Stephen E. Jones

Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified quotes: January 2011

[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 January 2011. See copyright conditions at end.

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

"It is now time to treat of the `sudary,' about which relic they have displayed their folly even more than in 
the affair of the holy coat; for besides the sudary of Veronica, which is shown in the Church of St Peter at 
Rome, it is the boast of several towns that they each possess one, as for instance Carcassone, Nice, Aix-la-
Chapelle, Tréves, Besançon, without reckoning the fragments to be seen in various places. Now, I ask 
whether those persons were not bereft of their senses who could take long pilgrimages, at much expense 
and fatigue, in order to see sheets, of the reality of which there were no reasons to believe, but many to 
doubt; for whoever admitted the reality of one of these sudaries shown in so many places, must have 
considered the rest as wicked impostures set up to deceive the public by the pretence that they were each 
the real sheet in which Christ's body had been wrapped. But it is not only that the exhibitors of this one and 
the same relic give each other mutually the lie, they are (what is far more important) positively contradicted 
by the Gospel. The evangelists who speak of all the women who followed our Lord to the place of 
crucifixion, make not the least mention of that Veronica who wiped his face with a kerchief. It was in truth a 
most marvellous and remarkable event, worthy of being recorded, that the face of Jesus Christ was then 
miraculously imprinted upon the cloth, a much more important thing to mention than the mere circumstance 
that certain women had followed Jesus Christ to the place of crucifixion without meeting with any miracle; 
and, indeed, had such a miracle taken place, we might consider the evangelists wanting in judgment in not 
relating the most important facts." (Calvin, J., "A Treatise on Relics," 1543, Krasinski, V., transl., Johnstone, 
Hunter & Co: Edinburgh, Second Edition, 1870, pp.175-176. Emphasis original).

"The same observations are applicable to the tale of the sheet in which the body of our Lord was wrapped. 
How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at 
Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord 
remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, 
relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the 
napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of 
our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention 
such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind. Another point to be observed is, that the 
evangelists do not mention that either of the disciples or the faithful women who came to the sepulchre had 
removed the clothes in question, but, on the contrary, their account seems to imply that they were left there. 
Now, the sepulchre was guarded by soldiers, and consequently the clothes were in their power. Is it 
possible that they would have permitted the disciples to take them away as relics, since these very men had 
been bribed by the Pharisees to perjure themselves by saying that the disciples had stolen the body of our 
Lord? I shall conclude with a convincing proof of the audacity of the Papists. Wherever the holy sudary is 
exhibited, they show a large sheet with the full-length likeness of a human body on it. Now, St John's 
Gospel, chapter nineteenth, says that Christ was buried according to the manner of the Jews; and what was 
their custom? This may be known by their present custom on such occasions, as well as from their books, 
which describe the ancient ceremony of interment, which was to wrap the body in a sheet, to the shoulders, 
and to cover the head with a separate cloth. This is precisely how the evangelist described it, saying, that St 
Peter saw on one side the clothes with which the body had been wrapped, and on the other the napkin from 
about his head. In short, either St John is a liar, or all those who boast of possessing the holy sudary are 
convicted of falsehood and deceit." (Calvin, J., "A Treatise on Relics," 1543, Krasinski, V., transl., 
Johnstone, Hunter & Co: Edinburgh, Second Edition, 1870, pp.176-178).

"There can be no denying d'Arcis's point that the `holy Evangelists' or gospel writers failed to mention any 
imprint on the burial linens that Peter and John had found mysteriously abandoned in Jesus's empty tomb 
that first Easter Sunday morning. But as we have [107] already seen, there is a great deal that the gospel 
writers, for reasons often best known to themselves, omitted to tell us. The writer of the John gospel actually 
acknowledged this omission in his gospel's last verse. [John 21:25] Likewise we have already seen that there 
has to have been something immensely powerful about that empty tomb scene that morning, not all of which 
the gospel writers properly described or explained. Neither the gospels nor any other book of the New 
Testament tell us anything about what happened to the burial cloths, irrespective of whether or not they 
were imprinted with `the Saviour's Likeness'. ... So imprinted or not imprinted, what could have happened to 
Jesus's shroud in the wake of that first Easter Sunday morning? It seems very unlikely that Jesus's disciples 
would simply have thrown it away. This said, however, we do need to bear in mind that they were Jews, and 
there were two things about it that would have caused considerable disquiet. First, as a burial cloth, the 
shroud was `unclean', and therefore not the kind of object any of them would have felt comfortable taking 
around with them to demonstrate that Jesus had risen from the dead. These were men and women who had 
seen the resurrected Jesus, in the flesh, with their own eyes. That surely was testimony enough, without the 
need for any `prop'. Second, if whatever had been left behind in the tomb was indeed our imprint-bearing 
Shroud, its imprint would have been a source of embarrassment in its own right. Jews abhorred any kind of 
representational image. The second commandment of Moses specifically forbade any such thing: `You shall 
not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath.' [Exodus 
20:4] It would have aroused many deep-seated taboos that may well have precluded any mention of it." 
(Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.106-107).

"The Shroud Is Mentioned in the Bible Jesus' burial wrapping is a part of the Easter story of the Bible. All 
four Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) tell how Joseph of Arimathea, a devoted follower of 
Jesus, bought a fine new linen burial sheet for Jesus' body after he was taken down from the cross. Is this 
sheet the Shroud which is today in Turin, Italy? A passage in the Gospel of John is probably the last 
`official,' that is, Biblical, reference to this cloth. In John 20:19-36 we read that John and Peter ran to the 
tomb on Easter Sunday morning. Inside John saw the burial sheet, and he saw the sudarium or chin-band 
(for holding the jaws closed) rolled up in its own place. After this the record is silent." (Scavone, D.C., "The 
Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.68. Emphasis original).

"What the Gospel narratives do not say is equally important-and has, in fact, set in motion the mystery 
that has surrounded the Shroud of Jesus ever since: none of the Gospel writers say that the Shroud was 
saved after the events of Easter Sunday morning. John's last reference leaves it in the sepulcher. Also, the 
Gospel accounts do not mention an image on Jesus' burial sheet." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: 
Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.68).

"These omissions are one reason Bishop d'Arcis believed the Lirey Shroud could not possibly be the one 
referred to in the Bible. Wouldn't the Gospel writers have said something about preserving Jesus' burial 
linen with his precious blood on it? Wouldn't they have mentioned if it had contained a portrait of Jesus 
himself? As Bishop d'Arcis argued, this would seem to be proof that the Lirey Shroud with its image was not 
the same as the shroud of the Gospel accounts." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing 
Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.70).

"One explanation may be that the image was not yet visible on the cloth. Perhaps it only darkened little by 
little. (Remember what was said about the slow yellowing of linen.) If an image could not yet be seen on 
Easter morning, then the Evangelists (Gospel writers) could not mention one." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud 
of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, p.70).

"As to whether the disciples of Jesus did remove the burial wrappings from the tomb, the Gospels are 
indeed silent. There is evidence, described later, that they did take the Shroud. This evidence suggests they 
took it with them into hiding, for, as we read in the Bible, they feared for their lives. They would have known 
that if they `advertised' their valuable possession, it might become a target for either Romans or Jewish 
zealots. Those who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion seemed determined to stamp out the new 
Christian-sect. The Easter story shows that they would do anything to erase the memory of Jesus. They 
would seize and destroy the Shroud if their attention was drawn to its survival. So the Shroud was kept 
hidden, and the Gospel stories are silent about its removal from the tomb. The Bible is silent on many other 
things as well. For instance, details about much of the first thirty years of Jesus' life are omitted." (Scavone, 
D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.70-71).

"Details of the Crucifixion Found in the Gospels Before we leave the Gospel accounts, let us recall some 
other details of the story. The way in which these details compare with information gleaned from the Shroud 
itself gives us strong historical evidence for the genuineness of the Shroud. We read that Jesus was 
crowned with thorns. The Roman soldiers mocked him with the `crown' for pretending, as they thought, to 
be King of the Jews. Artists always depict this as a wreath, and Matthew and Mark do say that the soldiers 
`twisted together' a thorny crown. But look at the puncture wounds on the scalp of the Shroud man. They 
cover his whole head, not as a Roman victory wreath would, only around the forehead, but as a clump of 
thorns would if pressed into the scalp. Such thorny `tumbleweeds' must have been a familiar sight to 
Romans and used as kindling for their guard fires. Some arranging or twisting would be necessary, but it 
does not seem probable, when one thinks about it, that a soldier would take the time and effort, as well as 
the pain of pricked fingers, to carefully lace together a wreath of thorns, when a `tumbleweed' was so 
available. And the larger and more grotesque the `crown,' the greater would be their joke, and their laughter. 
Thus from the Shroud we picture a crown of thorns which is different from those depicted by artists, but 
apparently more accurate." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven 
Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.71-72. Emphasis original).

"Let us not forget the real importance of the crown of thorns in judging whether the Turin Shroud shows 
Jesus' portrait. The Romans mocked Jesus as a `king' with a crown of thorns. There could not have been 
many other `kings' who were crucified and who would have been similarly mocked. Of the thousands of 
victims of Roman crucifixion, the man of the Shroud ranks among a very small number who might have left 
this imprint on a burial cloth. This certainly improves the chances that he really is Jesus. But it does not, of 
course, prove that he is." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven 
Press: San Diego CA, 1989, pp.72-73. Emphasis original).

"Toward late afternoon on the Friday of the crucifixion, Orthodox Jews were becoming concerned that the 
bodies of Jesus and the two thieves might contaminate the Sabbath. The Jewish Sabbath begins at sunset 
on Friday and continues all through Saturday. They therefore persuaded the Romans to hasten the death 
and burial of the three crucified men. The method used by the Romans was to break the legs of the victims 
on the cross. This fact perfectly agrees with what Dr. Barbet said about the cause of death on the cross. 
Remember that the victim's inability to breathe caused him to shift his weight onto his feet until normal 
breathing was restored. Now, with the legs broken, the victim would not be able to regain his breath, and 
death would come sooner. Jesus' legs were not broken; he was already dead. Neither are the Shroud man's 
legs broken." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego 
CA, 1989, p.73).

"As with the crown of thorns, so too the wound in the side increases the chances that it is Jesus on the 
Shroud. Normally, crucifixion was reserved for the worst criminals: traitors against their country and slaves 
who had betrayed their masters. After death on the cross it was rare that family and friends came to claim the 
body. Crucifixion was so horrible a punishment that few people would want to risk being connected to the 
criminal. So victims were usually thrown into a common grave and there were no mourners. In the case of 
Jesus, we know that his mother and his followers came to claim the body. In order to assure that he was 
really dead before handing over the body, and perhaps to stifle any rumors that he might still be alive, the 
soldier on duty stabbed Jesus in the heart. So the side wound is rare. Jesus had it, and the Shroud man has 
it." (Scavone, D.C., "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, 1989, 

"When he died, Avircius left behind an inscription recounting the details of this journey, an epitaph that 
was carefully constructed in accordance with the principles of an ancient Church custom now known as the 
Discipline of the Secret. In the course of an intense theological debate which followed on the heels of the 
Protestant Reformation, an ancient Church custom was identified and labeled the `Discipline of the Secret'. 
Pursuant to this practice., the clergy was required, when speaking of Christian tenets, doctrines, mysteries, 
and rites, to employ coded language, symbolic representations, metaphorical expressions, and allegorical 
narratives in a manner conducive to making the message understandable only to advanced believers. 
Initially, the practice was designed to prevent catechumens from acquiring detailed knowledge of the faith, 
somewhat in accordance with Paul's counsel that the uninitiated and dull of hearing' be fed with milk, and 
not with meat'; [1Cor 3:1-2; Heb 5:12-14] however, after Roman persecutions had intensified and expanded, 
the Discipline was employed to conceal all critical faith-related information, in strict obedience to Christ's 
commandment to `give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest 
they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you'. [Mt 7:6] When employing the custom, the 
technique was to speak of the realities and the rituals of the Christian life in an allusive manner, by hinting 
rather than by stating explicitly. `It is natural and necessary that a Christian inscription (of) about A.D. 200, 
which was intended to be public, should be so expressed as not to offend the sense of the pagans; i.e. it 
must be capable of being read by the ordinary observer without its Christian origin being obvious .... it was 
the recognized duty of a Christian to use carefully veiled language.' [Ramsay, W.M., `The Cities and 
Bishoprics of Phrygia,' Clarendon Press: Oxford 1897, p.789.]" (Markwardt, J., "Ancient Edessa and the 
Shroud: History Concealed by the Discipline of the Secret," in Fanti, G., ed., "The Shroud of Turin: 
Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma," Proceedings of the 2008 Columbus Ohio International Conference, 
August 14-17, 2008, Progetto Libreria: Padua, Italy, 2009, pp.382 407, p.386).

"The Holy Shroud. Calvin (1543, 237) mentions several alleged shrouds of Jesus. He does not refer to a 
Shroud of Turin, since the most famous of the reputed shrouds of Jesus-of which there were once some 
forty-three in Europe alone (Humber 1978, 78)-did not arrive at Turin until 1578, long after Calvin's death. 
However, Calvin does mention a shroud at Nice, and the cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin was kept 
in Nice at the time Calvin was writing his treatise (Nickell 1998, 26). Therefore he is surely referring to that 
famous cloth (and copies of it, like the one at Besançon [Wilson 1979, 300]) when he remarks how unlikely it 
would be that Jesus' shroud had borne `the full-length likeness of a human body on it' without the apostles 
or evangelists having mentioned the fact (Calvin 1543, 239).2 Except for copies or fakes inspired by it, the 
Turin cloth is unique in bearing the image of an apparently crucified man. (It is also crucial to observe that 
no burial cloth in the history of the world ever bore such images.)." (Nickell, J., "Treatise on Relics: John 
Calvin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 2008, pp.40,43)

"Stylistic and iconographic elements provide corroborative evidence that the image is indeed the work of a 
medieval artisan. By the eleventh century artists had begun to depict the shroud as a single, double-length 
cloth (although actual Jewish burial practice, as related in John 20:5-7, utilized multiple cloths). And by the 
thirteenth century we find ceremonial shrouds bearing full-length images of Jesus' body in death. In these, 
as in the Turin image, the hands are discretely folded over the loins-an artistic motif that itself dates from the 
eleventh century. These traditions, found together in the shroud, suggest that it is the work of an artist of 
the thirteenth century or later. In fact, the figure's long, thin forms are consistent with French gothic art of 
the fourteenth century (Nickell 1998, 32-34, 54-55, 71). `Blood' flows on the image-discussed earlier-are also 
indicative of artistry." (Nickell, J., "Treatise on Relics: John Calvin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 2008, 

"Not only scholarship but science brands the shroud a fake. In addition to identifying the `blood' as tempera 
paint (containing red ocher and vermilion pigments), microanalyst Walter McCrone concluded that the 
entire body image had been painted with a dilute red ocher collagen tempera. This he equated with the 
medieval grisaille technique, a method of monochromatic watercolor painting. (Much has been made of 
the image's `negative' aspect; however, the artist was not painting a picture of a body but rather a simulated 
imprint of one.)." (Nickell, J., "Treatise on Relics: John Calvin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 2008, 
pp.43-44). Emphasis original).

"This cumulative evidence for artistry is finally underscored by the radiocarbon dating tests of 1988. Three 
laboratories (at Oxford, Zurich, and the University of Arizona) used accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) to 
date samples of the linen. The results, formally published in Nature (Damon et al. 1989), were in close 
agreement and were given added credibility by the use of control samples of known dates. The resulting age 
span was circa 1260-1390 CE-consistent with the time of the reported forger's confession. Shroud 
enthusiasts were devastated, but they soon rallied and began a campaign to discredit the radiocarbon 
findings. Despite many imaginative approaches, however, they have failed repeatedly to do so (Nickell 1998, 
150-51; 2005, 14-16). They are nevertheless quite successful in airing their pseudoscientific claims and 
outright misrepresentations." (Nickell, J., "Treatise on Relics: John Calvin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 
2008, pp.44-45).

"Calvin would no doubt have appreciated the words of Canon Ulysse Chevalier, the Catholic historian who, 
in 1900, brought to modern light the scandal of the shroud's medieval creation. He wrote, `The history of the 
Shroud constitutes a protracted violation of the two virtues so often commended by our holy books: justice 
and truth' (qtd. in Nickell 1998, 154). Chevalier's sentiments really apply to all the bogus relics-not only those 
of Jesus (Calvin lists many more: the manger, the swaddling clothes, the water pots in which Jesus changed 
water to wine, the crown of thorns, etc.), but also those of the Virgin Mary (including her garments and even 
her hair and mother's milk), as well as the relics of various saints. Some of the relics described in Treatise 
on Relics were destroyed during religious wars, particularly the French Revolution (Krasinski 1870, 281), 
but Calvin has preserved their record of credulity and worse-one from which moderns, both religious and 
secular, have much to learn." (Nickell, J., "Treatise on Relics: John Calvin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, 
2008, p.45).

"Lazarus died a natural death. In accordance with normal Jewish practice he would have been washed, 
interred fully dressed in his Sabbath best, tied up with a few binding strips to keep his jaw and limbs 
suitably together, and provided with some kind of face cloth for screening purposes. Jesus, in contrast, died 
a very bloody death, and stark naked, his clothes having been removed from him at the time of his 
crucifixion. [Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19:23] In his case Jewish law prescribed something 
very different. As has been carefully explained by Jewish-born Victor Tunkel [Tunkel, V., "A Jewish View of 
the Shroud," Lecture to the British Society for the Turin Shroud, London, 12 May 1983] of the Faculty of 
Laws, Queen Mary College, University of London, the belief among the Pharisees of Jesus's time, shared by 
Jesus's own followers, was that everyone's body would be physically resurrected at the end of time. This 
meant that as far as humanly possible everything that formed part of that body, including particularly the 
life-blood, should be buried with it. As expressed in the Jewish Code of Laws, `One who fell [e.g. in battle] 
and died instantly, if ... blood flowed from the wound, and there is apprehension that the blood of the soul 
was absorbed in his clothes, he should not be cleansed.' [Gansfried, 1927, Vol. IV, ch. CXCVII, Laws Relating 
to Purification (Tahara nos 9 and 10), pp.99-100] In these circumstances, therefore, those preparing the dead 
person for burial had to wrap a `sheet which is called a sovev' straight over any clothes, however 
bloodstained. This sovev had to be an all-enveloping cloth, that is a `single sheet ... used to go right 
round' the entire body. Such a sovev readily corresponds to the `over the head' characteristics of Turin's 
Shroud. " (Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, 2010, p.52).

"[Jn 20:30] Many other signs therefore. If this anticipation had not been added, readers might have 
thought that John had not left out any of the miracles that Christ performed and had given a full and 
complete history. John therefore declares that he has only written some things out of many; not that the 
others were not worth recording, but because these were sufficient to build up faith. And yet it does not 
follow that they were performed in vain, for they profited that age. Secondly, although today their kinds are 
unknown to us, we must not deduce that it is of little importance for us to know that the Gospel was sealed 
by a great wealth of miracles." (Calvin, J., "The Gospel According to St. John, Part Two 11-21" and "The 
First Epistle of John," [1553], Parker T.H.L., transl., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1959, Reprinted, 1979, 

"Garcia's studies show that the Sudarium of Oviedo had to have been used before wrapping the body in any 
other linen, particularly in the Shroud of Turin. The image of the face on the Shroud of Turin, as well as that 
of the lateral surface of the head, negates the possibility that this person had another linen placed around 
his head. The stains of blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo also point in the same direction. The sudarium 
therefore, was not part of the shrouding process. It was used during the descent from the cross and during 
the transport of the body to the tomb, in order to cover the disfigured face of Jesus, according to the orders 
of the Sanhedrin, and to prevent loss of blood. It was then removed and placed separately in the tomb. John 
20:7 also indicates that Jesus, had the Sudarium placed on his head before the burial, but not after. It would 
have been necessary to remove the cloth in order to anoint the facial wounds, and would not have been 
used to cover the face once again due to the large amount of blood it contained. It was sufficient to wrap the 
body in a clean white linen shroud, and is unthinkable that a dirty, bloodstained linen would have left in 
place on the head of Jesus. While Jewish burial customs would have exempted Jesus from the washing 
ritual, a clean shroud was required by law." (Bennett, J., "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of 
Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 2001, 

"There was, in fact, a Shroud of Besançon. It was destroyed by the French revolutionaries in 1794, but 
paintings of this fabric survive. It was apparently very different from the Shroud of Turin. It evidently 
displayed a frontal image of a crucified man, but no image of his back. The nail wounds were in the center of 
the hands. There were no marks of scourging, and, according to one scholar, the body of Christ looked like a 
stick, straight up and down, with the neck, pelvic area, and knees all of one width. [Vignon, P., "The Shroud 
of Christ," University Books: New Hyde Park NY, 1970, pp.67-68]" (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The 
Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday 
Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, p.62).


Copyright © 2011-2014, 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
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 3 January, 2011. Updated: 5 March, 2012.