Thursday, November 22, 2012

The Shroud of Turin: 2.3. The man on the Shroud

The following is part 9, "2.3. The man on the Shroud" in my series, The Shroud of Turin The previous post in this series was part 8, "2.2. The Shroud's location " and the series' first post was part 1, the Contents page. See that page for more information about this series .


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.3. THE MAN ON THE SHROUD
© Stephen E. Jones

Image of a man. As we saw in part 3, "1.1 Overview of the Shroud of Turin", the Shroud bears the faint[1] double image[2], front and back[3], head to head[4] of a naked[5], bearded[6], muscular[7], tall[8], man [9].

Frontal image. On the frontal image the man's hands are crossed over his pelvis[10], covering his genitals[11].

[Right (click to enlarge): The frontal image on the Shroud[12]. For the full image, see part 3]

Wounds and bloodstains. He has wounds[13] and bloodstains[14] which match the Gospels' description[15] of the beating[16], crowning with thorns[17], flogging[18], carrying a cross[19], crucifixion[20], death[21], legs not broken[22], speared in the side[23], wrapped in a linen shroud[24], burial[25] and resurrection[26] of Jesus Christ[27].

Dorsal image The dorsal or back image of the man on the Shroud shows multiple puncture wounds to the back of the head, evidently caused by a crown, or

[Left (click to enlarge): The dorsal (back) image on the Shroud[28].

rather cap of thorns[29]; over 100 small dumbbell shaped indentation wounds which correspond to those inflicted by a Roman flagrum on the back and legs[30], pooling of blood in the small of the back[31]. Only the image of the sole of the right foot is visible[32] and from it there is a blood flow evidently from a nail wound[33]. There is also dirt adhering to the footprint[34], which as we shall later see is very significant.

This will all be covered in more detail in "2.4. The wounds," "2.5. The bloodstains" and "3. The Bible and the Shroud."

NOTES
1. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.21. [return]
2. Wilson, 1979, p.21. [return]
3. Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.1. [return]
4. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B. , 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.18). [return]
5. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.11. [return]
6. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.1. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.21. [return]
8. About 181 cms or 5 ft 11 in. (Wilson, 1979, p.35). [return]
9. Wilson, 1979, p.21. [return]
10. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.vii. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.56. [return]
12. Latendresse, M., 2010, ShroudScope: Durante 2002. [return]
13. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.4. [return]
14. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.2-3. [return]
15. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.84-88. [return]
16. Mt 27:30; Mk 15:19; Lk 22:63-64; Jn 19:3. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.86. [return]
17. Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17-20; Jn 19:2. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.122. [return]
18. Mt 27:28-29; Mk 15:17-18; Jn 19:2. Stevenson & Habermas, TN, 1990, pp.84-85. [return]
19. Jn 19:17; Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.86. [return]
20. Lk 24:39-40; Jn 20:20,25-27; Col 2:14. Guerrera, 2000, p.39. [return]
21. Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.87. [return]
22. Jn 19:30-33. Antonacci, 2000, p.120. [return]
23. Jn 19:34-35. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.87. [return]
24. Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:40. Guerrera, 2000, p.37. [return]
25. Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:52-53; Jn 19:41-42. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.87-88. [return]
26. Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 24:1-7; Jn 20:1-9. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.156. [return]
27. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.83-99. [return]
28. Latendresse, 2010. [return]
29. Wilson, 1979, pp.36-37. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, p.38. [return]
31. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.26. [return]
32. Wilson, 1979, pp.41-42. [return]
34. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.93. [return]


To be continued in part 10, "2.4. The wounds".

Last updated: 27 February, 2013.

Monday, November 5, 2012

The Shroud of Turin: 2.2. The Shroud's location

This is part 8, "2.2. The Shroud's location" in my series, The Shroud of Jesus? The previous page was part 7, "2.1. A linen sheet " See part 1, the main Contents page, for more information about this series .


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.2. THE SHROUD'S LOCATION
© Stephen E. Jones

1578 Turin Cathedral. Since 1578[1], over 400 years, except for comparatively brief periods in times of war[2], and fire (see below), the Shroud has been located in or around St. John the Baptist Cathedral, Turin, Italy.

[Above (click to enlarge): Belltower, Church and Chapel of the Holy Shroud, Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist (Cattedrale di San Giovanni Battista). The Chapel of the Holy Shroud, which was for nearly 300 years (1694-1993), the resting place of the Shroud of Turin, was added to the structure in 1668-1694[3].]

1694 Royal Chapel. In 1694 the Shroud was moved into a purpose-built Chapel of the Holy Shroud (Capella della Santa Sindone), or Royal Chapel, between the Cathedral and the Savoy Royal Palace, designed by the Italian architect Guarino Guarini (1624-1683)[4].

[Above (click to enlarge): Interior of the Chapel of the Holy Shroud before it was closed for repair in 1990[5].

1993 Turin Cathedral. In 1990, the Guarini Chapel had to be closed because of large lumps of stone falling from its dome[6]. A bulletproof laminated

[Right: The Shroud's casket, in its bulletproof glass display case, behind the high altar of Turin Cathedral, between 1993 and the 1997 fire[7].]

glass display case was constructed for the Shroud in the Cathedral, behind the high altar, and in 1993 the Shroud, still in its 17th century silvered wooden casket, was installed into its new home[8].

1997 fire. On the night of 11 April, 1997, a major fire gutted the Royal Chapel, part of the Cathedral and the adjoining Royal Palace[9]. But for the heroic action of a fireman, Mario Trematore, who ignoring the extreme risk to his own life, broke into the Shroud's laminated glass case with his fireman's axe, and dragged the Shroud's container to safety, the Shroud would almost certainly have been destroyed[10].

[Above: Fire engulfs the Royal Chapel and Turin Cathedral on the night of 11 April, 1997.[11]

1997-98 Archbishop of Turin's residence. The Shroud in its container was taken under cover of darkness to the residence of the then Archbishop of Turin, the late Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini (1924-2011), and when opened the Shroud was found to be undamaged.[12] Because there were indications that the fire was deliberately lit[13], the Shroud's location was kept secret until 1998[14].

1998-2005 Turin Cathedral. For the 1998 exhibition, the Shroud was displayed in Turin Cathedral with a steel wall behind it to hide the fire damage to the Chapel behind it, and upon the wall was painted a trompe l'oeil (illusory perspective) scene of how the interior of the Chapel would have looked in the 1820s[15].

[Above: The Shroud (behind the curtains) in Turin Cathedral from 1998. On display is a photograph of the Shroud[16].]

For the 1998 exposition a 4.6 x 1.4 m [17], fire-proof[18], glass-fronted, conservation case was constructed in which the Shroud could be permanently stored flat in a primarily inert argon atmosphere where no microorganisms can live to attack it.[19] The glass is 6 cms thick and bullet-proof and the container is air-conditioned to maintain optimum levels of temperature and humidity.[20] The case can be tilted ninety degrees when the Shroud is on public display.[21]

[Above: The Shroud in its high-technology conservation container is prayed over by the present Archbishop of Turin, Severino Poletto (1933-)[22].]

2005 Turin Cathedral. In 2005[23], the Shroud, inside its case, was installed

[Left: Floor plan of Turin Cathedral showing the Shroud's present location since 2005, in a side chapel in the left transept of the Cathedral[24].]

in its new permanent reliquary (see below), in a side chapel in the north (left) transept of Turin Cathedral[25].

[Above (click to enlarge): The Shroud's reliquary, its current resting place, in a side chapel of Turin Cathedral[26].]

NOTES
1. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.220. [return]
2. In 1706 a French army besieged Turin, but the Shroud had as a precaution been quietly moved to the north coastal Italian city of Genoa for its safety. Then in World War II, the Shroud was secretly moved to a monastery in the southern Italian province of Avellino for seven years from 1939 to 1946. (Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.271,274). [return]
3. "Turin Cathedral," Wikipedia, 5 September 2012). [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.112. [return]
5. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.17. [return]
6. Wilson, 2010, p.282. [return]
7. Wilson, 2010, p.282. [return]
8. Wilson, 2010, p.282. [return]
9. "The 1997 Fire," Shroud.com, April, 1997. [return]
10. Wilson, 1998, p.2. [return]
11. Wilson, 2010, p.274H[return]
12. Wilson, 1998, p.2. [return]
13. Wilson, 1998, p.2. [return]
14. Wilson, 2010, p.283. [return]
15. Wilson, 2010, pp.283-284. [return]
16. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.ii. [return]
17. Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.177. [return]
18. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.350. [return]
19. Wilson, 2010, p.284. [return]
20. "From Turin: Revealed: The Shroud's New Home," British Society of the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 49, June 1999. [return]
21. Wilson, 2010, p.284. [return]
22. Wilson, 2010, p.82A. [return]
23. Schwortz, B., "2005 Website News," Shroud.com. [return]
24. "News 2000," Collegamento pro Sindone. [return]
25. de Wesselow, 2012, p.350. [return]
26. Schwortz, 2005. [return]


Continued in part 9, "2.3. The man on the Shroud".

Last updated: 10 June, 2015.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The Shroud of Turin: 2.1. A linen sheet

Here is part 7, "2.1. A linen sheet" in my series, The Shroud of Turin The previous page was part 6, "2. What is the Shroud of Turin?" See part 1, the main Contents page, for more information about this series .


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.1. A LINEN SHEET
© Stephen E. Jones

Dimensions. As previously mentioned , the Shroud of Turin is a rectangular linen sheet[1], yellowed with age[2], 4.4 long by 1.1 metres wide[3] or 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches[4]. These unusual dimensions correspond very closely to 8 by 2 Assyrian cubits of 21.4 inches[5], which was the standard Jewish cubit in Jesus' day[6]. So even the dimensions of the Shroud are a major problem for the forgery theory[§1] of the Shroud's origin![7]!

[Above (click to enlarge): The Shroud laid out flat, presumably after the 2002 restoration]

Side strip. The Shroud is a single cloth apart from a strip about 8 cms (3½ inches) wide along its left-hand side (looking at the Shroud with its frontal image in the lower half and upright) and joined by a single seam[8]. The strip is incomplete at its ends, with 14 cms (5½ inches) and 36 cms (14 inches) missing at the bottom and top left hand corners respectively[9]. This side strip is made from the same piece of cloth as the Shroud, since unique irregularities in the weave of the main body of the Shroud extend across the side strip[10]. The outer long edges of the main body of the Shroud and the side strip have a selvedge, a weaver-finished edge[11]. This indicates that the Shroud was originally woven on a wide loom, and the side strip was cut lengthwise and joined to the main body of the Shroud to give it a selvedge on both long edges[12]. Weaving on extra-wide looms is known from antiquity, particularly in ancient Egypt, but it is not known from the Middle Ages[13]. Moreover, the hand-stitching of the seam joining the two inner edges of the side strip and the main Shroud is known only from textiles excavated from the first-century Jewish fortress at Masada, near the Dead Sea[14]. This is more evidence for Shroud's authenticity and further problems for the forgery theory[§2].

[Above (click to enlarge): Side strip (left) and seam (centre) near the bottom right hand (i.e. frontal image feet end) corner of the Shroud: ShroudScope]

[Above (click to enlarge): "How the shroud was originally woven much wider than its present width. Reconstruction of the likely size of the bolt of cloth of which the two lengths of the Shroud (shaded) formed part. This wider cloth was very expertly cut lengthwise, then the raw (i.e. non-selvedge) edges of the shaded segments joined together by a very professional seam to form the Shroud we know today."[15]]

Weave. The cloth's weave is known as "3 to 1 twill" because each transversal weft thread passes alternatively over three and under one of the longitudinal warp threads[16]. This gives the weave the appearance of diagonal lines which reverse direction at regular intervals to create a herringbone pattern[17]. Such complex herringbone three to one twill weaves are known from antiquity, for example, from Egypt and Syria, but they are not known from the Middle Ages.[18]

Yarn. In 1973, textile expert Prof. Gilbert Raes was given four samples from the Shroud's bottom left-hand corner: a 12 mm long weft thread, a 13 mm long warp thread, a 10 x 40 mm piece from the side strip and a 13 x 40 mm piece from the adjacent main Shroud [19] Raes confirmed that the threads and the pieces were linen from common flax plant Linum usitatissium[20]. The flax yarn in the two pieces had what is known as a Z-twist, from the spindle having been rotated clockwise, whereas the yarn in the threads was the more unsual S-twist[21]. Raes also found traces of cotton, of the Middle Eastern species Gossypium herbaceum, in the piece from the main body of the Shroud but not in the piece from the side strip.[22]. This is very significant as we will see when we consider the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in "6. Science and the Shroud."

NOTES
1. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, p.11. [return]
2. Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.212. [return]
3. The Shroud was precisely measured by textile expert Dr. Flury-Lemberg prior to the 1998 exposition and found to be 437 cm long by 111 cm wide. (British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June 2000 [PDF]). [return]
4. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.69. [return]
5. 8 x 21.4 inches = 171.2 inches and 2 x 21.4 inches = 42.8 inches. The Shroud is 172.0 x 43.7 inches. [return]
6. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.181. [return]
7. Wilson, 1991, p.181. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, p.21. [return]
9. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162. [return]
10. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, p.42. [return]
11. Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, 2010, p.72 [return]
12. Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
13. Wilson, 2010, pp.74-76. [return]
14. Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
15. Wilson, 2010, p.73. Upper case heading reduced. [return]
16. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.161. [return]
17. Wilson, 1979, p.69. [return]
18. Wilson, 2010, pp.74-76. [return]
19. Antonacci, 2000, p.98. [return]
20. Sox, H.D., 1981, "The Image on the Shroud: Is the Turin Shroud a Forgery?," Unwin: London, p.74. [return]
21. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.36. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, pp.70-71. [return]
§1, §2. I have created a section "9. Problems of the Forgery Theory" and I will keep a progressively numbered total of all the problems of the forgery theory encountered along the way, so they can all be brought together and discussed in that section.[return]


Continued in part 8, "2.2. The Shroud's location".

Last updated: 12 September, 2015.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

The Shroud of Turin: 2. What is the Shroud of Turin?

This is part 6, "2. What is the Shroud of Turin?" a sub-contents page in my series, "The Shroud of Turin." The series was originally titled, "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have changed it to "The Shroud of Turin," so that posts in the series are more easily found using a search engine. Each contents topic below will be linked to a page with that heading. The previous page was part 5, "1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud." For more information about this series see the main Contents page, part 1.

[Above (click to enlarge): "Descent from the Cross with the Holy Shroud," by Giovanni Battista della Rovere (c. 1575-c. 1640) or Giulio Clovio (1498–1578): Wikipedia. This aquatint print accurately[1] depicts from the information on the Shroud of Turin how Jesus' body was laid on the bottom half of the Shroud and then the top half was taken over His head and overlapped at His feet. See above the front and back, head to head, image on the Shroud held by angels, with the anachronistic burn marks from a fire in 1532]


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
CONTENTS
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
© Stephen E. Jones

  1. A linen sheet
  2. The Shroud's location
  3. The man on the Shroud
  4. The wounds
  5. The bloodstains
  6. The other marks:

NOTES
1. Except that it wrongly shows Jesus' right hand on top of His left. (Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.137).


Continued in part 7, "2.1 A linen sheet."

Last updated: 4 June, 2013.

Friday, October 19, 2012

The Shroud of Turin: 1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud

Here is part 5, "1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud." The previous post in this series, "The Shroud of Turin" was part 4, "1.2 The Shroud and me."


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.3 THE CENTRAL DILEMMA OF THE SHROUD
© Stephen E. Jones

The central dilemma of the Shroud is this: either the Shroud is a work of human art, deliberately designed to depict Jesus' burial Shroud with the imprint of His flogged, crowned with thorns, crucified by nails, dead, speared in the side, legs not broken,

[Left: Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY.]

buried in a tomb, and resurrected body on it; or it is authentic, the very burial sheet of Jesus! There is no third alternative, because no other person would have had the same set of injuries (particularly having been crowned with thorns) which the Gospels record that Jesus had, nor would their burial shroud have survived intact to this day. Therefore, if the Shroud is not a work of human art, then it must be the burial sheet of Jesus!

Perhaps the most well-known statement of this dilemma was by writer John Evangelist Walsh, who stated it in the preface of his 1963 book, "Shroud" (my emphasis on each quote below):

"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground."[1]

One of the earliest statements of this dilemma was by Jesuit historian Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856-1939), an implacable opponent of the Shroud's authenticity, who admitted in 1903:

"As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished in spite of the darkening of the whole fabric. If this is not the impression of the Body of Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other personage since the world began could these details be verified."[2]

Pro-authenticists Ken Stevenson and Gary Habermas in 1981 stated one arm of the dilemma quantitatively by conservatively estimating the probability that the image on the Shroud was "someone other than Jesus" was "nearly 83 million to 1":

"The gospels say that these eight irregularities were present in Jesus' death and burial. The Shroud evidence says they were also present in the death and burial of the man of the Shroud. We have estimated the probability that they happened to someone other than Jesus, deliberately using skeptical and conservative estimates. Yet, multiplying these probabilities, we have 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus. This ratio of nearly 83 million to 1 is almost meaningless to many of us. Yet consider this practical illustration. 82,944,000 dollar bills laid end-to-end would stretch from New York to San Francisco more than three times. Suppose one of these bills is marked, and a blindfolded person is given one chance to find it. The odds that he will succeed are 1 in 82,944,000. These are the odds that the man buried in the Shroud is someone other than Jesus Christ. There is a chance that the man of the Shroud is someone else, just as there is a chance that the blindfolded person would find the marked bill. But the odds are practically infinitesimal. There is no practical probability that someone other than Jesus Christ was buried in the Shroud of Turin."[3]

Microanalyist Dr Walter McCrone (1916-2002), also a leading opponent of the Shroud's authenticity, stated the dilemma in 1982:

"Finally, I can see no possible mechanism by which the shroud image could have been produced except as the work of an artist. The faithful representation of all of the anatomical and pathological markings, so well described in the New Testament, would be difficult to produce except by an artist. They are totally without distortion and, indeed, look exactly the way we would like to have them look."[4]

Two other leading anti-authenticists, Steven Schafersman, and Joe Nickell quoting him approvingly, actually agree with Stevenson and Habermas' estimate of "the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ" and state the dilemma clearly, "there are only two choices: If the shroud is authentic [i.e. not "a product of human artifice"], the image is that of Jesus" and there is "[no possible third hypothesis":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[5] and Stevenson and Habermas[3] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate). I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.'[6]"[7]

In a follow-up 1990 book, Stevenson & Habermas pointed out that if "human artifice" has been "virtually ruled out" as an explanation of the Shroud's image, then it is not "crazy or unscholarly or unscientific to suggest the image is likely that of Jesus":

"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'[3]. 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..."[6] 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?"[8]

Since both Shroud anti- and pro-authenticists agree that there are only two realistic alternatives: 1. either the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus; or 2. it the work of a human artist intending to depict the image of Jesus; then the less likely the image on the Shroud is the work of a human artist, the more likely the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus!

NOTES
1. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud: The Authoritative, Comprehensive and Concise Report on the Single Most Fascinating Artifact in the Christian World," Random House: New York NY, pp.xi-xii. [return]
2. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.40. [return]
3. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.127-128. [return]
4. McCrone W.C., "Shroud image is the work of an artist," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp. 35-36, p.36.[return]
5. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
6. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42. [return]
7. Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
8. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R. , 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.196. [return]


Continued in part 6, "2.What is the Shroud of Turin?"

Last updated: 27 February, 2013.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The Shroud of Turin: 1.2 The Shroud and me

I will here in this part 4 of my new series, "The Shroud of Turin" briefly disclose who I am and what is my position on the Shroud of Turin. The previous post in this series was part 3, "1.1 Overview of the Shroud of Turin." For more details about this series, see part 1, the "Contents" page.


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.2 THE SHROUD AND ME
© Stephen E. Jones

Some readers, to help them evaluate what I write in this series, might want to know who I am and what is my position on the Shroud of Turin.

As I stated in my first post to this blog, I am an Australian protestant evangelical Christian, in my 60s. I have a Bachelor of Science (Biology) degree and am a casual relief teacher in Western Australian high schools.

For nearly 40 years, to the extent I thought about it at all, I dismissed the Shroud of Turin as just another fake Roman Catholic relic.

[Right: Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud" (1981).]

But as I posted in January 2005 to my now closed-down (by me) Yahoo CreationEvolutionDesign discussion group:

"I am a Protestant and my attitude to the Shroud of Turin was until recently that it was probably a fake. But I saw [and bought] a secondhand book coauthored by Protestant Christian philosopher Gary Habermas ... called "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1981). I have only dipped into it, but I was astonished for the evidence that points to it being the burial shroud that covered the crucified Jesus and through which he was resurrected ... If the new radiocarbon date `is up to 3000 years old' then, based on the evidence that Stevenson & Habermas present, I provionally accept that the Turin shroud is the actual burial shroud of Jesus and the unique nature of the image, is indeed additional `Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ'!"

By the time I started this blog in June 2007, after much further reading of the evidence for and against the Shroud being authentic, I stated in its masthead what still is my current position on the Shroud:

"I am persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ and bears His crucified and resurrected image."
Or as I put it in comment under one of my posts:
"Previously I believed Jesus rose from the dead but now I know that He has, in the same way that the Apostle John "saw the linen cloths lying there ... and believed":
Jn 20:3-8. 3So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. 4Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. 8Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;

However, having said that, as I also commented under another post:

"I myself have stated many times that I was a Christian for nearly 40 years before I accepted that the Shroud was authentic. So if the Shroud was shown to be a fake, then I would still be the same Christian that I have now been for over 40 years."

Finally, I have not yet seen the Shroud in Turin Cathedral, but I hope to do so one day.


Continued in part 5, "1.3 The central dilemma of the Shroud."

Last updated: 15 July, 2013.

Monday, October 15, 2012

The Shroud of Turin: 1.1 Overview

Here is part 3, "1.1 Overview of the Shroud of Turin", being my first topic page in my series, "The Shroud of Turin" The previous part 2 was "The Shroud of Turin: 1. Introduction". See part 1, the "Contents" page for more details.

[Right (click to enlarge): The full-length Shroud of Turin after its 2002 restoration: ShroudScope: Durante 2002 Vertical]


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN
© Stephen E. Jones

Linen sheet. The Shroud of Turin[1] is a rectangular linen sheet[2], yellowed with age[3], about 4.4 long by 1.1 metres wide[4](~14.3 x 3.6 feet).

History. The Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record at Lirey, France, about 1355[5]. Since 1578, except for short periods during expositions and in times of war, the Shroud has been held in St. John the Baptist Cathedral, Turin, Italy[6].

Image. The cloth bears the faint image of a naked man[7], front and back[8], head to head[9], who has wounds and bloodstains[10] which match the Gospels' description of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus Christ[11].

Major characteristics of the Shroud's image include: photographic negativity[12], three dimensionality[13], extreme superficiality[14], non-directionality[15], no pigments, paint or dye comprise it[16], and nontraditionality[17]. There is no image under the bloodstains, which means the blood was on the cloth before the image[18]. Any viable explanation of the formation of the Shroud's image, and any claimed reproduction of it, must include all of these[19].

Science unable to explain. Yet, despite the Shroud being the most intensively studied artifact in history, with the best analytical tools available[20], science is still unable to explain naturalistically how the Shroud's image was formed[21].

Radiocarbon dating. In 1988 a tiny postage stamp sized sample was taken from the Shroud, divided among three laboratories: Tucson, Oxford and Zurich[22] and radiocarbon-dated to between AD 1260-1390[23]. But there is no adequate explanation of how an unknown medieval artist could have created the image on the Shroud[24] and modern artists have been unable to reproduce it[25]. The Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, Dr. Christopher Ramsey, who was himself involved in that 1988 radiocarbon dating[26], has admitted that:
"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed." (my emphasis)[27]

NOTES
1. Also known in Italy as Santa Sindone, "the Holy Shroud" (Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.13). [return]
2. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Allanheld: Totowa NJ, p.11. [return]
3. Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.212. [return]
4. More precisely the cloth is "437 cm long by 111 cm wide" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.18). [return]
5. Wilson, 1979, p.91. [return]
6. Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., 1999, "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, p.3. [return]
7. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.7-8. [return]
8. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.4. [return]
9. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.12. [return]
10. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.1,3-5. [return]
11. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.122-124. [return]
12. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.131. [return]
13. Wilson, 1979, p.229. [return]
14. Danin, et al., 1999, p.8. [return]
15. Habermas, G.R., in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?: The Resurrection Debate," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, p.119. [return]
16. Habermas, 1987, p.119. [return]
17. Wilcox, 1977, p.171. [return]
18. Hoare, R., 1995, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence," Souvenir Press: London, p.51. [return]
19. Antonacci, 2000, p.60. [return]
20. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.219. [return]
21. Philip Ball, an editor for physical sciences at Nature, one of the world's leading science journals, admitted in 2005:

"And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made. It does not seem to have been painted, at least with any known historical pigments." (Ball, P., "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January 2005. [PDF]);
and again in 2008:
"It's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling." (Ball, P., "Material witness: Shrouded in mystery," Nature Materials, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 2008, p.349). [return]
22. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.189. [return]
23. Damon, P.E., et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, pp.611-615. [return]
24. De Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.167. [return]
25. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.29. [return]
26. He is "C.R. Bronk," i.e. Christopher Ramsey Bronk, listed as one of the contributors to the 1989 Nature paper (Damon, 1989, p.611). [return]
27. Ramsey, C.B., "Shroud of Turin Version 77," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March, 2008. [return]


Continued in part 4, "1.2 The Shroud and me."

Last updated: 27 February, 2013.

Friday, October 12, 2012

The Shroud of Turin: 1. Introduction

This is part 2, the "1. Introduction," sub-contents page in my series, "The Shroud of Turin." Each contents topic will be linked to a page with that heading about that topic. . The series was originally titled: "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have changed it to "The Shroud of Turin" so that posts in the series are more easily found using a search engine. See part 1, the Contents page, for more details.

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Shroud of Turin: modern photo of the face, positive left, negative right. Negative has been contrast enhanced": Wikipedia. Note that the photographic negative of the Shroud's image (right) is a photographic positive. Therefore the Shroud's image (left) is actually a type of photographic negative! But even the concept of a photographic negative was unknown until the early 19th century!]


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
© Stephen E. Jones

  1. Overview of the Shroud of Turin
  2. The Shroud and me
  3. The central dilemma of the Shroud


Continued in part 3, "1.1 Overview of the Shroud of Turin."

Last updated: 27 February, 2013.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

The Shroud of Turin: Contents

This is part 1, the main Contents page, of a new series on the Shroud of Turin, in which I will present the evidence both for and against it being the burial sheet of Jesus Christ, so the reader can make up his/her own mind. The series was originally titled: "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have changed it to "The Shroud of Turin" so that posts in the series are more easily found using a search engine. I myself am pursuaded by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus.

[Above (click to enlarge): The Face on the Shroud: ShroudScope: Durante 2002 Vertical

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'" (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, p.189).]

Yes!


THE SHROUD OF TURIN
CONTENTS
© Stephen E. Jones

  1. Introduction
  2. What is the Shroud of Turin?
  3. The Bible and the Shroud
  4. History of the Shroud
  5. Art and the Shroud
  6. Science and the Shroud
  7. The Sudarium of Oviedo
  8. Major features of the Shroud's Image
  9. Problems of the forgery theory
  10. How was the Image Formed?
  11. Is the image Jesus?
  12. Objections
  13. Questions
  14. Conclusion


Each topic above will be linked to a sub-contents page with that topic as its heading, and each topic on that sub-contents page will be linked to a page about that topic. I will continue to add topics as they occur to me. Past pages I will update as further thoughts occur to me, but it will not be practical for me to mention those updates. I will however indicate at the end of each page when it was last updated. It is probable that some pages will be out of logical order as new topics occur to me, but the contents pages will show their logical, if not chronological, order.

As this will now be my primary focus on this blog, I will not continue my critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa."

Continued in part 2, The Shroud of Turin: 1. Introduction

Last updated: 27 February, 2014.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 10: "The Image of Edessa" (6)

Here is part 10, "The Image of Edessa" (6), of my critique of historian Charles Freeman's, "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," May 24, 2012 [page 8]. See previous part 9.

[Above (enlarge): "The Vignon markings-how Byzantine artists created a living likeness from the Shroud image. (1) Transverse streak across forehead, (2) three-sided `square' between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, (12) forked beard, (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," 1978, p.82e).]

Freeman continues with his attempts to "poison the well" against historian Ian Wilson's theory that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin folded eight times (see my Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin) by the prejudicial "bizarre" and "enthusiasts":

An even more bizarre explanation comes when Wilson tackles Byzantine art. Seventy years ago a Frenchman, Paul Vignon, noted that the bearded face on the Turin Shroud has some of the characteristics of Byzantine art. All kinds of measuring was done and some enthusiasts found as many as sixty resemblances.

Again Freeman, "fails to tell his readers relevant material which might undermine his case, weak though it already is" (Freeman's own, hypocritical, pot calling the kettle black, criticism of Wilson in this paper). Paul Vignon was not merely "a Frenchman," but he was also a Professor of Biology and an artist. And they were not merely "some of the characteristics of Byzantine art" which Vignon discovered, but at least fifteen (15) unique markings on the Shroud (see above), which are all found (although no icon has all fifteen), on Byzantine depictions of Christ's face, from the 6th century onwards:

"This said, however, even from much this same early time there is actually one further even more compelling indicator that the Image of Edessa was one and the same as our Shroud. The seventh century saw another wave of Pantocrator-type depictions of Christ, which we have shown to be based on the Image of Edessa. One of these can be found in the little-visited St Ponziano catacomb in Rome's Transtevere district ... It is of exactly the same type as the Pantocrator icon at St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai that we earlier established as having been painted under the influence of the Image of Edessa. However, it features one highly important extra detail: on the forehead between the eyebrows there is a starkly geometrical shape resembling a topless square. Artistically it does not seem to make much sense. If it was intended to be a furrowed brow, it is depicted most unnaturally in comparison with the rest of the face. But if we look at the equivalent point on the Shroud face ... we find exactly the same feature, equally as geometric and equally as unnatural, probably just a flaw in the weave. The only possible deduction is that fourteen centuries ago an artist saw this feature on the cloth that he knew as the Image of Edessa and applied it to his Christ Pantocrator portrait of Jesus. In so doing he provided a tell-tale clue that the likeness of Jesus from which he was working was that on the cloth we today know as the Shroud. Seven decades ago Frenchman Paul Vignon identified another fourteen such oddities frequently occurring in Byzantine Christ portraits ... likewise seemingly deriving from the Shroud. Among these is a distinctive triangle immediately below the topless square. But like a Man Friday footprint of the Shroud's existence six centuries before the date given to it by carbon dating, the topless square alone is enough. (Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," 2010, p.142).

[Above: Bust of Christ from the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome: Catacomba di Ponziano, Wikipedia, 31 January 2012. Note the Vignon marking on this 7-8th century mosaic, a three-sided `topless square' between the eyebrows (see below).]

As Wilson correctly points out, this Vignon marking no. 2, the three-sided `square' or `topless square', which is merely part of a flaw or change in the Shroud's weave (see below) was slavishly copied by Byzantine artists, from the 6th century onwards. And just as Robinson Crusoe's discovery of Man Friday's footprint on the seashore was conclusive proof that there was another human being on the island, so this topless square Vignon marking no. 2, which is on almost all (if not all) of the hundreds of Byzantine depictions of Christ's face since the 6th century, is alone conclusive proof that the Shroud existed as the Image of Edessa in at least the 6th century in the Byzantine world.

[Above (enlarge): ShroudScope "Face only Vertical" online Shroud photograph showing the three sided `square' or `topless square' Vignon Marking no. 2, superimposed on 7th-8th century bust of Christ from the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome: ShroudScope and Wikipedia.]

As the late evolutionary biologist Prof. Colin Patterson pointed out, copyright courts rule that it is "proof `beyond reasonable doubt'" of plagiarism if two or more works share the same error, and also that the original is the work in which the shared error is a physical flaw in the text:

"An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof `beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. A charming example is an intrusive colon within a phrase in two fourteenth-century texts of Euripides: one colon turned out to be a scrap of straw embedded in the paper, proving that the other text was a later copy." (Patterson, C., "Evolution," 1999, p.117).
The `topless square' is a physical flaw or change in the weave of the fabric of the Shroud of Turin and so it has no intrinsic artistic

[Above: Closeup of face of the Man on the Shroud, showing that the `topless square' is part of a flaw or change in the Shroud's weave which runs all the way down the face (and in fact appears to run down the entire length) of the Shroud: ShroudScope "Durante 2002 Vertical"]

significance whatsoever. So those hundreds of Byzantine depictions of Christ's face from the 6th century onwards which have the `topless square' in exactly the same location it is on the Shroud, were copied from the Shroud, as the Image of Edessa. Just as a single human footprint in the sand, below the last high tide mark, proved to Robinson Crusoe beyond any reasonable doubt that he was no longer alone on his island, so the `topless square' alone (although there are 14 other Vignon markings) on hundreds of Byzantine icons since the 6th century is "proof `beyond reasonable doubt'" that the Image of Edessa is the Turin Shroud and so the latter already existed from at least the 6th century. Therefore, Freeman (and his ilk), who deny this "proof `beyond reasonable doubt'" of the authenticity of the Shroud based on the Vignon markings, are simply WRONG!

Freeman continues with his already failed quest to show that the Image of Edessa or Mandylion, is not the Shroud of Turin folded eight times, mounted on a board and framed so that only Christ's face was visible.

This is all interesting but Wilson goes on to make the absurd suggestion that this was because Byzantine art was born from the Image of Edessa, also known to Wilson as the Turin Shroud!
This is another false "straw man" statement by Freeman, that Wilson claimed that "Byzantine art was born [in the sixth century] from the Image of Edessa." Wilson did not claim that there was no Byzantine art until the Image of Edessa (the Shroud of Turin "doubled in four") was rediscovered in the sixth century. In fact Wilson explicitly stated that there was Byzantine art before the sixth century. What Wilson actually stated was that Byzantine art underwent "a quite extraordinary change in how artists portrayed Jesus's likeness, which happened very soon after the Image of Edessa cloth came to light ... in the art of the sixth century there occurred a remarkable transformation in the way Jesus was depicted":
"But why should we believe that this Image of Edessa cloth was our Shroud? The main clue lies in a quite extraordinary change in how artists portrayed Jesus's likeness, which happened very soon after the Image of Edessa cloth came to light ... right up until at least the end of the fifth century the portrayals of Jesus lacked any authority, most representation depicting him beardless ... there was a general lack of any awareness of what he looked like. But in the art of the sixth century there occurred a remarkable transformation in the way Jesus was depicted. Just two of several surviving examples will serve to illustrate this. The first is a 'Christ Pantocrator' icon painted in encaustic - a wax technique, the recipe for which became lost after the eighth century - that is preserved in the remote monastery of St Catherine in the Sinai desert ... The second is a relief portrait of Christ on a silver vase that was found at Homs in Syria, and is now in the Louvre in Paris ... Firmly datable to the sixth century, both are authoritative, definitive versions of the distinctive likeness that today we instinctively recognize as Jesus Christ. And if we compare these front-facing likenesses with the face as visible on the Shroud before any discovery of the hidden photographic negative, there is a very uncanny resemblance: the same frontality, the same long hair, long nose, beard, etc. It is as if someone has studied the Shroud's facial imprint and for public consumption has very carefully crafted an interpretative official likeness from this in the guise of Christ Pantocrator - the 'King of All'." (Wilson, 2010, pp.133,135).
So again, either Freeman has not actually read the above in Wilson's latest book as he implied he had (under a different subtitle) in this paper:
"Despite many years of research de Wesselow uncritically accepts much of the work of the veteran Shroud researcher Ian Wilson whose latest volume, The Shroud, Fresh Light on the 2000-year-old Mystery, Bantam Books, 2011, is used here."
(which would be scholarly incompetence), or he has read the above, but is concealing it from his readers and in its place telling them something else which Wilson did not say (which would be scholarly dishonesty).

Freeman continues with his careless approach to historical accuracy:

Wilson makes some vague points about a new period in art at this time and finds a reference to two wandering Georgian monks with contacts with Edessa in the 530s who may have painted images.
They were not "Georgian monks" but "Assyrian monks" who "travelled to Georgia specifically to paint interpretative versions of their charges [which included the Image of Edessa] for the newly founded churches there":
"Tradition in Georgia, the former republic of the old Soviet Union, has long held that some time around the mid 530s twelve Assyrian monks left Mesopotamia and travelled north to found several monasteries in Georgia. Present-day tour groups to Georgia can follow in these missionary monks' footsteps, and in Georgia's capital Tbilisi there is a very badly worn sixth-century Chris Pantocrator icon, the Anchiskhati - an almost exact counterpart to the one at St Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai - which is thought to have been brought to Georgia by this mission ...

[Right ( (enlarge): "The Ancha Icon of the Savior, known in Georgia as Anchiskhati ... is a medieval Georgian encaustic icon, traditionally considered to be ... imprinted with the face of Jesus Christ miraculously transferred by contact with the Image of Edessa (Mandylion). Dated to the 6th-7th century ... The icon derives its name from the Georgian monastery of Ancha in what is now Turkey, whence it was brought to Tbilisi in 1664. The icon is now kept at the National Art Museum of Georgia in Tbilisi" ("Ancha Icon," Wikipedia, 20 August 2012. If you click on the image to enlarge it and then look closely, you will see that this "6th-7th century" icon, based on the Image of Edessa, also has (like many other Byzantine icons) the `topless square' Vignon marking no. 2, exactly where the Turin Shroud has the original, being part of a physical flaw or change in its weave (see above).]

The quite remarkable new insight from one of the recently discovered Georgian documents from Sinai is what it tells of the activities of two of these Assyrian monks, Theodosius from Edessa and Isidore from Edessa's sister city Hierapolis. Theodosius is specifically described as 'a deacon and monk [in charge] of the Image of Christ' in Edessa. As Georgian scholars recognize, this Image can be none other than our Image of Edessa, thereby confirming Evagrius's information that this was an extant historical object by this time, one evidently sufficiently important to have its own `carer'. Theodosius's companion Isidore was apparently responsible for a tile image belonging to Edessa's sister city Hierapolis. Both monks travelled to Georgia specifically to paint interpretative versions of their charges for the newly founded churches there. Never before have we been afforded a glimpse of who lay behind the rash of Christ portraits that appeared in the sixth century. It is quite evident from the Georgian document that they were Assyrian artist-monks from Edessa and its environs who saw themselves as missionaries or icon evangelists for the newly revealed 'divine likeness' that had been so recently rediscovered in Edessa." (Wilson, 2010, pp.135-136).

So again, for someone who claims to be a historian, albeit only a "freelance" one, who seems to hold (or to have held) any university position, his current position being merely "head of history at St Clare's, Oxford" a boarding school:
"Charles Freeman Charles Freeman is a scholar and freelance historian specializing in the history of ancient Greece and Rome. He is the author of numerous books on the ancient world including The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason. He has taught courses on ancient history in Cambridge's Adult Education program and is Historical Consultant to the Blue Guides. He also leads cultural study tours to Italy, Greece and Turkey. In 2003, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He lives in Suffolk, England. ... In addition to a law degree, he holds a master's degree in African history and politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and an additional master's degree in applied research in education from the University of East Anglia. In 1978 he was appointed head of history at St Clare's, Oxford." ("Charles Freeman (historian) ," Wikipedia, 11 May 2012).
Freeman is remarkably careless with historical facts, at least regarding the Shroud of Turin.

To be continued in part 11, "The Image of Edessa" (7). I never did continue this series, having bigger fish to fry than Freeman!

Posted: 22 September 2012. Updated: 27 February 2017.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin

A commenter onDan Porter's Shroud of Turin blog pointed out

[Above (enlarge): Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin illustrated: The full-length Shroud of Turin (1), is doubled four times (2 through 5), resulting in Jesus' face within a rectangle, in landscape aspect (5), exactly as depicted in the earliest copies of the Image of Edessa, the 11th century Sakli church, Turkey (6) and the 10th century icon of King Abgar V of Edessa holding the Image of Edessa, St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai (7).]

what I had previously realised, but had forgotten, that Dan's "Tetradiplon" graphic illustrating how the Shroud of Turin, when

[Above: "Tetradiplon," The Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ, Dan Porter, 2009. Note that this otherwise useful illustration of how the Greek word tetradiplon ("four doubled" when applied to the Shroud, results in Jesus' face within a rectangle in landscape aspect, exactly as it is in the 10th century St. Catherine's monastery icon of Edessa's King Abgar V holding the Image of Edessa, shows only three doublings of the Shroud.]

"four-doubled" (Greek tetradiplon), with Jesus' face uppermost, results in Jesus' face only within a rectangle, in landscape aspect (exactly as in the oldest copies of the Image of Edessa), has a flaw in that it only shows three doublings of the Shroud (see above).

Even Ian Wilson's illustrations of this in his books (e.g. "The Evidence of the Shroud," 1986, p.113; "Holy Faces, Secret Places," 1991, p.142; "The Blood and the Shroud," 1998, p.153; "The Turin Shroud," 2000, p.111; and "The Shroud," 2010, p.141), show the Shroud doubled only three times.

But some months ago I cut out a photo of the Shroud and proved to myself that the Shroud can be doubled four times in such a way that it results in Jesus' face in a rectangular segment of the cloth, in landscape aspect, exactly as it is in early copies of the Image of Edessa. Here I will show how it can be done, in what is a reasonable way to fold a long cloth, minimising strain at its fold edges.

[Right: The Shroud full-length: ShroudScope, Durante 2002, Vertical]

Try it yourself: 1) print out a full-length photo of the Shroud; 2) cut out the Shroud from the page; 3) fold the cutout of the Shroud in two between the two head images, with the front head image (face) uppermost; 4) then, as described below, fold the doubled Shroud cutout three more times (making a total of four doublings), with the face image always uppermost; and 5) you hold in your hand a copy of the Image of Edessa or Mandylion - a portrait of Jesus' head within a rectangle, in landscape aspect!

Starting with a full-length photograph of the Shroud (see above right), first cut out the Shroud itself.

Then fold the Shroud copy in two, with the fold between the two head images, and with the front side uppermost. This is the first doubling.

[Left: Result of the first doubling, with the front half of the Shroud uppermost.]

Taking the first doubling photo of the Shroud, fold it a quarter way down from its top edge, across Jesus' chest. Jesus' face appears centred in a rectangle in landscape aspect. Fold the remaining three-quarters of the first doubling upwards, keeping Jesus' face uppermost in the bottom quarter. The back lower half of the Shroud photo will appear upside down above Jesus' face quarter (see right). This is the second doubling.

[Right: Result of the second doubling (ignore my white join lines), with Jesus' face now in the bottom third, and the lower half of His back upside down, above Jesus' face, making up the top two-thirds of this second doubling.]

Now, with the result of the second doubling, fold the top two-thirds, the upside down back of Jesus' legs at the top of Jesus' face panel, down below Jesus' face panel. Jesus' face panel now appears to be on top of the lower part of the front of Jesus' legs (see left). This is the third doubling.

[Left: Result of the third doubling, with Jesus' face panel uppermost and the lower front of Jesus' legs appearing under it.]

Finally, taking the third doubling, fold back the front lower panel of Jesus' legs under Jesus' face panel (see right). Jesus' face now

[Right: Result of the fourth doubling, with Jesus' face alone within a rectangle, in landscape aspect, exactly as it is in the oldest copies of the Image of Edessa or the Mandylion (see below).]

appears, after four doublings of the Shroud, alone in a rectangle, in landscape aspect, exactly as it appears in the oldest copies of the Image of Edessa (see below). This is the fourth doubling.

This is consistent with major foldlines at one-eighth intervals, found on the Shroud by Dr John Jackson from raking light photographs of the Shroud taken in 1978 by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).

[Left (enlarge): Diagram of raking light photograph of the Shroud, taken in 1978 by STURP, showing major foldlines consistent with the Shroud having been folded at one-eighth intervals, discovered by Dr John Jackson: Ian Wilson, "The Evidence of the Shroud," 1986, p.123.]

As previously mentioned, below are two of the oldest surviving copies of the Image of Edessa or Mandylion. As can be seen, in both of them, Jesus' face is within a rectangle, in landscape aspect, exactly as obtained above by doubling the Shroud of Turin four times. I cannot show it here, but readers can verify it for themselves by following the above instructions, that when the fourth doubling is viewed from the side in profile, one sees four doublings of the Shroud.

[Above (enlarge): Image of Edessa, part of 10th century icon depicting Edessa's King Abgar V, holding it, showing Jesus' face only, in landscape aspect, within a rectangular panel: Digital Journal]

[Above (enlarge): The Image of Edessa (11th century), Sakli church, Goreme, Turkey: Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," 2010, plate 22b.]

The Greek word tetradiplon is a compound of tetra ("four") and diplon ("doubled)," hence "four-doubled." In all of known ancient Greek literature, tetradiplon occurs only in connection with the Image of Edessa. Its first known occurrence is in the Acts of Thaddeus, a sixth century update of an earlier (c. AD 400) story in the Doctrine of Addai, about Edessa's King Abgar V (c. 4 BC - AD 50) receiving an image of Jesus imprinted on a cloth. The sixth century Acts of Thaddeus added new information to that earlier story that the cloth was a sindon (a large linen sheet) which was tetradiplon ("four doubled"):

"In those times there was a governor of the city of Edessa, Abgarus [Abgar V] by name. And there having gone abroad the fame of Christ, of the wonders which He did, and of His teaching, Abgarus having heard of it, was astonished, and desired to see Christ, and could not leave his city and government. And about the days of the Passion and the plots of the Jews, Abgarus, being seized by an incurable disease, sent a letter to Christ by Ananias the courier ... And Ananias, having gone and given the letter, was carefully looking at Christ, but was unable to fix Him in his mind. And He knew as knowing the heart, and asked to wash Himself; and a towel [Gk. tetradiplon] was given Him; and when He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image having been imprinted upon the linen [Gk. sindon], He gave it to Ananias, saying: Give this, and take back this message, to him that sent you: Peace to you and your city!" ("The Acts of Thaddaeus, One of the Twelve," New Advent, 29 January 2010).

That the Shroud of Turin, when doubled four times results in Jesus' face within a rectangle, in landscape aspect, exactly as depicted in the earliest copies of the Image of Edessa/Mandylion, is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Image of Edessa/Mandylion is the Shroud of Turin, doubled four times, mounted on a board, and framed, so that only Jesus' face is visible. And therefore that the Shroud of Turin existed in the sixth century, and indeed in the first century, as the Image of Edessa's connection with Edessa's first century King Abgar V, attests!

The Shroud of Turin therefore is the very burial sheet of Jesus (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53), bearing the image of His crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2), flogged (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15), crucified (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18), dead (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37,43-45; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30), speared in the side (Jn 19:34), and resurrected (Mt 28:1-6; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 24:1-6; Jn 20:1-9) body!

Posted: 15 September 2012. Updated: 19 January 2017.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 9: "The Image of Edessa" (5)

Continuing from part 8 of my critique of historian Charles Freeman's, "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," May 24, 2012 [pages 7-8] with this part 9, "The Image of Edessa" (5).

[Above: My illustration of Freeman's "four foot by four foot" square Image of Edessa (see below), marked with `one foot' gridlines, and with his own "good example" of the Image, "one of the panels of the Santa Chiara triptych (c. 1330-50) in the Sartario Museum in Trieste" (see part 7) in the centre, making Freeman's "foot by two foot square" face image, in portrait aspect.]

Freeman continues, looking first at two arguments that historian Ian Wilson provides for his attribution of the Image of Edessa being the Shroud of Turin (folded eight times, with Jesus head only visible in landscape aspect).

What arguments can Wilson provide for his attribution? I will look at those from before the sixth century later but here let us take just two. He has tracked down one of the legendary accounts of the origins of the Image of Edessa in a sixth century text, the Acts of Thaddeus (or Jude). This gives a standard account of the image having been made by Christ himself and this in itself just provides further evidence against Wilson's thesis!

Here is the relevant part of the Acts of Thaddeus:

"In those times there was a governor of the city of Edessa, Abgarus [Abgar] by name. And there having gone abroad the fame of Christ, of the wonders which He did, and of His teaching, Abgarus having heard of it, was astonished, and desired to see Christ, and could not leave his city and government. And about the days of the Passion and the plots of the Jews, Abgarus, being seized by an incurable disease, sent a letter to Christ by Ananias the courier ... And Ananias, having gone and given the letter, was carefully looking at Christ, but was unable to fix Him in his mind. And He knew as knowing the heart, and asked to wash Himself; and a towel [Gk. tetradiplon] was given Him; and when He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image having been imprinted upon the linen [Gk. sindon], He gave it to Ananias, saying: Give this, and take back this message, to him that sent you: Peace to you and your city!"("The Acts of Thaddaeus, One of the Twelve," New Advent, 29 January 2010).

Freeman had just stated that the Acts of Thaddeus is "one of the legendary accounts of the origins of the Image of Edessa." So how can a "legendary account," which claims that Jesus' image was imprinted upon a linen towel when Jesus wiped His wet face with it, be regarded as historically factual? And what about Freeman's previous statement in this same paper (see part 6) that:

In the case of the Image of Edessa there were two or three stories, that it had been painted by the court painter of king Abgar or, more usually, that Christ himself had wiped his face with a cloth and the image had been imprinted. ... What is important is that these images are not known before the sixth century and the stories of their origins must be treated as legendary.

So if Freeman believes that those stories which say that the Image of Edessa was imprinted on a cloth when Christ wiped his face with it, "must be treated as legendary," how can he then claim that one of those stories, in the Acts of Thaddeus, "provides further evidence against Wilson's thesis"? Neither Wilson, nor any Shroud pro-authenticist, believes that Jesus' image was imprinted on the Shroud while He was still alive. Indeed, Wilson actually states in his latest book, which Freeman implies he has read, that, "... the Acts of Thaddaeus ... its initially off-putting aspect is that it 'explains' the creation of the Image as by Jesus washing himself ...":

"In the case of the Image of Edessa's dimensions, one important indicator is to be found in one of the very first documents to provide a 'revised version' of the King Abgar story in the wake of the cloth's rediscovery. The document in question is the Acts of Thaddaeus, dating either to the sixth or early seventh century. Although its initially off-putting aspect is that it 'explains' the creation of the Image as by Jesus washing himself, it intriguingly goes on to describe the cloth on which the Image was imprinted as tetradiplon `doubled in four'. It is a very unusual word, in all Byzantine literature pertaining only to the Image of Edessa, and therefore seeming to indicate some unusual way in which the Edessa cloth was folded. So what happens if we try doubling the Shroud in four? If we take a full-length photographic print of the Shroud, double it, then double it twice again, we find the Shroud in eight (or two times four) segments, an arrangement seeming to correspond to what is intended by the sixth-century description (fig. 25). And the quite startling finding from folding the Shroud in this way is that its face appears disembodied on a landscape-aspect cloth exactly corresponding to the later 'direct' artists' copies of the Image of Edessa." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," 2010, p.140).

As can be seen above, Wilson's major claim about the Acts of Thaddaeus is that:

"... it intriguingly goes on to describe the cloth on which the Image was imprinted as tetradiplon `doubled in four'. It is a very unusual word, in all Byzantine literature pertaining only to the Image of Edessa, and therefore seeming to indicate some unusual way in which the Edessa cloth was folded."

And that:

"If we take a full-length photographic print of the Shroud, double it, then double it twice again, we find the Shroud in eight (or two times four) segments, an arrangement seeming to correspond to what is intended by the sixth-century description (fig. 25). And the quite startling finding from folding the Shroud in this way is that its face appears disembodied on a landscape-aspect cloth exactly corresponding to the later 'direct' artists' copies of the Image of Edessa."

[Above (click to enlarge): "Tetradiplon," The Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ, Dan Porter, 2009. Illustration of Ian Wilson's discovery, that if the Shroud of Turin is doubled four times, keeping Jesus' face image uppermost, the result is Jesus' face only, in landscape aspect, exactly as it is in the earlies copies of the Image of Edessa!]

So again Freeman, "fails to tell his readers relevant material which might undermine his case, weak though it already is" (to quote Freeman's own criticism of Wilson in this very paper), so that he can take a cheap shot at Wilson, knowing that his Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website readers would be unlikely to notice his self-contradiction.

Having softened up his readers so that they are in the frame of mind to reject Wilson's real point about the Acts of Thaddaeus (see above), Freeman now tries (unsuccessfully) to explain away Wilson's discovery:

However, the Acts go on to describe the image as tetradiplon which seems to imply some form of doubling (diplon) taking place four (tetra) times.
Freeman continues to mislead his readers by concealing from them that tetradiplon, which literally means "four-doubled," is unique in all of known ancient Greek literature. As Wilson stated in his book (see above) and Freeman must have read, "in all Byzantine [and Greek] literature" it occurs "pertaining only to the Image of Edessa."

Freeman continues:

This is not difficult to explain. All cloth needs to be folded and stored against the damp and other molesters, and this is usually done in a wooden box or chest. This would be as necessary for the Image of Edessa as it would be for the Turin Shroud whenever the latter was made.

Freeman misses the point. A cloth is not normally described by its method of folding. And there would not be only one right way to fold a cloth. Nor would it be necessary to coin a unique Greek word, tetradiplon ("four-doubled") to describe the way a cloth was folded. Wilson is surely correct when he says (see above) that tetradiplon "indicate[s] some unusual way in which the Edessa cloth was folded."

And if Freeman had actually read Wilson's book, he need not have been so vague. Because Wilson quotes from the tenth century Story of the Image of Edessa that the Image of Edessa was stored and carried about in a wooden chest:
"Thus, the Story of the Image of Edessa - whether or not it was directly written by or merely commissioned by the Emperor includes some tantalizing indirect snippets of information about the Image's physical appearance, even though it never provides us with any direct description. In terms of the Image's housing, the Story includes several mentions of its being carried around Constantinople, together with the letter of Jesus to Abgar, in a kibotos, which means a coffer or chest. In the description of how the Image had been stored in Edessa the alternative word used was theke, carrying much the same meaning. There is therefore a strong suggestion that whether it was being transported long distance or being stored long term, its housing was rather more substantial than might be expected for something that was merely a headscarf-size piece of cloth." (Wilson, 2010, p.174).

Freeman continues with his attempt at an ordinary explanation of how the cloth bearing the Image of Edessa was stored:

Now how to store the Image of Edessa? It would clearly have been sacrilegious to have folded the sacred face of Christ and one would expect that the face would be fully visible when the protective box was opened.

Again Freeman reveals his ignorance of the Edessa Image, in assuming it was stored loose. But as Wilson, again quoting from the Story of the Image of Edessa, points out, the cloth bearing Jesus' face was "fixed to a wooden board and adorned with ... gold":
"The Story also makes fairly explicit that, as a piece of linen cloth, the Image was mounted in some form rather than merely being stored loose. For it relates that after King Abgar had been cured of his disease, he ordered the Image to be 'fixed to a wooden board and adorned with the gold that can still be seen. He had these words inscribed on the gold: "Christ, the God. Whoever hopes in you will never be disappointed.'" [Guscin, M., "The Image of Edessa," 2009, p.33] The strong inference is that at the time of the Story's composition - understood to have been no later than 16 August 945 - the Image was being preserved in Constantinople in the very same mounting provided for it while it was being kept in Edessa, a mounting possibly dating even as far back as Abgar's time." (Wilson, 2010, p.174).

So Freeman's `explanation', premised on a loose cloth, fails right there! Freeman, aptly, prefaces his `explanation' with "Now let us suppose ...":
Now let us suppose the Image was four foot by four foot. Lay it on the ground, draw a horizontal fold across the cloth one foot down from the top and fold the resulting rectangle underneath the cloth. This is the first doubling.

[Above: My illustration of what would be seen (minus the gridlines) after Freeman's "first doubling" of his "four foot by four foot" square Edessa Cloth (see above). But as can be seen, this is not a "doubling" of the whole cloth. It is merely a folding over of 4/16ths or one-quarter of Freeman's "four foot by four foot" square cloth bearing the Edessa Image.]

Continuing with Freeman's already failed (because the Edessa Image was not loose but fixed to a board) `explanation':

Repeat with the lower part of the cloth ...

[Above: My illustration of what would be seen after Freeman's "second doubling" of his originally "four foot by four foot" square cloth bearing the Edessa Image. Again, this is not a "doubling" of the whole cloth, but merely a folding over of another one-quarter of Freeman's originally "four foot by four foot" square Edessa Image cloth.]

Continuing with Freeman's failed `explanation':

... and then the two sides...

[Left: My illustration of what would be seen of the Edessa Cloth after Freeman's third `doubling' of it. But as can be seen, it is even less a "doubling" of the whole cloth, being only a folding of 2/16ths or 1/8th of the remaining left edge. And the original top left and bottom left corners that were already folded in the first and second `doubling' are now not doubled, they are quadrupled!]

[Right: My illustration of the Edessa Cloth after Freeman's fourth `doubling' of it. As can be seen, like the left hand `doubling', it is also only a folding of 1/8th of the remaining right edge. And again, the original top right and bottom right corners that were already folded in the first and second `doubling' are now quadrupled!]

Freeman concludes his `explanation':

... so as to make four doublings, and you have a folded cloth, with the face, now in a two foot by two foot square, ready for storing in a much smaller box.
Freeman deceives himself. Did he ever check this out? As can be seen, he has not doubled the whole cloth. All he has done is folded over: 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/8 = three quarters of the whole cloth. And the centre one quarter was not "doubled" at all!

So Freeman's alternative `explanation' fails not once, but four times: First, the oldest copies of the Edessa Image show Jesus' face on a rectangular cloth in landscape aspect, not on a square cloth in portrait aspect. Second, according to the 10th century Constantinople Story of the Image of Edessa, the Edessa Image was not a loose cloth as Freeman's explanation requires, but it was "fixed to a wooden board." Third, Freeman's "four doublings" explanation are not even that, but a folding over of a total of only three-quarters of his "four foot by four foot" square cloth, leaving the central one-quarter not doubled at all. Fourth, Freeman's `four-folding' ordinary explanation is just that. Ordinary! There would be no need to coin a unique word, tetradiplon ("four-doubled") to describe the result and in fact, it would not be described as "four-doubled".

Freeman concludes this section of his paper with an unscholarly dogmatic assertion:

As the Image of Edessa was never the Shroud of Turin in the first place, we do not need Ian Wilson's elaborate explanation (p.190 ff.) of how the Shroud, as we know it today, could be folded into four!

Freeman evidently thinks he is omniscient, being able to infallibly affirm that "the Image of Edessa was never the Shroud of Turin in the first place"! Freeman is here like the preacher whose sermon outline had a note: "Argument weak here: SHOUT!" That Freeman feels he needs to conclude his evaluation of only two of Wilson's arguments why the Image of Edessa is the Turin Shroud, with a dogmatic assertion, I interpret as `body language' revealing that deep down Freeman knows that he hasn't refuted Wilson's arguments at all.

And as for Freeman's "we do not need Ian Wilson's elaborate explanation ... of how the Shroud, as we know it today, could be folded into four," at least Wilson's explanation, unlike Freeman's: 1) accounts for the unique word tetradiplon ("four-doubled") being applied only to the Image of Edessa; and 2) explains why, if the Shroud is folded eight times (doubled four times), keeping Jesus' face image uppermost, the result is Jesus' face in the centre of a rectangular cloth, in landscape aspect, exactly as the earliest copies of the Image of Edessa, depict it (see above).

Continued in part 10: "The Image of Edessa" (6).

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: Jesus is Jehovah! and CreationEvolutionDesign (inactive)