[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [My The Shroud of Turin blog]
The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in May 2007. See copyright conditions at end.
[Index: Jun, Jul, Aug (1), Aug (2), Sep , Oct, Nov, Dec]
1/05/2007 "Jewish Burial Customs. The first point of comparison is the cloth itself. The gospels say that Jesus was buried in a cloth (or cloths); the Shroud of Turin appears to be a burial cloth which medical experts say once held a dead body. The image reveals a man lying on his back with his feet close together. His elbows protrude from his sides and his hands are crossed over the pelvic area. We can ascertain that the linen sheet was wound lengthwise up the front and down the back of the corpse. ... Is this kind of burial compatible with the New Testament reports? It is at least compatible with Jewish customs as we know them from extrabiblical sources. Recent archaeological excavations at the Qumran community found that the Essenes buried their dead in the way represented on the Shroud. Several skeletons were found lying on their backs, faces pointing upward, elbows bent outward, and their hands covering the pelvic region. The protruding elbows rule out an Egyptian-type mummified burial. Also very instructive is the Code of Jewish Law, which discusses burial procedures in its `Laws of Mourning.' It instructs that a person executed by the government was to be buried in a single sheet. This is another parallel with the Shroud." (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.46. Emphasis original) 1/05/2007 "Although the New Testament's description of typical first-century Jewish burial customs is not overly detailed, it does give the general features. The body was washed (Acts 9:37) and the hands and feet were bound (John 11:44). A cloth handkerchief (Greek, sudarion) was placed `around' the face (John 11:44; 20:7). The body was then wrapped in clean linen, often mixed with spices (John 19:39-40), and laid in the tomb or grave. The Code of Jewish Law adds that the Jews usually shaved the head and beard completely and cut the fingernails before burial. However, the gospels tell us that Jesus' burial was incomplete. Because the Sabbath was about to begin, he was removed from the cross and laid in the tomb rather hurriedly. This is why the women returned to the tomb on Sunday morning. They had prepared spices and ointments for Jesus' body, and they went to the tomb to apply them (Luke 23:54-56). It is not often noticed why the women went to the tomb. They certainly did not expect Jesus to rise (Luke 24:3-4; John 20:12-15). Rather they came in order to finish anointing Jesus' body with the prepared spices (Luke 24:1; Mark 16:1). They were worried about who would help them to move the stone from the entrance of the tomb so that they could finish the job begun before the Sabbath (Mark 16:3)." (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.46-47) 1/05/2007 "The gospels do not say to what extent the burial had been left unfinished. The New Testament says that Jesus was wrapped in linen with spices and a handkerchief after the custom of the Jews (John 19:40), but it does not say that his body was washed. At least to some degree, the anointing with spices was incomplete because the women returned to the tomb to complete the process. The scripture does not state specifically what other parts of the burial process were unfinished, if any. Although apparently a Jew, it appears to some that the man of the Shroud was not buried in accordance with the complete ritual of Jewish burial. He was laid in a shroud, as Jews were, but his body was unwashed. Stains of what looks like blood are visible on the body image and on the cloth itself. Neither was his hair trimmed. Despite what looks like a hurried burial, he was wrapped in a shroud of good linen. However, the wrapping in linen is consistent with first-century Jewish custom." (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.47) 1/05/2007 "The Wrapping. It is quite difficult to determine from the gospels the precise method used to wrap Jesus' body in the cloth since the four evangelists use several different Greek verbs to describe the process. Mark 15:46 states that Jesus was wrapped (eneilesen) in a linen sheet. Matthew 27:59 and Luke 23:53 describe the body as being wrapped, or folded (enetylixen) in the linen cloth. John 19:40 says that Jesus was bound (edesan) in linen clothes. These Greek words are similar, yet they do not reveal the exact method utilized." (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.47. Emphasis original) 1/05/2007 "McDowell and some others detect a problem in John's word to describe the `binding' of the body. [McDowell, J. & Stewart, D., "Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith," Here's Life: San Bernardino CA, 1980, pp.165-166] They suggest that Jesus' body was wrapped tightly like an Egyptian mummy, a procedure which would not have yielded an image such as the one on the Shroud. However, the mummy idea largely rests on variant readings in the extant manuscripts of John's Gospel. One late manuscript uses a verb in 19:40 which suggests a tight binding of the body. The accepted verb, however, is edesan; a verb which means to `wrap' or `fold' and which is quite compatible with the synoptic verbs. The idea that Jesus was tightly bound like a mummy is also incompatible with John's earlier description of the way Lazarus emerged from the tomb after Jesus raised him from the dead (John 11:44). Lazarus, who was buried according to Jewish custom, was able to proceed from the tomb by his own power, although he was impaired and had to be `unbound.' He had his hands and feet bound, as was the custom, but he was not completely wrapped up. [Wuenschel, E.A. "The Shroud of Turin and the Burial of Christ," Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vols. 7 & 8, 1945 & 1946] In other words, the type of wrapping depicted in the Shroud is compatible with Jewish burial technique. In particular, the burial methods depicted both in the Essene cemetery and described in the Code of Jewish Law favor the Shroud. Along with the Lazarus account, these sources convince us that the type of wrapping demanded by the Shroud was at least practiced in Israel in Jesus' time, and may even have been the most popular practice. At any rate, it cannot be asserted that Jesus must have been buried as a mummy." (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.47-48. Emphasis original) 1/05/2007 "The Grave Clothes. Another issue concerns the difference in the words chosen by the gospel writers to describe the grave clothes that Jesus was wrapped in. The synoptic evangelists say that he was wrapped in a sindon, a Greek word meaning a linen cloth which could be used for any purpose, including burial. John, on the other hand, says Jesus was wrapped in othonia, a plural Greek word of uncertain meaning. Othonia is sometimes translated as `strips of linen,' a meaning that would seem to be incompatible with a fourteen-foot-long shroud covering the front and back of the body. However, it is likely that othonia refers to all the grave clothes associated with Jesus' burial-the large sindon (the shroud), as well as the smaller strips of linen that bound the jaw, the hands, and the feet. This interpretation of othonia is supported by Luke's use of the word. He says (23:53) that Jesus was wrapped in a sindon, but later (24:12) that Peter saw the othonia lying in the tomb after Jesus' resurrection. Luke, then, uses othonia as a plural term for all the grave clothes, including the sindon. Furthermore, as seen earlier, Jewish burial customs do not support the idea that John's othonia refers to the wrappings of a mummy. Jews did not wrap up their dead like mummies, but laid them in shrouds, as indicated by the Gospel of John, the Essene burial procedures, and the Code of Jewish Law. John himself insists that Jewish customs were followed Jesus' case (19:40). Thus, there is good scriptural evidence that Jesus was laid in the tomb wrapped in a shroud. Therefore, the gospels refer to the grave clothes in both the singular and the plural. When a single cloth is spoken of, it is obviously the linen sheet itself. However, since Luke (or early tradition) had no difficulty in using the plural (24:12) to describe what he earlier referred to in the singular (23:53), the term `clothes' may still refer to a single piece of material. On the other hand, if more than one piece is meant, `clothes' is most probably a reference to both the sheet and the additional strips which were bound around the head, wrists, and feet, as indicated in John 11:44 (cf. John 19:40). Interestingly enough, bands in these same locations can be discerned on the Shroud of Turin. At any rate, it is a reasonable conclusion that at least one major linen sheet is being referred to in the gospels." (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.48-49. Emphasis original). 1/05/2007 "Another apparent problem crops up in the descriptions of the grave clothes the disciples saw in the tomb on Easter morning. Both Luke and John describe grave clothes in the tomb. Luke says that Peter went inside the tomb and saw the othonia-the generic term for all the grave clothes, including the shroud and the smaller pieces used to bind the jaw, hands, and feet. John, however, gives a more detailed description of what he and Peter saw, and he introduces another term into the grave clothes listing. When they went into the tomb, they saw the othonia lying on the ground, but also the sudarion lying rolled up in a place by itself, apart from these othonia. John adds the detail that the sudarion had been "around the head" of Jesus. Sudarion means `napkin' or `sweat cloth.' It is, at any rate, a rather small piece of cloth. If it had been placed over the face of Jesus in the tomb, no image of Jesus' face would have appeared on the Shroud. Since the Shroud of Turin bears the image of a face, the reference to a sudarion seems to challenge the authenticity of the Shroud. Indeed, some Christians have pointed to this passage as evidence that the Shroud is incompatible with scripture. However, a number of scripture scholars do not think that the sudarion was a napkin or cloth placed over Jesus' face. The Mishnah instructs Jews to tie up the chin of the corpse (Shabbath 23;5). The Code of Jewish Law also commands the practice of binding the chin. 8 Lazarus' napkin was wrapped "around" his face (Greek, perideo), a position that is more consistent with the jaw being tied shut. Additionally, John's observation that Jesus' napkin was found "rolled up" (Greek, entulisso) in the empty tomb corresponds closely to the cloth being used to bind the jaw. John A.T. Robinson, the British New Testament scholar, gives the most plausible explanation for the sudarion. He says it was probably a jaw band, a piece of linen rolled up into a strip, placed under the chin, drawn up around the face, and tied on the top of the head. Its function was to keep the jaw shut before rigor mortis set in. [Robinson, J.A.T., "The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," 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. 24] Not only does the New Testament not state that the napkin was placed over the face so as to cover it, but the combination of `wrapped up' and `around the head' (John 20:7; cf. 11:44) fits what is depicted in the Shroud. Jaw bands are used for this purpose today and there is every reason to believe that they were used in first-century Palestine. There is evidence for just such a jaw band on the three-dimensional image of the face of the Shroud. The hair of the man seems to be separated from the cheeks. The hair or the left side of the face hangs out over the edge of an object probably the chin band. [Jackson, J., et al., "The Three-Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, Ibid., p. 91]" (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.49-50) 1/05/2007 "Why did the Gospel of John include this detail about the sudarion? The author seems to attach great importance to it. He describes the burial cloth on the ground and the sudarion rolled up in a place by itself, and then adds that this discovery caused belief. It is not easy to tell from the Greek exactly what it was about the placement of the grave clothes that caused belief (John 20:9), but Robinson has a plausible interpretation of what is being described here. We are told that the disciples entered the tomb and saw the shroud and the other linen cloths lying flat. But the sudarion was apparently still in its twisted oval shape, the way it had been when tied tightly around Jesus' head to keep the jaw closed. Something about this scene convinced them that grave robbers could not have stolen the body, as Mary Magdalene had reported after she discovered that the stone had been moved away from the tomb. Until this moment, the gospel explains, the disciples had not understood that Jesus would rise from the dead. Now, looking at the grave clothes, they believed." (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.50-51. Emphasis original) 4/05/2007 "If genuine, the Shroud is a record of a burial, a Jewish burial that reputedly took place nearly two thousand years ago of none other than Jesus Christ. Among the key questions therefore to be considered are the extent to which it is compatible with known Jewish burial customs of the time and, above all, the specifically recorded burial of Jesus Christ. In entering this field, we come upon one of the most difficult areas of Shroud studies. From the rise of the Herodian dynasty to the first half of the second century A.D., Jewish burial custom would seem to have been first to wash the body, a practice normal in most cultures. Then it was dressed in clean linen clothes, generally the white garment worn by the deceased for festivals, and bound at the chin, wrists, and feet. Such a custom would seem to be quite explicit from the description of the raising of Lazarus in which we are told, `The dead man came out, his feet and hands bound with bands of stuff and a cloth round his face. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, let him go free"' (Jn. 11:44). So far this seems reasonable enough. Had Lazarus been swathed in bands, mummy fashion, it would have been impossible for him to move at all. Instead he appears to have been at least able to shuffle forward at the command `Come out,' requiring only the chin, hand, and foot bindings to be severed for him to resume normal life." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, p.38). 4/05/2007 "Some of the details visible on the Shroud are consistent with such practices. As in Jewish custom we can be reasonably sure that the man of the Shroud was laid out flat and intact in some sort of prepared tomb. ... The position of the body with the hands across the pelvis is also identical with Jewish burials of the Essene sect ... in the area of Qumran. We can also detect that, as in Jewish custom, the man of the Shroud seems to have been bound at head, hands, and feet. On the Shroud there is a distinct gap between the frontal and dorsal images of the head, almost certainly indicating the presence of a chin band tied around the face. At the region of the wrists we may perceive that there is an apparent break in the blood flow immediately to the left of the covering hand. A binding cloth or cord at this point would almost certainly have been functionally necessary to counteract the effects of rigor mortis, which according to some medical opinion would have tended to return the arms to the original crucifixion position. In the area of the feet, the possible presence of a similar cord or binding cloth is less obvious, but there is a blank in the image at precisely the most likely position." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, p.39) 4/05/2007 "As we have already mentioned, it was normal for Jews to be buried in clothing, more specifically the white garments they wore for festivals. In the case of Jesus we would not necessarily expect this, as we know his clothing was taken from him at the time of crucifixion. But many authors have pointed out. that we would certainly not expect the fourteen-foot sheet that we find preserved in Turin. Here again we are in a hornets' nest of controversy over gospel interpretation that exists quite independently of the Shroud. It all stems from apparent conflicts of information between the synoptic writers and St. John. The synoptics speak only of the sindon purchased by Joseph of Arimathea (Mt. 27:59; Mk. 15:46; Lk. 23:53). This is often translated as shroud, although it should be pointed out that it does not have a specifically sepulchral meaning. St. Mark, for instance, used the same word to describe the garment lost by the young man at Gethsemane who fled at the arrest of Jesus (Mk. 14:51, 52). St. John, on the other hand, does not use the word sindon, but instead says the body of Jesus was wrapped in othonia. And in his account of the discovery of the linens in the empty tomb again he uses the word othonia (which he describes as lying at the scene), and refers also cryptically to a mysterious soudarion, rolled up and lying in a place by itself (Jn. 20:7) . The precise meanings of othonia and sindon in their gospel context have been hotly debated. Some have contended that othonia (which is a plural form) means linen bands and that Joseph must have torn up the sindon into strips to wind Jesus mummy-style. Quite neutral exegetes such as Pere Benoit have pointed out that it would surely have been easier for Joseph to purchase ready-made bandages rather than tearing up a large sheet for this purpose. The most balanced modern view is that othonia means cloths in general, which could incorporate shroud and bands." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.41-42). 4/05/2007 "What of the soudarion, literally a `sweat cloth'? Some have thought of this as simply the headcloth or chin band-which is clearly what the soudarion mentioned in the story of Lazarus as `round his face' (Jn. 11:44) was. Others have argued that it may have been our Shroud, on the grounds that the description of it as having been `over his head' (Jn. 20:7) could well refer to the manner in which we know the Turin Shroud was used. In support of this argument we may note that in the Lazarus account St. John uses the word peri ('round' or `about'), in contrast to epi ('over'), in the case of Jesus, leaving open the possibility that a different arrangement (and different size of cloth) is being described. St. John makes special mention of Jesus' soudarion being `not with the othonia but rolled up in a place by itself,' which certainly might suggest a cloth larger and more important than a mere chin hand; but as many maintain adamantly that a soudarion could not be anything larger than a handkerchief-sized piece of cloth, it seems unwise to be dogmatic. The conclusion to be drawn is that from exegetical studies alone we can be sure of nothing, that of themselves they can neither prove nor disprove that the Shroud is genuine. It does seem worthwhile at least to consider the various possibilities raised by the gospel accounts for what the Shroud might have been among the linens Peter and John found in the empty tomb on the first Easter Sunday." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.42-43) 4/05/2007 "Q. Doesn't the Shroud conflict with Scripture? a) John 20:5-7 mentions linens and at the very least implies there were a minimum of two cloths. Many have suggested that the linens were `strips,' however the Shroud is merely one piece of cloth. ... A. All of the other scriptural issues were dealt with heavily in Verdict. The answers to these apparent discrepancies are as follows: First, the Gospels use the following words to describe the Shroud: Sindon burial sheet, winding sheet, shroud; sudarion-sweat cloth, face cloth, handkerchief; othonia linens. One way for the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be in harmony with John is if a burial method like the one depicted on the Shroud was used. John mentions a cloth that was described as `around his head' and about the face of Lazarus (John 20:7; 11:44). The word is sudarion, used in burial to bind the jaw against the effects of rigor mortis. There is evidence on the Shroud that a sudarion was used, though the whereabouts of any such cloth has long been unknown. The Shroud is a pure linen garment with some evidence that the head, hands, and feet were bound, most likely with other `linens.' The synoptics describe a linen sheet-a single cloth. Most likely, the sheet was more significant to the synoptic writers than other funerary cloths. Since the Jewish burial custom allowed the use of cloths to bind the hands and feet as well as the jaw, the total picture matches Jewish burial customs exactly and explains clearly why the synoptics only mention a sindon and John mentions othonia. Second, John's use of othonia has led to a widely held belief that Jesus was wrapped like an Egyptian mummy. But such a procedure doesn't conform to what is known of first-century normal Jewish burial ritual. Nor does it match what was previously mentioned in the Word, to wit, that Joseph of Arimathea had purchased a winding sheet and wrapped Jesus in it (Mark 15:46). Even John used the word edesan, which is translated wound in the KJV but literally means `enfolded.' Enfolded would also match the burial custom. Being wrapped with strips of cloth would not. In other words, othonia in John should be understood to mean that Jesus' dead body was enveloped from head to feet in one burial cloth, not wrapped like a mummy with numerous strips of cloth." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, pp.149-150. Emphasis original) 4/05/2007 "Test Results Leaked Before any official announcement of the carbon-dating test results, The Times in London reported on 27 August 1988 that Oxford scientists had leaked the results. Several weeks later, still ahead of any official announcement, the press mercilessly blasted the Shroud's repute. The Times carried a front-page story on 18 September, captioned: `OFFICIAL: THE TURIN SHROUD IS A FAKE', without disclosing the name of its official source. The New York Times headline on 22 September was: `TEST SHOWS SHROUD OF TURIN TO BE A FRAUD, SCIENTIST HINTS'. The New York Post wrote on 28 September: `SHROUD OF TURIN LEGEND IN TATTERS: Carbon Tests Date it to the 14th Century'. None of these respected newspapers published any corroborating details. Intent on exploiting the news value of the leak, the media went overboard in sensationalising an unconfirmed report that the Shroud was carbon-dated only back to the Middle Ages. The Vatican's response to these blaring headlines was eagerly awaited by many of the world's Christians who believed the Shroud had covered the body of Christ. On 13 October, at a press conference in Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero stated the Church's acceptance of the laboratories' results, but he qualified his statement by saying, `the problem about the origin of the image and its preservation still remain to a large extent unresolved'. This measured reaction was ignored by the mainstream media. England's Daily Telegraph blatantly misreported the Cardinal with the headline `TURIN SHROUD IS A FORGERY, SAYS CATHOLIC CHURCH'." (Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, p.242. Emphasis original) 5/05/2007 "Spokesman and popularizer though he may be, Wilson remains above all a scientist enraptured by the mysteries of life. The Pheidole project, he says, represents a `celebration' of this most abundant group of ants. Cataloging them comprehensively, he says, was a step toward unraveling the unsolved problem of why some species are `so profusely evolved'; the work itself was `the taxonomist's equivalent of figuring out the hemoglobin molecule.' Lest graduate students fear there are no more such challenges, Wilson is ready with dozens. Bacteria and archaeans, he writes, are `the black hole of biological systematics.' Only about 6,000 have been formally recognized-despite the potential threat and benefit they represent to human health and commerce-but that many, `almost all new to science, can be found in only a few grams of rich forest soil.' Nematode worms, he says, account for four of every five animals living on Earth-and are so abundant that if the planet's surface vanished, its `ghostly outline' could still be made out in the biomass of nematodes, almost all of species unknown." (Rosenberg, J.S., "Of Ants and Earth: E.O. Wilson's view of life takes in all things small and great," Harvard Magazine, March-April 2003) 5/05/2007 "A potentially much more viable explanation has been pioneered by Mexican-born Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdès of San Antonio, Texas who, although a paediatrician by occupation, has had a life-long passion for microbiology. At a Shroud conference in Rome in 1993 he presented a paper suggesting that a natural, plastic-like biofilm, comprising millions of micro-organisms, had accumulated on the Shroud's surface, much in the manner of the build-up of a coral reef' Although little studied except by professional microbiologists, such biofilms unquestionably exist very widely on innumerable surfaces in nature, including our skins, our intestines and even inanimate rock in the form of the so-called `desert varnish' that covers weathered boulders. Garza-Valdès' startling suggestion was : that, because many of the micro-organisms comprising the Shroud's biofilm remain alive, their mass could easily have skewed the radiocarbon dating, thereby giving a much too recent reading. Unlikely though such a hypothesis might sound, Garza-Valdès had good reason for advocating it. As a collector of ancient Mayan jades, he had discovered a very similar biofilm on one specimen in his collection, the Itzamna Tun, which had been used in Mayan blood-letting rituals. When scrapings of the blood were sent for radiocarbon dating, the laboratories' pre-treatment or cleaning procedures should have removed any contamination, but, as Garza-Valdès discovered, the living bacteria coating these and the rest of the jade successfully resisted the solvents, as a result of which they caused the Itzamna Tun to be radiocarbon dated as some seven centuries younger than its true age as reliably known from its : artistic style. Inevitably, such a finding led him to consider its possible relevance to the Shroud carbon dating. Accordingly in April 1993 he visited Turin, where he met up with Professor Giovanni Riggi, the microanalyst who had been responsible for cutting off the sliver of the Shroud for carbon dating in 1988. As Garza-Valdès discovered, Riggi had personally retained some excess fragments which he had trimmed off from the sample of the Shroud that was divided between the radiocarbon-dating laboratories. And, when he viewed these fragments under the microscope, he immediately found himself staring at much the same biofilm as he had observed on the Itzamna Tun blood, except in this instance significantly thicker. As he was keenly aware, if such a film had not been removed prior to the radiocarbon dating process, then it might easily have skewed the Shroud's dating, exactly as had happened with his Mayan jade. Riggi gave him some Shroud fragments to take back to the United States, and he accordingly tried on them the very same chemical cleaning procedures that the official Nature scientific report on the Shroud dating [Damon, P.E., et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, 1989, pp.611-615] described the radiocarbon-dating laboratories as having used on their Shroud samples. As he discovered, even when the cleaning solvents were used at extra strength, they hardly affected the contaminating `plastic' biofilm, instead doing rather more damage to the linen itself. And, although the radiocarbon-dating laboratories have calculated that for the Shroud's date to have been skewed by thirteen centuries a contamination layer amounting to an astonishing 60 per cent of the entire sample is needed, Garza-Valdès regards this sort of proportion as perfectly feasible. For it is a matter of firm record that the sliver of Shroud that was taken for the 1988 radiocarbon dating was snipped from its top left- hand corner, one of the two corners by which it was traditionally held up for exposition over the centuries. In countless engravings of Shroud expositions back through history, bishop after bishop can be seen clutching the Shroud at this very point. Now, as microbiologists are fond of demonstrating, microbes from even the cleanest hand will grow impressive colonies in an agar dish in a matter of days. So, if there is any point on the Shroud on which the maximum amount of microbiological contamination could be expected to have accumulated, it would have to have to have been these corners." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.98-100) 5/05/2007 "Although most scientists would rightly feel that this was overoptimistic, the highly respected microbiologist Prof. Stephen Mattingly, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, having similarly studied the Shroud samples under the microscope, shares much of Garza-Valdès' optimism. While careful not to become too embroiled in the Shroud debate, he fully supports the view that a substantial microbiological biofilm is present: `There is no doubt that the Shroud has a major layer of microbial contamination on and within the cellulose fibres.' [Mattingly, S., e-mail to Dr. John Jackson, December 1999] Mattingly further supports Garza-Valdès' contention that this contamination was not removed by the laboratories' cleaning procedures, pointing out that the radiocarbon laboratories left themselves wide open to their result being challenged by their failure to perform either a preliminary or a post-test chemical analysis of the samples that their AMS radiocarbon-dating process had to destroy. In Mattingly's words, `This is the first step in quantitative analysis in college chemistry. I can remember my lab instructor sending me back to the bench because the recovery mass of my unknown did not agree with the known value.' Had the radiocarbon-dating laboratories performed such a chemical analysis, then the presence of contaminating material to the tune of 60 per cent would have become very readily apparent in a way that no optical method could provide. But, focused as they were on their own science of nuclear physics, they assumed that they were testing pure Shroud and nothing else, and therefore worked blind. Although Professor Hall said in 1989 that he would be amazed if even 1 per cent contamination remained on the cloth, Mattingly rejoins: `I can assure you that you cannot look at any object and assume that it is appreciably free of microbial contamination. You might be surprised to know that every square millimetre of your skin is coated with a substantial layer of micro-organisms. They are contributing, along with your gut microbial flora, in a significant way to your overall body mass.' [Ibid.] Were a proper chemical analysis of Shroud samples conducted, certainly any from the area sampled for radiocarbon dating, what should be revealed is the presence of muramic acid. In Mattingly's words, `If it is present, this is proof that bacteria are present. Muramic acid is only found in nature in the cell walls of bacteria. It is widely used as a marker for the presence of bacteria. The quantitative level of muramic acid can then be used to estimate the mass contribution of bacteria to the overall mass of the linen.' [Ibid.] Mattingly's overall assessment is that, since micro-organisms make up 80 per cent of the mass of living organisms on the earth today, `why they should not comprise more than 50 per cent of the weight of a centuries-old linen should not be a major leap in credibility'. To demonstrate this, shortly before the March 2000 Symposium he cultured his own skin bacteria in his laboratory, concentrated these in pellet form and then repeatedly smeared the mixture over a 1 gram square of linen until the combined weight of linen plus bacteria reached 2.30 grams. Having thereby achieved a 57 per cent degree of contamination, he heated the bacteria to render them harmless, then sent the result to Drs Adler, Jackson and myself, together with an untreated sample as a `control'. As he pointed out in a covering note, because of the coating's artificial and now sterile nature it cannot be considered a replication as such of that on the Shroud. Instead the clear message of his samples is that a 57 per cent layer of coating is nothing like as obvious and obtrusive as non-microbiologists expect it to be. And, because the radiocarbon laboratories failed to conduct a proper chemical analysis of the samples they destroyed, no one can deny that such a coating could have been present and have seriously affected the dating result. In the light of Prof. Mattingly's comments, the confident claims made by the radiocarbon-dating laboratories in their Nature report of 1989 that they had `conclusively' shown the Shroud to date from the Middle Ages may be considered effectively to lie in tatters" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.102-103. Emphasis original) 5/05/2007 "As was pointed out, even before the radiocarbon dating, by Dr Bob Otlet of the Harwell Laboratory, Oxford and its two companion AMS laboratories had had little experience of dating linen before they worked on the Shroud. Furthermore linen, because of the huge surface area presented by its multitudinous fibres, appears to be peculiarly subject to contamination that can seriously skew its dating, as is evident from the Egyptian mummy linen anomalies, quite apart from the Shroud. So the whole phenomenon of contamination peculiar to linen undoubtedly needs to be further explored, not least in the interests of archaeology in general, as well as those of the Shroud. Then, when the technology has been found to eliminate microbiological biofilm satisfactorily from any radiocarbon-dating reading, hopefully there can be a fresh dating of the Shroud, using a sample held back in 1,988 for this very purpose. If and when this can be done, Mattingly confidently predicts: `I promise you the presence of the biofilm [once removed] will dramatically change the radiocarbon date.' (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.103) 6/05/2007 "But some scientists have persisted. In 1999 Avinoam Danin, a botanist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, stated at the 16th International Botanical Congress that he found pollen grains on the shroud from plants that could only be found in and around Jerusalem, placing its origins in the Middle East. Further comparison of the shroud with another ancient cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo (thought to be the burial face cloth of Jesus), revealed it was embedded with pollen grains from the same species of plant as found on the Shroud of Turin. The Sudarium even carries the same AB blood type, with bloodstains in a similar pattern. Since the Sudarium has been stored in a cathedral in Spain since the eighth century, the evidence suggests that the Shroud of Turin is at least as old." (Trivedi, B.P., "Jesus' Shroud?: Recent Findings Renew Authenticity Debate," National Geographic, April 9, 2004) 6/05/2007 "Professor Danin and another Israeli colleague, Uri Baruch, a pollen expert, say pollen grains found on another Christian relic, the sudarium of Oviedo, believed to be the cloth that covered Jesus' face, proves the shroud of Turin dates back further than the fourteenth century, the date concluded by the highly controversial carbon-dating tests. Professor Danin says his findings can't prove the image on the shroud, of a man about six foot tall with long hair, a beard and bloodstains from his hands and feet, was in fact that of Jesus." (Goldin, M., "Science gives hope to shroud believers," ABC, 5 July, 1999) 6/05/2007 "The evidence I have found has broad implications. For example, my research has clarified many puzzles about the age of the Shroud, particularly the 1988 radiocarbon dating, whose proponents concluded that the Shroud does not date from the time of Jesus of Nazareth. I now know that this conclusion was mistaken, but the reasons were not apparent back in 1988. I have discovered on the Shroud what I call a bioplastic coating, a type of clear encasing that is invisible to the unaided eye. Today, it looks to viewers like a shiny lamination, which is why some eyewitnesses say the Shroud has a surprising `surface sheen'. It is not, however, a manmade coating; it is actually composed of millions of living microbiological organisms that have formed over time, somewhat like a coral reef. This is a natural process I had earlier noted while doing research an other ancient artefacts. When the scientists used carbon dating on Shroud samples in 1988, they did not realize that they were dating, as one entity, both the original ancient fabric and this living bioplastic coating. Their mistaken result was off by centuries. My conclusion, based on evidence I have gathered, is that the Shroud of Turin is not a medieval fake, as was suggested, but is quite possibly a relic of the time of Jesus of Nazareth." (Garza-Valdès, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.2-3) 6/05/2007 "In the late 1970s, he was quick to see the value of the revolutionary new method of radiocarbon dating then being developed (called accelerator mass spectrometry or AMS dating) and became fully committed to establishing the method at Oxford. In the early days of setting up the AMS facility at Oxford, he could be found crawling inside the accelerator tank, or discussing design modifications, or even sweeping the floor. Such total involvement got its reward especially in his participation in the dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988. Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, had authorised the removal of samples of the shroud for testing by three laboratories: in Arizona, Zurich - and Oxford. Hall's laboratory dated its sample to between 1260 and 1390. The mix of good science, intricate instrumentation, the attention of the world's press, the ambivalence of the religious authorities and sheer importance of the outcome for so many people appealed to him immensely; he also took pleasure in, as he saw it, the debunking of any conviction that could not be rationally demonstrated. `There was a multi-million- pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century,' he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it.' And again, `Some people may continue to fight for the authenticity of the shroud, like the Flat Earth Society, but this settles it all as far as we are concerned." (Hedges, R., "Obituary: Professor Edward Hall," The Independent, August 16, 2001) 6/05/2007 "But while the debate over the Shroud's DNA therefore necessarily remains far from resolved, a major new development, also with its own bearing on the Shroud `blood', concerns a relic with its own authenticity controversies, the so-called sudarium of Oviedo. Although this bears bloodstains, like those on the Shroud, with every semblance of authenticity, because these are not accompanied by any similarly meaningful body image I have long shied from taking any interest in them - until a recent development. This was the emergence of a new, serious researcher on the subject, Mark Guscin, a British-born classicist resident in Spain, with an excellent book The Oviedo Cloth [Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998], the first on the subject in the English language, published in 1998. In this he shows that historically the Oviedo cloth's origins can with reasonable plausibility be traced back to early first- millennium Jerusalem, having been moved from there to Spain in the seventh century apparently to keep it safe from the Persian invasions of that period. By early in the ninth century, due to Arab incursions into southern Spain, it had quite definitely moved north to Oviedo, since the cathedral's still extant camera santa or holy room was specially built for it at that time. And in 1075 it was similarly reliably recorded as being taken out of its still extant arca or chest in the presence of King Alfonso VI. Its certain history, therefore, significantly antedates that of the Shroud. It is also free of the early accusations of forgery that so dog the Shroud." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, 2000, pp.77-78) 6/05/2007 "But exactly like the Shroud, far more revelatory than the Oviedo cloth's history is its self-documentation. Although it bears no photograph-like `body' image in the manner of the Shroud, Mark Guscin and his Spanish colleagues have very convincingly demonstrated that its `blood and body fluid' stains exhibit shapes so strikingly similar to those on the Shroud that there has to be the strongest likelihood that both were in contact with the same corpse. Two groups of stains particularly indicate this. The first are what I would call the nasal stains, which appear to derive from a nose and mouth soaked in bloody fluids. These are repeated mirror-image-style, apparently because of the cloth having been partly doubled on itself. Forensic analysis indicates that they consist of one part blood and six parts pulmonary oedema fluid. This finding is therefore strikingly consistent with the strong body of medical opinion that the man of the Shroud's lungs would have filled with fluid caused by the scourging. They are also very compatible with gospel writer John's observation that at the conclusion of Jesus' crucifixion `immediately there came out blood and water' (John 19: 34), as from the same oedematous fluid, when a lance was plunged into Jesus' chest. In the case of the Oviedo cloth's back-of-the-head group of bloodstains, if these are photographed to the same scale as their equivalent on the Shroud, and then matched up to each other, there are again enough similarities to indicate, in Dr Alan Adler's words, `that these two cloths were in contact with the same wounded body'. [Adler, A.D, "Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin," in Orna, M.V., ed., "Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic and Biochemical Analysis," American Chemical Society: Washington DC, 1996, p.226], 1996, p.226]" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, 2000, p.78) 6/05/2007 "If the Oviedo cloth really is genuine, what might its function have been? As envisaged by Guscin and his colleagues, whoever `wore' it seems to have had it, partly folded back on itself, wrapped around the left side of his face, then pinned to the hair at the back of his head, arguably while hanging upright as if on the cross. This actually accords very readily with known Jewish scruples concerning leaving the face of any dead person exposed, scruples which, however strange they might seem, are hardly any different from the continuing practice even in our own time of covering the face of anyone who has just died in hospital or is lying at the roadside dead from a road accident. That this is how the cloth was deployed is in fact very clear from the holes that it still bears from the pins that would have been used to hold it in position. According to Guscin and his colleagues, experiments involving the time it takes for blood and pulmonary fluid stains to differentiate have determined that the individual who had this cloth affixed to his head must have lain on the ground for some forty-five minutes, arguably after having been taken down from the cross. However, the cloth would have had to be removed by the time he was laid in the Shroud." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, 2000, pp.78-79) 6/05/2007 "Exactly as with the Shroud, blood samples suitable for DNA analysis have been taken from the Oviedo cloth. In 1994 the American Shroud researcher Dr Alan Whanger visited Oviedo and, with full ecclesiastical approval, took three sets of samples, each consisting of one thread from a bloodstained area and one from an adjoining blood-free area as control. After sealing and labelling, these were taken to a freezer at the Spanish Ministry of Justice in Madrid where, at the time of writing, they still await official approval for the testing to take place. Obviously, if the DNA from the Shroud and the Oviedo sudarium happened to match, even though the segments are fragmentary, this would be the most powerful possible evidence that the two cloths once wrapped one and the same person. But other matches are already known." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, 2000, p.79) 6/05/2007 "Exactly as in the case of the Shroud, whoever bled onto the Oviedo cloth was of the same comparatively rare AB blood group. Furthermore, as we are about to discover, there are similar uncanny parallels with the Shroud in respect of the microscopic detritus in the Oviedo cloth's otherwise unstained areas." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, 2000, p.79) 6/05/2007 "Analysis of the floral images, and a separate analysis of the pollen grains by botanist Uri Baruch identified a combination of plant species that could be found only in March and April in the region of Jerusalem, Danin said. Danin identified a high density of pollen of the tumbleweed Gundelia tournefortii. The analysis also found the bean caper. The two species coexist in a limited area, Danin said. `This combination of flowers can be found in only one region of the world,' he said. `The evidence clearly points to a floral grouping from the area surrounding Jerusalem.' An image of the Gundelia tournefortii can be seen near the image of the man's shoulder. Some experts have suggested that the plant was used for the `crown of thorns.' Two pollen grains of the species were also found on the Sudarium of Oviedo, believed to be the burial face cloth of Jesus. Danin, who has done extensive study on plants in Jerusalem, said the pollen grains are native to the Gaza Strip. Since the Sudarium of Oviedo has resided in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Spain since the eighth century, Danin said that the matchup of pollen grains pushes the shroud's date to a similar age. Both cloths also carry type AB blood stains in similar patterns, Danin said. `The pollen association and the similarities in the blood stains in the two cloths provide clear evidence that the shroud originated before the eighth century,' Danin said. The location of the Sudarium of Oviedo has been documented since the first century. If it is found that the two cloths are linked, then the shroud could be even older, Danin said. The 1988 study used carbon dating tests. Danin noted that the earlier study looked at only a single sample, while he used the entire piece of fabric." ("Study dates Shroud of Turin to before 8th century," CNN/AP, August 3, 1999) 6/05/2007 "By analyzing the images of plants and actual pollen that transferred to the Shroud, scientists led by botanist Avinoam Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem lent weight to those who believe it to be Christ's burial cloth. `This combination of flowers can be found in only one region of the world. The evidence clearly points to a floral grouping from the area surrounding Jerusalem,' Danin said in a presentation Monday to the International Botanical Congress. Colleagues determined several of the floral and pollen species found on the Shroud bloomed in what is now Israel between May and March, and that another must have been picked in the Judean Desert or the Dead Sea Valley between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. on the day they were placed on the Shroud. A type of pollen from a thistle visible near the shoulder of the man's image on the Shroud was believed to be the plant used for Jesus' crown of thorns, the researchers said. Two pollen grains of this same species were also found on the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is widely viewed as the burial face cloth of Jesus. The Sudarium has been traced to the 1st Century, and both it and the Shroud carry type AB blood stains. `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 said. `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.'" ("Botanists Shed New Light On Shroud Of Turin," Yahoo!/Reuters, August 4, 1999) 7/05/2007 "Another argument, also advanced by some high-level scientists, has been that if there were anything thermonuclear to the circumstance by which the crucified body image was created on the Shroud, then this in itself, by adding to the cloth's low-level radioactivity levels, could have made the Shroud appear younger than its true age. A letter from Dr Thomas J. Phillips of Harvard University's High Energy Physics Laboratory, published in the very same issue of Nature which carried the formal report of the radiocarbon- dating findings, commented: `If the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial-cloth of Christ ... then according to the Bible it was present at a unique physical event: the resurrection of a dead body. Unfortunately this event is not accessible to direct scientific scrutiny, but ... the body ... may have radiated neutrons, which would have irradiated the Shroud and changed some of the nuclei to different isotopes by neutron capture. In particular some carbon 14 would have been generated from carbon 13. If we assume that the Shroud is 1950 years old and that the neutrons were emitted thermally, then an integrated flux of 2 x 10^16 neutron cm^-2 would have converted enough carbon 13 to carbon 14 to give an apparent carbon-dated age of 670 years [i.e. fourteenth century].' [Phillips, T.J., "Shroud Irradiated With Neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, p.594]" (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.232-233) 7/05/2007 "A similar view has been expressed by the pioneering British nuclear physicist Dr Kitty Little, now retired from her career at the UK's Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, Oxfordshire. She has recalled an experiment that she conducted back in the 1950s in which she irradiated a range of fibres, including several different cellulose ones, in a research reactor called BEPO: `At the time BEPO was being run at only three MW, so that the temperatures were in the range 70° to 90° centigrade. This meant that I was obtaining radiation effects without the complication of heat effects.' Little observed the fibres to change with only relatively low-grade heat to the very same colour reported of the Shroud image, something of which at that time she had no knowledge. In her own words: `[The] cellulose fibres turned to the straw-yellow colour that has been described for the image of the Shroud...' Even more interesting, however, was that the very same radiation particles which produced this effect were necessarily also accompanied by neutron emission. And as she has explained, this would inevitably have resulted `in the formation of extra carbon 14 on the sheet, the whole of it', this extra carbon tending quite categorically and specifically `... to make the apparent age of the fabric appear more recent than it really is ...'" [ Little, K., "The Holy Shroud of Turin and the Mystery of the Resurrection," Christian Order, April 1994, p. 226]" (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.233) 7/05/2007 "This explanation, proposed completely independently of each other by Drs Phillips and Little, potentially accounts both for how the radiocarbon dating could have erred and for how the crucified body image could have been formed on the cloth, all in one neat single package. It is also a view to which I can hardly object, given that twenty years ago, when I wrote my 1978 book, I specifically suggested the image came to be formed by some such nuclear-type blinding flash from the body. As I then hypothesised: `In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerialises, dissolved perhaps by the flash, while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal "snapshot" of the Resurrection.' [Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Victor Gollancz: London, 1978, p.211]. The great difficulty in such a hypothesis, whether it comes from me or from a trained scientist, is that it demands that 2000 years ago something far beyond the normal order happened to the body of Jesus as it lay in apparent death. That something of this kind indeed happened has of course been claimed by Christian believers throughout those 2000 years." (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.233-234) 7/05/2007 "A Nuclear Radiation Theory At an international conference on the Shroud held in Richmond, Virginia, in June 1998, Dr August Accetta from Huntington Beach, California, presented a paper entitled `Experiments with Radiation as an Image Formation Mechanism'. This referred to an experiment he conducted with John Jackson and Dr Kenneth Lyons, in which he himself was injected with the radioactive compound methylene diphosphate and then subjected to nuclear radiation imaging to ascertain if the resultant body image would bear any characteristics similar to photographs of the Shroud image. A dosage of the radioactive compound measured to produce a six-hour `half-life' gave sufficient time for the compound to be absorbed by Accetta's body and to bind to his bones and tissues, while he assumed a pose similar to the man of the Shroud, under a gamma camera which was set to `photograph' the photons radiating from his body at timed intervals. The experiment was successful in producing a full-body radiation image, which, similar to the Shroud image, was monochromatic and had no outline. When viewed through the VP-8 Image Analyzer, the radiation image of Accetta's body revealed similar three-dimensional characteristics to the Shroud image. In summarising their experiment, Accetta, Jackson and Lyons stated: `We believe the nuclear medicine model is the best currently available to aid in our understanding of the Shroud image. We feel our results effectively demonstrated plausibly that the Shroud image resulted from an organized emission and/or organized collection of radiation from the body and/or cloth respectively.' [Accetta, A.D., "Nuclear Medicine and Its Relevance to the Shroud of Turin," Sindone 2000, Shroud Conference in Orvieto, Italy, August 2000 While their experiment proved nothing, it could be suggested that the Shroud image might have been caused by a form of nuclear radiation that emitted from Christ's body at the moment of His resurrection." (Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, pp.181-182. Emphasis original) 7/05/2007 "Theory: The Image Is a Scorch. The scientific team arrived in Turin in 1978 already suspecting that the image on the Shroud could well be some kind of scorch. The scorch theory had become the leading candidate for image formation partly because other theories seemed improbable and partly because the image looked like a scorch in photographs available before 1978. Cellulose yellows in the first stages of burning. If the heat and timing are carefully controlled, an experimental scorch can yellow cellulose fibers the way those on the Shroud are yellowed. Furthermore, a known scorch-the burns from the 1532 fire-lay right on the cloth, and the image resembled it. Analysis of color photographs prior to 1978 indicated that the image and the fire scorch have similar optical properties. A scorch has several other properties which the Shroud image also possesses. The image was not affected by the heat of the 1532 fire or by the water thrown on the Shroud to extinguish it. Neither heat nor water would affect a scorch in any way. The 1978 observations largely confirmed this pre-1978 theorizing. The ultraviolet and visible light reflectance tests showed that the image and the fire scorches reflected light in a similar way. ... However, the optical properties of the Shroud image and the fire scorches are not identical. The fire scorches are visually redder than the body image, and the two areas of the cloth fluoresce somewhat differently under ultraviolet light. The team thought that these differences would be present if scorches had occurred under different conditions. In 1532, the Shroud was burned while sealed inside a metal box. Such a scorch, occurring in a substantially oxygen-free environment, would be visibly redder and would have different fluorescent properties than a scorch which occurred in the presence of oxygen. Indeed, Vernon Miller and Samuel Pellicori demonstrated this fact experimentally. They burned cellulose in an oxygen-depleted environment, and the scorch this experiment produced fluoresced in a way similar to those of the fire-damaged areas of the Shroud. It thus seemed probable to many members of the team that the image on the Shroud is a scorch, slightly different than the known scorches on the Shroud, but a scorch nonetheless. If the image was a scorch, how did it get on the cloth? This question proved to be very difficult to answer in scientific terms. The problem was finding what the Schwalbe and Rogers summary of research called a `technologically credible image transfer mechanism.' This was the main objection to the scorch hypothesis before 1978, and it remained the major objection after the testing and analysis were completed. Not all of the scientists agree with the scorch thesis, and many members of the scientific team stopped well short of imagining that a corpse emitted enough light and heat to scorch a burial shroud. Indeed, the team's summary of research classified the scorch hypothesis in the category of artificial-image theories. In other words, a chief issue for some was attempting to view the Shroud image in strictly natural terms. ... this may not be fully possible." (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.90-92. Emphasis original) 8/05/2007 "In conclusion, natural hypotheses have failed to explain the Shroud's image and are untenable at this time. ... Thus, neither fakery nor natural hypotheses are viable. Murphy remarked in 1981 that `it is STURP[Shroud of Turin Research Project]'s conclusion that none of the forgery theories is tenable. Neither are any of the "natural phenomenon" hypotheses.' ... At this point, science is unable to explain the Shroud's image completely. On scientific grounds, the cause of the image is an enigma. In the words of the STURP report delivered at New London, `The answer to the question of how the image was produced, or what produced the image, remains now, as in the past, a mystery.' As Heller asserted, `100 thousand to 150 thousand scientific man-hours have been spent' studying the Shroud, utilizing the best scientific instruments, and yet the image still remains a `mystery.' In spite of this conclusion, by the early to mid 1980s, numerous scientists had indicated their view that the image was best explained by a scorch theory of some sort. Even Mueller, a critic of the Shroud, pointed out in 1982: `Nationwide, at least, most members still seem to regard the dehydrated-cellulose image as a probable low-temperature scorch, and the image as having been somehow "projected" across space onto the cloth. This is, of course, the old radiation-scorch hypothesis in thin semantic disguise.' Wilcox's 1982 article series, largely based on his interviews with twenty-six scientists from the 1978 investigation, confirmed some of Mueller's suspicions. Noting that possibly the most important single finding of STURP was the oxidized, dehydrated, and conjugated nature of the linen fibrils. Wilcox decided to ask the scientists he interviewed what they believed to be the cause of the image. Only seven ventured a specific answer. Two of them, Pellicori and German, favored the latent-image version of the contact theory" even though STURP declared that contact theories are `totally incapable' of explaining crucial portions of the image. The other five scientists who answered Wilcox's query indicated their view that the image was a scorch . Even though a sample of seven scientists is admittedly very small (about 27 percent of those questioned), it is nonetheless quite significant that those who did answer believed the scorch hypothesis fit the facts better than any other. However, the interesting question here is, how can a dead body under a cloth produce such a scorch on linen?" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.128-129) 8/05/2007 "Oddly enough, the Shroud opponents have actually helped to make our case. Certainly the need to resort to a denigration of the scientists on the basis of their religious preferences shows a decided bias on their part. In addition, if critics feel the need to declare Jesus a myth, are they not actually suggesting that the Shroud evidence indeed matches the Gospel narratives of Christ's passion and death? At least a few of them are willing to admit this in print. For example, Schafersman states, `Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man of the shroud is not Jesus Christ ... a very conservative estimate [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.128]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus. Otherwise, it's an artist's representation... ." [Schafersman, S., "Science, the Public, and the Shroud," Skeptical Inquirer, B, 1982:41, italics added] The bottom line then is that either the image is that of Jesus of Nazareth or it was intended by its creator to portray Jesus. Since we've virtually ruled out human artifice, are we crazy or unscholarly or unscientific to suggest the image is likely that of Jesus?" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.196. Emphasis original). 8/05/2007 "On the other hand, on a purely logical basis, if a completely natural process caused the Shroud image, why are there no others known in the entire world-especially since the Egyptians left us so many burial linens? Numerous sindonologists who believe in a natural process are troubled by this fact." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.201. Emphasis original) 8/05/2007 "When Habermas and I have made the statement that the image-formation process was probably some form of `scorch' that most likely occurred at the moment of resurrection, it was simply our best shot at describing the facts as they were then known and understood. As late as 1986, Luigi Gonella, who serves as a scientific advisor in Shroud testing to the Archbishop of Turin, put it this way: `The `3-D characteristic' brought forward the hypothesis of a radiation burst among the imageformation mechanisms to be investigated. This hypothesis, vastly misunderstood, elicited much attention from the media and has often been dubbed `miracolistic,' though it was nothing of the kind. Rather it is the obvious reaction of a physicist faced with the structural features of the Shroud image: the agent acting at a distance with decreasing intensity is, almost by definition, radiation. The limitation of the cloth darkening to the outermost surface pointed to a non-penetrating, non-diffusing agent, like radiant energy; the absence of plateaus pointed to an effect limited by the exposure time (hence a `burst') and not by saturation of the receiving material; whatever the mechanism might be, it must be such to yield effects as if it were a burst of collimated radiant energy. [Gonella, L. `Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin: Problems, Results, and Methodological Lessons,' Paper delivered at the 1986 Hong Kong Symposium, p.31] The only thing that has changed since this statement was made is that it has been demonstrated that any known or heretofore postulated form of `scorching' mechanism will not match all the known Shroud image characteristics. The image does not fluoresce, burn through, damage the fibrils, or blur as all known methods of scorching do. We readily admit all of these facts and still stand by our original judgment because it still best fits the known facts. The Shroud does not exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, if the medical and scientific evidence confirms the biblical record in every other detail, we conclude that the only remaining detail is also accurate: Jesus Christ rose from the dead and the image on this cloth is in some as-yet-unknown way connected with that event. Whether it was the effect of body chemicals over a period of time, an effect that has escaped our duplication attempts, or some high-energy, high voltage transformation for which we lack both name and knowledge, that historical episode-the resurrection of Jesus Christ-is the single most feasible explanation for the image on the Shroud." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, pp.204-205. Emphasis original) 8/05/2007 "The scientists of STURP [Shroud of Turin Research Project] even conclude the following concerning the image-formation process: `The cause, then, of the yellowing is chemically altered cellulose consisting of structures formed by dehydration, oxidation, and conjugation products of the linen itself.... This conclusion is supported by laboratory simulations using controlled accelerated aging processes that produce the same spectral reflectance curves as the body-only image areas and the background areas on the Shroud.... It is important to note that this chemistry is similar to the chemistry that causes the yellowing of linen with age. The fact that we can see the body image tells us that the body image is due to a more advanced [cloth] decomposition process than the normal aging rate of the background linen itself. For this reason, we will from this point on refer to the chemistry of the body-only image as advanced [cloth] decomposition.' [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, A Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49]" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.205. Emphasis original) 8/05/2007 "The STURP [Shroud of Turin Research Project] scientists go on to state: `The Shroud's mapping relationship, however, poses the strongest objection to a contact mechanism. Contact mechanisms have not been able to produce a convincing cloth-body distance relationship. In fact, taken alone, this mapping function seems to suggest some kind of "projection" mechanism, because there seems to be image present even where it does not appear to have been possible that the cloth was in contact with the body. We are left to identify what kind of `projection' mechanism, and this we have been unable to do. Simple molecular diffusion and "radiation" models, for example, fail to account for the apparent resolution of the image as we understand it.... We really do not have a satisfactory, simple explanation for how the body image got on the cloth. We think this fact is underscored by the fact that to our knowledge no other image on any cloth-grave cloth or art form-like the body image on the Shroud is known to exist today. If another example were to exist, our task of identifying the origin of the body image would be much simplified. ' [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, A Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49] Immediately following that remark, the members of STURP began a discussion of whether or not the Shroud might be Jesus'. To put all of the above in common English, they concluded that the Shroud image is caused by an unknown form of `advanced decomposition' of the cloth, which seemed to `project' from body to cloth-a process which has thus far eluded all attempts at duplication. The image is unlike any art form and also has no natural counterpart." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, pp.205- 206. Emphasis original) 8/05/2007 "It seems as if physics and chemistry [would have] provided better explanations of the formation of the image nowadays ... and yet, the genuine arrangement of simultaneous and successive causal steps that formed this expressive and informative image cannot be attributed to a series of coincidences. Neither was it possible for human beings to produce such an image.... Consequently, one cannot help reaching the following conclusion: A Dead Man Rose from the Dead and Left Behind His Image as an Evidence for Posterity." [Scheuermann, O., "Shroud," West Germany, June 1986]" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.208. Emphasis original) 8/05/2007 "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. Botanist Avinoam 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 review of plant and pollen evidence is being published by the Missouri Botanical Garden Press as Flora of the Shroud of Turin by Danin, Alan Whanger, Mary Whanger , and Uri Baruch. The peer-reviewed publication will be available in late summer. Danin presented his research findings at a lecture series held in conjunction with the XVI International Botanical Congress. More than 4,000 scientists from 100 countries are meeting in St. Louis this week to discuss the latest research on plants for human survival and improved quality of life. Held only once every six years, the International Botanical Congress last met in the United States in 1969, when it was held in Seattle, Washington. 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." (XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century, " Science Daily, August 3, 1999) 8/05/2007 "Two pollen grains of this species [Gundelia tournefortii] 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. Both cloths also carry type AB blood stains, although some argue that ancient blood types are hard to interpret. What is clear is that the blood stains on both cloths are in a similar pattern. `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.' Danin stated that this botanical research disputes the validity of the claim that the Shroud was from Europe during the Middle Ages, as many researchers had concluded in 1988 based on carbon-14 dating tests. The authors do not question the accuracy of the carbon-14 dating test which was done on only a single sample taken from one highly contaminated corner of the shroud, he said. However, their research looked at pollen grains and images from the entire piece of fabric and compared them with a fabric that has a documented history." (XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century, " Science Daily, August 3, 1999) 8/05/2007 "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." (XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century," Science Daily, August 3, 1999) 8/05/2007 "According to Danin, his findings corroborate the following sequence of events:
(XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century, " Science Daily, August 3, 1999) 8/05/2007 "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 these flowers on the Shroud suggest they were picked in the Judean Desert or the Dead Sea Valley between 3 and 4 p.m. on the day they were placed on the Shroud." (XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century, " Science Daily, August 3, 1999) 8/05/2007 "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." (XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century, " Science Daily, August 3, 1999) 8/05/2007 "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." (XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century, " Science Daily, August 3, 1999) 8/05/2007 "The burial cloth known today as the Shroud of Turin is a linen rectangle measuring 4.35 meters by 1.1 meter. It has been kept in the city of Turin (Torino), Italy, since 1578. In 1694, the Shroud was placed in a special chapel within the Italian cathedral of St. John the Baptist. Except for a brief period during World War II when the cloth was moved elsewhere for safety, the Shroud remained in this cathedral until the night of April 11, 1997, when a raging fire necessitated its removal. The Shroud was not damaged, and was kept elsewhere in the city until it again was placed in the cathedral for public display from April 18 through June 14, 1998." (XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century, " Science Daily, August 3, 1999) 8/05/2007 "While there have long been historical, literary, and artistic claims that the Shroud represents the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, there has been little scientific evidence to support this. In 1988, carbon-14 dating of a single sample from a corner of the Shroud was identified to be from 1260 to 1390 A.D., leading to the widespread conclusion that the entire Shroud was from the Medieval period." (XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century, " Science Daily, August 3, 1999) 11/05/2007 "Either way, the deduction must be that, if the Shroud image was formed neither by human artifice nor by ordinary natural means, it must have been by some unknown image-forming process. It is in attempting to define something of the nature of this third alternative that we arrive at the Shroud's paramount mystery. ... With regard to the image-forming process itself .. A far more promising suggestion has been that the image is some form of scorch, the color being the sepia of the first stage of the oxidation process preliminary to actual burning. ... This idea gained credibility ... at the 1973 exposition. On close study of the Shroud color there seemed a great similarity between the character of the scorches from the 1532 fire and the tones of the body image. Just over three years later the validity of this subjective impression was demonstrated scientifically at Albuquerque. ... Spectroscopically `body,' `blood,' and burn-mark features all recorded the same intensity. ... the implication for future research was self-evident-the Shroud image had pronounced similarities to a scorch. The obvious question is how a genuine dead body, cold in the tomb, could produce some kind of burning or radiance sufficient to scorch cloth, acting in so controlled a manner that it dissolved and fused blood flows onto the cloth, yet created at the same time the perfect impression of a human body? The concept is mind-boggling. Yet, if the evidence already presented for the Shroud's authenticity is to be believed, something along these lines appears to be the only explanation." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.207-209. Emphasis original) 11/05/2007 "Not far from anyone's minds at the Albuquerque conference was the idea that it might have been some kind of thermonuclear flash-a singularly appropriate speculation, considering that they were sitting not two hours' drive from the site of the first atomic-bomb test at Alamogordo in 1945. Adding some weight to this speculation were some unexpected photographic properties of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, as attested by Hiroshima author John Hersey: `The scientists noticed that the flash of the bomb had discolored concrete to a light reddish tint, had scaled off the surface of granite, and had scorched certain other types of building materials, and that consequently the bomb had, in some places, left prints of the shadows that had been cast by its light. The experts found for instance, a permanent shadow thrown on the roof of the Chamber of Commerce Building (220 yards from the rough center) by the structure's rectangular tower; several others in the look-out post on top of the Hypothec Bank (2,050 yards); another in the tower of the Chugoku Electric Supply Building (800 yards); another projected by the handle of a gas pump (2,630 yards) .... A few vague human silhouettes were found, and these gave rise to stories that eventually included fancy and precise details. One story told how a painter on a ladder was monumentalized in a kind of bas-relief on the stone facade of a bank building on which he was at work, in the act of dipping his brush into his paint can; another how a man and his cart on the bridge near the Museum of Science and Industry, almost under the center of the explosion, were cast down in an embossed shadow which made it clear that the man was about to whip his horse ... ' [Hersey, J., "Hiroshima," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1946, pp.104-105] The correspondence of these radiation images with the phenomenon on the Shroud itself is, of course, by no means total. The Shroud was, after all, seemingly scorched from within rather than from without, and by a process of necessity far more controlled than the blast from an atomic bomb." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, p.209. Emphasis original) 11/05/2007 "Nevertheless the impression is inescapable that, rather than a substance, some kind of force seems to have been responsible for the image. This is suggested by the information in the 1973 commission's report that the image affected only the topmost surface of the fibers, and whatever created it had neither seeped nor penetrated the fibers and was insoluble and resistant to acids. Whatever formed the image was powerful enough to project it onto the linen from a distance of up to four centimeters (according to Jumper and Jackson), yet gentle enough not to cause distortion in areas where there would have been direct contact. This factor is particularly obvious on the dorsal image, where the cloth would have received the full weight of the body. The concept of a force is implicit from the manner in which the image seems to have been created with a marked upward/downward directionality, without any diffusion, and leaving no imprint of the sides of the body or the top of the head. Also the image-forming process seems to have shown no discrimination between registering the body surface, the hair, the blood, and even inanimate objects-i.e., the two coins discovered by Jackson and Jumper. All would seem to have been imprinted on the cloth with the same even intensity, and with only the most minor color variation in the case of the blood. The idea, then, of some form of thermonuclear flash being the force in question is obviously more than idle speculation. Dr. Jumper certainly treated it seriously, arguing that, as any diffusion process would have involved penetration of the fibers, and as any remotely lingering laser beam would have caused destruction, whatever created the image must have been some extremely high intensity, short duration burst, acting evenly upward and downward. Thermal chemist Ray Rogers of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, who attended the conference, said very much the same thing, using the words `flash photolysis,' and speaking of a mere millisecond of time. In the absence of definitive analysis of the Shroud stains, this concept may be as near as scientists can bring us to whatever created the Shroud image." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.209-210. Emphasis original) 11/05/2007 "It is certainly awesome enough, but there are additional factors to be borne in mind that are unique to this one cloth in Turin. Other shrouds have survived, some from Egyptian tombs dating from many centuries before the time of Christ. A few, including those of known martyrs, bear imprints-but nothing approaching the perfect photographic likeness of the Shroud of Turin. If a similar imprint had appeared on the shroud of an Egyptian pharaoh or a Chinese emperor, it would be considered just some freak of nature, and dismissed with little further thought. But it occurred, from all that one can determine, only on the shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, a man reputed to have worked miracles and to have risen from the grave. The Gospels are quite explicit that Jesus was a man with a power, a power he is specifically recorded to have felt drawn from him, as in the case of our now-familiar woman with the issue of blood who touched the hem of his robe. It was perhaps manifestation of this power which took place at the Transfiguration-the extraordinary incident described by three gospel writers when, on a high mountain, the aspect of Jesus' face changed and he appeared in brilliant light, his clothing `dazzlingly white' and `as lightning' (Mt. 17:1-8, Mk. 9:2-8, Lk. 9:28- 36)." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.210-211) 11/05/2007 "Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerializes, dissolved perhaps by the flash, while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection. However the image was formed, we may well be entranced by the fourteen-foot length of linen in Turin. For if the author's reconstruction is correct, the Shroud has survived first-century persecution of Christians, repeated Edessan floods, an Edessan earthquake, Byzantine iconoclasm, Moslem invasion, crusader looting, the destruction of the Knights Templars, not to mention the burning incident that caused the triple holes, the 1532 fire, and a serious arson attempt made in 1972. It is ironic that every edifice in which the Shroud was supposedly housed before the fifteenth century has long since vanished through the hazards of time, yet this frail piece of linen has come through almost unscathed. Frustratingly, the Shroud has not yet fully proven itself to us-not uncharacteristic of the gospel Jesus, who at certain times seems almost deliberately to have made his presence obscure, as in his post-Resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalen when she mistook him for a gardener, and in his walking, shortly after, as an unrecognized stranger with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. But one cannot help feeling that it has its role to play, and that its hour is imminent." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," 1978, Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, p.251) 12/05/2007 "Doubts about the validity of a vapor transport mechanism being responsible for the image began to nag at me after examining some of the results of our three-dimensional studies. The first hint of doubt came with the discovery of images over the eyes which appear to be coins. It is hard to imagine an organic stain mechanism acting to form not only images of the body but also of inert objects such as coins. Another question is `why did the hair images follow the exact same law of intensity versus distance as did the body image?' ... The final problem, which sets my doubts running wild was the important discovery of the 1969 Scientific Commission that the image was only a surface phenomenon. In the remainder of this paper I will present some of the passages from the Commission report and the results of our three-dimensional work which caused me to try to explore the problem further; describe a rather crude experiment I performed; present my attempt to quantify a diffusion process for molecules being transported through space from a body to a cloth; draw some conclusions based upon my analysis and the results of this paper; and finally mention briefly some observations on radiation as a possible cause of the image on the Shroud." (Jumper, E.J., "Considerations of Molecular Diffusion and Radiation as an Image Formation Process on the Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.182-183) 12/05/2007 "Observations on Radiation Some very simple radiation experiments were performed by John Jackson and myself prior to this conference and the following was found: 1. Images could be formed of varying intensities up to at least the intensity of those found on the Shroud without saturation. 2. Unless actual ignition took place only slight spreading of the image occurred. 3. It appeared that if the image was formed by a radiation process the intensity of the radiation would have to have been very high. This conclusion was based on the fact that while the actual laser flux used was not quantified in every case, in the short time of cloth exposure to the laser there was an image on the reverse side of the cloth almost as dark as the one which appeared on the front. Post Conference Note: Dr. Rogers showed me a piece of cloth which he exposed to a rapidly moving torch which clearly exhibited an image which was present only on the front of the cloth." (Jumper, E.J., "Considerations of Molecular Diffusion and Radiation as an Image Formation Process on the 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.187. Emphasis original) 12/05/2007 "While it does indeed seem possible that a molecular transport process over reasonably long periods of time (a minute or longer) would set up a molecular concentration gradient which could form some sort of intensity pattern interpretable as an image, it seems very unlikely in my mind that molecular transport could have formed the image we find on the Shroud. This opinion is based on the observations of stain spreading I made in the simple experiment, the fact that the stain on the Shroud does not penetrate even the surface fibers of the cloth and the fact that the Shroud image is nowhere saturated. While it cannot be concluded that radiation caused the Shroud image, in the specific areas of stain spreading and saturation, radiation cannot be ruled out." (Jumper, E.J., "Considerations of Molecular Diffusion and Radiation as an Image Formation Process on the 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.188) 13/05/2007 "So, given that one interpretation of Jesus' resurrection is a dematerialization of the atoms of his physical body, what about the Shroud's imprint having been caused by some kind of atomic radiation from this event? In the Second World War bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the intense light from the atomic bombs' fireballs imprinted eerie images of people and objects on walls. Yet, however compelling this might sound, it cannot be a valid parallel to the Shroud image, since in the bombing instances it was the people's bodies blocking the light which created permanent shadows on the walls behind them, whereas in the case of the Shroud the light would appear to have come from the body itself, which was responsible for its unique, non-directional, self-lighting characteristics. Based on this kind of thinking, the Harvard physicist Dr Thomas J. Phillips [Phillips, T.J., "Shroud irradiated with neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February 1989, p.594], in the wake of the 1988 radiocarbon dating, made the intriguing suggestion that, had Jesus' claimed resurrection involved a radiation of neutrons, it could explain at a stroke both the Shroud's `scorch' image and the skewing of its carbon 14 content." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.128) 13/05/2007 "Dr John Jackson has elaborately theorized that the Shroud's image was formed when the cloth collapsed through a body that became `mechanically transparent', arguably in the course of the resurrection of Jesus described in the Christian gospels, the body's internal structures thereby intervening to form the image. [Jackson, J., "Is the image of the Shroud due to a process heretofore unknown to modern science?," Shroud Spectrum International, Vol. 34, March 1990] Dr Thaddeus Trenn, director of the Science and Religion Course at the University of Toronto, Canada, has formulated a theory of `weak dematerialization', whereby if some kind of energy were generated in the man of the Shroud's body to overcome the pion bonding holding the nucleons together, there would occur `dematerialization associated with spontaneous pion decay'. [Trenn, T., "The Shroud of Turin: Resetting the Carbon-14 Clock," in van der Meer, J.M., ed., "Facets of Faith and Science," Vol. III., Ancaster ON, Canada, 1996] Former Kodak technician Kevin Moran, again favouring a `resurrection' event, has spoken of the image-making process as the result of 'high-energy particles' being involved in a `collision event at the absolute speed of light'. [Moran, K.E., "Microscopic Observations on the Max Frei 1978 Samples," Private communication, 25 June 1995] Yet the problem with all these `nuclear' scenarios is that, invoking as they do Jesus' resurrection as a real historical event, they prompt such scientists as the Oxford radiocarbon-dating laboratory's Dr Robert Hedges to comment: `If a supernatural explanation is to be proposed, it seems pointless to make any scientific measurement on the Shroud at all.' [Hedges, R.E.M., "Shroud irradiated with neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February 1989, p.594]" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.128-129) 13/05/2007 "Furthermore ... one of the Shroud image's additional properties seems to be that of X-ray characteristics, particularly in the case of the bones in the hands, as first observed in the early 1980s by Michigan chemistry professor Dr Giles Carter, followed in 1995 by Dr Alan Whanger and his wife. So what nuclear radiation process could possibly account for these as well as all the Shroud image's other properties? At which point enter Dr August Accetta, a youthful physician based in Huntington Beach, California. So convinced of the Shroud's authenticity that he has founded a special Shroud Centre to further Shroud researches and public education on the subject, Accetta has likewise been fired to go where no researcher has ever gone before on the subject, with a view to proving positively how the Shroud image could derive from some nuclear radioactive event. Using himself as a guinea pig, and working in collaboration with Dr Kenneth Lyons and Dr John Jackson, Accetta allowed himself to be injected with methylene diphosphate, a mildly radioactive compound with a six-hour `half-life' that he routinely uses in his medical work to show up internal organs. [Accetta, A., "Experiments with Radiation as an Image Formation Mechanism," Shroud of Turin International Conference, Richmond, Virginia 18-20 June 1998] Having allowed time for this compound to bind itself to his bones, tissues and body organs Accetta then assumed the Shroud pose, while a gamma camera was deployed to `photograph' the photons radiating from his body. This was set to fire at timed intervals which Accetta and Lyons knew from their experience would register the body elements at different intensities relative to the degree of the methylene diphosphate's absorption and dispersal through them. The results obtained proved quite astonishing, indeed little short of sensational. First, it was conclusively demonstrated that a full-body radiation image could be produced by this means, without the application of any paints or dyes, which replicated all the Shroud image's monochromatic characteristics. Second, the image had the same collimated, or straight-up, straight-down character as that of the Shroud's imprint, though in fairness it should be said that a collimator in the set-up ensured this, since otherwise the radiation would have spilled out at all sides. Third, apart from its being slightly more distinct against its background, the image had the same lack of outline as that on the Shroud. Fourth, the image shared the Shroud's otherwise seemingly unique lack of any light focus. Fifth, the Shroud's X-ray properties were strikingly replicated, spectacularly in the case of the hands, in which the metacarpal bones and phalange or finger bones could clearly be distinguished with a most compelling similarity to these same bones on the Shroud. Sixth, when viewed via the VP-8 Image Analyzer, Accetta's body exhibited the same three-dimensional properties as that on the Shroud imprint, the limbs being particularly similar. One of the Accetta process's few differences from the Shroud was that it produced images of some of the body's internal organs, most notably the kidneys. Another difference was that Accetta's head, unlike the rest of his body, appeared very distorted on the VP-8 Image Analyzer, seemingly because of the high volume of radiation emitted from its lower two-thirds, a problem that he expects to eliminate in future experiments. As Accetta is the first to acknowledge, he cannot claim to have been able to replicate all the Shroud's characteristics exactly, nor indeed did he expect to. A quite spectacular achievement on his part, however, is that he very genuinely has been able to reproduce some of those characteristics sufficiently closely for some kind of nuclear radiation explanation for the Shroud's image to be considered seriously, more so than anyone might previously have dared contemplate." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.129-130) 21/05/2007 "A few weeks before the Shroud was shown on television in 1973, three experts had been invited by Monsignor Caramello to study the photographs of the Shroud taken by Judica-Cordiglia in 1969 and to give their opinion on whether the photographs were true pictures of the structure of the linen and the markings on it. One of these was Dr. Max Frei, a noted Swiss criminologist, chosen because he had published an article on the faking of photographs in 1955. ... Frei has established an international reputation for himself by the analysis of microscopic substances. From 1948 until his retirement in 1972, Frei was head of the Zurich Police Scientific Laboratory and worked on the analysis of many important crimes and accidents ..." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.60-61) 16/05/2007 "It was on October 4, 1973, during his work notarizing the photographs of the Shroud taken by Cordiglia in 1969, that Frei noticed that the surface of the cloth was covered with minute dust particles. He therefore asked for permission to remove some of the particles for analysis, and Cardinal Pellegrino gave his permission. On the night of November 23, with the Shroud still hanging vertically in the frame used for the television exposition, Frei took his samples from the bottom zone to the left and right, and from the side strip. His method was absurdly simple: He pressed small pieces of clean adhesive tape onto the surface of the linen, then sealed these into plastic envelopes and put them into the modest satchel that he carries constantly with him. ... Back in his laboratory in Zurich, Frei surveyed the dust he had collected under the microscope. His trained eye immediately identified mineral particles, fragments from hairs and fibers of plants, spores from bacteria and nonflowering plants such as mosses and fungi, and pollen grains from flowering plants-all consistent with the sort of microscopic debris the Shroud could be expected to have accumulated over the centuries. Being chiefly a botanist by training, Frei found the pollen to be of the greatest interest. As he was aware, pollen grains have an extremely resistant outer wall, the exine. Although so small as to be virtually invisible to the naked eye, these grains can and do retain their physical characteristics for literally hundreds of millions of years, being immune to almost any form of destruction. As Frei was also aware, when viewed under the electron microscope pollen grains vary so considerably in physical characteristics that, thanks to careful classification of the different types over the years, it is possible to identify with certainty the precise genus of plant from which any grain has been derived. Frei realized that identification of the plants from which the pollen on the Shroud had been derived could lead to important deductions about the geographical regions in which the Shroud had been. On the one hand, it might confirm that the Shroud had never been outside the western Mediterranean region in which it is known to have been kept since the fourteenth century. On the other, it might reveal that the Shroud had at some stage been in other regions, the identification of such regions obviously providing important pointers to the Shroud's early history." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.61-62) 16/05/2007 "During 1974 and 1975 ... Frei carefully examined each pollen grain he had removed from the Shroud, and cross-matched it against his files of known varieties. It was an incredibly delicate task. Each grain has a different appearance according to the aspect from which it is viewed, there being an equator and poles just like the earth, and the manipulation of such minute samples requires great dexterity even with special instruments.... One of the complications of the method is that many plants are common to virtually all areas in which the Shroud might have been kept in the course of its history. Another complication is that plants that originally had one specific regional derivation are today found all over the globe. A typical example of this is the famous cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani). Frei actually found pollen from this on the Shroud, theoretically most valuable evidence for the Shroud's provenance in Palestine. But it cannot be regarded as specific. The same species of cedar has been planted in parks and gardens throughout the whole Mediterranean area during the last few centuries. Fortunately, Frei had a breakthrough. As he analyzed the grains one by one, he came upon some that he could identify with certainty and that he realized had to be significant. They were from typical halophytes, plants common to the desert regions around the Jordan Valley and unique in one respect: They are specifically adapted to live in a soil with a high content of sodium chloride, such as is found almost exclusively around the Dead Sea. Among these were desert varieties of Tamarix, Suaeda, and Artemisia. In Frei's own words: `These plants are of great diagnostic value for our geographical studies as identical desert plants are missing in all the other countries where the Shroud is believed to have been exposed to the open air. Consequently, a forgery, produced somewhere in France during the Middle Ages, in a country lacking these typical halophytes, could not contain such characteristic pollen grains from the desert regions of Palestine.' [Frei, M., Report to film producer David Rolfe, January 1977]" (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.62-63. Emphasis original) 16/05/2007 "Max Frei, a well-trained scientist, is a cautious individual, very conscious that a great deal rests on his findings. ... But today his early skepticism about the authenticity of the Shroud is gone, a fact that he admits not without emotion. .... Without having completed his research, he nevertheless is certain that the pollen he collected from the Shroud includes that of six species of exclusively Palestinian plants, and what he describes as a `significant number' of plants from Turkey, mostly from the Anatolian steppe. [Frei, M., Talk, London symposium on the Turin Shroud, September 17, 1977] In addition there are pollens of eight species of Mediterranean plants consistent with the Shroud's known history in France and Italy. In his own words: 'These permit the definite conclusion that the Holy Shroud is not an adulteration.' [Frei, M., Press release, Zurich, March 8, 1976]" (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, p.63) 16/05/2007 "What does it mean to us? According to Frei, we can be certain that at some time in its history the Shroud was exposed to the air in Palestine and Turkey. This does, of course, confirm the independent findings of the Belgian Professor Raes, that the Shroud contains cotton of undoubted Middle Eastern provenance. As we know that the Shroud was never in the East from the fourteenth century on, its years in Palestine and Turkey must have been before the fourteenth century." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.63-64) 16/05/2007 "In 1973, Max Frei, a Swiss criminologist, was asked to authenticate the photographs taken of the Shroud in 1969. Frei, a botanist by training, noticed pollen spores on the cloth and received permission to sample them. Over the next few months, Frei laboriously separated the different spores, photographed them, and matched them to their plants by reference to botanical texts and catalogues. Frei identified spores from forty-nine different plants. Some of these plants grow in Europe, hardly a surprise since the Shroud has often been exposed to the open air in France and Italy, and would have picked up local air-borne pollen spores. But thirty-three of these plants grow only in Palestine, the southern steppes of Turkey, or the area of Istanbul. The Shroud has never left Europe since its appearance in Lirey in 1357. Frei's meticulous work strongly indicates that the Shroud was exposed to the open air in Palestine and Turkey at some point in its history- just as Wilson's Mandylion-Shroud theory suggests. Frei indicated that the overlay of the pollen grains convinced him that the Shroud has a first-century origin, although this cannot be absolutely proven by the pollen analysis." (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.26) 16/05/2007 "Two other studies also bear on the Shroud's pre-1357 existence. Gilbert Raes, a professor at the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium, inspected some threads removed from the cloth by a scientific team in 1973. He concluded that the weave of the linen was a type common in the Middle East in the first century A.D. ... Raes also observed something very interesting: traces of cotton among the linen fibers. He thought the cloth had been woven on a loom also used for cotton. Cotton, of course, is grown throughout the Middle East, but not in Europe. [Raes, G. "Examination of the 'Sindone,' " Report of the Turin Commission on the Holy Shroud, Screenpro Films: London, 1976, pp.79-83] Raes' finding was supported by Silvio Curto, associate professor of Egyptology at the University of Turin and a member of the commission of Italian scientists who examined the Shroud in 1973. `The fabric of the Shroud,' Curto said, 'can date back to the time of Christ.' [Curto, S., "The Turin Shroud: Archaeological Observations Concerning the Material and the Image," Ibid., 1976, pp. 59-73] If the Shroud is a fraud, a European forger would have had to have gone to the enormous trouble of procuring a cloth from the Middle East for his work, one which contained microscopic traces of cotton in the weave and pollen spores from non-European plants. He would have had no motive to do this because the science of his age could not have determined the place of origin of the cloth. In addition, such an act would have ignored the age of the cloth." (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.26) 17/05/2007 "The final study bearing on the Shroud's age is a result of the 1976 experiments showing that the Shroud has three-dimensional data encoded within it. ... John Jackson and Eric Jumper, the physicists who discovered the three-dimensional image, noted objects placed over the eyes of the man buried in the Shroud. They suggested that these objects might be coins. If so, they said that the ancient coin which was of the same size as the `buttonlike' images was the lepton of Pontius Pilate, minted between 14 and 37 A.D. [Jackson, J., et. al., "The Three-Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference on the Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx, 1977, p.90] Francis Filas, professor at Loyola University in Chicago, says that the images are indeed coins, and that the coins are leptons. He says that computer enhancement and analysis of the images reveals that the objects have twenty-four coincidences of dimensions, location, selection, order, and angles `fitting only a coin issued by Pontius Pilate between 29 and 32 AD. [Filas, F.L., "The Dating of the Shroud of Turin from Coins of Pontius Pilate," Private monograph, 1980] This lepton is decorated with an astrologer's staff and four Greek letters ... . Some Shroud experts are taking a wait-and-see attitude on this point, but Filas' evidence strongly indicates a first-century origin for the Shroud. Studies of remains in first-century Jewish cemeteries confirm that the Jews placed coins over the eyes of the dead. [Hachilili, R., "Ancient Burial Customs Preserved in Jericho Hills," Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1979, pp. 28-35.]" (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.27-28. Emphasis original) 17/05/2007 "Pollen Perhaps the most significant work on the identification and origin of pollen on the Shroud was done by the late Dr. Max Frei, who founded the scientific department of the Zurich Police and whose doctoral thesis was on the flora of Sicily. Dr. Frei was present with STURP during the 1978 studies, primarily because he had previously identified key pollens that definitely placed the Shroud in both Palestine and Turkey at some time in the past. Though many pollens on the Shroud could be attributed to those areas, such as in the famous cedars of Lebanon, Frei only selected those pollens that are still unique to each specific area. In my [Stevenson's] opinion, the significance of the pollens cannot be overestimated. For example, certain desert halophytes that he found on the Shroud led Dr. Frei to say: `These plants are of great diagnostic value for our geographical studies as identical plants are missing in all other countries where the Shroud has been exposed to the open air. Consequently a forgery, produced somewhere in France during the Middle Ages, in a country lacking these typical halophytes, could not contain such characteristic pollen grains from the desert regions of Palestine.' [Frei, M., Report to film producer David Rolfe, January 1977] The pollen analysis confirmed in scientific detail the history that Ian Wilson had developed from scattered references and artistic comparisons. According to Wilson, at some time in its history, the Shroud was exposed to the open air in Palestine and Turkey-precisely where it should have been if it and the Mandylion cloth are, in fact, one and the same. It is certainly doubtful that a medieval forger could have known, let alone produced, a cloth with just the right pollen spread." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.63. Emphasis original) 17/05/2007 "With all these things in mind, how do we link the cloth of Edessa with the Shroud of Turin? One of the most incontrovertible pieces of supportive evidence for Wilson's theory is the pollen analysis of Max Frei ... It is especially convincing in that it strongly suggests both longevity and authenticity. After all, it is possible, though not very likely, that a forger could have been wise enough to order a cloth from Palestine, even that he might have ordered an `old' cloth from Palestine. But to suppose he could have ordered a cloth woven in the Middle East and then specified that the cloth must be exposed to open air in the areas of both Turkey and Istanbul to ensure the proper pollen spread boggles the imagination. Anyway, the existence of pollen would not be discovered for at least another six hundred years. Moreover, the historical path of the Shroud would not be reconstructed for nearly eight hundred years. Religious relics were forged frequently with no such sensitivity to detail. Many churches claimed ownership of the same relic, and in the case of the Shroud itself, notoriously poor copies were held in esteem in various places. To imagine that with this relic and only this relic there was sudden inspiration of heretofore unrecognized and unheralded genius is truly clutching at straws." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, pp.77-78. Emphasis original) 17/05/2007 "In 1973, when the Shroud was brought out for a brief examination by a predominantly Italian group of scientists, Swiss criminologist Dr. Max Frei dabbed strips of sticky tape onto the cloth's surface in an endeavor to obtain samples of its dust, dust that he anticipated would include pollen grains. The special interest of pollen grains is that they have an exceptionally hard outer shell, the exine, which can last literally millions of years. What is very important is that this shell differs markedly in appearance according to the type of plant it has come from, enabling anyone analyzing pollen dust on, say, a murder suspect's clothing, to tell in what type of surroundings the garment has been worn. As recognized by Dr. Max Frei, this technique has a special value in respect of the Shroud. If the Shroud really was forged in France in the fourteenth century, then identification of exclusively French and Italian pollens would effectively confirm this. If, however, pollen grains from quite different regions were discovered, then these could be a powerful aid to understanding the cloth's earlier origins. Handling pollens for microscopic examination is a delicate and time-consuming business, but, from the samples he took in 1973 and a further batch in 1978, Frei managed to identify pollens from no fewer than fifty-eight varieties of plant, before his death in early 1983. The varieties of plant told their own striking story of the markedly differing geographical regions with which the Shroud had historically been associated, as is quite evident from the chart ... Careful study of the table reveals, as might be expected, a substantial number of plant species that grow widely in France, Italy, and the general Mediterranean area. If pollens of these species alone had been found, there would be no justification for believing the Shroud to have been kept anywhere other than the places it is known to have been since the 1350s. In the case of one pollen, Oryza sativa, or rice, it is even possible, with some confidence, to name the specific town. Vercelli, where the Shroud is historically known to have been exhibited in 1494 and 1560, is Europe's principal rice-growing center. But as is also evident from the list, a similarly substantial number of pollens derive from steppe plants most commonly found in eastern Turkey. Two, Atraphaxis spinosa and Prunus spartioides, are virtually specific to this, while a further group, but most notably Epimedium pubigerum, suggest some historical association with Istanbul, the former Constantinople. ... Desert plants, most notably halophytes, specially adapted to grow in the exceptionally salty soil around the Dead Sea, also feature prominently in the list, along with no fewer than seven plants characteristic of Near Eastern rocky hills and other high places. It is obvious that the Shroud has been in a region typical of, if not identical with, the terrain in which the historical Jesus moved. But by far the greatest significance of the table is the preponderance of plants typical of, and in some cases effectively exclusive to, the environs of Jerusalem. The European representation is outweighed, the only reasonable inference being that it was somewhere in the Jerusalem region that the Shroud received its most prolonged exposure to the open air, pollens of course having less opportunity to migrate to the cloth as it hung in European churches or lay locked in their reliquaries. As Frei argued, the Shroud therefore must have once been in the very region it has to have been if it wrapped the body of Jesus: the land we today call Israel." (Wilson, I., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, 1986, pp.38,43) 18/05/2007 "Accordingly, between 16 and 18 June 1969, Turin's then archbishop, Cardinal Michele Pellegrino authorized a small group of Italian scientists, together with one photographer, to make a preliminary, observation-only survey, principally to check on its condition. This was followed on 24 November 1973, immediately after the television exposition of that year, by a one-day examination by a secretly convened `commission of experts'. This commission's composition was again almost exclusively Italian, although a Belgian textile specialist, Professor Gilbert Raes, was permitted to remove a snippet of the linen for textile examination purposes, and a Swiss criminologist, Dr Max Frei, was allowed to apply twelve strips of sticky tape to different parts of the Shroud's surface, and to take these away for analysis." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.67) 18/05/2007 "However, by far the most exhaustive scientific examination to date was to occur five years later ... Early in 1978 Fr Peter Rinaldi, the Italian-born, New York-based pastor who had facilitated my viewing in 1973 informed America's Dr John Jackson and his fellow researchers that Ballestrero had given the green light for them to conduct such an examination some time around the six-week period of the Shroud's public expositions (the first in forty years), which were being held between 27 August and 8 October of that same year. Under the dynamic leadership of nuclear systems specialist Tom D'Muhala, an impressive team of some two dozen American specialists calling themselves the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) had for two years been quietly developing a scientific test plan to examine the Shroud, with Barrie Schwortz as one of the two official photographers. ... The Shroud's overall dimensions were measured, then its thickness was gauged with a micrometer and determined at 0.343 mm, or just a little heavier than shirt cloth. Dr Max Frei then took a new set of sticky-tape samples, which will be described in detail in the next chapter. Then, with the aid of Poor Clare nuns, one of the Shroud's sides was unstitched from the backing cloth sewn on to it in 1534, allowing parts of the normally inaccessible underside to be viewed for the first time in four hundred years." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.67-68) 18/05/2007 "WHEN I LEFT TURIN on 24 November 1973 after my first-ever viewing of the Shroud, it was in complete ignorance that on that very same day the cloth was being examined in great secrecy by the members of Cardinal Pellegrino's special `commission of experts'. Equally unbeknown to me, one of those experts was the Swiss criminal investigator Dr Max Frei, whose specialty was to press sticky tape onto a fabric's surface in order to sample its dust, then to identify the territory within which the fabric had been moved by identifying the species of plants represented by the pollen grains found among that dust. It was a technique Frei had pioneered for obtaining evidence from suspects' clothing in the course of his forensic investigations. Accordingly it was an extraordinary surprise and delight for me when three years later came news that Frei had discovered on the Shroud pollens of plants peculiar to Israel and Turkey, very strongly indicating that the Shroud had at one time been kept in these locations. This potentially corroborated my own ten-yearlong historical researches, at that time largely unpublished and unknown, showing that the key to the Shroud's pre-1350s history seemed to be in what is today Turkey. It also raised the question of what further light Frei's botanical science might be able to shed on the mystery of the Shroud's early history. In great excitement I contacted Dr Frei and that same summer travelled to meet him at his home in Thalwil, near Zurich, Switzerland. There he told me that he needed to make field trips to Turkey and Israel in order to pursue his researches further, as a result of which he and I one year later visited these locations in the company of film-maker David Rolfe. In the course of these travels I personally observed Frei collecting a variety of botanical specimens. Then in October 1978, as part of the STURP scientific examination, he took a further twenty-six sticky-tape samples from the Shroud's surface, with Barrie Schwortz photographically documenting each removal. Yet, although he worked most methodically, beginning with the back-of-the body end and working round the cloth, his ostensibly amateur-looking procedures, particularly his use of `dime store' sticky tape, and the fact that he massaged this deep into the Shroud's surface, raised more than a few eyebrows among the more high-tech-minded STURP Americans working alongside him - despite his method of obtaining pollen ultimately proving hundreds of times more successful than STURP's." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.81-82. Emphasis original) 18/05/2007 "Unruffled, Frei kept up a friendly correspondence with me, making clear that his work with the tiny pollen grains demanded much time and patience, and that, when his researches were complete, he had every intention of publishing them in the form of a fully definitive scientific report. Sadly, however, he was never able to achieve this; in January 1983 he died of a sudden heart attack. Five and a half years later, almost unnoticed amid the attention given to the carbon dating, his entire collection of Shroud sticky tapes, along with his unpublished manuscript, passed to the United States, ceded by his widow, Gertrud, who hoped that her husband's work might thereby be carried on. On 23 July 1988 examples from this tape collection were formally viewed on video-linked microscopes at a meeting at the Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia. At this meeting Dr Walter McCrone, who was specially invited to attend, acknowledged that quantities of pollen grains, whatever their age and geographical derivation, were undeniably present on these tapes. The Shroud researcher Paul Maloney, then acting as the collection's custodian, later reported on the preliminary statistical analysis that he had personally conducted: `Eighty-eight pollen grains were counted in approximately 2 square centimetres on a dorsal `sidestrip' tape ... A hundred and sixty-three grains Were counted on the same size area on a tape from the left arm, but an astounding circa 300 grains were counted on a tape taken from near the face in a comparative size area. [Maloney, P., "The Current Status of Pollen research and Prospects for the Future," at "Symposium Scientifique International sur le Linceul de Turin," Paris, 7-8 September 1989]" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.82) 18/05/2007 "As a further complication, and partly as a result of Paul Maloney's indisposition, the care of Frei's sticky tape collection fell to Shroud researcher Dr Alan Whanger. In 1985 Whanger had noted a faint image in the background of the Shroud that he perceived as that of a chrysanthemum. From this he proceeded to see elsewhere in the Shroud's background a quite bewildering variety of other flowers, many of which he identified as of Middle Eastern origin. He further reported seeing numerous other objects both on the man of the Shroud's body, and in the cloth's ostensibly plain background. These included `two lepton coins of Pontius Pilate, one over each eye; two desecrated Jewish phylacteries [prayer boxes], one on the forehead and the other on the left arm, an amulet of Tiberius Caesar, a crucifixion nail, a Roman spear, a crown of thorns, a sponge tied to a reed [John 19: 29], a large hammer, a pair of pliers, two Roman scourges ... two sandals, a scoop ... two brush brooms, a pair of dice, a coil of rope, several letters on the title or titulus [the `King of the Jews' placard of John 19: 19], and possibly partial images of the cloak, the tunic and two more nails'. [Whanger, A., CSST News, July 1998] All of these objects, as well as the `flowers', Whanger argued (and continues to argue), must have been placed within the Shroud at the time of the man's burial, somehow becoming imprinted onto the cloth in much the same manner as the body. [Whanger, M. & A., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House: Franklin TN, 1998] ... For such reasons Barrie Schwortz and I, along with many others who favour the Shroud's authenticity, dismissed Alan Whanger's insights as having too much of a `faces in clouds' character to be considered in the same scientific league as the pollen evidence. Yet, in fairness to him, in the case of the flower images in particular there are some very good reasons to be wary of too readily dismissing his insights. During the preliminary examination of the Frei sticky tapes in Philadelphia in 1988 it became evident that pollen grains were not only present in quantity on these tapes, but also that there was a surprising additional detritus of plant parts and other floral debris. For instance, on just one tape, 4bd in Frei's notation, no less than forty-five shreds of plant parts have been reliably observed, including one whole anther full of pollen. This strongly suggested that at least some of the pollen Frei found on the Shroud came to be there not by mere chance (i.e. as grains borne by the wind and by insects, as Frei for one had supposed), but that instead actual whole flowers must at some time have been laid on the cloth's surface." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.83-84) 18/05/2007 "However, as early as 1984, when he was still in good health, Paul Maloney began corresponding with Dr Avinoam Danin of the A. Silberman Institute for Life Sciences at Jerusalem's Hebrew University about the Frei tapes. Danin is an acknowledged world authority on the flora of Israel, and much to Maloney's surprise and satisfaction, he responded with considerable courtesy and lack of dismissiveness, despite his academic eminence and his unswerving Jewishness. This encouraged Alan Whanger, in company with his wife Mary, to call upon Danin (who in the meantime had become Professor) during a visit to Jerusalem in September 1995. As guests at his home they showed him some of their photographs of the portions of the Shroud on which they `see' flowers, whereupon, after less than twenty seconds' perusal Danin exclaimed `Those are the flowers of Jerusalem!' One `flower' that he had no difficulty perceiving (and with regard to which even I can acknowledge a flower-like shape in the relevant sector of the Shroud), was the very first one that Alan Whanger had identified on the Shroud, the crown chrysanthemum or Chrysanthemum coronarium. Danin further noted, to the side of the man of the Shroud's right cheek, several flowers of rock rose or Cistus creticus. Despite having remained oblivious throughout his life to any flower images on the Shroud, Dr Max Frei found this rose represented among the pollens from a sticky tape, 6bd, taken from the centre of this very same area. Two years later, upon visiting the Whangers at their North Carolina home, Danin observed on a Shroud photograph an image that he regarded as most interesting of all - that of a bouquet of bean caper plants, namely Zygophyllum dumosum. As he has remarked: `During rainy winters this species sprouts leaves whose petioles look like sausages with two leaflets at their head. When summer comes, the leaflets drop and only the petiole is left. The petioles shrink slowly during the summer ... The only species of Zygophyllum that exhibits this behaviour is Zygophyllum dumosum'. [Danin, A., "Pressed Flowers." Eretz Magazine, November/December 1997, p.37] The overwhelmingly important feature of this discovery is that Zygophyllum dumosum grows only in Israel, Jordan and the Sinai. The northernmost extent of its distribution in the world coincides with the line between Jericho and the sea-level sign on the road leading from Jerusalem to Jericho. Westwards it does not reach as far as the Suez Canal, southwards it peters out before St Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai desert, and eastwards it extends no further than the longitude line of the Jordanian capital, Amman." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.85-86) 18/05/2007 "Then Alan pointed out to us some of the different flower images. In various instances, as in the case of the chrysanthemum, a flower-like shape was undeniably there. The problem was that, when other areas of the cloth image were viewed the same way, all sorts of shapes were discernible that might be construed to be flowers, some conforming to the Whangers' interpretations, others not. Rightly or wrongly, therefore, Judith and I could only reject them. Yet it was impossible to dissociate totally from this very marked difference of opinion whatever might be learned in tandem to it from the Frei sticky-tape collection. Normally stored in a bank vault, it had been specially brought out for us and we found it comprised albums with carefully ordered slots for each different sample, each mounted within a glass slide. At the original sampling each tape had been carefully folded back on itself to hermetically seal in its contents, and it was quite obvious which section Frei had handled as `lead' tape and which he had pressed directly against the Shroud, thus confounding claims that the pollen was just modern contamination." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.87-88) 18/05/2007 "Judith and I were also introduced to the computer-linked microscope in which Alan Whanger has invested in order to study these tapes. For demonstration purposes one of Frei's Shroud tapes was placed under the microscope, and the Whangers and Philip Dayvault encouraged me to explore its non-lead areas for the pollen grains it bore. For me the immediate surprise was to find just what a complete universe of such debris can exist on one insignificant-looking piece of sticky tape. It was possible to travel across the tape for what seemed miles, viewing it both through the microscope and on the linked computer-screen. ...Then at last there appeared a circular-shaped pollen grain, quite unmistakable, and large as pollen grains go. As was immediately revealed by cross-comparison with images of pollen grains stored in the Whanger computer, this was Gundelia tournefortii, a plant that Max Frei had already identified on the Shroud, and which Danin had reported as present on the Shroud in abundance pollenwise, and also in image form. Since Gundelia's pollen is normally insect-borne, Dr Uri Baruch, an Israel Antiquities Authority palynologist, had seriously doubted Danin's claims, having had personal experience of collecting all too few grains of this type during field trips to various sites in the Judaean Mountains and Judaean Desert. Because of this scepticism Baruch, like ourselves, had visited Whanger's basement some eighteen months earlier. From this he satisfied himself that Gundelia pollen grains are numerous on the Frei tapes, and therefore that whole flowers from Jerusalem's environs must have been directly laid on the Shroud's surface. In which regard, the highly significant feature of Gundelia tournefortii, as both Danin and Baruch emphasise, [Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis MO, 1999] is that, exactly as in the case of Zygophyllum dumosum, it does not grow in Europe. Its distribution is distinctively Middle Eastern, extending from western Turkey through Israel, Syria and northern Iraq and Iran, with just some spillage into the southernmost fringes of the former Soviet Union. Whatever might be the truth concerning the plant images, therefore, in this basement room in North Carolina I was looking at near proof positive that the Shroud must have been in the land of Israel at some time in its history. It was evidence hugely supportive of the cloth's authenticity, and thereby rendered as so much waste paper all the unworthy allegations against Dr Max Frei." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.88-89) 18/05/2007 "Yet, in the case of Gundelia, even this finding was far from all. For, as Whanger's and Danin's quantitative study of the pollen representation has revealed, among the by no means exhaustive 313 pollen grains that they had analysed as part of their programme, no fewer than ninety-one were identifiable as Gundelia; the plant comprised nearly one-third of the pollens found and `logged' on the Frei sticky tapes, and an extraordinary 44 per cent of all those so far classified. One immediate corollary of this is that very far from Holy Land or Middle Eastern pollens being an insignificant proportion of all those present on the Shroud, they represent in fact a quite disproportionately huge amount. It is as if the six hundred years that the Shroud has definitely been in Europe have counted for very little in terms of pollen representation. In the same context another important fact concerning Gundelia tournefortii is that it is insect- rather than wind- pollinated. In the case of many plants this has meant that they are not represented on the Shroud. For instance, the mainly insect-pollinated olive, though widespread both in the Near East and in western Europe, has furnished not a single specimen in the Frei collection. This is because it would have required an insect to have been on an olive tree just before landing on the Shroud during one of its open-air expositions; a very rare chance indeed. So for Gundelia pollen to be so strongly represented has to mean either that a whole swarm of insects flew from Gundelia plants to land on the Shroud - highly unlikely - or that at some time some person or persons unknown deliberately laid flowering Gundelia tournefortii plants on it. ... But it is quite definite that whoever did this has to have done so somewhere within the Middle Eastern geographical area where the plant is known to grow, an area specifically including Jerusalem. They also have to have done so at a time of the year when Gundelia is known to bloom, and therefore produce pollen, a time that botanists quite independent of Danin [Kupicha, F.K., "Gundelia," in Davis, P.H., "Flora of Turkey," Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, Vol 5, 1984, pp.325-326] can narrow to between March and May. So is it mere coincidence that this was the very period of the year within which Jesus' Passover-linked crucifixion occurred?" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.89-90) 19/05/2007 "In unison, both Whanger and Danin identify on Whanger's life-size black-and-white Shroud photos a Gundelia inflorescence on the man of the Shroud's right shoulder. The STURP ultraviolet photos had first shown up a striated feature in this area that was initially supposed to be a furrowing of the shoulder from the thongs of the scourge," and on the evidence of photographs alone I saw little grounds for changing this opinion. But at the March 2000 viewing of the Shroud I was very close to Danin as we were ushered into the Cathedral sacristy. Indeed, he had brought binoculars, and kindly lent me these while we both waited for those who were standing in front of us to give way Then, as we were able to get within touching distance of the Shroud, the spontaneity of his reaction was quite infectious. As his eyes focused on the shoulder area, in almost childlike delight he recognized, as only one of his so specialized botanical expertise could, the Gundelia inflorescence's presence on this. ... Quite obvious was that for Danin, the world's leading expert on the flora of Israel, here, on this piece of cloth displayed in a northern Italian Cathedral side-room, was utterly unqualified recognition of a plant that he positively knew to come from the environs of his own Jerusalem. And in my observing this recognition, I could only bow to his very special `eye' for such things - as he subsequently explained to me, a `gift' from his childhood. The natural daylight lighting Turin Cathedral's sacristy was clear and even, and as, during the two hours allotted to us, my eyes continued to rove the Shroud's surface, quite apparent was that flower images are not just an aberration of black-and- white photographs. Faint flower-like shapes are quite definitely there on the cloth itself, and while no doubt many can deservedly be dismissed as merely of the `faces in clouds' variety, the `hard' evidence of the pollens, combined with my first-hand observation of Danin's very special eye at work, now persuades me to believe that some at least are `real'." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.91-92. Emphasis original) 19/05/2007 "For, whatever anyone else may make of Danin's botanical `eye', what cannot be emphasized enough is that the location-type evidence, even from the pollens alone, is quite overwhelming. As Uri Baruch found, there are some instances in which he cannot be as specific about plant species as Frei was, but instead refers to a plant type. Possibly Frei may have been a little over-enthusiastic in his identification in these cases, or (since his death robbed us of ever knowing his full insights), it may have been because he found a way to manipulate the specimen in order to see it better. Either way, such differences are essentially minor, and the sceptics' slurs on Frei's memory are proved to be unfounded. As Danin sums up, particularly from superimposing the known distribution sites of Gundelia tournefortii, Zygophyllum dumosum and Cistus creticus, together with three further specific pollen types confirmed to be on the Shroud, 19 [Lomelosia (Scabiosa) prolifera (L) Greuter et Burdet, Cistus incanus-type and Cistus salvifoliustype] the very narrow geographical region that all these plants share in common is the mere twenty miles between Hebron and Jerusalem. [Danin, A., "Micro-traces of plants on the Shroud of Turin as geographical markers," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, 2000, pp.495-500] So the conclusion is inescapable, in the very teeth of the radiocarbon dating, that at some time in its history the Turin Shroud positively must have been in the same environs in which Jesus of Nazareth lived and died." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.92. Emphasis original) 19/05/2007 "In which regard, bearing in mind the Turin Shroud's several intriguing parallels with the Oviedo cloth, as noted in the last chapter, it is of further interest that not long before his death Dr Frei took sticky-tape samples from the Oviedo cloth, just as he had from the Shroud. What he found was pollens representative of Israel, North Africa and Spain, exactly in accord with the cloth's known history. And among those Israel pollens was, yet again, Gundelia tournefortii." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.92) 19/05/2007 "In fact, pollens are by no means the only potentially tell-tale elements to be found in the samples of the Shroud's dust trapped on the Frei and STURP sticky tapes. There is fly-ash from Turin's twentieth-century industrial pollutants. There are fibres from the red silk covering and blue satin surround. There are scraps from ecclesiastical vestments that once brushed against the cloth. There are silver, gold and iron particles from the various caskets in which it has been stored. There are paint fragments from the frescoed rooms in which it has been displayed, and from the artists' facsimiles pressed against it. All of these offer fleeting glimpses of moments in the Shroud's history through the centuries. Perhaps the most tantalizing glimpse of all, however, came from reflectance spectroscopy work carried out by the husband-and-wife team Roger and Marty Gilbert in the course of the 1978 STURP examination. As they ran their equipment up and down the man of the Shroud's image the spectra they obtained proved relatively regular except when they reached the sole of the foot imprint on the back-of-the-body half of the cloth. Suddenly the spectra changed dramatically. Something in the foot area, and particularly around the heel, was giving a markedly stronger signal than elsewhere, but what? When optical physicist Sam Pellicori was summoned to view the area under the portable microscope the answer proved as chilling as it was obvious. Dead-pan, Pellicori pronounced, `It's dirt!' As might have been expected in an individual who had had even his sandals taken away from him, the man of the Shroud had dirty feet. During the March 2000 Turin sacristy viewing I and others, even with the unaided eye, could see the Shroud is significantly dirtier at the soles of the feet than anywhere else on the cloth, this dirt very visible underlying the serum-haloed bloodstains that otherwise coat the same soles. So had the Gilberts stumbled upon the very dirt from the streets of Jerusalem that had blackened the feet of Jesus of Nazareth two thousand years ago? In fact analysis of particles of limestone also found adhering to the Shroud have been identified by optical crystallographer Dr Joseph Kohlbeck as travertine aragonite that spectrally has a `signature' strikingly similar to limestone samples from ancient Jerusalem tombs, taken by archaeologist Dr Eugenia Nitowski. [Kohlbeck, J.A. & Nitowski, E.L., "New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin," Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 1986, pp.18-29] From such a variety of different directions, there is therefore the most striking evidence that rather than being a `cunning painting', some time in its history the Shroud really was used somewhere in the environs of Jerusalem to wrap the dirty and bloody corpse of a man who had just been crucified." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.92) 27/05/2007 "The Pollen We have seen that historical testimony fits in with what we know about the sudarium, and there is no reason to doubt the historicity of the few references that exist. Its stay in Jerusalem and its route through the north of Africa can be further confirmed by studying pollen found on the cloth. As is well known, this method of study has also been used on the Turin Shroud, and the pollen found coincides with the historical route of this cloth through Edessa, Constantinople, France and Italy. Some have doubted the credibility of the conclusions reached from the pollen, but without putting forward solid reasons. They ask why no pollen from the numerous olive trees of Palestine was found. It is true that this absence is curious, but the absence of one species does not annul or invalidate the presence and testimony of the many others. From the pollen found, it is undeniable that the Shroud was in Palestine, Edessa and Constantinople. Most people who have read any book about the Shroud will be familiar with the name Dr Max Frei, the Swiss criminologist responsible for the pollen studies related to the Shroud. Before Dr Frei died, he also analysed pollen samples from the sudarium in Oviedo. The results perfectly match the route already described. He found pollen from Oviedo, Toledo, north Africa and Jerusalem. There was nothing relating the sudarium to Constantinople, France, Italy or any other country in Europe." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, p.22. Emphasis original) 27/05/2007 "The Stains The only markings visible to the naked eye on the sudarium are stains, so these should clearly play the central role in studies of the cloth. The main stains consist of one part blood and six parts pulmonary oedema fluid. This is very significant because it helps confirm that Jesus died from asphyxiation. It is the generally accepted opinion that people who were crucified died from asphyxiation: with the body hanging, its weight supported by the wrists nailed to the cross, it was virtually impossible to breathe. For this reason, to prolong the life and consequently the torture of a crucified person, support was sometimes placed either under his feet or between his legs, so that as long as some strength was left in his body, he could elevate it for a gasp of air. This movement caused excruciating pain on turning the wrists round the nails, but while the man's strength lasted, the urge to breathe overcame this pain. This is why breaking a crucified man's legs was, in fact, a merciful thing to do. It made it impossible to push the body upwards, and so the man would not be able to breathe and death would come quickly. When a person dies in this way, his lungs are filled with the fluid from the oedema. If the body is moved or jolted, this fluid can come out through the nostrils. It is precisely this kind of stain that forms the central group of stains on the sudarium. These stains are superimposed on each other, i.e. after the first stain was formed, enough time passed for it to dry before the cloth was stained again, leaving the borders of each stain clearly visible. By reproducing the mixture of blood and the fluid from the oedema, and having a specially modelled head made to recreate the flow of this liquid through the nostrils, Dr Jose Villalain, professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of Valencia, was able to calculate the time elapsed between the formation of each superimposed stain. In keeping with the Jewish tradition of covering the disfigured face of a dead man, the sudarium would have been pinned to the back of Jesus' head and wrapped over his face and nose before the body was taken down from the cross. This caused the first central stain on the sudarium. There was then a time lapse of one hour, during which time the body was still on the cross. It was then taken down and laid probably at the foot of the cross, for another forty-five minutes. When the body was picked up and moved again, on being carried to the tomb for burial, the sudarium was again held to Jesus' nose to absorb the fresh flow of liquid." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.23-24. Emphasis original) 27/05/2007 "The stains on the sudarium also show that when the cloth was impregnated with blood, it was folded over although not in the middle. The blood was so abundant that it stained all four sides of the folded cloth, so there is a fourfold stain in a logical order of decreasing intensity. When the body was lying on the ground face down, the liquid flow was so heavy that the stains on the part of the cloth farthest away from the face (i.e. the part that had direct contact with the hand that was holding the cloth to the face) are more extensive than the other. Numbered from one to four, Face One is the side that was in direct contact with the face, and Face Two is the reverse side if this. As the cloth was then folded back over itself, Face Three is on the same side of the cloth as Face Two, and Face Four on the same side as Face One. It is clear which part of the cloth was in direct contact with the face because actual dried blood, like scabs, is visible under the microscope." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.25-26) 28/05/2007 "The most striking thing about all the stains is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud. The first fact that confirms the relationship between the two cloths is that the blood on each belongs to the same group, AB. If the blood or each cloth belonged to a different group, there would be no sense in pursuing the comparative investigation, and little meaning in any further points of coincidence. This test is the starting point for all the others, and the results are positive. Blood of the group AB is also very common in the Middle East and rare in Europe. According to Monsignor Ricci's method of numbering the stains on the sudarium, the main group, corresponding to the liquid which came out of the nostrils, receives the number 13. The length of the nose which produced this stain has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches, which is exactly the same as the length of the nose on the Shroud. In a case like this, it is very easy for sceptics to say that the investigators have just come up with the measurement they needed, but this is not a scientific or rational argument. The only to be expected, if, as seems obvious, both cloths covered the same face. Nobody would be surprised, for example, if we had two gloves that belonged to Napoleon, and the size of the hand that used each one was calculated to be the same. This would be the obvious measurement." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.27-28) 28/05/2007 "This, however, is not the only point of coincidence between the nasal areas on the two cloths. Both of them, especially the Shroud, contain a high concentration of ground particles and dust in this area. When a man was being led to the place of crucifixion, he had to carry the horizontal bar of the cross, which was probably tied to his outstretched arms and placed across the back of his neck. This meant that whenever he fell, which would have been often after being whipped and with such a weight to carry, he could not protect his face from the impact of the fall. This also explains why this nose was swollen, slightly displaced and bleeding." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, p.28) 28/05/2007 "Perhaps the most obvious fit when the stains on the sudarium are placed over the image of the face on the Shroud, is that of the beard; the match is perfect. This shows that the sudarium, possibly by being gently pressed onto the face, was also used to clean the blood and other fluids that had collected in the beard. Stain number 6 is also evident on all four faces of the sudarium. If stain 13 is placed over the nose of the image on the Shroud, stain 6 is seen to proceed from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the shroud, but its existence has been confirmed by Dr John Jackson, who is well known for his studies on the Shroud using the VP-8 image analyser. Using the VP-8 and photo-enhancements, Dr Jackson has shown that the same stain is present on the Shroud, and the shape of the stain coincides perfectly with the one on the sudarium. The gap between the blood coming out of the right hand side of the mouth and the stain on the beard is mapped as number 18. This gap closes as the stains get progressively more extensive on faces 1, 2, 3 and 4 while at the same time they are less intense. Stain number 12 corresponds to the eyebrows of the face on the Shroud. As with the beard, this facial hair would have retained blood and this would have produced the stains on the sudarium when it was placed on Jesus' face. There is also blood on the forehead, which forms stain number 10 on the sudarium." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, p.28) 28/05/2007 "The only surprising detail here is the absence of the well-known stain on the Shroud in the form of an inverted three. This Shroud stain has played an important part in the history of the Shroud. After the discovery of the Shroud in Edessa, artistic representations of Christ changed and had many points in common with each other and with the Shroud. Artists mistook this bloodstain for hair, and this is clear from the numerous images of Christ showing various strands of hair in the middle of the forehead. Its apparent absence from the sudarium is certainly strange. Monsignor Ricci suggests that the short time the sudarium covered the face of Jesus was not long enough for this blood to be absorbed. This explanation is quite feasible if the blood had already clotted, as in this case more time would have been necessary for the cloth to absorb the blood. In fact, there are two spots of blood on the sudarium which, allowing for two different positionings of the cloth on the face, correspond to the top of the cloth on the inverted three stain, the actual wound from which the blood flowed. This is because the blood was more liquid at its point of origin on the forehead, and so could stain the sudarium even though it was only in place for a short time. The rest of the blood on the forehead stained the larger Shroud as well, as the direct contact was much longer." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.29-30) 28/05/2007 "Strangely enough, the area corresponding to the forehead on the sudarium is surprisingly free of bloodstains, whereas the same area on the Shroud is covered with blood. An interesting explanation for this has been proposed by Dr Alan Whanger from the University of Duke, North Carolina. He suggests that if the sudarium was used to cover Jesus' face from the foot of the cross to the tomb, the crown of thorns could still have been present on his head, restricting contact in this area. However, there is a stain in this area, number 10, which must have been produced by some kind of contact. There are smaller blood stains on the left of the reverse side of the cloth, the side that was in direct contact with Jesus's face. It would seem that this part of the sudarium was in contact with the back of Jesus' head. These stains too coincide with those on the Shroud." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, p.30) 28/05/2007 "The image of the back of the man on the Shroud is covered with wounds from the scourging he received before being crucified. The wounds on the man's back are obviously not reproduced on the sudarium, as this had no contact with it. However, there are thick bloodstains on the nape of the man's neck, showing the depth and extent of the wounds produced by the crown of thorns. This crown was probably not a circle, as traditional Christian art represents, but a kind of cap covering the whole head. The thorns were probably of the species ziziphus vulgaris, a long, hard and sharp thorn which would produce deep and painful wounds. The stains on the back of the man's neck on the Shroud correspond exactly to those on the sudarium." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.30,32) 28/05/2007 "Dr Alan Whanger has studied the points of coincidence and relationship between the Shroud and hundreds of Byzantine paintings and representations of Christ, even using coins, from the sixth and seventh centuries. This was done using a system called Polarised Image Overlay Technique. His conclusion was that many of these icons and paintings were inspired by the image on the Shroud, which means that the Shroud must have been in existence in the sixth and seventh centuries. This coincides with Ian Wilson's theory that the Shroud was `rediscovered' in Edessa just before this. Dr Whanger applied the same image overlay technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and blood stains on the Shroud. Even he was surprised at the results. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion, according to this highly respected scientist, is that the sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud. If this is so, and taking into account that it is impossible to deny that the sudarium has been in Oviedo since 1075, it casts a great shadow of doubt over the results of the Shroud's carbon dating." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, p.32) 28/05/2007 "The only biblical reference to the sudarium is the one already discussed, in the gospel of John. We are told that this cloth had been over Jesus' head, and the seemingly natural conclusion from this is that it was over Jesus' head at the same time as the Shroud, when Jesus was buried. However, John does not exactly say this, he simply says that the sudarium had been over his head, without specifying when. There are various reasons that make it impossible for the sudarium to have covered the dead body of Jesus in the tomb." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, p.33) 28/05/2007 "One of the greatest mysteries about the Shroud is how the image was formed - and this mystery has not been solved. We know how it was not formed. It was definitely not painted, as there are absolutely no traces of any kind of paint, (except for tiny particles left by painted copies when they were pressed to the Shroud in order to `sanctify' the copy) and there is no direction in the outline, which is impossible on a painting. Also, nobody could have painted a perfect negative before negatives and photography were even known about. Various people have thought that the image was created by a mixture of body heat (another reason why they need Jesus to be alive in the tomb), gases and the spices which were present. However, all their attempts to reproduce the image using these methods have either resulted in total failure or in grotesque caricatures of the volunteer under the linen. Nobody has been able to reproduce anything even remotely similar to the image on the Shroud. What we do know about the image is that it appears to have been scorched into only the top few fibres in each thread, has no direction and its intensity was directly dependent on how far from the actual body the cloth was. This is why the throat is not shown on the image- the cloth would have been stretched from the chin to the chest, not tucked into every fold of the body. This eliminates the possibility of the sudarium being on the face under the Shroud, as this would have prevented the image from being formed on the Shroud, and it would presumably have caused it to be formed on the sudarium. As the face image on the Shroud is just as clear as the rest of the body, and as there is no image, only blood, on the sudarium, we can confidently state that the smaller cloth was not placed between the face and the larger cloth in the tomb." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.33-34) 28/05/2007 "Listen to most physicists talking about the accuracy of carbon dating, and you may be led to believe that it is about as inviolable as the high-society world of 1912 thought the Titanic unsinkable, and that therefore the shroud dating result should be accepted without question. But listen to many an archaeologist, the actual users of carbon dating, and it is a different story. Years before the submission of the shroud to carbon dating, Bill Meacham, an American archaeologist with the Hong Kong Museum of History warned of the dangers of regarding carbon dating as an arbiter on the shroud. [Meacham, W., "On Carbon Dating the Turin shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, 19, June 1986, pp. 15-25] Among a long list of individuals whom Meacham chided for putting too great a reliance on carbon dating was myself, who in 1978 rather rashly and over-confidently wrote that it should settle `once and for all ... the question whether or not the shroud is a fourteenth-century forgery.' [Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1979, p. 264] The fact is that for any layman one of carbon dating's most misleading features is the seemingly very precise margin of error claimed: in the case of the shroud a quoted 95 per cent probability or `confidence limit' for it dating sometime between 1260 and 1390. Too rarely understood is that these margins represent hypothetical statistical concepts, rather than necessarily the actual parameters of the true date. For there can be no doubt that even the most recent archaeology is littered with examples of such widely variegated results that the quoted margins of error can only be regarded as very seriously misleading. One example concerns the massive Bronze Age volcanic eruption of the Aegean island of Thera, or Santorini, which overwhelmed the port of Akrotiri and other settlements on Thera itself, and may well also have precipitated the demise of the Minoan civilization of Crete, sixty miles away. Historically the event has been thought to have happened circa 1500 BC. But when organic materials preserved by the eruption were carbon dated, the dates calculated produced more confusion than clarification. According to the present-day excavator, Professor Christos Doumas: `The application of the radio-carbon method of dating ... has unfortunately not been a success ... During the decade 1967-77 a whole series of samples were processed ... and a wide range of dates acquired ... Samples taken were divided into two classes: long-lived (charcoal or wood) and short- lived beans, grains, shrubs), and in both cases dates have been produced for the destruction of Akrotiri with discrepancies ranging from about 1100, plus or minus 190 years BC, to 2590, plus or minus eighty years BC. Some specialists think that the discrepancies may be due to gas emanating from the volcano.' [Doumas, C.G., "Thera, Pompeii of the Ancient Aegean," Thames & Hudson: London, 1983, p.139]. " (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.172-173) 28/05/2007 "Another example concerns one of the British Museum's most recent acquisitions, Lindow Man ... the well- preserved upper torso of a neatly-manicured man in his mid-twenties who in 1984 was unearthed in a peatbog in Cheshire, England, and who appears to have been the victim of a Celtic human-sacrifice ritual. According to a 1986 report in the British journal, Current Archaeology: `... there are continuing problems over his [Lindow Man's] date. Three sets of radiocarbon dates have been obtained. Firstly there are those obtained by conventional methods from the peat that surrounded him, which has been dated both by Harwell and by the British Museum at dates around 300 BC, and this is the date they are adopting for publication. The other dates are done by the two new super-duper small measurement laboratories at Harwell and at Oxford, which can date minute samples of the body itself, of the hair, bones and skin. However, whereas all the Oxford samples come out consistently in the 1st century AD, all the Harwell samples come out consistently in the 5th century AD. At one time they thought that the difference might be due to the differing pre-treatment at the laboratories, so they swapped samples following pretreatment, but the resulting measurements came out within the respective series for each laboratory. The archaeological world waits with bated breath to see how this problem is resolved. ["The British Museum Exhibition," Current Archaeology, Issue 101, Vol. IX, No. 6, August 1986, p.163] In fact, the problem still remains unresolved. In the British Museum's very latest publication on radiocarbon dating, Dr Sheridan Bowman, the new keeper of the Museum's Research Laboratory remarks: `This is surely a mystery equal to that of the motive for the murder itself' [Bowman, S., "Radiocarbon dating," British Museum Publications: London, 1990, p.52]. And needing maximum emphasis in respect of this is that all the sets of radiocarbon dates, fourteen centuries apart in the case of Thera and eight centuries apart in the case of Lindow Man, have their own margins of error quoted at plus or minus circa one hundred years. Even just these two examples give the lie to the radiocarbon laboratories' stated margins of accuracy having anything like the precision they claim for them." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.173-174) 28/05/2007 "But the deep-seatedness of the problem is further evidenced from numerous examples in archaeology in which archaeologists have been given radiocarbon dates they have been unhappy with, but have had insufficient alternative data to be able to prove that the dates are wrong. The well-known British Egyptologist, Dr Rosalie David, for instance, cites Egyptian Mummy 1770 in her department's collection at the Manchester Museum, a mummy which she and colleagues very scientifically unwrapped in 1975 [pl. 32, above]. When she sent the bones and the bandages of the mummy off for dating, the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory produced the astonishing calculation that the bones were eight hundred to a thousand years older than the bandages. [David, R., "Mysteries of the Mummies: The story of the Manchester University investigation," Cassell: London, 1978]. This caused Dr David to be torn between two hypotheses: first, that the mummy had perhaps been rewrapped eight hundred to a thousand years after death; the second that perhaps something in the resins and unguents used in mummification had acted in an as yet undetermined manner that interfered with a correct carbon-dating reading. But to complicate the issue yet further, just at the time of this book being prepared for publication, the British Museum laboratory disclosed that there was a system error in all the datings it issued between 1980 and 1984 - inclusive of its work on Mummy 1770. [Bowman, S.S.E., Ambers, J.C. & Leese, M.N., "Reevaluation of British Museum radiocarbon dates issued between 1980 and 1984," Radiocarbon, Vol. 32, No. l, 1990, pp.59-79] Apparently this was due to non-allowed-for evaporation in the modern control samples routinely used during this period. They stated that although in most cases the error amounted to only two or three hundred years, they were unable to issue any correction in the case of the Manchester Mummy - making yet more difficult Dr David's choice between the two alternatives." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.174,175) 28/05/2007 "That such examples are not mere isolated anecdote, but that there are some more fundamentally flawed aspects to carbon dating than yet conceded by the physicists, has been further demonstrated recently in an inter-comparison trial commissioned by Britain's Science and Engineering Research Council. Thirty-eight laboratories agreed to take part, representing both the conventional Libby method and the up-to-date accelerator mass spectrometer one, and each were given artefacts of dates known to the organizers, but unknown to the laboratories. The shock finding of this totally scientific trial was that the laboratories' actual margins of error were on average two or three times greater than the margins they claimed. Of the thirty-eight laboratories, only seven produced results that the organizers of the trial considered satisfactory, with those laboratories using the new accelerator mass spectrometer technique faring particularly badly. [Coghlan, A., "Unexpected errors affect dating techniques," New Scientist, 30 September 1989, p.26] Somewhat shamefully, the Oxford laboratory (who of course worked on the shroud), adroitly avoided getting caught up in this controversy by declining to take part. In this light their subsequent claim that the errors `should be laid at the doors of the laboratories that produced them' [Hedges, R., Director, Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, University of Oxford, Letter to New Scientist, 14 October 1989, p. 69] can only be regarded as ringing more than a little hollow - somewhat akin to an athlete claiming he could have won an Olympic gold medal if only he had entered the race." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.175) 28/05/2007 "What seems unavoidable, as has been candidly pointed out by Professor Murdoch Baxter of the Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre, East Kilbride, is that `other unaccounted-for sources of error occur during the processing and analysis of samples [italics mine].' [Coghlan, A., "Unexpected errors affect dating techniques," New Scientist, 30 September 1989, p.26] Just what those unaccounted for sources of error might be is undoubtedly the hardest question to answer. Quite definite is that there are varieties of contamination that can affect the reliability of carbon-dating readings. Although pre-treatment, involving cleaning of materials to be carbon dated, is standard procedure, and was certainly carried out with maximum possible thoroughness in the case of the shroud samples, doubts surround the extent to which this procedure can ever be 100 per cent effective, particularly in the case of highly porous materials, such as linen, which do not have the advantage of being able to be independently cross-checked by dendrochronology. As again remarked by Dr Sheridan Bowman, in her recent British Museum publication on radio-carbon dating: `Many materials used for preserving or conserving samples may be impossible to remove subsequently: do not use glues, biocides, ... [etc.]. Many ordinary packing materials such as paper, cardboard, cotton wool and string, contain carbon and are potential contaminants. Cigarette ash is also taboo.' [Bowman, S., "Radiocarbon Dating," British Museum Publications: London, 1990, p.56]" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.175-176. Emphasis original) 28/05/2007 "In the light of such concerns, the shroud's known history, that is, its universally accepted history subsequent to the mid-fourteenth century, provides an almost copy-book case of an object seriously unsuitable for carbon-dating. Quite aside from it having been subjected to centuries of smoke from burning candles, an equivalent surely to cigarette smoke, well-known also, not least from the scorches and patches it carries to this day, is that the shroud was involved in a serious fire in 1532. In this latter it came so close to destruction that the silver of its casket melted, destroying one corner of the cloth as it lay folded inside. Knowing that this process could only have happened at temperatures in excess of 960°C, silver's melting- point, Manchester textile specialist John Tyrer has remarked: `In these circumstances moisture in the shroud would turn to steam, probably at superheat, trapped in the folds and layers of the shroud. Any contaminants on the cloth would be dissolved by the steam and forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the flax fibres' very lumen and molecular structure ... [They would] become part of the chemistry of the flax fibres themselves and would be impossible to remove satisfactorily by surface actants and ultrasonic cleaning.' [Tyrer, J., British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, 20 October 1988, p.11] Furthermore, two years after the fire the shroud was sewn onto a backing made up from three portions of sixteenth-century holland cloth. Inevitably this linen must contain carbon with equally as much contamination potential as the paper, cardboard and cotton wool mentioned by Dr Bowman. And it has now been in the closest contact with the shroud for over four hundred and fifty years." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.176-177) 28/05/2007 "Another area of concern derives from the fact that the sample as used for the 1988 carbon dating was taken from one edge of the shroud, precisely where the cloth would have received maximum handling from being held up during its many expositions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Nor would this have been the only contamination danger from such occasions. In 1615, for instance, St Francis de Sales was one of three bishops who held up the shroud before the people on a very hot day, and recorded how he was embarrassed to see perspiration from his forehead drip onto the shroud. Who knows how many similar instances have gone totally unrecorded?" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.177) 28/05/2007 "Yet the force of these and similar contamination arguments has been fiercely contested by Professor Edward Hall, the recently-retired director of the Oxford laboratory. He has argued: `Calculations show that a modern contamination amounting to 65 per cent of the mass of the shroud would be necessary to give a date of 1350 to a fabric originally dating from the time of Christ ... We believe that any such contamination would have been less than 0.1 per cent.' [Hall, E.T., Letter to Textile Horizons, January 1990] The weak point of Hall's argument, however, is that there still undoubtedly has to be some serious and as yet unaccounted-for explanation for the substantial discrepancies already noted in recent carbon datings like Lindow Man. Furthermore the Zurich laboratory is reliably known to have erred by up to a 1000 years in its dating of a sample during the inter-comparison trial conducted by the British Museum in 1985, an error that was apparently due to their failure to remove a certain unidentified source of contamination.' [Burleigh, R. et al., "An Inter-comparison of some AMS and Small Gas Counter Laboratories," Radiocarbon, Vol. 28, 1976, pp. 571-577] So on the basis of Professor Hall's calculations, are we to suppose that a laboratory as scrupulous as Zurich could have left some 50 per cent contamination in this instance?" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.177-178. Emphasis original) 28/05/2007 "Also to be discounted is the argument that the credibility of the shroud carbon dating is hugely reinforced by having been arrived at by three theoretically independent laboratories. This is totally vitiated by the fact that as users of Gove's accelerator mass spectrometer technique all three laboratories are clones of each other. Furthermore, instead of having received samples taken from different areas of the shroud, they all received sections of a single portion taken from one edge of the cloth. Effectively they were almost bound to achieve the same result, a weakness of the original decision on the choice of laboratories as made in Turin." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.178) 28/05/2007 "All this is not to argue that contamination was the source of an error in the carbon dating, if indeed such an error occurred. Other possibilities have been cited, including the idea that if the image on the shroud was caused by the release of some form of energy at Jesus's resurrection, then this same energy-release may have altered the shroud's carbon 14 isotope content to make it appear younger than it is. In the words of one correspondent to the British journal New Scientist: `If energy released in the resurrection process activated an extra 18 per cent of carbon 14 compared to that present naturally in the cloth, the shroud, although being 2000 years old, would appear to be only 650 years old. And it is certainly possible to produce that amount of carbon 14 via a short burst of high energy.' [Kelly, B., Letter to New Scientist, 22 September 1988]" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.178) 28/05/2007 "Whether, therefore, there has or has not been some error in respect of the shroud carbon dating, what is undeniable is that the process of carbon dating, despite all the ultra-scientific precision with which it is associated, can and does err in its results. It should be regarded as tool, not arbiter, and should never be mistaken for the latter. As has been very cogently remarked by the former Biblical archaeologist Dr Eugenia Nitowski: `In any form of enquiry or scientific discipline, it is the weight of evidence which must be considered conclusive: In archaeology, if there are ten lines of evidence, carbon dating being one of them, and it conflicts with the other nine, there is little hesitation to throw out the carbon date as inaccurate ...' [Nitowski, E., Private communication]" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.178-179) 29/05/2007 "The Evidence of Carbon-dating At this period opinion hardened on both sides. Demands were increasingly heard for the cloth to undergo what was seen by many as the ultimate and definitive test, the dating of the cloth by measuring its carbon-14 content. Tiny amounts of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 are absorbed by all living things, and over time this decays at a fixed rate; calculating the rate of decay of the carbon-14 in an object theoretically permits the approximate time in history in which the object was alive to be fixed. Popularly, the accuracy of radiocarbon dating was held to be more or less absolute, and supporters and detractors of the Shroud alike believed that the test would settle the argument once and for all. The Church finally agreed to the test. In April 1988 tiny samples of the cloth were taken, and forwarded to laboratories in Tucson, Arizona, in Oxford, and in Zurich, in Switzerland. With the Shroud samples went fragments of other ancient fabrics, whose ages were already known, to act as controls. The tests were co- ordinated by Dr Michael Tite of the British Museum. By the autumn all three laboratories had completed their work, and on 14 October the result was announced simultaneously in Turin, by Cardinal Ballestero, for the Church, and in London, by Dr Tite, for the three laboratories. The flax from which the linen of the Shroud had been woven had been harvested some time between 1260 and 1390. Around the world, the Turin Shroud was denounced as a `forgery' by the media." (Hulse, T.G., "The Holy Shroud," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1997, p.28. Emphasis original) 29/05/2007 "Almost immediately these tests, which should have settled the matter, themselves became a matter of controversy. The results had been leaked weeks before 14 October and persons not authorized to participate at the testings had been admitted: in both instances breaking the protocol agreed to beforehand. Far from it having been a blind testing, Dr Paul Damon of Tucson admitted that the distinctive weave of the Shroud had made it easy to recognize. For many, the most disturbing aspect of the whole thing was perhaps the glee with which certain scientists publicly exulted over the downfall of the Shroud. As Professor Hall of the Oxford laboratory told the press on 14 October, `There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up, and flogged it'. No mention of the unique and inexplicable nature of the image, which has never been reproduced satisfactorily. If nothing else, this contemptuous, and contemptible, statement demonstrates how thoroughly certain upholders of a rigid scientific orthodoxy had been rattled by the mystery of the Shroud. In fact, it rapidly became clear that, apart from the scientists directly involved, almost no one was satisfied with the tests. Many believers found that the results did not disturb their belief, and said so; others felt that the tests themselves were faulty or improperly conducted (though there is no evidence to substantiate this), and wanted a re-testing - especially after it became widely known that all the radiocarbon dates published with the authority of the British Museum between 1980 and 1984 had been incorrect." (Hulse, T.G., "The Holy Shroud," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1997, pp.31-32)
- Laying the body on the linen;
- Placing flowering plants and other objects along with the body;
- Folding the cloth over the body;
- Initiation of the process that caused the formation of the images."
Copyright © 2007-2014, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
Created: 22 August, 2007. Updated: 2 January, 2014.