Saturday, February 10, 2018

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourteenth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
FOURTEENTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the fifteenth (and an update of the fourteenth) installment of part #14, "Fourteenth century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 13th century #13] [Next: 15th century #15]


14th century (1301-1400).

[Above (enlarge): Lead pilgrim's badge[2] from the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France from c.1355-1357[3]. See future below "c.1355" and "c.1357".]

c.1300 Birth of Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–1356) to Jean I de Charny de Mont-Saint-Jean (1263-1323) and Jeanne de Villurbain (1260-1310) in Burgundy, east-central France[4]. He was evidently the grand-nephew and namesake of the Templar Geoffroy de Charny (c.1240–1314)[5] who was burnt at the stake in 1314 [see "1314" below]. Geoffroy I was the first undisputed owner of the Shroud [see future "c.1355" below].

1307 Arrest at dawn on Friday, 13 October 1307 (a possible origin of the Friday the 13th superstition)[6] of the entire Knights Templar order in France, as ordered by King Philip IV of France (1268–1314)[7] [see "1119"] with the support of the first Avignon Pope, Clement V (c.1264–1314)[8]. The Templars were very wealthy[9] and Philip was deeply in debt to the order from financing his wars[10]. Following his arrest of the French Templars, Philip confiscated all their wealth[11]. Charges against the Templars included: idolatry - worshiping a head with a reddish beard[12], heresy[13], sorcery[14] and sodomy[15]. `Confessions' of guilt to these charges were extracted under torture[16].

1314 Among those arrested were Jacques de Molay (c.1243–1314), the Templars' Grand Master[17], and Geoffroy de Charny (c.1240–1314) the master of Normandy[18] (and grand-uncle of Geoffroy I de Charny - see above). They also were imprisoned and tortured[19] to extract their `confessions' to the false charges brought against them[20]. But at their trial they publicly retracted their, and their order's, `confessions'[21], so Philip IV ordered they be burned at the

[Right (enlarge. Depiction in the Chronicle of St Denis of the burning at the stake on 19 March 1314 of Templar leaders Jacques de Molay and Geoffroy de Charny, on an island in the Seine River, Paris[22].]

stake[23], on 19 March 1314, on the Ile des Javiaux ("Isle of the Jews") in the Seine River, Paris[24]. From the stake de Molay cursed Philip and Clement and summoned them to meet him before the throne of God within the year to answer for their crimes, and both died during that very same year![25]. It was Ian Wilson's Templar ownership theory that Geoffroy I de Charny received the Shroud from Geoffroy de Charny the Templar[26]. But see "1119" and "1291" that Wilson no longer holds that theory.

c.1321 Creation of the epitaphios of King Stefan Uroš II Milutin (c. 1253–1321) of Serbia[27]. Epitaphioi were large embroidered cloths employing Shroud symbolism that first appeared in the Good Friday liturgy of Eastern Orthodox churches from the tenth century, after the Shroud was brought to Constantinople from Edessa in 944[28] [see "944b"]. The body of Jesus is depicted frontally with hands crossed at the wrists as on the Shroud[29]. A fine example is the fourteenth century epitaphioi of Serbian King Uros Milutin[30]

[Left (enlarge): Example of the early fourteenth century Eastern Orthodox liturgical cloth known as an epitaphios, specifically symbolizing Jesus's burial Shroud, preserved in the Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Belgrade[31].]

Ian Wilson wrote of this epitaphios:

"... its inscription firmly dates it to the reign of Milutin II Uros, ruler of Serbia from 1282 to 1321, predating the 1350s when, according to Bishop d'Arcis (r. 1377–1395), the Shroud was `cunningly painted' [see future "1355" and "1389"] seven hundred miles and several daunting mountains away in France. ... we see on it an image so strikingly reminiscent of the Shroud's front-of-body image that, whether directly or indirectly, it can hardly be other than that image's progeny .... We see the same long-haired, long-nosed, bearded face. We see the same crossed hands. ... the lance-wound correctly on the mirror- reverse side to that in which it appears on the Shroud ... And in the case of these same hands, although the thumbs are depicted, the way that the long fingers of the lower hand parallel those on the Shroud is particularly striking"[32].

1325 Mid-point of 1260-1390, i.e. 1325 ±65 [33], the claimed radiocarbon date of the Shroud[34] [see future "1989b"]. Some leading Shroud anti-authenticists claim that 1325 was the date of the Shroud[35].

c.1332 Birth of Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428), the future second wife of Geoffroy I de Charny (above) [see future "c.1351"]. Jeanne was a direct descendant of Othon IV de la Roche (c.1170-1234)[36] [see "c.1248"], who brought the Shroud from Constantinople["1204"] to Athens["1205a], from where he sent the Shroud to France["c.1206"]. So it was through Jeanne de Vergy at their marriage in 1345 [see "1345a" below] that Geoffroy I de Charny became the owner of the Shroud [see future "1351"].

c.1335 Marriage of Geoffroy I de Charny to Jeanne de Toucy (c.1301–c.1342)[37]. She was the daughter of Guy II de Toucy (–1308), Lord of Bazarne, Pierre-Perthuis and Vault-de-Lugny and of Guillemette de Beaumont-sur-Oise (-1308)[38]. The de Charnys and the de Toucy families were close to each other in Burgundy, no more than fifteen miles (~24 kms) apart[39]. Geoffroy had no lands of his own by family inheritance[40], but through this his first marriage he became Lord of Pierre-Perthuis[41]. They had no children[42] and Jeanne was dead by 1342[43].

1337 Start of the Hundred Years' War[44], "a series of conflicts waged

[Above (enlarge)[45]: Territory controlled in the Hundred Years' War between England and France: 1337, 1360, c.1429 and 1453]

from 1337 to 1453 by the House of Plantagenet, rulers of the Kingdom of England, against the House of Valois, rulers of the Kingdom of France, over the succession to the French throne"[46].

1340a On 24 June 1340 in the Battle of Sluys, off today's Dutch city of Sluis[47], the English fleet under King Edward III (1312–1377) [my ancestor!] almost completely destroyed the French fleet[48]. Of the 213 French ships in the battle, the English captured 190, and the French dead totaled 16,000-18,000 including both French admirals[49].

1340b. Following Edward's heavy defeat of the French in the Battle of Sluys, on 23 July 1340 he besieged Tournai, which was in Flanders (today's Belgium), but loyal to King Philip VI of France (r.1328–1350)[50]. Geoffroy was sent by Philip VI to join the French garrison defending the town[51]. The defence was a victory for the French, when on 22 September 1340 with the French army drawing closer and Edward running out of money, a truce was brokered by Joan of Valois (c. 1294–1342), a sister of Philip VI and the mother-in-law of Edward III[52].

1341 In September 1341 [see "Battle of Champtoceaux" and "War of the Breton Succession"], Geoffroy fought in the defence of Angers, about 300 km (190 mi) southwest of Paris and the original seat of the Plantagenet dynasty[53] - Edward III's), alongside the Duke of Normandy, the son of Philip VI and future King John II (r.1350–1364)[54].

c. 1342 Death of Jeanne de Toucy, Geoffroy's childless first wife (see above)[55].

1342 On 30 September 1342 Geoffroy was taken prisoner in the Battle of Morlaix, Brittany[56]. He was taken to England by Sir Richard Talbot (c. 1305-1356), and kept in Talbot's principal residence of Goodrich Castle, Hertfordshire[57]. Geoffroy was then acquired as a prisoner by an English lord who had been the architect of the English victory in the battle at Morlaix, Sir William de Bohun (c. 1312–1360), Earl of Northampton[58]. Bohun allowed Geoffroy to return to France to raise his ransom[59] which was evidently soon paid because later that same year he was fighting the English at Vannes in Brittany[60].

c. 1343 According to my theory (see future below), fears of an English invasion of Burgundy (which later happened-see above map "c.1429") led to the Shroud being secretly moved by the prominent[61] and pro-French de Vergys[62] from Besançon's St. Etienne's [Stephen's] Cathedral (which being in Franche-Comté was then part of the Holy Roman Empire[63]) to King Philip VI in Paris[64]. The plan, according to my theory was that Geoffroy would marry the legal owner of the Shroud, the then ~11 year-old Jeanne de Vergy (see above), when she reached marriageable age.

Note that it is only my theory in respect of the timing of Geoffrey I receiving the Shroud from King Phillip VI and marrying Jeanne de Vergy. Specifically my theory takes account of Geoffroy I's seemingly extravagant request in early 1343 [see "1343b" below], in the midst of a war, for ongoing rent revenues to build and operate a church with five chaplains in the tiny village of Lirey, and Philip's swift granting of that request, indicating that Geoffroy already had, or had been promised by Philip, the Shroud to display it there. The theory that the Shroud reached Geoffroy I via Othon de la Roche, Besançon Cathedral and King Phillip VI (or Jeanne de Vergy direct) is probably held by the majority of Shroud pro-authenticists after the demise of all other theories of how Geoffrey I obtained the Shroud, including Wilson's Templar theory (see above). Those who hold that Geoffroy I obtained the Shroud from King Phillip VI (or Jeanne de Vergy direct), who received it from Besançon Cathedral, which received it from Othon de la Roche, include: Beecher[65], Barnes[66], O'Connell & Carty[67] and Scavone[68]

1343a In February 1343 the Truce of Malestroit (1343–1345) commenced[69].

1343b Geoffroy was promoted to the rank of chevalier (knight) by King Philip VI[70].

1343c Early in 1343, Geoffroy appealed to King Philip VI for rent revenues of 140 livres annually, so he could build and operate a chapel at Lirey with five canons[71], for a village of only ~50 houses[72]. Evidently in early 1343 Geoffroy was already planning to exhibit the Shroud at that yet to be built Lirey church[73]! In which case Geoffroy I de Charny would already have the Shroud, or had received a promise from Philip VI that he would have it in the near future. Geoffroy's great-aunt Alix de Joinville (1256–1336) (who was also Bishop Pierre d'Arcis' [see above] great-aunt[74] - see future "1355" and "1389") evidently donated the lands and title of Lirey[75].

1343d In June 1343, Philip donated to chevalier Geoffroy 140 livres of rent revenue for ongoing financing of the Lirey church and its clergy[76].

1345a Assumed marriage during the truce of the ~45 year-old Geoffroy I and the ~13-14 year-old Jeanne de Vergy. The date of their marriage is unknown[77]. In medieval Europe the minimum marriageable age was between 12 and 14[78]. The ~32 year difference in their ages itself shows that this was no ordinary marriage.

1345b In May, during the truce in the war with England[79], Geoffroy set sail from Marseilles under the command of Humbert II, Dauphin of Vienne (1312–1355) [80], in a Crusade to recapture the Muslim-held citadel of the former Christian port of Smyrna ([Rev 1:1; 2:8)[81].

1345c End of the Truce of Malestroit in June 1345 (see above).

To be continued in the sixteenth installment of this part #14 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.221-222. [return]
4. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, p.221; Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au (members only). [return]
5. Jones, 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au. See Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, p.17; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.317; Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.41; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.97; Antonacci, 2000, p.148; Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," 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, pp.171-204, 197; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 35; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.115; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.149. [return]
6. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.96. [return]
7. Morgan, 1980, p.40; Maher, 1986, p.96; 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.274; Antonacci, 2000, p.148; Wilson, 2010, p.302; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.33; "Knights Templar: Arrests, charges and dissolution," Wikipedia, 12 February 2018; Oxley, 2010, p.96. [return]
8. Wilson, 1979, p.208; Scavone, 1991, p.197; Maher, 1986, pp.95-96; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.9. [return]
9. Maher, 1986, pp.94,96; Antonacci, 2000, p.148; Tribbe, 2006, p.33. [return]
10. "Knights Templar," Wikipedia, 12 February 2018. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.117-118; Wilcox, R.K., 2010, "The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery," [1977], Regnery: Washington DC, p.111; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, p.58. [return]
12. Scavone, 1991, p.197; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.201; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.117; Wilson, 2010, p.302. [return]
13. Maher, 1986, p.95; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.201; Oxley, 2010, p.96. [return]
14. Oxley, 2010, p.96. [return]
15. Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.201; Oxley, 2010, p.96; Wilson, 2010, p.302. [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, p.190; Maher, 1986, pp.95-96; Antonacci, 2000, p.148; Tribbe, 2006, p.33; Oxley, 2010, p.96. [return]
17. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.17; Borkan, 1995, p.35; Antonacci, 2000, p.148; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.117. [return]
18. Brent & Rolfe, 1978, p.17; Borkan, 1995, p.35; Scavone, 1991, p.197; Wilson, 1998, p.274; Antonacci, 2000, p.148; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.117. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.317; Antonacci, 2000, p.148. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, p.317; Antonacci, 2000, p.148. [return]
21. Wilson, 1979, p.317; Maher, 1986, p.97; Oxley, 2010, p.97. [return]
22. "Jacques de Molay," Wikipedia, 5 February 2018. [return]
23. Scavone, 1991, p.197; Wilson, 1998, p.136; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.117. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, pp.190-191; Guerrera, 2001, p.9; Wilson, 2010, p.302. [return]
25. Oxley, 2010, p.97. [return]
26. Scavone, 1991, p.197. [return]
27. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.150; Wilson, 1998, p.274. [return]
28. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.154. [return]
29. Iannone, 1998, p.154. [return]
30. Iannone, 1998, p.154. [return]
31. Wilson, 2010, p.274C. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.137. [return]
33. Wilson, 1998, p.7; McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1, 141, 178, 246; Tribbe, 2006, p.169; Oxley, 2010, p.87; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.170. [return]
34. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
35. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.293, 300; McCrone, 1999, pp.xxiii, xx. [return]
36. Currer-Briggs, N., 1988a, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.38-39; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.100; Scavone, 1991, p.199; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.214; Guerrera, 2001, p.12; Kaeuper, R.W., 2005, "Introduction" to de Charny, G., "A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry," [c. 1350], Kennedy, E., transl., The Middle Ages Series, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia PA, p.4; Tribbe, 2006, pp.33, 44, 194-195, 230; Piana, A., 2007, "The Shroud's "Missing Years," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 66, December, pp.9-25,28-31; Oxley, 2010, pp.105-106; Wilson, 2010, pp.210-211, 213. [return]
37. Jones, 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au. See Wilson, 1979, p.89; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988b, "The Shroud in Greece," British Society for the Turin Shroud Monograph no. 1, pp.1-16, 8, 10; Wilson, 2010, p.214. [return]
38. Jones, 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," Ancestry.com.au. [return]
39. Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.213; Wilson, 2010, p.214. [return]
40. Wilson, 1979, p.89 [return]
41. Wilson, 1979, p.89; Kaeuper, 2005, p.4. [return]
42. Kaeuper, 2005, p.4. [return]
43. Kaeuper, 2005, p.4. [return]
44. Wilson, 1998, pp.130, 275; Tribbe, 2006, p.38; Oxley, 2010, p.46; Wilson, 2010, p.214. [return]
45. "The Hundred Years' War vs. The Eastern Front of World War II - A Good Comparison?," Historum, 6 July 2015. [return]
46. "Hundred Years' War," Wikipedia, 15 February 2018. [return]
47. "Sluis," Wikipedia, 12 November 2017. [return]
48. "Battle of Sluys," Wikipedia, 22 October 2017. [return]
49. Oxley, 2010, p.47. [return]
50. "Siege of Tournai (1340)," Wikipedia, 20 August 2017. [return]
51. Wilson, 1998, pp.130, 275; Kaeuper, 2005, p.4; Oxley, 2010, p.46; Wilson, 2010, p.214. [return]
52. "Siege of Tournai (1340)," Wikipedia, 20 August 2017. [return]
53. "Angers," Wikipedia, 6 February 2018. [return]
54. Wilson, 1998, p.275; Oxley, 2010, p.46; Wilson, 2010, p.214. [return]
55. Kaeuper, 2005, p.4. [return]
56. Wilson, 1998, p.275; Kaeuper, 2005, p.5. [return]
57. Kaeuper, 2005, p.5. [return]
58. Kaeuper, 2005, p.5; "William de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton: Campaigns in Flanders, Brittany, Scotland, Victor at Sluys and Crecy," Wikipedia, 30 November 2017. [return]
59. Wilson, 1998, p.275; Kaeuper, 2005, p.5. [return]
60. Wilson, 1998, p.275; Kaeuper, 2005, p.5. [return]
61. Scavone, 1989, p.100. [return]
62. Scavone, D.C., 1998, "A Hundred Years of Historical Studies on the Turin Shroud," Paper presented at the Third International Congress on the Shroud of Turin, 6 June 1998, Turin, Italy, in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.58-70, 67. [return]
63. Scavone, D.C., "The Turin Shroud from 1200 to 1400," in Cherf, W.J., ed., 1993, "Alpha to Omega: Studies in Honor of George John Szemler," Ares Publishers: Chicago IL, pp.187-225, 207. [return]
64. Scavone, 1998, p.67. [return]
65. Beecher, P.A., 1928, "The Holy Shroud: Reply to the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J.," M.H. Gill & Son: Dublin, pp.54-67. [return]
66. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, pp.54-55. [return]
67. O'Connell, P. & Carty, C., 1974, "The Holy Shroud a41ur Visions," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.8-9. [return]
68. Scavone, 1989, pp.96-101; Scavone, 1991, pp.198-200; Scavone, 1993, pp.187-213; Scavone, 1998, p.66-67. [return]
69. "Hundred Years' War (1337–1360): Truce of Malestroit (1343–1345)," Wikipedia, 7 January 2018. [return]
70. Wilson, 1998, p.275; Kaeuper, 2005, p.5. [return]
71. Crispino, D.C., 1981, "Why Did Geoffroy de Charny Change His Mind?," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 1, December, pp.28-34, 30; Tribbe, 2006, p.41. [return]
72. Crispino, 1981, pp.29-30. [return]
73. Tribbe, 2006, p.41. [return]
74. Crispino, D.C., 1990, "Kindred Questions," Shroud Spectrum International, #34, December, pp.43-44. [return]
75. Crispino, 1981, p.30. [return]
76. Crispino, 1981, p.30; Wilson, 1998, p.274. [return]
77. Wilson, 1998, p.132. [return]
78. "Marriageable age: Middle Ages," Wikipedia, 21 February 2018. [return]
79. Wilson, I., 1992, "Reviews," BSTS Newsletter, No. 32, September, pp.15-18, 16. [return]
80. Wilson, 1998, p.275; Kaeuper, 2005, p.6. [return]
81. Currer-Briggs, 1988a, p.48; ; Oxley, 2010, p.47. [return]

Posted: 10 February 2018. Updated: 25 February 2018.

Sunday, February 4, 2018

22 January 1988: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #8, "22 January 1988," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1. As explained in part #1, the first significant days 30 years ago in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud have already passed, but I will catch up and thereafter publish each day's post as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 18Nov87 #7] [Next: 24Mar88 #9]

22 January 1988 A meeting at the British Museum in London was held between Luigi Gonella (1930–2007), the Archbishop of Turin's

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a photograph of the cutting and distribution of the Shroud samples on 21 April 1988[2], showing some of those present at the 22 January meeting: Front from left Cardinal A. Ballestrero (r. 1977-1989) (not at meeting), M. Tite and L. Gonella. Back from left: R. Hedges, D. Donahue, E. Hall and P. Damon.]

scientific adviser, representatives of the three chosen AMS laboratories: Arizona's Paul Damon (1921-2005) and Douglas Donahue; Oxford's Edward Hall (1924–2001) and Robert Hedges; Zurich's Willy Wolfli (or Woelfli); and the British Museum's Michael Tite; to work out the final details of how and when they would take the Shroud samples[3].

But before that came the reaction to the letter of 18 November 1987 from the three chosen laboratories to the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero[see 18Nov87], stating that they:

"... are hesitant to proceed under the arrangement in which only three laboratories [instead of seven] would participate in the measurements. We urge that the decision to change the protocol of the Turin workshop and to limit participation to only three laboratories be given further consideration ..."[4].
On 25 November 1987 Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the unofficial leader of the radiocarbon dating laboratories[5], but whose laboratory, Rochester, was not chosen to date the Shroud, was told by Dr Vittorio Canuto, a NASA astrophysicist and a scientific aide of Prof. Carlos Chagas Filho (1910-2000), the then President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that Gonella had said that if the three chosen laboratories declined to date the Shroud, then Turin would ask other AMS laboratories to do it[6]. Specifically the Italian AMS laboratories at Pisa and Udine:
"There was no [immediate] response to the newest protest made by the labs. The rumour mill had it that Dinegar asked Gonella what would happen if the three labs refused to accept the offer and insisted on the workshop protocol. Gonella said he did not believe they would refuse. The prize was too great. Pressed further Gonella admitted he had 'a contingency solution' which supposedly was to go to the carbon dating facilities at Pisa and Udine"[7]
On 3 December Gove learned from Fr Peter Rinaldi (1910-93) [below[8].] that Cardinal Ballestrero had received the letter from the three laboratories[9]. Then on 7 December Gove was told by Canuto, via Rinaldi, that Gonella had convinced Ballestrero to stick with his original decision [see 10Oct87] that only three AMS laboratories, Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, would radiocarbon date the Shroud[10].

On 18 December Ballestrero (i.e. Gonella) replied to the three chosen laboratories urging them to agree to date the Shroud since there was no possibility of returning to the original Turin Workshop protocol [see 27Apr87][11]. Arizona's Donahue told Gove on 28 December that Oxford's Hall and Zurich's Wolfli had agreed to date the Shroud, and Arizona would probably agree to do it as well[12]. Wilson observed that all it took was for Gonella to "merely hint... that ... he might bring in Italy's Pisa and Udine laboratories" and the three chosen laboratories "duly capitulated":

"Had the three chosen laboratories held their nerve and insisted that the original Protocol be maintained, history might have been very different. But as Gonella rightly anticipated `the prize was too great', particularly for the Oxford laboratory's Professor Hall, who was in a fight-to-the-death struggle with the Harwell laboratory (still using the old Libby method), for the controlling share of the UK's radiocarbon-dating work. When Gonella merely hinted that if the three chosen laboratories declined to co-operate he might bring in Italy's Pisa and Udine laboratories, they duly capitulated"[13]!
Gove was understandably (but unrealistically) disappointed at the three laboratories' (especially Arizona and Zurich's) capitulation:
"So despite all the high-minded statements he, Damon, Woelfli and even Hall had made to me in writing that they would stick by the protocol, it all went down the drain as soon as their bluff was called by Gonella. That was all it was — pure and simple bluff. I was not surprised that Hall took this position but I was deeply disappointed that Damon, Donahue and Woelfli, whom I regarded as personal friends as well as colleagues, did so as well. Would I have done the same if I were in their shoes? I thought not, but one could never know unless one really were put in that position"[14].
It wasn't bluff. If the three chosen laboratories had refused to date the Shroud, then Turin would have been free to find some other radiocarbon dating laboratories who would. And as for Gove's, "I thought not", he later admitted to Donahue,"I can't disguise from you the fact that I envy the hell out of you"[15] because Donahue was going to date the Shroud and Gove (due to his anti-Christian hostility towards STURP and Turin - see 27Apr87, 15Jun87 & 10Oct87) was not!

On 15 January 1988 Gove and Brookhaven's Garman Harbottle (1923-2016) [below[16].] held a press conference at Columbia University in New York City[17] "to protest the archbishop's abrogation of the Turin Workshop Protocol"[18] and to "make it clear to the general public that some responsible scientists thought the project would suffer if only three labs were involved"[19]. Their aim was to put pressure on Cardinal Ballestrero before "the three labs actually agreed to date the shroud" [sic] at the 22 January meeting, so that "he would compromise"[20]. To that end they were prepared to lie to "Senator Al D'Amato and/or Daniel Patrick Moynihan" who were "the two senators from New York State" by claiming falsely that, "inexplicably we have been excluded from the dating endeavour":

"We ... are the two New York laboratories who had made the first proposal to date the shroud. We were the developers of both the AMS and the small-counter technique and inexplicably we have been excluded from the dating endeavour. Could the senators by inquiry through our Ambassador to the Holy See find out why two such distinguished laboratories were summarily excluded?"[21].
When in Gove's own book, he had already quoted Cardinal Ballestrero's explanation why he chose only the three AMS laboratories, Arizona, Oxford and Zurich to date the Shroud:
"The choice of the three laboratories among the seven which offered their services was made, after long deliberation and careful consultation, on a criterion of internationality and consideration for the specific experience in the field of archaeological radiocarbon dating, taking also into account the required sample size. On this criterion [sic] the following laboratories are selected: Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Arizona Research Laboratory for Archaeology, Oxford University Radiocarbon Laboratory, ETH, Zurich"[22].
See 10Oct87 that, "On the criterion of ... sample size ... the non-AMS laboratories Harwell and Brookhaven would need two to three times the amount of Shroud sample than the AMS laboratories ... This alone eliminated the non-AMS laboratories" Brookhaven and Harwell. Then of the AMS laboratories, by the criterion of "specific experience in the field of archaeological radiocarbon dating ... Gove's Rochester and Gif-sur-Yvette ... had less than Arizona, Oxford and Zurich." And "the criterion of `internationality' meant only one laboratory each from the USA, England and Europe ... leaving ... Arizona ... Oxford ... and ... Zurich." That Rochester's Gove and Brookhaven's Harbottle did not agree with Turin's explanation does not mean that they can truthfully claim it is not an explanation!

At the press conference on 15 January, only about "a dozen people or so showed up"[23]. Gove consoled himself with, "Although the turnout was not large, the actual coverage by the world's press was quite substantial"[24]. But he admitted that The New York Times did not send a reporter across town to attend the conference, and its article by science writer, Walter Sullivan[25], based on a phone call with Gove the day before, "was not up to his usual standards"[26]. Gove claimed that the Chicago Tribune on 17 January[27] "carried a very good article on the shroud" [sic][28]. But Gove made the mistake of personally attacking Gonella as, "a man nobody (in the scientific community) ever heard of":

"We felt that the cardinal was being given extraordinarily bad advice by his science advisor. That's Luigi Gonella. He's a professor of metrology, whatever that is, at Turin Polytechnic. He's a man nobody (in the scientific community) ever heard of"[29].
This meant that Gonella had to be contacted in Turin to give his side of the story, which Gove mentions but does not quote[30]. But in the Chicago Tribune article, Gonella made the telling point that Gove and Harbottle's "press conference... [was] just an effort to intimidate" them but "It's not going to work ... It won't change anything":
"Gonella, contacted at his office in Turin, refused to give a reason for the reduction in labs or discuss Friday's impending meeting, which he called a private matter. He added that he would not budge on the decision just because Gove and Harbottle were upset about it. `I do not have to account for my credentials to Gove and Harbottle,' he said. `As a professor at Turin Polytechnic, I only have to account to my faculty. This business of holding press conferences is just an effort to intimidate people who don't agree with you. It's not going to work. They can hold all the press conferences they want. It won't change anything.' Gonella accused Gove and Harbottle of bad faith, saying neither of them answered Ballestrero's most recent letter discussing the move to three labs and he said the protocol adopted at the Turin meeting was only a suggestion, never an agreement. `It was agreed that there would be no advance publicity on this,' he said. `We are keeping our end of the bargain whether they do or not'"[31].
On 19 January Gove talked to Zurich's Wolfli, who said that at the 22 January meeting in London, the three laboratories "would ask for very restrictive conditions ... and if Gonella would not accept them then he would withdraw"[32]. Wolfli told Gove that, "Gonella had asked why the shroud [sic] was any different from any other important carbon dating Woelfli did every day?" But evidently Wolfli had no good answer, because Gove does not give one for his readers benefit, but lamely wrote, "I assume Woelfli was patient in his explanation"[33]. But Wolfli could hardly give, nor Gove print, the true reason why Gove insisted on seven laboratories to date the Shroud, which is that, "... despite Gove's Rochester laboratory being where radiocarbon dating was invented, Gove admitted in the Turin Workshop that Rochester had the least experience of radiocarbon dating" and "Therefore, unless seven laboratories dated the Shroud, Gove would have no part in it" [see 18Nov87]!

On 22 January Gove received a phone call from Roger Highfield, a science writer for the London Daily Telegraph, informing him that the meeting (see above) had been held and:

"The decision was to use only the three labs, the shroud [sic] sampling would be videotaped, they would try to respect the agreement of the Turin workshop as far as possible and the results should be available by the end of the year"[34].
On 25 January 1988 Gove phoned Donahue, who told him:
"... it [the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud] was going ahead and nothing was going to stop it. The meeting had been attended by people from the three laboratories, Tite and Gonella. There had been a fair amount of enthusiasm on the part of most of the people there. I asked what mood Luigi [Gonella] had been in and he said that he had been quite agreeable ... Every request or demand they had made (and he admitted they had not really made any demands) about how the operation should be carried out had seemed reasonable to Gonella. His response to all of them was that he would consult the cardinal"[35].
Donahue then read to Gove a press release that he, Tite and Gonella had composed:
"Representatives of the three radiocarbon dating laboratories, Arizona, Oxford and Zurich, accepted by the Vatican to undertake the radiocarbon dating of the shroud met on 22 January at the British Museum together with Professor Luigi Gonella, the scientific advisor to the Cardinal of Turin and Dr Michael Tite of the British Museum who had been invited to help in the certification of the operation. After discussion, they accepted the decision of the Vatican to use no more than three samples in the interest of conservation of the shroud [sic]. Procedures for taking the samples from the shroud and for the treatment of the results were discussed and proposals on this will be submitted to the Archbishop of Turin for his agreement. It is proposed that, as far as possible, the spirit of the original protocol of the 1986 meeting be retained. Each laboratory will be provided with control samples of known age. The samples will be taken from the main body of the shroud away from patches or charred areas under the supervision of a qualified expert. Certification of the samples will be undertaken by the Archbishop of Turin, Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero, Pontifical Custodian of the Shroud of Turin and by Michael Tite of the British Museum. Representatives of the three laboratories will be present in Turin to receive the samples. The overall procedure will be fully recorded by video film and photography. The laboratories will submit their results for statistical analysis to the British Museum and to the Institute for Metrology 'G Colonnetti'. The timetable for the operation has not been established but it is hoped that the radiocarbon dates on the Shroud of Turin will be released by the end of 1988. If these proposals are approved by the cardinal, then a letter will be submitted to Nature giving further details of the procedure. The participants of this meeting wish to take this opportunity to record their appreciation to Professor Carlos Chagas, President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who chaired the original meeting in Turin in October 1986 as well as the other participants who played a crucial role in moving the project forward"[36].

So Gove, "who had spent nearly ten years bringing the project into being and was now not even to have a look-in"[37] had comprehensively failed and his only `reward' was to be thanked anonymously as just one of "the other participants who played a crucial role in moving the project forward"! But that was Gove's own fault, due to, "... by [his] own account in his book ... confrontational and divide-and-conquer approach, riding roughshod over both STURP and Turin's Gonella, to achieve a result that was acceptable only to the seven laboratories [see 10Oct87]."

Note that so great was Gove the agnostic's[38] antagonism towards Christianity and the Shroud that he cannot bring himself to use correct English and capitalise "Shroud" as the proper noun it is. The same press release is quoted in full in Garza-Valdes' "The DNA of God?" (1998)[39], which is online, and as can be seen it has "Shroud" capitalised. So Gove evidently went out of his way to uncapitalise "Shroud"!

To be continued in the next part #9 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.82A. [return]
3. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.228; 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.184, 308. [return]
4. Gove, 1996, pp.222-223; Wilson, 1998, p.184. [return]
5. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," The Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.95; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.192-193. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, pp.224-225. [return]
8. "7th Fr. Peter M. Rinaldi Awards Dinner," Event Management Services, 2017. [return]
7. Sox, 1988, p.117. [return]
8. "7th Fr. Peter M. Rinaldi Awards Dinner," Event Management Services, 2017. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.226. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. Gove, 1996, p.227. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Wilson, 1998, p.184. [return]
14. Gove, 1996, p.227. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.241. [return]
16. "Garman Harbottle: Senior Chemist Emeritus," Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton NY, 2011. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, pp.228, 232; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.45. [return]
18. Gove, 1996, p.324. [return]
19. Gove, 1996, p.228; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.45. [return]
20. Gove, 1996, p.228. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, pp.228-229. [return]
22. Gove, 1996, p.214. [return]
23. Gove, 1996, p.232. [return]
24. Ibid. [return]
25. Sullivan, W., 1988, "Three Laboratories Are Chosen to Determine Age of Shroud of Turin," The New York Times, January 16. [return]
26. Gove, 1996, pp.231-232. [return]
27. Clark, K.R., 1988, "Shroud of Turin Controversy Resumes," Chicago Tribune, January 17. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, pp.232-233. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, p.233. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. Clark, 1988. [return]
32. Gove, 1996, pp.234-235. [return]
33. Gove, 1996, p.235. [return]
34. Gove, 1996, pp.235-236. [return]
35. Gove, 1996, p.239. [return]
36. Gove, 1996, pp.239-240. [return]
37. Wilson, 1998, p.184. [return]
38. Gove, 1996, p.101; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.9. [return]
39. Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp.177-178. [return]

Posted: 4 February 2018. Updated: 13 February 2018.

Friday, February 2, 2018

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, January 2018

Shroud of Turin News - January 2018
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: December 2017, part #1] [Next: February 2018, part #1]

This is the second and final installment of "Editorial and Contents," part #1, of the January 2018 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. I have listed linked news article(s) about the Shroud in January as a service to readers, without necessarily endorsing them.

Contents:
Editorial
"Is the Shroud of Turin Evidence of Jesus' Existence?," The Christian Post, 20 January 2018.


Editorial
Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word- processing of the 118 issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in January up to issue #94, April 1996. [Right (enlarge)], i.e ~80% completed. Issues in that archive are now up to #93, February 1996.

News: Death of Prof. Franco Testore. In January Joe Marino emailed me that he had been informed by a Piero Iacazio that Prof. Franco Testore [Below [2].] had died on 14 January 2018. Joe referred me to this brief Facebook post translated from Italian. The following is my brief obituary of Prof. Testore. Dr Franco A. Testore was a professor at the Polytechnic University of Turin[3], and Director of that university's Textile Department[4]. Testore and [Gabriel Vial[5] were the two textile experts invited to observe the cutting of the Shroud sample for radiocarbon dating on 21 April 1988[6]. They were seeing the Shroud for the first time[7] and Testore (not unreasonably although it has been ridiculed by anti-authenticists Sox and Gove[8]), pointed to the bloodstain of the spear wound in the side and asked: "What's that large brown patch?"[9]. Turin microanalyst Prof. Giovanni Riggi di Numana (1935-2008) and Testore, selected the area of the Shroud to be cut[10].Testore then weighed the sample cut from the Shroud[11], and also the three subsamples cut and distributed to the three radiocarbon dating laboratories: Arizona, Zurich and Oxford[12].

Posts: In January I blogged 5 new posts (latest uppermost): "Burns #27: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 20th; "Other marks and images #26: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 19th; "12th-11th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (3): Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #11" - 14th; "Obituary (2): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)" - 2nd and "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, December 2017" - 1st.

Updates There were no significant updates in the background of past posts in January. Except that I completed going through my posts of 2017, and saving linked photos in case they become no longer online. So now I have backups of all my posted photos which I can substitute for any such photo which goes offline.

Comments: In January, I received a comment under my post, "Obituary (2): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)," from Antero de Frias Moreira and Maria da Glória Barroso of the Centro Português de Sindonologia. I presume she is his wife Maria da Glória Moreira in the photograph [Right[13].] Their comment agreed with my post that Alan Whanger was too subjective in his Points of Congruence identifications, but that he made "interesting findings namely his claims on flower images on the Shroud" and "X-Ray photographs." In my response I agreed and wrote that, "I am going to give Whanger credit for" his discovery of flower images on the Shroud [see my 06Apr13] "when I get to that part." And also, "See my `X-rays #22' post" that "Whanger's `Autoradiography' [which I will also get to eventually in my multi-part obituary of Whanger] was his most important discovery for which he should be remembered, not his `Points of Congruence.'"

I deleted as both "offensive" and "substandard" a comment in January which was a ad hominem personal attack on me, and also it was irrational. But again I won't give details because that is what the commenter would want!

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: I blogged one post about my radiocarbon dating hacker theory in January, namely "12th-11th centuries: Shroud's 1260-1390 radiocarbon date is against the preponderance of the evidence (3) ... #11."

My book: In January I started on the "Second century" section of "Chapter 6, "History and the Shroud," in the dot-point outline of my book, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Sheet of Jesus!" (see 06Jul17). But my progress is too slow and I need to give it a higher priority!

[Right (enlarge): The planned cover of my book.]

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 January 2018, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 842,205. This compares with 685,705 (up 156,500 or 22.8%) from the same time in January 2017. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear ," Mar 18, 2011 - 130"; "Obituary (2): Dr. Alan Duane Whanger (17 July 1930 - 21 October 2017)" Jan 2, 2018 - 105; "Other marks and images #26: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Jan 19, 2018 - 104; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified.," Dec 2, 2013 - 81. Again, I cannot explain the continued popularity of my 2011 post, "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear ." Perhaps it is found by people interested in blood types, not the Shroud?


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Conferenza sulla Sacra Sindone di Torino del Professore Franco Testore al Museo d'Arte di Chianciano," YouTube, October 7, 2009. [return]
3. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611; Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.260; 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.309; Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, p.77; Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.63. [return]
4. Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.77. [return]
5. Gove, 1996, p.260; Rogers, 2008, p.63. [return]
6. Damon, 1989, p.611; Gove, 1996, p.260; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.58; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.162. [return]
7. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.60. [return]
8. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.133; Gove, 1996, p.260. [return]
9. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.60; Wilson, 1998, p.309. [return]
10. Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.179. [return]
11. Garza-Valdes, 1998, p.77. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, p.260. [return]
13. "Antero de Frias Moreira," Holy Shroud Guild, past, present, & future, 2017. [return]

Posted: 2 February 2018. 3 February 2018.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Burns #27: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

BURNS #27
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the twelfth and final (being an update of the seventh and a further update of the ninth) installment of part #27, "Other marks and images: burns," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. Again see also, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (1): Burns and water stains."

[Main index #1] [Previous: Other marks and images #26] [Next: Water stains #28]


  1. Other marks and images #26
    1. Burns #27

Introduction The most obvious[2] and prominent[3] marks on the Shroud are those resulting from a fire in AD 1532 (see below).

[Right (enlarge): Burns marks and patches on the frontal half of the Shroud resulting from the 1532 fire (outlined in green)[4]. The body image appears prominent in this photo but that is because it is enhanced by photography[5]. Seen directly it is very faint (see "Faint #11").]

1532 fire On the night of 4 December 1532 a fire broke broke out in the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, France[6] (see below), where the Shroud had been kept since 1502[7]. The Shroud was folded in 48 layers[8] inside a wooden casket overlaid with silver[9]

[Left (enlarge): The restored Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, as it is today[10], after it was all but destroyed by a fire in 1532.]

that had been donated in 1509 by a former Duchess of Savoy, Margaret of Austria (1480–1530)[11]. The casket was in a cavity in the wall above the high altar behind an iron grille, secured by four locks each with a different

[Right (enlarge): The cavity in a wall of the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry[12], from where the Shroud was rescued in the 1532 fire.]

key and keyholder[13]. One of the keys was held by Canon Philip Lambert, who was present[14] but the other keyholders could not be located in time[15]. A local blacksmith, Guglielmo Pussod[16], was summonsed who, at great personal risk from falling burning roof timbers, prised opened the grille[17], and with the help of Canon Lambert, two of his clergy and the Duke's butler, carried the Shroud in its burning casket to safety[18].

Molten silver burned Shroud So hot was the fire that the casket's silver overlay had melted (at the melting point of silver ~960°C = ~1762°F)[19] and burned through a corner of the casket[20]. A drop of molten silver fell onto a corner of the folded Shroud[21] and then burned through all

[Left (enlarge)[22]: Burn marks on the back image. The left-most mark was `ground-zero' where the drop of molten silver first impacted the folded Shroud (see plan below). It is also `ground-zero' of the water poured into the burned hole in the casket (see future "Water stains #28). Yet note that none of the hundreds of scourge mark images, even those closest to the molten silver, melted, cracked or `ran' in the heat and steam (see close-up below), further proving that the Shroud image is not comprised of paint, pigment, dye or powder (see below).]

48 folds[23]. The Shroud itself did not catch fire due to lack of oxygen in the casket[24] and also water poured onto the burning casket and through its burned hole onto the Shroud[25]. Inside the casket the water would have become steam when it touched the molten silver[26].

Casket opened When the casket was opened[27] and the still-folded cloth was lifted out and laid out full-length[28], in the nearby ducal castle[29], it was found that the Shroud had been badly damaged in a repeating pattern of symmetrical lozenge or diamond shaped burn marks[30].

[Right (enlarge): "Plan of the damage caused by the 1532 fire, showing how the Shroud was folded into 48 folds at the time of this incident."[31].]

But miraculously[32] (literally! - see below) the burns paralleled the all-important body image[33] and only the edges of the shoulders and upper arms were lost[34].



Natural experiment The 1532 fire and its extinguishment by water was a "natural experiment"[35] which provided further evidence that the Shroud man's image was not painted [see "No paint, etc. #15"] with any medieval or earlier paint, pigment, dye or powder[36]. That is because if any coloured material had been added to the cloth to produce the image, it would have visibly changed[37] in the intense heat inside the casket, calculated to have been between 200°C to 300°C before the Shroud was doused with water[38]. But there is no such

[Left (enlarge)[39]: Close-up of the above `ground-zero' burn. There is no change to the scourging images closest to the molten silver, even though the blood (top) has been burned[40]. The lack of scourge marks at the burn's upper edge is because it was the gap between the body and arms (see ShroudScope), but lower down the scourge marks on the shoulder blades are unchanged under the burn!]

change[41]. Not even in those parts of the image closest to the molten silver at ~960°C[42] (see above). Nor did the image run or migrate through the water stains[43] (see next part #28 "Water stains").

Shroud's survival a miracle To those who were present when the twelve by four folded[44], 442.5 x 113.7 cms Shroud (see below), i.e. 442.5/12 = ~36.9 x 113.7/4 = ~28.4 cm, or 14.5 in x ~11.2 in, fire damaged Shroud bundle was lifted out of its ruined casket and was opened out full-length, and saw that the Shroud image was untouched by the fire except for the edge of the shoulders and upper arms, the Shroud's survival through the 1532 fire was a miracle[45]. But some modern Christian writers hedge their bets on this. For example, to Ian Wilson in 1979, the Shroud's survival was only "seemingly miraculously":

"On the night of December 4, 1532, fire broke out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, where the Shroud was then kept. Flames spread quickly through the chapel, engulfing rich furnishings and hangings in their path. A beautiful stained-glass window of the Shroud, completed only ten years earlier, melted in the heat, and the cloth itself was only saved by the quick intervention of one of the duke of Savoy's counselors, Philip Lambert, and two Franciscan priests. Together they managed to carry the already burning casket out of the building. But they were too late to prevent a drop of molten silver falling onto the linen inside. This set fire to one edge, scorching all forty-eight folds before the fire could be doused with water. When the reliquary was opened up, the Shroud presented a sorry picture of holes, scorch marks, and stains left by the water. Yet, seemingly miraculously, the image itself had scarcely been touched"[46]
But by 2010, to Wilson it was only "most eerily" and "some extraordinary quirk of fate"[47]:
"But what truly arrested those present was the way that the fire damage the Shroud had sustained had, most eerily, missed the all-important image"

"Yet by some extraordinary quirk of fate, the all-important imprint had scarcely been touched."
To Mark Oxley in 2010 the Shroud's survival of the 1532 fire was only, "Almost as if by a miracle" (whatever that means):
"One night in December 1532 a fire broke out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, in south-eastern France, where the Shroud was then being kept. The flames rapidly consumed the furnishings in the church and a stained-glass window depicting the Shroud melted in the heat. The Shroud itself was saved by the quick thinking of one of the Duke of Savoy's counsellors, Philip Lambert, who, with the help of two Franciscan priests, retrieved the casket containing the Shroud and carried it out of the burning building. However a drop of molten silver fell on to the linen inside the casket, resulting in scorching of all forty-eight folds of the Shroud. This was then doused with water, which resulted in further stains. Almost as if by a miracle the image itself was scarcely touched"[48].
However, Rex Morgan in 1980 affirmed "the miraculous survival of the Shroud" through the 1532 fire:
"On 4th December 1532 there occurred an event, the consequences of which can be studied on the Shroud itself today. A fire broke out in the sacristy of the Holy Chapel at Chambéry. Historical accounts tell us that within a few minutes the whole building was alight and the silver casket in which the Shroud was kept had started to melt. Two Franciscan priests and a blacksmith managed to get into the building and rescue the relic but not before the molten silver had burned through the corner of the cloth and its forty-eight folds. These burn marks are the most apparent marks on the Shroud when one sees it in reality or on photographs today. What is interesting and entirely consistent with the miraculous survival of the Shroud is that the image of Christ was itself hardly affected by the fire at Chambéry ..."[49].
I also affirm that the survival of the Shroud through the 1532 fire was a miracle, supernaturally controlled by Jesus, whose Shroud it is, and who is ruling over all (Mt 28:18; Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9). Specifically I affirm that the survival of the Shroud, against all the odds, through the 1532 fire was what evangelical Christian philosopher Norman Geisler termed a "second class miracle":
"It may be that some things are so highly unusual and coincidental that, when viewed in connection with the moral or theological context in which they occurred, the label `miracle' is the most appropriate one for the happening. Let us call this kind of supernaturally guided event a second class miracle, that is, one whose natural process can be described scientifically (and perhaps even reduplicated by humanly controlled natural means) but whose end product in the total picture is best explained by invoking the supernatural"[50].
Here are ten things which could have gone wrong, any one of which would have left no Shroud after 1532, but didn't:

  1. Fire was discovered too late. Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry was completely destroyed and the Shroud in it.
  2. Blacksmith was not available or unwilling to risk his life entering the burning chapel.
  3. Three other men not available or unwilling to risk their lives entering the burning chapel.
  4. Four men available and willing, but driven back by intense heat, which melted silver at ~960°C, so unable to rescue the Shroud.
  5. Burning roof timbers fell into chapel, killing all four men and destroying the Shroud.
  6. Blacksmith unable in intense heat to break open the red hot iron grille and rescue the Shroud.
  7. Four men unable to carry the too hot burning casket though the burning chapel.
  8. More molten silver burnt through a larger area of the casket top, fell onto the folded Cloth, let in more oxygen and incinerated the Shroud.
  9. Molten silver burned through the middle of the casket top and destroyed the image.
  10. Shroud was folded in a configuration such that the corner drop of molten silver did not miss the image.

But this is only part of a larger pattern of Divine preservation that has ensured the Shroud has survived, against the odds, down through the centuries, a "frail piece of linen" when "every edifice in which the Shroud was ... housed before the fifteenth century has long since vanished":

"For if the author's [Ian Wilson's] reconstruction is correct, the Shroud has survived first-century persecution of Christians, repeated Edessan floods, an Edessan earthquake, Byzantine iconoclasm, Moslem invasion, crusader looting ... not to mention the burning incident that caused the triple holes, the 1532 fire, and a serious arson attempt made in 1972. It is ironic that every edifice in which the Shroud was supposedly housed before the fifteenth century has long since vanished through the hazards of time, yet this frail piece of linen has come through almost unscathed"[51].

1534 repairs On 16 April 1534 the Shroud was carried in a procession led by Duke Charles III (1486-1553) and the Papal Legate, Cardinal Louis de Gorrevod (c.1473-1535), from the ducal castle to the convent of Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns[52]. There under the leadership of Abbess Louise de Vargin[53], the Shroud was laid full-length on a stiff Holland cloth backing[54], which was attached to a wooden frame[55], which in turn had been laid on a large table brought from the castle, upon which the Shroud had been lying[56]. Charred areas were removed from the Shroud and replaced by triangular white linen altar cloth patches[57] which were sewn to the Holland cloth backing[58]. Despite a constant stream of visitors arriving to see the Shroud[59], on 2 May the repairs were completed[60]. The Shroud was rolled around a wooden cylinder with a sheet of red silk, then covered in cloth of gold, and returned to the Savoy castle[61]. On 4 May 1534, the Shroud's traditional annual feast and exposition day[62], it was briefly displayed from Chambéry castle to reassure the public[63]. Abbess de Vargin wrote a report on the Shroud and its repair[64].

2002 restoration Following concerns that the remaining burnt areas may be chemically reacting with the Shroud's linen[65], in 2002 under the leadership of ancient textiles conservator Mechthild Flury-Lemberg[66], the 1534 patches were removed[67], burnt particles vacuumed up[68], the old 1534 Holland cloth backing removed[69] and replaced by a new backing cloth[70]. In removing the 1534 Holland cloth backing, Flury-Lemberg became the first person to see the full underside of the Shroud in ~468 years[71]. She found no

[Right (enlarge): The Shroud after the 2002 restoration[72].]

evidence of "invisible mending" as proposed by Benford and Marino's "invisible reweaving" theory[73] (see my "The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1"). But Flury-Lemberg did discover that the stitching of the seam joining the sidestrip to the main body of the Shroud was most unusual[74], and which in her experience she had only seen in textiles found in the ruins of the Jewish fortress at Masada which was conquered by the Romans in AD 74 and never occupied since[75]! (See my "Sidestrip #5"). Flury-Lemberg also accurately measured the Shroud at 437 cm x 111 cm[76], later revised to 442.5 cm x 113.7 cm[77](~14 ft 6 in x 3 ft 9 in)[78].

To be continued in the next part #28 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. McNair, P., "The Shroud and History: fantasy, fake or fact?," in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud ," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.22; Jumper, E.J., Adler, A.D., Jackson, J.P., Pellicori, S.F., Heller, J.H. & Druzik, J.R., in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin,"Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.447-476, 449; Hoare, R., 1999, "The Turin Shroud Is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence Updated," [1984], Souvenir Press: London, pp.18, 24; 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, p.10. [return]
4. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal: Overlays: Burn Holes (1532 A.D.)" (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.21-22, 219; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 32; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.7, 10. [return]
6. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.45; Wilson, 1979, p.24; 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.30; Crispino, D.C., 1982, "The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns: Chambéry, 1534," No. 2, March, pp.19-28, 19; 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, p.49; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.2; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.162; Hoare, 1999, pp.18-19, 24; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.141; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.18; Cassanelli, A., 2002, "The Holy Shroud," Williams, B., transl., Gracewing: Leominster UK, p.14; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.49; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.4, 76; Wilson, 2010, pp.14, 305. [return]
7. Iannone, 1998, pp.141-142; Oxley, 2010, p.76; Wilson, 2010, pp.249, 305. [return]
8. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.3; Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.105; Wilson, 1979, p.24; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Wilson, 1986, p.2; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
9. Morgan, 1980, p.45; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.30; Wilson, 1986, p.2; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.162. [return]
10. "File:Sainte-Chapelle (Chambéry).jpg," Wikipedia, 7 May 2016. [return]
11. Ruffin, 1999, p.67. [return]
12. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.19. [return]
13. Wilson, 1986, p.2; 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.65. [return]
14. Crispino, 1982, p.19. [return]
15. Wilson, 1986, p.2; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
16. Humber, 1978, p.105; Wilson, 1998, pp.65, 289; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, pp.77, 277; Wilson, 2010, p.253. [return]
17. Wilson, 1986, p.2; Ruffin, 1999, p.67; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.16; Wilson, 2010, p.14, 305. [return]
18. Hynek, 1951, p.11; Wilson, 1979, p.24; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.30; Cruz, 1984, p.49; Iannone, 1998, pp.141-142; Hoare, 1999, p.19; Ruffin, 1999, p.67; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.14. [return]
19. Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D.C., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.34-57, 35; Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, 1982, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, p.23; Cruz, 1984, p.49; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.57; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.176; Borkan, 1995, pp.32, 48; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.217; Iannone, 1998, p.3; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.48; Smith, P.R., 1996, "A scientific appraisal of the Allen hypothesis for the formation of the image on the Shroud of Turin," Shroud News, No. 94, April, pp.10-14, 11; Hoare, 1999, p.19. [return]
20. Hoare, 1999, p.19; de Wesselow, 2012, p.16. [return]
21. Hynek, 1951, p.3; Humber, 1978, p.36; Iannone, 1998, p.3; Moretto, 1999, p.19; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
22. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
23. Humber, 1978, p.105; Cruz, 1984, p.49; Moretto, 1999, p.19; Oxley, 2010, p.4; de Wesselow, 2012, p.16. [return]
24. Borkan, 1995, p.38; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, pp.217-218. [return]
25. Cruz, 1984, p.49. [return]
26. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.176; Wilson, 2010, p.93. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Oxley, 2010, p.77. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, p.65; Oxley, 2010, p.78. [return]
29. Rinaldi, P.M., 1978, "The Man in the Shroud," [1972], Futura: London, Revised, p.20; Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
30. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Wilson, 1986, p.2; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.162; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22; Oxley, 2010, p.78. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, p.65. Wilson's photo has been rearranged to fit. [return]
32. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Crispino, 1982, p.20; Wilson, 1998, p.65; Hoare, 1999, p.19; Oxley, 2010, p.4; Wilson, 2010, p.304. [return]
33. Morgan, 1980, p.45; Adler, A.D., 1996, "Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.81-86, 81; Ruffin, 1999, pp.11-12; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
34. Hynek, 1951, p.3; Sullivan, B.M., 1973, "Reading the Shroud of Turin: How in fact was Jesus Christ laid in his tomb?," National Review, July 20, Reprinted March 24, 2005; Wilson, 1998, p.23. [return]
35. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.30; Antonacci, 2000, pp.48-49, 73-74; Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous - the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-68, 64; Rogers, R.N., 2008, "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin," Lulu Press: Raleigh, NC, p.10. [return]
36. Murphy, 1981, p.55; Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.24; Adler, A.D., 1999, "The Nature of the Body Images on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.103-112, 105; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 16-17; Antonacci, 2000, p.48; Tribbe, 2006, p.127; Oxley, 2010, p.210. [return]
37. Borkan, 1995, pp.23-24; Antonacci, 2000, p.48; Tribbe, 2006, p.127; Rogers, 2008, p.10. [return]
38. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, 236. [return]
39. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Horizontal," (rotated left 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
40. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.162. [return]
41. Culliton, 1978, p.236; Murphy, 1981, p.55; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.67; Schwalbe & Rogers, 1982, p.24; Adler, 1999, p.105; Adler, 2000c, pp.16-17; Antonacci, 2000, p.48; Tribbe, 2006, p.127; Oxley, 2010, p.210. [return]
42. Murphy, 1981, pp.55-56; Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.67; Adler, 1999, p.105. [return]
43. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.107; Antonacci, 2000, p.48; Oxley, 2010, p.210. [return]
44. Hynek, 1951, p.3; Hoare, 1999, p.19; Tribbe, 2006, p.11. [return]
45. Crispino, 1982, p.20; Scavone, D.C., 1995, "Philibert Pingon and the Shroud of Turin," Shroud News, No 87, February, pp.18-23,22. [return]
46. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
47. Wilson, 2010, pp.254, 14. [return]
48. Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
49. Morgan, 1980, p.45. [return]
50. Geisler N.L., 1976, "Christian Apologetics," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Ninth Printing, 1995, p.277. [return]
51. Wilson, 1979, p.251. [return]
52. McNair, 1978, p.22; Wilson, 1979, pp.24, 263; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Crispino, 1982, p.22; Wilson, I., 1996, "A Calendar of the Shroud for the years 1509-1694," BSTS Newsletter, No. 44, November/December; Crispino, D.C., 1998, "A Chronological Survey of Observations on the Shroud Textile," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.279-286, 279; Iannone, 1998, pp.2-3; Wilson, 1998, p.289; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.22; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Oxley, 2010, p.78; Wilson, 2010, p.253. [return]
53. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Crispino, 1982, p.22; Oxley, 2010, pp.78, 277. [return]
54. Crispino, 1982, p.22; Wilson, 1996; Crispino, 1998. [return]
55. Crispino, 1982, p.22; Wilson, 1996; Crispino, 1998. [return]
56. Crispino, 1982, p.22; Wilson, 1996; Crispino, 1998. [return]
57. McNair, 1978, p.22; Wilson, 1979, p.24; Cruz, 1984, p.49; Guerrera, 2001, p.18; Wilson, 2010, pp.256, 304. [return]
58. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.162; Wilson, 1998, p.64; Wilson, 2010, p.304. [return]
59. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, pp.24, 262; Wilson, 1996; Guerrera, 2001, p.18. [return]
61. Wilson, 1979, p.24; Wilson, 1996; Wilson, 1998, pp.286, 290; Oxley, 2010, pp.78, 262; Wilson, 2010, p.256. [return]
62. Wilson, 1979, pp.218, 262; Morgan, 1980, p.45; Wilson, 1998, p.112; Ruffin, 1999, p.68; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.364; Oxley, 2010, pp.84; Wilson, 2010, pp.95; 253, 255-256, 264, 304; de Wesselow, 2012, p.16. [return]
63. Wilson, 1979, p.219; Tribbe, 2006, p.50. [return]
64. Crispino, 1982, pp.19-28. [return]
65. Adler, A.D., 1991, "Conservation and Preservation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.67-71, 69-70; Oxley, 2010, pp.263, 268; Wilson, 2010, p.286. [return]
66. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Oxley, 2010, p.9; Wilson, 2010, pp.14, 70, 286, 310. [return]
67. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Oxley, 2010, pp.9, 78, 263; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 24, 286. [return]
68. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Oxley, 2010, p.263; Wilson, 2010, p.15. [return]
69. Antonacci, 2000, p.187; Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Oxley, 2010, pp.244, 263; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 24, 286. [return]
70. Antonacci, 2000, p.187; Oxley, 2010, p.244; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 24, 310. [return]
71. Oxley, 2010, p.263; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 72, plate 13b. [return]
72. "Image of Full 2002 Restored Shroud," High Resolution Imagery, Shroud University, 2014. [return]
73. Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol 26, No. 4, July-August, pp.4-12; Oxley, 2010, p.229. [return]
74. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Wilson, 2010, p.72. [return]
75. Tribbe, 2006, p.146; Wilson, 2010, pp.15, 72-74. [return]
76. Wilson, I., 2000, "`The Turin Shroud - past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 - probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June. [return]
77. Wilson, 2010, pp.311, 315. [return]
78. Wilson, 2010, p.71. [return]

Posted: 20 January 2018. Updated: 1 February 2018.