Stephen E. Jones

Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified quotes: January - May 2005

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [My TheShroudofTurin blog]

The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in January - May 2005. See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: Jan, Feb, May]

January [top]
27/01/2005
"Jesus and the Shroud It is revealing to compare the wounds inflicted on the man buried in the Shroud 
with the witness of the New Testament concerning the crucifixion procedure used with Jesus. The 
correlation is, simply stated, quite remarkable. Before he was crucified, Jesus was subjected to a variety of 
punishments. The Roman soldiers scourged him (Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:15; John 19:1). The man of the 
Shroud was beaten very severely. Ricci counts more than 220 scourge wounds on his body, located on 
almost every area with the exception of the head, feet, and arms. [Ricci, G., "Historical, Medical, and Physical 
Study of the Holy Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of 
Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, p.60] Wilson records somewhat 
fewer scourge wounds, but still enough to constitute a very severe beating. [Wilson, I., "The Shroud of 
Turin," Doubleday: New York NY, 1979, p.38] We have seen how these marks were most likely inflicted by 
the Roman flagrum, a feared instrument of torture which inflicted great pain by sometimes even ripping 
out small pieces of flesh with each blow." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: 
Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.122. 
Emphasis original)

 28/01/2005
"The Romans also mocked Jesus for his claims to be the Son of God and the Messiah. The soldiers placed a 
purple robe on him and put a reed in his hand in order to jeer him, pretending to address him as king. They 
even bowed down to him, imitating worship. Then, to further scoff at him, they made a crown out of thorns 
and forcefully placed it on his head (Matthew 27:29; Mark 15:17-20; John 19:2). This is another close parallel 
between Jesus and the man in the Shroud. Numerous puncture wounds can be observed in the man's scalp. 
Close examination reveals that these wounds differ from those caused by the scourging and were 
independently inflicted. [Willis, D. in Wilson, Ibid., pp.36-37]" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict 
on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 
1981, p.122)

 28/01/2005
"The gospels also relate that Jesus was repeatedly struck in the face (Matthew 27:30; Mark 15:19; Luke 
22:63-64; John 19:3). Such a beating can be observed in the image on the Shroud. The man has several 
bruises and swellings around both eyes, both cheeks, the nose, and the chin." (Stevenson, K.E. & 
Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant 
Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.122)

 28/01/2005
"After Jesus' scourging, mock crowning with thorns, and beating, he was taken away to be crucified. He was 
made to carry his own cross (John 19:17) but apparently stumbled and fell, since a bystander, Simon of 
Cyrene, was forced to carry it for him (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26). Bruises on the upper back 
just below the shoulders indicate that the man in the Shroud also carried or supported a heavy object. We 
know this happened after the scourging, because the rubbing of the heavy object slightly altered the 
scourge wounds underneath. Additionally, there are cuts and bruises on both knees, indicating a fall on a 
hard surface. The left knee is particularly badly cut." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the 
Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, 
pp.122-123. Emphasis original)

 28/01/2005
"The gospels relate that Jesus was nailed to the cross through the feet and the hand-wrist area (Luke 24:39; 
John 20:20, 25-27). The Shroud likewise shows a man pierced through the wrists at the base of the palms and 
through the feet. Forensic pathologists are convinced that the man, like Jesus, was crucified." (Stevenson, 
K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," 
Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.123)

 28/01/2005
"A striking similarity concerns the gospel report that normal crucifixion procedure included breaking the 
legs of the victims in order to hasten death (John 19:31-32). The discovery of the skeleton of Yohanan 
verifies the gospel report. However, the gospels say that the soldiers did not break Jesus' legs because he 
was already dead." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and 
Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.123)

 28/01/2005
"Instead, a Roman soldier stabbed him in the side in order to assure his death. Blood and water flowed from 
the open wound (John 19:33-34). Similarly, the man in the Shroud did not have his legs broken and he was 
also stabbed in the side. Amazingly, a mixture of blood and water is ascertainable on the Shroud. The blood 
and water flowed vertically down the right side of the chest to the waist, where it spread horizontally across 
the back." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and 
Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.123)

 28/01/2005
"Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for slaves, war captives, and the worst political prisoners. 
Therefore, there was normally very little interest in providing the victim with anything more than a minimal 
burial. Yet, the gospels explain that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy man who placed 
Jesus' body in his own new tomb. Joseph gave Jesus an individual burial, complete with linen wrappings 
and spices (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50-55; John 19:38-42)." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, 
G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann 
Arbor MI, 1981, p.123)

 28/01/2005
"In spite of this attention and care, the burial process was hurried and was not completed before the 
Sabbath began (Mark 161; Luke 23:55-24:1). The case of the man in the Shroud is similar. He was also buried 
individually in linen wrappings and there are also indications that his burial was not completed. ... This 
comparison of the gospel accounts with the sufferings and burial of the man of 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." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, 
G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann 
Arbor MI, 1981, pp.123-124)

28/01/2005
"The examination of the sticky tape samples produced one interesting controversy. Walter McCrone, a 
microscopist who is not a member of the research team, obtained some sticky tape samples from a team 
member for examination. McCrone noted the presence of a small quantity of iron oxide, a red-colored 
substance, on some of the sticky tape samples. He speculated that an artist might have used iron oxide to 
enhance the image. Because there is only a very small quantity of iron oxide on the entire Shroud,. McCrone 
postulated that the `red pigment' might have been applied in a very dilute solution. But McCrone went even 
further. Pigment is always applied in a medium such as wax or oil. McCrone's most controversial assertion 
was that the discoloration of the fibers may have been caused by the yellowing of the paint medium with 
age. Examination of the tape samples and other observations by team members found no evidence for 
McCrone's theory. In their exhaustive battery of chemical tests, Heller and Adler uncovered no signs of any 
medium that a medieval artist could have used. Under the microscope, there was no sign that any kind of 
liquid had been applied to the fibers. McCrone's theory was finally disposed of by the X-ray fluorescence 
and visible light examination of the Shroud, and by microchemcial studies. These tests determined that there 
is not nearly enough iron oxide on the cloth to account for even an enhancement of the image. McCrone's 
thesis, like other fraud hypotheses, is finally disproven by the three-dimensional, superficial, non-directional 
nature of the Shroud image, as well as by the absence of any plateaus or saturation points in the image. It 
might also be pointed out that submicron iron oxide has only been available for about 200 years, thereby 
further ruling out its use in medieval painting ... The project team's summary of research concluded that the 
on oxide evidence was `irrelevant to the image formation problem.' The team found McCrone wrong. The 
iron oxide does not account for the image." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: 
Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.83)

28/01/2005
"The examination of the sticky tape samples produced one interesting controversy. Walter McCrone, a 
microscopist who is not a member of the research team, obtained some sticky tape samples from a team 
member for examination. McCrone noted the presence of a small quantity of iron oxide, a red-colored 
substance, on some of the sticky tape samples. He speculated that an artist might have used iron oxide to 
enhance the image. Because there is only a very small quantity of iron oxide on the entire Shroud,. McCrone 
postulated that the `red pigment' might have been applied in a very dilute solution. But McCrone went even 
further. Pigment is always applied in a medium such as wax or oil. McCrone's most controversial assertion 
was that the discoloration of the fibers may have been caused by the yellowing of the paint medium with 
age. Examination of the tape samples and other observations by team members found no evidence for 
McCrone's theory. In their exhaustive battery of chemical tests, Heller and Adler uncovered no signs of any 
medium that a medieval artist could have used. Under the microscope, there was no sign that any kind of 
liquid had been applied to the fibers.  McCrone's theory was finally disposed of by the X-ray fluorescence 
and visible light examination of the Shroud, and by microchemcial studies. These tests determined that there 
is not nearly enough iron oxide on the cloth to account for even an enhancement of the image. McCrone's 
thesis, like other fraud hypotheses, is finally disproven by the three-dimensional, superficial, non-directional 
nature of the Shroud image, as well as by the absence of any plateaus or saturation points in the image. It 
might also be pointed out that submicron iron oxide has only been available lo r about 200 years, thereby 
further ruling out its use in medieval painting ... The project team's summary of research concluded that the 
on oxide evidence was `irrelevant to the image formation problem.' The team found McCrone wrong. The 
iron oxide does not account for the image." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: 
Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.83)

28/01/2005
"Radioactive decay has many interesting applications. One is the technique of radioactive dating by which 
the age of ancient materials can be determined. The age of any object made from once-living matter, such as 
wood, can be determined using the natural radioactivity of 14/6C. All living plants absorb carbon dioxide 
(CO2) from the air and use it to synthesize organic molecules. The vast majority of these carbon atoms are 
12/6C, but a small fraction, about 1.3 x 10-12, is the radioactive isotope 14/6C. The ratio of 14/6C to 12/6C in 
the atmosphere has remained roughly constant over many thousands of years, in spite of the fact that 14/6C 
decays with a half-life of about 5730 yr. This is because neutrons in the cosmic radiation that impinges on 
the earth from outer-space collide with atoms of the atmosphere. In particular, collisions with nitrogen nuclei 
produce the following nuclear transformation: n + 14N --> 14/6C + p. That is, a neutron strikes and is 
absorbed by 14/7N nucleus, and a proton is knocked out in the process. The remaining nucleus is 14C . This 
continual production of 14/6C in the atmosphere roughly balances the loss of 14/6C by radioactive decay. 
As long as a plant or tree is alive, it continually uses the carbon from carbon dioxide in the air to build new 
tissue and to replace old. Animals eat plants, so they too are continually receiving a fresh supply of carbon 
for their tissues. Organisms cannot distinguish 14/6C from 12/6C, and since the ratio of 14/6C to 12/6C in the 
atmosphere remains nearly constant, the ratio of the two isotopes within the living organism remains nearly 
constant as well. But when an organism dies, carbon dioxide is no longer absorbed and utilized. Because the 
14/6C decays radioactively, the ratio of 14/6C to 12/6C in a dead organism decreases in time. Since the half-
life of 14/6C is about 5730 yr, the 14/6C/12/6C ratio decreases by half every 5730 yr. If, for example, the 
14/6C ratio of an ancient wooden tool is half of what it is in living trees, then the object must have been 
made from a tree that was felled about 5730 yr ago. Actually, corrections must be made for the fact that the 
14/6C/12/6C ratio in the atmosphere has not remained precisely constant over time. The determination of 
what this ratio has been over the centuries has required using techniques such as comparing the expected 
ratio to the actual ratio for objects whose age is known, such as very old trees whose annual rings can be 
counted. Carbon dating is useful only for determining the age of objects less than about 60,000 yr old. The 
amount of 14/6C remaining in older objects is usually too small to measure accurately, although new 
techniques are allowing detection of even smaller amounts of 14/6C, pushing the time frame further back." 
(Giancoli, D.C, "Physics: Principles with Applications," [1980], Prentice Hall: New Jersey NJ, Third Edition, 
1991, p.817)

29/01/2005
"We do not have to know how somebody could have painted it, but science is adept at finding paint when it 
is present. But first, if the scientists have come up with one major conclusion, it is that the shroud is not a 
known fake. There is no paint, dye, powder, or other foreign substance on the image fibrils that could 
account for the image. Microchemical analyses revealed no paints or pigments. Also, fraud is refuted by the 
shroud's 3-D characteristics. Paintings do not produce a 3-D effect, but the shroud image is 3-D. This has 
been checked out in a laboratory. In addition, the shroud image is superficial, which means that it is only on 
the top few fibrils of the affected threads. Each thread has about 200 fibrils, and the image is on the top few 
fibrils only. It does not even soak to the back threads, let alone to the back of the cloth. Paint is not 
superficial, and reproducing the shroud has not been possible in the laboratory. Further, there are no 
plateaus or saturation points on the shroud image. But if you apply any pigment or dye there will naturally 
be saturation points. Still further, the shroud image is nondirectional. Now if one is going to put paint on a 
cloth, one moves the hand from side to side. When one gets tired, one often starts moving the hand up and 
down. But even if one only moves from side to side all of the time, that is directionality. One cannot 
generally apply paint without directionality. If one uses a spray gun it still involves directionality. But there 
is no directionality on the shroud image. Also, there is no capillary flow on the shroud, which rules out any 
liquid movement. In addition, the 1532 fire that the shroud was involved in would have caused chemical 
changes in organic pigments, but there are no changes in the shroud. Further, the water applied to the 
shroud to put out the 1532 fire would usually cause chemical changes, but there are no such changes 
observed on the shroud." (Habermas, G.R., "Discussion: Antony G. N. Flew, Gary R. Habermas, Terry L. 
Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., "Did Jesus Rise From The 
Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, 1987, p.119)

29/01/2005
"Finally, the shroud image is nontraditional. For instance, the nail wounds are in the wrists and the crown of 
thorns appears to be a skullcap. Someone painting the shroud in the Middle Ages would presumably not 
have known that the nails were placed in the wrists." (Habermas, G.R., "Discussion: Antony G. N. Flew, Gary 
R. Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., 
"Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, 1987, p.119)

29/01/2005
"A 1982 report from a team of scientists, released at a New London, Connecticut, meeting, states that, `No 
pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found in the fibrils.' So again, we could falsify the shroud if there 
was paint. But they have not found any. Now maybe they will find some in the future. I am open to that, but 
right now that is a weak hypothesis. I cannot speak for anybody on the team of scientists, but just judging 
from their publications, the fraud thesis is the one theory that, according to a recent survey, nobody on the 
team of scientists holds. I think I would even say that this would be the easiest theory to refute. The shroud 
image does not appear to be painted at all." (Habermas, G.R., "Discussion: Antony G. N. Flew, Gary R. 
Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck," in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., "Did 
Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, 1987, p.119) 

30/01/2005
"Normally a Jew would have been buried in his sabbath- best clothes, but Jesus had had his clothes 
removed at the time of the crucifixion, the garments being shared out as part of the pickings by the execution 
squad, and Joseph is described as purchasing a length of linen in which to wrap the otherwise naked 
corpse. Such a piece of linen would normally be expected to have mouldered away long ago, but preserved 
in the Cathedral of Turin is a fourteen-foot length of linen, bearing apparent imprints of the back and front of 
a naked, crucified body, which is claimed to be the very cloth in which Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped. The 
cloth at Turin certainly dates from the Middle Ages at least. Dust particles in the linen have been found to 
include pollen grains from plants of undoubted Near Eastern provenance, and, most impressively, when 
viewed in negative the body and facial imprints take on an astonishingly lifelike quality. Together with what 
appear to be blood stains, these imprints have led several pathologists to contend that the cloth did at least 
wrap the body of someone crucified in manner identical to that recorded of Jesus. The apparent bloodstains 
suggest that the body was not washed before burial and this has led some to argue that the Shroud cannot 
be authentic because the Jewish rite always included washing. However, as recently pointed out by London 
University Jewish scholar Victor Tunkel, if a first-century Jew died a bloody death, such as from crucifixion, 
the body would quite specifically not have been washed, in order to keep the life-blood with the body in 
preparation for the anticipated physical resurrection - striking evidence in favour of the Shroud's authentic 
Jewishness. And although recent carbon dating tests have been claimed as having proved the Shroud to be 
merely mediaeval, no one has yet succeeded in explaining how any hypothetical artist created such an 
extraordinary image." (Wilson, I., "Jesus: The Evidence," Pan: London, 1984, Reprinted, 1985, p.111).

30/01/2005
"An artist who was good enough to create an image as impressive as the Shroud's would surely have made 
many copies of it. Shroud copies of this level of artistry would have demanded a king's ransom. Where is the 
statue or the bas-relief that the artist used? It would have graced the finest cathedral and become a famous 
image in its own right. And, to repeat a point made before, this artist would have had to have forged an 
image that, would not have been appreciated for hundreds of years after his death, until the invention of 
photography and other modern analytical techniques. The basic fact remains: neither Joe Nickell nor any 
other artist or forger has ever created an image showing all the characteristics of the image of the man of the 
Shroud. For example, none of them are three-dimensional, superficial, or non-directional. Photographers 
claim that it is impossible to fake such a delicate image photographically. One cited by Wilcox wrote, `I've 
been involved in the invention of many complicated processes, and I can tell you that no one could have 
faked that image. No one could do it today with all the technology we have. It's a perfect negative. It has a 
photographic quality that is extremely precise.'' In recent years a skeptical artist and photographer from 
Great Britain set out to deliberately duplicate the Shroud image using modern photographic techniques. He 
was convinced at the outset that the Turin cloth was a hoax. In the end, although his results were good 
enough to be used in the movie, `The Silent Witness,' his image is vastly inferior to the original. He 
concluded that it was virtually impossible for a human to have forged the Shroud image. In fact, the Shroud 
has never been successfully duplicated even with the aid of modern technology, despite some valiant 
attempts. In summary, it is virtually impossible that the Shroud image can be a forgery. ... The scientific 
testing of the Shroud uncovered no evidence for forgery. The technical demands of such a forgery appear 
far beyond the capabilities of a medieval artist, and modern-day attempts to duplicate the Shroud image 
have all failed." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and 
Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, pp.109-110)

February [top]
3/02/2005
"Turin, Shroud of. A linen cloth, which measures 14"3' by 3"7', housed at Turin, Italy. On the material is a 
double, head-to-head image of a man, revealing the obverse and reverse of the body. Known to exist since 
at least 1354, there are indications that the shroud is much older. Pollen studies point to its presence in 
Palestine at a much earlier date, while the weave and type of linen is compatible with first century cloth. It is 
also quite possible that a coin over the right eye is a lepton of Pontius Pilate, minted ca AD. 29-32. While 
some have raised biblical questions concerning various aspects of the shroud, such a burial is well 
supported. Evidence reveals that the head napkin was rolled up and wrapped around the head as indicated 
in the Gospel of John (11:44; 20:5-7), the Mishnah (Shabbath 23:5), and the Code of Jewish Law, `Laws 
of Mourning' (chs. 351-52). The lengthwise wrapping and positioning of the body is supported by Qumran 
burial procedures and the `Laws of Mourning' (ch. 364). The lack of bodily washing is explained by the 
`Laws of Mourning' in that those who are executed by the government or who die violent deaths are not to 
be washed. The use of several strips of linen described in John is also confirmed by the shroud, where 
pieces were also used. Additionally, the hasty burial recorded in the Gospels (Mark 15:42; 16:1-3; Luke 
23:54-56; 24:14) explains a number of these issues. In October, 1978, the Shroud of Turin was the subject of 
an intense scientific investigation revolving around such questions as the nature of the bloodstains and the 
composition and cause of the image. It was found that the shroud is very probably not a fake of any kind. 
There is no sign of paint, dye, powder, or any other foreign substance on the cloth that can account for the 
image. Additionally, the image was found to be three-dimensional, superficial, and nondirectional, each quite 
an enigma to the explanation of the image. The man buried in the shroud apparently died from crucifixion, 
and his body is in a state of rigor mortis. The Gospels, which have been shown to be trustworthy on 
historical grounds, present reliable accounts of Jesus' crucifixion. A comparison of the man of the shroud 
with Jesus reveals that they suffered the same wounds, even in several points that were not normal 
crucifixion procedure. Both men received a series of punctures throughout the scalp from a series of sharp 
objects, a badly bruised face, a severe whipping (over 120 wounds are visible on the shroud), shoulder 
abrasions from a heavy object, and knee contusions. There are punctures in both wrists and both feet, the 
absence of broken ankles, and a postmortem chest wound with a clear flow of blood and watery fluid. Both 
were buried hastily individually, and in fine linens. There certainly are strong indications that the two men 
might be one and the same since they agree in such features and disagree in none. Most significantly, there 
is no decomposition on the cloth, meaning that the body exited comparatively quickly. Many of the 
bloodstains are intact, including the blood clots, meaning that the body probably was not unwrapped, since 
this would have disturbed the stains. Additionally, it is very possible that a light or heat scorch caused the 
image. The convergence of the data certainly indicates that the dead body appears to have left the cloth in 
some mysterious manner. It is still possible that the shroud is a fake, or that it is a genuine ancient shroud 
but simply not the burial garment of Jesus. Yet, the evidence thus far indicates the probable conclusions 
that the shroud is ancient (perhaps from the first century), that it does not contradict the NT accounts, and 
that the image is not a fake. It may well be the actual burial garment of Jesus, as indicated especially by the 
similarities in areas of abnormal crucifixion practice. Lastly, the image on the shroud may have resulted from 
Jesus' resurrection, which is complemented by the demonstrable historical evidence and reliable Gospel 
testimony for this event, as well. However, no absolute conclusions are possible at present concerning the 
shroud with regard to some of these matters. " (Habermas, G.R., "Turin, Shroud of," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 
"Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," Baker Book House: Grand Rapids MI., 1984, Seventh Printing, 1990, 
pp.1115-1116. Emphasis original). 

23/02/2005
"Shroud of Turin also called Holy Shroud, Italian Santa Sindone a length of linen that for centuries 
was purported to be the burial garment of Jesus Christ; it has been preserved since 1578 in the royal 
chapel of the Cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin, Italy. Measuring 14 feet 3 inches long and 3 feet 
7 inches wide, it seems to portray two faint brownish images, those of the back and front of a gaunt, 
sunken-eyed, 5-foot 7-inch man-as if a body had been laid lengthwise along one half of the shroud while 
the other half had been doubled over the head to cover the whole front of the body from face to feet. The 
images contain markings that allegedly correspond to the stigmata of Jesus, including a thorn mark on the 
head, lacerations (as if from flogging) on the back, bruises on the shoulders, and various stains of what is 
presumed to be blood. The shroud first emerged historically in 1354, when it is recorded in the hands of a 
famed knight, Geoffroi de Charnay, Seigneur de Lirey. In 1389, when it went on exhibition, it was 
denounced as false by the local bishop of Troyes, who declared it `cunningly painted, the truth being 
attested by the artist who painted it.' The Avignon antipope Clement VII (reigned 1378-94) sanctioned its 
use as an object of devotion provided that it were exhibited as a "representation" of the true shroud. 
Subsequent popes, from Julius II on, however, took its authenticity for granted. In 1453, Geoffroi de 
Charnay's granddaughter Marguerite gave the shroud to the house of Savoy at Chambéry, and there it was 
damaged by fire and water in 1532. It was moved to the new Savoyard capital of Turin in 1578. Ever since, 
it has been publicly exhibited only rarely, as, in recent times, on the marriage of Prince Umberto (1931) 
and on the 400th anniversary of its arrival in Turin (1978). Scholarly analysesattempting to use scientific 
methods to prove or disprove its authenticity-have been applied to the shroud since the late 19th century. 
It was early noticed (1898) that the sepia-tone images on the shroud seem to have the character of 
photographic negatives rather than positives. Beginning in the 1970s, tests were made to determine 
whether the images were the result of paints (or other pigments), scorches, or other agents; none of the 
tests proved conclusive. In 1988 the age of the cloth itself was finally determined. Three laboratories in 
different countries were provided with postage-stamp-sized pieces of the shroud's linen cloth. Having 
subjected these samples to carbon-14 dating, all three laboratories concluded that the cloth of the shroud 
had been made sometime between AD 1260 and 1390. The Roman Catholic church accepted the results 
and announced that the Shroud of Turin was not authentic, but the church encouraged Christians to 
continue venerating the shroud as an inspiring pictorial image of Christ." ("Shroud of Turin," Encyclopaedia 
Britannica Online, 2005)

May [top]
1/05/2005
"Nor is this the only cause for disquiet. The 1986 protocol laid stress on the care which Mme Flury-Lemberg 
should exercise when choosing the location from which the samples for the radiocarbon dating should be 
taken. Yet despite all the years of apparent planning for the taking of the carbon-dating samples it was not 
until the very moment itself that Gonella and Riggi chose this location - after a very public, heated and 
protracted argument witnessed and attested by the entire contingent of bemused radiocarbon-dating 
scientists. They could hardly have chosen anywhere much more unsuitable than they did ... But now we 
come to the decision that Gonella and Riggi arrived at after their argument: to take the sample in the form of 
one single sliver from the frontal image bottom corner closest to the side-strip. This must be regarded as 
misguided in the extreme. For yet another major cause of possible contamination of a radiocarbon-dating 
sample arises from any excessive handling to which it may have been subjected at times distant from when it 
originated. And when we study the hundreds of depictions of the Shroud being held up before the crowds 
during past centuries, what do we see? In example after example a cleric's hand can be seen holding up the 
Shroud at, yes, the frontal image bottom corner closest to the side-strip. .... Also, while their wisest decision 
would have been to take several tiny samples from scattered areas, by opting for just this single site they 
ensured that any contamination error, however large or small, would be bound to be repeated by all three 
laboratories." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is 
Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.190-192). 

[top]