloth and the absence of pigment on the sheet. The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.1

“However, Enea scientists warn, "it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.


The cloth collapse hypothesis

The extreme superficiality of the Shroud man's image (amongst all its other major features) is explained by Prof. John P. Jackson's "cloth collapse theory":

"Superficial Penetration of Image. Once the cloth enters the body region, radiation emitted from within the body volume interacts with each cloth fibril throughout the bulk of the cloth from all directions. However, fibrils on both surfaces of the cloth receive a greater dose than those inside because they are unobstructed by overlying fibril layers. These fibrils would probably be highly absorbing to the radiation because the air, which is less dense by nearly three orders of magnitude than cellulose, is assumed to be highly absorbing to account for image resolution ... The net result is an exaggerated dose accumulation of the surface fibrils over those inside the cloth.".

"According to Jackson, this hypothesis would explain each of the image characteristics of the Shroud. Because radiation effects on the cloth cannot begin until it intersects with the body surface, one-to-one mapping between a given point on the body with a point on the cloth is achieved; in other words, the image is well resolved. As the cloth enters the body region, the fibrils on the surfaces of the cloth receive a greater dose of radiation than those inside, leading to a superficial body image. Also as the cloth collapses, internal stresses cause it to bulge away from the sides of the body and at the top of the head; hence, no image. is visible there. The effect of the radiation thus described would explain the chemical nature of the image. The blood, however, would have been transferred naturally to the Shroud by direct contact, during the initial draping of the body covered with blood. Finally, as the Shroud collapses into the body region, each cloth point falls vertically downwards, explaining why the image features tend to align vertically over their corresponding body part".

In 1990, Jackson proposed his "cloth collapse theory":"... in the case of the Shroud image, the cloth did collapse into and through the underlying body structure ... The concept of a cloth falling into the underlying body region and receiving an image, in essence, requires that two separate assumptions be made. First, we must assume that the body became mechanically `transparent' to its physical surroundings and, second, that a stimulus was generated that recorded the passage of the cloth through the body region onto the cloth as an image. With regard to the latter assumption, it is unclear in an a priori sense what to assume for the physical nature of the stimulus. However, we at least know that it was able to interact physically with cloth; otherwise, image discolorations would not have been formed. I propose that, as the Shroud collapsed through the underlying body, radiation emitted from all points within that body discolored the cloth so as to produce the observed image"

Jackson proposed that the radiation was "in the ultraviolet or soft x-ray region" because it is "sufficiently energetic to photochemically modify cellulose" yet is "absorbed strongly in air".

Resurrection 

While Jackson does not use the word, "resurrection" in his "cloth collapse" theory, Oxley has pointed out the Gospels' evidence for Jesus' body having become "mechanically transparent" at His resurrection:

"The Gospels suggest that the risen Jesus could teleport - in other words, he could move apparently instantaneously from place to place regardless of the physical obstacles in the way ... In John 20:19 and again in John 20:26 it is recorded that Jesus appeared suddenly among his disciples in a locked room. Luke 24:31 records Jesus as vanishing from the sight of the disciples he met on the road to Emmaus. Again, in Luke 24:36 he suddenly appears among the apostles in Jerusalem ... Clearly the body of the risen Jesus, as described in the Gospels, had physical properties beyond the knowledge of modern science ... The Gospel accounts do not, however, preclude the possibility that the body of the risen Jesus became `mechanically transparent'. In fact they seem to suggest it in their descriptions of how Jesus appeared and disappeared without warning. The Gospel accounts give ... credence to Dr Jackson's proposed image-formation mechanism ...".

Ashe is a Christian and a Shroud pro-authenticist, so he  proposed that the resurrection of Jesus "released a brief and violent burst of some other radiation than heat ... which scorched the cloth" and imprinted on it "a quasi-photograph of Christ returning to life"!:

"The Shroud is explicable if it once enwrapped a human body to which something extraordinary happened. It is not explicable otherwise. The Christian Creed has always affirmed that Our Lord underwent an unparalleled transformation in the tomb. His case is exceptional and perhaps here is the key. It is at least intelligible (and has been suggested several times) that the physical change of the body at the Resurrection may have released a brief and violent burst of some other radiation than heat, perhaps scientifically identifiable, perhaps not, which scorched the cloth. In this case the Shroud image is a quasi-photograph of Christ returning to life, produced by a kind of radiance or `incandescence' partially analogous to heat in its effects.".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-1OkTSyib4



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlpHqFIfUEg





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8mXTM13wLo



1. http://www.lastampa.it/2017/07/11/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/shroud-new-study-there-is-blood-of-a-man-tortured-and-killed-c1jdACNKkTlD9YBPS4kFXM/pagina.html
2. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487



1. P. DI LAZZARO: COLORAZIONE SIMIL–SINDONICA DI TESSUTI DI LINO TRAMITE RADIAZIONE NEL LONTANO ULTRAVIOLETTO 2011
2. MARCO TOSATTI https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2011/12/14/news/the-shroud-is-not-a-fake-1.36913560 14 Dicembre 2011
3. Stephen Jones: Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe DECEMBER 22, 2011


Shroud, new study: there is blood of a man tortured and killed 1

Barrie Schwortz was a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (often abbreviated as STURP) a team of scientists which performed a set of experiments and analyses on the Shroud of Turin during the late 1970s and early 1980s. STURP issued its final report in 1981.

After 18 years as a skeptic, in 1995, when confronted with the evidence that the blood on the shroud was of a tortured man, he became convinced of the authenticity of the Shroud, and became a Christian.

"At the beginning of my work, I was very skeptical about its authenticity. I felt no particular emotion toward Jesus because I was raised as an orthodox jew. The only thing I knew about Jesus was that he was a jew, and this was all. Examining the Shroud, I quickly realized that it was painted ".

After 18 years of study, the full conviction came when "the Blood Chemistry Allen Adler, another jew who was part of the study group, I explained why the red blood remained on the Shroud. The old blood would have to be black or brown, while the blood on the Shroud is a red-crimson. It seemed inexplicable, instead it was the last piece of the puzzle. After nearly 20 years of investigation, it was a shock for me to discover that the piece of cloth was the authentic cloth that had been wrapped the body of Jesus. The conclusions I arrived were based exclusively on scientific observation ".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4sj8hUVaY



Claim: The cloth could not have been in touch with everything so closely. And if the fabric was in contact with the face, it would not look like the picture on the left, but the one on the right. A bit of the same principle as a bitmap image of faces to games.

Response: The image on the Shroud of Turin has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate. The left-hand image appears to show a face with clear, proportional features, while the right-hand image appears distorted, as if the fabric was in direct contact with the features of a face, compressing and spreading the image as might happen with a cloth lying directly on a three-dimensional object. The undistorted appearance of the image on the Shroud of Turin suggests that the image formation process was not simply due to direct contact with a body. One hypothesis that has been put forward by researchers to explain the undistorted image on the Shroud is the idea of a radiation process or a burst of energy. This theory proposes that the image was formed by some form of energetic process that caused a reaction on the surface of the cloth itself, rather than through direct contact. Physicist John Jackson, for instance, proposed a "cloth collapse" theory, suggesting that as the Shroud collapsed through a dematerializing body, it could have recorded a radiation emanating from all points within the body. This would create a more uniform and undistorted image, much like the one seen on the left-hand image of the Shroud. This idea is further supported by the unique superficiality of the image, with the discoloration of the linen fibers penetrating only slightly into the cloth, without any capillary action that would be expected if the image were formed by liquids (blood, oils, etc.). Ultimately, the exact process of image formation on the Shroud remains a mystery, and while the "radiation" or "energy burst" theories might offer a plausible explanation for the lack of distortion in the image, they are still a subject of research and debate within the scientific and scholarly communities.

The blood strains can only be seen with UV light. Why would an artist back then ever put blood there which would not be visible, and providing no advantage at all. But even more remarkable than that, the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.” What appears to be blood on the Shroud has passed 13 tests proving that it is real human blood.  The presence of "X" and "Y" chromosomes indicates that the blood is from a male.  The blood type is AB.  

When a person is cruelly tortured, the blood undergoes a terrible haemolysis, when the haemaglobin literally ‘breaks up’. In thirty seconds, the reaction reaches the liver, which doesn’t have time to deal with it, and discharges a volume of bilirubin into the veins. Alan Adler has discovered a very high quantity of this substance in the blood on the Shroud. It is this substance that, when mixed with methemoglobin of a certain type, produces that vivid red colour. The colour of the blood belonging to the ‘Man of the Shroud’ is chemical proof that, before dying, he suffered terrible torture.

According to Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua, the analyses show how “the peculiar structure, size and distribution of the nanoparticles cannot be artifacts made over the centuries on the fabric of the Shroud.” Many fanciful reconstructions of the Turin Shroud being a painted object are once again denied.” Additionally, Fanti says, “the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.”

There is no longer any doubt that the Shroud has wrapped the body of a man tortured and killed in the same manner as described in the Gospels for the Crucifixion of Jesus. 

Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidence on the Turin Shroud 2
We performed reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine bounded with small nanoparticles of iron oxide. The kind, size and distribution of the iron oxide nanoparticles cannot be dye for painting but are ferrihydrate cores of ferritin. The consistent bound of ferritin iron to creatinine occurs in human organisms in case of severe polytrauma. Our results point out that at the nanoscale a scenario of violence is recorded in the funeral fabric and suggest an explanation for some contradictory results so far published.

Conclusions
On the basis of the experimental evidences of our atomic resolution TEM studies, the man wrapped in the TS suffered a strong polytrauma. We studied a fiber of the TS by atomic resolution TEM experiments and WAXS. This is the first time that the TS is studied at this resolution and this range of view produced a series of experimental results, which thanks to recent studies on ancient dye painting, ferritin, creatinine and human pathology can be connected and understood in relationship with a macroscopic scenario in which the TS was committed [41,42,43]. In fact, the fiber was soaked with a blood serum typical of a human organism that suffered a strong trauma, as HRTEM evidenced that the TS is covered by well-dispersed 30nm-100nm creatinine nanoparticles bounded with internal 2nm-6nm ferrihydrate structures. The bond between the iron cores of ferritin and creatinine on large scale occurs in a body after a strong polytrauma [41,42,43]. This result cannot be impressed on the TS by using ancient dye pigments, as they have bigger sizes and tend to aggregate, and it is highly unlikely that the eventual ancient artist would have painted a fake by using the hematic serum of someone after a heavy polytrauma.

The Weave of the Shroud of Turin


The Linen of the Shroud is Middle Eastern. New Isotope Tests Prove It. Meacham. 25 Marzo 2024
 
https://www.marcotosatti.com/2024/03/25/the-linen-of-the-shroud-is-middle-eastern-new-isotope-tests-prove-it-meacham/

William Meacham: Recent testing on several threads from the Shroud of Turin provided a strong indication that the flax used to make the linen was grown in the Middle East, specifically the western Levant (Israel, Lebanon, western parts of Jordan and Syria). Now with a probable Near Eastern origin, new doubts must be raised about interpreting the Shroud as simply a fake relic made in medieval Europe, and new questions arise about what the image on the cloth signifies. The possibility that this cloth is actually the burial shroud of Jesus is strengthened by this new evidence. In my view, that remains the best explanation for the Shroud, even though the C14 dating issue is yet to be resolved. The isotope results are not proof of origin, however, as there is slight overlap of a couple of samples from western Europe with those of Israel. Similar slight overlap occurred also in the baseline testing done in 1988. Various scenarios can account for the anomalous results and most can be eliminated with further research. The previous testing project was conducted with a goal of eventually determining the place of origin of the Turin Shroud linen using hydrogen and oxygen isotope ratios. This aim was subsequently not pursued because the C14 dating published later in 1988 indicated to most scientists a medieval European origin for the Shroud. A second issue was that the sample size needed then (100mg) was much too large to be permitted by the Church authorities. The same technology (mass spectrometry) that led to the great reduction in sample size for C14 dating also was applied to other isotope studies, reducing the minimum sample size to as little as 1mg in some labs.

THE SAMPLES

In 2022 I came across the 1988 report, and inquiries revealed that even one or two short linen threads would be sufficient for testing. As a member of the Board of Directors of STERA (The Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association), I knew of some Shroud threads in its possession. I then sought and obtained approval to test five of the seven that remained.

The threads as photographed upon receipt by Rogers in 1979.

The samples came from the “Raes piece” that was removed from the Shroud in 1973 for textile research. Fourteen threads were provided by the Turin Archdiocese to the physicist Ray Rogers, member of the American scientific team that had conducted an onsite study of the Shroud in 1978. When he passed away, STERA inherited the threads. The chain of custody from 1973 to the present is well documented and absolutely secure.

Linen and flax plant samples were then collected from the same regions as the 1988 study. A total of 30 comparison samples was ultimately obtained for testing: from various periods of ancient Egypt, prehistoric and Roman Israel, and 19th-early 20th century Europe. Samples were provided by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Royal Institute of Cultural Heritage in Brussels, and private collectors. Testing was done at the Stable Isotopes Laboratory of the University of Hong Kong, which is able to test very small samples of even less than 1mg. All of the Shroud threads were under even that lab’s most reliable minimum (0.8mg), thus threads were combined into two pairs, with one held over for future testing.4 Some of the same samples from Egypt tested in 1988 were obtained and tested again, as controls. The results were almost identical and confirmed the methodology.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

Testing yielded the expected regional grouping. The two Shroud samples gave virtually identical results that fell into the cluster from Israel, as shown in the diagram below:

There are several hypotheses to account for the outliers: linen fiber imported from another country, irrigation using water from deep ground, or contamination due to pest repellent or preservative. Further testing of single threads from other parts of the Shroud should be done to confirm these initial results. A proposal for such an extended testing project has been submitted to the Archbishop of Turin, Most Reverend Roberto Repole, and is now under consideration by his advisers. The Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Cardinal Peter Kodwo Turkson, has expressed strong interest in the isotope results. This new evidence that the Shroud linen probably had a Middle Eastern origin is important. It reinforces other features that point in that direction. Most notable was the pollen; even though many identifications have since been discounted, certain species taken together still indicate an Eastern Mediterranean presence. Similarly, the crown of thorns in helmet style rather than Roman circlet is a feature characteristic of Asia Minor and the Levant. Another is the claim of coins on the eyes in the Shroud image that matched a documented instance from a 2nd century AD burial in Judea. This was an impressive confirmation of an hypothesis generated by computer 3D analysis in 1977, at a time when there was no known instance (outside of Israel) of such a practice in antiquity. Since then other examples of coins (often a pair) inside a skull or in a Jewish burial context have been unearthed, including in the family gravesite of Caiaphas himself! The massive weight of evidence against the Shroud being a mere relic faked by a medieval artisan in Europe led the prominent British scientist who managed the Shroud C14 dating project to propose another interpretation. Realizing that the image must have come from a human body, Dr Michael Tite suggested in a BBC interview that it might be that of a crusader who was crucified in the same manner as Jesus. Such a scenario would be as far-fetched as is the proposed creation by an unknown medieval artist of the body image with its extraordinarily high degree of anatomical and pathological accuracy. Though severely weakened by the total silence of history on such an event, the crucified crusader hypothesis could at a stretch account for certain features not known in medieval Europe but possibly still in collective memory in the East. Examples are the wrist nailing consistent with Roman crucifixion, or the helmet style crown of thorns. However no natural hypothesis yet proposed has been able to account for the characteristics of the body image nor explain how it formed or was created on the cloth. Science has been grappling with the Shroud of Turin since 1898. That process continues, in spite of an unjustifiable 20-year ban on taking any new samples of the relic, even barring the testing of materials removed from it in an ill-advised “restoration” in 2002. The Vatican has persistently refused to allow a rigorous, properly designed second C14 test, despite firm evidence that the first dating was flawed, even though the amount of sample required is tiny, less than a postage stamp. It seems that the spirit of Cesare Cremonini (1550-1631), infamous professor at the University of Padua, is haunting the Vatican. He did look through Galileo’s telescope once, but said it made him dizzy and nothing of value could be seen in it! One may dare to hope the ban will soon be lifted by new and more enlightened Church authorities in Rome and Turin.

BACKGROUND: THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF THE SHROUD

The “Holy Shroud” has been held in Turin, Italy since 1578, prior to that it was kept in Lirey then Chambery, France from the 1350s. While long revered in some Catholic circles, it wasrejected by a few clerics and canons for various reasons. It made a dramatic entrance on the European intellectual stage in 1898 when the first photographs were published, showing a lifelike facial image in the negative. Ironically, its first academic proponent of authenticity was an atheist professor of anatomy at the Sorbonne, while its most vehement opponent was a Catholic priest and prominent historian, also in France.

In the first half of the twentieth century the Shroud won adherents from the medico-legal community, most notably the French surgeon Barbet. It gained popularity as more scientists studied it. This reached a zenith of worldwide proportions in 1978 when an American team of scientists (STURP) was granted a week-long onsite direct examination of the cloth, and allowed to take sticky tape samples. In the end, they were unable to explain what had caused the image, leaving a mystery that persists today, but their final report asserted that it had come from a human body. The publications that followed propelled the relic to a worldwide status as the evidence mounted in favor of authenticity as the actual burial cloth and image of the crucified Jesus(Meacham 1983). At the same time, as fate would have it, developments in radiocarbon dating had dramatically reduced the amount of linen sample required, from a hankerchiefsize to that of a postage stamp. The pressure on the Church authorities from all sides to allow C14 dating was enormous, and in 1988 one sample were taken, divided into pieces and dated by three prominent laboratories. The result of 1260-1390 had huge public impact, and the Shroud’s fall from grace (so to speak) was as rapid as its rise. Doubts were raised immediately by Shroud proponents about the representativeness of the sample taken, and the statistical validity of the calculated age. But the Church authorities refused all appeals for new testing, seemingly embarrased and/or disappointed by the result. A new archbishop was installed shortly thereafter in Turin, and the focus shifted to conservation, rightly focused at first but eventuating in a scientifically unjustified and disastrous “restoration” in 2002.





https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7142



RAY DOWNING (2017): The cloth is made of linen thread, and linen thread is made from the stems of the flax plant. In order to transform these stems into workable fiber that can be spun into thread and later woven into cloth, a long process of preparation must be carefully followed. The plants are pulled from the ground and tied into bundles. They are then laid down in the fields until the non-fiber parts rot. The remaining fiber, once dry, is pounded and cleaned. The final step before spinning is combing the long, lustrous fibers into bundles. At this point, the fiber is twisted (spun) into thread. During Jesus' time, all spinning was done by hand with spindles. The spinning wheel wouldn't be invented for at least another 500 years. In the spinning process, the spinner twists the fibers in one of two ways: clockwise (Z) or counterclockwise (S).  Because the structure of the flax fiber has a natural tendency to twist itself in an S twist, spinners over the millennia have spun it in this S direction, as if not wanting to "fight" the fiber. Curiously, the yarn that makes the Shroud has been spun in a Z twist (clockwise).



Stephen E. Jones (2015): The yarn used to weave the Shroud of Turin is of very high quality, evenly spun, and it has been woven into an unusual, fancy weave for the time, called 3 to 1 herringbone twill. The resulting cloth is very fine, with a density of 35 threads per centimeter, or about 89 threads per inch. To give some perspective, the finest surviving Egyptian mummy fabrics are 30 threads per centimeter (75 threads per inch), the thread is spun in an S twist and woven in simple plain weave - one thread over, one thread under.


Close-up of Shroud fabric, with its distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave.

The gospel of Mark mentions that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped Jesus' body in a linen cloth for burial:

“Joseph of Arimathea, a highly regarded member of the council, who was himself looking forward to the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that he was already dead. He called the centurion and asked him if he had been dead for some time. When Pilate was informed by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. After Joseph bought a linen cloth and took down the body, he wrapped it in the linen and placed it in a tomb cut out of the rock. ” — Mark 15:43-46

Herringbone. 

A herringbone weave has a v-shaped or chevron pattern formed by regularly reversing with offset the width-wise woof (or weft) thread as it is drawn through the lengthwise warp. The result is a broken zigzag pattern which resembles the skeleton of a herring fish.



Image side of the undated and presumably not pre-treated Shroud sample, "split from one used in the radiocarbon dating study of 1988 at Arizona" retained by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory.] 



Non-image side of the above Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory piece of its Shroud sample.

The Shroud's herringbone 3:1 twill weave was formed by passing each weft thread alternately under three warp threads and over one.


The Shroud's complex herringbone three-to-one twill weave (a) compared to a plain weave (b)

Each successive weft thread begins at an ascending point in the warp one thread earlier, the direction being reversed at regular intervals by repeating the process at a descending point, thus producing the diagonal "herringbone" pattern.

The Shroud is an ancient textile

https://www.academia.edu/102459586/Key_Statements_about_the_Turin_Shroud_as_a_Textile

Flury-Lemberg, Mechthild. “A cloth of inestimable worth,” in The two faces of the Shroud: Pilgrims and Scientists Searching for a Face. Gian Maria Zaccone, ed. (Turin: Editrice ODPF), 2001, pp. 137-142.
STATEMENT: [Re: the stitching on the one long side of the Shroud, linking the large piece with an 8-cm.-wide strip of the same fabric:] We can now prove that this dates back to when the original cloth was made. The sheet was prepared professionally and its stitching can be compared with that of fabric found in tombs at Masada (the Jewish fortress close to the Dead Sea, which was destroyed in 73 AD). [Pp. 140-141]

Fulbright, Diana. “Akeldama repudiation of Turin Shroud omits evidence from Judean Desert,” in Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Frascati, Italy 4-6 May 2010, pp. 79-85.
We learn that the New Testament accounts of the burial of Jesus provide the “most valuable evidence” for context of the burial of their “man of the shroud” from Akeldama. Objections disputing the first-century date of the Turin Shroud – in this case, its herringbone weave and its large size – in fact may corroborate the antiquity of the cloth.

D. Fulbright (2010):  At Murabba’at, the site of numerous manuscripts and artifacts in line with the finds from Qumran, archaeologists and textile experts Grace M. Crowfoot and her daughter Elizabeth Crowfoot recorded seven twillweave fabrics, including a dark blue cloth of fine and regular herringbone twill weave (2:2) with Z spun warp threads and mixed S and Z spun weft threads, probably imported.  Numerous textile fragments were discovered at Masada by the Yadin excavations in 1963-65. Avigail Sheffer and Hero Granger-Taylor, archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority, recorded in their preliminary report fourteen twill weave textiles. These include several textiles in diamond twill weave, which is actually a more complex variation of the herringbone pattern, as the direction of the diagonal is reversed periodically, ultimately forming diamond patterns in the cloth . Most of the textiles found at Masada were imported from Anatolia and farther north, from Germany, according to expert textile analysts. The worn and patched condition of these imported textiles of intricate weave indicates well-to-do people fallen on hard times.

A few other ancient textiles made on four-harness looms and found in the Near East, namely in Palmyra, Antinoë, Möns Claudianus and Masada, can also be regarded as analogues of the burial garment from Turin . They are all woolen fabrics made with 2/2 twill or 2/2 diamond twill weaves and high-quality products, as evidenced by, among other things, a high density of threads (up to 160 threads per 1cm).





Legging discovered in permafrost, South Tyrol. Wool, 2:2 herringbone weave, ca. 800 – 500 B.C.E.

Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg has shown that the herringbone pattern existed not only during the first century of our era, but long before. She has published a study of woolen leggings (54.6 cm. x 15.7 cm,) found on the frozen remains of a man discovered in the permafrost of South Tyrol in 1994. They are made of coarse goat hair, and woven in a 2:2 herringbone pattern. The leggings have been dated to ca. 800 to 500 B.C.E

Archaeologists who have asserted that the weave of the Turin Shroud was unknown until it was introduced in Europe a thousand years after Christ possibly have been misinformed, despite evidence which should be very well known to textile experts working with them. We may also ask if the herringbone pattern was so unusual in ancient times as to have been an anomaly. Gilbert Raes, renowned expert on ancient textiles, wrote: “At the beginning of our age both cotton and linen were known in the Middle East. The type of weave [the herringbone pattern of the Turin Shroud] is not particularly distinctive and does not enable us to determine the period in which it was produced”. Objections disputing the first-century date of the Turin Shroud – in this case, its herringbone weave and its large size – in fact may corroborate the antiquity of the cloth.  5

G. Vial (1988): The only herringbone in linen so far analysed and published is that cited in note 10. It is very late — second half of the XVIth century — and much simpler than that of Turin. The number of threads per centimeter in its main warp is practically half of the Turin count (19.5 instead of 38) and the proportion of warp/weft reductions is less: 19.5/16 = 1.22 instead of 38/26 = 1.46 for Turin. The important main warp of the latter thus offered a much smoother surface to the reproduction of the image. If one takes into account the three constitutive elements of a textile — the structure, the primary material, and the reductions of warp and weft — one must acknowledge that the Shroud of Turin is truly "incomparable".... 6


The Shroud's weave was expensive and rare. 

Because of its complexity, the Shroud would have been an expensive, and therefore rare, fabric. Especially so in the first century when fine linen ranked in value with gold and silver. No example of herringbone twill weave in linen from first or early centuries has been found, although examples of that weave have been found in silk and wool. There are no examples of herringbone twill weave from France up to and including fourteenth century. There is in fact only one known example of a medieval herringbone twill linen weave fabric, a fourteenth century, a block-painted linen fragment with a 3:1 chevron twill weave, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

Further evidence of the extreme rarity of medieval linen cloths with a Shroud-like herringbone twill weave, was the fact that the then British Museum's Dr. Michael Tite was unable to find any medieval linen with a weave that resembled the Shroud's, to use as a blind control sample for the 1988 radiocarbon dating.

The Shroud's expensive weave is consistent with it being the linen shroud bought by the "rich man" Joseph of Arimathea in which to bury Jesus' body. The Gospels record that Joseph of Arimathea, a "rich man," bought a linen shroud and wrapped Jesus' body in it (Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:43-46; Lk 23:50-53; Jn 19:38-42). The Shroud's expensive herringbone three-to-one twill weave is consistent with it having been that linen shroud bought by the rich man Joseph of Arimathea in which to wrap and bury Jesus' body.  That the Shroud's weave is expensive and rare is another problem for the forgery theory. The primary motive of art and archaeological (including relic) forgery is financial gain.  If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, then the forger, to maximize his profit, would have "just got a bit of linen." That is, he would have used the least expensive "bit of linen" he could find that would still deceive his prospective buyers. But the Shroud is not just any "bit of linen." As we have seen above the Shroud would have been expensive and rare in the first century. And it would have been even more expensive and rare in the 14th century, of which there is only one known other example, but in fragments as opposed to the ~4.4 x 1.1 metre Shroud. So the medieval forger would have been most unlikely to have obtained a fine linen herringbone twill sheet the size of the Shroud in the first place. And if the forger did have the opportunity to obtain the 8 x 2 cubit ancient Syrian or Palestinian fine linen sheet that the Shroud is, he would not have bought it for the very high price it would have been, as that would have severely reduced the profit margin on his planned forgery of the Shroud image upon it. This is yet another of the many problems of the forgery claim.3 

C. Mader: The shroud of Turin is a single length of linen cloth. The weave is a three hop (3 over 1) herringbone twill. The weft thread passes over three warp threads, under one, over three, and so forth for each run of the weft thread across the loom. The next weft is offset by one, and the next forming a twill. After a few threads, the offset is reversed forming a herringbone. Linen is a cloth made from yarn of twisted flax fibers. Flax is a plant grown from seed from which linseed oil is pressed for fiber for making linen yarn. Linen cloth is woven from the yarn produced by spinning flax fibers together. Flax is among the oldest fiber crops in the world. The use of flax for the production of linen goes back at least 5000 years. The best grades of flax fibers are used for linen fabrics such as the fine-quality cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The thickness of the fibers from flax plants varies significantly. The average thickness of the Shroud fibers is about 13 micrometers The Shroud of Turin linen is approximately 350 (315-390) micrometers thick. The yarn consists of approximately 70 to 120 flax fibers twisted together in a clockwise Z-twist. The various lengths (hanks) of yarn are not spliced together but laid in side-by-side during the weaving. The variegated patterns, known as banding, in both the warp and weft yarn, suggest that the yarn was bleached before weaving rather than after the cloth was taken from the loom. This is a significant clue to the age of the cloth because medieval European linen was field bleached, a process that eliminates banding. Warp threads are the threads that are strung onto the loom before weaving begins. They run along the length of the cloth. Weft threads are the threads that run across, being passed over and under to create the cloth. Twill means the cloth’s pattern has a diagonal wale or texture. Denim, as used in ordinary blue jeans is an example of twill. Herringbone means the offset is periodically reversed, hence the diagonal wale is reversed. The resulting appearance is that of a herring fish bone.

The weave is important because it is evident in one of the illustrations in the Hungarian Pray manuscript which dates to 1180-1195 which is earlier than the 1988 carbon dating of 1260- 1390. The manuscript shows the burial of Jesus naked with hands over his pubic area and no  visible thumbs. It shows the identical pattern of burn holes found on the shroud. The herringbone weave of the shroud is depicted. The Pray Codex or Hungarian Pray Manuscript is one of the most important historical documents showing that the Shroud of Turin existed prior to the 1200s within the Byzantine Empire.1

Shroud 1st draft: Rodney Hoare holds an MA in Natural Sciences from Cambridge, and in his book “The Turin Shroud is Genuine” he notes “The specific cotton found within the Shroud, Gossypium herbaceum, is found only in the Middle East. Even more important is the absence of any wool fibers, which certainly would have been present on any European loom. Therefore the Shroud is not of European origin.5

The size of the Shroud

Stephen E. Jones (2015): In 1989, an expert in early Syriac, Ian Dickinson, of Canterbury, England, realized that the measurements of the Shroud were approximately 8 x 2 of the Assyrian standard cubit of between 21.4 and 21.6 inches, which was the common unit of lineal measurement in Jesus' day:

"Along these same lines has been a study of the shroud's dimensions as recently made by an expert in early Syriac, Ian Dickinson, from Canterbury, England. Curious at the shroud's, by British units of measurement, anomalous 14 foot 3 inch by 3 foot 7 inch overall size, Dickinson wondered if these dimensions might make more sense if converted to the cubit measure as prevailing in Jesus's time. Establishing that the first-century Jewish cubit was most likely to the Assyrian standard, reliably calculated at between 21.4 and 21.6 inches, Dickinson found that if he chose the lower of these measures there was an astonishing correlation, accurate to the nearest half-inch:



Such conformity to an exact 8 by 2 Jewish cubits is yet another piece of knowledge difficult to imagine of any medieval forger. It also correlates perfectly with the `doubled in four' arrangement by which we hypothesized the shroud to have been once folded and mounted as the `holy face' of Edessa, for the exposed facial area of this latter would have been an exact 1 by 2 Jewish cubits".


Above: Page 67 of "Inductive Metrology: Or, The Recovery of Ancient Measures from the Monuments," by William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1877).]

The Standard Assyrian cubit was 21.6 inches. During the 19th century the archaeological pioneer, Sir Flinders Petrie (1853–1942) and Assyriologist Julius Oppert (1825–1905), from many measurements of ancient buildings in Babylon, found the length of the Assyrian cubit to be almost 21.5 inches, since refined by other archaeologists to be 21.6 ±0.2 inches. According to page 67 of Petrie's book above, he himself accepted 21.60 inches as the mean length of the Assyrian cubit.



Mechthild Flury-Lemberg: 437 x 111 cms. In 1998, ancient textiles conservator, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, determined the true dimensions of the Shroud to be 437 x 111 cms, i.e. 172 x 44 in. or 14 ft 4 in. x 3 ft 8 in.:

"The first speaker was Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, a former curator of the Abegg Foundation textile museum, Switzerland, whose theme was 'The Shroud fabric, its technical and archaeological characteristics. It was Dr. Flury-Lemberg who, immediately prior to the 1998 exposition, had the task of preparing the Shroud for its display and housing in the new three-ton Italgas container constructed for it. Because the plate for the new container had been made slightly too small, Dr. Flury-Lemberg gained permission to remove the blue surround that had been sewed on in the 19th century. The intention behind this surround had been to save the Shroud from the repeated handling at the edges to which they had been subjected throughout the long centuries when it was the custom to hold it up before the populace. However, the surround had ever since prevented examination of the same edges, thereby hindering totally accurate calculation of its dimensions. Now the dimensions have been authoritatively determined by Dr. Flury-Lemberg as 437 cm long by 111 cm wide."

The Shroud's 437 x 111 cm dimensions are exactly 8 x 2 cubits! The Shroud's 437 x 111 cm dimensions are, to the nearest centimeter, exactly 8 x 2 Assyrian standard cubits of 21.6 inches!


Above: Table showing that the 1998 437 x 111 cms true dimensions of the Shroud are even more exactly 8 x 2 Assyrian standard cubits of 21.6 inches than the 14 ft 3 in. x 3 ft 7 in. pre-1998 measurements were. 

And again, the Assyrian standard cubit was the international measure of commerce prevailing in Jesus's time, including among the Jews: 

"So there were cubits for Temple use and various other applications, but it is a particular cubit of the marketplace that is connected with the Shroud, the cubit that is known as the Assyrian cubit: the widely used, indeed, international standard of that time for merchants of the Near East, and had been so for centuries. This cubit of commerce was carried with the lingua communis, the language of trade and diplomacy that stretched from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, the tongue that had become the common language of the Jew. Aramaic: the same language which Jesus spoke. Aramaic had been the communication medium of the Assyrian Empire and Israel had been a subject of Assyria."

This is another major problem for the medieval (or earlier) forgery claim since a medieval artist/forger would be most unlikely to know the length of the standard cubit of Jesus' day, as this was only discovered by archaeologists in the 19th century!! 3

Sidestrip.

Stephen E. Jones (2015): The sidestrip is a strip of linen about 8 cms (3½ inches) wide along its left-hand side of the Shroud (looking at it with its frontal image in the lower half and the man upright), and joined by a single seam. The strip is incomplete at each end, with 14 cms (5½ inches) and 36 cms (14 inches) missing at the bottom and top left hand corners respectively. The sidestrip is made from the same piece of cloth as the Shroud, since unique irregularities in the weave of the main body of the Shroud extend across the side strip. The sidestrip is joined to the main body of the Shroud by a single seam which is 4-5 mm wide. The sewing thread of the seam is also linen. In preparing the Shroud for its 1998 exposition, ancient textiles conservator, Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (1929-), removed the blue satin surround that had been sewed on by Princess Clotilde of Savoy (1843–1911) in 1868. Flury-Lemberg was the first person since the 16th century to see between the underside of the Shroud and its linen backing cloth sewed on in 1534 by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns  after the 1532 fire. In 2000 Flury-Lemberg reported that she had discovered, "a very special, almost invisible stitching with which the edges were finished" which is visible only on the Shroud's under-side. In her forty years of working on historic textiles Flury-Lemberg had only once before found an "essentially identical" type of stitching: that found in first-century textiles at Masada, the Jewish fortress overrun by the Romans in AD 73 and never occupied again.4


Drawing of `invisible seam' found on cloth fragments at the first-century Jewish fortress of Masada, which is "identical to that found on the Shroud and nowhere else".

Since a medieval forger would be most unlikely (to put it mildly) to even know about almost invisible first century Jewish stitching; and even if he did know about it, he would be even more unlikely to go to the trouble of adding it to his forgery (what use would almost invisible stitching be to a forger?); and even if he wanted to use it, he would be most unlikely to have the high degree of skill needed to do such stitching. 




THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin#7142

Below is a summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the ancient burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
by J. Michael Fischer, adapted from the original article by John C. Iannone[

Stitching used to sew on the 3-inch wide side piece onto the main Shroud is nearly identical to that found at Masada which was destroyed in 73-74 AD. The size of the Shroud being very close to 2 by 8 cubits - the ancient unit of measurement

The Shroud is a linen cloth woven in a 3-over-1 herringbone pattern, and measures 14'3" x 3'7".  These dimensions correlate with ancient measurements of 2 cubits x 8 cubits - consistent with loom technology of the period.  The finer weave of 3-over-1 herringbone is consistent with the New Testament statement that the "sindon" (or shroud) was purchased by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a wealthy man.

In 1532, there was a fire in the church in Chambery, France, where the Shroud was being kept.  Part of the metal storage case melted and fell on the cloth, leaving burns, and efforts to extinguish the fire left water stains.  Yet the image of the man was hardly touched.
In 1534, nuns sewed patches over the fire-damaged areas and attached a full-size support cloth to the back of the Shroud.  This became known as the "Holland" backing cloth.
The Shroud was moved to Turin in 1578, where it remains to this day.

In 2002, a team of experts did restoration work, such as removing the patches from 1534 and replacing the backing cloth.  One of the specialists was Swiss textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg.  She was surprised to find a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment.
The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is quite similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada.  The Masada cloth dates to between 40 BC and 73 AD.
This kind of stitch has never been found in Medieval Europe.

Stephen E. Jones The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The Shroud has almost invisible stitching in its seam that is identical to stitching found elsewhere only at the Jewish fortress of Masada, which was last occupied in AD 73. Since a medieval forger would be most unlikely (to put it mildly) to even know about almost invisible first century Jewish stitching; and even if he did know about it, he would be even more unlikely to go to the trouble of adding it to his forgery (what use would almost invisible stitching be to a forger?); and even if he wanted to use it, he would be most unlikely to have the high degree of skill needed to do such stitching.
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-evidence-is-overwhelming-that-turin.html#para07

Orit Shamira A burial textile from the first century CE in Jerusalem compared to roman textiles in the land of Israel and the Turin Shroud 2015
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d4d5/a1faca9e2ab2177edf92094c4abf4824a022.pdf

Observation: The wool textile from the Ben Hinnom Valley could, therefore, have been imported from Greece or Italy in which Z-spinning was the norm.
Reply: Relevant is the fact that textiles with Z-spinning were available in Palestine, in the 1st. Century, and as such, have been bought in Jerusalem, and used to bury Jesus.




It is Syrian Weave Cloth of fine linen because Joseph of Arimathea bought it from a Sryian merchant selling his goods for the Passover outside the Damascus Gate. That is why the Shroud is Syrian weave cloth in Syrian cubits. 8 X 2 Cubits. That is also the reason the cloth has pollens on it from Syria, because it is from Syria. Jesus was buried with the rich at death, Shroud is proof of that.
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/24/sorry-the-shroud-of-turin-is-definitely-a-hoax/

The linen fabric was that of flax and cotton and was produced in the Judaic environment: it does not bear traces of fibers of animal origin (the Mosaic law prescribed to keep separate the wool from the linen). A forger would have had to have known this as well.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rqNIdpA3_gnz4eSRmXMMTl3DmwsbirMUohAW7fHbNZA/edit?fbclid=IwAR0HmNicxe3J_mC0uyKU2Am8182fNQaYmh5s6IOTimauX0LGseMDtad_8b8

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/FulbrightAkeldamaWeb.pdf
This article totally blows Professor Gibsons false assertions of the shroud out of the water.
The claim by Gibson that akadelma tombs site in jerusalem disprove the authenticity of the shroud is completely refuted on the basis of ancient textile evidence from the judean desert and elsewhere.
Pietro Savio published a cloth woven in a herringbone pattern dated to 130C.E. Discovered in the excavations of the necropolis at Antinoe. Plus there pre-dynasty burials described by Petrie and Mackay involving large textiles with the characteristic selvedge fringe. In one example a long cloth lay below the body and was folded over it in the same manner as the shroud of turin.
Twill-weave textiles of shroud fragments and nearly intact shrouds have been found at various excavation sites in the judean desert and all around in egypt to europe from even before the era of Jesus that have shown this type of weave.

Claim: The 3-to-1 herringbone weave used in the shroud did not exist in Jesus's time
Reply: There are no examples of herringbone twill weave from France up to and including fourteenth century. There is in fact only one known example of a medieval herringbone twill linen weave fabric, a fourteenth century, a block-painted linen fragment with a 3:1 chevron twill weave, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. The variegated patterns, known as banding, in both the warp and weft yarn, suggest that the yarn was bleached before weaving rather than after the cloth was taken from the loom. This is a significant clue to the age of the cloth because medieval European linen was field bleached, a process that eliminates banding.  Rodney Hoare holds an MA in Natural Sciences from Cambridge, and in his book “The Turin Shroud is Genuine” he notes “The specific cotton found within the Shroud, Gossypium herbaceum, is found only in the Middle East. Even more important is the absence of any wool fibers, which certainly would have been present on any European loom. Therefore the Shroud is not of European origin.  That the Shroud's weave is expensive and rare is another problem for the forgery theory. The primary motive of art and archaeological (including relic) forgery is financial gain.  If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, then the forger, to maximize his profit, would have "just got a bit of linen." That is, he would have used the least expensive "bit of linen" he could find that would still deceive his prospective buyers. But the Shroud is not just any "bit of linen." The Shroud would have been expensive and rare in the first century. And it would have been even more expensive and rare in the 14th century, of which there is only one known other example, but in fragments as opposed to the ~4.4 x 1.1 meter Shroud. 

Claim:  Then Shimon Gibson is interviewed on the Akeldama shroud fragments found in Jerusalem in 1999. A very curious aspect of the whole controversy is why Shroud fans have never mentioned the Second Temple burial cloth remains that were found. The answer is quite simple because they completely contradict the Shroud as a first century Jewish artifact: fabric, patteakeldama shamirrn, twist of the fibers and a four meter long cloth have nothing to share with the archaeological findings. Gibson refers to his amazing discovery of the first Jerusalem shroud ever found: it is made of wool (not linen), it has a simple 1:1 twill weave with 'S' spinning twist (3:1 complex herringbone twill weave with 'Z' spun). Moreover, despite the fact that the Akeldama shroud remained in the dirt and bacterial contamination for 2,000 years, it was carbon dated to 50 AD. So, archaeological evidence from controlled excavations of Second Temple Jewish tombs clearly prove that the Turin Shroud is not an artifact from that period.

Reply: So all shrouds in the 1st century had to be a 1:1 twill with "S" spinning twist?  This simply ignores the fact that rich people of the time could have afforded to buy more expensive linen.  It's absurd to think that a scholar would discount the Shroud simply because it was more complex than an archaeological find in the same period.



The fabric of the Shroud aligns with the descriptions of Jesus's burial cloth in the Gospels. According to Jewish burial customs, Jesus's body was wrapped in linen and placed in a rock tomb. The cloth was purchased by Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy and influential Jewish man who believed in Jesus.

The Shroud is physically consistent with this description. It is made of linen, which corresponds to the material used for burial cloths. Moreover, it is large enough to wrap an adult man, fulfilling the requirement for Jesus's burial.

Some interpretations suggest that the gospels refer to strips of linen rather than a shroud-like cloth. However, a closer examination of the biblical text allows for multiple legitimate readings. The words used in the Gospels, such as "wrapped," "rolled up," "enveloped," "bound," "tied," and "fastened," can be understood to describe the wrapping of Jesus's body in a fine linen cloth. The use of plural terms like "linen cloths," "bandages," "wrappings," and "clothes" in John's Gospel may refer to both the large Shroud and the smaller strips of linen used to bind the jaw, hands, and feet. Scholars who have conducted detailed word studies, reviewed Jewish burial practices, and examined early Christian traditions agree that the plural form likely encompasses all the grave clothes associated with Jesus's burial.

Additionally, Joseph of Arimathea, as a Jewish leader, would have adhered to Jewish burial customs. Jewish law prohibits weaving wool and linen together, and the Shroud's linen composition aligns with this requirement. Chemical analysis of the fabric has found no traces of wool, further supporting its conformity to Jewish laws.

Considering Joseph's reverence for Jesus and his status as a wealthy man, it is reasonable to expect that the cloth purchased to wrap the Son of God would be of top quality. The Shroud's fabric is made of handmade linen, which was a labor-intensive and expensive material to produce. The process of creating linen involves planting, harvesting, bundling, curing, deseeding, separating, beating, and combing the flax fibers before spinning or twisting them into thread. The Shroud's thread has a uniform size, a counterclockwise twist, and is woven in a complex pattern. Its thread count compares favorably to burial cloths of Egyptian royalty, demonstrating high quality and expense.

In conclusion, the fabric of the Shroud aligns with the descriptions of Jesus's burial cloth in the Gospels. It is a large linen cloth that meets Jewish laws of composition, and its materials and craftsmanship befit its association with a reverential and wealthy man like Joseph of Arimathea.

The dimensions of the Shroud of Turin appear to be deliberate and hold significance. Non-partisan sources indicate that the units of measurement used in the ancient Near East closely align with the Shroud's dimensions. The fabric is made of two lengthwise strips, one wide and one narrow, and the weaving pattern at the seam matches, suggesting that both strips were produced simultaneously on the same loom. Additionally, both strips have selvages, which are edges produced during manufacturing to prevent unraveling.

Despite being over 650 years old and having endured various treatments and handling, the Shroud remains surprisingly uniform in its shape, considering its handmade nature. Measurements of the Shroud, obtained from different sources, consistently indicate a ratio of four units long by one unit wide. The average measurement of 438 by 112 centimeters supports the notion that the cloth's size was deliberately chosen. If a narrower cloth had sufficed, there would have been a selvage instead of a seam. Similarly, if a wider sheet had been the goal, wider strips could have been joined.

When considering the Shroud's age, there are generally two positions: it existed in first-century Palestine or 14th-century Europe. To determine a unit of measurement that divides evenly into both 438 and 112 centimeters, medieval weights and measures were examined. Two closely matching units were the Spanish foot and the English ell. For ancient units, a book by Flinders Petrie from 1877 called "Inductive Metrology" was consulted. Petrie analyzed dimensions of buildings and monuments from around the world and calculated the units of measurement they were built to. His findings coincided with the work of Julius Oppert, who identified measurements from inscriptions and literary remains. Four nearly identical results derived from two independent methods were found, with these units being referred to as the Assyrian cubit.

The combined evidence suggests that the Shroud's dimensions align closely with the measurements of the Assyrian cubit and other ancient units used in Persia, Assyria, and Egypt. This supports the conclusion that the Shroud existed in ancient Palestine during Jesus's era.

In summary, the Shroud's deliberate dimensions, consistent with ancient measurement units, further support its compatibility with the Gospel descriptions of Jesus's burial cloth. The fabric and its measurements align with Jewish burial customs and the practices of the time. While it is possible to argue that the image on the Shroud was added at a later date, it would require ascribing significant foresight to a medieval forger or artist, as they would have needed to locate and use an expensive, ancient cloth that matched the necessary dimensions.

Lessons on textile history and fibre durability from a 4,000-year-old Egyptian flax yarn
Flax has a long and fascinating history. This plant was domesticated around 8,000 bce in the Fertile Crescent area2, first for its seeds and then for its fibres1,3. Although its uses existed long before domestication, residues of flax yarn dated 30,000 years ago have been found in the Caucasus area4. However, Ancient Egypt laid the foundations for the cultivation of flax as a textile fibre crop5 . 6



Is this proof the Turin Shroud IS real? Scientists make startling discovery after analysing cloth 'Jesus was buried in'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13758359/scientists-discovery-jesus-cloth-buried-shroud-turin.html

X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47

The paper titled "X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample" explores the dating of the Turin Shroud using X-ray analysis, specifically Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS), as an alternative to the traditional radiocarbon dating method. The study finds that the X-ray dating results are inconsistent with the radiocarbon dating results obtained in the 1980s, which suggested that the Shroud was from the medieval period, approximately seven centuries old.

Methodology

X-ray Analysis: The researchers used WAXS to measure the degree of polymerization (DP) of cellulose in the linen fibers. The DP decreases over time due to natural aging, which can be influenced by environmental factors such as humidity and temperature.

Calibration with Known Samples: To validate their method, the researchers compared the X-ray profiles of the Shroud's linen with those of a control sample from the archaeological site of Masada, Israel, dated to 55–74 AD using radiocarbon dating. This sample served as a benchmark for the expected DP of linen from that time period.

Environmental Considerations: The study took into account the average temperature and relative humidity conditions that the Shroud might have experienced over centuries. They estimated these conditions based on historical data from regions like Egypt and Israel, where the Shroud might have been kept.

Conclusion on Age

Degree of Degradation: The X-ray analysis revealed that the DP of the Shroud's linen was significantly lower than what would be expected if it were only seven centuries old, as suggested by previous radiocarbon dating. The measured DP was consistent with a much older age.

Comparison with Masada Linen: By comparing the DP of the Shroud's linen with that of the Masada linen, the researchers found that the Shroud's linen had undergone a similar degree of degradation, suggesting an age of approximately 20 centuries, or about 2,000 years.

Environmental Adjustments: The study adjusted for potential variations in environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, which could affect the rate of cellulose degradation. Even with these adjustments, the results consistently indicated an age of around 20 centuries.

The study concludes that the X-ray analysis indicates a much older age for the Shroud than the radiocarbon dating suggests. The X-ray dating results imply that the linen of the Shroud could be over 20 centuries old, which aligns more closely with the historical and traditional claims about the Shroud's origins. The authors argue that the discrepancies between the radiocarbon and X-ray dating results could be due to factors such as environmental contamination affecting the carbon dating process. They suggest that further systematic X-ray investigations are necessary to confirm these findings. The paper highlights the potential of X-ray dating as a more reliable method for dating ancient textiles, as it allows for repetitive measurements on smaller samples, reducing the risk of contamination and bias that may have affected previous studies.



1. Charles Mader: The Weave of the Shroud of Turin 
2. RAY DOWNING: The Fabric of the Shroud of Turin March 30, 2017
3. Stephen E. Jones: Dimensions #3: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic! JULY 10, 2015
4. Stephen E. Jones: Sidestrip #5: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic! AUGUST 24, 2015
5. Shroud 1st draft
6. https://hal.science/hal-03343240/document










Botanical evidence on the Shroud of Turin

Sciencedaily (1999): An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the "Shroud of Turin," thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century. The authenticity of the Shroud has been debated for centuries, with a 1988 carbon dating process placing it in the Middle Ages. 

Botanical investigation of the Shroud began with Max Frei's 1973 observations of pollen grains on the Shroud, which he sampled by means of sticky tape. Frei took a second set of 27 sticky tape samples from the Shroud during the scientific study in 1978. In 1979 he took 46 sticky tape samples from the Sudarium of Oviedo. In 1983 faint floral images on the Shroud linen were noted by O. Scheuermann, and subsequently in 1985 by the Whangers. Botanist Avinoam Danin began collaborating with Shroud researchers Alan and Mary Whanger in 1995. They were joined by Israeli pollen expert Uri Baruch in 1998. Frei's Shroud botanical collections were acquired in 1994 by the Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin (CSST) and became the resource for this study which analyzed 313 pollen grains.


Avinoam Danin (1939–2015), Professor of Botany at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a world authority on the flora of Israel

Botanist A. Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem determined the origin of the Shroud based on a comprehensive analysis of pollen taken from the Shroud and plant images associated with the Shroud. Danin's analysis suggests that flowers and other plant materials were placed on the Shroud of Turin, leaving pollen grains and imprints of plants and flowers on the linen cloth. In addition to the image of a crucified man, the cloth also contains faint images of plants. Tentatively identifying the plant images through a method of image comparison known as Polarized Image Overlay Technique (PIOT), Alan and Mary Whanger have reported that the flowers were from the Near East region and that the Shroud originated in early centuries. Analysis of the floral images by Danin and an analysis of the pollen grains by Uri Baruch identify a combination of certain species that could be found only in the months of March and April in the region of Jerusalem during that time.

The analysis positively identifies a high density of pollen of the thistle Gundelia tournefortii which has bloomed in Israel between March and May for millennia. An image of the plant can be seen near the image of the man's shoulder. It has been hypothesized by the Whangers, who have researched the Shroud for decades, that this is the plant used for the "crown of thorns" on Jesus' head. Two pollen grains of this species were also found on the Sudarium of Oviedo, widely accepted as the burial face cloth of Jesus. The location of the Sudarium has been documented from the 1st Century and it has resided in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Spain since the 8th Century.  "There is no way that similar patterns of blood stains, probably of the identical blood type, with the same type of pollen grains, could not be synchronic - covering the same body," Danin stated. "The pollen association and the similarities in the blood stains in the two cloths provide clear evidence that the Shroud originated before the 8th Century."  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. Images of Capparis aegyptia flowers, which display a distinctive pattern during daylight hours, have also been seen on the Shroud. The process of buds opening ceases when the flowers are picked and no water is supplied.  The images of the flowers on the Shroud are also depicted in art of the early centuries, according to the upcoming publication. Early icons on some 7th-century coins portray a number of flower images that accurately match floral images seen on the Shroud today, according to PIOT analysis by the Whangers. The researchers suggest that the faint images on the Shroud were probably clearer in earlier centuries. 1



E. Marinelli (2012):  The first sampling on the Shroud On November 23, 1973, with the consent of the competent authorities, Frei took some dust samples from the Shroud’s margins using adhesive tapes. The area of origin was shown on sample containers. The Swiss botanist explained: “These tapes are put in contact with the surface with a light pressure and, due to their stickiness, when they are detached, they remove all the microtraces without damaging or altering the support in any way. The advantage of this method, widely used in criminology, is that - once the tape is folded on itself - loss of material or secondary contamination are completely excluded”. Three years after he announced: “In subsequent analyses of dust samples it was possible to find and classify a large number of pollen grains which, properly treated, have allowed the precise determination of the family, genus and species of the plant itself. Each identification result was verified and checked on herbarium material and in botanical gardens worldwide renowned for their collections, as well as documented in photomicrographic surveys. The first conclusion (italics in the original text) that the performed studies allow to suggest refers to the presence on the Shroud of pollen grains that come from desert plants that grow in Palestine. The most frequent pollen on the Shroud is identical to the most frequent pollen in sediments of the lake of Gennesaret sedimentary layers of two thousand years ago. Another sample comes from Asia Minor and more specifically from the area surrounding Constantinople, while a large number of granules are of French and Italian origin. It is therefore logical the deduction that the geographical and historical life of the Shroud corresponds to the migration that it suffered in time as a function of the evidence acquired”. In the twelve dust samples, Frei found, in addition to the pollen of flowering plants, fiber fragments, mineral particles, fragments of plant tissues, and fungal spores. With regard to pollen, he reminded: “Every species of plant produces a unique pollen that can be distinguished from the pollen of all other varieties, both under the light microscope and under the scanning electron microscope. (...) It is then possible to determine on the basis of a single grain of pollen from which plant it comes”. 2



In the case of the Shroud the represented plants bloom in different seasons and live in well-defined, and different from each other, ecological conditions. Their pollen is not especially suited to very far transports. Therefore the heterogeneity and the amount of pollen cannot be explained on the basis of random contamination. In five years of work, Frei was able to identify 49 species of plants, the pollen of which is represented in the dust of the Shroud. From the list of these plants it can be deduced that half of them do not grow in Europe, while it is present in the Middle East; in the other half, there are many Mediterranean plants. The conclusions of the Swiss botanist are interesting: “The presence on the Shroud of pollen of 29 plants of the Near East, and especially of 21 plants that grow in the desert or the steppes, directly leads to the hypothesis that the Shroud, now preserved in Turin, in the past was exposed to open air in countries where these plants are part of the normal vegetation. (...) Three-quarters of the species found on the Shroud grow in Palestine, of which 13 species are very characteristic or unique of the Negev and the Dead Sea area (halophyte plants). The palynology thus allows us to say that during its history (including manufacturing) the Shroud resided in Palestine.


Max Frei takes sticky tape samples during the 1978 STURP expedition while STURP chemist Ray Rogers of the Los Alamos National Laboratory looks on. 3

The botanist Avinoam Danin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel) said: “As far as establishing the Shroud’s provenance, Zygophyllum dumosum is the most significant plant on the list. Max Frei identified pollen grains of this species on the adhesive tapes he examined. The northernmost extent of the distribution of this plant in the world coincides with the line between Jericho and the sea level marker on the road leading from Jerusalem to Jericho. As Zygophyllum dumosum grows only in Israel, Jordan and Sinai, its appearance helps to definitively limit the Shroud’s place of origin. 

Gianni Barcaccia (2015): The radiocarbon measurements would place the origin of the TS linen in the time frame 1260–1390 AD. This not only implies a Late Middle Age origin, but a geographical path for the TS that is essentially restricted to Western Europe. In this scenario, the DNA traces that we detected could have entered in contact with the TS only rather recently, at most in the last 800 years and these biological sources (plants and human subjects) had to be present in the geographic areas (France and Italy) where the TS was located and/or displayed. The alternative scenario implies instead a much longer journey that started in Jerusalem in the year 30 or 33 AD. In this case, the time frame for the interaction with the DNA biological sources is much longer (2000 years) and the geographic areas where the TS was located include the Near East, Anatolia, Eastern and Western Europe, with a potentially much wider range of plant and human interactions. With regard to the land plant species identified, some are native to Mediterranean countries and widespread throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East and are thus compatible with both a rather recent Medieval origin in Europe and a more ancient Near Eastern origin. However, others have a center of origin in Eastern Asia and the Americas and were introduced to Europe only after the Medieval period. Clearly, the latter species cannot help in discriminating between alternative scenarios.4

Comment: Evidently, the presence of the 29 pollen from the near east are clear indicative that at some time in the past, the Shroud was in the near east. If that the middle age forgery hypothesis were true, after the 13th century, in some period, the Shroud would have had to be brought to Israel, and back to Europe. A scenario that can be discarded.

Stephen E. Jones (2019): Of the 28 species of plants that the Whangers had identified images of on the Shroud, 27 grow within the close vicinity of Jerusalem, where four geographical areas containing different specific climates and flora can be found. The 28th plant grows at the south end of the Dead Sea. All 28 would have been available in Jerusalem markets in a fresh state, and most would have been growing along the roadside and/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. One of these plants, Zygophyllum dumosum, grows only in Israel, Jordan, or the Sinai, with its northernmost boundary between Jerusalem and Jericho. Two other plants, the images of which Danin identified on the Shroud are, Gundelia tourne-fortii and Cistus creticus. G. tournefortii's distribution is Middle Eastern, extending from western Turkey through Israel, Syria, and northern Iraq, Iran, and the southernmost fringes of the former Soviet Union. Cistus creticus grows across the Mediterranean zone in western Israel with a desert boundary to the east of Jerusalem. Danin concluded that there is only one place in the world where these three species of plants can be found growing together - between Hebron and Jerusalem, a distance of only ~28 kilometres (~18 miles)!5

Temporal indicators 
Furthermore, the blooming time of Chrysanthemum coronarium is from March to May; that of Zygophyllum dumosum is between December and April; Cistus creticus blooms from March to June, and Gundelia tournefortii from March to May. The blooming time common to these four plant species, images of which are imprinted on the Shroud, is between March and April. Moreover, of the Whangers' images of 28 species of plants they identified on the Shroud, 27 bloom in March and Apri! And Jesus was crucified on 7 April 30 or 3 April 33!

Of the 28 plants identified by Whanger, Max Frei (1913-83) had previously identified the pollens of 25 of them: 21 correct to the species level, 3 to the genus level, and one to the family level. Frei had identified pollen on his tape 6B/d as that of Cistus creticus.  Max Frei's tape grid reference map showing location (red arrow) of his tape 6B/d. The spear wound in the man's apparent left side, and the shadowy details themselves, show that Frei's map was based on a positive photograph of the Shroud. Whanger had discovered images of a cluster of Cistus creticus plants on the Shroud at the location of Frei's tape 6B/d, so he informed archaeologist Paul C. Maloney (1936-2018) who Whanger knew was examining microscope slides of those tapes, that he ought to find the pollens of Cistus creticus on that particular slide. Maloney replied that he had been going over that very slide with a pollen expert [Anthony Orville Dahl (1910-2003)] a few days before, and the pollen expert had noted that there were a number of pollens of Cistus creticus on the slide. This discovery of Maloney, predicted by Whanger, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Frei's identification of Shroud pollen was non-fraudulent (as alleged by anti-authenticists) and largely correct:

"Carefully examining one of the Frei slides, researcher Paul Maloney discovered a cluster of many pollens from the same plant. These pollens were identified by palynologist Dr. A. Orville Dahl as Cistus creticus [native to Israel and the Mediterranean] ... Years earlier, Frei had identified pollens from this same plant on his sticky tape slides. At the time he took the sticky tape samples, he was unaware of the images of flowers on the Shroud, but it so happened that the tape Maloney was observing had been taken over the center of the same Cistus creticus flower that Alan had already identified. Thus Frei, Maloney with Dahl, and Alan, all working separately and at different times and using different methods, found the presence of Cistus creticus on the Shroud"!



"Location of plant parts on the cloth," identified by Danin. The spear wound in the man's apparent right side, and the sharper details, show that this is a mirror-reversed negative photograph of the Shroud. Danin's key states, " Cistus creticus flowers." Allowing for Frei's pollen map (above) being based on a positive photograph of the Shroud and Danin's plant parts map being based on a negative, it can be seen that Frei's location 6B/d and Danin's "" are the same location on the Shroud.]5


Danin and Baruch not only studied the presence but also the frequency of pollens. Building upon the samples collected by Frei, they reviewed his provisional conclusions and expanded on them. Here, for instance, we can see that they created a diagram illustrating the frequency of pollens found in the samples.

Botanical substances on the Shroud used in anointing and embalming during funeral and burial rites in ancient times.

M. Boi (2016):The pollen evidence shows that the relic could contain botanical substances used in anointing and embalming during funeral and burial rites in ancient times. The exact identification of the sindonic most abundant pollen of the Asteraceae (Helichrysum), along with the presence of the Cistaceae (Cistus), the Apiaceae (Ferula) and Pistacia, reveals the use of ointments. These plants were typically employed in expensive and valuable products cited in the scientific writings of Pliny the Elder and Dioscorides. Our conclusions show that the relic could be a real burial cloth, yielding pollen evidence of Helichrysum oil, as well as of ladanum (Cistus spp.), galbanum (Ferula spp.), mastic oil and gum (Pistacia lentiscus) and terebinth (Pistacia terebinthus), all of which are the bases of ancient ointments used in the first century AD. 



The precise identification of Helichrysum pollen, which had formerly been wrongly recognized as Gundelia tournefortii, confirms and authenticates the theory that the corpse kept in the Shroud received a funeral and burial with all the honour and respect that would have been customary in the Hebrew tradition. The largest amount of Helichrysum pollen originates from the form used to produce its oil, utilizing exclusively fresh flowers. The smaller quantities of the other pollen types can be explained by the use of products derived from other botanical components. These botanical products have contributed to the exceptional preservation of the fabric right up to the present time; they have protected the linen by acting as powerful insect and fungal repellents. At the same time, they have caused the yellowish tinge of the Shroud, because these are substances that oxidize on coming into contact with the air. 6

Earthy material (limestone composed of aragonite with strontium and iron) found on the Shroud 

Stephen E.Jones ( 2013) Dirt on foot In 1978 STURP (Shroud of Turin Project) members, husband and wife Roger and Marty Gilbert, while carrying out reflectance spectroscopy on the Shroud, discovered an unusual spectral signal from the heel of the right foot on the dorsal side and nowhere else on the Shroud. There is a clear imprint of the right foot only and that only on the dorsal side of the Shroud. When the area was examined under a microscope, dirt particles could be seen deep between the threads. It is logical to find dirt on the foot of a man who wore sandals, as Jesus did ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt 3:11 ; Mk 1:7; Jn]Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Jn 1:27[/url]), and who would have been barefoot before he was crucified. That the dirt is not a later contamination is shown by it being under the bloodstains on the foot. But the dirt is not easily seen with the naked eye, so no forger would have put it there. Therefore this is yet another problem for the forgery theory.

Limestone 

In October 1978 the Shroud of Turin Project (STURP), as part of its five day intensive scientific investigation of the Shroud, took thirty-two samples of surface material on the Shroud by pressing a specially formulated sticky-tape onto body image, bloodstain, waterstain and non-image areas of the cloth. Los Alamos chemist, Dr. Ray Rogers, was responsible for this task and so he took the sticky tape samples back with him to the USA. In 1982 Rogers gave some of the sticky-tape samples to optical crystallographer Dr Joseph Kohlbeck, for him to make photomicrographs of them. Kohlbeck became interested in some crystals of calcium carbonate (limestone) he found on some of the tapes. Under his microscope he found from their crystalline structure that they were of the comparatively rare travertine (deposited from springs) aragonite variety of calcium carbonate rather than the more common calcite. Kohlbeck knew that travertine aragonite limestone was typically found in limestone caves in Palestine. 



The question then occurred to him whether their chemical signature might match the limestone of the tomb in which Jesus was laid in Jerusalem. Kohlbeck realised that it might be difficult obtaining samples from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem but he reasoned that limestone from other tombs around Jerusalem should have the same characteristics. An archaeologist, Dr. Eugenia Nitowski, who had made a study of ancient Jewish tombs in Israel, was able to obtain for Kohlbeck limestone samples from a number of tombs in and around Jerusalem. Kohlbeck found that the calcium carbonate in the Jerusalem samples was of the same rare travertine aragonite variety as the samples taken from the Shroud.To confirm whether the Jerusalem tombs limestone did have the same chemical signature as the Shroud samples, Kohlbeck asked Dr Ricardo Levi-Setti at the University of Chicago to compare them using the University's high-resolution scanning ion microprobe. The Shroud sample tested was from the same foot area of the Shroud where Roger and Marty Gilbert had found the abovementioned dirt because it had a larger concentration of calcium carbonate than other areas. From their spectral patterns it was clear that the Shroud and Jerusalem tomb limestone samples were very close match. Both the Shroud and the Jerusalem samples contained small amounts of iron and strontium, but no lead, and their spectral patterns were an unusually close match. They would have been an even closer match but for a slight organic variation due to particles of flax which could not be separated from the Shroud's calcium. While this does not absolutely prove that the aragonite limestone on the heel of the Shroud man came from a Jerusalem limestone tomb, it is further evidence that it did. The onus is on the Shroud sceptics to explain how limestone which specifically (if not uniquely) matches that found in and around Jerusalem came to be on the Shroud. It is a major problem for the forgery theory to explain how the barely visible dirt on the heel of the Shroud man, `just happens' to contain the same rare travertine aragonite limestone found in and around Jerusalem. No medieval or earlier forger would have thought of including such details, which would have been ignored by his contemporaries because of their microscopic size.7

Particles of rare travertine aragonite form of limestone the Holy Sepulcher on the Shroud

Mark Niyr (2020): There was a rush to get Yeshua buried before the evening. Fortunately, one of Yeshua’s disciples was a very rich man: Yosef ha Ramatayim (Joseph of Arimathea). Joseph had coincidently already paid a hefty price to have his personal tomb hewn out of the limestone rock nearby, and so he offered to have Yeshua buried in his nearby tomb. It was a privilege to be buried in the limited vicinity of the Temple Mount. Only a rich man like Joseph could afford that. Little did Joseph of Arimathea know that this would fulfill the prophesy found in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah 53, the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa‐a) MT which specific scroll is dated by scholars as copied by scribes about 125 B.C.E where it says that his grave was “with a rich man his tomb” (Isa. 53:9).245 This prophecy (as originally written by Isaiah seven centuries prior to Yeshua) was thus fulfilled. Apparently Yeshua’s feet were dragged across the floor as they drew him into the tomb. His feet collected limestone from the floor of the tomb. That limestone then became deposited on the feet area of the Shroud. Whoever dragged Yeshua with his feet along the floor of the tomb had no idea that 2,000 years later scientists would discover this limestone on the feet area of the Shroud image. The scientists tested the limestone of ten different limestone tombs throughout the land of Israel. Yet only the rock shelf hosting both the Holy Sepulcher and the Garden Tomb (where Yeshua is thought to have been buried) contained this rare travertine aragonite form of limestone found on the Shroud. None of the other nine limestone tombs tested throughout the land of Israel matched the type of limestone found on the Shroud.8

Even if various probabilistic studies (De Gail, 1972; Fanti and Marinelli, 2001), analysing up to 100 statements formulated for and against the authenticity of the TS, show that it is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, with a probability of 100% and negligible uncertainty, from a strictly scientific point of view no sure proofs of its authenticity are still available. According to scientific analysis of the TS in 1978 by the STURP (Shroud of TUrin Research Project) (Jackson J.P. et al., 1984; Jumper et al., 1984; Adler, 1996), it was concluded that the body image on the TS cannot be explained scientifically. One attempt at explanation states that the image formed as if it were caused by exposure to a short-lived but intense source of energy coming from the body enveloped in the shroud itself (Fanti and Maggiolo, 2004).  

1. Sciencedaily: Botanical Evidence Indicates August 3, 1999
2. Emanuela Marinelli: The question of pollen grains on the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo 10/22/2012.
3. John Jackson et al., : The Shroud of Turin A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses 2017
4. Gianni Barcaccia: Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud 05 October 2015
5. Stephen E. Jones  Flower & plant images #31: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic! DECEMBER 17, 2019
6. M. Boi: Pollen on the Shroud of Turin: The Probable Trace Left by Anointing and Embalming 28 October 2016
7. Stephen E. Jones  The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (3): Dirt on foot and limestone MARCH 22, 2013
8. Mark Niyr: The Turin Shroud: Physical Evidence of Life After Death? (With Insights from a Jewish Perspective) 2020

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the 14th. century

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7144

Maybe the most throughout account of the pre-1350 history of the Shroud was compiled by Joe Marino, and published in the paper: Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin’s Appearance in France in the Mid1350s 2. He cites:

Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin's Appearance in France in the Mid-1350s
https://www.academia.edu/75771585/Documented_References_to_the_Burial_Linens_of_Jesus_Prior_to_the_Shroud_of_Turins_Appearance_in_France_in_the_Mid_1350

2 sources from the 2nd. Century, 1 from the 3rd. Century, 9 from the 4th. Century, 3 from the 5th. Century, 10 from the 6th. Century, 5 from the 7th. Century, 4 from the 8th. Century, 3 from the 9th. Century, 5 from the 10th. Century, 11 from the 11th. Century, 7 from the 12th. Century, and 15 from the 13th century, and 2 from the 14th. Century. In total 77 sources until 1350!! Marino writes in the concluding remarks: Despite conflicting theories of the Shroud’s “pre-history,” there is no doubt there is an abundance of evidence of the purported existence of Jesus’ burial linens.

Shroud history

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the 14th. century

by Stephen E. Jones 4
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2016/07/chronology-of-turin-shroud-ad-30.html#1


30 Friday, April 7. Jesus was crucified and died. Joseph of Arimathea bought a linen Shroud [Gk. sindon], took Jesus' body down from the cross, bound His hands and feet with linen strips [othonia], wrapped Jesus' body in the shroud and laid Him in a cave tomb. 

30 Sunday, April 9. The Apostles Peter and John enter Jesus' tomb. They find the linen strips [othonia] lying where they had been around Jesus' hands and feet, and the facecloth [soudarion = the Sudarium of Oviedo] which had been on [epi] the top of Jesus' head, where there is a gap between the front and back images on the Shroud, but they find no shroud [sindon]. John was immediately convinced from the pattern of the graveclothes that Jesus had risen from the dead, as He had predicted. John would have realised that graverobbers would have either taken Jesus' graveclothes and left His body, or they would have taken Jesus' body still wrapped in His graveclothes, but they would not have taken Jesus' body and left the linen strips [othonia] which had been tied around Jesus' hands and feet. Especially if those linen strips were still "looped together and knotted exactly as they had bound the hands and the feet," of Jesus' body, which having been resurrected had passed through them. Or rather they had passed through Jesus' "mechanically transparent" resurrected body! One of the earliest Christian writings, the Gospel of the Hebrews, recorded that Jesus took His shroud with Him out of the tomb and gave it to the "Servant of the Priest" presumably the Apostle John.

50 Death of Edessa's King Abgar V. According to the early church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340), King Abgar V (BC 4–AD 50) of Edessa had written to Jesus asking Him to come and heal him and Jesus had replied to Abgar by letter promising that after His resurrection He would send one of His disciples to Edessa to heal Abgar and preach the Gospel. According to Eusebius, Thaddeus, one of the Seventy, did go to Edessa, healed Abgar V from Thaddeus, and commenced Christianity there. While historian J.B. Segal (1912–2003), considered that this account "may well have a substratum of fact," he regarded the part of it about the exchange of letters between Abgar V and Jesus, which Eusebius had personally read in Edessa's archives, was a "pious fraud," which unknown to Eusebius had been inserted into Edessa's archives in the time of Abgar VIII (177 to 212), who was the first Christian king of Edessa. But as will be seen, Eusebius' account says nothing about Abgar V being healed by an image of Jesus on a cloth, which later versions of the Abgar V story do say. The pilgrim Spanish nun Egeria in c.384 recorded that she had seen the text of Jesus' letter to Abgar V affixed to Edessa' city gate.

57 Death of Ma'nu V (r. 50–57), son of Abgar V, who had succeeded him as king of Osroene, the capital city of which was Edessa. Ma'nu V is succeeded by Ma'nu VI (r. 57–71).

60 According to the 945 "Official History of the Image of Edessa", King Ma'nu VI reverted to paganism and persecuted Edessa's Christians. To ensure the safety of "the likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand" which had been fastened to a board and embellished with gold, i.e. the Mandylion (the Shroud "four-doubled" = tetradiplon), was supposedly bricked up above the public gate of Edessa, where it had previously laid, and then was completely forgotten for almost five centuries until its discovery after another major flood in 525. However, this story is most implausible (did Ma'nu VI, or none of his officials, not notice, nor suspect, that the Mandylion they were seeking to destroy, was where it had previously been but only behind fresh brickwork?), and is more likely a "pious fraud" to give the Mandylion/Shroud, which is known in Edessa only from 544, a false back-history to the time of Jesus.

2nd century (101-200)

c. 150 Several second century Christian writings record that the Shroud had been saved from Jesus' tomb: the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Pilate / Acts of Nicodemus, the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Gamaliel. This shows that second century writers knew the Shroud existed in their day. They disagree about who saved it from the tomb, but they agree that it had been saved.

177 Accession of Edessa's king Abgar VIII, the Great. Abgar VIII (r. 177-212), also counted as Abgar IX. His full name was Lucius Aelius Septimius Megas Abgarus. He was a ruler of Osroene, a Syriac-speaking kingdom in Upper Mesopotamia, whose capital city was Edessa. Abgar VIII was Edessa's (and presumably the world's) first Christian king, as is evident from some of his coins which were the first to feature a Christian symbol: a prominent Christian cross on his crown (see below).



Second century Edessan coin, one side with Abgar VIII wearing a crown bearing a Christian cross (right), and on the other side the head of the Roman emperor Commodus (r. 180-192) (left).]

c. 180 Abgar VIII has inserted into Edessa's archives fictitious correspondence between Abgar V and Jesus. This "pious fraud" became the basis of the "Legend of Abgar" which was added to and modified over subsequent centuries as more information about the Shroud became known. But the Abgar-Jesus letters were more likely a verbal request by Abgar and a reply by Jesus which were later transcribed into writing, with embellishments.

c. 183 During the tolerant reign of Roman Emperor Commodus (r. 180-192) Abgar VIII asked Pope Eleutherus (175-189) to send missionaries to Edessa. In Abgar VIII's reign Edessa became the world's first Christian city, as evidenced by this stone Christian cross over a lion's head in a former fountain in modern Sanliurfa (ancient Edessa, which has survived the almost complete eradication of Edessa's Christian history since the Muslim conquest in 1144. The lion was the symbol of the Abgar dynasty, which ceased ruling over Edessa after Abgar VIII's death in 212.

190 Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) in his Outlines, listed the burial places of Jesus's disciples, including that Thaddaeus/Addai was with that of Thomas "in the Britio of the Edessans," that is Edessa's birtha, or citadel.

194 Abgar VIII supported Parthia in its war against Rome, leading Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (r. 193-211) to take Edessa's rule from him and give it to a procurator, until 197-198 when Abgar VIII assisted Rome in its defeat of Parthia.

3rd century (201-300)

201 A major flood of its river devastates Edessa, thousands die, and the "church of the Christians" is damaged. This is the first mention anywhere of a Christian church building and is further evidence that Edessa had become a Christian city.

202 As a reward for assisting Rome in its war with Parthia, Abgar VIII was invited to Rome in 202, which he visited after 204.

205 Following the flood of 201, in 205 Abgar VIII built on higher ground within the walls of the old Edessa, a new walled Citadel, called "Birtha" in Syriac.

4th century (301-400)

c. 315 Roman Empress Constantia (c.293-330), the half-sister of Emperor Constantine the Great (c.272–337), wrote to the church historian, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (260-339), asking him to send her an "image of Christ." Constantia's letter is lost but from Eusebius' reply, she seems to be asking for a specific image of Christ, presumably the Mandylion/Shroud. This is supported by Eusebius' reply in which, instead of simply answering Constantia along the lines of, "Sorry, but I don't have an image of Christ to send to you," he gave a long-winded refusal which indicated that Eusebius knew which image Constantia meant, but he needed to find a way to refuse Constantine's half-sister's request without actually saying "no". This is further evidence that the Mandylion/Shroud existed in the fourth century, known in Christian circles, but hidden from those who would seize it.

c. 330 Athanasius (c. 296–373), who was bishop of Alexandria from 328 to 373, affirmed in the times of Constantine the Great (c.272–337), who was Roman Emperor from 306-337, that a sacred Christ-icon, traceable to Jerusalem in the year 68, was then present in Syria, when Syria did not include Edessa.

337 Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor, abolished crucifixion throughout the Roman Empire in 337 out of veneration for Jesus, crucifixion's most famous victim. Crucifixion continued to be banned in the remnants of the Roman Empire which included Europe. Neither the Bible, nor writers in the Roman era, described crucifixion in detail, presumably because everyone then knew those details, and crucifixion was so abhorrent. Therefore a medieval European forger, ~1000 years later, would not know enough about Roman crucifixion to depict it accurately as it is on the Shroud.

c. 338 St. Nino (c. 296–340), spent her youth in Jerusalem from c. 308. In 338 she wrote in her memoirs that she had been told that the linen strips (othonia - Lk 24:12; Jn 11:44) had been taken by Pilate's wife, who took them to Pontus, but later they were brought back to Jerusalem. The soudarion - Jn 20:7, Nino had heard, had been taken by Peter, but it was not by then known where it was.

St. Nino (sometimes called St. Nina) was a Greek Christian girl, born in Cappadocia (in what is now Turkey) around A.D. 296. Her parents moved to Jerusalem when she was twelve. Later, as a captive, she was taken to what is now Georgia (in southeastern Europe), where she introduced the Christian faith. Shortly before she died in A.D. 338, she dictated her life story to her friend Salome of Ujarma. In the earliest version preserved, which dates to the fifth century, Nino mentions the Shroud. Reminiscing about her early life in Jerusalem, Nino recounted,

‘And they taught me that the things written by the prophet were fulfilled in the Lord, and that he was crucified and went up into heaven and is come again. And [the grave] clothes the wife of Pilate asked for…and believed in Christ, and deported Pontus [in what is now Turkey] to her home. And after time it fell Luke Evangelist, and he knows what he did with them.

As napkin, Peter they say, took it with him.’ It significant that Nino distinguished between grave clothes napkin or cloth covered or went around Jesus’ head. It also noteworthy that word ignorant their location at time dictated memories.


6th century (501-600)

525 Edessa suffered a major flood of its river, the Daisan ("the Leaper"), killing one-third of the city's population (about 30,000) and destroying buildings, including the cathedral, and much of the city's wall[6]. The city, its wall, and a new Hagia Sophia ("Holy Wisdom") cathedral, were then rebuilt by the Byzantine Emperor Justin I (r.518 to 527), although the actual work was carried out by his nephew and future Emperor, Justinian I (r.527-565)[7]. According to the 945 `Official History of the Image of Edessa' [see "945c"] the Mandylion/Shroud, had been hidden in the city wall above Edessa's public gate, early in the reign of Abgar V's pagan grandson [Ma'nu VI (r.57–71)], then been completely forgotten, and was not rediscovered until the 544 siege of Edessa by the Persian King Khosrow I (r. 531-579), aka. Chosroes I, which was in 544.  However this story of the Mandylion/Shroud having been hidden in Edessa's wall, completely forgotten, for almost 500 years, contains multiple implausibilities. Likewise Ian Wilson's theory, based on that `Official History' story, that the Mandylion/Shroud was discovered in, or soon after 525, during the rebuilding of Edessa's flood-damaged wall, suffers from the same multiple implausibilities and it does not even have the support of the `Official History' that the Mandylion/ Shroud was discovered during the Persian siege of Edessa.

544 Persian king Khosrow I lays siege to Edessa. It is a fact of history that in 544 Persian King Khosrow I (aka Chosroes I) besieged Edessa but the city resisted the siege and the Persians were "forced to retreat from Edessa":

"Khosrow turned south towards Edessa and besieged the city. Edessa was now a much more important city than Antioch was, but the garrison which occupied the city was able to resist the siege. The Persians were forced to retreat from Edessa ..."

Historian Evagrius Scholasticus (c.536-594), recorded in c.593 [see below "c. 593"] in his Ecclesiastical History that the Persians built a huge mound of timber higher than Edessa's wall, that was to be moved next to the wall from which his army could attack the city. The Edessans countered by tunneling under the wall with the aim of setting the mound on fire from below before it could be moved forward to the wall. Evagrius described the crucial role of "the divinely made image not made by the hands of man" (the Mandylion/Shroud) in the defense of the city:

"The mine was completed; but they [the Edessans] failed in attempting to fire the wood, because the fire, having no exit whence it could obtain a supply of air, was unable to take hold of it. In this state of utter perplexity they brought out the divinely made image not made by the hands of man, which Christ our God sent to King Abgar when he desired to see him. Accordingly, having introduced this sacred likeness into the mine and washed it over with water, they sprinkled some upon the timber ... the timber immediately caught the flame, and being in an instant reduced to cinders, communicated with that above, and the fire spread in all directions".

Evagrius' "not made by the hands of man" is the Greek word acheiropoietos, lit. a = "not" + cheiro = "hands" + poietos = "made" (Mk 14:58; 2Cor 5:1; Col 2:11)[33], which is the first known application of that word to the Mandylion/Shroud and is the first historical evidence that the Mandylion/Shroud was in Edessa by 544. Evagrius' account says that the "divinely made image not made by the hands of man," had been "sent to King Abgar" by Christ, but this is false (although Evagrius may have believed it to be true), since not only is the original Abgar V story a "pious fraud," it said nothing about an image of Jesus on a cloth[see ". According to the 945 `Official History,' it was during the Persian siege of 544 that Edessa's bishop Eulalius was led in a vision to find where "the divinely created image of Christ ... lay hidden in the place above the city gates". However that is part of the Abgar V pious fraud and is self-evidently highly implausible. Moreover, there is no bishop Eulalius known in the actual history of Edessa. And if a bishop of Edessa had discovered "the divinely made image not made by the hands of man" hidden above Edessa's gate during the Persian siege of 544, Evagrius would surely have mentioned it. A Syriac "Edessan Chronicle," written after 540 and just before the 544 siege mentions the 525 Edessa flood in detail, but says nothing about the rediscovery of an Image, which is strong evidence against Wilson's theory that the Mandylion/Shroud was rediscovered in the aftermath of the flood of 525. So since Evagrius introduces the Image as already known to be at Edessa in 544, but with no viable explanation how it came to be there, the most likely (if not the only) explanation is that it had arrived in Edessa from elsewhere, shortly before 544, as my theory proposes. Secular historian Procopius of Caesarea (c.500–c.554) also wrote about Edessa's repulse of the 544 Persian siege, by digging a tunnel underneath the Persian siege tower, filling the tunnel with inflammable material and setting fire to it, which in turn consumed the tower, but Procopius did not mention anything about an Image. However, there are a number of important events in Edessa's history which Procopius does not mention, so he may simply have not known of the role of the Image in the siege. Also, Procopius was writing secular history, and he himself was a skeptic who was not interested in recording such things.

c. 550 Christ Pantocrator, St Catherine's monastery, Sinai. This encaustic (hot coloured wax) on wood (a technique which died out and became lost in the eight century) icon of Christ Pantocrator ("ruler of all") at the isolated Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai, and so escaped the iconoclasm (Gk. eikon = "image" + klastes = "breaker") of of the eighth through ninth centuries. Dated c. 550, this icon was a gift from the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (c.482–565), who built the monastery between 548 and 565. This is the earliest surviving painted icon of Christ. It is nearly perfectly congruent to the Shroud-face, for example the high right eyebrow, the hollow right cheek, and the garment neckline. So marked are these oddities, that the late Princeton University art historian, Professor Kurt Weitzmann (1904-1993), while making no connection with the Shroud, remarked of this icon that:

"... the pupils of the eyes are not at the same level; the eyebrow over Christ's left eye is arched higher than over his right ... one side of the mustache droops at a slightly different angle from the other, while the beard is combed in the opposite direction ... Many of these subtleties remain attached to this particular type of Christ image and can be seen in later copies ..."



Evidence that suggests the Pantocrator icon was based on the image of the Shroud of Turin

Both the face on the Shroud and the Pantocrator icon show notable asymmetry. The cheekbones, eyebrows, and the alignment of the eyes are not symmetrical, which is unusual for Byzantine iconography which often idealized symmetry. This asymmetry is clear evidence that the artist of the Pantocrator tried to capture the realistic features of the image on the Shroud, which also exhibits asymmetry that is consistent with a real human face bearing signs of injury or swelling.
The presence of such asymmetry in both the Shroud and the icon permits the interpretation as a clue that the iconographer was influenced by the image on the Shroud, aiming to represent a more realistic and human portrayal of Jesus, reflecting the details of the Shroud's image.

The face on the Shroud and the Pantocrator icon have similar proportions and features.  When one image is superimposed on the other, key features such as the eyes, nose, and mouth often align closely.
Both images share specific marks that could be interpreted as corresponding to the same facial features or wounds, particularly those consistent with the Passion of Christ as described in Christian theology.
The flow and length of the hair and beard are often noted to be very similar. The way the face is lit and the lines of the face and neck could suggest a common reference.

Vignon marks refer to specific features or details found on the Shroud of Turin that can be matched, particularly the Pantocrator type. These marks are named after the French scholar Paul Vignon, who identified them in the early 20th century. They are considered as points of congruence that indicate the Shroud was used as a reference for these icons.

In the image comparison, the Vignon marks are present in both the Shroud and the Pantocrator icon. Some of these marks include:

Three-sided Square 'U' shape in the forehead, indicative of the way the blood flowed after the Crown of Thorns was placed on the head. Two Strands of Hair, which fall in a particular way across the forehead. Open Oval Eyes, which may appear unusually open for a deceased individual as seen on the Shroud. Enlarged Left Cheek, which could be suggestive of swelling or injury. Raised Right Eyebrow, giving a particular expression that is replicated in the icon. Accentuated Zygomatic Arch, more prominent on one side of the face. Alignment of the Beard, which has a particular skew or parting that is present in both images.  The presence of these specific and unique features in both the Shroud and the Pantocrator icon is evidence of a direct relationship.

Using polarized image overlay technique, Dr Alan Whanger found over 200 points of congruence between this icon and the Shroud. 



The image is a layered composite that overlays the face from the Shroud of Turin with representations of the Christ Pantocrator icon. The gradual increase from one image to the other allows us to observe the specific congruences between the two. Here are the details:

Facial Outline: The contour of the face from the Shroud and the Pantocrator icons align closely, indicating a similar shape of the cheeks, jawline, and forehead.
Eyes: Both images have eyes that are similarly shaped and spaced. In the overlay, it appears that the alignment of the eyes is such that the gaze is consistent between the Shroud and the icons.
Eyebrows: The eyebrows in both images follow the same arch and thickness, with slight asymmetry where the right eyebrow is often depicted as more arched.
Nose: The bridge and length of the nose, along with the shape of the nostrils, align between the Shroud and the icons, suggesting a congruent depiction.
Mouth: The mouth, especially the line of the lips and the definition of the upper lip, matches closely between the Shroud and the icons.
Beard: The beard pattern is especially congruent, with the fork at the chin and the line of the mustache over the upper lip.
Hair: The hairline and the flow of the hair on both sides of the face, including the parting in the middle, are consistent between the Shroud and the icons.
Forehead Markings: If there is a mark on the forehead in the Shroud, it aligns with similar marks or features in the icons, which could correspond to the Vignon markings as previously mentioned.
Facial Lines and Wrinkles: The lines on the forehead, around the eyes, and the nasolabial folds are similarly positioned in both images.

These congruences are evidence that the iconography of the Pantocrator was influenced by the features present on the Shroud of Turin, with artists with high confidence using the Shroud as a reference point for their representations of Christ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbXFgYrNjWs&t=11s








By examining the overlay, we can reference specific Vignon points that match between the two images:

Forehead: There appears to be a matching three-sided square or inverted triangle on the forehead, a common Vignon point, which is visible on both the Shroud and the Pantocrator image.
Hair: The strands of hair, especially the one that falls across the forehead and the one that falls along the side of the face, appear to have similar flows and end points in both images.
Eyes: The open oval shape of the eyes on the Shroud aligns with the eyes on the Pantocrator image, suggesting a commonality in the representation of Christ's eyes.
Nose: The nose, particularly the straight bridge and the length, aligns closely between the two images.
Beard: There's a visible gap in the beard just below the lower lip and a forked appearance at the bottom of the beard, which are characteristic features in many depictions of Christ and match the Shroud's markings.
Face Outline: The jawline and the shape of the cheeks show a congruence in contour between the Shroud and the icon.
Mouth: The width and curvature of the mouth seem to follow a similar pattern, with a slight downturn at the edges that can be observed in both images.

The Christ Pantocrator of St. Catherine’s Monastery at Sinai is one of the oldest Eastern Roman religious icons, dating from the sixth century AD.[1] It is the earliest known version of the pantocrator style that still survives today, and is regarded by historians and scholars to be one of the most important and recognizable works in the study of Byzantine art as well as Eastern Orthodox Christianity

Positive image (above) and negative image (below) of the Pantocrator Icon in the St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai (on the left) and the face of the Man of the Shroud (on the right). It is clear how the icon image loses any relevance in the negative version, whereas for the human eye the negative image of the Shroud face is easier to capture. To enhance the comparison with the related positive image, in this illustration, the Shroud face has not been reproduced overturned from left to right as it is done traditionally.

The image on the Shroud is of a man 5 feet 10 1/2 inches tall, about 175 pounds, covered with scourge wounds and blood stains.  Numerous surgeons and pathologists (including Dr. Frederick Zugibe (Medical Examiner - Rockland, New York), Dr. Robert Bucklin (Medical Examiner - Las Vegas, Nevada), Dr. Herman Moedder (Germany), the late Dr. Pierre Barbet (France), and Dr. David Willis (England)) have studied the match between the Words, Weapons and Wounds, and agree that the words of the New Testament regarding the Passion clearly match the wounds depicted on the Shroud, and that these wounds are consistent with the weapons used by ancient Roman soldiers in Crucifixion.

7th century (601-700)




614 The Sudarium of Oviedo, the "face cloth" or "napkin" in John. The Holy Chest (or Arca Santa) in which the Sudarium was transported from Jerusalem in 614, via Alexandria, to Cartagena and Seville in Spain in 616; taken to the Monastery of San Vicente near Oviedo in 761, deposited in the Holy Chamber (Camara Santa), which is within today's Oviedo Cathedral, by King Alfonso II (r. 783, 791-842) in c.812, opened by Bishop Ponce (1025–1028) in 1030 and again opened by King Alfonso IV (1040–1109) in 1075. Sudarium of Oviedo was kept was officially opened in the presence of [url=http:]King Alfonso VI (r. 1077-1109)[/url], his sister Doña Urraca (c.1033–1101), Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (c. 1040–1099) (aka El Cid) and a number of bishops. This official act was recorded in a document which is now kept in the archives of the cathedral in Oviedo. The bloodstains on the face and back of the head of the Sudarium of Oviedo are so similar in appearance to those on the corresponding parts of the Shroud, that the two cloths must have been in contact with the same wounded body within the same short time period. And since the Sudarium has been in Spain since the early seventh century, and certainly since 1075, this is further evidence that the "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was wrong!

633 The Mozarabic Rite of Roman Catholics living under Muslim rule in Iberian Spain, which may have originated in the sixth century under Saint Leandro, Bishop of Seville (c.534–601), was given its final form in 633 at the Fourth Council of Toledo, Spain. The Illatio or preface of the rite states, "Peter ran to the tomb with John and saw the recent imprints of the dead and risen one on the cloths".

639 Edessa was conquered by the Muslim army under the Rashidun Caliphate. The Image of Edessa/Shroud which was in Edessa fell under Muslim control and remained so for over 300 years until 943. The conquest was peaceable and indeed Edessa's Syriac-speaking population were happy to be liberated from the Greek-speaking Byzantine rule from Constantinople. In return, Edessan Christians were allowed by their Muslim overlords to continue their religious observances, including veneration of the Image of Edessa/Shroud, and Edessa's Hagia Sophia cathedral was preserved.

680 A Bishop Arculf of Perigueux, France, returning from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in about 680, was shipwrecked on the island of Iona in the Scottish Hebrides. Arculf recounted his pilgrimage to the Abbot of Iona Abbey, Irish scholar and saint Adamnan (c. 624–704), who recorded it in his De Locis Sanctis ("On Holy Places"), completed in 698. In particular, Adamnan recorded in Latin that in Jerusalem Arculf had seen, "the sudarium of our Lord which was placed over his head in the tomb". However, Arculf described this cloth as "eight foot long", which is much shorter than the Shroud's fourteen feet. It cannot have been the Shroud folded in two because that would have been 7 feet long, and besides Arculf stated that he had kissed this "sudarium" and that close up he would have noticed that it was folded. It also cannot have been the "face cloth" or "napkin" [Greek soudarion] of John 20:7 (see on the Sudarium of Oviedo above), because that would have been a much smaller cloth. Finally, Arculf did not mention that this "sudarium" had an image of Jesus imprinted on it, which he surely would have, had there been one. Since Latin had no word of its own for the Greek sindon used of the Shroud in the gospels (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53), it was a common confusion in Latin writers that the word "sudarium" was used to mean the much larger Shroud. Some have speculated that what Arculf saw was a single sided copy of the Shroud, such as the Besançon or the Compiegne shroud, but they both had images. So it seems that what Arculf saw was a piece of cloth that had acquired the false reputation of being either the Shroud or the Sudarium. Either way, it is a further testimony to the common knowledge among early Christians that Jesus' burial cloths had been recovered from His tomb and existed in their day!


Gold solidus coin, minted 692-95 by Byzantine Emperor Justinian II (668–711). The face of Jesus on the coin has many "Vignon markings" features found on the face of the man on Shroud, including wrinkles in the Shroud cloth, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the 7th century designer of this coin had the Shroud as his model!



692 Between 692 and 695 Byzantine Emperor Justinian II (668–711) minted tremissis and solidus coins bearing an image of Jesus' face. The coins are inscribed "Jesu Christu, Rex Regnantium" ("Jesus Christ, King of Kings"). They are therefore in the category of Christ Pantocrator [Greek pan "all" and kratos "rule," hence "all-ruling one," "Almighty" (2Cor 6:18; Rev 1:8; 4:8;11:17; 15:3; 16:7,14; 19:6,15; 21:22)] icons. These were the first coins to bear Jesus' image.

Note that the c.692 solidus coin above depicts as tassels on Jesus' garment what are wrinkles around the neck of the Shroud man! Also note that above the tassels on the coin it depicts three protuber- ances which are also on the Shroud, the middle one on both being Jesus' and the man's Adam's apple (see Enrie negative)!] These resemblances include long hair that falls behind the shoulders, a long forked beard, a moustache, and a small tuft on the forehead where there is a `reversed 3' bloodstain on the Shroud using his polarized image overlay technique, Dr Alan Whanger found at least 65 points of congruence between this coin and the Shroud face. Yet in a court of law, only 14 points of congruence are sufficient to determine the identity of fingerprints, tire tracks, etc. Even wrinkles in the Shroud fabric were reproduced on the coin!

8th century (701-800)



Ian Wilson and states: "In the eighth century, Pope Stephen III stated that the Lord Jesus Christ had 'spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvellous as it is to see ... the glorious image of the Lord's face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred'"
https://www.shroud.com/trenn.htm

787 The iconoclasm of Leo III was continued by his son Constantine V Coproymos (741–775), and grandson Leo IV the Khazar (r. 775–780). It was only after the death of Leo IV that the first period of iconoclasm was brought to an end in 787 by the Second Council of Nicaea, the last of the first seven ecumenical councils of the whole Christian church, both East and West. The Council debated the veneration of holy images and in particular about the Image of Edessa not having been produced by the hand of man. Leo, Lector of Constantinople's Hagia Sophia Cathedral, reported to the Council that he had visited Edessa and seen there "the holy image made without hands and adored by the faithful". The Council endorsed the veneration of images, and in particular the Image of Edessa, the "one `not made by human hands' [acheiropoieton] that was sent to Abgar". It was the main argument used by the bishops to defend the legitimacy of the use of sacred images and to which the iconoclast bishops had no reply.

9th century (801-900)

812 King Alfonso II of Asturias (c. 760–842), built a chapel in his capital Oviedo, which was later incorporated into Oviedo Cathedral. In The 9th century chapel built by King Alfonso II, within which was the Holy Chamber (Cámara Santa) that held the Holy Chest (Arca Santa), which in turn contained the "face cloth [Gk soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7), later known as the "Sudarium of Oviedo," and other relics.  That chapel was a Cámara Santa (Holy Chamber), to hold the Arca relics, that had been in the nearby Monastery of San Vicente since 761.



c. 820 Stuttgart Psalter On 20 October 2013, a Max Patrick Hamon (presumably this cryptologist) guest-posted on Dan Porter's now closed Shroud of Turin blog a post titled, "An Intriguing 9th Century Image Suggestive of the Shroud – A Guest Posting by Max Patrick Hamon". Hamon asked the question: "Does the Turin Shroud predate more than half-a-millennium at least the radiocarbon date (1325±65 CE)?" and then he answered his own question (my summary with minor changes): 

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

Could the ca. 800-814 CE Stuttgart Psalter stark naked flogged Christ back view really predate the carbon 14 dating result of 1325 ± 65 calendar years by no less than 510-515 years; more than half a millennium?
... Re the Stuttgart Psalter miniature of the Flogging of Christ-Turin Shroud (TS hereafter) man's dorsal image connection, to the astute observer:

● Both men are stark naked with long flow of hair in the back ...
● Both have arm(s) bound/crossed in front ...
● Both have bloodied furrows/scourged marks in conjunction with two whips with lashes each
fitted with doubled (metal) pellets implying two executioners.
● Both have almost feminine curved left hip & thigh (to be called later “the Byzantine curve”)
● Both are/were tied at tibiofibular level with left leg in front of right leg (TS man accurate
Forensic description: left leg in front of right leg with rope-mark in the tibiofibular fleshes).
● Both show a most unnatural/awkward feet position.
● "Christ is depicted naked from the back, with realistic, bleeding scourge marks, something that is very rare, if not non-existent, in the Middle Ages ..."
● "... the artist accurately depicted a Roman flagrum, of the three-thonged, lead ball tipped, type which made the marks on the Shroud." 
● "... the artist depicted two scourgers, which is not mentioned in the Gospels, but which can be deduced from the pattern of scourge marks on the Shroud"
● "Jesus' feet are at an angle (as the man on the Shroud's appear to be)"
● "Jesus' hands would have been crossed in front of him (his right arm is not visible) at about his groin area as on the Shroud"
● "Jesus has long hair (as has the man on the Shroud)"
All these pieces of evidence piled up into crucial evidence: the bloodied body burial cloth now kept in Turin was already in existence early in the 9th CE. The Stuttgart Psalter miniature Shroudlike Christ does predate the radiocarbon date by no less than half-a-millennium."



Close-up of the left scourger's, three-thonged, metal ball tipped, Roman flagrum. Compare its historical accuracy with the flagrum above which is a copy of one excavated from the 18th century the Roman city of Herculaneum which had been buried in the AD 79 eruption of Mt Vesuvius.


10th century (901-1000)

King Abgar V (c.25 BC-AD 50) of Edessa is depicted in this 10th century icon at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai, receiving the Image of Edessa (the Shroud "four-doubled" - tetradiplon) from Jesus' disciple Thaddeus. Abgar's face is that of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913-959), to commemorate the arrival of the Image of Edessa/Shroud in Constantinople on 15 August 944


943 In the Spring of 943, Byzantine usurper Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–944) sends an army led by his best general, John Curcuas (fl. 915–946), to Edessa to negotiate with its Muslim emir ruler for possession of the Edessa cloth, to add to his collection of Christian relics. In exchange for the Cloth, Curcuas offered on behalf of the Emperor, a guarantee of perpetual immunity of Edessa from Byzantine attack, 12,000 pieces of silver and the release of 200 Muslim prisoners.

944a After lengthy consultations with his superiors in Baghdad, in the Summer of 944, Edessa's emir accepts Curcuas' terms and Bishop Abraham of nearby Samosata, enters Edessa to receive the cloth, and despite the resistance of Edessa's Christians, he is satisfied that he has the original, as well as two copies of the Image and Abgar V's letter from Jesus. After a short stay in Samosata, the bishop travels with the Image, escorted by Curcuas' army across Anatolia back to Constantinople.



"The surrender of the Holy Mandylion" (the Image of Edessa), one of 574 miniatures, which may be copies of earlier Byzantine images, in the 12th Century "Madrid Skylitzes," which was based on the Synopsis of Histories by John Skylitzes (c. 1040s – aft. 1101). The persons on the left are wearing turbans and the buildings on their side have no Christian crosses, hence they are Muslims. The buildings on the right have Christian crosses, which means that the artist depicted both the Image being handed over by muslims in Edessa and its arrival in Christian Constantinople. Note that behind the face-only Image of Edessa is depicted the full-length Shroud! So by at least the 12th century the Image of Edessa/Mandylion was known to be the full-length Shroud!

944b On Thursday 15 August 944 the Image of Edessa arrives in Constantinople. It is carried in its framed portrait, fastened to a board and embellished with gold, through the streets of the city amidst great celebration. The Image is then taken to the church of St Mary at Blachernae, where it is viewed by members of the imperial family. Romanos I's two sons Stephen and Constantine find the face blurred and cannot distinguish its features (further evidence that this was the Shroud: its image is faint and difficult to see close-up). But the legitimate Emperor, Constantine VII, son of the late Emperor Leo VI (r. 886–912), was artistic and readily discerns them. The Image of Edessa/Shroud is then taken to the Imperial (Boucoleon) Palace where it is placed overnight in the Pharos chapel.

944c The next day, 16 August 944, the Image is carried around the walls of Constantinople, thereby establishing it as the city's new palladium (guarantee of a city's Divine protection). The Image is then taken to Constantinople's Hagia Sophia cathedral, where it is placed on the "throne of mercy". During that enthronement of the Image ceremony, Gregory Referendarius (overseer of relationships between the Patriarch and the Emperor), Archdeacon of Hagia Sophia, an eyewitness of these events, delivers a sermon in which he says that the Cloth bears not only "the sweat from the face of the ruler of life, falling like drops of blood" but also "drops from his own side ... [of] blood and water":

"This reflection, however - may everyone be inspired with the explanation - has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the ruler of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are indeed the beauties that have coloured the true imprint of Christ, because that from which they dripped was also embellished by drops from his own side. Both are highly instructive - blood and water there, here sweat and image. O equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side".

By "the sweat from the face of [Christ] ... falling like drops of blood" Gregory refers to Lk 22:44:

"And being in agony he [Jesus] prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

which occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36; Mk 14:32). But the "drops from his own side ... [of] blood and water" refers to Jn 19:33-34 which was after Jesus' death on the cross:

"But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water."

Clearly, the face-only Image of Edessa does not show the blood and fluid-stained spear wound on Jesus' side that is on the Shroud. But Gregory could not have made that reference unless he had been aware of the wound in the side of the image and of bloodstains in the area of that wound, and hence knew that the Cloth was full-length rather than merely a face-cloth. And to know that, Gregory must have seen that under the Image of Edessa face was a full-length, bloodstained, body image of Jesus. This is a further corroboration of Ian Wilson's insight that the Image of Edessa was the Shroud ("four-doubled" - tetradiplon)!

944d In December 944, the co-Emperor sons of Romanos I, Stephen and Constantine, fearing their ~74 year-old father was going to confirm Constantine VII as his successor, forced him to abdicate.


 "Coin ... [a gold solidus] minted in 945 under the reign of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII. On the obverse, a bust of Christ similar to the Shroud face image; on the reverse, Constantine VII ... Notice ... the overall similarity of the facial representation with the face on the Shroud ... the left cheek of Christ, that is, the cheek that appears on our right, shows a clear protuberance, which is also on the Shroud. The beard and hair are also similar to the Shroud. Note the very peculiar lock of hair on the forehead. This is similar to the inverted '3' shape as seen on the forehead on the Shroud".

945a On 27 January 945, with the help of his wife, Romanos I's daughter Helena Lekapene (c. 910–961), Constantine VII exiled Stephen and Constantine (Helena's brothers!) and became sole emperor at the age of 39. Within weeks of his accession, Constantine VII had a new gold solidus coin struck, bearing a very Shroud-like Christ 'Rex Regnantium' (King of Kings) portrait, inspired by the recently arrived cloth of Edessa  

945b On 16 August 945, the anniversary of the solemn exposition of the cloth in Hagia Sophia cathedral, Constantine VII proclaimed 16 August as the Feast of the Holy Mandylion in the Eastern Orthodox church calendar, which it continues to celebrate to this very day, even though the Image has been lost to them since 1204!

945c Soon after becoming sole Emperor, Constantine VII commissioned an official history of the Image of Edessa, the "Narratio de imagine Edessena", or "Story of the Image of Edessa". Indeed it may have been written by Constantine himself! The Story is actually a sermon to be read to Eastern Orthodox congregations on each 16 August Feast of the Holy Mandylion, starting in 946, hence it is also known as the "Festival Sermon". Fastened to a board The Official History states that the Image of Edessa "now to be seen" in Constantinople in 944, had in Edessa been fastened to a board and embellished with gold by Abgar V:

"Abgar ... set up this likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ not made by hand, fastening it to a board and embellishing it with the gold which is now to be seen, inscribing these words on the gold: `Christ the God, he who hopes in thee is never disappointed'".

This fits the hypothesis that the Shroud was folded and mounted in such a way ("four-doubled" - tetradiplon) that only the facial area was visible and accessible, so "every description of the Image of Edessa during the period in question is compatible with a viewing of the Shroud". Two alternative versions of the origin of the image The Official History gives two mutually exclusive versions of the origin of Jesus' image on the cloth. The first version is the traditional explanation since the sixth century, that Jesus washed his face in water, wiped it on a towel, and his likeness was impressed on the towel, which he then gave to Abgar V's servant Ananias, who in turn gave it to Abgar V. The second version is that: 

"... when Christ was about to go voluntarily to death ... he ... pray[ed] ... sweat dropped from him like drops of blood ... he took this piece of cloth which we see now from one of the disciples and wiped off the drops of sweat on it ... the still-visible impression of that divine face was produced. Jesus gave the cloth to Thomas, and instructed him that after Jesus had ascended into heaven, he should send Thaddaeus with it to Abgar ... Thomas gave the divine portrait of Christ's face to Thaddaeus and sent him to Abgar".

That is, the image was formed during Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane when His "sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Lk 22:44) This second version would be inexplicable unless dripping blood could be seen on the face of the Image of Edessa, as it is on the Shroud face, but which could not be explained by the first version. This second version may be the parent of the tradition of Veronica's veil - or it may be the other way around. Moist secretion The Official History described the Image as "a moist secretion without coloring or painter's art", "it did not consist of earthly colors ... and ... was due to sweat, not pigments". This fits the Shroud image which is extremely faint. It also explains why some thought the Image had been made in the Garden of Gethsemane when Christ's face was covered in sweat "like great drops of blood". These "water/sweat details" sound "uncannily like the characteristics of the Shroud's image". 

945d Soon after he became sole Emperor in January 945, Constantine VII commissioned a painting, now at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mt Sinai, depicting Abgar V holding the Edessa cloth, which had been handed to him by Thaddeus. That icon survives as the top right-hand quarter of a diptych. It originally was a triptych with an icon of the Image of Edessa in the centre panel but only the two wings have survived. 


The Abgar V icon in its surviving diptych context.

958 In a letter of encouragement to his troops campaigning around Tarsus in 958, Constantine VII told them that he was sending them holy water consecrated by relics of the Passion, including, "the sindon [shroud] which God wore". This can only mean that by 958 Constantine VII had seen unfolded the full-length Shroud behind the face of the Image of Edessa. Moreover Constantine made no mention of the Image of Edessa, despite his previous close identification with it. This is the first of several subsequent mentions of a burial sindon or shroud being among the imperial relic collection in Constantinople, with no explanation how it came to be there. The arrival of the Edessa cloth in Constantinople in 944 had been accompanied by a great celebration, so the arrival of the sindon, acknowledged as Jesus' burial shroud, ought to have merited at least the same level of celebration and ceremony, but there is no record of the sindon's arrival in Constantinople! This is inexplicable unless the Edessa cloth and the Shroud are one and the same, more than three centuries before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!

c. 990 The first known reference to the Edessa Cloth as the "Mandylion" appeared in about the year 990 in a biography of the Greek ascetic, Paul of Latros (c. 880-956), who without ever leaving Mt. Latros (aka Mt Latmus), was granted a vision of "the icon of Christ not made by hands, which is commonly called 'the holy Mandylion'". "Mandylion" originally derived from the Latin word mantile which meant "hand-cloth", and by the tenth century it had been borrowed by several languages including Arabic, Turkish, and Greek as mandil, "handkerchief". The Byzantine Greeks attached to mandil the diminutive suffix -ion as a colloquial name for the Image of Edessa. It was clearly not a descriptive name because the Image of Edessa definitely was not a "little handkerchief "! The existing word "mandylion" was evidently applied by the Byzantines to the Cloth since it was no longer of Edessa but Constantinople. However "mandylion" was not used of the Image by the cloth's official custodians, and in fact the word only appears three times (including the Paul of Latros reference) in the Greek texts of that period.

11th century (1001-1100).


"Scenes from the Passion of Christ". During the period 900-1200, ivories were produced all over Europe, often in monasteries and ecclesiastical or royal courts. Ivory carvings appeared on book covers, reliquary caskets, antependia (the panel in front of an altar) and religious icons. The plaque is the biggest ivory panel of the Middle Byzantine period recorded, and is comparable in size to conuslar diptychs.

Part of a larger carved ivory panel in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Note that Jesus' arms are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, over His loins, exactly as they are on the Shroud. And Jesus is lying on a double-length cloth which has a repeating pattern of Xs similar to those in icons of the Image of Edessa (i.e. the Shroud "doubled in four" = tetradiplon) and hinting at the Shroud's herringbone weave. Yet this is a late 11th/early 12th century Byzantine icon, an early example of the genre which the Byzantine Greeks called Threnos, or Lamentation, the main feature of which is Jesus wrapped in a large cloth compatible with today's Turin Shroud. This alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud already existed more than a century before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!

1. Holger Kersten:  Jesus Lived in India: His Unknown Life Before and After the Crucifixion 2001
2. Joe Marino: Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin’s Appearance in France in the Mid13

Late eleventh/early twelfth century Byzantine ivory of the threnos (Greek for lamentation)  scenes of Jesus. This is an example of a dramatic change in depictions of Jesus' burial which began about the beginning of the eleventh century. Before the eleventh century Jesus had been traditionally depicted as being buried wrapped in linen strips like an Egyptian mummy. But from the early eleventh century, in threnos (lamentation) burial scenes, Jesus' began to be be depicted lying full-length in front of the Cross as the central figure and His body about to be enveloped in a double full-length white shroud. In these depictions Jesus' right hand is crossed over the left at the wrists as it is on the Shroud. This sudden new artistic development coincides with the discovery after the Image of Edessa arrived in Constantinople in 944 that behind its face panel was the full-length Shroud "doubled in four" (tetradiplon)[99].

1092 A letter dated 1092 purporting to be from the Byzantine Emperor I Komnenos (r. 1081 to 1118) (aka Alexius I Comnenus) to Robert II of Flanders (c.1065- 1111)[100]. In the letter the Emperor appealed for help to prevent Constantinople falling into the hands of the pagans. The letter listed the relics "of the Lord" in Constantinople including, "the linen cloths [linteamina] found in the sepulchre after his Resurrection". Although historians regard the letter as a forgery, it may not be, since Robert had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1086 and had spent some time with Alexius I in Constantinople, and there is no reason why the two had not remained in touch. Besides, even if Alexius I did not write the letter, this need not invalidate its description of the relics which were then in the imperial collection. 

12th century (1) (1101-1150).

Jacques de Molay (c.1243–1314) and Geoffroi de Charney (c.1240–1314), were burned at the stake for recanting their confessions extracted under torture and proclaiming their, and the Templar Order's, innocence of the false charges brought by King Philip IV.  Geoffroi de Charney was the great-uncle of Geoffroy I de Charny (c. 1300–1356), the first undisputed owner of the Shroud. Pro-authenticist historian Ian Wilson theorised that the Templars acquired the Shroud after it was looted from Constantinople in 1204 by soldiers of the Fourth Crusade, and took it to their fortress at Acre. Then after the Fall of Acre in 1291 the Templars took the Shroud to France and hid it in their network of fortresses and castles. 

1140a "The Song of the Voyage of Charlemagne to Jerusalem" (known by es in French, including "Chanson du Voyage de Charlemagne à Jerusalem", or "Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne"), is an Old French epic poem about a fictional expedition by Emperor Charlemagne the Great (c.742-814) and his knights, composed around 1140. Although imaginary it bears historical testimony to the existence of the Shroud at the time, in that it reflects the accounts then given by pilgrims. In it the Emperor asks the Patriarch of Jerusalem if he has any relics to show him, and the Patriarch replies:

"I shall show you such relics that there are not better under the sky: of the Shroud of Jesus which He had on His head, when He was laid and stretched in the tomb ...".

While this contains an inaccuracy in that the Shroud was not in Jerusalem in Charlemagne's time (c.742-814) but continuously in Edessa from 544 to 944 and.  So The Voyage of Charlemagne evidently reflects genuine but mistaken pilgrims' reports of a shroud in Jerusalem in the Early Middle Ages. The word for "Shroud" in The Voyage of Charlemagne is the Old French equivalent of "sindon", the Greek word, used in the Gospels for Jesus' burial shroud (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53). Moreover this Old French word (presumably sydoines) is the same word used by crusader Robert de Clari (1170-1216) of the shroud with "the figure of Our Lord on it" that he saw ~63 years later in Constantinople in 1203. So this is evidence that in 1140, over a century before the earliest, 1260, radiocarbon date of the Shroud, it was common knowledge that the burial shroud of Jesus existed, upon which He had been laid stretched out in the tomb, and which had then covered His head!

1192-5 The Hungarian Pray Manuscript, or Codex, is dated 1192-95. The Codex was compiled at the ancient Benedictine monastery at Boldva, Hungary. Hungary was then ruled by King Bela III (r.1172–1196), who had spent six years (1163–1169) as a young man in the imperial court at Constantinople. Two pen and ink drawings on one page of the Codex, one above the other (see above), document the existence of the Shroud in the late twelfth century. The upper drawing is a depiction of Jesus' body being prepared for burial. Correspondences between the Pray Codex and the Shroud include: 1. Jesus is nude; 2. His hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right over left (as it appears on the Shroud), covering His genitals; 3. No thumbs are visible on Jesus' hands; 4. His hands and fingers are unnaturally long; 5. Jesus is about to be wrapped in a double body length shroud and 6. Red marks on Jesus' scalp and forehead are in the same position as the bloodstains (including the "reversed 3") on the Shroud. In the lower drawing an angel is showing three women disciples Jesus' empty tomb symbolised by a sarcophagus with an open lid. Correspondences between this lower drawing and the Shroud include: 7. The sarcophagus lid has a herringbone weave pattern; 8. Red zigzags match the inverted V-shaped blood trickles down the Shroud man's arms and 9. L-shaped patterns of tiny circles in the herringbone weave of the sarcophagus lid match the `poker holes' on the Shroud. Thomas de Wesselow, an agnostic art historian concludes:

 "We have now identified eight [there are at least nine - see above] telling correspondences between the Shroud and the drawings on a single page of the Pray Codex ... It is inconceivable that all these detailed links with the Shroud, several of which are found nowhere else, could have occurred on a single manuscript page by chance. The only reasonable conclusion is that the artist of the Pray Codex was aware of the Shroud. The Shroud existed and was already damaged, then, by 1192-5, when the illustrations in the Pray Codex were drawn. Given the close links at the time between Hungary and Byzantium, it can hardly be doubted that the artist saw the relic in Constantinople. The Shroud was the Byzantine Sindon."!

"The Codex Pray, Pray Codex or The Hungarian Pray Manuscript is a collection of medieval manuscripts. In 1813 it was named after György Pray, who discovered it in 1770. It is the first known example of continuous prose text in Hungarian. The Codex is kept in the National Széchényi Library of Budapest. One of the most prominent documents within the Codex (f. 154a) is the Funeral Sermon and Prayer ... It is an old handwritten Hungarian text dating to 1192-95. Its importance of the Funeral Sermon comes from that it is the oldest surviving Hungarian, and Uralic, text ... One of the five illustrations within the Codex shows the burial of Jesus. It is sometimes claimed that the display shows remarkable similarities with the Shroud of Turin: that Jesus is shown entirely naked with the arms on the pelvis, just like in the body image of the Shroud of Turin; that the thumbs on this image appear to be retracted, with only four fingers visible on each hand, thus matching detail on the Turin Shroud; that the supposed fabric shows a herringbone pattern, identical to the weaving pattern of the Shroud of Turin; and that the four tiny circles on the lower image, which appear to form a letter L, `perfectly reproduce four apparent "poker holes" on the Turin Shroud', which likewise appear to form a letter L. The Codex Pray illustration may serve as evidence for the existence of the Shroud of Turin prior to 1260–1390 AD, the alleged fabrication date established in the radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988".















Yet how to respond to the objection that the first documented mention of the Shroud is from the French village of Lirey in 1357 - which suggests a medieval origin? 
For starters, as I have previously pointed out  the first undisputed appearance of the Shroud was at Lirey, France in c.1355, meaning that anti-authenticists don't dispute it, is not the same as being "the first documented mention of the Shroud." Because in 1207 [see "1207"] there is a historical record of what can only be the Shroud in Constantinople in 1201:

"In 1207, after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, Nicholas Mesarites, keeper of the Emperor's relics in the Pharos Chapel, Constantinople, recalled that in 1201, in that chapel, was `the sindon [which] wrapped the mysterious, naked dead body [of Christ] after the Passion' (my emphasis). The Greek word variously translated `mysterious', `indefinable' and `uncircumscribed', is aperilepton, which literally means `un-outlined' or `outlineless'. The Shroud-image uniquely has no outline [see 11Jun16], so there could be no stronger proof that the Shroud in Constantinople is that of Lirey, Chambéry and Turin!"
This is objective, historical evidence that the Shroud existed in Constantinople in 1201, over a century and a half (154 years) before it was exhibited at Lirey in c. 1355! And 59 years before the earliest possible radiocarbon date of 1260! Irrespective of whether anti-authenticists accept it!


The full-length Shroud of Turin (1), is doubled four times (2 through 5), resulting in Jesus' face within a rectangle, in landscape aspect (5), exactly as depicted in the earliest copies of the Image of Edessa, the 11th century Sakli church, Turkey (6) and the 10th century icon of King Abgar V of Edessa holding the Image of Edessa, St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai (7). word comprised of tetra "four" and diplon "doubled," hence "four doubled" or "doubled in four"[36]. In all of early Greek literature it is only found twice and both times it refers to the Image of Edessa aka Mandylion[37]. In 1966 Shroud historian Ian Wilson experimentally proved, by taking a full-length photograph of the Shroud and doubling it four times, so that the face one-eighth was uppermost in landscape aspect, that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion was the Shroud "four doubled"[38] (see above).
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2021/07/

BURIAL CONSISTENT WITH ANCIENT JEWISH BURIAL CUSTOM
The burial is consistent with ancient Jewish burial customs in all respects, including the use of cave-tombs, attitude of the body (hands folded over loins), and types of burial cloths.  The Sindon (Shroud) enveloped the body.  The Sudarium was a face-cloth used to cover the face out of respect during removal from the cross through entombment.  It was then removed and placed to one side.  There was also a chin-band holding the mouth closed.  The Othonia were bandages used to bind the wrists and legs.  All are mentioned in the New Testament and evidenced on the Cloth.  Such cloths are spoken of in the Misnah - oral traditions of the Rabbis written down in the second and third century.
The Cave-Tombs were carved out of sides of limestone hills. The presence of Calcium Carbonate (limestone dust) on the Cloth was noted by Dr. Eugenia Nitowski (Utah archaeologist) in her studies of the cave tombs of Jerusalem.  Optical Engineer Sam Pellicori noted in 1978 the presence of dirt particles on the nose as well as on the left knee and heel.  Prof. Giovanni Riggi noted burial mites.  Dr. Garza-Valdes discovered oak tubules (microscopic splinters) in the blood of the occipital area (back of the head) as well as natron salts.  Traces of aloe and myrrh have also been identified on the Cloth.  These are consistent with Jewish burial customs of antiquity.

HISTORICAL REFERENCES
Persian King Chosroes I attacked the Byzantine city of Edessa in 544 AD but was repulsed.  Evagrius Scholasticus (born 536 AD), in his 590 AD book Ecclesiastical History, wrote that the people of Edessa believed an image of Christ of "divine origin" allowed them to destroy the siege mound.  This is the first reference to the Image of Edessa being a divinely created image (acheiropoieta, meaning "not made by human hands").
The legend of King Abgar V, ruler of the city of Edessa (400 miles north of Jerusalem in Turkey) from 13 to 50 AD, locates a cloth with the image of Jesus in Edessa, though it is not called a burial shroud.  It says that Jesus was given a towel, and when He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it.  His image having been imprinted upon the linen, He sent it to Abgar with a message.  The Acts of Holy Apostle Thaddaeus (6th Century) calls the cloth a tetradiplon (cloth doubled-in-four).  This Greek term only appears twice in historical texts, and both times refers to the Image of Edessa.  Dr. John Jackson's raking light test in 1978 confirmed tetradiplon fold marks in the Shroud.  If it is folded in half three times, the Shroud of Turin displays only the face of the man.  There is a famous icon from the 10th century that depicts the image of Edessa being held by Abgar:

In 943 AD the Byzantine Emperor Romanus I sent an army of 80,000 men to besiege the Muslim-held city of Edessa in order to take the Image of Edessa.  The cloth was given up, and on August 15, 944 AD it arrived in the Byzantine capitol Constantinople.  TheNarration De Imagine Edessena, written one year later gives a history of the Image including the legend of Abgar, and tells of a private viewing of the Image by the future emperor Constantine VII and his two brothers-in-law, the sons of Emperor Romanus.  One of the most famous Medieval Greek writers, monk Symeon Magister Metaphrastes, wrote the Chronicle around 944, which describes the same event.  These documents report that Constantine could see only a faint image, like a "moist secretion, without pigment or the painter's art".  The other two men were said to be barely able to make out an image at all because it was so faint.
The next day, August 16, the population welcomed the Image to the city.  Archdeacon Gregory Referendarius gave a public sermon in which he spoke of the legend of Abgar, and then said "...this reflection... has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the originator of life... For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint of Christ, since after the drops fell, it was embellished by drops from his own side.  Both are highly instructive - blood and water there, here sweat and image."  Till then the cloth had only been reported to have a facial image.
In 958 AD, Emperor Constantine VII sent a letter to his army which was engaged near Tarsus.  To inspire them, he mentioned "...the sacred linens, the sindon which God wore, and other symbols of the immaculate passion."  "Passion" refers to the suffering and death of Christ.  Thus he states clearly that the burial cloth (sindon) was in the possession of the Byzantine Empire.
In 1201 AD, Nicholas Mesarites, overseer of the Imperial Relic Collection in Constantinople, published an inventory.  It includes "...burial sindones of Christ" that "wrapped the... naked body after the Passion... In this place He rises again..."
The French Crusader knight Robert de Clari wrote in his memoirs that the "sindoines in which our Lord had been wrapped" was kept in a church and displayed every Friday, until it disappeared in 1204 with the attack and looting of Constantinople by French Crusaders during the Fourth Crusade.
The Shroud was displayed in 1355 in the French town of Lirey.  It was in the possession of a famous Templar Knight, Geoffrey de Charny, who claimed it was the cloth that "wrapped the Lord Jesus Christ after his death".

SHROUD ILLUSTRATED IN PRAY MANUSCRIPT
In the Budapest National Library is the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, or Pray Codex, the oldest surviving text of the Hungarian language.  It was written between 1192 and 1195 AD (65 years before the earliest Carbon-14 date in the 1988 tests).  One of its illustrations shows preparations for the burial of Christ.  The picture includes a burial cloth with the same herringbone weave as the Shroud, plus 4 holes near one of the edges.  The holes form an "L" shape.  This odd pattern of holes is found on the Shroud of Turin.  They are burn holes, perhaps from a hot poker or incense embers that predate the 1532 fire.  There are four sets of the holes, showing how the Shroud must have been folded in four layers when the holes were made.  The holes in the top layer are large, and they get progressively smaller in the next three.



Byzantine Coins, the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Grail
https://coinsandhistoryfoundation.org/2021/04/08/byzantine-coins-the-shroud-of-turin-and-the-holy-grail/?fbclid=IwAR2lwXiyB7cXwJ5hyQnUVANiMb3TwQdwd1HAjSmcflgCrhoViFYaasY2cB0

Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin's Appearance in France in the Mid-1350s
https://www.academia.edu/75771585/Documented_References_to_the_Burial_Linens_of_Jesus_Prior_to_the_Shroud_of_Turins_Appearance_in_France_in_the_Mid_1350

13th century


The Cloth of Christ venerated in Santa Maria of Blanquernas. In the chapel of the imperial palace of Blanquernas (indicated by the red arrow in the plan), "the cloth in which the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped in the tomb" was displayed. This showing was well known to the Crusaders during their lengthy stay in the city.


Robert de Clary, a chronicler of the Fourth Crusade, mentions having seen there the "Sydoines in which Our Lord was wrapped in the tomb." In this manuscript of The Conquest of Constantinople, kept in the Royal Library of Copenhagen, it is noted that "on each side appeared as if standing, so that one could perfectly see the figure of Our Lord."


Robert de Clary adds in his "History of the Fourth Crusade" that "every Friday it was raised vertically." This could be a simple method to transition from a cloth "folded in four" to an image that is raised "vertically" to display the entire figure. This practice implies that the Shroud, which was usually kept folded, was unfolded and displayed in a manner that allowed for the full image on it to be viewed by onlookers. The vertical display would have been a significant aspect of the veneration ritual, enabling devotees to see the complete imprint, believed to be that of Christ. This method of display not only enhanced the visibility of the Shroud's details but also lent a sense of presence and life-size representation to the image. Such practices highlight the importance of the Shroud in religious ceremonies and the profound impact it had on believers who witnessed it during these events.


Dr. Jackson asserts that in 1978, the folds in the Turin Shroud were still visible. A researcher from the STURP team (which we will discuss later) examined the creases of the Shroud (see photograph and schematic drawing) and claimed to have identified the marks of these folds. The Cloth underwent stretching during the restoration in 2002, and it's possible that these traces may have disappeared, but photographs from before the restoration remain. This attention to the folds and creases provides insight into the Shroud's history and handling over the centuries. The fact that these marks were still discernible decades ago suggests the Shroud had been stored or displayed in a consistent manner, possibly folded in a specific way that left these lasting impressions. The preservation of these photographs is crucial, as they provide a historical record of the Shroud's condition prior to the 2002 restoration, offering valuable information for ongoing research and study of this enigmatic artifact.


The Sack of Constantinople in 1204 saw the Crusaders plunder the capital of Byzantium for three days starting from April 12, 1204. "Never, since the world was created, has so much wonder been seen or conquered," declared the chronicler. It's known that the French primarily divided among themselves the relics, while the Venetians focused mostly on the wealth they had seen on display in the preceding months. This event marked a significant moment in history, illustrating the intersection of religious zeal, warfare, and the quest for riches. The distribution of spoils reflects the differing priorities of the French and Venetian forces. For the French, the relics held immense religious and spiritual value, being tangible connections to the Christian narrative and history. The Venetians, renowned for their trade and commerce, were more inclined towards the material wealth and treasures of Byzantium. The Sack of Constantinople dramatically altered the cultural and religious landscape of the region. It led to the dispersal of countless artifacts, including relics revered in Christian tradition, across Europe. This event not only had immediate impacts on Byzantium but also left a lasting legacy on Christian history, reshaping the distribution and ownership of religious and cultural artifacts. The chronicler's statement underscores the unprecedented scale and impact of the plunder, a testament to the magnitude of loss and transformation experienced during this period. A relative of the Byzantine Emperor complained to the Pope about the theft of the Shroud. This is a copy of the letter that Theodore Angelos, nephew of Isaac II Angelos Comnenus, sent to Pope Innocent III in 1205. In the letter, Theodore laments the unchristian behavior of the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade and requests the return of, at the very least, the "cloth in which Our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death and before his resurrection"... "which is in Athens." This historical document highlights a moment of contention and cultural loss during the tumultuous times of the Crusades. The letter illustrates the significance of the Shroud, not just as a religious artifact but also as a symbol of Christian heritage and reverence. Theodore's appeal to the Pope reflects the desperation and helplessness in trying to recover a relic of immense religious importance. His specific mention of the Shroud's location in Athens at that time provides a clue to its journey and the complex history of religious artifacts during periods of war and conflict. This correspondence serves as a testament to the historical and spiritual value attributed to the Shroud and the efforts made to reclaim it from those who had taken it.

Claim:  But shroudologists are hard to convince, and they speak of the Shroud as the "snapshot of the resurrection," thus avoiding any scientific explanation for the image formation. Richard Kaeuper is right when he says that the first historical document on this relic dates from the middle of the XIV century. Many Shroud experts agree on that, even if they quote meaningless legends and apocryphal texts to support the presumed existence of the Shroud in the first millennium. When the Pontifical Academy of Sciences chose the three university labs to perform the carbon dating, leaving aside all the church and diocese amateurs who dealt with the Shroud for years -- it confirmed its medieval origin. Thus, historical and scientific data do match.

Reply: While the 1st historical document mentioning the Shroud is from the mid-1350s, there are plenty of documented references to the burial linens of Jesus before that and they are more than just "meaningless legends and apocryphal texts."  See my recent 45-page+ article Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin’s Appearance in France in the Mid1350s (https://www.academia.edu/75771585/Documented_References_to_the_Burial_Linens_of_Jesus_Prior_to_the_Shroud_of_Turins_Appearance_in_France_in_the_Mid_1350s).
     Small point but it wasn't the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who chose the 3 labs.  The Academy had been involved in the preparation but was one of the many victims of the politics involved in the dating, as covered in my 800-page book on the C-14 dating.  The only thing the labs knew about the Shroud was that it historically surfaced in the mid-1350s.  You can be sure that the dates were going to be "massaged" so that the range included 1357 and that's what the 2019 article in Archaeometry by Casabianca et al. showed-- the labs had thrown out many of the bad dates, making the 1260-1390 with a 95% confidence rate a sham.

What happened to the Shroud of Turin in the Early Church Era? 
"Larry Stalley is a prolific author on the Shroud of Turin, mainly focusing on topics such as the hidden references to the Shroud during the era of the early Church. Many of his papers can be found on Shroud.com and Academia.edu, a few notable ones being "The Shroud of Turin Served as a Tabernacle During the High- Priestly Ministry of Jesus" and "Are There Veiled References to the Shroud of Turin in the New Testament? An Exegetical Summary of Select Texts". Larry even has a paper translated into Arabic by the Coptic Church in Egypt. In addition to his articles, his research and findings can be found at incredibleshroud.com on the Authenticity page."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgYYRuWBepU

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Pantocrator_(Sinai)

Question: Why are there no references by the Church fathers to the Shroud?
Reply: The absence of references to the Shroud by the early church fathers in the first 500 years AD is a multifaceted issue, and several hypotheses have been put forth to explain this silence.

The veneration of physical objects, such as relics, was not as pronounced in the earliest years of Christianity as it became later. The early Christian church was often more focused on the spread of Jesus' teachings and the establishment of the church's structure amidst frequent persecutions. This environment might not have been conducive to the public veneration of a relic like the Shroud, which could have attracted unwanted attention or even been seen as a form of idolatry, which was frowned upon. If the Shroud did exist during this period, it may have been kept hidden to protect it from destruction during periods of persecution or iconoclasm. Relics were often targeted during these times, and any such valuable item would likely have been concealed to ensure its preservation. Moreover, the early church fathers wrote extensively on doctrine and scriptural interpretation, but they were less concerned with physical evidence of Christ's life and death. Their silence on the Shroud does not necessarily indicate it did not exist but may reflect their priorities and the context of their writings. It is also possible that references to the Shroud or a burial cloth of Christ do exist in early Christian writings but are oblique or coded due to the reasons mentioned above. Some scholars suggest that the Image of Edessa, a cloth believed to bear the image of Jesus' face, mentioned in early texts, might actually be an early reference to the Shroud. Additionally, the historical record from the first millennium is incomplete. Many documents have been lost, destroyed, or are yet to be discovered. Thus, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Finally, the first unequivocal historical evidence of the Shroud dates to the mid-14th century. Prior to that, the historical trail is murky, and the Shroud may have been conflated with or mistaken for other cloths said to bear the image of Christ. The combination of these factors may contribute to why the early church fathers do not mention the Shroud. 

Short resume

April 3rd, 33 - Date of the Crucifixion of Jesus. Shroud placed under Jesus and draped over Him.
April 5th, 33 - Date of Resurrection. The image on Shroud is formed. Apostles take the Shroud from the tomb to protect it from Romans and from the Jews, who considered burial cloths 'unclean.'
33-50 - Disciple Jude travels from Jerusalem to Edessa with Shroud bearing full Image of Jesus’ likeness, meets and cures King Abgar V of leprosy. Gives him the Shroud to look after (Unlikely to be shortly before King's death though, probably soon after the Resurrection).
33-57 - Shroud presumably in Church/Chapel for Adoration.
57-943 - Shroud is hidden in a wall above the city gates of Edessa to protect it from the Apostate city rulers.
569 - Syrian hymn mentions cloth with Jesus’ likeness as “not the work of human hands.”
8th Century - St John Damascene writes of King receiving a strip of cloth with Jesus' Image on it.
787 - Lector of Constantinople tells Council of Nicaea II that he saw in Edessa “the holy image made without hands revered and adored by the faithful.”
943 - Byzantine Emperor negotiates with Moslems for possession of the Edessa Cloth “imprinted with Jesus’ likeness.” (Third image)
944-1204 - Shroud in Constantinople.
1191 - Hungarian Pray Codex produced, showing 'L'-shaped burn marks in Shroud from an unknown event. (Fourth Image)
1130 - A sermon reiterating a discourse by Pope Stephan II in 769 says: “On this cloth...the glorious features of Jesus’s face and the majestic form of his whole body have been supernaturally transferred.”
1204 - Shroud taken during Sack of Constantinople, Knight  Robert de Clari testifies its presence: "Where there was the Shroud in which our Lord had been wrapped..."
1205 - (Possible forged document) Venetians divide financial spoil from Constantinople, French divide religious spoil, Shroud among them as recorded by King Theodore of Epirus and Thessaly: "...The linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death and before the resurrection..."
April 10th/16th, 1349 - Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Savoisy and Lirey, currently possesses the Shroud and tells Pope Clement VI he wants to build a Church as thanks to God for helping him escape the English during the Hundred Year War.
1355 - Detailed records of Shroud begin. (Fifth image, pilgrims' medallion)



Within the tradition of linear perspective, the Shroud image stands as an orphan with no known ancestry in terms of its style, technique, materials, time, place, and esteem. In the previous video, we explored how forensic pathologists interpret the legs on the Shroud. Now, let's delve into art history.

Art historians examine the stylistic and formal development of artistic traditions and place them in their historical context. When analyzing a handcrafted artifact like the Shroud, we expect to find evidence that aligns with the time and place of its creation. The Shroud first appeared in Lirey, France, around 1350, and therefore, that is the relevant time and place for our investigation.

Foreshortening is a technique within linear perspective where parts of a body or object are visually shortened while maintaining the illusion of proper proportion. Historians credit Brunelleschi and Donatello with rediscovering linear perspective in the early 1400s from ancient Roman and Greek art. In the case of the Shroud, it exhibits foreshortening in the lower legs, which is not present in the copies of the Shroud.

By comparing the development of foreshortening in art history, we find that the Shroud remains the sole example of this technique in 1350, 1400, and even later. Only by 1450 do we see several examples of foreshortening appearing in Northern Italy, and by 1500 and 1550, it becomes an established tradition. Therefore, the Shroud is geographically and chronologically distinct, not fitting into the progression of foreshortening as observed in other artworks.

Let's consider a specific example, Andrea Mantegna, who is renowned for his skill in foreshortening. His painting "The Lamentation over the Dead Christ" (circa 1470-1480) demonstrates this technique. Unlike the Shroud, Mantegna deliberately reduced the size of Jesus's feet in order not to obstruct the view of the body. This artistic foreshortening allows the viewer to see the entire figure. The Shroud image, on the other hand, exhibits photographic foreshortening, which is not a deliberate artistic choice.

Artistic foreshortening is not a matter of capability but intention. While many talented artists existed before the 15th century, any of them could have portrayed Jesus with foreshortened legs using canvas and paint. However, the question is whether they would have done so. To illustrate this point, consider the analogy of jazz music. Beethoven, for instance, composed the Ninth Symphony, which does not feature jazz elements. This is not due to a lack of capability, but because jazz as a musical style had not yet been invented or demanded by the patrons. Similarly, foreshortening in art has its own historical context and development.

Returning to the copies of the Shroud, these paintings were created directly from the Shroud itself. The earliest known copy dates back to 1516, while others fall within the range of 1400-1550. Artists frequently copied works of art as part of their training, as seen in Raphael's drawing of Michelangelo's David. However, the copies of the Shroud are distinct from routine copies. They were often commissioned by popes or royalty, used as gifts, publicly venerated, and even touched to the original Shroud to sanctify them. Yet, there is no evidence to suggest that later generation copies were sanctified by earlier ones. It seems that the earliest copyists and patrons recognized the Shroud as different from standard works of art.

Visual differences between the copies and the Shroud are evident. None of the legs in the copies are foreshortened, and they are fully visible


THE SUDARIUM CHRISTI - THE FACE CLOTH OF CHRIST

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7146

Transcription and literal translation of chapter XX of Saint John from the Codex Vaticanus. The Gospel of John states that the LINEN CLOTHS were lying there fallen, and the HANDKERCHIEF that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but in its own place, folded up. It should be remembered that a handkerchief - "sudarium" was used to cover the head of the deceased from the time of death until the final burial.


OUN HO PETROS KAI HO ALLOS MATHETES KAI ERONTO EIS TO MNEMEION ETRE- JON DE HOI DYO HOMOU KAI HO ALLOS MATHETES PRO- EDRAMEN TAJION TOU PETROU KAI ELTHEN PROTOS EIS TO MNEMEION KAI PA- RAKUPSAS BLEPEI KEIME- NA TA OTHONIA OU MENTOI EISELTHEN ERJATAI OUN KAI SIMON PETROS AKO- LOUTHON AUTO KAI EIS- ELTHEN EIS TO MNEMEION KAI THEOREI TA OTHONIA KEIMENA KAI TO SOUDA- RION HO EN EPI TES KEFA- LES AUTOU META TON OTHONION KEIMENON AL- LA LORIS BENTETYLIGME- NON EIS HENA TOPON TOU- TE OUN EISELTHEN KAI HO ALLOS MATHETES HO ELTHON PROTOS EIS TO MNEMEI- ON KAI EIDEN KAI EPISTEU SEN 1

Translation: Gospel of John in Greek, specifically from chapter 20, verses 3-8:

"But Peter and the other disciple set out for the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed."

https://www.historicmysteries.com/the-sudarium-of-oviedo/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W99__WEncPE&t=208s


Description:

The Sudarium of Oviedo is a small piece of cloth measuring approximately 84 x 53 cm (33 x 21 inches) and is made of a fine, transparent linen fabric. It has several distinct features:

Bloodstains: The Sudarium bears numerous bloodstains, which are believed to have come from Jesus' face. The stains are brownish-red in color and are distributed irregularly across the cloth, forming a pattern consistent with the wounds inflicted during crucifixion, including a large stain over the nose and mouth area.

The bloodstains are a prominent feature of the relic and have been the subject of much analysis. Here are some details about the bloodstains:

Distribution: The bloodstains on the Sudarium are distributed in a pattern that corresponds to the anatomy of a face. There is a large stain over the nose and mouth area, with smaller stains around the eyes and cheeks, as well as near the hairline. This pattern is consistent with the placement of wounds inflicted during crucifixion, such as those caused by a crown of thorns or from blood flowing from the nose and mouth.

Color and texture: The bloodstains on the Sudarium are brownish-red in color, indicating that the blood had oxidized and aged over time. The stains have a mottled appearance, with some areas darker and others lighter, which is consistent with the characteristics of bloodstains that have dried and spread on a porous linen fabric.

Size and shape: The bloodstains on the Sudarium vary in size and shape. Some stains are small and round, while others are larger and irregular in shape, suggesting that they were created by contact with wounds that had different sizes and shapes.

Penetration: The bloodstains on the Sudarium are not superficial, but appear to have penetrated the fabric. This suggests that the blood came into direct contact with the cloth and was absorbed by the fibers, rather than being applied on the surface.

Absence of smear marks: One notable feature of the bloodstains on the Sudarium is the absence of smear marks. Smear marks, which would typically be present if blood had been wiped or smeared on the cloth, are not found on the Sudarium, suggesting that the blood was applied in a different manner, such as by contact with a passive, motionless object like a face.

Here are some of the different kinds of blood stains found on the Sudarium of Oviedo:

Whole Blood Stains: These stains are dark red or brown in color and are the result of fresh blood coming into contact with the cloth. Whole blood stains typically exhibit a consistent color throughout the stain, and they may appear as small or large patches on the Sudarium.

Serum Stains: Serum is the clear, yellowish fluid that separates from blood when it clots. Serum stains on the Sudarium appear as lighter areas that may have a yellow or yellow-brown color. These stains are typically smaller in size and may be found within or around whole blood stains.

Transfer Stains: Transfer stains occur when blood from a wound is transferred to another surface, such as when a cloth is pressed against the wound. On the Sudarium, transfer stains may appear as distinct imprints of a wound, showing the shape and size of the injury. These stains can provide valuable information about the type of wound that caused the blood stains.

Clotted Blood Stains: Clotted blood stains on the Sudarium appear as dark, irregularly shaped areas that result from blood coagulating and forming clots. These stains can provide insights into the coagulation properties of the blood, which can be useful for forensic analysis.

Smudged Blood Stains: Smudged blood stains on the Sudarium may occur when blood is smeared or wiped across the cloth. These stains may appear as irregular or blurred patches of blood, and they can provide clues about how the cloth was handled or manipulated after coming into contact with blood.

The Sudarium of Oviedo has various blood stains. Three of these stains are particularly noteworthy: the butterfly stain, faded stain, and crown of thorns.

Symmetric Stains: The symmetric stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo are blood stains that exhibit a high degree of symmetry, with a pattern that is almost perfectly mirrored on both sides of the cloth. These stains are typically located near the center of the Sudarium and are characterized by their consistent and symmetrical appearance. The symmetric stains may be oval, circular, or elongated in shape, and they may vary in size.

The origin and significance of the symmetric stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo are subjects of ongoing research and investigation. Some researchers believe that these stains may be the result of blood flow from a wound on the head, given their central location on the cloth and their symmetrical appearance. Others propose that the symmetric stains may have been formed through a process of capillary action, where blood was drawn into the cloth by the fibers, resulting in a symmetrical pattern.

The symmetric stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo are of particular interest to those studying the cloth, as they provide valuable clues about the bloodstain patterns and the possible events that may have taken place during the burial of Jesus Christ. Further research and analysis of these stains may help shed more light on their formation and significance in relation to the Sudarium's history and religious beliefs.

Butterfly Stain: The butterfly stain on the Sudarium of Oviedo is a distinctive pattern that resembles the shape of a butterfly. It consists of two large, symmetrical, and elongated blood stains that are connected at one end, with the opposite ends fanning out. The butterfly stain is located near one edge of the cloth and is characterized by its unique shape and symmetry. The origin and significance of the butterfly stain are subjects of debate among researchers and scholars, and various theories have been proposed to explain its formation.

Faded Stain: The faded stain on the Sudarium of Oviedo is a blood stain that appears to be lighter in color compared to the surrounding stains on the cloth. It may have a more brownish or yellowish hue, indicating that the blood may have undergone some changes or degradation over time. The faded stain is typically smaller in size and may be found in various locations on the Sudarium. The cause of the faded stain, whether it is a result of natural degradation or other factors, is a topic of investigation among experts.

Crown of Thorns: The crown of thorns stain on the Sudarium of Oviedo is a cluster of blood stains that resemble the pattern of a crown, with multiple small stains arranged in a circular or semi-circular shape. This stain is associated with the crown of thorns that is said to have been placed on Jesus' head during the crucifixion, according to Christian tradition. The crown of thorns stain is often located near the top of the Sudarium and is characterized by its unique pattern resembling a crown, which is of significant religious significance to Christians.


Holes: The Sudarium has several holes, which are believed to be from puncture wounds caused by thorns or other sharp objects. The holes are located near the edges of the cloth and are irregular in shape, further supporting the theory that the Sudarium was used to cover a face that had been beaten and pierced.

Folds: The Sudarium shows evidence of having been folded in a particular manner, with a distinctive pattern of creases and folds. The folds form a "zig-zag" pattern that is consistent with the Jewish burial customs of the 1st century AD, where a body would be wrapped in a shroud and the face covered with a separate cloth.

Water stains: The Sudarium also bears faint water stains, which are believed to have been caused by the cloth being used to wipe Jesus' face after he was taken down from the cross and before it was folded and placed in the tomb.

Age and wear: The Sudarium shows signs of age and wear, including discoloration, fraying edges, and patches where the original fabric has been reinforced with newer fabric. These signs of wear are consistent with its long history as a revered relic.

Here are some points that have been put forward as evidence for the connection to the Shroud of Turin:

Blood type and DNA analysis: Studies conducted on both the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin have found that they both contain bloodstains with the same blood type, known as AB. In addition, DNA analysis of the bloodstains on both relics has shown similar characteristics, with shared genetic markers. However, it's important to note that these findings do not conclusively prove that the Sudarium and the Shroud were in contact with the same individual, as blood type and DNA alone cannot definitively identify a specific person.

Consistency of bloodstains: The bloodstains on both the Sudarium and the Shroud are consistent in their location, distribution, and patterns. For example, both relics have bloodstains over the nose and mouth area, which is consistent with wounds caused by a crown of thorns, and both have bloodstains around the eyes and cheeks, which could correspond to blood flow from facial injuries. This similarity in the bloodstain patterns has been considered as evidence that the Sudarium and the Shroud were used in a similar manner, possibly to cover the face of the same individual.

Historical and geographical proximity: The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin have both been associated with the region of Palestine and are believed to have been in possession of the same religious communities at different points in history. According to historical records, the Sudarium was brought to Spain from Jerusalem in the 7th century, while the Shroud is believed to have been brought to France from Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) in the 14th century. Some proponents of the connection between the two relics argue that their close proximity in time and geography supports the idea that they were associated with the same individual, namely Jesus Christ.

Complementary nature: Proponents of the connection between the Sudarium and the Shroud argue that the two relics are complementary to each other. The Sudarium, being a smaller cloth specifically used to cover the face, could have been used in addition to the larger Shroud, which is believed to have covered the entire body of Jesus. Some researchers suggest that the Sudarium was used as an initial covering for the face immediately after the crucifixion, and then the body was wrapped in the Shroud, which explains the similarities in bloodstain patterns between the two relics.

In the Cathedral of Oviedo in northern Spain is a linen cloth called the Sudarium Christi, or the Face Cloth of Christ.  It is often referred to as the Cloth of Oviedo.  The Sudarium Christi is a poor-quality linen cloth, like a handkerchief, measuring 33 by 21 inches.  Unlike the Shroud of Turin, it does not have an image.  However, it does have bloodstains and serum stains from pulmonary edema fluid which match the blood and serum patterns and blood type (AB) of the Shroud of Turin.

The Sudarium Christi has a well-documented history.  One source traces the cloth back as far as 570 AD.  Pelayo, Bishop of Oviedo in the 1100's, noted in his Chronicles that the Oviedo Cloth left Jerusalem in 614 AD in response to an attack led by Persian King Chosroes II, and made its way across North Africa to Spain.  It was transported to Oviedo in a silver ark (large box) along with many other sacred relics.  The Sudarium was never in contact with the Shroud since its arrival in Spain around 711 AD.
The Oviedo Cloth was placed around the head at the time of death on the Cross and remained there until the body was to be covered by the Shroud in the Garden Tomb.  Then it was removed and placed to one side (John 20:7).  Oviedo scholar Mark Guscin notes that the practice of covering the face is referenced in the Talmud (Moed Katan 27a).  He adds that Rabbi Alfred Kolatch of New York talks of the Kevod Ha-Met or "respect for the dead" as the reason for covering the head.  Rabbi Michael Tuktzinsky of Jerusalem in his Sefer Gesher Cha'yim (Volume 1, Chapter 3, 1911) offers as a reason that it is a hardship for onlookers to gaze on the face of a dead person.
According to Guscin, studies by members of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (Dr. Jose Villalain, Jaime Izquierdo and Guillermo Heras of the University of Valencia) using infrared and ultraviolet photography and electron microscopy have demonstrated that this Cloth and the Shroud of Turin touched the same face, although at different points in the burial process.  They note that the length of the nose on both cloths is 8 centimeters (3 Inches).  Tradition and historical information support the idea that the face touched by both cloths was that of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Those interested in the work of Oviedo scholar Mark Guscin can read about it in his book The Oviedo Cloth, 1998, The Luttenworth Press, Cambridge, CT. ISBN 07188-2985-9.
Original text by John C. Iannone 1999-2001.  Adapted by J.M. Fischer from 2004 to 2016.
Shroud photos courtesy of Barrie M. Schwortz. 1978


For an in-depth scientific analysis of the Shroud, see Dr. Rogers' FAQ
THE HISTORICAL CASE FOR JESUS


http://www.newgeology.us/THE%20HISTORICAL%20CASE%20FOR%20JESUS.pdf

In his 2007 book THE CASE FOR THE REAL JESUS, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, interviewed some of the most accomplished historians specializing in ancient texts.The case was made without a single mention of the Shroud of Turin or the Sudarium.


"In recent years, six major challenges to the traditional view of Jesus have emerged... They are among the most powerful and prevalent objections to creedal Christianity that are currently circulating in popular culture." (Page 14)
After grilling the experts, he summarized his findings on pages 266 and 267:
     "Are scholars discovering a radically different Jesus in ancient documents just as credible as the four gospels?No, the alternative texts that are touted in liberal circles are too late to be historically credible - for instance, the Gospel of Thomas was written after AD 175 and probably closer to 200.According to eminent New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall of the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, the Thomas gospel has 'no significant new light to shed on the historical Jesus.'The Secret Gospel of Mark, with its homoerotic undercurrents, turned out to be an embarrassing hoax that fooled many liberal scholars too eager to buy into bizarre theories about Jesus, while no serious historians give credence to the so-called Jesus Papers.The Gnostic depiction of Jesus as a revealer of hidden knowledge - including the teaching that we all possess the divine light that he embodied - lacks any connection to the historical Jesus.

Is the Bible's portrait of Jesus unreliable because of mistakes or deliberate changes by scribes through the centuries?[/i]No, there are no new disclosures that have cast any doubt on the essential reliability of the New Testament.Only about one percent of the manuscript variants affect the meaning of the text to any degree, and not a single cardinal doctrine is at stake.Actually, the unrivaled wealth of New Testament manuscripts greatly enhances the credibility of the Bible's portrayal of Jesus.

Have new explanations refuted Jesus' resurrection?No, the truth is that a persuasive case for Jesus rising from the dead can be made by using five facts that are well-evidenced and which the vast majority of today's scholars on the subject - including skeptical ones - accept as true: Jesus' death by crucifixion; his disciples' belief that he rose and appeared to them; the conversion of the church persecutor Paul; the conversion of the skeptic James, who was Jesus' half-brother; and Jesus' empty tomb.All the attempts by skeptics and Muslims to put Jesus back into his tomb utterly fail when subjected to serious analysis, while the overblown and ill-supported claims of the Jesus Tomb documentary and book have been decimated by knowledgeable scholars.

Were Christian beliefs about Jesus stolen from pagan religions?No, they clearly were not.Allegations that the virgin birth, the resurrection, communion, and baptism came from earlier mythology simply evaporated when the shoddy scholarship of 'copycat' theorists was exposed.There are simply no examples of dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity and which have meaningful parallels to Jesus' resurrection.In short, this is a theory that careful scholars discredited decades ago.

Was Jesus an imposter who failed to fulfill the messianic prophecies? On the contrary, a compelling case can be made that Jesus - and Jesus alone - matches the 'fingerprint' of the Messiah.Only Jesus managed to fulfill the prophecies that needed to come to fruition prior to the fall of the Jewish temple in AD 70.Consequently, if Jesus isn't the predicted Messiah, then there will never be one.What's more, Jesus' fulfillment of these prophecies against all odds makes it rational to conclude that he will fulfill the final ones when the time is right.

Should people be free to pick and choose what they want to believe about Jesus? Obviously, we have the freedom to believe anything we want.But just because the U.S. Constitution provides equal protection for all religions doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally true.Whatever we believe about Jesus cannot change the reality of who he clearly established himself to be: the unique Son of God.So why cobble together our own make-believe Jesus to try to fulfill our personal prejudices when we can meet and experience the actual Jesus of history and faith?"

Anyone with doubts about these issues would do well to read all of this excellent book.

There are a total of seventy points of coincidence with the stains on the front of the Shroud and fifty on the back.
https://catholicleader.com.au/features/question-time-analysis/was-the-sudarium-of-oviedo-really-wrapped-around-jesus-head-after-his-death/

New coincidence between Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo
Conclusion The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin are two relics attributed to Jesus Christ that show a series of amazing coincidences previously described. These similarities suggest that both cloths were used by the same personality. In this contribution, we describe the X-ray fluorescence analysis performed on the Sudarium and we highlight a new fascinating coincidence with the Shroud and with the place of the Passion. Among the chemical elements detected, the concentration of Ca is the most reliable one. It is associated to soil dust and it shows a significantly higher presence in the areas with bloody stains. This fact allows us to conclude that the main part of the Ca located in the stained areas was fixed to the cloth when the physiological fluids were still fresh or soon after. As the stains have been correlated with the anatomical part of the deceased man, the amount of Ca can also be related with his anatomical features. The highest content of Ca is observed close to the tip of the nose, indicating unexpected soil dirt in this part of the anatomy. A particular presence of dust was also found in the same place in the Shroud providing a new and astonishing coincidence between both cloths. The low concentration of Sr traces in the Sudarium, even lower in the stained areas, matches also well with the type of limestone characteristic from the Calvary in Jerusalem. This new finding complements two other recently publicized: The ponytail shape of the Man of the Shroud hair, whose origin is justified by the use of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the alleged presence of a scourge mark in this cloth. Such a gathering of evidences strengthens the tradition that both cloths have wrapped the same body, that of Jesus of Nazareth.
https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2015/02/shsconf_atsi2014_00008.pdf


Claim: Jews didn’t bury people with napkins.
Response: The Tachrichim—The Simple White Shroud Used for Burial in the Jewish Faith

The traditional clothing used to cover the body for burial in the Jewish tradition is the tachrichim. It’s an inexpensive white garment, typically entirely hand-stitched without buttons, fasteners, zippers or tied knots. The tachrichim is customarily fashioned out of linen or muslin (an homage to the ancient Hebrew priesthood), and includes pants, a tunic, a hood and a belt, irrespective of gender. The pants may be long enough to cover the feet, or the tachrichim may include cloth “booties.” The face is typically covered with a linen square or handkerchief/veil called a “sudarium.” The deceased is dressed in the burial garments by members of a Chevra Kadisha, or burial group, often associated with the decedent’s synagogue.
https://guttermansinc.com/jewish-burial-garments/

Let us now turn to the Sudarium of Oviedo. It is a small, blood-stained cloth kept at the cathedral of Oviedo in Spain, the stains of which match up with those on the Shroud of Turin and are of the same blood type. It has no image upon it but has its ancient history of preservation which shows it was held in high esteem by the faithful.
Mark Guscin wrote a very insightful article on the Shroud.com website, “The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin.” Though it is less well known, Guscin documents that the Sudarium has a clear historical association with the Shroud, its blood stains are of the same type AB, the stains display remarkable congruency with those on the larger cloth, and it bears pollens tying it to the environs of Jerusalem. It was apparently folded into a “napkin” and used primarily to blot up blood and fluid issuing from the nose and mouth of the Lord when His body was removed from the Cross and transferred to the tomb.
Studies of the stains on the Oveido cloth demonstrate it was folded over and used as a blotting cloth while the head was slumped forward and almost resting on the right shoulder. This indicates the victim was crucified and the cloth was put in place before the body was taken down from the cross. Guscin writes:

The stains on the sudarium show that when the cloth was placed on the dead man’s face, it was folded over, although not in the middle. Counting both sides of the cloth, there is therefore a fourfold stain in a logical order of decreasing intensity. From the composition of the main stains, it is evident that the man whose face the sudarium covered died in an upright position. The stains consist of one part blood and six parts fluid from a pleural oedema. This liquid collects in the lungs when a crucified person dies of asphyxiation, and if the body subsequently suffers jolting movements, can come out through the nostrils. These are in fact the main stains visible on the sudarium. These stains in the nasal area are also superimposed on each other, with the different outlines clearly visible. This means that the first stain had already dried when the second stain was formed, and so on.

Guscin further adds, citing the research of Dr. José Villalaín,


The cloth was not wrapped entirely round the head because the right cheek was almost touching the right shoulder. This suggests that the sudarium was put into place while the body was still on the cross. The second stain was made about an hour later, when the body was taken down. The third stain was made when the body was lifted from the ground about forty five minutes later. The body was lying at the foot of the cross for about forty-five minutes before being buried. The marks (not fingerprints) of the fingers that held the cloth to the nose are also visible.

What Prompted John to Believe?

In John 20:8 we read: “So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed.” This immediately follows verses 20:5–7, so they are the cause that resulted in this effect. What exactly did John see that made him believe the Lord had been raised from the dead?

Research done by Rebecca Jackson, cited by Joseph Marino in “Is the Turin Shroud Compatible with a First Century Jerusalem Burial?—Some Jewish Perspectives,” documents that Jewish burial customs of the first century mandated that one who died a violent death had to have all bloodstained items buried with the body. This was due to the belief that a bodily resurrection required the whole body to be buried together, with all blood, bones, etc. included. This meant the face-cloth would have been buried with the body, but not necessarily that it remained on the face while it was within the shroud.

Marino cites Jewish lawyer Victor Tunkel, who made the following points in an oral presentation titled “A Jewish View of the Shroud of Turin” to the British Society for the Turin Shroud on May 12, 1983:

it has a chance to be genuine because Jesus did not undergo a normal, natural death. He suffered a violent, blood-stained death, and rules for burial in such cases are quite different. In a normal death, the body has to be washed and then dressed in conventional shrouds. That does not apply to the body that has died in violent circumstances.

In Jesus’ case, it was a case of capital punishment, but would include someone whose throat had been cut or was stabbed many times and left for dead, and so on. Because of the belief in the 1st century in the bodily resurrection, the Jews, or at least the Pharisees, took the view that the blood is as much part of the body as the limbs, the hair and every other body part and must be buried so as to be available for that resurrection. So if one found a bloodstained body, absolutely drenched in blood, one can’t take the clothes off, wash the body, put it in shrouds because one would be taking away some of the body, which of course then wouldn’t be available for the resurrection. This was a key point in debates between Pharisees and Sadducees.

We can therefore be confident that those who prepared the Lord’s body planned to include the sudarion somewhere within His shroud during the final preparations. In my opinion, though, it strains one’s sense of propriety to imagine that, after being used to blot bodily fluids in the above manner, the cloth would afterwards have been re-wrapped around His head. Included within the shroud, yes, but not laid again upon that beloved face.

We must realize that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had to undertake very incomplete, hasty preparations so as to get the body of the Lord into the tomb before the Sabbath began. They would have been fully aware that the women were going to finish the work once the Sabbath ended (Lk. 23:55, “Now the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid”), so they only needed to do a bare minimum of preparation that would have also eased the women’s later task. The men only needed to convey the Lord’s body to the tomb, place it on the shroud, put some 75 pounds of sweet-smelling myrrh and aloes around the body (Jn. 19:39–40), cover the body, and loosely bind the shroud closed with ties. That way, the women would have no difficulty uncovering the Lord’s body later to properly finish the task. They would not have needed to unwind fourteen feet of linen from around His body, scattering already-placed spices in the process, then re-wrapping Him once the task was completed.

Since the women had to finish the men’s hurried burial preparations, the sudarion would reasonably have been set aside in the tomb by Joseph and Nicodemus during their early preparation, because by that time it had done its job of absorbing the blood and pulmonary fluids and probably interfered with their putting myrrh and aloes around the Lord’s head. Because it was blood-stained it would need to be included within the shroud once the women had done their work, so it would not have been discarded, just set aside so as not to interfere with the women’s ministrations, to be afterwards included within the shroud. But the Resurrection left the face-cloth still where the men had put it, “rolled up in a place by itself” (Jn. 20:7).

Another reason to suppose that the face-cloth was not inside the shroud after the men’s job was done has to do with the studies that have proven there is 3-D information within the Shroud image. The intensity of the face image, being dependent on the distance of the face from the inside of the sindon, indicates that there was no other cloth intervening between His face and the outer shroud. If there was, it would have distorted the image, and no such distortion is apparent.

The sight that greeted the eyes of Peter and John when they visited the tomb, therefore, was the face-cloth rolled up by itself, where it had been put during the men’s hasty preparation, and the main shroud, with its closing ties still fastened, in a collapsed heap. In my opinion, this sight prompted John to believe in the Resurrection (Jn. 20:8 ) because the ties were still fastened. The image burnt into the microfibrils of the surface of the shroud that was in contact with the body would not have been visible at that time, being on the underside of the fabric and unseen until the sindon was unfolded. So it was not an image on the Shroud that would have impressed John when he looked into the tomb.

Feuillet also offered some valuable insights on John 20:7 (page 19):

the linens in question must be the shroud, but perhaps also the ties of the hands and feet which, in the account of the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11:44) are called keiriai. It seems that John does not specify that only the linens are still there while the body of Jesus had disappeared. Since John does not use the verb menein, but the verb keisthai, I prefer to translate, not “lying on the ground”, which is an unnecessary addition to the text, but rather “spread out flat, sunk down”, a sense perfectly attested by keisthai. The verb entulissein used by Matthew (27:59) and by Luke (23:53) in connection with sindôn suggests a big sheet which completely enveloped the body of Christ. John wants to suggest that, the body of Jesus having disappeared, the two parts of the shroud (upper and lower) have come together. A very spiritual conception of the corporal resurrection and the only acceptable conception.

Conclusions

The above study, differentiating between the various Greek terms used to describe the burial cloths used in both the typical burial accorded to Lazarus and the more involved preparations given for the Savior, allows us to say that Scripture itself supports viewing the Shroud of Turin as the genuine burial cloth of Christ. I think we can be confident that, when all of the data is in and all of the criticisms of the skeptics have been addressed, the Shroud of Turin will be shown to corroborate inerrant Scripture. 1

1. Biblearchaeology.org: FURTHER RUMINATIONS ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN 05 June 2022

The Cloth of Oviedo, alleged to be the sudarium associated with Christ's death, contains blood images similar in appearance to those on the Shroud and can be historically traced to the 7th century (9). In Figure 3 the equally scaled dorsal head wound marks on the two cloths are compared with one another. The similarity of these two complex patterns is evident enough to suggest that these two cloths were in contact with the same wounded body, presumably within the same short time period. Should further research reveal stronger relationships between these two relics, the accuracy of the 14th-century date of the Shroud will be clearly doubtful, as the Cloth of Oviedo is considered at least the 7th century.

The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin are two clothes with very different trajectories. However, tradition has regarded both as relics of Christ. Each of them, separately, has been analyzed to verify the possibility of being sepulchral cloth. The result of scientific studies favors a confirmation of tradition. Both fabrics are Z-spun, and they are related in time and place according to the Raymond Rogers analysis. Both cloths were used on a male individual who had died in an upright position fully compatible with crucifixion, after having suffered torture that produced severe pulmonary edema. Both individuals have endured recognizable torture such as the crown of thorns. Both cloths have been used on an individual with common anatomical features. The Man had a beard, mustache, and long hair. A good correspondence is also observed between various anatomical elements of the face, such as the nose with its nostrils and fins, the brow ridges, the size of the mouth and chin, and even the shape of the beard. He had also in both cases long hair and at his back resembling a ponytail. Both individuals shed bloody fluid from their noses and mouths. Once the presence of blood in the face of the Man of the Shroud is highlighted, a good correspondence can be seen among many stains, in particular, the clot that convinced Msgr Ricci of the identity of both faces coming down from the mouth. The edge of a drop near the “epsilon” on the forehead remained in the Shroud while the central part remained bonded to the Sudarium. The coincidence of the blood group, which in both cases is group AB, is very significant since the probability of coincidence is approximately one in a thousand. The distribution of stains of vital blood in the nape area corresponding to the crown of thorns coincides with 75 percent of its geometric arrangement. In addition, both cloths show an accumulation of dust in the part that covered the nose. With a 3D model of the head of the Man of the Shroud it was verified that the central stain of the Sudarium should have come from a real face with the same specific anatomical features of the Man of the Shroud. It is extremely unlikely that all of these coincidences occur by chance. Tradition could very well be right.

Both the Shroud and the Sudarium clearly show death by crucifixion, and in the case of the Sudarium the subject died in an upright position after torture that caused a pulmonary oedema, perfectly compatible with crucifixion, as both hanging and being impaled on a stake can be eliminated. Both subjects bled through the nose and mouth. The blood is postmortem and lifeblood in the same areas on both cloths. Both subjects underwent torture that is recognisable as beingh crowned with thorns, leaving lifeblood flows on the nape of the neck. When a photograph of the Sudarium is superimposed on the nape area of the Shroud the geometric coincidence between the stains is 75%. Possible discrepancies are due to the fact that the Shroud is not creased in this area while the Sudarium is. The blood group on both is the scarce AB. The chances of the blood group coinciding is approximately one in a thousand ... and it does coincide. 


It is especially notable in that the blood on the Sudarium, shed in life as opposed to postmortem, corresponds exactly in blood group, blood type and surface area to those stains on the Shroud on the nape of the neck. If it is clear that the two cloths must have covered the same corpse, and this conclusion is inevitable from all the studies carried out up to date, and if the history of the Sudarium can be trustworthily extended back beyond the fourteenth century, which is often referred to as the Shroud’s first documented historical appearance, then this would take the Shroud back to at least the earliest dates of the Sudarium’s known history. The ark of relics and the Sudarium have without any doubt at all been in Spain since the beginning of the seventh century, and the history recorded in various manuscripts from various times and geographical areas take it all the way back to Jerusalem in the first century. The importance of this for Shroud history cannot be overstressed. 


The Shroud and the Sudarium


International scientific research has found a series of decisive correspondences between the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin. Raymond Rogers analysed under his polarized light petrographic microscope threads of the Sudarium and threads of the Shroud. He concluded that there was a significant probability that the fabric of the Sudarium of Oviedo was related in time and place to that of the Shroud of Turin. The Sudarium of Oviedo covered the face of a corpse of someone who died in analogous conditions to crucifixion and had also previously been mistreated to the point of having the hair soaked in blood. This is what this cloth shows. In short, the crucifixion is the execution that best fits the features presented by the Sudarium of Oviedo.
 
Moreover, the use of a sudarium to cover the face of the corpse perfectly fits in with the Jewish traditions. A crucifixion of an individual of any country under the Roman domination would have most likely ended with the corpse deposited in a mass grave without any kind of consideration. From the Roman point of view, it was not intended to use any sudarium to cover the face of a crucified person. On the contrary, in the crucifixion of a Jew, there was an urgent need to stop the bleeding since the blood had to be prevented from being lost. In fact, it was prescribed in the legislation of the Pentateuch and in the instructions of the Sanhedrin, to collect the blood and bury it together with the executed. In this case, a Jewish bleeding corpse, with a bruised face, in which the fluid from the lung oedema could be seen leaking from the nose and the mouth, would undoubtedly have been recommended to use any type of cloth to cover the face of the executed and to retain the blood. This mandatory custom could have been performed in the time that Pilate took to grant permission to take the corpse for burial and pious Jews who tended to the crucified would have been in charge of this.

 The main stain that was in direct contact with the face can be divided in three parts: the upper, the lower and the central one. Thus, we can see that the upper part corresponds to the forehead of the face of the Shroud, and the lower part to the mouth and finally, the narrower and central part of the stain that connects the upper and the lower parts, corresponds to the nose.
 
Starting at 13 min:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDmEPuAvIWc

One can start anywhere they want, but if one wants to explain why the right side seems to mirror the center, the middle of the cloth from top to bottom shows where it was folded over on itself. In other words, somebody applied this cloth, somebody held this cloth to a dead man's face. How do we know it was a dead man's face and not a live woman's face? That's because all of these stains have been reproduced in a laboratory. The stains are made up of one part blood and six parts pleural edema fluid. Pleural edema is what happens when somebody dies from suffocation or asphyxiation, and this liquid gathers in the lungs (plural) as edema. Then, when the body was moved, all of this liquid came out. So the first challenge in the laboratory was figuring out how to reproduce these stains and how they got onto the cloth.

That's their model head that was used, and in the bottle is actually human blood mixed with pleural edema fluid. It's an exact replica of the liquid that is on the cloth, the stains. It's like there are some stains on top of others, and what that means is that the first stain had already dried before the second stain got on top of it. That's why there are border lines of the stains within each other. It's similar to spilling coffee onto a tablecloth, and if you spill more coffee immediately two seconds later, you won't be able to differentiate which stain is which. But if you let the first stain dry, it will have its own shape and edges, and then if you spill more coffee on top of that, there will be further edges formed inside that, allowing one to see which was the first stain and which was the second stain.

The only way to reproduce that first major stain exactly was if, first of all, the body was dead. There was no way that these stains could have been produced if the body was breathing. Secondly, it was a man because the stains were formed by somebody with a beard. And, this evidence from the laboratory shows the results of scientific forensic tests that have been done. Most importantly, here, the first group of stains were formed by somebody who was in an upright position with both arms outstretched. Because of what we're talking about, everyone will immediately say, "Ah, crucified man." But scientifically, one can't say that. All one can say from a scientific point of view is that it was a dead body, a male body, in an upright position with both arms outstretched. It's perfectly compatible with crucifixion, but science can't affirm 100 percent that it was a crucified body.

The logical conclusion is that, of course, the cloth was held to the face. There are little double holes in the cloth that were made by pins, probably made of bone. And that was pinned to the hair. In other words, the cloth, with the purpose of the cloth, you've got the double holes. One can see them. That's where the cloth was pinned to the beard or to the hair to hold it on. The idea originally would have been for the cloth to have been wrapped all the way around the head, but it came up against an obstacle. The head was at an angle. It had to be at an angle to form the stains the way it was, which, and it would have been resting like this against the arm. And rather than force it, the person who was putting this cloth over the face, the cloth reached here, and so they just folded the cloth back over on itself, which is why there are four stains. One can see this in the diagram here on the left. Instead of wrapping it all the way around the head, something stopped whoever was applying the cloth from wrapping it all the way around the head. We can assume that because of the angles, it was the face that was stuck against the arm. This is for the first group of stains. So, it was wrapped around the head like that. You can even calculate in the laboratory how long the body was in that position, and it was anywhere between 45 minutes and one hour without much more stains to be formed.

The question would be, why would there be a cloth on Jesus's face in the first place?  We're talking about a man who had undergone terrible torture. The body was dead, and the Romans were only concerned with playing out the death penalty. So, afterwards, one could say there was a Jewish sensibility related to the belief that the soul is in the blood.  In the case of a crucifixion victim, where the shoulders are most likely dislocated, when you're taking the body off the cross, the pressure comes off the lungs, and therefore, the fluid starts coming out of the nose and mouth. That would be the second position. First of all, the cloth was over the face for between 45 to 60 minutes with the body still upright and still on the cross. So, there is a distinction on the cloth between lifeblood and post-mortem blood. Yes, there is. You can distinguish that from taking samples from the cloth and the blood that came out through the nose and mouth mixed with the pleural edema fluid is postmortem blood. 

There's a bit of a myth that dead bodies don't bleed, but they do, though not with the same intensity as a live body. If one cuts a dead body, blood will come out, though it won't spurt and it will stop before an equivalent wound would stop bleeding in a live body. This is because there is no heart beating to push the blood around the body, but a dead body does bleed when wounded, just to a lesser degree and with less force. The live blood comes a bit later because the second position, corresponding to the forehead, was actually the most difficult part to reproduce in the laboratory to get the stains exactly the same as they are on the original. In the end, the only way that could have been done was with a body lying on the ground, with the arms still outstretched, face down, and with the feet higher than the head. Why would the feet be higher than the head? Because the blood dripped out through the nose and mouth.

The body appears to be going up the face, but if the body is face down at an angle, it's down the face. This is why, if the feet are higher up than the head, then the blood would drip in that manner. If you're in an upright position, obviously you're talking about dripping up the face, that's the stain at the top there. But it's actually dripping down the face because of the position the body was in. And we also know that would have taken between another 45 minutes to one hour. So we've reached a point where we're between one and a half hours to two hours after death, where first the body was left upright, then it was taken down and left on the ground for the same amount of time.

 When I say left, it doesn't mean that it was abandoned and that nobody was there. It was placed on the ground and was in that position for that time, of course, alright. Then the third position is the arms were moved.  The arms were put in a more natural position, and then the cloth was wrapped all the way around the head. And then the stains, if you look at the photograph in the middle, you can see the dots corresponding to wounds on the back of the head. That is bloodshed in life, that is life blood on the cloth, okay? It's not postmortem blood. And again, that corresponds to wounds made in the head by several sharp objects, perfectly compatible with what was later known as the crown of thorns. In other words, you've got sharp thorns penetrating the skin while the body was still alive, and those are the wounds that are on the back of the sudarium. And to my mind, they're probably the most interesting and significant blood stains on the cloth, for the simple reason that they match the stains on the Shroud of Turin. They match both as a fairly close pattern, but also they're both the same blood type.  Which is maybe the same blood group and the same blood type, in other words, bloodshed in life, and it's a blood type that was not particularly common in Europe, I understand, but was more common in the Middle East. Again, like in every single thing that you can ever come up with in science and history, there's always somebody who's going to argue against that, sure, with good credentials. 

No matter how much you might think that's a good and noble thing to do, it's not good science. But it's equally applicable to the other side. There are people who will try to use the information from the Shroud in the Sudarium to prove that Jesus was alive, that he never died, and all of that kind of thing. And that's ignoring the evidence to try and put forward their beliefs, or their lack of beliefs. Yes, and even to that point, even if it could be known it was Jesus on the Shroud, it still doesn't necessarily prove that all his teachings were true. It wouldn't necessarily follow. So we don't want to make too much of this. 


Identifying Blood


The presence of human blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo has been verified by different specialists throughout the years. The first analysis was carried out by Baima Bollone1 who in 1985 directly took seven thread ends from the clean areas of the Sudarium as well as thread ends from bloody spots2. He performed a generic blood diagnosis by microscopic observation and by three identification approaches:




http://museodelapasion.blogspot.com/2015/



Figure 3. Comparison of dorsal head wound marks on the Shroud of Turin (a) and the Cloth of Oviedo (b).


ALFONSO SÁNCHEZ HERMOSILLA 2020-06-25  Forensic medical study of the injury on the right side of the Man of the Sindone

https://idus.us.es/handle/11441/98239

"Regarding the archaeological object known as the Sudarium of Oviedo, in the lower left corner of its reverse side, there is a stain, known as the 'Corner Stain,' or 'Ricci Stain' (Rodríguez, 2000: 64-65), which has a morphology very similar to that formed by the effusion of blood and other bodily fluids spilled from the wound on the side of the Shroud image. If the hypothesis is correct that the instrument that caused it had pierced the body of the condemned, it is possible that it is also the cause of the previously mentioned stain on the Sudarium of Oviedo. The state of scientific knowledge at the time of writing this work supports the hypothesis that both archaeological pieces covered the corpse of the same person."

"It seems proven, in light of the results of this investigation, that the man of the Shroud received a penetrating wound in his right side when he was already a corpse and in a vertical position. This penetrating wound could have completely traversed his right hemithorax. This is another concordance between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, which, added to the high number of consistent data between both archaeological pieces, corroborates the hypothesis that both cloths covered the corpse of the same person beyond any reasonable doubt. There is also the possibility that the aggressor, after delivering the 'coup de grâce,' partially withdrew the blade of the weapon, without removing it entirely from the entry wound, changed the trajectory by moving the weapon a few centimeters, and causing a second or maybe more trajectories, repeating the operation. The aggressor was located in front of the victim. In the case that the person who inflicted the wound was right-handed, with a high level of probability, they would be positioned in front and to the right of the victim. If they were left-handed, most likely, they would be situated almost directly in front of the victim. We do not know the height at which the corpse was located in relation to the support plane. In the probable case that it was still on the cross, we cannot be sure of the height of the same. The aggressor, presumably, was a skilled person, capable of causing this type of injury, and who very likely had experience as a military person or as an executioner."











Jorge-Manuel Rodríguez Almenar   El Sudario de Oviedo 
https://www.casadellibro.com/libro-el-sudario-de-oviedo/9788431318079/726923
Abundant white particles, ranging from 5 to 15 microns in size and of organic origin, have been identified on the Sudarium of Oviedo. These are not pollen grains. They are primarily concentrated in areas with higher blood content but are found above the blood stains, suggesting that this substance was added to the cloth after it had been used. The analysis of these white particles was particularly meticulous. They were examined through gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, and the analysis of monosaccharides revealed a distribution pattern similar to that of myrrh and aloe. Ultimately, chemical studies have determined that these particles are resin from aloe and myrrh.

Hematological diagnosis of the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo

1. HEMATIC COAST
In the photograph, one of the small scabs with a blood-like appearance located on the cloth is shown. A sample was taken and analyzed. The excellent condition of the examined particles was striking; despite their age, they reacted chemically very intensely.
2. INDIVIDUALIZATION DIAGNOSIS: BLOOD TYPE "AB"
Blood typing was carried out using the absorption-elution technique on small stained samples and other unstained samples used as controls. The stained samples indicated a weak group A and B. The clean tissue samples also tested positive for group B. After a quantitative assessment of agglutinogens, it can be concluded that the blood belongs to the AB group, with the group B being reinforced by the group B of the fabric.
3. RED BLOOD CELLS SEEN WITH OPTICAL MICROSCOPE
Simple observation through an optical microscope showed the presence of what appeared to be erythrocytes (red blood cells), although at that time it was risky to draw a conclusion about it.
4. SPECIFIC DIAGNOSIS: HUMAN BLOOD
For specific assessment, the immunofluorescence procedure was followed, using both stained and unstained fibers, total human anti-immunoglobulin and human anti-IgG from Organon marked with fluorescence, by both direct and indirect methods. In both cases, the result was positive in the stained areas and negative in the control areas. It can be technically affirmed that it is human blood.

Scheme of face and nape on the Sudarium.


The Sudarium of Oviedo is the cloth that was used to cover the head of Jesus Christ after he died on the cross to collect his blood. It is kept in Oviedo, in the region of Asturia, Spain.

The Sudarium of Oviedo's existence is historically confirmed, going back at least to the sixth century, and the radiocarbon testing gave a date,  six to seven hundred Years earlier than the Shroud of Turin, which brings us much closer to the first century.



After the corpse was dead for one hour, about 4PM someone placed the edge of the Sudarium along the nape and wrapped a lock of hair with it and he sewed the cloth to the hair to fix the Sudarium tightly. It was secured with pins, possibly made from thorns, based on the punctures in the cloth. The pins were conical in shape, similar to a needle.



About half of the rest of the cloth was passed around the left ear and in front of the face, covering it and reaching the right cheek. There, the cloth was folded to turn back towards the face providing a second layer in front of the mouth and nose area.   In this image we can see the sequence of how it was folded.


It was folded with two layers in front of the face of the subject. The cloth was folded back on itself, because it could not completely wrap the head, most likely due to the raised position of the right arm that was still fastened to the cross.   As a result, it was doubled back over, creating a repeating parallel stain on a second layer of cloth. It is believed that the head was tilted down to the right, so that it was pressed against the shoulder, and the arms were positioned in a way that resulted in the sudarium being wrapped in this manner.


In the image row above, we can see an illustration, of how the sudarium was folded. In the lower two images,  how the cloth was fixed with pins on the backside of the head, and on his beard, on the front side. The forensic analysis of the cloth leads to the conclusion that it was used around the head of a corpse stitched to its hair and its beard.  It remained in this folded state for about an hour. The cloth was not wrapped around his head, probably because some sort of obstacle impeded that operation.


It is hypothesized that during the transport to the tomb, effusion of cadaveric fluids was coming out from the mouth and the nose. And it was attempted to stop them, placing a hand over the maculating effluent in diverse positions.

A.S. Hermosilla 2012 The Oviedo Sudarium and the Turin Shroud
https://www.academia.edu/65440651/The_Oviedo_Sudarium_and_the_Turin_Shroud

We are dealing with two cloths, quite ancient and with a high level of external contamination after being used in a burial. The information they contain, which has been discovered so far, is coherent with the attributed use of these clothes, as well as with current scientific, historical, and anthropological knowledge.

From a Forensic Medical viewpoint, based on current scientific knowledge and despite ongoing research, there would be no difficulty in convincing a Court of Justice that the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo wrapped the body of the same individual, Jesus of Nazareth.

In a summary of the findings regarding the bloodstains, which originated from the face and soaked both clothes, we can highlight the following points of concordance:

1. The stains are geometrically compatible in size and relative positions, appearing very similar on both cloths.
2. The stains have been identified as human blood, type AB, on both clothes.
3. Stains from a living body appear the same on both clothes.
4. The stains are found in locations that align with the process of image formation on the Shroud, including the lateral displacement identified by Lavoie and accepted by Jackson.
5. On the Oviedo Sudarium, there is evidence consistent with the victim having been scourged with a Roman Flagrum Taxilatum and also receiving a puncture wound in the chest, consistent with the spear thrust mentioned in the Gospels. This blow would have occurred post-mortem, as inferred from the characteristics of the bloodstains caused by a penetrating wound in the thorax.

Neither cloth indicates any decay of the body, but the corpse they enveloped was certainly deceased, as the blood stains present in the Oviedo Sudarium, especially in areas in contact with the mouth and nose, show properties compatible with post-mortem blood and lack any sign of life. Even if the body had still been alive, the blood present would certainly have led to death by asphyxiation, preventing the victim's breathing. Thus, we must consider that something occurred that halted the biological process of decomposition of the corpse, explaining the absence of typical signs of cadaveric decay on the burial cloths.

From a scientific standpoint, at the current level of research, only one fact seems odd against the overwhelming majority of data that supports the previous hypothesis: the C-14 dating of both clothes. Yet, if both covered the same corpse, it seems implausible that the body could have left an imprint in the 7th century, remained perfectly preserved, and then, seven centuries later, produced identical imprints on a different cloth. Neither embalming methods nor freezing the body would explain such perfect preservation over a lengthy period to allow for two very similar imprints on different clothes centuries apart.


Alfonso Sánchez Hermosilla 2015 Commonalities between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276400495_Commonalities_between_the_Shroud_of_Turin_and_the_Sudarium_of_Oviedo

The new discoveries done after the inspection of the Sudarium of Oviedo, both macroscopic and microscopic, coincide with the accumulated knowledge that already existed. Said research was initiated by Mons. Ricci, and followed by EDICES. Additionally, the information which contains matches what the researchers who have had access to the Shroud of Turin have published, and with the information provided by the Gospels about the facts related to the Passion, Death, and post-mortem handling of the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth. These discoveries are compatible with intense physical maltreatment, with multiple traumas that produce bruised wounds, bleeding wounds, sharp wounds, and bruised wounds, which probably include flagellation at the Roman manner using a Flagrum Taxilatum. Although in the Sudarium of Oviedo, there are no objective final signs of the presence of a penetrating injury into the thorax, there are plenty of indirect signs that point to this possibility. When writing this report, we do not have another alternative hypothesis to the previously expressed, with real possibilities of being true. This damage must have been produced after the death of the Man of the Shroud, and not when he was still alive. All the information provided by the study and research of these relics matches to what, from the Forensic Medicine point of view, was to be expected to happen in linens of these characteristics if they had covered the head of a corpse that had received all the injuries that suffered Jesus of Nazareth according to the Gospels. We are aware of the lack of up-to-date and agreed protocols by the scientific community for the investigation of archaeological pieces similar to the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin. This is a field where researchers are still pioneers, which makes very difficult progress in the investigation, due to the necessity to be cautious and efficient. The discoveries that have been made open new areas of research that were unexpected until now. A priori they seem to be promising, which includes new stains that were unknown until now. For this reason, it seems reasonable to believe that it would be convenient to carry out new direct research in the future on both Relics and to relate the discoveries that have been verified in the Sudarium of Oviedo to possible matches to the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin & Idolatry



Isn’t the Shroud a violation of the commandment that forbids making a graven image?


This is one of the most common objections that some Christians have raised regarding the Shroud. The prohibition comes from one of the Ten Commandments:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth (Exod. 20:4 KJV).

But of course, if the Shroud is authentic, then man did not make the image—God did.

Nonetheless, sincere intentions motivate this question. It is helpful to understand this commandment from the Jewish perspective. The Hebrew Scriptures sometimes articulate a style of Hebraism known as
a Hebrew doublet. It is a Hebrew manner of expression wherein a statement is made, but then immediately following that statement a subsequent restatement of the matter is provided that is designed to
provide further clarification or understanding as to the meaning of the prior statement. This is what is found with this prohibition against graven images (Exodus 20:5‐6). The subsequent restatement following this prohibition provides the Hebrew doublet which clarifies the meaning of the prior statement. Below is the subsequent Hebrew doublet statement:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD [YHVH] thy God am a jealous God . . . (Exod. 20:5‐6 KJV, emphasis added).

The passage from Exodus 20:4-5, commonly referred to as the Second Commandment, addresses the prohibition of idolatry, particularly through the creation of graven images. This commandment is clarified and contextualized by additional scriptures, which emphasize that the prohibition is specifically against creating images for the purpose of idolatrous worship.

Leviticus 26:1 (NASB) reiterates this message, warning against the creation of idols, images, sacred pillars, or figured stones for the purpose of bowing down to them. Similarly, Deuteronomy 5:8-9 (NKJV) reinforces this commandment, explicitly instructing against making and worshipping carved images of any form from the natural world.

This understanding is further supported by examples from other Hebrew Scriptures. The Temple of Solomon, a place sanctified by God's presence (1 Kings 8:10-11), was adorned with images such as twelve oxen (2 Chronicles 4:3), four hundred pomegranates (2 Chronicles 4:13), and carvings of lions and palm trees (1 Kings 7:36). These decorations demonstrate that the use of images in themselves was not prohibited, as long as they were not objects of worship.

Another significant example is found in the narrative where God commands the Israelites to make a graven image of a snake during a plague (Numbers 21:8-9). This bronze serpent, lifted upon a pole, was used as a means for the Israelites to look upon and be healed, symbolizing God's power to save. This instance shows that under certain circumstances, the creation of images was permitted, even commanded, by God, as long as it did not contradict the core principle against idolatry.

Thus, the commandment against graven images, as clarified by these doublets and examples, is specifically targeted at preventing idolatrous practices rather than a blanket ban on all forms of artistic representation.

In the Book of Numbers (21:8-9), there is an account where Moses, following God's instructions, created a bronze serpent and placed it on a pole. This was done so that any Israelite bitten by a snake could look at the bronze serpent and be healed. This instance is crucial because it demonstrates that the bronze serpent was not created for the purpose of idol worship, aligning with God's commandment against idolatry.

However, over time, some Israelites began to worship this bronze serpent as an idol. Recognizing this deviation into idolatry, King Hezekiah took action to destroy it, as recounted in 2 Kings 18:4. This action underscores the fine line between the use of symbols in religious practice and their potential to be misinterpreted or misused as objects of worship.

Centuries later, Jesus (Yeshua) referenced the bronze serpent in a positive context. In John 3:14-15 (KJV), Jesus draws a parallel between the serpent lifted by Moses in the wilderness and his own crucifixion. He highlighted that, like the serpent, which was a symbol of salvation from death for the Israelites, he must be 'lifted up' for the salvation of humankind. This interpretation by Jesus indicates that the initial purpose of the serpent image was not idolatrous but was intended as a means of deliverance.

Another example of the use of images in a non-idolatrous religious context can be found in Exodus 25:18-22. Here, God commanded the creation of two golden cherubim to be placed on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant. This command was given despite the cherubim being graven images. The presence of these images in the Holy of Holies, the most sacred place, and God's communication with Moses from between them, further illustrates the nuanced understanding of the commandment against idolatry. It highlights that the prohibition was specifically against the creation of images for the purpose of worshiping them as idols, rather than a blanket ban on all forms of artistic representation.

The Shroud of Turin, an artifact steeped in history and mystery, was only recently acquired by the Roman Catholic Church. In 1983, following the death of Umberto II, the last king of Italy, the Shroud was bequeathed to the Pope, bringing this renowned relic under the Church's care. It's noteworthy that the Vatican has maintained a neutral stance on the Shroud's authenticity, neither affirming nor denying its historical connection to Jesus Christ. In the context of Biblical teachings, the handling and veneration of relics like the Shroud can be compared to the treatment of graven images. While idolatrous worship of any object, including relics, is clearly prohibited, the mere act of preserving a relic is not synonymous with worship. The Bible itself records instances where God instructed the preservation of certain items, not for worship, but as testimonies and reminders of divine acts. For example, in Exodus 16:32-34, God commanded that a portion of the manna, which sustained the Israelites in the wilderness, be kept for future generations. This was to serve as a tangible reminder of God's provision during their exodus from Egypt. Similarly, in Numbers 17:10, God instructed the preservation of Aaron’s rod that budded, again not as an object of worship, but as a symbol and remembrance of divine intervention and approval.

These relics were given a place of honor and safekeeping within the most sacred site in ancient Israelite worship: the Ark of the Covenant, situated in the Holy of Holies. The Book of Hebrews (9:3-4) references these items, emphasizing their presence and significance. The golden pot containing manna and Aaron's rod are mentioned specifically as being within the Ark, underscoring their importance in the religious and cultural heritage of the Israelites.

Thus, in both historical and Biblical contexts, relics have been viewed not merely as objects of veneration but as important symbols and reminders of faith, divine action, and heritage.

The interpretation of biblical passages about idolatry, such as those found in different versions of the Bible, often centers on the context and intent behind creating images. The Contemporary English Version, Berean Study Bible, and God's Word version, for example, all highlight the prohibition of idol-making, but the emphasis is on the intent of worshiping these idols, rather than the mere act of creating images or representations.

Historically, many nations surrounding Israel were indeed idolatrous, crafting images of gods, mythical beings, and various creatures for worship. The biblical injunction was meant to set apart the people of Israel from these practices, forbidding them from creating and worshiping idols, which could include representations of anything from the heavens, earth, or waters.

However, this commandment is not generally interpreted as a blanket ban on all forms of art or representation. If it were taken to such an extreme, it would indeed prohibit all paintings, carvings, photographs, and even children's drawings of natural or historical subjects. This would conflict with the human inclination towards creativity and expression, which many view as a reflection of the divine image in humanity.

Art, in its many forms, is often seen as a sacred gift, allowing humans to create beautiful and meaningful works, from paintings and sculptures to architectural designs and everyday objects. The key distinction, as highlighted by biblical commentary and interpretations, lies in the purpose behind these creations. As noted by sources like the Jamison-Fausset-Brown commentary, the act of making an image is not inherently sinful; rather, it becomes problematic when the image is created for the purpose of idolatrous worship.

This view is supported by references in the Bible itself, such as Leviticus 26:1, which specifically links the prohibition to the intent of bowing down to or worshiping the created images. Furthermore, examples from biblical history, such as the richly decorated Solomon's Temple, which included carvings of cherubs, flowers, oxen, and lions, demonstrate that artistic representations were not universally condemned.

In conclusion, while the biblical texts caution against idolatry, this does not equate to a blanket ban on all forms of art or representation. The context, culture, and especially the intent behind creating and using images are crucial in understanding these passages. Interpreted with these factors in mind, the scriptures support the idea that art can be a valuable and meaningful part of human culture and expression, as long as it is not used as an object of idolatrous worship.

Kenneth Stevenson, co-author of the ‘Shroud and the Controversy’, who was a member of STURP as an engineer and the founder of ‘Everlasting Covenant Ministries’, observed that: ‘in over a decade of lecturing on the Shroud, I have found no episode of image worship or idolatry. On the other hand, countless numbers have written to me to proclaim that they have come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus through the story of the Shroud.’

Idolatry, in a religious or spiritual context, refers to the worship of idols or false gods. It is the act of giving supreme reverence, love, or adoration to something or someone other than God. Idolatry can take many forms, including:

Literal Idol Worship: This involves the physical worship of idols, statues, or images as divine or as representations of gods. In many ancient cultures, and some modern ones, idols are used as a focal point for religious rituals and prayers.

Figurative or Symbolic Idolatry: This form of idolatry occurs when excessive devotion or importance is given to something other than God, which could include money, power, fame, or even a person. This concept is often used in religious teachings to caution against placing too much importance on materialistic or worldly pursuits.

Ideological Idolatry: This refers to the excessive devotion or blind adherence to an idea or ideology, elevating it to a status that overrides God in importance, and focal point of someones life.
In Christianity, for instance, it's a violation of the first of the Ten Commandments, which instructs believers not to have any gods other than the one true God and not to make idols. 

Iconoclasm

Iconoclasm was a significant religious and political movement in the Byzantine Empire during the 8th and 9th centuries. This period was marked by two phases of iconoclastic activity: the first between about 726 and 787, and the second between 814 and 842. The reasons for, and the nature of, the controversy, as well as the eventual restoration of icons, are complex and multifaceted.

Reasons for Iconoclasm 
Religious Arguments: Some Byzantine Christians believed that the veneration of icons (paintings, mosaics, and other depictions of saints, Christ, and the Virgin Mary) was a form of idolatry, which violated the Biblical commandment against making and worshiping graven images. They argued that such practices could mislead believers into directing their worship toward the images rather than toward God.

The growth of Islam, which strictly prohibits the depiction of religious figures, may have influenced Byzantine thought. The Byzantine Empire had suffered several military defeats against Muslim forces, leading some to believe that these defeats were divine punishment for the practice of icon veneration. The Iconoclast movement also had political dimensions. Emperors who supported iconoclasm, like Leo III and Constantine V, likely saw it as a means to consolidate power and assert imperial control over the church and its practices. Additionally, iconoclasm had support among certain social groups, such as military and administrative elites. Iconoclasm sparked a significant religious and cultural controversy. Those who venerated icons, known as Iconodules, argued that icons were not objects of worship but were instead aids to worship, helping believers to honor and remember the holy figures depicted. Iconodules included prominent church figures like St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite, who provided theological defenses for the veneration of icons.

Restoration of Icons: The First Period of Iconoclasm Ended with the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicaea) in 787: This council declared the veneration of icons to be orthodox Christian practice, distinguishing veneration from worship, which was due to God alone.

The End of the Second Iconoclast Period: The final restoration of icons, known as the "Triumph of Orthodoxy," took place in 843 under Empress Theodora. This followed the death of the last iconoclast emperor, Theophilus, and was partly due to the changing political and religious landscape, including the weakening of iconoclast support. The restoration of icons was also influenced by a shift in theological understanding and cultural attitudes. Over time, the arguments of the Iconodules gained more acceptance, and the veneration of icons became deeply integrated into the religious and cultural life of the Byzantine Empire. The Bible's stance on the fabrication of images, without directing devotion and worship to them, is subject to interpretation and varies among different Christian denominations and traditions. The key biblical references that inform this discussion are found primarily in the Old Testament, particularly in the Ten Commandments, and their interpretations have evolved over time.

Biblical References: The Second Commandment: In Exodus 20:4-5 (NIV), the Second Commandment states, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them..." 

This commandment explicitly forbids the creation of idols and the act of worshipping them. The historical context of this commandment was the prevalence of idol worship among the nations surrounding the Israelites. The commandment primarily addressed the issue of idolatry - the worship of images as gods.
Some Christian groups, like certain Protestant denominations, interpret this commandment very strictly, understanding it to forbid the creation of any representation of God, holy figures, or any living being. This has led to iconoclastic movements throughout history, where religious images were destroyed or banned. Other Christian traditions, notably the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, interpret this commandment as prohibiting the worship of images as gods, but not the creation of images themselves. In these traditions, religious images (icons, statues, paintings) are venerated, but not worshipped, and are used as aids for devotion and teaching about the Christian faith. These traditions make a distinction between veneration (honor or respect) and worship (adoration that is due to God alone). They argue that religious images help to focus a believer's thoughts on the divine. In the New Testament, there isn't a direct prohibition against creating images, and the focus is more on the internal state of a believer's heart towards God, rather than external practices.


Five reasons why the Shroud of Turin could be authentic
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/17/five-reasons-why-the-shroud-of-turin-could-be-authentic-113215

Shroud of Turin front and back negative image. Burn marks from a 1532 fire run the entire length of the cloth.
Today, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ commonly known as Easter or, less commonly, Resurrection Sunday.
If it were not for this event Christianity, the world’s largest religion, would not exist and Jesus, instead of being the most significant person in history, would have been just another forgotten Jewish man crucified by the Romans around  33 AD.
For those who are truly celebrating Christ’s resurrection today and not absorbed with chocolate-covered marshmallow bunnies, here are some questions, facts and answers that you could roll like eggs at your family’s Easter gathering.
First, the BIG question: Does scientific evidence for Christ’s resurrection exist today? The answer, millions of other faithful and I believe, is “yes” and it is called the Shroud of Turin.

What is the Shroud of Turin? 
It is a linen cloth measuring 14.3 ft by 3.7 ft with the mysterious negative image of a crucified man appearing on the front and back. The Shroud is the most sacred religious relic that exists in the world today as well as the most studied, tested and analyzed.
The Shroud of Turin is preserved in an underground vault in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. The next time it will be on public display is April 19 – June 24, 2015.
It has only been since 1983 that the Shroud has been “owned” by the Holy See. (In Catholic-speak this means the current pope.) At that time it was gifted from its previous owners, the House of Savoy, a royal European family in possession of the Shroud since 1453.
The Shroud’s existence and ownership can be directly traced from the year 1390 to the present. However, before 1390 the chain of custody is not historically definitive but there are many interesting clues.
Now, in honor of Easter, here are four scientifically proven groups of reasons and one Biblical reason pointing to the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.


1. The cloth and what is on it
Scientists have concluded that human male blood appearing on the Shroud is a rare type AB. The blood penetrates the cloth as you would expect but the blood on the cloth was there BEFORE the image of the crucified man. “Blood first, image second” is a phrase familiar to Shroud researchers.
Moreover, the image of the man does not penetrate the cloth and was formed at a later time. Even more remarkable, is that the man’s image can be scraped away with a razor blade because it sits on TOP of the cloth.
Researchers have determined that the weave of the flax linen cloth would have commanded a high price. This is consistent with all the Gospel accounts in the Bible stating that Joseph of Arimathea a “wealthy man,” donated his own tomb and provided the burial shroud that wrapped Jesus.
Additionally, pollen found on the Shroud is consistent with the types of plants and flowers in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus.
Adding to the mystery is travertine aragonite limestone (road dust) almost exclusively found in the vicinity of Jerusalem, is also on the Shroud around the knees and feet.

2. The substance comprising the image is still unknown
Scientists all agree that paints, pigments, stains or dyes could NOT have been used to create the man’s image. This is because substances available to an artist centuries ago would have penetrated the cloth, similar to the blood.
Scientific tests conclude that the substance forming the image was applied with 100 percent consistency. The depth of the image only penetrates the top two microfibers everywhere on the Shroud without ANY variation. A human artist would not be capable of such consistency
More baffling is the man’s image is a photo negative and a “positive image” is only reflected when a photo is taken. This astounding fact was discovered in 1898 by Secondo Pia, an Italian amateur photographer, when he applied the “new technology” of photography to the Shroud.
The man’s image also contains “distance information” which means the image can be read like a 3D map when using relief mapping techniques first developed by NASA. This technology was used to develop the History Channel’s 2010 mega-hit documentary The Real Face of Jesus?

3. The formation of the image
How was the image formed on the cloth? The answer to this question can be found in a 2012 study by world-renowned Shroud researcher Professor Giulio Fanti of Padua University in Italy. His study strongly suggested that the force which caused the man’s image to be imprinted on the cloth was radiation released in the form of an electrical discharge. In layman’s terms, a burst of light and energy.


4. The age of the cloth
Headlines such as: “Shroud of Turin is not a medieval forgery” were typical of what appeared across all media platforms around Good Friday, March 29, 2013. The headlines referred to Professor Fanti’s Shroud dating test, debunking the faulty 1988 carbon-14 testing concluding that the Shroud was a “middle age forgery” dating from the years 1260 – 1390. The carbon-14 test was performed on an outer piece of the Shroud that had been sewn on later for handling purposes.
Fanti’s 2013 test method’s examined the decay rate of microscopic fibers within the Shroud as compared to similar linen cloths known to be both older and newer. As a result, Fanti concluded that the Shroud ranged in age from 280 BC to 220 AD with a 95 percent confidence level. That timeframe obviously includes 33AD when Jesus was wrapped in his burial shroud.


5. Shroud is totally consistent with Biblical accounts of Jesus’ death
Is it a coincidence that every mark left on the Shroud is consistent with the physical torments endured by Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament Bible Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
The cloth reveals the man was brutalized with a crown of thorns. He wasrepeatedly scourged with Roman flagrum, and suffered nail puncture wounds on his wrists and feet. His knees were bruised from falling and the mark of a spear wound is on his side. Also consistent with the Gospels is that the man in the Shroud had no broken bones.
It is important to note that the Shroud indicates nail marks are on the man’s wrists and not on the palms of the hands as is commonly depicted in statues and paintings. This is intriguing and accurate because the Romans knew that hands would not have supported the weight of a hanging body during crucifixion. However, an “artist forger” would have been more likely to have painted nail wounds on the palms so not to counter accepted norms.
Finally, the larger question for Easter Sunday is how did the Shroud survive fires, wars, clashes of civilizations and general tumult for centuries? For example, the strange marks running the entire length of the Shroud are evidence of just how close a 1532 church fire came to destroying the folded cloth.
It is possible the Shroud survived as evidence of Christ’s resurrection for those who need proof in order to believe in him?
Remember what Christ said to “Doubting” Thomas who insisted on seeing his nail wounds after his resurrection before Thomas would believe in Jesus.  “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29 NIV
Christians who already believe that the events of Easter Sunday really happened do not need the Shroud of Turin to confirm their faith in Christ’s resurrection, but the Shroud could be considered the perfect intersection of faith and science.

How did the Turin Shroud get its image?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin#7147

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668

1. It's a painting 1
If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes. In fact the image on the linen is barely visible to the naked eye, and wasn't identified at all until 1898, when it became apparent in the negative image of a photograph taken by Secondo Pia, an amateur Italian photographer. The faint coloration of the flax fibres isn't caused by any darker substance being laid on top or infused into them - it's the very material of the fibres themselves that has darkened. And in contrast to most dyeing or painting methods, the colouring cannot be dissolved, bleached or altered by most standard chemical agents. The Sturp group asserted that the image is the real form of a "scourged, crucified man… not the product of an artist". There are genuine bloodstains on the cloth, and we even know the blood group (AB, if you're interested). There are traces of human DNA too, although it is badly degraded.
That didn't prevent the American independent chemical and microscopy consultant, Walter McCrone, who collaborated with the Sturp team, from asserting that the red stains attributed to blood were in fact very tiny particles of the red pigment iron oxide, or red ochre. Like just about every other aspect of the shroud, McCrone's evidence is disputed; few now credit it. Another idea is that the image is a kind of rubbing made from a bas-relief statue, or perhaps imprinted by singeing the fabric while it lay on top of such a bas-relief - but the physical and chemical features of the image don't support this.

2. It was made by a natural chemical process
If the coloured imprint comes from the darkening of the cellulose fibres of the cloth, what might have caused it? One of the doyens of scientific testing of the shroud, Raymond Rogers of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, argued in 2002 that a simple chemical transformation could do the job. He suggested that even very moderate heat - perhaps 40C (104F) or so, a temperature that post-mortem physicians told him a dead body could briefly attain if the person died from hyperthermia or dehydration - could be enough to discolour the sugary carbohydrate compounds that might be found on the surface of cotton fibres. It doesn't take a miracle, Rogers insisted. This is a reassuringly mundane idea, but there is little evidence for it in this particular circumstance - it's not as if it happens all the time on funeral shrouds. Another idea is that the discoloration of the fibres was caused by a chemical reaction with some substance that emanated from the body. The French biologist, Paul Vignon, proposed in the early 1900s that this substance might have been ammonia, produced by the breakdown of urea in sweat. That won't work, though: the image would be too blurry. In 1982, biophysicist John DeSalvo suggested instead that the substance could be lactic acid from sweat. This compound is one of those responsible for so-called Volckringer images of plant leaves, left for years between the pages of a book: substances are exuded from the leaf and react with paper fibres to produce a dark, negative image.

3. It's a photograph
Secondo Pia's photograph showed that the image on the cloth is a negative: dark where it should be bright. This deepens the mystery, and Pia himself casually suggested that the shroud could have been made by some primitive kind of photography. That idea has been inventively pursued by South African art historian Nicholas Allen, who argues that it could in principle have been achieved using materials and knowledge available to medieval scholars many centuries before genuine photography was invented. The key to the idea is the light-sensitive compound silver nitrate, the stuff that darkened the emulsion of the first true photographic plates in the 19th Century, as light transformed the silver salt into tiny black particles of silver metal. This substance does seem to have been known in the Middle Ages, Allen says: it was described in the writings of the 8th Century Arabic alchemist, Jabir ibn Hayyan, and also by the German Dominican Albertus Magnus in the 13th Century. It could have been coated on to the cloth in a darkened chamber and exposed to sunlight through a lens - made of quartz not glass, since the silver is in fact darkened by ultraviolet light, which glass absorbs but quartz does not. Allen has made replicas of a shroud this way using model figurines. But how the image stays on the cloth when the silver is removed, and how mediaeval forgers gathered all this sophisticated knowledge about optics and chemistry without there being any trace in surviving documents poses problems for the idea. So do various issues about the exact shape and contrast of an image made this way. For most Turin Shroud theorists, Allen's idea is a triumph of ingenuity over plausibility.


Experts question scientist’s claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin

 the crucified body of Jesus, called the Shroud of Turin.  However, CNA spoke with experts who maintain that there are still several major differences between the new shroud and the ancient one.
According to Reuters, Luigi Garlaschelli, an organic chemistry professor at the University of Pavia announced that he and his team “have shown it is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud.”  The scientist plans to present his findings at a conference on the paranormal this weekend in Italy.
The Shroud of Turin is considered by many to bear an image of the face of Jesus Christ. Made of herring bone linen, the shroud is nearly four feet by 14 feet and bears faint brown discolorations forming the negative image of a crucified man.
The shroud’s positive image, revealed by modern photography, shows the outline of a bearded man.  While skeptics contend that the shroud is a medieval forgery, scientists have been unable to explain how the image appeared on the cloth.
Garlaschelli and his team, who were funded by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics, created their image by placing the linen over a volunteer before rubbing it with a pigment called ochre with traces of acid.
The linen was then “aged” by heating it in an oven and washing it with water.  Reuters reports that the team then added blood stains, burn holes and water stains to finalize their product.
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 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.”
Another area concern for the scientists is the three dimensionality of the shroud. 
Propp explained that while Garlaschelli’s cloth does have some aspects of light and dark to create a three-dimensional perspective, “it’s nowhere near as sophisticated as the shroud” and that “it misses out on the accuracy and subtleties that are in the actual image.”
Dr. Jackson from the Turin Shroud Center also touched on the same point, saying, “The shroud’s image intensity varies with” the distances in between the cloth and the body.  While he admitted that the images of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet look authentic, when taken from a 3-D perspective, “it’s really rather grotesque.”
“The hands are embedded into the body and the legs have unnatural looking lumps and bumps,” he explained.
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.”
Garlachelli’s technique has also received criticism from other experts.  One scientist from the Shroud Science Group, a private forum of about 100 scientists, historians and researchers provided CNA with some of the critiques made in the forum.
One English-speaking expert explained that the blood used on the Shroud of Turin is not whole blood.  “They didn't just go out and kill a goat and paint the blood on the cloth.  The blood chemistry is very specific,” he said explaining that the blood is from “actual wounds.”
He added that most of the blood on the shroud flowed after death. “The side wound and the blood that puddles across the small of the back are post-mortem blood flows,” he said, adding that blood flowing after death “shows a clear separation of blood and serum.”
Propp added, “In some ways, it comes out better than most others I’ve seen before.  Still there are too many things – the shroud is more than just the image.”
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.
Pope Benedict has announced that the Shroud will be open for public viewing in 2010 and that he is planning to visit the image at some point during its exposition.
The Catholic Church has not taken an official position on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/experts_question_scientists_claim_of_reproducing_shroud_of_turin/

Images of the Shroud



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5CY9xbpCM8&t=20s












































https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahScN1HXXM0&t=80s


Divine Majesty and Symbolism in Revelation: Interpreting the Vision of Christ Among the Lampstands

Revelation 1:12-16 is rich in symbolism and imagery. Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, is attributed to John and is characterized by its apocalyptic genre. This book addresses the seven churches in Asia Minor and is often interpreted as a revelation from Jesus Christ about the ultimate victory of good over evil. The seven golden lampstands symbolize the seven churches to which the book is addressed (Revelation 1:20). In biblical literature, lampstands often represent the presence of God and illumination in a spiritual sense. The figure "like a son of man" is a reference to Jesus Christ, a title he frequently used for himself, echoing the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7:13-14. This depiction connects the human and divine natures of Jesus. The long robe and golden sash are priestly garments, suggesting Jesus' role as a high priest, interceding between God and humanity (Hebrews 4:14-15). The white hair, likened to wool and snow, symbolizes purity and wisdom. In the biblical context, white hair often signifies age, experience, and respect. This imagery suggests penetrating insight and judgment. Fire often represents purification and the presence of God (as in Moses and the burning bush). The bronze feet, glowing as if in a furnace, symbolize strength, stability, and an ability to withstand trials. Bronze, a strong metal, is used in Scripture to represent strength and judgment. This description of the voice suggests authority and power. The sound of rushing waters is overwhelming and awe-inspiring, much like the presence of God. The seven stars represent the angels of the seven churches (Revelation 1:20). The double-edged sword from his mouth symbolizes the power of his word, able to judge and discern (Hebrews 4:12). This imagery portrays the glory, brilliance, and transcendent nature of Jesus. The sun is a source of light and life, symbolizing Jesus' role as the light of the world (John 8:12). Theologically, this passage emphasizes the majesty, authority, and divine nature of Jesus Christ. It reassures believers of Christ's control over the churches and his ultimate triumph over evil. The imagery is also meant to encourage and challenge the churches to remain faithful amidst persecution and trials.

In November 2022, I took a colored image of the man on the Shroud of Turin, and run it through Picwish, an AI photo editor, that sharpened the image. I was surprised with the result and encouraged to attempt to improve the image further.  It took me several weeks, several steps of progression, to get to the final results of the image of Jesus, faithful to the image on the Shroud of Turin. Annexed is a picture illustrating the sequence of progression. Below I am also listing the videos I made after each major step ( I thought I had achieved the final result every time). The videos are unlisted ( only the last version is on my channel, The God Talk). The video: " The message of salvation through Jesus Christ" has been translated into ten different languages. You can compare my result with others that have contributed to drawing the image of Jesus based on the Shroud, and annexed is also a picture of how 12 movies in recent times have portrayed Jesus. All, stereotypically, portray Jesus with long hair and a beard, similar to the man on the Shroud.

Shroud of Turin - Face in the Shroud - The Face of Jesus Christ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2swl6YLLb0

The message of salvation through Jesus Christ Nov 28, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1ycSnHpO9k

The message of salvation through Jesus Christ Dec 4, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-o8UUAPYug

The message of salvation through Jesus Christ Dec 11, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_a2PPW8ONI

The message of salvation through Jesus Christ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTqNu5WtlhY


A computer reconstruction based on the Shroud of Turin of what Jesus of Nazareth may have looked like. Picture: News Corp














https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFGylmGl-KI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gJfmo7bq0Q

https://www.lahornacina.com/articulosminarro.htm






Some of the bands of different shades of white (now yellowed and browned with age) are narrow and some are quite wide. The variegation, or banding as it is sometimes called, is visual background noise and it alters the way we see things on the Shroud. The face is gaunt, people often say. The nose is so  narrow; and the eye sockets exceedingly deep; the hair falls too straight.  True; but look carefully and you will see that the gaunt appearance is the result of  dark vertical bands on each side of the face. There are faint, less perceptible bands on each side of the nose and a horizontal band across the eyes. Special image enhancement software (Fourier transform filters) can be used to mathematically find these bands and minimize their effect. Notice how this filtering technique seems to change the shape of the face and nose and makes the eyes look more normal. The hair is less forward. It doesn't actually change the shape of the face; it merely minimizes the  background noise and allows details to emerge.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071011141859/http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/banding.htm




3D information on the Shroud

There have been significant studies and research projects conducted to investigate the 3D information encoded in the Shroud of Turin. One of the most notable studies was carried out by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) in 1978. John Jackson and Bill Mottern, along with Eric Jumper, used a VP-8 analog image analyzing computer to create the first 3-dimensional map of the Shroud image. Their findings confirmed that 3-dimensional information was indeed encoded in the Shroud image. This pioneering work led to the organization of STURP, which conducted the most extensive hands-on study of the Shroud ever undertaken. The STURP team used various methods to gather data, including microscopy, infrared spectrometry, and X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. They concluded that no pigments, paints, dyes, or stains were found on the fibrils, and the image has unique three-dimensional information encoded in it​​.

● Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J., & Ercoline, W.R. (1984). Correlation of Image Intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D Structure of a Human Body Shape. Applied Optics, 23(14), 2244-2270. Link. (This paper demonstrates the correlation between the image intensity on the Shroud and the three-dimensional structure of a human body, supporting the presence of 3D information.)

● Jumper, E.J., et al. (1984). A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin. Archaeological Chemistry, III, 447-476. [Link not available]. (An extensive analysis of the stains and images on the Shroud, contributing to the understanding of its 3D characteristics.)

● Pellicori, S.F. (1980). Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin. Applied Optics, 19(12), 1913-1920. Link. (This study of the Shroud's spectral properties aids in understanding the encoded 3D information.)

● Schwalbe, L.A., & Rogers, R.N. (1982). Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A Summary of the 1978 Investigation. Analytica Chimica Acta, 135, 3-49. Link. (A comprehensive summary of the 1978 investigation, including aspects related to the Shroud's 3D properties.)

● Rogers, R.N., & Arnoldi, A. (2002). The Shroud of Turin: An Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain the Image Formation. Melanoidins in Food and Health, Volume 4, 106-113. [Link not available]. (This paper proposes a chemical reaction mechanism that could explain the formation of the 3D image.)

● Moran, K. (2002). Optical and Spectroscopic Studies of Linen Fibers from the Shroud of Turin. Vibrational Spectroscopy, 28(1), 37-52. Link. (Investigates the linen fibers of the Shroud, contributing to the understanding of its 3D imaging properties.)

● Fanti, G., & Maggiolo, R. (2004). The Double Superficiality of the Frontal Image of the Turin Shroud. Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics, 6(6), 491-503. Link. (Explores the unique superficial characteristics of the Shroud's frontal image, relevant to 3D information analysis.)

● Latendresse, M. (2005). Analysis of the Shroud of Turin Images and Spectra: A Review of the Scientific Studies. Applied Spectroscopy Reviews, 40(2), 167-181. Link. (Reviews various scientific studies on the Shroud's images and spectra, including 3D aspects.)

● Accetta, J.S., & Baumgart, J.A. (2011). Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin: A Solar Optical Model. Solar Physics, 270(1), 165-179. Link. (Proposes a solar optical model for the Shroud's image formation, which includes considerations of 3D encoding.)

● Di Lazzaro, P., et al. (2012). Coloration Mechanisms of the Turin Shroud and the Scorch Hypothesis. Coloration Technology, 128(3), 210-217. Link

https://www.facebook.com/turinshroud3D/




A high-definition, precision three-dimension rendering of the face on the Shroud of Turin created from a digitized version of the photograph of the Shroud taken by Giuseppe Enrie in 1931. Microsoft 3D Builder, a software app, was used to plot the brightness values in the photograph, similar to the VP-8 Image Analyzer.

A pixelated image

The Shroud of Turin exhibits an intriguing characteristic: its image has pixel-like qualities, which contribute to its unique three-dimensional effect when analyzed through modern imaging techniques.

The image on the Shroud of Turin is composed of many tiny, discrete points that collectively form the overall image. This can be likened to pixels in a digital image. Unlike brush strokes in a painting, the image on the Shroud is more uniform and consistent, with each "pixel" contributing to the overall detail. When the Shroud's image is analyzed using modern photographic techniques, such as with a VP-8 Image Analyzer, it displays three-dimensional properties. This is unusual for traditional two-dimensional images, which typically do not contain encoded depth information. The "pixelated" nature of the Shroud's image allows for the mapping of light and dark areas to different height levels, creating a 3D representation of the figure. This is unlike any other known ancient artwork. The image on the Shroud is also unique in that it resembles a photographic negative. When the image is converted into a positive image, it reveals more detail and depth, much like developing a photographic negative. This characteristic, combined with its pixel-like quality, enhances the 3D effect. The pixelated and 3D nature of the image poses significant questions about how it was formed. Traditional artistic methods of the medieval period (when some speculate the Shroud was created) do not explain these characteristics.  The absence of directional features like brush strokes suggests that the image was not painted. The uniformity and consistent distribution of the image's 'pixels' imply a formation process that is fundamentally different from known artistic techniques of any era. The pixelated and three-dimensional nature of the Shroud's image adds another layer of complexity to theories that propose it was a medieval forgery. Replicating these characteristics with technologies and knowledge available during the Middle Ages would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.

3D images by Thierry Castex

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Shroud is the discovery of 3D information encoded in its imagery, a feature that was only uncovered with modern technology. This discovery raises significant questions about the origins and authenticity of the Shroud, particularly concerning the feasibility of a medieval forger creating such a sophisticated image.

The argument against a medieval forger successfully embedding 3D information in the Shroud is multi-faceted:

Lack of Technological Means: In the Middle Ages, the level of technological and scientific understanding was not advanced enough to conceive of 3D imaging, let alone implement it in an artwork. The process of creating a 3D encoded image requires a sophisticated understanding of light, shadow, and perspective, far beyond the capabilities of artists and craftspeople of that era.
Discovery with Modern Technology: The 3D information in the Shroud was only discernible with the advent of modern imaging technology. This suggests that if the Shroud were a forgery, the forger created features that they could not have understood or visualized, and which remained undiscovered for over 700 years. It seems implausible that a forger would embed features into the image that were not only beyond their comprehension but also undetectable by contemporaries.
Complexity of 3D Encoding: The 3D encoding on the Shroud is not a simple or random occurrence. It shows a nuanced understanding of spatial relationships and how these would be represented in varying shades of color and intensity. Such an encoding suggests an advanced, almost anachronistic understanding of imaging techniques that were unavailable in the Middle Ages.
Purpose and Motivation: If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, the motive behind creating it would likely be religious or financial gain. However, embedding undetectable 3D information into the fabric serves no purpose in this context. It wouldn't have made the forgery more convincing or valuable to a medieval audience, who had no way of perceiving or appreciating this aspect of the work.
Historical Consistency: There is no known precedent or parallel from the Middle Ages or earlier periods where such complex imagery with hidden 3D features was created. The art and crafts of that time, while often sophisticated in their way, do not display anything close to this level of complexity in image encoding.

The presence of 3D information in the Shroud of Turin adds a layer of complexity to its already mysterious history. The argument that a medieval forger could have created such an image with embedded 3D properties, only discoverable with modern technology, appears highly implausible given the technological and conceptual limitations of the time.

3D Dorsal Views of the Front Side of the Shroud of Turin

By applying 3D processing to the digital image of the dorsal side we obtain a relief which is a little less pronounced than on the 3D images of the ventral side. The 3D dorsal image is a little distorted at the buttocks and back because of the numerous traces of flogging which disrupt the 3D conversion. However, thanks to 3D vision, we can clearly see the thickness of the hair made up of a long ponytail that goes down to the middle of the back. Hair color appears to be somewhere between chestnut and red; but to be more precise it would be necessary to carry out an RGB chromatic calibration of the negative image printed on the linen fibers with a spectrophotometer.

In Figure 4 we observe an area without traces of flagellation which corresponds exactly to the location of the two symmetrical "L"s formed by 4 holes at right angles, which were drawn on the Codex Pray. According to the study that we carried out with Eric De Bazelaire and Marcel Alonso in 2007 (published in the CIELT journal of December 2007) this area without traces of flagellation would correspond to a fold which was made with the fabric to place there a kind of diaper (made of cotton) to absorb body fluids. If we remove this area from the image, the abnormally long legs return to normal proportions.
This working hypothesis was presented at the MNTV Association Forum on February 6, 2010 in Paris, and was the subject of an article in the MNTV magazine: [/url]https://www.linceul-de-turin.fr/page/1512703-cahiers-sur-le-linceul-de-turin

3D Processing applied to the Shroud of Turin / 3D Processing of the Shroud of Turin

The image of the body on the fabric of the Shroud of Turin contains 3D (three-dimensional) information whose amplitude is inversely proportional to the distance between the fabric and the body. That is to say that the parts of the body which are close to the fabric will have a dark tint, while the parts further away will have a lighter appearance. For example, the nose which touches the fabric will be darker than the eye sockets which will be further away. In other words, we can consider that there is a three-dimensional coding of the image distributed over a range of 256 gray levels (8-bit coding) in the case of a black and white photograph. Black will have level 0 and white will have level 255. For a color print we will talk about coding on 3 x 8 = 24bits, because there are 3 fundamental RGB colors (red, green, blue).



In fact, to carry out the 3D processing in color, I first decomposed the images into R, G, B. I processed them one by one as 8-bit images (in gray level), then I recombined them all three to find the color (on 24 bits).

The processing of each R, G, B component consisted of applying a two-dimensional filter (FK) in the Fourier domain to remove the frame and the chevrons, then equalizing the amplitudes of the pixels in the image (in L2 quadratic norm) . This treatment amounts to eliminating the effects of scratches or streaks on the image and to harmonizing the amplitudes along the fabric. This also has the effect of reducing the level of background noise in the image.

This 3D view of the lying body shows that the tips of the knees are raised because the legs are bent. Bending your knees causes your knees to tighten and your thighs to spread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epFWQaGJGLc




















Carl Heinrich Bloch

Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834-1890) was a distinguished Danish painter, renowned for his profound and emotive depictions of biblical scenes, particularly those of Jesus Christ. Bloch's work is notable not just for its artistic merit but also for the striking resemblance many of his depictions of Christ bear to the image on the Shroud of Turin. Here's a more detailed look at his life, work, and the unique aspects of his portrayal of Jesus: Born in Copenhagen, Bloch was trained at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. His education there laid the foundation for his detailed, realistic style. Bloch's paintings of Jesus Christ are among his most acclaimed works. These paintings are known for their vivid, lifelike quality and their ability to capture the profound emotional and spiritual essence of biblical narratives. Interestingly, many have observed that his portrayal of Jesus bears a noticeable resemblance to the face on the Shroud of Turin. This resemblance includes features like the facial structure, the long hair parted in the middle, and the serene yet poignant expression, which closely match the image on the Shroud. Bloch's style is marked by its realism, meticulous attention to detail, and dramatic use of light and shadow. He had a talent for capturing human emotion and divinity, bringing a sense of intimacy and immediacy to his biblical scenes. During his lifetime, Bloch was highly respected and his works continue to be influential in the realms of art and religion. His images of Christ have become iconic in Christian art. They are widely used in religious education, publications, and devotional materials. One of Bloch's most significant contributions is his series of paintings in the Chapel of Frederiksborg Palace in Denmark. These works depict various scenes from the life of Christ and are celebrated for their emotional depth and powerful imagery. 

Truth About the Shroud

The Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, based on the elimination of human and natural causes for the image and the corroboration of scientific, historical, and archaeological findings with the biblical narrative. The man in the Shroud is Jesus Christ, and the bloodstains are confirmed to be his. The defining event leading to the mysterious characteristics of the Shroud is a miracle. The identification of the man in the Shroud and the absence of his body in the tomb after the third day reinforce the belief in his resurrection, which is the most significant trace on the Shroud. Without the resurrection, the Shroud would be a mere piece of cloth without mystery.

Meaning and Significance of the Shroud

The Shroud serves as a visual record of the Christian belief in the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It validates the biblical descriptions and the existence of Jesus as both divine and human. The Shroud is the most crucial and educational relic for Christians, reminding of Jesus' sacrifice. The miracle of the Shroud, like other miracles, provides insight into the supernatural realm, affirming the existence of an afterlife, the soul, and, above all, the sovereignty of God. The Shroud is also a testament to the ongoing presence and works of Jesus Christ. The Shroud's purpose is multifaceted: it reveals the divinity of Jesus Christ and serves as concrete evidence of the resurrection. It aims to lead people towards God, fostering conversion and strengthening faith. Additionally, it is a unifying symbol for Christians worldwide. Expanding on these points, the Shroud is a bridge between faith and tangible evidence, serving as a tool for both reaffirming the faith of believers and inviting skepticism from non-believers. It is an artifact that offers a unique combination of historical, spiritual, and scientific intrigue, prompting reflection on the nature of belief, the significance of religious artifacts, and the intersections between faith, history, and science. Its enigmatic presence continues to inspire dialogue and devotion, pointing to a narrative that transcends the material and touches upon the divine mystery at the heart of Christianity.


Quotes about the Shroud

"Robert Bucklin, forensic pathologist and member of STURP, summarized his investigation: “The pathology and physiology are unquestionable and represent medical knowledge unknown 150 years ago.” In an interview published with the title – “A Shroud that has Changed Lives” in Columbia, April 1984, he said: “If I were in a court of law to stake my professional reputation on the validity of the Shroud of Turin, I would answer very positively and firmly that it is the burial cloth of Christ.”

In his book, “Report on the Shroud of Turin”, John Heller, M.D. also a member of STURP, said that the group endeavored to discover the mechanism for the image formation. “They tried every reasonable and even unreasonable chemical hypothesis and scenario. One by one each was destroyed.” He finally concluded: “All in all, it is a startling medical documentary of what was described so briefly in the Gospels.”

Thirteen of the 26 scientists of STURP who were interviewed by Robert Wilcox expressed their belief that the Shroud is actual burial cloth if Jesus while rest had no response. Those who did not respond could have easily said that they do not believe it was burial cloth if Jesus. Therefore real reason for not responding is open to speculation but more likely because they know that they could not prove it from perspective if science."

Dr. Yves Delage, an agnostic, biologist and professor of anatomy concluded his presentation on the Shroud to the French Academy of Science by saying: “Gentlemen, you are looking at the face of Jesus Christ.

Carlo Carrà, a respected Italian artist, insisted, ‘If a painter were ever to try to portray the face of the dead Christ with all the marks left on it by the savage treatment inflicted on Him before and during the crucifixion, he would only end up with a monstrous-looking portrait. … Astoundingly, the entire battered body of this crucified man is portrayed on the Shroud with a realism whose precision is uncanny. But what is positively incredible is that a would-be artist could create this image as a negative. No artist could as much as conceive such a task. I do not know what mystery lies behind the Shroud, but this much I know: no artist’s brush has touched the Shroud.


https://www.shroud.com/78team.htm  If anyone wants to wade through the recent findings on the shroud of turin.https://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm  I found these cited documentaries, sufficient to list the important details of the findings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MMOAV-xYFs  and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta6rWlAjNi0 http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF  I have no confidence whatsoever in ANY radiometric dating methods. I have read enough papers on the topic to be convinced that none of the radiometric methods can date ANYTHING accurately. These videos partially explain why that is the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPD5OlZK6Fw  there are far too many assumptions made to come to any accurate conclusions whatsoever using any of those methods. Nevertheless, upon reexamination, they found that the shroud is "between 1300 and 3000 years old". But there are dozens of facts that clearly conclude it is the burial cloth of the Messiah, Yahoshuah. (watch the documentaries cited) Fools want the whole world to think that https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm  all these scientists are FRAUDS; that they are all lying to the world about their findings! Each and every one of those scientists could sue any and all persons claiming the Shroud is a fraud for libel, slander and defamation! Fools want the world to believe they are more of an authority on the topic than the world's leading experts! Fools want people to imagine that the shroud has been fabricated WHEN NO MODERN TECHNOLOGIES CAN REPLICATE IT, in all its details; let alone those of the middle ages! "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. " - https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm  So the next time some God-hating/God-denying atheist/evil-u-shun-ist steps up to claim the Shroud of Turin is a fraud or fabrication, ask them if they're willing to be scourged and crucified like Yahoshuah was in order to prove their claim, because that is what they are suggesting when they accuse the Shroud, the burial cloth of Yahoshuah Ha Meschiach, of not being authentic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqTJWvemfU  People everywhere need to understand that the Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact in the entire history of the world. So the scientific opinion that it is factually an image of scourged and crucified man and that image and the details of the Shroud cannot be replicated by any known method to date; should give pause to any and all skeptics to reconsider their opinion before claiming the Shroud is anything but the authentic burial cloth of Yahoshuah Ha Meschiach. People act like radiometric dating is a reliable method for dating things, when all forms of radiometric dating are not. Let me give an illustration as to why that is the case. A person buys a package of candles, new candles all the same length. In order to give an illustration of just one of the assumptions, they cut the candles into various lengths and light them all, then ask viewers to tell how long each one has been burning. The viewers carefully study the burn rate of the candles and come to their conclusions. given FACTS: the studied candles in question are all the same age, and candles have all been burning the same length of time in the same environmental conditions ASSUMPTIONS: each candle contains the same wax and composition, and were the same length when lit and burned by the same observed method that the viewers beheld. So of course the viewers all come to incorrect conclusions. And that is only very few of the reasons radiometric dating of any and all kinds are completely unreliable. https://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-swenson/christ-crucified-and-resurrected/735365403209088/

The Shroud of Turin, Authenticated Again
First among the major mysteries is how the image was made. Second, what is the substance constituting the image, which can be scraped away with a razor blade? The substance is undetermined — all man-made materials have been ruled out — and only rests on top of the cloth; it does not penetrate the cloth’s linen fibers. The third mystery is related to the second: Blood from the crucified man penetrated the cloth, as one would expect, but also preceded the impression of the man’s image. “Blood first, image second” is a mantra of Shroud researchers. This order is logical if the “man in the Shroud” was in fact Christ, who would have been wrapped in the linen Shroud days before the electrical event (see below) that accompanied his resurrection and resulted in the human image. The patterns of blood flow on the Sudarium are consistent with those of a crucified man.Fanti concluded that an electrical charge in the form of radiation is what likely caused the man’s image to be imprinted on the Shroud. He has also dated the Shroud to the time of Jesus, debunking the flawed carbon-14 testing conducted in 1988.  
I recommend that you research first the Shroud and then the Sudarium. Both have survived centuries. Their markings are consistent with Scripture accounts of Christ’s torture and execution. Both contain not only the same rare blood type but also pollen of a kind found only in ancient Israel. The Shroud and the Sudarium authenticate each other.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434153/shroud-turin-jesus-christ-blood-relic-sudarium-oviedo

Shroud of Turin in 3D
The first photographs that were taken by SECONDO PIA in 1898 showed the positive image of a man on the negative glass plates that he used, and also showed that the original image on the Shroud had the properties of a photographic negative. This aroused the interest of the scientific community and from that moment on the Shroud became the most investigated artifact in the world. One of these scientists, in the early part of the 20th century was PAUL VIGNON from the University of Paris, and he spent quite some time investigating the Shroud. One of his observations was, that the image on the Shroud varied inversely with the cloth-to-body distance, which means that the parts of the body that were close to the cloth, were imaged darker than the parts that were further away. The density of the image is proportional to the distance between the body and the cloth and that is caused by the fact that more fibers per square unit are discolored. This translates to 3D information encoding of the image in the grayscale of the photographs of the Shroud. VIGNON could not prove his observations scientifically.
http://shroud3d.com/home-page/introduction-3d-studies-of-the-shroud-of-turin-history

Shroud, new study: there is blood of a man tortured and killed 
According to Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua, the analyses show how “the peculiar structure, size and distribution of the nanoparticles cannot be artifacts made over the centuries on the fabric of the Shroud.” Many fanciful reconstructions of the Turin Shroud being a painted object are once again denied.” Additionally, Fanti says, “the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.”

There is no longer any doubt that the Shroud has wrapped the body of a man tortured and killed in the same manner as described in the Gospels for the Crucifixion of Jesus. 
http://www.lastampa.it/2017/07/11/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/shroud-new-study-there-is-blood-of-a-man-tortured-and-killed-c1jdACNKkTlD9YBPS4kFXM/pagina.html

Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud 2
We performed reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine bounded with small nanoparticles of iron oxide. The kind, size and distribution of the iron oxide nanoparticles cannot be dye for painting but are ferrihydrate cores of ferritin. The consistent bound of ferritin iron to creatinine occurs in human organism in case of a severe polytrauma. Our results point out that at the nanoscale a scenario of violence is recorded in the funeral fabric and suggest an explanation for some contradictory results so far published.

Conclusions
On the basis of the experimental evidences of our atomic resolution TEM studies, the man wrapped in the TS suffered a strong polytrauma. We studied a fiber of the TS by atomic resolution TEM experiments and WAXS. This is the first time that the TS is studied at this resolution and this range of view produced a series of experimental results, which thanks to recent studies on ancient dye painting, ferritin, creatinine and human pathology can be connected and understood in relationship with a macroscopic scenario in which the TS was committed [41,42,43]. In fact, the fiber was soaked with a blood serum typical of a human organism that suffered a strong trauma, as HRTEM evidenced that the TS is covered by well-dispersed 30nm-100nm creatinine nanoparticles bounded with internal 2nm-6nm ferrihydrate structures. The bond between the iron cores of ferritin and creatinine on large scale occurs in a body after a strong polytrauma [41,42,43]. This result cannot be impressed on the TS by using ancient dye pigments, as they have bigger sizes and tend to aggregate, and it is highly unlikely that the eventual ancient artist would have painted a fake by using the hematic serum of someone after a heavy polytrauma.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487




Why Shroud of Turin's Secrets Continue to Elude Science
Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted five years of experiments, using state-of-the-art excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image’s coloration. The ENEA team, which published its findings in 2011, came tantalizingly close to approximating the image’s distinctive hue on a few square centimeters of fabric. But they were unable to match all the physical and chemical characteristics of the shroud image. Nor could they reproduce a whole human figure.

The ultraviolet light necessary to do so “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today,” says Di Lazzaro. It would require “pulses having durations shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and intensities on the order of several billion watts.”

If the most advanced technologies available in the 21st century could not produce a facsimile of the shroud image, he reasons, how could it have been executed by a medieval forger?

For believers, the radiation thesis suggests that a “divine light” in the tomb might have seared the crucified form of Jesus Christ onto the shroud. “One could look at hypotheses outside the realm of science, a sort of miracle,” says Di Lazzaro. “But a miracle cannot be investigated by the scientific method.”..
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/




Shroud from Jesus' era found, researchers say
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html?fref=gc&dti=1509309685785723

"Has Science Proven the Shroud of Turin to Be a Medieval Forgery?" (2): Shroud of Turin News 
April 2016
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.br/2016/05/has-science-proven-shroud-of-turin-to_19.html

They had found no pigments, paints, dyes or stains on the fibers. The image had 3D coding within it. There was no evidence of oils, spices or biochemicals. It was "clear" that the material had been in direct contact with a body -- but there was no explanation for the seemingly perfect image of the face.
Overall, they raised more questions than they were able to solve, with some things explainable by physics precluded by chemistry, and vice versa.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/shroud-of-turin-mystery-italy/index.html

Was the Turin shroud 'painted' by bacteria?
The image on the Turin shroud was created not by human hands or any mystical power, as has been suggested, but by bacteria. The microbes, he says, multiplied in the wounds of a person who died very slowly, and whose corpse was then washed and wrapped in a linen sheet for burial. Washing the body made the wounds sticky, so the cloth stuck fast and became impregnated with bacteria. Finally, says Mattingly, the bacteria died, shedding proteins that oxidised, causing a stain in the cloth that turned yellow and darkened.
https://www.theguardian.com/guardianweekly/story/0,12674,979921,00.html?fbclid=IwAR3EG-WALCnTnlXfgG7S4erWV6Gen13GgeBB7tdVW3nSLNFNfjQSl_N_GTM

Giulio Fanti, Saverio Gaeta, The mystery of the Shroud The surprising scientific discoveries on the enigma of the cloth of Jesus, page 49
A linen fabric from Masada, the radiocarbon date of this Masada sample, assessed at the confidence level of the 95%, was between 59 A.D. and 213 AD: since the Jewish fortress was conquered by the Roman army in 74 AD, fabric fabrication cannot be assumed after this date.

Just in reference to the finding of Masada, it is remarkable the fact that numerous parameters derived from the FT-IR and Raman analyzes were very close to those of the Shroud linen. Even if you can't stating a priori that the two linen fabrics have comparable dates, in any case, is significant that the chemical characteristics of the two fabrics are comparable to each other. The final datum of this spectroscopic analysis, with reference to the linear combination of the ratios considered, has provided for the Shroud sample a value of 300 BC ± 400 years at the 95% confidence level.
https://b-ok.cc/md5/F722F74F3953395133840D1411204303

The Shroud has the characteristics of a Jewish funeral cloth from the 1st century (corpses buried intact, with eyes and mouth closed); the linen fabric was produced in the Judaic environment: it does not bear traces of fibers of animal origin (the Mosaic law prescribed to keep separate the wool from the linen); among the geological particles found there are various minerals typical of Jerusalem.

The body image is not produced by organic or inorganic pigments, but is due to a chemical reaction of the linen polysaccharides and contains three-dimensional information. The body image affects a thickness of 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter and is so superficial as to be to think that it was formed following the release of a very intense energy in a very short time. All these features make the image still unexplainable by science, much less reproducible.

DailyMail (2015): In 2015, retired medical artist Richard Neave recreated the face of Jesus (pictured), using forensic techniques. The portrait shows the Son of God with a wide face, hazel eyes, a bushy beard, and short curly hair, as well as a tanned complexion. This is in contrast to the typical blonde and blue-eyed images seen in the West. Dr Neave stressed the portrait is that of an adult man living at the same time and place as Jesus, but some experts say his depiction is still likely far more accurate than paintings by the great masters. The team hypothesised Jesus would have had facial features typical of Galilean Semites of his era. Dr Neave and his team X-rayed three Semite skulls from the time, previously found by Israeli archaeologists. However, it contradicts the long-haired image seen in the Shroud of Turin, which is believed, by some, to bear the image of Christ when he was wrapped in a cloth after his death on the cross.6









Richard Neave's Reconstruction Resembles a Neanderthal

Richard Neave's supposed forensic reconstruction of a 1st-century Jewish man draws unsettling parallels to a Neanderthal. These hominid species went extinct thousands of years ago and is often depicted as primitive and intellectually inferior. Neave's reconstruction, intentionally or not, seems to invoke features that align more with a caricature of a Neanderthal than with the historical and spiritual figure of Jesus Christ. In my view, this is not only scientifically dubious but also bordering on disrespectful, if not blasphemous.

Striking Similarities to Neanderthal Features
Let us break down the most glaring anatomical features of Neave's reconstruction that bear an eerie resemblance to Neanderthals:

1. Low Cranium: One of the most distinguishing features of Neanderthals is their low, elongated cranium—indicative of a sloping forehead that contrasts sharply with the high, rounded cranium typical of modern Homo sapiens. Neave's portrayal of this 1st-century Jewish man inexplicably adopts this exact feature, with a noticeably low cranium and receding forehead that is far from the norms of modern human anatomy. This is a clear deviation from both historical depictions of Semitic peoples and modern forensic expectations. The question begs to be asked: why would a man living in 1st-century Galilee have such a feature, unless the intention was to visually diminish him?

2. Pronounced Brow Ridge: The exaggerated brow ridge seen in Neave's reconstruction is another trait strongly associated with Neanderthals. In fact, this is one of the most iconic and recognizable features of Neanderthal anatomy. By giving Jesus, or anyone from his historical context, such a feature, Neave creates a visual association that implies a more "primitive" or "uncivilized" appearance. This not only distorts the physical reality of 1st-century Jewish people but also subtly undermines the dignity of the person being depicted. The brow ridge in this reconstruction is far more exaggerated than that of any typical modern human from the region and is uncharacteristic of the skulls used in forensic analysis.

3. Wide, Flattened Nose: The broad, flattened nose in Neave's image also stands out as a feature more commonly attributed to Neanderthals. While it is true that Middle Eastern populations may have wider noses due to climatic adaptation, the extent to which Neave broadens and flattens the nose in this depiction is excessive and disproportionate. This reinforces the primitive undertones of the image, as the Neanderthal nose was adapted to cold climates and had a wide nasal aperture. Neave's portrayal seems to mimic this aspect, leading to an unflattering and historically inaccurate portrayal of a man who, by all other accounts, would have had a more conventional, human nose shape.

4. Facial Proportions and Structure: The overall facial structure in Neave's reconstruction seems to lack the refinement and proportion associated with Homo sapiens, especially those of Near Eastern descent. The face appears heavy, with overly robust jaws and angular features, echoing the massive jaws and strong facial muscles of Neanderthals. In contrast, historical depictions of people from 1st-century Galilee are quite different, with more balanced facial proportions and far less emphasis on these exaggerated features.

Implications of the Neanderthal Comparison: A Dehumanizing Portrayal
To claim that this portrayal of Jesus—or any 1st-century Galilean—is accurate is, at best, an attempt to oversimplify and distort physical history. It borders on dehumanization. The implications of presenting Jesus in such a manner are both deeply troubling and offensive.

1. Inferiorizing Christ's Appearance:  
The association with Neanderthals, a species often considered less intelligent and more primal, seems to demean the image of Jesus by portraying him as less than fully human. The Neanderthal comparison implicitly suggests that the Son of God—revered as divine, wise, and compassionate—would have looked less evolved, reinforcing archaic stereotypes of intellectual inferiority. This is an affront to the dignity of Christ not only as a spiritual figure but also as a historical person.

2. Theological and Cultural Disrespect:  
For centuries, depictions of Jesus have reflected reverence, portraying him as a beacon of compassion, wisdom, and divinity. Neave's reconstruction, however, stands in stark contrast, presenting a far more uncouth and primitive image. This not only disrupts the cultural and theological understanding of Jesus but also casts a shadow of ridicule over an image that millions hold sacred. The features in this portrait, mirroring those of Neanderthals, suggest a certain mockery of Christ's traditional image, whether intentional or not.

A Reckless Representation
Neave's reconstruction cannot be viewed as a neutral or purely forensic exercise. The glaring similarities to Neanderthal features—such as the low cranium, pronounced brow ridge, wide nose, and heavy jaw—suggest a deliberate or negligent attempt to reduce the image of Jesus Christ to something far less dignified than what historical and theological sources would have us believe. This portrayal not only insults the historical reality of 1st-century Galileans but also damages the spiritual and cultural image of Christ that has been venerated for millennia. It is imperative to challenge this reconstruction not just on scientific grounds but also on ethical and theological ones. The portrayal of Christ—or any 1st-century Jewish man—as resembling a Neanderthal is not only inaccurate but also a reckless and offensive misrepresentation that undermines the sanctity and dignity of one of history's most important figures.



The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (6): Writing
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-shroud-of-turin-26-other-marks-6.html?fbclid=IwAR1Pj6-lQ_4UNzCdIcWu_DguTL1KTCPSHRAPuZKRldhd75ebF2pagftDOOE#6






http://www.sabanasanta.org/monedas.PDF
http://www.shroudresearch.net/hproxy.php/abstracts.html

How can you explain the existence of other revered shrouds aside from the one in Turin?

They are, basically, self-confessed copies of the true Shroud. The House of Savoy used to send them as gifts to churches and monasteries, in the same way as we send postcards or photographs today. Often, they even wrote on these copies extractum ab originali, that is, ‘taken from the original’. They are all hand-painted, and very rough copies, showing how difficult it is to paint something which really looks like the Shroud.

Barrie Schwortz was a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (often abbreviated as STURP) a team of scientists which performed a set of experiments and analyses on the Shroud of Turin during the late 1970s and early 1980s. STURP issued its final report in 1981.

After 18 years as a skeptic, in 1995, when confronted with the evidence that the blood on the shroud was of a tortured man, he became convinced of the authenticity of the Shroud, and became a Christian.

The Shroud and the jew: Barrie Schwortz at TEDx ViadellaConciliazione
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4sj8hUVaY

"At the beginning of my work, I was very skeptical about its authenticity. I felt no particular emotion toward Jesus because I was raised as an orthodox jew. The only thing I knew about Jesus was that he was a jew, and this was all. ".
After 18 years of study, the full conviction came when "the Blood Chemistry Allen Adler, another jew who was part of the study group, I explained why the red blood remained on the Shroud. The old blood would have to be black or brown, while the blood on the Shroud is a red-crimson. It seemed inexplicable, instead it was the last piece of the puzzle. After nearly 20 years of investigation, it was a shock for me to discover that the piece of cloth was the authentic cloth that had been wrapped the body of Jesus. The conclusions I arrived were based exclusively on scientific observation ".
He has no doubt Schwortz: "Once we came to the scientific conclusion that the cloth was authentic, I have come to understand also the meaning. This is the forensic document of the Passion, and for Christians around the world is the most important relic, precisely because it documents everything you read in the Gospels of what was done to Jesus. I think there are enough evidence to prove that this is the cloth that wrapped the body of Jesus ". The truth about Jesus is the task of faith, he states that "from the point of view of science that cloth wrapped the body of man spoken of in the Gospels".
The study of the Shroud has not only convinced of the authenticity, but it has also changed, evidently, also on a personal level.
"At the beginning of the investigation - said Schwortz -, I knew of God, but it was not very important in my life. I had not thought of God, when the avevo 13 years. I was not very religious, it was almost a requirement for my family. Since then I have moved away from the faith, religion and God, until I reached the 50 years. When in 1995 I came to the conclusion that the Shroud was authentic, I built the site www.shroud.com . I started to collect the material and put it to the public. I began to speak publicly about the Shroud around 1996 ".
This dualism, however, could not continue: "When people started asking me if I was a believer, I could not find the answer. At that point I questioned myself and I realized that God was waiting for me. I was really surprised to see that within me there was a belief in God. Fino a 50 years I had pretty much ignored the faith, and suddenly I found myself face to face with God in my heart. Basically I can say that the Shroud was the catalyst that brought me back to God ". He concluded amused: "How many Jews can say that the Shroud of Turin has led them to faith in God"?

Schwortz runs as well the website:
https://www.shroud.com/

The STURP Team
https://www.upra.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Lecture_1.pdf





Murder at Golgotha: Revisiting the Most Famous Crime Scene in History

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AAEB124AA3618D3645D9A4DC512EC08D

Giulio Ricci: The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud











MONSIGNOR GIULIO RICCI - IN MEMORIAM - Rex Morgan On 6 February 1995
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sn088Apr95.pdf


Giulio Ricci was born in Canino on February 17, 1913, into a deeply Christian family, from which numerous vocations have blossomed. We are in Tuscany, in the Maremma Laziale north of Viterbo, in a territory historically linked to the history of the Etruscans, to Farnese and Pope Paul III, to Prince Luciano Bonaparte; in a land that, with its more than 200,000 olive trees, is known and appreciated for its flourishing production of olive oil.

Giulio Ricci, born in 1924, just a deacon, entered the Seminary of Acquapendente, continued his first studies at the Pontifical Leonian College of Anagni and, subsequently, at the Seminary of Santa Maria della Quercia in Viterbo, where, on July 26, 1936, he was ordained a priest. He further completed his formation with a degree in Philosophy. Teaching letters at the seminary bishopric of Acquapendente from 1936 to 1943, he became a canon of that Cathedral from 1944 to 1953. These are the difficult years of World War II and post-war: they see the young don Giulio committed to assisting and generously helping many sufferers: the wounded, widows, orphans.

In the crypt of the Cathedral of Acquapendente, there is a splendid reconstruction of the Holy Sepulchre, which will surely be decisive in sparking in Mons. Ricci a particular interest in the Passion and the tomb of Jesus. From 1954 to 1961 he resided in Assisi, as the Spiritual Director of the Pontifical Regional Seminary "Pio XII". In November 1963, he transferred to Rome, entering the service of the Holy See at the Apostolic Chancellery and later at the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, where he carried out excellent and generous activity until February 1, 1981. He also became a Canon of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore.

Mons. Giulio Ricci taught us that the best disposition to approach the Shroud is humility and silence. Hence, the Shroud becomes a means of a higher education. Only in this way, in continuous dialogue with God, does the Holy Linen reveal to us its most profound messages, showing itself in the contemplation and study of the wounds. The contemplation and study of the Shroud indeed lead to the remembrance of the Passion of Jesus that transcends the mere historical information, deep truths, and spiritual experiences. In this task, especially, Mons. Ricci, defined by many as the "apostle of the Shroud", has been involved for more than 50 years, remaining in contact with research centers around the world, studying the sacred Linen with passion and scientific tenacity. His indefatigable work and enthusiasm have led to the establishment of a profound dialogue with the major scholars, both theologians and scientists, and to be a promoter and guarantor of rigorous research in the Shroud field. He also personally conducted the in-depth studies of King Umberto II of Savoy, even being received and listened to by the former sovereign himself, Pope Paul VI.

Emblematic is the crucifix, conceived and realized by Mons. Ricci according to a most sensitive reading of the Shroud. Mons. Ricci, after 50 years of studies, faithfully reconstructed what he read in the fabric of linen in parallel with the account of the Gospels, creating that "Syndonic" crucifix which originally was in front of which he prayed, and today is venerated in the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, next to the Relics of the Passion and other copies in Rome. Other copies are in Rome, Canino, Assisi, Porto Ercole, Sant’Anatolia... With this crucifix Mons. Ricci lives an intense spiritual relationship.  Sister Maria Letizia told me, and in the same way I refresh it, how the brother recited the complete prayers in front of the crucifix with particular devotion for the wound on the left knee, the pain, as once he himself had revealed, reflected on his own.

The profound knowledge of the Shroud allowed Mons. Ricci to also make a fundamental contribution to the study of the Oviedo Sudarium. In 1965, in the Asturias, after an attentive and scrupulous observation of "El Sagrado Rostro" in the "Camera Santa", he affirmed that the imprint present on the cloth, duplicated and specular, coincides with the face imprinted on the shroud. Furthermore, he discovered that the Sudarium is placed "in verso" and not "in recto", that is, it is visible only from the back. Successive studies, carried out by the Chapter of the Cathedral, after having extracted the Sudarium from the reliquary and having liberated it from the 3 support cloths, confirmed his thesis. On October 20, 1989, Mons. Ricci was appointed Cleric Beneficiary (Canon) of the Patriarchal Basilica of Saint Peter. His constant commitment to the pastoral dimension, for spiritual formation, and for ecclesial communion was acknowledged. He died in Rome on February 6, 1995, assisted by his sister Sister Maria Letizia, a Clarissan nun of enclosure.
https://www.sindonologianapoli.org/Ricci.html



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbuN0Q59x-4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxqRTH9x4g


At Gethsemane





Sufferings in the Night

On the night of Good Friday, April 3, AD 33, a series of events unfolded, marking a pivotal moment in Christian history. This period, from midnight to the early hours of the morning, involved Jesus Christ's journey and the ordeals he faced, as recorded in the Gospels.

**Midnight to 1:00 AM - Journey from the Garden of Gethsemane to Annas' Residence**: 
After his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was taken to the home of Annas, the father-in-law of the then high priest Caiaphas. Annas, who had significant influence despite being deposed as high priest, interrogated Jesus. During this interrogation, an officer struck Jesus, challenging his response to Annas.

**1:00 AM - Transfer to Caiaphas' Residence**: 
Following the initial questioning, Jesus was sent, still bound, to Caiaphas, the high priest.

**2:00 to 3:00 AM - Interrogation at Caiaphas' Home**: 
At Caiaphas' residence, the chief priests and council sought evidence against Jesus to justify a death sentence. During this interrogation, Jesus affirmed his divine identity, which led to accusations of blasphemy and a unanimous decision of his guilt.

**3:00 to 5:30 AM - Physical Abuse Under Caiaphas' House**: 
This period was marked by severe physical mistreatment. Jesus was subjected to spitting, mocking, striking, and blindfolding, as the guards and others reviled him, demanding he prophesy who had struck him.

**Around Sunrise (6:30 AM) - Appearance before the Sanhedrin**: 
As dawn broke, Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin, the assembly of Jewish leaders, in the Temple's Chamber of Hewn Stones. Here, he faced further questioning about his divine claims, which only solidified the leaders' resolve to condemn him.

**The Role of Judas in Locating Jesus**: 
With a significant number of pilgrims in Jerusalem, finding a specific individual would have been challenging. However, Judas Iscariot, familiar with Jesus' habits and past resting places, led the soldiers directly to him in the Garden of Gethsemane. This was after the Last Supper, and Jesus had not returned to Bethany, where he previously stayed with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.

**Background on Annas and Caiaphas**: 
Annas, once the high priest, remained a figure of considerable authority despite his removal from the position by the Roman prefect Gratus. His relationship with Caiaphas, his son-in-law and the current high priest, gave him continued influence in religious and political affairs.

This sequence of events, spanning the hours from midnight to sunrise, encapsulates a night of intense physical and emotional suffering for Jesus, as narrated in the Gospel accounts, culminating in his eventual trial and crucifixion.



During the night of Good Friday, as recorded in the Gospels, Jesus Christ's journey took him through several significant locations in Jerusalem, beginning at midnight and continuing into the early hours of the morning.

1. **From the Garden of Gethsemane to Annas' House**: 
   - After his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was first taken to the residence of Annas. This location is believed to be in close proximity to what is now known as the Wohl Archaeological Museum.

2. **From Annas' House to Caiaphas' House**: 
   - Following the initial encounter with Annas, Jesus was then moved to the house of Caiaphas. This site is currently identified with the Saint Peter in Gallicantu Monastery, a place thought to be where Caiaphas' house once stood.

3. **From Caiaphas' House to the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple**: 
   - As the dawn approached, Jesus was brought to the Temple to face the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council. The Chamber of Hewn Stones, where this assembly took place, was a significant location within the Temple complex.

4. **From the Temple to Pontius Pilate at Herod's Palace Complex**: 
   - After the Sanhedrin's interrogation, Jesus was taken to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, who resided at Herod's Palace. The location of this palace is now marked by the Tower of David Museum complex.

This sequence of movements during the night represents a critical phase in the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus. Each location played a key role in the narrative of his trial and condemnation, reflecting both the religious and political dimensions of the situation at that time. Jesus, after being apprehended in the Garden of Gethsemane, was first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the reigning high priest. From there, he was transferred to Caiaphas' residence. During this harrowing night, Jesus endured intense physical abuse. As dawn approached, he was led to the Sanhedrin's council chamber within the Temple for further interrogation. Throughout this ordeal, Jesus traversed approximately 2.4 miles across the challenging topography of Jerusalem, characterized by its dark, uneven, and hilly streets. All this occurred while he was bound, without sleep, and suffering from hunger and thirst. The early morning hours brought cooler temperatures, around the mid-40s Fahrenheit, exacerbating his physical strain as he continued to lose fluids due to the night's abuse. Amidst this physical and emotional torment, a profound moment of personal betrayal unfolded. Peter, one of Jesus' closest disciples and the one he had chosen to lead after him, denied knowing Jesus, adding a layer of emotional anguish to the physical suffering he was already enduring. This denial happened as Jesus was facing one of the most challenging moments of his life, underscoring the depth of his isolation and suffering during these critical hours.

During the night leading up to Good Friday, the Gospels recount that Jesus experienced various forms of physical maltreatment. This began when an officer struck him at Annas' house, as mentioned in John 18:22. Throughout the night, as described in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus was subjected to spitting, blindfolding, slapping, and a barrage of punches. The guards, likely exhausted from their day's duties and frustrated by the late-night vigil, vented their aggravation on Jesus. The Greek terms used in the Gospels – 'rhapisma' and 'rhapizo' – are translated variably as 'slapped', 'received with blows', or 'struck with a hand'. These terms, as per Strong's Concordance, can imply striking with a rod, though typically they refer to slapping with an open hand. Another Greek word, 'kolaphizo', signifies brutal fist strikes and excessive force, translating to 'struck' in Matthew and Mark. Luke's Gospel uses two different terms for 'struck' – 'paio' and 'typto', both implying beating or striking, often with a fist. Collectively, these accounts indicate that Jesus was both slapped and punched.

Luke, known for his meticulous reporting, uses the term 'derontes' to describe Jesus' suffering. This word, derived from the root 'der' (related to skin, as in 'dermatologist'), primarily means 'flaying the skin' or 'beating'. Given that Matthew and Mark also mention face strikes, Luke's use of 'derontes' might suggest additional forms of physical abuse. In the New Testament, derivatives of 'dero' are used to describe various forms of punishment, including beating, flogging, and striking with great violence. According to the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon and BDAG, 'dero' historically meant 'to skin or flay', but later evolved to imply significant skin damage through beating or whipping. There's a tradition in Jerusalem of two scourging pillars used for Jesus' torture – one beneath Caiaphas' house and the other near Pontius Pilate's praetorium, recently identified near the Tower of David in the Old City. The first pillar is located in the Crusader-era Chapel of the Apparition in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, while the latter is venerated in Rome's Basilica of Santa Prassede. This duality of locations reflects the intense and varied nature of the physical abuse Jesus endured during those hours.



The injuries on the face




Ricci conducted a detailed geometric and linear study of the contusions and marks on the face depicted on the Shroud. According to Ricci's analysis, the marks on the face suggest the presence of various bodily fluids such as sweat, tears, blood, and possibly saliva. These indications point to a face that has undergone severe deformation. Key features noted by Ricci include significant swelling on the right cheek, which he hypothesized could be the result of a blow with a rod or stick. This might correspond to the "slap" mentioned in the Gospel of John, although Ricci suggested that the original term might have been mistranslated or misunderstood. Additionally, Ricci observed what appeared to be a broken nasal cartilage. He posited that this injury could have resulted from the same blow that caused the cheek swelling or from a separate fall. Ricci's study contributes to the broader debate about the authenticity and significance of the Shroud of Turin. His findings, particularly the detailed analysis of the facial injuries, lend support to the theory that the image on the Shroud could be that of a person who suffered physical trauma similar to that described in the biblical accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The precision of these marks and their alignment with historical and scriptural descriptions of Christ's passion add another layer to the ongoing mystery and intrigue surrounding the Shroud.

Marinelli (1996) The face of the Man of the Shroud is surely, among the parts of the body, the one that has suffered the most trauma. Yet that face continues to make an impression, according to the words of Max Frei, "for its majestic, sad serenity". In it appear clear signs of fierce mistreatment. It was struck with a stick, the trace of which is easily recognizable on the right cheek and nose; it also shows a swelling on the right cheek, incisions caused by a blow on the left zygomatic bone, a clump of blood on the left eyelid, two streams of blood coming from the nose, blood from a cut under the upper lip, a bruise with a slight deviation of the tip of the nose. Other notable data are the lacerated-contused wounds of the eyebrows and the palpebral ecchymoses.

Biblical references:

And the soldiers, having plaited a crown of thorns, put it upon his head ... and they struck him (John 19:2-3).
And they struck his head with a reed, and did spit upon him (Mark 15:19). I did not hide my face from shame and spitting (Isaiah 50:6)

The flagellation

Date: Good Friday, April 3, AD 33
Time: Late morning
Location: The praetorium, located in Herod’s Palace, near the Jaffa Gate on the western side of Old Jerusalem, within the Tower of David complex.

Gospel Account:
According to the Gospel of Luke, Pilate convened the chief priests, rulers, and people, declaring, “Behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him; I will therefore chastise him and release him.” (Luke 23:13, 15–16). However, the people insisted on crucifixion. Pilate, in an effort to appease the crowd, agreed to their demands. Mark’s Gospel narrates that Pilate, after trying to understand the accusation against Jesus, eventually succumbed to the crowd's clamor for crucifixion. Jesus was scourged and handed over for crucifixion, and the soldiers escorted him inside the palace, also known as the praetorium (Mark 15:12–16).

Historical Context:
Early on that fateful Friday, Jesus, after enduring a night of extreme suffering, was taken from the Temple’s Chamber of Hewn Stones to Herod’s Palace, a distance of approximately 800 meters. Pilate, who governed from this palace during his visits to Jerusalem, especially during Jewish festivals, was there to maintain order. This location, near the Jaffa Gate and the Tower of David on the west side of Old Jerusalem, is distinct from the traditional starting point of the Way of the Cross near the Church of the Flagellation, and about 400 meters from Calvary.

The Scourging:
Roman punishment, designed to be a public spectacle as a deterrent, likely took place outside Herod’s Palace. Jesus, stripped of his clothing, was probably bound to a pole or column during the scourging, a method supported by ancient oral tradition, although the Gospels do not specify this detail.

Revised Understanding of the Passion:
1. The instrument of torture, the Roman 'flagrum,' was believed to have lead balls or sheep bone ('talus') attached near the ends of its thongs. This design was intended to inflict severe wounds.
2. It was a common belief that Jesus, after his arrest, was taken to the Praetorium of the Fortress of Antonia, where Pontius Pilate resided and governed. This was necessary since only the Roman authorities could sanction an execution.
3. Archaeological findings, such as a flagrum discovered in Pompeii, suggest that it consisted of three leather cords tied to a handle, with sharp objects like bones, stones, glass, or metal tied into the strips to maximize injury and pain.

The Flagrum



The Roman flagrum, also known as the flagellum, was a brutal instrument of torture and was likely used in the flagellation of Jesus, as described in the Biblical accounts of the Passion. This tool was infamous for its cruel efficiency in inflicting severe physical harm.

Description of the Flagrum

1. **Design and Construction**: The flagrum typically consisted of a handle made from wood, to which several leather thongs were attached. The length of these thongs varied, but they were generally long enough to wrap around the body and strike the front as well as the back.
   
2. **Embedded Objects**: What made the flagrum particularly vicious were the small objects, such as metal balls, sharp pieces of bone, or hooks, that were often woven or attached to the leather thongs. These objects ensured that each strike not only hit the skin but also tore it, leading to deep, painful lacerations.

3. **Method of Use**: The person administering the whipping, usually a Roman soldier or executioner, would lash the victim's back, buttocks, and legs. The flagrum was designed to inflict maximum damage with each strike, causing deep bruises, ripping the skin, and even tearing into underlying tissues and muscles.

Use in the Flagellation of Jesus


1. **Historical Context**: Roman scourging, as part of the process of crucifixion, was a form of severe punishment and humiliation. In Jesus' case, the flagellation was ordered prior to his crucifixion, as detailed in the Gospels.

2. **Physical Impact**: The use of the flagrum would have caused immense pain and significant blood loss. It was not uncommon for victims of such scourging to go into shock due to the intensity of the pain and the extent of the injuries.

3. **Purpose**: Beyond physical punishment, the flagellation served as a method of weakening a victim before crucifixion and as a stark warning to others about the consequences of defying Roman authority. In the narrative of Jesus' crucifixion, the flagellation underscores the severity of his suffering before his death.

The flagellation of Jesus using a Roman flagrum, as described in the Christian tradition, stands as one of the most vivid and painful episodes in the Passion narrative, illustrating the extreme nature of Roman punitive practices and the extent of Jesus' suffering in the hours leading up to his crucifixion.

The Virgae



The Roman virgae, often mentioned in discussions about the instruments used in the torture of Jesus, were a type of rod or whip used for corporal punishment and torture in ancient Rome. While the more commonly known flagrum (or flagellum) was a whip with multiple leather thongs, often embedded with metal balls or bone pieces, the virgae were somewhat different in their construction and use.

Description of the Virgae

1. **Material and Construction**: The virgae were typically made from branches of trees, often those that were flexible yet strong. They were essentially slender, straight rods or sticks.
   
2. **Purpose and Usage**: Unlike the flagrum, which was designed to inflict deep, lacerating wounds, the virgae were used more for beating and causing pain through blunt force. The rods would cause bruising and surface-level trauma, which, while extremely painful, generally did not lead to the same level of physical damage as the flagrum.

Use in the Context of Jesus' Torture


1. **Historical Accounts**: While the Gospels primarily mention scourging, which typically refers to the use of the flagrum, it is plausible that the virgae were also used. The Roman practice of scourging often involved a variety of instruments to inflict pain and weaken a prisoner.

2. **Severity of Punishment**: The use of both the flagrum and virgae would suggest a particularly severe form of punishment. The flagrum would cause deep tissue damage, while the virgae would add to the physical suffering through intense beating.

3. **Symbolic and Practical Implications**: The Romans used such methods of torture not only to punish but also to instill fear and assert authority. In the case of Jesus, the use of these instruments would have been both a form of physical punishment and a means to make an example of him to the populace.

While the flagrum was known for its brutal efficiency in causing deep, lacerating wounds, the virgae were more associated with causing pain through blunt force. Their potential combined use in the torture of Jesus would signify a particularly severe and agonizing ordeal, reflective of the harsh methods of punishment employed in Roman times.







Exterior of the Franciscan Monastery of the Flagellation. This site, which marks the beginning of the modern Stations of the Cross in Jerusalem, is where Christians in the Middle Ages believed that the flagellation (scourging) took place. At that time, it was thought that Pilate would have judged and scourged Jesus at the Fortress of Antonia. That has now been demonstrated to be false.



The Praetorium, as detailed in the Gospels (Matthew 27:27, Mark 15:16, John 19:9), was the central setting for the trial and scourging of Jesus. This significant location comes into focus particularly on Good Friday morning, as described in John 18:28, when Jewish leaders presented Jesus to Pontius Pilate. Lacking the authority to impose capital punishment, they altered their accusation from blasphemy (Matthew 26:65) to sedition, framing Jesus as a challenger to Roman rule by claiming he was the King of the Jews (Luke 23:2–3). Historically, the term "praetorium" had dual meanings: it referred to a Roman general's tent within a military camp and also denoted the official residence of a Roman governor. This latter definition often implied a residence of considerable grandeur, such as a country estate or palatial home. The Christian tradition, particularly since the sixteenth century, has commemorated the Way of the Cross starting at the Franciscan Monastery of the Flagellation in Jerusalem. This site, believed to be where the Fortress of Antonia once stood, is connected to the Temple and served as a strategic location for Roman soldiers to monitor the influx of pilgrims during major Jewish festivals like Passover. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon provides further insights, describing the praetorium in Jerusalem as a magnificent palace constructed by Herod the Great. This palace was reportedly used by Roman procurators, including Pilate, as their official residence during visits from Caesarea for public duties. Archaeological and historical evidence suggests that this palace, rather than the traditional site near the Fortress of Antonia, was the actual location of Jesus' trial and scourging. By the nineteenth century, scholars began to recognize that the traditional site of Pilate’s trial and Jesus’ scourging did not align with historical and archaeological findings, pointing instead to Herod’s grand palace as the more likely setting for these pivotal events.

The practice of scourging before crucifixion, as described in historical texts, is a well-documented aspect of Roman execution procedures. In their 1986 article, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ," William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer offer a detailed account of this practice: “Flogging was a legal preliminary to every Roman execution, exempting only women, Roman senators, or soldiers (except in cases of desertion). The typical instrument for this was a short whip (flagellum) with various lengths of single or braided leather thongs. These thongs were embedded with small iron balls or sharp sheep bone fragments at intervals.”

This passage, frequently cited in scholarly discussions, draws from two key sources: Dr. Pierre Barbet’s “A Doctor at Calvary” and Martin Hengel’s 1977 work “Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross.” 

Edwards and his colleagues use the term “flogging” to describe this brutal act. It's crucial to note that flogging was a common form of punishment in both Roman and Jewish contexts during ancient times. The Gospels provide limited details about Jesus’ scourging, likely because the readers at the time were presumably familiar with such punishments. In the Gospels, Mark (15:15) and Matthew (27:26) use the term phragellosas, translating to “scourged.” John (19:1) employs emastigosen, which also means “scourged,” “whipped,” or “chastised.” Luke’s account (23:16, 22) is slightly different, merely stating that Pilate intended to have Jesus “chastised” (paideuo) as a means of reprimand rather than a death sentence. It is from Luke, often noted for his meticulous approach as a physician, that we understand Pilate’s intention for the scourging to serve as the entire punishment for Jesus: “A third time he said to them, ‘Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him’” (Luke 23:22).

The Shroud of Turin shows fascinating details, especially when examined as a photographic negative. On the Shroud's dorsal side, from the shoulders down to the legs, including the exposed buttocks, round, dumbbell-shaped marks are observed. These marks are similarly present on the frontal image, covering the chest, abdomen, thighs, and legs, while sparing the head, neck, and groin. The arms, from shoulder to elbow, are obscured due to patches sewn onto the Shroud, though the forearms are visible on the front side. The nature of these marks has been debated: while some interpret them as evidence of scourging wounds, others, following a high-resolution examination, argue that they differ in appearance and origin from the dumbbell-shaped marks on other parts of the body.

The Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 made several key observations about these marks. Under UV fluorescence, these dumbbell-shaped "scourge" marks appear darker and more sharply defined than in visible light, consistent with the spectral characteristics of iron porphyrin compounds. The geometric similarity of these marks is also notable, with fine "scratches" emanating from their distal ends in UV-stimulated fluorescence photographs. Visually, these marks have a reddish, diffuse look with darker spots within, but under ultraviolet light, they absorb heavily and resolve into parallel scratch-like lines in groups of three or four. According to researchers Miller and Pellicori, the areas surrounding these marks fluoresce, indicative of serum separating from blood. The fine scratch marks might result from surface irregularities on the lead pieces used in scourging. Analysis of sticky-tape samples from these reddish-brown marks, including the dumbbell-shaped areas, reveals not only heme derivatives (indicating hemoglobin from red blood cells) but also bile pigments and albumin, key proteins in serum. This supports Dr. Pierre Barbet’s hypothesis and the findings of Miller and Pellicori that the blood images on the Shroud represent clotted blood with surrounding “haloes” of separated serum. Italian researchers Barbara Faccini and Giulio Fanti suggest that the Shroud’s marks correspond to different types of torture instruments, possibly a flagrum or virgae. They have identified over 150 marks on the frontal image and more than 200 on the dorsal side, which they attribute to scourging. Their analysis includes a photograph of a proposed flagrum with two lead balls on each of three leather strips. Some images on the Shroud imply two or three lead balls per strip, and the scratch-like images, most evident under UV imaging, could result from the leather impacting the skin or from irregularities on the lead pieces.

The Shroud displays distinct marks that many attribute to scourging. Among these, the most conspicuous are the dumbbell-shaped marks, believed to have been caused by small, ball-shaped, hard (likely metal) objects striking the skin. These marks are approximately a third of an inch in diameter, slightly larger than the thickness of a standard pencil eraser. When these dumbbell-shaped blood marks on the Shroud are compared to scourging instruments discovered in the Roman catacombs, there appears to be a correlation, suggesting the existence of a tool in ancient Rome that could have produced these specific marks on the figure depicted on the Shroud.

Other marks on the Shroud seem consistent with wounds inflicted by virgae, a different type of scourging tool. These marks are overlaid by the dumbbell-shaped ones, indicating they were made earlier. This sequencing raises the question of whether these initial wounds could have been inflicted by Jewish guards in the dungeon beneath the house of Caiaphas on the night before, aligning with Luke’s account (22:63) of Jesus’ beating, described as derontes in Greek. However, the exact nature and sequence of these events remain uncertain, largely because virgae, typically made from perishable materials, have not survived as archaeological evidence. Regarding the reconstruction of Jesus' scourging, Italian researcher Flavia Manservigi has emphasized the limitations in determining the exact methods or tools used. In a 2015 email, she noted that while her research confirmed the existence of scourging practices during the Roman era that could produce marks similar to those on the Shroud, it is not definitively possible to ascertain the exact method or implement used in Jesus’ case. The varying terms used in historical texts suggest different scourging tools, and while a flagrum (a whip with heavy objects at the ends) aligns with the Shroud's marks, this remains a hypothesis rather than a certainty. Manservigi’s research thus underscores the complexity and uncertainty in fully understanding the specifics of the scourging as depicted on the Shroud of Turin.

The Pillar of the Scourging

Throughout history, two specific pillars have been venerated as the sites of Christ's scourging. One is believed to have been in the Sacred Pit, while the other is associated with the scourging that was ordered by Pontius Pilate. German historian Michael Hesemann posits that fourth-century pilgrims in Jerusalem revered the pillar from the house of Caiaphas, which is now the location of Saint Peter in Gallicantu, as the pillar of scourging. This particular pillar was relocated to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the year 614, following the destruction of the original Basilica of Saint Peter by the Persians. The dimensions of this pillar are notable; it stands approximately 25 inches tall, though it is visibly broken at the top, suggesting it may have once been much taller. The possibility that Jesus was bound to this pillar in the dungeon beneath Caiaphas’s house and beaten with rods, such as virgae, remains a plausible scenario within the context of these historical and religious traditions. This pillar, with its broken top and storied history, continues to be an object of reverence and a symbol of the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In the late fourth century, another significant pillar emerged from the shadows of history. This pillar, initially concealed on Mount Zion, was hidden away following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. By the year 383, it was presented publicly, marking a new chapter in its veneration. 


Flagellatio secundum Sindonem

The pillar's journey continued in 1009 when it was moved to Constantinople. Remarkably, it survived the destruction ordered by Caliph Al-Hakim, who commanded the demolition of the church where it was housed. In a further twist of fate, the pillar found a new home in 1223 when it was transported to Rome. Today, it resides in the Church of Santa Prassede. Crafted from Egyptian marble—a material famously used by Herod the Great in his construction projects, including the Temple—this pillar has dimensions that speak to its historic significance. It stands 25 inches (63 centimeters) high and has a base diameter of 16 inches (40 centimeters), tapering to a narrower 5 inches (13 centimeters) at the top. Notably, the pillar features a spot at the top where a thick, metal ring was once attached, presumably used to bind prisoners. This pillar, with its rich history and travels across the Mediterranean, remains an enduring symbol of the events that led to Jesus Christ's crucifixion, capturing the imagination and reverence of generations.


Marinelli (1996):The nuns of Chambéry, in their meticulous restoration work after the fire of 1532, had the opportunity to observe the Shroud at length; the lacerations and bruises inflicted on the flagellated man are not so frequent on the back, where you can find a place of prominence, but are instead spread over the entire surface of the body. They are in clusters and at a density that suggests a severe beating, extending from the shoulders down to the calf muscles. The lashes intertwine with each other, ending in dumbbell-shaped weights that have torn the flesh. The entire body is lacerated with ferocious wounds produced by a Roman flagrum. Research conducted by the dedicated monsignor Giulio Ricci, a studious man who has dedicated much of his life to the Shroud, has highlighted particularly interesting aspects.

The victim was not a Roman citizen, otherwise, he could not have been sentenced to such a cruel punishment. The signs above are numerically superior to those expected for a standard execution; they had to endure successive tortures. These lashes are indeed counted as part of the punishment; the flagellation was infinite like a sentence to death; this action underlines the direction of the lashes, which we almost never find in any documented zone, a testimony of particular fierceness and a cold determination of some parts of the body. The instruments used had to be corrected with pieces of bone or metal.

The Man of the Shroud was flagellated naked, because the lesions of the flagrum are clearly visible, as the lesions on the back; they are there, where a curved iron bar, probably tied to a low column base, stood. The flagellation preceded the sentence to the capital punishment of the patibulum, because the lacerations on the shoulders are added to the whip wounds.

Biblical testimonies related to the passion of Jesus: Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged (John 19:1). 
The soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They began to call out to him, 'Hail, king of the Jews!' Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him (Mark 15:16-20). 
Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the inscription was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek (John 19:20). Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews (John 19:19)." 1

Experts maintain that if the Shroud had remained wrapped around the body for more than those hours, time which is necessary for the dissolution of the blood (fibrinolysis) there would have been an excessive softening of the fibrin and the consequent diffusion of the blood fluid, the beginning of the decomposition of the corpse. The the aforementioned hours correspond to the three days in which Jesus' body was in the tomb. -They took the body of Jesus and bound it (wrapped it) with linen bandages with spices (Jn.19,40)



Jesus is condemned to death

"So...Pilate...took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this righteous man's blood; see to it yourselves.'... 'His blood be on us and on our children'" (Mt 27:24-25).

The water of political compromise became the betrayal of the known and proclaimed Truth, and signified the handing over of the Innocent One to ill-intentioned enemies: it became blood!

Historically this sad event was confined to a few Jews, even though they formed a cleverly manipulated crowd that day, and led to a wavering Roman judge. However, the fingers pointed at him are innumerable: those of the entire human race which, because of the mystery of sin, which involves everyone, accuses him, the Innocent, Holy One, King by divine origin and by the right of conquest, and points at him the finger of accusation as a mock king, rendered powerless, ridiculed, humiliated, rejected, condemned. Moreover, he is mystically condemned by our sinful judgments when these are passed on the actions and intentions of any innocent man, with whom he identifies himself: "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40).

The flagellation

We now examine the Shroud’s array of injuries, seemingly inflicted by a whip with hard, dumbbell-shaped objects attached to its lashes. The Christian Gospels, with their characteristic brevity, provide minimal detail about Jesus's scourging. The Gospel according to John succinctly states: ‘Pilate then had Jesus taken away and scourged.’ Similarly, Matthew’s account is terse: ‘And having Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified.’ Yet, beyond the Gospel narratives, contemporary Roman-era historians and authors provide a more vivid depiction of the brutality of scourging. Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, described the Roman governor's merciless flogging of Jews: ‘He ordered them all to be stripped and lacerated with scourges... Some had to be carried out on stretchers and died at once, while others lay sick for a long time despairing of recovery.’ This account, along with others, indicates that victims were stripped naked, a state particularly degrading for Jews, which seems to be corroborated by the Shroud's imagery.

The lethality of scourging is clarified upon consulting historical sources. The term ‘flagrum,’ the Latin for ‘scourge,’ reveals the Roman scourge as a particularly gruesome instrument. Common to various designs was the incorporation of elements to enhance flesh damage, such as ‘tali’ (small sheep bones) and ‘plumbatae’ (lead pellets) – features consistent with the markings on the Shroud. The number of lashes in a Roman scourging varied based on the severity of the crime and the victim's citizenship status. Approximately a hundred individual dumbbell impressions are discernible on the Shroud, often appearing in pairs, suggesting a flagrum with at least two lashes. This is corroborated by a Roman coin depicting the flagrum in a gladiatorial contest. Saint Paul, a Roman citizen, recounted receiving ‘thirty-nine lashes by the Jews’ five times, but this limitation was specific to Jewish law. Therefore, we lack a definitive benchmark for the number of lashes Pilate might have ordered for Jesus, and by extension, what might be expected on the Shroud.

Degrees of Roman Corporal Punishment: From Fustigatio to Verberatio

Fustigatio (beating) - This was a less severe form of punishment involving hitting the person. It was often used for minor offenses and was intended as a disciplinary measure rather than a sentence for a crime.

Flagellatio (flogging) - A more intense form of corporal punishment, flogging involved whipping the individual's back with various instruments like rods or whips. This was often used for more serious offenses and could lead to significant physical harm.

Verberatio (severe flogging, scourging) - The most severe form of the listed punishments, verberatio was a brutal form of flogging that could result in deep tissue damage and was sometimes fatal. The whips used in verberatio were often tipped with metal or bone to inflict maximum damage.

Jesus, according to Christian doctrine and historical records, was subjected to the punishment of scourging or severe flogging (verberatio) before his crucifixion. This was part of the Roman judicial penalty and was intended to weaken a condemned person before execution. In the accounts of Jesus's Passion, it is described that he was scourged by Roman soldiers, which would have been an extremely painful and damaging ordeal. This act is a central element of Christian narrative, reflecting the suffering that Jesus underwent before his death.








Giulio Ricci's study of the Shroud of Turin includes a detailed examination of the flagellation marks, leading to significant insights. According to Ricci's analysis, the patterns of the wounds suggest that the "Man" of the Shroud was flogged by two professionals who knew precisely where and how to strike. The distribution of the marks indicates that the entire body was systematically targeted, consistent with Roman-style flagellation. Ricci's research identified approximately 120 lash marks, a number significantly higher than the maximum of 39 lashes typically administered under Hebrew law, and with a different instrument. This disparity in the number and style of the wounds points to a Roman method of punishment rather than a Hebrew one. A particularly noteworthy aspect  involves the use of ultraviolet light photography, which revealed trails of serum in the wounds on the back. These trails, invisible to the naked eye, suggest that the body was bent forward during the flogging. The presence of serum trails, along with the systematic pattern of the wounds, strongly indicates that these injuries were real and inflicted on a living person. Ricci's findings contribute to the understanding of the Shroud of Turin as more than just a medieval artifact. The detailed analysis of the flagellation marks supports the theory that the image on the Shroud is that of a person who endured a brutal and historically accurate form of Roman punishment, aligning with the biblical account of the crucifixion. This meticulous study of the wounds enhances the Shroud's significance in both historical and religious contexts.

The exact position Jesus was in during his scourging remains uncertain, as there is a lack of definitive evidence from the Roman Empire's artwork or ancient literature that specifically illustrates or describes how victims were secured to pillars for this punishment. While traditional depictions often show Jesus naked, facing a pillar with his hands tied above his head and feet barely touching the ground, other portrayals suggest a different scenario where he is shackled to a lower pillar, bent over it, with his forearms resting atop. A relevant reference to scourging can be found in the New Testament, specifically in Acts 22:24–25, which describes the preparation for Saint Paul’s scourging. In this passage, Paul is described as being “tied … up with the thongs,” using the Greek word proteinô. This term implies an action of extending or stretching out the body, suggesting a position that would increase the severity of the punishment, leading to more pronounced lacerations of the skin. From a dermatological perspective, this can be likened to the tension applied to skin during surgery to allow for deeper and more precise incisions. The implication of proteinô could mean that the body was either stretched forward over a pillar or tied with hands raised high. This ambiguity in the historical and scriptural accounts leaves the exact position of Jesus during the scourging open to interpretation. The various portrayals reflect the different methods potentially used in Roman scourging practices, each with its specific implications for the severity and nature of the wounds inflicted.



The scourging as depicted on the Shroud reveals significant details about the nature of this brutal punishment. Notably, the scourge marks are absent on the upper extremities, suggesting that the individual(s) administering the scourging (verberatores) focused exclusively on other areas. The question arises: what would be the impact of being struck by virgae and a flagrum on the back of a naked individual, especially one already weakened by a prior beating in the dungeon beneath Caiaphas’s house? Roman scourging was not governed by a legal limit on the number of strokes, a stark contrast to Jewish law, which capped the number at thirty-nine to avoid counting errors. According to researchers Manservigi and Morini, the Roman executioners, if not delivering a death sentence, were tasked with avoiding the death of the victim. The lack of a predefined limit meant the consequences varied based on the tools used. Given that Pilate initially intended the scourging to be Jesus’ sole punishment (Luke 23:16, 22), it's likely he instructed the verberatores to avoid causing death. If Jesus had already endured a severe beating with rods in Caiaphas’s dungeon, the subsequent flagrum strikes would have quickly reopened any dried wounds, leading to profuse bleeding. The expected physical damage from such a scourging would include welts, large bruises, abrasions, lacerations, and bloody blisters covering the back, sides, buttocks, thighs, and legs.

Contrary to some beliefs, sheep bone fragments on the flagrum (used in non-Roman locations) likely did not penetrate through to the muscles of Jesus’ back. If the Shroud is indeed Christ's burial cloth, it shows no evidence of tearing wounds deep enough to expose muscles. However, severe beating with the metal balls could have caused extensive bleeding from contused muscles, either beneath the skin or breaking through to the surface in more intensely struck areas. The scourge marks on the Shroud present a fan pattern on the back, suggesting a specific angle of striking, possibly with Jesus upright or bent over a low pillar. The ferocity of the strikes is evident, with Jesus likely being turned or even thrown to the ground for further scourging on the front side. The ensuing pain would have been excruciating, potentially leading to loss of consciousness and significant blood loss. The visible wounds likely represent only a portion of the actual damage. As Dr. Barbet theorized, wounds consisting of deep contusions and bruising without external bleeding would not be visible on the Shroud, suggesting an underestimation of the true extent of the injuries sustained.

Physiological impact of scourging

The physiological impact of scourging, particularly in the context of severe cases such as that of Jesus Christ as described in the Biblical accounts, involves a range of traumatic effects on the body due to repeated blunt force trauma. This type of punishment typically leads to extensive bruising, swelling, and the accumulation of tissue fluid. As the skin endures continuous strikes, it can become severely damaged, leading to the formation of shallow ulcers or open, bleeding wounds. These injuries can rupture repeatedly, causing both external and internal blood loss, contributing to circulatory shock. Circulatory shock occurs when the blood volume is significantly reduced, impairing the circulation of blood and leading to insufficient oxygen supply to the body's tissues. This condition is exacerbated by severe pain, which heightens oxygen demand due to increased breathing rates and heart output. The pain also activates the sympathetic nervous system, triggering responses such as profuse sweating, which further depletes the body's fluids. In addition to these effects, blunt trauma to the chest can cause several complications. One such complication is pneumothorax, or a collapsed lung, which happens when air leaks into the space between the lungs and the chest wall due to tears in the lung tissue. This can lead to a reduction in lung capacity and, in severe cases, complete lung collapse.

Moreover, chest pain resulting from such trauma can cause the victim to take shallower breaths to minimize pain, a response known as "splinting." This reduced respiratory effort leads to less air intake and can exacerbate the pain during deep breathing. Another complication is pleural effusion, which can occur with or without blood presence. This condition arises when blunt trauma causes small blood vessels in the lungs to rupture, allowing blood to leak into the pleural cavity. This accumulation of fluid can be significant and is detectable in medical imaging like chest X-rays. For instance, a volume of about 500 milliliters of blood in the pleural cavity can rise to the level between the fourth and fifth ribs, which is an important consideration in understanding the impact of injuries such as those described in the Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion.

The symptoms and consequences of pleural effusion and hemothorax, as well as other complications resulting from severe scourging, present a complex and debilitating scenario. These conditions can manifest through various signs and symptoms, significantly impacting the body's function and overall state.

1. **Cyanosis and Asymmetrical Chest Movement**: Cyanosis, characterized by bluish discoloration of the skin, is a common symptom due to inadequate oxygenation of the blood. If the hemothorax is unilateral, it can lead to unequal chest expansion during breathing, further complicating respiratory efforts.

2. **Cardiovascular Responses**: The body's response to such trauma often includes a rapid heartbeat and low blood pressure. These are compensatory mechanisms trying to maintain adequate blood flow and oxygen delivery despite the loss of blood volume.

3. **Skin Condition**: The physical stress and blood loss can result in pale, cool, clammy skin, indicative of poor perfusion and the onset of shock.

4. **Respiratory Efficiency Reduction**: Fluid accumulation around the lungs reduces the lung tissue's ability to efficiently exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. This inefficiency necessitates an increased breathing rate to compensate for reduced oxygenation, causing further pain due to damaged chest muscles and ribs.

5. **Flail Chest and Pulmonary Contusions**: While flail chest, a condition where a segment of the chest wall moves independently due to multiple rib fractures, is unlikely in the absence of bone fractures, the chest trauma can still lead to pulmonary contusions. This results in blood and fluid accumulation in the lung tissue, hindering gas exchange and leading to symptoms like chest pain, breathlessness, and potentially coughing up blood.

6. **Shock and Dehydration**: The combination of blood and fluid loss can lead to shock, especially in an upright position where gravity further challenges blood circulation. Dehydration exacerbates this, causing symptoms like a dry mouth, severe headache, dizziness, palpitations, and muscle cramps.

7. **Blunt Cardiac Trauma and Heart Damage**: Chest trauma may also impact the heart, potentially causing damage to heart valves, coronary arteries, or the heart muscle. Such damage can be life-threatening, leading to cardiac arrest or heart rhythm disturbances.

8. **Pericardial Injuries and Hyperkalemia**: Injury to the pericardium (the sac surrounding the heart) can lead to pericardial effusion, where fluid accumulation impedes the heart's ability to pump effectively. Additionally, severe muscle damage from scourging can cause hyperkalemia, a dangerous increase in blood potassium levels, which can disrupt heart rhythms and lead to ventricular fibrillation.

9. **Overall Physical Condition**: The cumulative effect of these injuries would have left a person in a state of intense pain, significant blood loss, and potentially in a preshock or shock state. This condition would render the individual's vital signs unstable and their physical condition severely compromised.

The physiological toll of severe scourging, as described in historical accounts like that of Jesus Christ, involves a multitude of severe and life-threatening conditions affecting the respiratory, cardiovascular, and muscular systems, compounded by the critical impact of shock and dehydration.

Royal Treatment

On the morning of Good Friday, April 3, AD 33, a significant event took place at the praetorium, located within Herod's Palace near the Jaffa Gate on the western side of Old Jerusalem's walled city, now part of the Tower of David complex. This event, detailed in the Gospels, involved a mock coronation orchestrated by the Roman soldiers.

Narrative from the Gospels


1. **Mock Coronation at the Praetorium**: Jesus was brought inside Herod's Palace, known as the praetorium. There, the Roman soldiers assembled an entire battalion for a cruel charade.

2. **Crown of Thorns and Purple Cloak**: In a twisted parody of royalty, they dressed Jesus in a purple cloak, a color traditionally associated with nobility and royalty. They then fashioned a crown out of thorns and forced it onto his head, causing physical pain and symbolizing mock royalty.

3. **Mockery and Abuse**: The soldiers taunted Jesus with false homage, saluting him as the "King of the Jews." They struck him on the head with a reed, spat upon him, and knelt in feigned reverence. This act of mockery was not only physically abusive but also deeply humiliating.

4. **Public Presentation and Final Sentencing**: After this episode of mockery, Jesus was presented to the crowd in his crown of thorns and purple robe. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, showed Jesus to the public, declaring, "Here is the man!" Despite Pilate's attempts to reason with the crowd, they vehemently demanded Jesus' crucifixion. Eventually, Pilate conceded and handed Jesus over to be crucified.

This account in the Gospels highlights the intense physical and emotional abuse Jesus endured. The mock coronation was not only a form of physical torture but also a way to publicly humiliate and degrade him. This event was a prelude to his final journey to Golgotha, where he would be crucified.

In the late morning of Good Friday, April 3, AD 33, a pivotal event occurred at Herod's Palace, located on the western side of Jerusalem's fortified city. Pontius Pilate, under immense pressure from the gathered crowd, made a consequential decision to free Barabbas, a convicted murderer, and instead condemn Jesus to death. This act of exchanging Barabbas ("son of the father") for Jesus Christ (the true Son of the Father) was a moment of profound irony and injustice.

Details of Jesus' Mockery and Suffering

1. **Condemnation and Abuse**: After Jesus was condemned, the Roman soldiers took him inside the palace. Freed from the constraints of public scrutiny, they indulged in cruel and degrading treatment of Jesus.

2. **Mock Coronation**: Playing on the accusation against Jesus of claiming to be a king, the soldiers derisively mocked him. They dressed him in a robe to mimic royal garb and fashioned a crown from thorny branches, likely from the Zizyphus spina Christi, a plant common in the region known for its long, sharp thorns.

3. **Physical Torment**: The soldiers placed this crown on Jesus' head and repeatedly struck him with a wooden staff, driving the thorns into his scalp. Given that scalp wounds bleed profusely, this would have resulted in significant blood loss. Additionally, when they removed the robe from Jesus, the action likely aggravated the wounds from his earlier scourging.

4. **Symbolic Humiliation**: The soldiers' actions were not only physically painful but also symbolically degrading. They spat on Jesus and forced him to hold a wooden staff as a mock scepter, completing their parody of a royal figure.

5. **"Royal Treatment" in the Gospels**: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John detail this cruel mockery as part of Jesus' "royal treatment." This included the mock crown, robe, scepter, and the forced homage from the soldiers, all intended to ridicule his claim of kingship.

6. **Fulfillment of Prophecy**: This episode of mockery was in line with Jesus' own predictions about his suffering in Jerusalem, where he foresaw being delivered to the Romans, mocked, scourged, and crucified before his resurrection on the third day.

In this episode, the soldiers' actions were not only a severe physical assault but also a profound mockery of Jesus' identity and mission. The juxtaposition of a mock king's regalia with the brutal reality of his impending crucifixion serves as a stark symbol of the suffering and humiliation Jesus endured in the hours leading up to his death.

The crown of thorns

In the accounts of Matthew and Mark, the object placed upon Jesus' head is described using the Greek term 'Stephanos', typically signifying a wreath or garland, like those awarded to victors in athletic competitions. This term underscores the irony of the situation, as the crown fashioned for Jesus was far from a symbol of victory in its traditional sense.

The Plant Used for the Crown

1. **Identification of the Plant**: Botanical experts specializing in the flora of the Holy Land have identified the Zizyphus spina-christi, commonly known as the Syrian Christ thorn, as the probable plant used to make the crown of thorns. This plant is an evergreen member of the buckthorn family.

2. **Characteristics of the Zizyphus spina-christi**: The Syrian Christ thorn typically grows as a shrub between 9 to 15 feet tall, but it can sometimes reach over 60 feet with a trunk up to two feet in diameter. It thrives in the arid conditions of Israel, capable of surviving with minimal rainfall.

3. **Accessibility and Suitability**: The thorns of this plant are notably sharp and can measure between 1 to 2 centimeters in length. Their sharpness and the plant's prevalence in the region make it a likely candidate for the crown. Experts suggest that these thorns would have been readily available for the soldiers, perhaps even used as kindling for fires.

4. **Creation of the Crown**: The process of creating the crown from such a thorny plant would have been challenging and painful, even for the soldiers handling it. The thorns' sharpness makes it plausible that they could easily penetrate hair and scalp skin. Given the difficulty in handling the branches without self-injury, it is unlikely that the crown was intricately woven. It was probably more crudely assembled, sufficient to mock and cause pain but not a work of artistry.

5. **Symbolic and Physical Impact**: The crown of thorns, with its piercing sharpness, would have caused significant pain upon being placed on Jesus' head. More than a physical torment, it was a mocking symbol of his claim to kingship, a cruel parody of a royal crown.

The crown of thorns placed on Jesus' head was likely made from the Zizyphus spina-christi, a plant common in the region and characterized by its sharp, long thorns. This crown served as a harsh instrument of mockery and physical suffering, contrasting sharply with the traditional connotations of victory and honor associated with the term 'Stephanos'.

In the mid-5th century, Saint Vincent of Lerins, a former Roman soldier, provided a description of the crown of thorns placed on Jesus' head. He likened its shape to a pileus, a type of Roman cap made of felt. This cap was typically a symbol of freedom for emancipated slaves or served as padding under a soldier's helmet. Saint Vincent suggested that the crown encased Jesus' head entirely, touching all parts of it.

Relic of the Crown of Thorns and Its Structure

1. **Rescue from Notre Dame Cathedral Fire**: A relic believed to be the crown of thorns was saved from the devastating fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris in April 2019. This relic consists of rushes woven into a wreath and secured with gold threads, notably lacking thorns.

2. **Historical Interpretation**: Scholars like Dr. Barbet have hypothesized that these rushes were initially used to secure a thorny cap to Jesus' head. They propose that the wreath of rushes encircled the base of the skull, across the temples, and onto the forehead, creating a mechanism to hold the thorns in place.

3. **Dimensions and Fit**: The relic's measurements indicate an internal diameter of about 8.3 inches and an external diameter of 26 inches. Considering the average male head circumference, this size suggests that the crown would have descended over the head onto the shoulders. The missing diameter might have been filled by the actual thorns, which would have pressed into the scalp, causing injury.

Interpretation Based on the Shroud of Turin

1. **Blood Patterns Analysis**: If one considers the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Christ, it offers additional insights. The bloodstains on the shroud suggest a cap-like arrangement of thorns rather than a simple circlet. The patterns indicate bleeding from multiple points on the scalp, both venous and arterial.

2. **Unique Blood Flow Markings**: On the shroud, there is a distinctive blood flow pattern resembling the number three or a Greek epsilon. This pattern is thought to originate from the supratrochlear vein, suggesting blood flowed down the forehead, following natural facial contours.

3. **Absence of Marks on the Top of the Head**: Dr. Barbet notes the absence of blood marks on the top of the head, where a bandage would typically be placed to secure the jaw of a corpse. The blood flows appear to stop abruptly near the nape of the neck, aligning with the theorized location of the rush band.

The crown of thorns, as described historically and analyzed through relics like the one in Notre Dame and the Shroud of Turin, was likely more encompassing than a simple circlet. Its design and placement would have caused significant pain and bleeding, contributing to the suffering endured by Jesus. The construction and placement of the crown, as theorized by scholars, reflect a practical approach to inflicting maximum discomfort with minimal effort for the soldiers.

The Shroud displays a series of injuries characterized by bloodstains encircling the head, both anteriorly and posteriorly, suggesting trauma inflicted by an object with irregular, spike-like projections causing multiple bleeding points on the scalp. Discussing these blood flows almost necessitates reference to the biblical narrative of Jesus's suffering in the Roman Praetorium, where it is recounted, ‘They dressed him up in purple, twisted some thorns into a crown and put it on him. And they began saluting him, “Hail, king of the Jews!”’ This incident is pivotal in understanding these markings. It is crucial to note that the act of crowning or capping with thorns was not a standard aspect of Roman punitive measures, nor was it a practice in any other known historical culture. In the context of the Christian Gospels, this act appears to have been the result of an impromptu decision by a Roman soldier, possibly inspired upon seeing thorn branches intended for firewood, leading to an additional element of pain and humiliation for the prisoner. Given that Jesus is the only figure in recorded history to have endured such a specific form of torment, the presence of these particular injuries on the Shroud compellingly argues against the notion that the cloth could have shrouded any other individual subjected to crucifixion. Therefore, the Shroud must either be an intentional forgery crafted to represent the burial cloth of Jesus, or it is authentically that. No middle ground seems tenable in this context.


Marinelli (1996):The head of the Man of the Shroud shows numerous puncture wounds from thorns or spines. The signs of these punctures are clear, and the fact that there are no traces of such wounds on the forearms suggests that the hands were tied above the head during the procedure.

The trace of blood descending to the forearms helps to understand the position of the arms during the application of the crown of thorns on Christ's head. The bloodstains, which are clearly visible, indicate that the crown of thorns worn by the man of the Shroud was not the typical Eastern type, worn like a hat, but rather a cap of thorns that covered the whole head.

If the images of the Shroud are those of Jesus of Nazareth, whose crucifixion is described in the gospels, then the doctor from the anatomical institute Rodante is right in his assumption. He notes that the surface of the skull is covered with numerous traces of blood. This could be evidence of a dense network of capillaries on the scalp, which is typical in cases of traumatic alopecia caused by a crown of thorns. “If we consider the intense pain — writes Lamberto Coppini, director of the Institute of Anatomy at the University of Bologna — the 140 punctures found are not enough to control, let alone completely suppress, the pain, which is particularly intense in the case of Christ, with such a crown of thorns.”

Objective examination of the bloodstains shows that the blood rivulets, formed from arterial blood and also from venous blood, start from the hairline at the front, on the left side, and follow a median line and a Greek-shaped pattern of three branches, characteristic of blood mixed with an abundant clear liquid. This corresponds perfectly anatomically to the frontal branch of the head vein and seems due to a contusion of the frontal branch of the vein, caused by a spasm that provoked a long-term bleeding, coagulated following the burial.

The trace that is not visible in the region of the right temple clearly has characteristics different from the previous one: it starts from a point situated further up the 'cap' and not from the hairline and descends with a less regular path, almost zigzagging, with interruptions and resumptions, as if it was the result of a stream of blood running down the body in a vertical position.

The hypothesis that the Shroud Man's crown of thorns was made in the shape of a cap and not a circlet, which would have been placed on the head like a halo, is also supported by the fact that the blood flows are oriented towards the back of the head and not towards the face, a sign that the head was leaning forward when the blood flowed. This position is consistent with the position of a person in prayer or meditation. The Man of the Shroud could therefore have been in a position of profound recollection, perhaps in prayer, in the moments immediately following the application of the crown of thorns, before the crucifixion. The blood therefore would have flowed down the back of the neck, and not the face, as would happen if the head was erect.

This is a valuable indication for those who study the Shroud, a puzzle yet to be fully solved. Dr. Rodante's hypothesis of traumatic alopecia, which suggests a violent action on the scalp, possibly from a crown of thorns, is an interesting contribution to the complex interpretation of the Shroud of Turin, which continues to be a subject of intense debate among scholars and a source of deep reflection for the faithful. 1



 Jesus mocked after being crowned with the Crown of Thorns (colour litho) by Fugel, Gebhard (1863-1939)

In the narrative of Jesus' mockery before his crucifixion, the Gospels describe a series of symbolic actions performed by the guards, each with its own significance and physical impact.

The Royal Robe

1. **Removal of Jesus' Garment**: As recounted by Matthew, before dressing Jesus in the royal robe, the guards removed his tunic. Given the severity of his scourging, the tunic would have adhered to the coagulated blood, torn skin, and muscle on his back and chest. Removing it would have reopened and aggravated these wounds, causing intense pain.

2. **The Chlamyda**: The garment placed on Jesus is referred to as a 'chlamyda' in Matthew 27:28. This was a short cloak or cape, commonly worn by Roman military officers and soldiers. The cloak, likely dyed in shades of red or purple to symbolize royalty, was mockingly put on Jesus to parody his claim of kingship.

3. **Aggravation of Wounds**: As the new robe dried on Jesus' back, adhering to his open wounds, it would have further increased his suffering, especially as he was subjected to mockery and physical assault during this time.

The Royal Staff - The "Reed" Scepter

1. **Biblical Reference to 'Reed'**: The term 'reed' used in the Gospels, specifically 'kalamo', refers to a plant used for various purposes, including making wands or staffs. This is distinct from the 'gnome', a type of bulrush used for making papyrus.

2. **Arundo donax - The Likely Source**: The plant that most probably provided the 'reed' or staff given to Jesus is Arundo donax, known as the giant reed or Cyprus cane. This plant is robust, resembling bamboo more than a flexible, wavy plant. It commonly grows in waterside areas and can reach heights over 30 feet under ideal conditions.

3. **Usage and Potential Harm**: Arundo donax was used for a variety of purposes, including crafting walking sticks, measuring rods, fishing rods, and musical instruments. Due to its thickness and weight, comparable to a modern pool cue, a staff made from this plant could inflict considerable harm.

The actions of dressing Jesus in the royal robe and providing him with a 'reed' scepter were not only symbolic mockeries of his perceived claim to royalty but also contributed to his physical torment. The robe's attachment to his wounds and the potential use of the reed as a weapon would have added layers of pain and humiliation to his already grave suffering.




After equipping Jesus with symbols of mock royalty - the crown, robe, and staff - the soldiers commenced a grim parody of homage. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark describe how the soldiers, having given Jesus a reed as a scepter, then used it against him, striking his head. This act was not just a physical assault but also a method to drive the thorns of the crown deeper into his scalp, thus avoiding injuring themselves in the process.

The Scalp's Susceptibility to Bleeding

1. **Scalp Anatomy and Bleeding**: The scalp is known for its high blood supply, making even small cuts bleed profusely. This is compounded by the scalp's tension, which causes wounds to gape wider than their initial size.

2. **Structural Complexity of the Scalp**: The scalp's layered anatomy, comprising dense fibrous tissue, fatty compartments, and the galea, makes it challenging to stem bleeding. The fibrous septae, attaching to the scalp arteries, prevent these vessels from constricting when cut, leading to continuous bleeding.

3. **Difficulty in Controlling Bleeding**: Due to the scalp's structure, compressing cut veins and arteries to stop bleeding is difficult. Many scalp veins lack valves, allowing for significant blood loss, potentially even from the brain, via emissary veins that pass through the skull.

4. **Blood Loss Impact**: The substantial blood loss from the scalp wounds, especially given the continuous bleeding, would have contributed significantly to the overall physical trauma Jesus experienced, potentially influencing the rapidity of his death on the cross.

Further Mockery and Physical Abuse

1. **Striking and Spitting**: According to the Gospel of John, soldiers also struck Jesus' face with their hands and spat on him. They knelt before him in mock homage, hailing him as the "King of the Jews," adding emotional humiliation to physical torture.

2. **Removal of the Robe**: After tiring of their mockery, the soldiers removed the robe from Jesus, reopening his scourged wounds that had clotted to the fabric. This action was followed by redressing him in his own outer garment, which would soon become an object of gambling among the soldiers.

3. **Repeated Trauma from Garment Removal**: This was the second of three instances on that day when a garment, dried to Jesus’ bloodied back, was forcibly removed, each time reopening and aggravating his wounds.

In this portrayal, the soldiers' actions not only inflicted severe physical pain but also were laden with symbolic mockery. The use of the crown, robe, and staff in a perverse imitation of royal homage served to deepen the humiliation and suffering of Jesus in the hours leading up to his crucifixion.


In fact, in him, each man is our brother. Through this mysterious yet real presence of God in our neighbor, each of us can find his hand among all generations, with the index finger pointing in condemnation, for over centuries the water from Pilate's jug has become a river, added to by each one of us—a river of blood, of his blood.

In the overwhelming mystery of men who condemn the Incarnate Son of God to death, there is also room for those who welcome his blood in blessing—those who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb through the "great tribulation" (Rev 7:14). It was of these that Jesus spoke when he called them "blessed." Blessed when, like himself, they are persecuted for love of justice, or condemned (on condition that, together with him, they offer up this humiliation to the Father). The hands of those who suffer, even if in the past they were used to condemn, are now used in the offering, held together by love to form an overflowing chalice, from which the blood of Christ flows down to redeem using the mystical stigmata of pain.

This is the silent offering of the suffering and persecuted Church; it is the offering of those who make over to Christ their bodies and souls to complete what is still lacking in the Passion of Christ, the Head of the Church, for their sanctification and that of those sinful members for whom there is “still the hope of pardon” (St. Ignatius of Antioch).

Unexpectedly, the Holy Shroud gives us evidence of the dreadful institute of the mock royal honors.




Besides the king, the priest wore a crown, in front written: kadosh adonai, which is a cap. it covered the entire surface of the head. unlike medieval crowns. So this is historically more reliable.  ziziphus spina christi was one of the plants mentioned as a possible plant for making the crown. 



This depiction shows a chaotic, excessively large crown of thorns placed upon the head of Jesus. The crown symbolizes the harsh treatment and mockery he faced. It suggests that the soldiers, young and uneducated, acted with cruelty and disdain. This image captures the depth of suffering experienced by Jesus, highlighting the extent of human depravity and malice. It serves as a reminder of the profound sacrifice and the weight of the world's sins that he bore.



The whole this condemned'! shows signs of a remarkable crown woven from long thorns which, in accord with the Eastern custom for the coronation of kings, was placed not around but on top of the head, like a miter.

"They plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' and struck him with their hands..." And they spat upon him and took the reed and struck him on the head" (In 19:2-3; Mt 27:29-30; Mk 15:17-19). The blood must have streamed down all over his face!

The Holy Shroud shows us a surprising fact in the imprint of the face: there are only a few trickles of blood, and these flow only either straight down or towards the right, and never towards the left. These trickles followed while Jesus was on the cross, some from wounds still open from the crowning with thorns, others from the right side of the mouth. It is important to note that of the ten trickles of blood from the occiput, seven tend toward the left. (Those which flowed during the crowning with thorns can be seen transferred onto the linen cloth with which, according to an ancient tradition, a pious woman of Jerusalem wiped the face of Jesus before he was crucified.)

Ecce Homo

When Pontius Pilate presented Jesus to the crowd with the words "Ecce homo" ("Here is the man," as stated in John 19:5), Jesus stood before them clad in a purple robe, his head bleeding under the crown of thorns, and his body marked by bruises. This scene was a stark fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah about the Suffering Servant: "His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness" (Isaiah 52:14). Isaiah further described the Servant as having "no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem" (Isaiah 53:2-3). In such a state, Jesus' appearance would have evoked revulsion and rejection, aligning with Isaiah's depiction of a figure marked by sorrow and suffering, devoid of any conventional attractiveness.

This gruesome spectacle not only fulfilled prophecy but also highlighted the paradox of Jesus' mission and suffering. Despite his innocence, he endured mockery, torture, and eventual crucifixion. His experience resonates with humanity's aversion to suffering and ugliness, yet it also offers a profound lesson in endurance and the deeper meaning of suffering. Jesus' voluntary acceptance of suffering was not merely an act of endurance but a profound expression of love and purpose. Christ's suffering, particularly in the face of injustice and cruelty, was interwoven with his teachings, offering an answer to the profound question of the meaning of suffering. In his agony, Jesus exemplified the redemptive power of suffering borne out of love and purpose. The Song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah poignantly captures how the Messiah's suffering, though unjust and painful, brings healing and redemption. This message is echoed in the Gospel, reminding believers that suffering for Christ's sake, while challenging, aligns them with his mission and promises ultimate redemption. In this context, mockery and suffering for being Christ-like are reframed not as defeats but as spiritual victories, a concept Paul echoes in Romans 8:31: "If God is for us, who can be against us?" The believer is called to embrace suffering for the sake of Christ, transforming it into an offering for the conversion and salvation of others, much like Christ himself did.

Thus, the image of Jesus, bloodied and mocked, challenges believers to find strength in their own trials, remembering that Christ has already borne the greatest suffering. It serves as a powerful reminder that in Christ, even the most profound suffering can be transformed into a source of strength, hope, and salvation.



Toward the Place of Execution

On that fateful Good Friday morning, April 3, AD 33, a momentous event unfolded as Jesus, having endured mockery and physical abuse, commenced his solemn journey from Herod’s Palace to the site of his crucifixion at Golgotha.

Journey to Calvary - The Via Dolorosa

1. **Transition from Mockery to Crucifixion**: The Gospel of Matthew recounts how, after the soldiers finished mocking Jesus, they removed the purple robe and redressed him in his own garments, preparing him for the journey to the place of crucifixion.

2. **Bearing the Cross**: John’s Gospel vividly describes Jesus setting out, bearing the cross on his own, towards Golgotha - the place named for its resemblance to a skull. This journey symbolized the weight of suffering and sin he was carrying for humanity.

3. **Simon of Cyrene’s Assistance**: As narrated in Mark, Simon of Cyrene, a bystander, was compelled by the Roman soldiers to carry the cross for Jesus. Simon’s involvement illustrates how the burden of the cross extends beyond Jesus to touch the lives of others.

4. **Interaction with the Women of Jerusalem**: Luke captures a poignant moment where Jesus, amidst his suffering, addresses the women of Jerusalem who mourned for him. His words were both a prophecy and a reflection on the gravity of the events unfolding.

5. **Refusal of Wine Mixed with Myrrh**: In Mark’s account, Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh, a gesture of slight mercy to dull the pain, but he refuses it. This act signifies his choice to fully embrace the suffering ahead.

6. **Spiritual Significance of the Cross**: The journey and the physical cross Jesus carried represent more than just physical objects and actions. They symbolize the immense spiritual burden of sin and redemption. Jesus’ acceptance of the cross aligns with his prayer in Gethsemane: “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42), embodying the ultimate act of submission to the divine will.

7. **Traditions and Scriptural Accounts**: The tradition of the Stations of the Cross, especially observed during Lent, reflects on various aspects of this journey. While not all stations are explicitly found in Scripture, they have become a significant part of Christian devotional practice, offering deep reflections on Jesus’ suffering and sacrifice.

8. **The Nature of Jesus’ Cross**: The cross Jesus bore can be viewed both literally and metaphorically. It represents not only the physical weight of the wooden cross but also the spiritual weight of human sin and the redemptive suffering of Christ.

This journey to Calvary, laden with symbolism and deep spiritual significance, represents a pivotal moment in Christian theology. It underscores the themes of sacrifice, redemption, and the transformative power of embracing one’s cross, be it literal or metaphorical, in the path of faith and devotion.

The term "stauros" (or "stauron" in its male accusative singular form) as mentioned in the Gospels and ancient Greek writings, refers to the cross that Jesus, and later Simon of Cyrene, carried to Calvary. The nature and composition of this "stauros" have been subjects of historical and theological inquiry. Was it a single piece of wood, or two pieces attached together? And how heavy was it, truly?

Understanding 'Stauros' in Ancient Greek Context

1. **Historical Descriptions**: Ancient Greek literature provides insights into the use of the 'stauros' in the context of punishment and execution. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing about the fifth century BC, mentions the use of a long piece of wood (xulo prosdesantes) in torture. This beam was used to stretch the arms of a slave being whipped.

2. **Narratives from Greek Literature**: Chariton, a Greek novelist from the first century, describes a group of men being sent to execution, each carrying a 'stauron' (pole). In his narrative, the 'stauron' seems to refer to a singular piece of wood. He also describes a scene where a man is crucified, indicating that 'stauron' could also refer to the traditional cross used in crucifixions.

3. **Plutarch's Account**: Plutarch, a Greek historian from the first century AD, mentions that it was customary for criminals sentenced to execution to carry their 'stauros' to the site of their execution.

Implications for Jesus' Journey to Calvary

1. **The Nature of Jesus' Cross**: The historical context suggests that the 'stauros' could have been either a single large beam or a more traditional two-piece cross. The exact nature of the cross that Jesus carried is not explicitly detailed in the Gospels.

2. **Physical Burden**: Regardless of its specific form, carrying the 'stauros' was undoubtedly a significant physical burden, especially considering Jesus' weakened state following his scourging and torture.

3. **Symbolic Weight**: Beyond its physical weight, the 'stauros' carried by Jesus symbolizes the burden of sin and the impending sacrifice for redemption. This adds a profound spiritual dimension to the physical act of carrying the cross.

The 'stauros' that Jesus carried to Calvary was a significant instrument of his Passion, both physically and symbolically. While the precise physical form of this 'stauros' remains a topic of historical debate, its role in the narrative of Jesus' crucifixion is undeniably central, representing the weight of suffering and the path to redemption.

Plautus, an ancient Roman playwright from 255 to 185 BC, provides critical insights into Roman practices and terminology related to crucifixion. His works, particularly comedies, offer glimpses into the lives of slaves and the societal norms of his time, including the execution methods.

Understanding the Patibulum in Roman Context

1. **Plautus' References**: In his plays, Plautus mentions the 'crucem' (cross) and describes a situation where a character, posed as if carrying a 'patibulum', is mocked for resembling someone on their way to crucifixion.

2. **Distinction Between 'Crux' and 'Patibulum'**: Plautus’ work clarifies that the 'crux' (cross) and the 'patibulum' are distinct, with the latter referring specifically to the horizontal beam to which a victim’s arms were fastened.

3. **Lex Puteolana Description**: An ancient Roman law, the Lex Puteolana, detailed the procedure for executing slaves, explicitly mentioning the 'patibulum' being carried to the 'crux'. This text outlines the logistical aspects of crucifixion, including the provision of materials and payment for those involved in the execution.

Implications for Jesus' Crucifixion

1. **Carrying the Patibulum**: The Gospel of John’s reference to Jesus carrying his 'stauros' to Golgotha aligns with Roman practices where the condemned carried the 'patibulum' to the site of crucifixion. This supports the interpretation that Jesus carried the horizontal beam of the cross.

2. **Greek and Latin Linguistic Precision**: Scholar John Granger Cook suggests reading Greek accounts of Roman executions (including the Gospels) with an understanding of Latin terminology. In this light, the Greek 'stauros' in the context of Roman crucifixion likely refers to a 'patibulum'.

3. **Construction of the Cross**: The probable scenario, based on historical texts, is that the 'patibulum', or horizontal beam, was carried by the condemned to the site where the 'crux', or vertical post, was already erected. The victim, once nailed to the 'patibulum', was then hoisted and attached to the 'crux'.

4. **Historical Consistency**: This interpretation is consistent with the writings of Firmicus Maternus, an early fourth-century Christian apologist, who describes the victim being fastened to the 'patibulum' and then raised onto the 'crux'.

The historical and literary evidence from the Roman era, including Plautus’ plays and legal texts like the Lex Puteolana, provides a clear picture of crucifixion practices. These sources suggest that the 'patibulum' was the horizontal beam carried by the condemned, including Jesus, to the site where it was then affixed to the upright 'crux', forming the traditional T-shaped cross. Stauros and patibulum, though often used interchangeably, have distinct meanings historically. In the context of ancient Roman crucifixion, these terms are related but refer to different parts of the crucifixion apparatus. The term "stauros" in Greek and "crux" in Latin originally could mean a pole or a cross. This usage is an example of synecdoche, a figure of speech where a part of something represents the whole or vice versa. For example, "stauros" could refer to the entire cross or just a part of it. "Patibulum," on the other hand, specifically refers to the crossbeam of the crucifixion cross. In Latin, the upright post of the cross is sometimes called a "stipes." The term "stipes" was also used for a sharp pole used for a different form of execution, which was not employed by the Romans but by the ancient Persians. The use of synecdoche in ancient texts can lead to some confusion. For instance, it's said that Jesus carried a cross (stauros) to his crucifixion. In this context, "stauros" could mean the entire two-piece cross or just the crossbeam (patibulum). The interchangeability of these terms was clarified in the early 5th century by the Roman writer Macrobius, who indicated that "patibulum" (Latin) and "stauron" (Greek) were used synonymously. This was significant in the translation of Latin terms into Greek in the original Gospels. The term "patibulum" is derived from a Latin word meaning “to stretch out” and refers to a wooden beam or length of wood used to stretch out or extend something, particularly in the context of punishment. In common usage, it specifically refers to the horizontal beam of a crucifixion cross. Historical references, such as those from Seneca the Younger, further illustrate the use of these terms. Seneca mentioned an individual nailed to a cross spitting on spectators from his patibulum, indicating that the patibulum was part of the crucifixion apparatus.  While "stauros" and "patibulum" have been used interchangeably in some historical contexts, they generally refer to different components of the crucifixion apparatus, with "stauros" potentially referring to the entire cross or its parts, and "patibulum" specifically denoting the crossbeam.

What Size Was the Stauros Jesus Carried?

The exact size of the crossbeam, or patibulum, that Jesus is believed to have carried is not definitively known, but various authors have made educated guesses based on historical and physiological considerations. Dr. William Edwards and colleagues suggest that the crossbar might have weighed between 75 and 125 pounds. This estimate considers references to Dr. Barbet and information from the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia published in 1975. However, it's important to note that Dr. Barbet's reference to the weight of the cross in his book was in response to a claim about the cross's height, not its weight. He mentioned that if the cross were 9 feet tall, it would weigh approximately 275 pounds, a figure he seemed to regard as excessively high. These estimates involve several assumptions and are based on limited historical data. The actual weight of the crossbeam would have depended on various factors, including the type of wood used and the specific dimensions of the beam. However, the suggested range of 75 to 125 pounds gives a general idea of the physical burden that carrying such a beam could have entailed.



The Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem in Rome houses what is claimed to be a relic of the cross (stauros) of the Good Thief, traditionally known as Dismas. While complete measurements of this relic are not available, analysis of a photograph showing a segment of this length of wood alongside a portion of what is purported to be Christ's titulus (or a medieval replica based on radiocarbon dating) allows for some estimations. The width of the titulus is reported to be about 25 centimeters (nearly 10 inches). Using this as a reference and analyzing the ratios in the photograph, the length of the stauros fragment is estimated to be between 174 and 180 centimeters (about 6 feet), depending on how much of the titulus is obscured by its frame. Additionally, the thickness and width of the wood are roughly estimated to be about 6 centimeters (less than 2.5 inches) and 13 centimeters (5 inches) respectively. Given these dimensions, the volume of the stauros fragment is estimated to be around 0.014 cubic meters (about half a cubic foot). Relics of the True Cross are believed to be made of European black pine (Pinus nigra), which has a dry weight of around 475 kilograms per cubic meter. Based on this, the mass of the Good Thief’s stauros would be approximately 6.7 kilograms, or about 15 pounds. This estimation, it should be noted, is speculative and should be taken as an educated guess. To provide a comparison, a 6-foot-long 2 by 6 board of Douglas fir, which weighs around 2.5 pounds per foot, would have a similar weight. If the cross section of the stauros was initially almost square, measuring slightly larger than 5 by 5 inches, its weight could have been around 30 pounds. These figures offer a perspective on the possible physical characteristics of the stauros in question, though they are based on assumptions and limited data.

The belief that Jesus carried only the horizontal part of his cross, known as the patibulum, aligns with the narrative in the Gospels. Although there are various speculations about the size and weight of the crossbeam Jesus bore, the exact dimensions remain unknown. What is certain is that carrying the cross was an immense burden for him, especially considering his physical state at the time. Jesus, having endured extreme physical and mental stress, was in a state of near shock. He had been deprived of food, water, and sleep, and had suffered significant pain and blood loss. This would have left him extremely weak and disoriented, with symptoms like rapid breathing, cool and clammy skin, nausea, and possibly vomiting. His pulse would have been weak, and his eyes may have appeared lackluster and staring. Furthermore, the lack of sleep, with Jesus having been awake for over thirty hours by the time of his crucifixion, would have amplified his experience of pain. It's unclear whether the crossbeam was tied to Jesus’ wrists or arms, but it's a plausible scenario. Tying his hands to the crossbeam would have prevented him from using his hands to cushion his falls, exacerbating his suffering. Each fall could have driven the crown of thorns deeper into his scalp. The constant movement would have aggravated the pain from the previous beatings, scourging, and mocking he endured, and his dehydration would have made his condition even more torturous. Despite these challenges, Jesus, embodying both divine and human natures, exerted every ounce of his strength and willpower. He carried a piece of wood sturdy enough to support his weight at Calvary, drawing on the very limits of his physical and mental endurance, exemplifying a literal and profound commitment to his purpose.

In his book "A Doctor at Calvary," Dr. Barbet examines the Shroud. Analysis of the Shroud reveals details that align with the biblical account of Jesus' journey to Golgotha, known as the Way of the Cross. By combining insights from the Gospels, Church Tradition, and the geography of Jerusalem with observations from the Shroud, a more detailed picture of Jesus' experience emerges.

According to the Gospels and historical geography, Jesus' journey involved:

- A walk from Pilate's praetorium (located in Herod's Palace) to Golgotha, a distance of about 400 meters or a quarter of a mile.
- Initially carrying the crossbeam himself before requiring assistance.
- Simon of Cyrene being enlisted to help carry the crossbeam for part of the journey.

Church Tradition suggests that Jesus fell three times while carrying the crossbeam. This is plausible given his severely weakened state and the challenging conditions of the route, which included a rough terrain with loose stones.

The Shroud of Turin provides physical evidence that supports this narrative. Notable findings include:

- Marks on the knees, particularly more pronounced and jagged on the right knee, suggesting injuries from falls.
- A notable difference in the appearance of the knees, with more significant markings and apparent swelling on the right knee.
- An excoriation on the back, measuring about 10 by 9 centimeters, located slightly higher than a larger mark over the left shoulder blade. This could indicate where the crossbeam rested.
- Evidence suggesting the right shoulder may have been dislocated, as indicated by the alignment of marks and the overall image on the Shroud. This could explain the necessity of Simon's assistance, as carrying the crossbeam with a dislocated shoulder would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible.

These observations from the Shroud, when considered alongside the biblical and historical context, offer a compelling, albeit speculative, account of Jesus' physical state and the challenges he faced on the Way of the Cross. The Shroud of Turin, believed by some to bear the image of Jesus, shows distinctive marks that align with events described in the biblical narrative of his crucifixion. One of these is the noticeable swelling on the right cheekbone, which could be attributed to various incidents during his ordeal, such as the beating at Caiaphas's house, the mocking and striking by Roman soldiers, or a fall on the way to Golgotha. Given the severe physical strain Jesus was under, including significant blood loss and pain, falls during his journey would not be unexpected. The Shroud seems to corroborate this, displaying abrasions on both knees, with more severe and numerous abrasions on the right knee. This suggests a fall or multiple falls onto his right side, likely with the crossbeam on his shoulders. In such a scenario, Jesus might have instinctively turned his head to the left, causing his right temple, cheekbone, and the area around his right eye to bear the brunt of the impact against the crossbeam. This is supported by the Shroud’s indications of more pronounced swelling around the right eye and cheek, a deep abrasion on the right cheek, and even injury to the right upper eyelid. An interesting parallel can be drawn from Saint Padre Pio, a well-known stigmatist. He confided to Karol Wojtyla (later Pope John Paul II) that his most painful wound was on his right shoulder. After Padre Pio's death, a bloodstained undershirt with a large stain on the right shoulder was found, which, if Padre Pio bore the wounds of Christ, might mirror what Jesus experienced. The rough crossbeam could have aggravated Jesus' scourging wounds, chafing against his shoulders and upper back as he carried it. Combining the insights from the Shroud and the account of Padre Pio’s stigmata provides a vivid picture of Jesus during his journey to Golgotha. It suggests a visage marked by focused determination, a swollen face, and a body bearing the visible effects of his ordeal — halting steps, bloodstained knees and shoulders, and a possibly weakened right arm. This portrayal helps to deepen the understanding of the physical and emotional toll of his journey to the place known as Calvary or the Place of a Skull.

The condemned was then dressed and led to the gallows. The titulus, hung around the neck or carried by a herald, announced to the passersby the cause of the condemnation, the name of the condemned and his crime. Those responsible for the execution carried out a patibulum. If they were slaves or people of low status, they were led with a rope tied around their neck, at the feet or at one end of the patibulum.

Throughout the journey, they were pulled and dragged, beaten and wounded, so as to arrive exhausted and weak at the place of execution. A compassionate passerby might offer them a bitter drink, a wine mixed with myrrh or gall, as a small relief from the pain.

At the place of execution, located outside the city walls, the execution stake, the stipes, was already planted in the ground vertically. The cross could be of different types: the crux immissa or crux commissa in the form of our 'T', or the crux simplex, which was only a simple stake. The clothes of the condemned were removed for the execution; only a small cloth covered the hips, but the Romans did not always respect this modesty.

The condemned were then tied to the cross with ropes, iron nails, and sometimes with cuffs around the wrists; sometimes they were left free."

Was Jesus Still Wearing the Crown of Thorns Along the Way to Calvary and on the Cross?

From the Gospels and from the historical context of the trial of Jesus, it is clear that the crowning with thorns went beyond Roman penal procedure and was simply a cruel joke thought up by the soldiers of the Praetorium to exult, in their own way, the royalty that Jesus had shortly before asserted during his trial in front of Pilate. It was after the “Ecce Homo!” that is, when Pilate showed Jesus to the people, with the intention of demonstrating that he had been given an exemplary punishment, that Jesus appeared with the many marks of the scourging, dressed as a mock king with a purple mantle, and with a crown of thorns on his head. This crown must have made his face run with blood—that face which had already been beaten and punched, and made the target of spitting!

Pilate's intention to free Jesus, expressed twice before the scourging, crumbled at the prospect of being involved in a charge of rebellion against the emperor: “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend” (Jn 19:12). Thus Pilate decreed death on the cross for Jesus. At this point the episode of the crown of thorns ends, since, when Jesus had to put his own clothes back on (Mk 15:20) and be tied to the crosspiece for the painful journey, the bundle of thorns would have had to have been removed from his head.

No reliable historical source would allow one to state that the crown of thorns was put back on Jesus’ head again. The only sources which would suggest this derive from artistic representations, and these are several centuries after the event. Likewise, there is no evidence that it was removed and put on again after Jesus had been stripped of his clothes on Calvary. Furthermore, the tunic, which was made in one piece with an opening at the neck, could not have been put on or removed without first having removed the crown.

"...and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull" (Jn 19:17).

Jesus is tied to the crosspiece

The analysis of the Shroud of Turin reveals intricate details about the injuries that Jesus endured. Two prominent excoriated areas are observed on the victim's shoulder blades. These abrasions align with injuries caused by friction against a heavy, coarse object, such as the crossbeam of a crucifix. Within these abrasions, variations in the scourge marks indicate that the whipping preceded the shoulder injuries. It's well-documented that victims of crucifixion often carried their crossbars to the execution site. The substantial weight of such a beam, coupled with the possibility of falling under its burden, is likely to have contributed to these shoulder wounds. The scenario of falling and being struck by the descending crossbeam is supported by evidence on the Shroud, including scratches, lesions, and abrasions on the front of the knees. White light photography and ultraviolet fluorescence lighting have further revealed these knee injuries. Additionally, microscopic examination of the Shroud has discovered dirt particles on the knees, nose, and soles of the feet, suggesting contact with the ground. Another significant injury, as noted by some pathologists, involves the positioning of the man's arms on the Shroud. They appear forcibly bent, covering the groin area. This posture suggests that the shoulder girdle might have been broken or dislocated, a condition often seen in post-mortem handling by morticians. During burial preparations, rigor mortis is typically alleviated by massaging the muscles between the neck and shoulder, allowing the arms to be repositioned. Observations indicate that the right shoulder is positioned approximately five degrees lower than the left, most noticeable in the dorsal view of the Shroud. Dr. Pierre Barbet theorizes that this asymmetry points to a dislocated shoulder. This injury could have happened during the manual repositioning of the arms at burial, from a fall, or while the victim was engaging in the physically taxing act of lifting and lowering himself on the cross. If this shoulder dislocation occurred while the individual was still alive, it would have been a source of intense and agonizing pain.

The subsequent set of injuries observed on the Shroud are indicative of abrasions on the shoulders, seemingly inflicted by friction against a substantial object, likely a heavy beam. In this context, the Gospel narratives provide a more detailed account than they do for the scourging. The Gospel of John explicitly mentions, ‘carrying his own cross, he [Jesus] went out to the Place of the Skull [where he would be crucified].’ However, it is also recorded, notably in Luke and the other Synoptic Gospels, that Jesus did not bear this load for the entire journey: ‘As they were leading him away they seized on a man, Simon from Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and made him shoulder the cross and carry it behind Jesus.’

The Romans’ decision to compel Simon of Cyrene, a bystander, to assist in carrying the cross is consistent with Roman crucifixion protocols. These procedures not only mandated scourging as a standard precursor to crucifixion but also required the condemned to transport their patibulum, or crossbeam, to the site of execution. It is important to note that the patibulum constituted only part of the cross; typically, the vertical post, possibly a stripped tree trunk, was a permanent fixture at the execution ground. Even so, the burden of carrying a substantial wooden beam, especially following a brutal scourging, would have been an excruciatingly difficult task. The abrasions seen on the Shroud align precisely with what one might expect from Jesus’s initial efforts to bear such a crossbeam, particularly given the already severely lacerated state of his shoulders.












At the time of Jesus, both in Rome and Jerusalem, those who had been sentenced to death on the cross had the crosspiece or patibulum tied behind their shoulders, with their arms outstretched. The patibulum was a large wooden beam which, at the moment of execution, was placed in one of various ways onto the vertical stake which was already fixed into the ground.

Historians speak of the reluctance of these unfortunate condemned men, who struggled against being tied to the crosspiece, so that the use of force was needed to constrain them. That day the two thieves must have behaved similarly.

Not so Jesus. "Oh! You should know with what sincere love the Creator of life welcomed this wood of the cross, not through force, but spontaneously!" Jesus foretold the same spontaneity behavior for St. Peter, prophetically emphasizing, during his third apparition following the resurrection, that he would die by crucifixion as an expression of love: "Do you love me more than these?... Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep.... When you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go" (Jn 21:15-18). Thus, in imitation of him, Peter was to repeat in Rome the attitude of Jesus in Jerusalem. Jesus had given himself up voluntarily to the passion, with love and with no constraint. He, like his Vicar after him, spontaneously stretched out his arms to receive the wood of the cross.

The shoulders of the Man of the Shroud show two large imprints in the area of the left scapula and above the right scapula. The parallel lines drawn on the photograph on the following page show the slant of the patibulum (20°), the staurós of the Synoptic Gospels and of St. John. The nature of the imprints should be mentioned: the contusion on the left scapula, which is more extensive than the other, shows that this area supported more of the weight of the wood than did the other area, higher up, which is less marked. This agrees with the fact that, in this case, the lower end of the crosspiece was tied to the left ankle. Any movement made by the Man of the Shroud while he was

"walking would tend to make the crosspiece slip lower, and so weigh down even more on this area, while the other area would be eased.

It should also be mentioned that, in those areas marked by contact with the crosspiece, the marks of the scourging are also clearly visible. This unusual detail can be explained by the fact that the shoulders of the Man of the Shroud were first struck by the whips, and were then protected by the clothes on the way to the place of crucifixion. In fact, had it not been for the clothes, the rough wood in contact with the skin would have notably opened the lacerations, and thus clearly altered the whip marks. We have seen from the trial of Jesus that he was scourged before being condemned to death, not to get him to talk, but as a "lesson" which was to serve him for the future...since he was to be freed (Lk 23:16, 20-22)."

“When Pilate decreed death with the chilling words: “You will go to the cross!” Jesus was again clothed in his own garments and was spared a second scourging, which was normally given to common criminals and was carried out along the way to the place of execution.

This surprising proof that a scourging was carried out before the crosspiece, tied to the shoulders, left its two well-known imprints, is supported by the geometry of the whip marks, which overall show two clear converging points, one focal point to the right and another to the left.^4 This corresponds with the scourging of a man in a stationary position, carried out by two Roman scourgers: the number of whip strokes (the whip had three thongs or cords which were weighted at the ends) far exceeds (there are over 121) the 40 strokes prescribed by Moses in Jewish law.

^4 This has also been confirmed by the digital enhancement of the Holy Shroud images done by Dr. Lynn of Pasadena.”