As promised in my October Shroud of Turin News, where I commented on the news article "Shroud of Turin Offers Some DNA," GenomeWeb, October 06, 2015, which was a continuation of my comments on the paper, Barcaccia, G., et al., 2015, "Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud," Nature, Scientific Reports 5, 5 October, in my "`Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud' #1" and #2, this is part #1 of my comments on further news articles about the study. These will be in date order, with the articles' words in bold.
"Shroud of Turin DNA Comes from All over World," RealClearScience October 12, 2015, Alex B. Berezow
The Shroud of Turin, the supposed, It is not "supposed." The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, the very burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the imprint of His crucified and resurrected body!
burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, has remained an object of fascination for the Christian faithful and scientists alike. Note the Naturalistic ("nature is all there is - there is no supernatural") false dichotomy. It is the "Christian faithful" versus "scientists". But there are many scientist who are also Christians, and who are persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud is authentic. For example, Professor Giulio Fanti, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Padua University, Italy:
"The first author [Fanti], having a scientific perspective and after long years dedicated to studying the Shroud, reaches the following conclusions on the subject. The Shroud is a particular `photograph' of Jesus Christ in His Resurrection, displaying the signs of the tortures He freely suffered for us all to be redeemed. It is the only `photograph' of Himself He allowed us to admire. It is addressed to the many doubtful persons and to those whose Christian faith is weak, reminding them that Jesus Christ has lived, and is living now, among us, and will be waiting for us at the end of our earthly life. In fact the Shroud has been especially given for persons with the hope that many others, pushed by the scientific interest aroused by this `impossible image,' come closer to Him and love Him better."And there have been pro-authenticist scientists who remained agnostics, like Yves Delage (1854-1920), an eminent French zoologist, who "estimated the probability that the image on the shroud was not caused by the body of Jesus Christ as 1 in 10 billion":
"Yves Delage (13 May 1854–7 October 1920) was a French zoologist known for his work into invertebrate physiology and anatomy. He also discovered the function of the semicircular canals in the inner ear. He is also famous for noting and preparing a speech on the Turin Shroud, arguing in favour of its authenticity. Delage estimated the probability that the image on the shroud was not caused by the body of Jesus Christ as 1 in 10 billion."
Those who would suggest a supernatural origin nearly 2,000 years ago This is another naturalistic false dichotomy. While no doubt the majority of pro-authenticists, with Ian Wilson, assume that the image on the Shroud is a "`snapshot' of the [Jesus'] Resurrection":
"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection."
there were and are leading pro-authenticists who maintain that the image formation process was not supernatural, including Yves Delage, BSTS Chairman Rodney Hoare (1927-1997) , STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005), STURP photographer and owner of Shroud.com, Barrie Schwortz, and agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow.
must contend with radiocarbon evidence, which dates the shroud to approximately the 13th or 14th Centuries. The boot is on the other foot. Because the Shroud is authentic (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence), then it must be the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390" which is wrong. But because the improbability would be "astronomical", "one in a thousand trillion", "totally impossible", and indeed "a miracle" for the authentic, first-century, Shroud to have a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, then it cannot have been accidental. Moreover, the midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years, which `just happens' to be a mere 25-30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c. 1355. Indeed, after the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1325 ±65 years, anti-authenticists claimed that 1325 was the date of the Shroud! But if the improbability of any radiocarbon date between 1260 and 1390 for the authentic, first-century, Shroud would be "astronomical," "one in a thousand trillion," "totally impossible," and indeed "a miracle," how much more improbable must the `bull's eye' midpoint date of 1325 be? Indeed it was because of the "1325 ± 65 years" date that the agnostic pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow considered that fraud in the radiocarbon dating was a real possibility:
"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated, that genuine Shroud samples were deliberately swapped with cloth of a later date ... Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible. Some, like Ian Wilson, refuse to contemplate such `unworthy' accusations. However, scientific fraud is by no means unknown, as the editors of science journals are well aware ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve." (my emphasis) And, while sample-switching fraud is implausible, there was a type of fraud which was rife in the 1980s, to which universities were particularly vulnerable (and all three of the radiocarbon dating laboratories were at universities), namely computer hacking! See my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking!"
Those who would suggest a medieval European origin must contend with a rather large controversy over the accuracy of the sample used for dating, I agree with the majority of Shroud pro-authenticists that the Shroud sample may have been contaminated with cotton which was part of a 16th century repair. However, I disagree with the majority of Shroud pro-authenticists that that cotton contamination could shift the Shroud's 1st century date 13-14 centuries into the future, to give it an apparent 13th-14th century date, let alone a `bull's eye' 1325 ±65 date! See my "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail."
as well as historical evidence to the contrary. Indeed! See my "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #3," #4, and #5, detailing artistic evidence of the Shroud's existence from c. 1100 to c. 950, centuries before the earliest possible 1260 radiocarbon date.
Additionally, despite extensive analysis, nobody knows how the image of a buried man was created on the shroud. This alone proves that the Shroud is authentic. If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, modern 20th-21st century science would certainly have discovered it and how it was done. This is a corollary of the Argument from Ignorance, that "if a certain event had occurred [the Shroud was forged in the Middle Ages], evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators," in which case "the absence of proof of its occurrence ... [is] positive proof of its nonoccurrence" [the Shroud was not forged in the Middle Ages]:
"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) ... A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence for it would have been discovered by qualified investigators. In such a case it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence. Of course, the proof here is not based on ignorance but on our knowledge that if it had occurred it would be known ... In some cases not to draw a conclusion is as much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to draw a mistaken conclusion."In Facebook terms, the shroud's status remains "complicated." It is not "complicated" at all. As the agnostic pro-authenticist Yves Delage pointed out in 1902 to his `free-thinking' colleagues who refused to accept the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity:
"If, instead of Christ, there were a question of some person like a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection".That is, if it was anyone other than Jesus, the evidence would be readily accepted that the Shroud was His, "but because of the unique position that Jesus holds, such evidence is not enough". That is, non-Christians don't want the Shroud to be authentic because that would then make Jesus authentic. And if Jesus is authentic, then they know, or sense, that Jesus would make demands on them. But those who do that are unwittingly acting out their part in Jesus' "Parable of the Pounds" in Luke 19:11-27, where the King's rebellious subjects "hated him" and declared, "We do not want this man to reign over us" (verse 14). But then read in verse 27 what Jesus warned He will do, when He returns, to those "enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them"!
Now, Italian researchers have added to the mystery. They have not "added to the mystery." They have reduced the mystery, by providing further evidence, to the already overwhelming evidence, the Shroud is authentic.
By sequencing the DNA of pollen and other dust particles taken from the shroud, This dust was in the interspace between the underside of the Shroud and its Holland cloth backing:
"In 1978 and 1988, dust particles were vacuumed from the interspace between the Shroud and the Holland Cloth sewn to it as reinforcement. ... In this study, we performed DNA analyses to define the biological sources of the dust particles ... To identify plant taxonomic entities and human genetic lineages ... target regions were amplified and sequenced. This allowed the identification of DNA sources from a wide range of plant species and human mitogenomes belonging to numerous haplogroups. The overall findings were then evaluated to determine whether the geographic areas of origin and distribution of detected plant cpDNA species and human mtDNA haplogroups might provide novel clues concerning the origin of the Turin Shroud."And this backing was sewn onto the Shroud by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns in 1534, following the 1532 fire in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry which nearly destroyed the Shroud. So for the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the linen of the Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390" to be correct, there would be a maximum of only 1534-1260 = 274 years for all that plant and human DNA to be deposited on the underside of the Shroud. Or only 1534-1325 = 209 years if 1325, the midpoint of 1260-1390, was the date of the Shroud as claimed by leading anti-authenticists (see above). Moreover, the Shroud was first displayed in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c. 1355 (as we saw above), after which it was continuously in France, Belgium and Italy thereafter.
the authors have been able to determine the types of plants and the biogeographic origin of people who have come into contact with it. The key word is "contact". In all its known expositions, the Shroud has been held by clerics on a raised platform or balcony, high above the general public, so they could have no personal contact with it (see the engraving by Antonio Tempesta of the 1613 exposition in Turin). There appear to be no surviving depictions of public outdoor expositions of the Shroud before 1534 (the c. 1355 Pilgrim's badge in the Musée de Cluny, Paris below, appears to be a
[Above: (enlarge): Pilgrim's badge c. 1355, depicting the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud in Lirey, France. It is known that the Lirey priests exhibited the Shroud inside the chapel from a platform attached to the choir screen, and this is what appears to be depicted on the badge.]
depiction of an indoors exposition of the Shroud on a platform within Lirey chapel). However, a retrospective engraving commissioned by Carlo Mallonio, Archdeacon of Biella near Turin, in 1579, depicts a typical exposition of the Shroud at Chambéry before its
[Above (enlarge): Engraving "Ostension of the Holy Shroud,"  commissioned by Carlo Mallonio in 1579. As can be seen, the Shroud is held by three bishops in front of a parapet, on a raised structure, supported by columns. Prints of this engraving had since been changed, with the three wreaths in front enlarged to partially obscure the three front columns. In the original, a photo of which is in Scott, 2003, p.48, there were also three arches supporting the structure, which in turn were supported by the three columns.]
removal to Turin in 1578. In both these early expositions, indoor and outdoor, the Shroud wass separated from contact by its general public viewers, allowing them no possibility of leaving their DNA on the Shroud, especially its underside, which they would not have even seen, let alone touched.
Their results are depicted below: See above graph of plant and human mtDNA superimposed over a world map.
As shown, the shroud has been contaminated with DNA from plants that can be found all over the world. Again (see previous),
[Above: Extract from "Figure 1: Plant DNA species found on the Turin Shroud".]as can be seen in this extract from that graph, DNA from plants (red) are found around Jerusalem and Constantinople and the edge of their distribution does not include Turin, let alone Chambéry and Lirey. And moreover, the red group includes the second and third most abundant species. The DNA of the yellow group species includes in its centre of origin, Constantinople, Sanliurfa (formerly Edessa) and Jerusalem, but does not include Europe. In particular, the "Plantain" (Plantago lanceolata), is "a native of Palestine":
"About 100 samples were amplified through this technique and it was possible to reconstruct the nucleotidic structure of about 60 of them, identifying 24 different plant species ... Many of the species detected, like clover (Trifolium repens and Trifolium fragiferum) and rye-grass (Lolium multiflorum), are widespread in the Mediterranean basin, including in the Palestine; others originate from Central Asia but spread up to the Middle East, like the pear tree (Pyrus) and the plum tree (Prunus). The latter two are related to the species Pyrus Cossonii, a tree native of Algeria, and Pyrus syriaca, a pear tree spread in Turkey and Syria. Even more interesting for the reconstruction of the historic journey of the Shroud of Turin is the English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), a native of Palestine. There are then other species, spread over vaster areas (including Europe), which attest the exposition of the Shroud in different geographical areas"Again (see above), the plant DNA found in the interspace between the underside of the Shroud and its Holland cloth backing which was sewn on in 1534 and first opened by STURP in 1978, inside Turin Cathedral, cannot be plausibly explained as having been deposited on the Shroud in the less than 3 centuries between its claimed earliest possible radiocarbon date of 1260 and 1534, when the Shroud was then entirely in France and Belgium. And according to the lead author of study, University of Padua plant geneticist, Prof. Gianni Barcaccia, "the importance of the DNA analysis lies in the great diversity of the species identified, which is atypical" and is "an indication that the Shroud was displayed in very different areas":
"In agreement with Professor Barcaccia, the importance of the DNA analysis lies in the great diversity of the species identified, which is atypical if compared with similar studies that always present a much reduced number of species. They can be related to Asian, African, and European areas. This is an indication that the Shroud was displayed in very different areas ranging from cultivated plains to mountainous areas, from arid to more myths [sic moist?] environments."Again, this is only to be expected if the Shroud has had a ~15 centuries history up to 1534, in widely different locations including "Jerusalem... Edessa ... Constantinople ... Athens ... [and] France":
"... the journey of TS [the Turin Shroud] began in Jerusalem in the year 30 or 33 AD. After concealment for years, TS would have been first moved to Edessa (now Şanliurfa in Turkey) and then to Constantinople (now Istanbul in Turkey) in 944 AD. A burial cloth, which some historians consider the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 12044. After this event, TS would have been taken by the crusaders and transferred to Athens (Greece), where it remained until 1225. Official documents attest that it was in France at Lirey around the years 1353 to 1357 and then was kept at Chambéry from 1502 to 1578, where passed into the hands of the Dukes of Savoy. From 1578, apart from some brief displacements in an effort to hide it during war periods, TS was kept in Turin (Italy) and later placed in the royal chapel of the city Cathedral inside a specially designed shrine where it has been permanently conserved from 1694 to the present."But it is most definitely not to be expected, if according to the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, "the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD" (or even 1260 AD).
Similarly, their analysis of human DNA showed haplogroups from people originating in Europe, south Asia, eastern Africa, and the Middle East. Again (see previous), as with the plant DNA, this wide diversity of human mtDNA in the interspace between
[Above: Extracts from "Figure 2: Human mtDNA haplogroups found on the Turin Shroud.".] Again (see previous), like the plant DNA, there is a wide variety of human mtDNA haplogroups on the Shroud. Only H1, H3, H4 and U5 are fully consistent with the Shroud having had a less than 3 century history in France alone, yet they occur with the lowest frequency. The high frequency mtDNA haplogroups, H13 and H33 have a centre of origin including Jerusalem, Sanliurfa (Edessa) and Constantinople. Of medium frequency is R0a which also includes Jerusalem and Sanliurfa (Edessa). The highest frequency mtDNA haplogroups are M56, R8 and U2, as well as the medium frequency M39, the centre of origin of which includes India. It is no problem for the authenticity of the Shroud if its flax or linen came from India, or even if the Shroud went, with the Apostle Thomas, to India in its early centuries. But there would be a problem for the anti- authenticity alternative because there is no record, and it would seem highly unlikely (to put it mildly) that Indians in any great numbers (indeed any at all) had access to the Shroud in the period 1260-1534, when the Shroud was in France.]
the underside of the Shroud and its Holland cloth backing, which (again) was sewn on in 1534 in Chambéry, France, and first opened by STURP in 1978 inside Turin Cathedral, is consistent with the Shroud having had at least 15 centuries history up to 1534, including Jerusalem, Edessa, Constantinople and France. But it is inconsistent (to put it mildly) with the Shroud having had only less than 3 centuries history, in France only, from 1260 up to 1534, as the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud claimed:
"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390 ..."
So, what does this mean? It means (together with the other overwhelming evidence) is that the Shroud is authentic!
It's hard to say. According to legend, the shroud moved around quite a bit, from Jerusalem to Turkey to France and to its final resting place in Turin, Italy. It is not "legend." There is good, historical and artistic evidence that the Shroud has existed (for some of the time as the Mandylion/Image of Edessa), from at least the sixth century, and indeed all the way back to the first century.
The DNA evidence confirms that many different people, from many different places, got their hands on or near the shroud. Indeed! This effectively rules out the anti-authenticist medieval forger claim, based on the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390, midpoint 1325 ±65, because there is no evidence for, and much against, that "many different people, from many different places, got their hands on" the Shroud in the less than 3 centuries it was in France and Belgium from 1260-1354.
What still remains unclear is the shroud's origin. It is not "unclear" at all. See above on the agnostic Delage's `if it were anyone other than Jesus,' it would be accepted that the Shroud was Jesus'. Ockham's Razor (the simplest explanation which accounts for the facts is to be preferred) applies: Jesus is the only person of whom it is credibly claimed that He was resurrected. The Shroud of Turin only has an image of a body that has wounds and bloodstains consistent with the Gospels' description of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection. The simplest explanation which accounts for those facts is that the Shroud of Turin is Jesus' burial shroud and the image on it is of Jesus and caused by His resurrection!
The DNA evidence is consistent with more than one explanation: (1) The shroud really did originate in Israel and traveled extensively before making its way to Italy, or (2) The shroud was created in medieval Europe, but worshipers (and plants) from all over the world that made their way to Europe contaminated it. Genetically there are two explanations: 1) the Shroud originated in Jerusalem in the 1st century and in the subsequent ~15 centuries it was taken via Edessa, Constantinople, Athens and France up to 1534, when its underside was sealed off by its Holland cloth backing. Or 2), the Shroud originated no later than 1260 and in the less than 3 centuries between then and 1534, plant and human DNA was deposited on its underside, in greater quantities than European DNA, from Palestine, Turkey, France and even India. The second option, while genetically possible, is historically and realistically, effectively impossible!
The authors cannot rule out either explanation. As geneticists, using only the tools of genetics, they could not rule out the anti-authenticist option 2. But historically and realistically it is preposterous that in the less than 3 centuries between 1260-1354, indeed less than 2 centuries between the Shroud's first public exposition in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in 1355 and the sewing of the Holland cloth backing on the Shroud in 1534, that "worshipers (and plants) from all over the world ... made their way to Europe [and] contaminated" the Shroud. Yet, the Shroud's European owners, ecclesiastical custodians and worshippers, contaminated it the least with their DNA!
(Intriguingly, the authors suggested that the DNA evidence linked to people from India hints that the shroud may have been weaved there.) Again, this is not a problem for the pro-authenticist position. Mk 15:46 states: "And Joseph [of Arimathea] bought a linen shroud, and taking him [Jesus] down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock." It does not say where that Shroud came from. And according to this website (amongst others), "The Mediterranean world ... had become like one big marketplace, attracting trade goods from distant lands as far as India and China" and "The Jews had become very familiar with [such] trade ...":
"During the first century A.D. the East and West were making a solid connection, especially with the Jews. By the time of Jesus the Jews were living in a commercial Greek world, due to the achievements of Alexander the Great. The Romans built even more and established additional trade in all of its provinces, linking the major centers of population and uniting the provinces. The Mediterranean world had become a Greco-Roman world and it had become like one big marketplace, attracting trade goods from distant lands as far as India and China. The Roman army and navy protected the boundaries of the Empire from barbarians and pirates. The Jews had become very familiar with trade and the art of international commerce. They became very wealthy and it was all controlled by a select few. Most of the common Israelites bought and sold in the local marketplace without ever realizing how all the goods from around the world had arrived there. How many of the goods had arrived there on the backs of camels and donkeys, passing through countless cities and villages upon roads and footpaths that were all but washed away by the heavy rains."Joseph of Arimathea was "a rich man" (Mt 27:57) so if the Shroud was an expensive import from India, that would only add to the evidence that the Shroud was Jesus'. But for the same reason this would be an added problem for the medieval forgery theory. As I pointed out in a previous post:
"That the Shroud's weave is expensive and rare is another ... problem for the forgery theory. The primary motive of art and archaeological (including relic) forgery is financial gain ... According to Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Professor Edward Hall (1924-2001), that was the motive of the claimed forger of the Shroud, `There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century' so `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it' ... And in a sense Hall was right! If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, then the forger, to maximise his profit, would have "just got a bit of linen." That is, he would have used the least expensive `bit of linen' he could find that would still deceive his prospective buyers ... he would not have bought it [the ~4.4 x 1.1 metre fine linen sheet that the Shroud is] for the very high price it would have been, as that would have severely reduced the profit margin on his planned forgery of the Shroud image upon it. This is yet another of the many problems of the forgery theory ..."
For now, despite this rich new body of evidence, it seems the Shroud of Turin will remain shrouded in mystery. It is only "shrouded in mystery" to those who don't want to see that the Shroud is authentic, the very burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the imprint of His crucified and resurrected body! As the Apostle Paul wrote in 2Cor 4:3-4:
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world [Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
Continued in part #2 of this series.Notes
1. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.332. Typo "leaving" corrected by "having". [return]
2. "Yves Delage," Wikipedia, 2 May 2015. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," , Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251. [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, pp.6-7. [return]
5. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.303. [return]
6. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. [return]
7. Tipler, F.J., 2007, "The Physics of Christianity," Doubleday: New York NY, pp.178-179; 216-217. [return]
8. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
9. Wilson, 1998, p.111,278; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.222-223. [return]
10. McCrone, 1999, pp.xxiii, xx, 247; Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2; Dutton, D., 2005, "Postscript: Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review 23, 1984, pp.243-55. [return]
11. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," p.170. [return]
12. Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
13. Copi, I.M., 1953, "Introduction to Logic," Macmillan: New York NY, Seventh Edition, 1986, pp.94-95. [return]
14. Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.106-107. [return]
15. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.219. [return]
16. Barcaccia, G., et al., 2015, "Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud," Nature, Scientific Reports 5, 5 October. [return]
17. Wilson, 1979, pp.24, 262; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.2-3; Wilson, 1998, pp.64, 289-290; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.22-23. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, pp.259-263; Wilson, 1998, pp.278-292; Wilson, 2010, p.302-308. [return]
19. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
20. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.12 [return]
21. Scott, 2003, p.12 [return]
22. Scott, 2003, p.359. n.20. [return]
23. "Books," Geocities, October, 2009. [return]
24. Scott, 2003, pp.47-48. [return]
25. Scott, 2003, p.47. [return]
26. Barcaccia, et al., 2015. [return]
27. Fanti & Malfi, 2015, pp.298-299. [return]
28. Fanti & Malfi, 2015, p.299. [return]
29. Barcaccia, et al., 2015. [return]
30. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
31. Barcaccia, et al., 2015. [return]
32. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]
33. "Roads in Ancient Israel," Bible History Online, nd. [return]
Posted: 24 November 2015. Updated: 4 December 2015.