Stephen E. Jones

Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified quotes: April 2008

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

The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in April 2008. See copyright conditions at end.

[Index: Jan, Feb, Mar, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]

"Physical inspection of the Shroud indicates that Wilson's `doubled-in-four' theory is likely. John Jackson, 
an Air Force physicist who was one of the organizers of the Shroud of Turin Research Project, 
reconstructed the pattern of the folds. Using Shroud photographs and a life-size mock-up of the cloth, he 
found that doubling the cloth in four did indeed expose the face area. Furthermore, Jackson found an 
eight-fold pattern of folds, visible in a new series of photographs of the Shroud, , which is exactly consistent 
with Wilson's doubling in four. Jackson pointed out that these folds are rather inconspicuous , when the 
Shroud is viewed. They may have escaped notice before because the human eye has trouble sorting out the 
faint, blurry body-image from other more prominent features of the cloth. Some of these other images are 
quite prominent and disconcerting, such as the fire damage and water marks. For many, viewing the image 
on the Shroud is similar to deciphering Rorschach diagrams or those business cards which cleverly disguise 
the face of Jesus in patterns of black and white. Among the images the eye rejects are the signs of the 
doubled-in-four folds. However, this configuration appears in photographs." (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.24)

"If only the face of the Shroud image was exposed for so many centuries, why are signs of this not more 
visible now that the cloth is stretched out? If the Shroud spent more than half its life as the Mandylion, 
there should be a circular area around the face of Christ which is more yellowed than the rest of the cloth. 
But perhaps the Mandylion was never exposed to the open air and sunlight often enough to become visibly 
discolored. If the Shroud and the Mandylion are indeed the same, then the Shroud was hermetically sealed 
in the Edessa city wall for 500 years, and later kept in a reliquary where it was removed only twice a year in 
Edessa and only once a year in Constantinople. Private showings of the Mandylion for dignitaries and 
artists would have been conducted indoors. So in the course of twelve centuries the cloth's actual exposure 
to heat, air, and sunlight may have amounted to only a few hundred days. [Jackson, J.P., "Color Analysis of 
the Turin Shroud: A Preliminary Study," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States 
Conference on the Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, pp.190-195] (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.24-25)

"The Fourth International Symposium on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was held between the 27th and 
30th of April 1987 at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada. ... The meeting was the tenth anniversary of the 
first measurement of carbon-14 in natural material by tandem accelerators. One of the sessions included the 
history of the development of accelerator mass spectrometry. The after dinner talk at the symposium 
banquet was titled 'The Shroud of Turin: Relic or Icon' and was given by W S A Dale, chair of the 
Department of Visual Arts at the University of Western Ontario in Canada. ... Dale stated that the shroud's 
most probable date would be somewhere between 1000 and 1050 AD. ... At the conference, I presented a 
poster on the conclusions and the procedural steps which were agreed to at the Turin workshop. It was 
published as a paper in the proceedings of the meeting in the journal Nuclear Instruments and Methods in 
Physics Research. I organized a meeting of those people at the conference representing the five AMS 
laboratories that had participated in the Turin workshop to discuss the inordinate delay in a decision to 
proceed with the carbon dating of the shroud. I was asked to write to Chagas [late Professor Carlos Chagas, 
President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences] re-affirming our support for the protocol we had all agreed 
to at the workshop and to press for action. ... The text of the letter follows: `Dear Professor Chagas: A 
meeting was held at the Pillar and Post Inn in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Canada the site of the 4th International 
Symposium on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry on Thursday, 30 April 1987 concerning radiocarbon dating 
of the Turin Shroud. Present were representatives of the 5 AMS laboratories who will be involved in the 
measurements, all of whom with the exception of the representative of Oxford were present at the Turin 
workshop. Since this international meeting concerned accelerator mass spectrometry, AMS, there were no 
delegates present from the 2 counter laboratories at Harwell and Brookhaven. As a result of the meeting, the 
undersigned wished to reaffirm their strong, continuing support for the conclusions and procedural steps 
agreed to by the delegates to the Turin workshop of September 29 to 1 October and in particular: (a) all 
seven laboratories must be involved in the tests; (b) Madame Flury-Lemberg of the Abegg-Stiftung must be 
responsible for the selection and actual removal of the material from the shroud; (c) representatives of all 
seven laboratories should be present at the actual sample removal; (d) a representative of the Pontifical 
Academy of Sciences, the British Museum and the Archbishopric of Turin will supervise the shroud 
samples from the time of removal to the time of their delivery, also with a dummy sample and control samples 
to a representative of each of the seven laboratories. We emphasize the above because of a report in the 27 
April 1987 issue of La Stampa, the Turin newspaper, attributed to Professor Luigi Gonella, that the 
carbon-14 measurements will be carried out in two or three laboratories. That so directly contravenes the 
Turin workshop agreement that it could severely jeopardize the carbon dating enterprise. The people 
present at the Niagara-on-the-Lake meeting were S L Brignall, Rochester, C R Bronk, Oxford, P E Damon, 
Arizona, D J Donahue, Arizona, J C Duplessy, Gif-sur-Yvette, H E Gove, Rochester and W Woelfli, ETH 
Zurich." Only Bronk had not attended the Turin workshop." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon 
Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, 1996, pp.185-188)

"Undeniably, a `bullseye' result with mid-point at 20 or 1320 A.D. would lend strong support to the 
proponents or opponents of authenticity. But a result of 300 or 700 or 1000 AD would create more 
controversy than it settled, especially with the necessary margin of error at -t 300 years or more. As flax is 
extremely short-lived, minor fluctuations in atmospheric C-14 levels may require that an uncertainty of up to 
  120 years (Farmer and Baxter 1972) or ~ 150 years (Bruns et al 1980) be added to the normal statistical 
errors (  80 on a good sample). Calibrated and reported at 95% confidence level, the radiocarbon age of the 
Shroud would thus probably span 500-600 years. It is of course futile to speculate in advance on the 
interpretation of results, and I shall proceed to a consideration of the types of contamination which may be 
present on the Shroud, and of other factors which may influence the C-14 result. ... A C-14 age later than the 
first century would not of course consititute scientific proof of the inauthenticity of the Shroud, since 
radiocarbon dating is a based on a number of unverifiable assumptions -- the most important in this context 
being that the carbon extracted from the sample is indeed identical with the carbon absorbed from the 
environment when the sample was alive." (Meacham, W., "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the 
Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties," Proceedings of the Symposium `Turin Shroud - Image of 
Christ?', Hong Kong, March 1986.

"`Give me twenty minutes and I'll have this thing shot full of holes,' testified STURP chemist Ray Rogers. 
[Rogers, R., in Murphy, C., "Shreds of Evidence," Harper's, November, 1981, pp.42-65, p.61] Bill Mottern 
of Sandia Laboratory, another STURP scientist, said, 'I went in as a doubting Thomas.' [Mottern, R.W., in 
Murphy, 1981, p.47] Heller reported that, `For numerous reasons, Adler and I had been assuming all along 
that the Shroud was a forgery.' [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston 
MA, 1983, p.201] Testimonies like these could be multiplied. Many STURP scientists thought that the 
Shroud was simply a fake to be exposed by scientific testing. But in the 1981 meeting at New London, 
Connecticut, the scientists reported: `No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-
ray fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method 
for creating the image. Ultraviolet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.' ["Text," The Shroud of 
Turin Research Project, Press Release, 8 October 1981]. Ever since then, several STURP scientists have 
continued to report that forgery could not be the cause of the Shroud's image. [Murphy, 1981, pp.61-62] 
Heller notes: `At the end of months of work, we had pretty well eliminated all paints, pigments, dyes, and 
stains.... the images were not the result of any colorant that had been added.' [Heller, 1983, p.198] Heller 
points out that fraud can be checked by at least two scientific methods- chemistry and physics. Concerning 
the first means, he said, `Adler and I had reached the conclusion that the image could not have been made 
by artistic endeavor.' [Ibid., p.207] The second method revealed no forgery either: `The conclusion of the 
physical scientists was that the Shroud could not be the result of eye/brain/hand.' [Ibid., p.209]" (Stevenson, 
K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, pp.120-121. 
Emphasis original)

"Q. Couldn't the Shroud be a satanic deception? A. ... If there was an overwhelming response of 
image worship to the knowledge of the Shroud, this would be a very serious possibility. The fact of the 
matter is that in my [Stevenson's] experience, those who do respond to the Shroud story respond to the man 
in the Shroud and not to the Shroud itself. In over a decade of lecturing on the Shroud, I have found no 
episodes of image worship or idolatry. On the other hand, countless numbers have written to me to proclaim 
that they have come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus through the story of the Shroud. Perhaps the 
true issue is whether Satan would allow many to base their faith in the Shroud and then suddenly pull the 
rug out from under them by having it declared a fake. But from the beginning, religious leaders have usually 
been the ones to declare the Shroud a fake, while nonbelievers captivated by a sense of spiritual, scientific, 
or historical curiosity have come to study and stayed to pray. Besides, why would Satan allow for any 
reason the depiction of the emblem of his ultimate defeat-the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?"
(Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 
1990, p.153. Emphasis original)

"Third, whatever the final conclusions of any study of the Shroud, another type of caution needs to be 
exercised. And this may be the most important warning of all. There are too many examples of religious 
misuses of the Shroud, such as claims and advertisements of healing, prayers to the Shroud, and even 
worship of it. We firmly believe that the Shroud should not be esteemed as an object of faith. Christianity is 
faith in a person, not in a cloth or in any other artifact, whether it is Jesus' or not. Practices of worshiping or 
venerating the Shroud blatantly disobey Exodus 20:4-6: `You shall not make for yourself carved image-any 
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the 
earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting 
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but 
showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.' God has forbidden the 
use of images of any sort, particularly in worship. Blessings and punishments are promised to those who 
obey or disobey this command. Giving a similar warning, we addressed this vitally serious matter in 
Verdict; [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," Servant Books: Ann Arbor PA, 
1981, pp.6-7, 179-86] we did not wish to be guilty of breaking such a command. Yet one reviewer still levels 
this criticism: "The proponents of the Shroud are attempting to replace the Word of God with an image; as 
such they are, I would suggest, at variance with the intentions of Divine Providence." [Elson, B., "Review of 
`Verdict on the Shroud'," Queen's Quarterly,Vol. 90, No. 2, 1983, p.570] Therefore we wish to stress once 
again that we are investigating the Shroud as a possibly authentic archaeological artifact. Even if the 
Shroud is the actual burial garment of Jesus (and especially if it is not), it is only a cloth. It dishonors 
God to venerate or worship the Shroud or to celebrate it as a means of healing or to treat it as an object of 
prayer or faith. ',We strongly disavow all such nonbiblical practices. We have no desire to encourage any of 
them. Taking our work otherwise misconstrues its purpose." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The 
Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1990, pp.20-21. Emphasis original)

"There are also a few cases of out and out abuse of the Shroud. Take, for example, a full-page ad which 
appeared in several publications across the nation selling mini-shrouds and photos, and advising their use 
as a combination prayer-cloth/good-luck talisman for any problem or desire. When the ad first appeared, an 
evangelical group that had offered to help raise funds for the Shroud of Turin Research Project quickly 
backed out. All of these examples constitute strong evidence that the Shroud has been misused throughout 
its known history. However, the stories merely confirm the fact that man has a baser side to his nature. He 
tends to believe whatever he wants. Let us consider the common elements in all of the above examples. First, 
all believed or at least claimed to believe the Shroud is genuine. Second, all sought to use it, either to 
support personal beliefs, to exploit others, or to have a physical item of worship. In any case, if the Shroud 
is authentic, these abuses began with its authenticity and then distorted it. To a Christian, the distortion is 
obvious and blatant, but it does not prove the cloth inauthentic. " (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.183. Emphasis original)

"The question is this: would Satan generate or sponsor anything that in any way could lead to salvation? 
Satan was defeated at the cross, a fact scripture says he is well aware of. `The devil is come down unto you 
having great wrath because he knoweth that he hath but a short time' (Revelation 12:12). Would Satan call 
attention to his own defeat? Here we must consider the fact that Satan would have portrayed not only the 
blood of Jesus, but also evidence for his resurrection. The New Testament asserts that both these were 
factors in his defeat. Philip McNair put it well: `We know that the devil can transform himself into an angel of 
light, but could he or would he have portrayed from painful memory that compelling face on the Turin 
Shroud?' [McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: Fantasy, Fake or Fact?" in Jennings, P., ed., "Face to Face 
with the Turin Shroud," Mowbray: Oxford, 1978, p.33] It is much more likely that Satan is behind the 
mysterious fires, controversy, and abuses of the Shroud. Such things are signs of his handiwork. The 
Shroud has been misused. While this cannot be denied, misuse does not affect authenticity. If so, we would 
not read the Bible because it has been used in seances." (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.185. Emphasis original)


Copyright © 2008-2010, 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
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 30 March, 2008. Updated: 30 March, 2010.