Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory: Index A-F

This is my alphabetical index, A-F, to where mentions of "forger," "forgery," etc, occur in Shroud literature on my system. This will help speed up finding references for the "Problem for the forgery theory" sections in my "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series. To save space I will use an abbreviated in-line referencing format, with a link to each reference, but no return. This post was originally "A-Z" but it grew too long, so I progressively split it into "A-F," "G-M," "N-R" and "S-Z." I have added this page to "My Links" (right) so readers can more easily find it. Entries may be incomplete and disjointed-this is a work in progress! Links to "New/updated" topics are listed in chronological order (most recent last to help readers find what they hadn't yet read), will be re-started each month.

New/updated: .

© Stephen E. Jones

[Above [enlarge) [LM10]: Bloodstains on the forehead of the man on the shroud, including the "reversed `3'", which perfectly show the distinction between arterial and venous blood, discovered by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603) in 1593 [RS81p5]. So in addition to his many `accomplishments', the unknown medieval or earlier forger of the Shroud would have discovered the circulation of blood, at least ~238 years before Cesalpino!]

alternatives The Shroud is either the burial shroud of Jesus Christ or it it the most ingenious and perplexing forgery the world has ever seen[HT78p15-6]. Is this burial cloth a silent witness to the resurrection of Jesus, or is it the greatest art forgery known to date?[JG99p114]. "the image ... Are we dealing with a miracle? A chance natural occurrence? A clever medieval forgery?[MC81p44].

anatomical Medieval forger's understanding of anatomy would have been far in advance of that of all his contemporaries[CT99p291]. The blood flows are physiologically convincing to some of the best medical minds of our time[WI79p32].

asymmetry if the Shroud was proven to be a mediaeval forgery it would have no impact on the core beliefs of Christians[OM10p280]. But if the Shroud was proven to be authentic (which it has) it would have a major impact on the core beliefs of non-Christians[OM10p280]. Which explains why so many non-Christian Shroud sceptics have been so vehement in their scepticism[OM10p280].

before 1355 Forgery would have had to be in the 14th century[BP53p30] before the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France, in c. 1355 [AF82p88].

- arm There is a blood mark behind the man's right elbow but no body image[AM00p79]. Forger would not have painted a blood mark where there is no body image[AM00p79].
- distinction between arterial and venous The forger would have had to know about the circulation of human blood and the difference between arterial and venous blood, which was discovered only in 1593 by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603)[TF06p99] (see above).
- first No image under blood, so blood was on cloth before image and prevented image forming[AA99p104]. Forger would have had to paint with blood around image[AA99p105], which was virtually impossible[AA00p129].
- reversed `3' A modern painter, unless he had a thorough knowledge of the physiology of coagulation, could not portray this frontal clot (above) without making a blunder [BP53p96-7].
- serum ring Every blood clot has a serum retraction ring, visible in ultraviolet[AA99p104]. Forger would have to paint a near-invisible serum ring around every clot, which he would not know was required[AA99p105], and was virtually impossible[AA00p129].
- stereoregister Blood is out of stereoregister with body image[AA99p104]. Forger would have to paint with blood around image out of stereoregister[AA99p105], which was virtually impossible[AA00p129].

burden of proof has shifted onto those who claim that the shroud is a forgery[CJ84p54]. The onus is on anti-authenticists to explain how, when and why the Shroud was made; for whom it was made; and who was this unknown genius who created it[CN88p31].

coins over eyes Two button-like objects, one over each eye of the man on the Shroud, were found after the discovery that the Shroud image is three-dimensional[JJ77p88-9]. These were the same size and shape as Pontius Pilate lepton coins minted in AD 30-31[JJ77p90]. What artist or forger in the 14th century would have thought to place [coin sized and shaped] objects on the eyes of Jesus?[JJ77p91]. In 1982 Fr Francis Filas (1915-85) identified the `button' over the right eye as a lepton coin struck during the rule of Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judaea from AD 26–36 (who had Jesus crucified in AD 30), with a misspelling "U CAI" for "U KAI" in the Greek inscription "TIBERIOU KAISAROS"[IJ98p36] (Tiberius Caesar (42BC–AD37) [AF82p90]. Leptons were later found with that misspelling [AF82p90]. Excludes forgery as forger would have had to obtain a rare misspelled lepton and imprint its image on the Shroud[AF82p90]. But such a coin is very unlikely to have been owned by a forger in the 13th-14th centuries[MM91p295]. Let alone two, because later computer enhancement found that the coin image over the left eye was of a Julia lepton, struck only in AD 29 to mark the death of Tiberius' mother, Julia[GV01p99]. These details on coins over these eyes were only discovered by three-dimensional relief and enlargement of Shroud negatives[AM00p108] and computer enhancement[GV01p99]. Also no mediaeval forger could know these coins, as they were only identified by numismatists in the 19th century[BP00p135]. Impossible for forger to encode such tiny (~1/32 in. = ~0.8 mm[IJ98p44]), near-invisible details over the Shroud eyes[AM00p108], in photographic negative, with no pigment, and in three-dimensional relief[IJ98p44]

crucifixion A medieval forger would also need to have been the only human being between the time of the Emperor Constantine (c.272–337) and our own to have been completely conversant with the details of Roman crucifixion[CT99p292].

d'Arcis, Pierre According to the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377–1395), one of his predecessors Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) had "thirty-four years" earlier, i.e. in 1355[GV01p14], discovered the forger who had painted the Shroud which had been exhibited in the Lirey church in 1355[AM00p152]. But this predates the benevolent letter from Bishop Henri of Poitiers of 1356[GV01p14] in which he had praised the Lirey church[AM00p152], the indulgences granted by Pope Clement VII to pilgrims in 1357[GV01p14]. Also, if the Shroud had been painted by a then living forger, the Lord of Lirey, Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56) and the canons of the Lirey church, would have known that and would not have exhibited the Shroud in 1355[BW57p13]. If someone in the 1350s had publicly confessed to having painted the Shroud's image, why did pilgrims flock to see the Shroud when it was again exhibited in 1389[DR84p13]? Nor would Pope Clement VII (1478-1534), having heard Bishop d'Arcis' objections, enjoined "perpetual silence" about this matter on Bishop d'Arcis[WI79p89] and "allowed the second exposition to continue in 1389[BW57p13] until at least 1390 since there was in 1390 a Papal Bull granted new indulgences to those who visited the Lirey church and its relics[OM10p59]. Neither Pope Clement VII nor Bishop d'Arcis' successor as Bishop of Troyes, Bishop Louis Raguier[OM10p59], considered the Shroud a fraud[DR84p24-25]. Pope Clement VII was Robert of Geneva (1342–94), who was a nephew and neighbour of Aymon of Geneva (c. 1324-88), the second husband of Geoffroy I de Charny's widow, Jeanne de Vergy[WI98p279]. So presumably the future Pope Clement VII had been given a private viewing of the Shroud[WI91p18] in the ~20 years the Shroud was with Jeanne and Aymon in High Savoy from c. 1358 and Robert becoming Pope in 1378, and so knew about the Shroud, its history and how it came into the possession of Geoffrey de Charny and why this had to be kept secret[CN88p43]. D'Arcis himself produced no proof that the Shroud was a painting nor did he mention the name of the supposed forger[OM10p59]. There is no written record of any confession nor the name of the alleged artist[GV01p14]. In fact the d'Arcis memorandum is the only medieval document alleging forgery of the Shroud[SH90p71]. The most serious difficulty with Bishop d'Arcis' claim that Bishop Henri de Poitiers had discovered "the artist who had painted it" is that the Shroud's image is not painted (see painting)[DR84p26]. If d'Arcis had gained possession of the Shroud he would have found that it was not a forgery but the genuine burial cloth of Christ, which would have brought substantial financial benefit to his Troyes Cathedral[OM10p60]. The coincidence between Bishop d'Arcis' false claim that the Shroud was painted in about 1355 and the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390, i.e. 1325 ±65 (see radiocarbon dating) is used as the basis for claims that the Shroud is a medieval forgery[OM10p60-1]. "But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence ... Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve"[DT12p170].

de Charny, Geoffroy I One would not expect Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56), who in the early 1350s owned the Shroud and built the Lirey church, of complicity in a forgery[DR84p24]. To suggest that Geoffrey de Charny would willfully have used a forgery of no value to try and extract money from gullible pilgrims is to totally misunderstand the type of man he was[OM10p49]. He was not only one of France's most trusted and gallant knights, but also a devout author of religious poetry[DR84p24].

de Poitiers, Henri Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) whom one of his successor Bishop d'Arcis claimed had condemned as a forgery the Shroud exhibited at the Lirey church in 1355, had no problems with that exhibition. A year later in 1356 de Poitiers consecrated that same Lirey church[CN88p49], praising the church's canons and its founder Geoffroy I de Charny[WI79p193]! Contradicting d'Arcis, contemporary documents indicate that the cult was approved by the bishop of Troyes, Henry of Poitiers and by a council of bishops at the Avignon papal court [in 1357][DT12p14-5]. Bishop d'Arcis' claim that a forger confessed to Bishop Henri de Poitiers that he had painted the Shroud is worthless since the Shroud is not painted and is a photographic negative[VP02p58]. That d'Arcis had no official document to send to Pope Clement VII shows there never had been a legal process in 1355[VP02p58].

dirt STURP's Roger and Marty Gilbert discovered by reflectance spectroscopy traces of dirt on the feet of the Man on the Shroud[HJ83p112]. There is not enough dirt to be seen, so no forger would have put it there[HJ83p112]. Further analysis of this dirt by crystallographer Joseph Kohlbeck revealed that it contained travertine aragonite, a comparatively rare form of limestone, which is found near Golgotha[GM98p79] (where Jesus was crucified - Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Jn 19:17 and was near to His tomb - Jn 19:41). Those who believe that the Shroud is a forgery need to explain how the very rare aragonite found its way to the surface of the Shroud[RC99p103]. But no medieval forger would ever think of including such details, visible only under a microscope[GM98p79], which was not invented until the 1620s.

faint How did a medieval artist know how to paint a pale, diffuse yellow image that disappears if you look at it close-up[CT96p25]? It would be impossible for a forger to produce the Shroud's faint image on its herringbone weave[MG99p3].

forger Why should an unknown forger have gone to such elaborate lengths to produce an image capable of being comprehended only from the twentieth century[WI79p32]? Forger must have known the precise methods of crucifixion in the first century[HT78p16]. He must have had the medical knowledge of a modern master surgeon[HT78p16]. He must have used an art process unknown to any artist before or since[HT78p16]. He must have known principles of photographic negativity not otherwise discovered for centuries[HT78p16]. He must have used a coloring agent that would be unaffected by intense heat[HT78p16]. He must have been able to incorporate into his work details that the unaided human eye cannot see and are only visible with modern technology[HT78p16]. He must have been able to reproduce flawlessly on linen, in a single color, a three-dimensional human body[HT78p16-7]. All of this had to have been done prior to 1355, for since that date the Shroud has a clearly documented history[HT78p16]. But all this is impossible[HT78p16]! Forger would have made a blunder which would have betrayed him[BP53p90,97]. If a fourteenth century artist had invented a process for producing the Shroud, he would have used the process again to produce shrouds of apostles, saints, and martyrs[DR84p26].

forgery Critics who denounce the Shroud as a forgery have been unable to agree on a method, a place, or an artist[AM00p154]. Questions for those who claim the Shroud is a forgery include: How was the forgery committed[CN84p154]? By whom was the forgery committed[CN84p154]? What was the forger's motive[CN84p154]? When was the forgery committed[CN84p154]? How did the forger commit it undetected[CN84p154]? It is impossible to forge the Shroud with today's technology, much less during medieval times[AM00p154,234].

To be continued in the background.

AF82. Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ.
AA99. Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.103-112.
AA00. Adler, A.D., 2000, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138.
AM00. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY.
BP00. Baima Bollone, P., "Images of Extraneous Objects on the Shroud," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, 2000, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, Italy
BP53. Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," [1950], Earl of Wicklow, transl., Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963.
BW57. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI.
CT99. Cahill, T., 1999, "Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World before and after Jesus," Nan A. Talese/Doubleday: New York NY.
CT96. Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH.
CJ84. Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN.
CN84. Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK.
CN88. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY.
DT12. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London.
DR84. Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD.
GV01. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL.
GM98. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK.
HJ83. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA.
HT78. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY.
IJ98. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY.
JJ77. Jackson, J., et al., "The Three Dimensional Image on Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, pp.74-94.
JG99. Jeffrey, G.R., 1999, "Jesus: The Great Debate," Frontier Research Publications: Toronto ON, Canada.
LM10. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Face Only Vertical,"
MW83. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311.
MG99. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ.
MM91. Moroni, M., "Pontius Pilate's Coin on the Right Eye of the Man in the Holy Shroud, in the Light of the New Archaeological Findings," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX.
MC81. Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous-the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-65
OM10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK.
RS81. Rodante, S., 1981, "The Coronation of Thorns in the Light of the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue #1, December, pp.4-24.
RC99. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN
SH90. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN.
TF06. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition.
VP02. Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1970.
WI79. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition.
WI91. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London
WI98.Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY.

Posted: 20 January 2016. Updated: 24 January 2017.


Teddi P. said...

Bravo! You have put together an incredible, yet concise, compilation of information on the Shroud of Turin! Furthermore, as an attorney, I have a great appreciation for your presenting many of the arguments against the Shroud's authenticity and tackling them --very convincingly-- head on! I further appreciate, as an attorney, how you document the source of your information. Since I was in high school (around the mid-1980's), I have had an intense fascination with the Shroud of Turin which continues to this day. I have enjoyed reading the new studies that have come out over the years, and I have learned some new information reading your blog. Moreover, you have made many forceful, logical and evidence-backed arguments in against a variety of the arguments that have been lodged against the Shroud's authenticity. Again, I must commend you on both your research and debating abilities!

Stephen E. Jones said...

Teddi P.

>Bravo! You have put together an incredible, yet concise, compilation of information on the Shroud of Turin!


Thank you.

Stephen E. Jones
MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any one Shroud-related topic. To avoid time-wasting debate I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.