Pages

I have always imagined that Paradise would be a kind of library.
Jorge Luis Borges

So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Saint John, Letter to Galatians 4:16

Freedom of Religion - Freedom from Religion - Freedom of Public Display of Religion and Traditions

We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief.
--
Ronald Reagan (Temple Hillel Speech, 1984)

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Myth Blaster: The Shroud of Turin

EarlyChristianSymbols Myth Blaster Verdict: Overall, undetermined, but so far indisputably authentic as the following will explain. Personal research shows that there is more accurate information that proves the Shroud’s authenticity than those who have been trying to disapprove it; and because of this, I believe it is up to the skeptics to disapprove the authenticity because those who have investigated the Shroud through the scientific process should not have to prove anything further. The fact that the Shroud is an natural image of a crucifixion victim is without question – the only question that may remain by skeptics is if it is truly the Jesus of Nazareth that changed the western world, inspired a new religion that developed into the most powerful Church organization in world history. Personally, I believe it is the real thing.
There is more evidence to its authenticity than not.




Nowhere is there mention of the Shroud of Turin, despite his detailed writings of his study concerning accepted tales and manuscripts that has become part of the Gospels, yet not included in the canonical Bible established by the Church, he didn’t write about the Shroud of Turin. 
Because I trust Mr. Every’s works on the subject of mythical tales within the traditions of Christianity and his considered honesty and expertise, despite being a member of the Church, when it comes to history – the absence of the Shroud of Edessa/Turin is not a hoax; otherwise he would have included it in his writings concerning myths. Unfortunately in other writings I have found no mention of the Shroud – even in his histories of Byzantine period, where records have been found mentioning the Shroud.
If you Google the “Shroud of Turin” on the Internet, you will not want for finding links concerning this long discussed controversial piece of linen.
What is the Shroud of Turin?
The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is a linen cloth bearing the hidden image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. It is believed by many, though widely contested, to be a cloth worn by Jesus Christ at the time of his burial, two days prior to his alleged resurrection.
The image on the shroud is much clearer in black-and-white negative than in its natural sepia color. The striking negative image was first observed on the evening of
May 28, 1898 on the reverse photographic plate of amateur photographer Secondo Pia who was allowed to photograph it while it was being exhibited in the Turin Cathedral. According to Pia, he almost dropped and broke the photographic plate from the shock of seeing an image of a person on it.
The shroud is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, people of faith, historians, and writers regarding where, when, and how the shroud and its images were created. From a religious standpoint, in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the Roman Catholic devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, celebrated every year on Shrove Tuesday. Some believe the shroud is the cloth that covered Jesus when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was recorded on its fibers at or near the time of his alleged resurrection. Skeptics, on the other hand, contend the shroud is a medieval hoax, forgery, or the result of natural processes that are not yet understood. …
Radiocarbon dating in 1988 by three independent teams of scientists yielded results published in Nature indicating that the shroud was made during the Middle Ages; approximately 1,300 years after Jesus lived. Follow-up analysis published in 2005, however, indicated that the sample dated by the teams was taken from an area of the shroud that was not a part of the original cloth.
The Physical Description:
The “Man of the Shroud” has a beard, mustache, and shoulder-length hair parted in the middle. He is muscular and tall (6 ft 2 in)). For a man geuu_01_img0155 of the first century (the time of Jesus’ death), or of the Middle Ages (the time of the first uncontested report of the shroud’s existence and the proposed time of a possible forgery), these figures present an above-average height. Reddish brown stains that have been said to include whole blood are found on the cloth, showing various wounds that correlate with the yellowish image, the pathophysiology of crucifixion, and the Biblical description of the death of Jesus:
- one wrist bears a large, round wound, apparently from piercig (the second wrist is hidden by the folding of the hands);
- upward gouge in the side penetrating into the thoracic cavity, a post-mortem as indicated by separate components of red blood cells and serum draining from the lesion;
- small punctures around the forehead and scalp;
- scores of linear wounds on the torso and legs claimed to be consistent with the distinctive dumbbell wounds of a Roman flagrum;
- swelling of face from severe beatings;
- streams of blood down both arms that include dripping from the main flow in response to gravity at an angle that would occur during crucifixion;
- no evidence of either leg being fractured;
- large puncture wounds in the feet as if pierced by a single spike.
Other physical characteristics of the shroud include the presence of large water stains, and from a fire in 1532, burn holes and scorched areas down both sides of the linen due to contact with molten silver that burned through it in places where it was folded. Some small burn holes that apparently are not from the 1532 even are also present. In places, there are permanent creases due to repeated foldings, such as the line that is evident below the chin of the image. …
Image analysis by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory found that rather than being like a photographic negative, the image unexpectedly has the property of decoding into a 3-D image of the man when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of a man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. This is not a property that occurs in photography, and researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.
The perceived history before the 14th century:
According to the Gospel of John (John 20:5-7), the Apostle Peter and the “beloved disciple” entered the sepulcher of Jesus, shortly after his shroud resurrection – of which they were still unaware – and found the “linen clothes” that had wrapped his body and “the napkin, that was about his head.”
There are numerous reports of Jesus’ burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the fourteenth century. However, none of these reports has been connected with certainty to the current cloth held in the
Turin cathedral. Except in the Image of Edessa, none of the reports of these (up to 43) different “true shrouds” was known to mention an image of a body. The image of Edessa was reported to contain the image of the face of Jesus and its existence is reported since the sixth century. Some have suggested a connection between the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa. … Proponents of the theory that the Edessa image was actually the shroud, led by Ian Wilson, theorize that it was always folded in such a way as to show only the face.
Three principal pieces of evidence are cited in favor of the identification with the shroud. John of Damascene mentions the image in his anti-iconoclastic work On Holy Images, describing the Edessa image as being a “strip”, or oblong cloth, rather than a square, as other accounts of the Edessa cloth hold. …
On the occasion of the transfer of the cloth to
Constantinople in 944, Gregory Referendarius, archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, preached a sermon about the artifact.
This sermon has been lost, but was rediscovered in the Vatican Archives and translated by Mark Guscin in 2004. This sermon says that this Edessa cloth contained not only the face, but a full-length image, which was believed to be of Jesus. … Other documents have since been found in the Vatican library and the University of Leiden. … (Cf. Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69 and Vatican Library Codex 5996, p. 35.)
In 1203, a Crusader knight named Robert de Clari claims to have seen the cloth in Constantinople: “Where there was the Shroud in which our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday raised itself upright so one could see the figure of our Lord on it.” After the Fourth Crusade, in 1205, the following letter was sent by Theodore Angelos, a nephew of one of three Byzantine Emperors who were deposed during the Fourth Crusade, Pope Innocent III protesting the attack on the capital. From the document, dated
1 August 1205: “The Venetians partitioned the treasures of gold, silver, and ivory while the French did the same with the relics of the saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death and before the resurrection. We know that the sacred objects are preserved by their predators in Venice, in France, and in other places, the sacred line in Athens.” (Codex Chartularium Culisanense, fol. CXXVI (copia), National Library Palermo). …
Some historians suggest that the shroud was captured by the knight Otto de la Roche, who became Duke of Athens, but that he soon relinquished it to the Knights Templar. It was subsequently taken to
France, where the first known keeper of the Turin Shroud had links both to the Templars as well as the descendants of Otto. …
ShroudTurin The known provenance of the cloth now stored in Turin dates to 1357, when the widow of the French knight Geoffroi de Charny (said to be a descendant of Templar Geoffroy de Charney who was burned at the stake with Jacques de Molay) had it displayed in a church at Lirey, France (diocese of Troyes). In the Museum
Cluny in Paris, the coats of arms of this knight and his widow can be seen on a pilgrim medallion, which also shows an image of the Shroud of Turin. …
In 1389, the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, mentioning that the image had previously been denounced by his predecessor Henri de Poitiers, who had been concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture. …
Despite the pronouncement of Bishop D’Arcis, Antipope Clement VII (first antipope of the Western Schism) prescribed indulgence for pilgrimages to the shroud, so that veneration continued, though the shroud was not permitted to be styled the “True Shroud.”
Alternate Origin:
The Second Messiah by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas argues that the Shroud’s image is that of the final Knights Templar leader, Jacques de Molay.
On Friday, 13 October 1307, the Templars were arrested by Philip the Fair under the authority of Pope Clement V. De Molay was nailed to a door and tortured but not killed, and his almost comatose body was wrapped in a cloth and left for 30 hours to recover. According to the hypothesis of Dr. Alan A. Mills in his article “Image formation on the Shroud of Turin”, in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1995, vol. 20 No 4, pp 319-326, convection currents from the lactic acid in de Molay's perspiration created the image. The image corresponds to what would have been produced by a volatile chemical if the intensity of the color change were inversely proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body, and the slightly bent position for the extension of the hands onto the thighs, something not possible if the body had been laid flat.
Further, according to Knight and Lomas, de Molay, and co-accused Geoffroy de Charney, were then cared for by Brother Jean de Charney, whose family retained the shroud after de Molay’s execution on
19 March 1314.
The Historical Trail of the Shroud:
This story is much like a Sherlock Holmes mystery, and in fact, that is just what historians must be – investigators of historical events to piece together what actually happened. What historians do know is the following trace of the shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, known as The Christ:
The history of the Shroud actually begins at the time of Jesus the Christ’s death, as related by passages in the New Testament by those who were actually there, starting from the Book of Matthew
Joseph of Arimathea, who was a follower of Jesus and his teachings [Matthew 27:57], and went to Pontius Pilate to request the body of Jesus. Pilate then commanded that the body be delivered to Joseph of Arimathaea [Matthew 27:59]. Jesus’ body was taken to a new tomb “hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed”. [Matthew 27:60] The chief priests and Pharisees, who had orchestrated the death of Jesus, went to Pontius Pilate and stated that because of what Jesus had said about rising from the grave after three days and to prevent his disciples stealing his body so that the people would think this occurred, requested that the tomb be secured. [Matthew 27:62-64] Pilate agreed and sent guards to ensure that this did not occur and instructed the chief priests to seal the stone and “set” the watch. [Matthew 27:65-66]
In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week ...
to visit the Sepulcher and Jesus’ tomb. [Matthew 28:1]
It is then the earth trembles and an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and rolled back the stone from the sepulcher doorway, and sat upon the stone. [Matthew 28:2]
Those watching the tomb became fearful to the point of panic and the angel said to the women [Matthew 28: 5-8]
Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulcher with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. …
In the Book of Mark, his recollection is a bit more detailed (after the body was procured by Joseph of Arimathaea [Mark 15:46, Mark 16:1, Mark 16:4-5] …
And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus beheld where he was laid. And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. [They proceed to the tomb]
And when looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
Luke’s version is more concise and also mentions the spices that were customarily rubbed (anointed) on the decease’s body – an important element in this investigation.
In the Book of John, we find the gist of the story the same with some difference [John 20:1- ]:
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple[I], whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet he went he not in.
The linen clothes include the shroud, where next we find in historical documents appears in 544 AD, in the city of Edessa, a folded burial cloth that has an image of a man described in the Wikipedia text above, believed to be Jesus of Nazareth, found according to records above a gate in a city wall of Edessa.
On August 15, 944 AD, the Image of Edessa was taken from Edessa to the Byzantine Empire’s capital city of Constantinople (today called Istanbul). An accurate description is given about the cloth, complete with bloodstains in the following sources:

Non tantum faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris.
You can see [not only] the figure of a face, but [also] the figure of the whole body.

In an 1192 codex, illustrations can be found in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript that shows Jesus being prepared for burial and the scene of the empty tomb. The drawing depicts several features that follow the image on the Shroud of Turin – including Jesus depicted naked with his hand crossed with no visible thumbs. The reason why in the Shroud’s image there are no thumbs is because forensic pathologists state that if nails are driven through the wrist it forces the thumbs to fold inward into the palms. This aspect of the image, along with the five drawings in the Hungarian Prayer Manuscript, was also one of the reasons why those, like the anti-pope and others stated that it was a fake image because Christian tradition (mythology) and, indeed, many drawings, sketches and paintings show Christ on the cross with nails through his palms. In historical reality and according to Roman records, part of the crucifixion process was nailing the wrists to the wooden cross – not the palms. The other similarity between the Shroud of Turin and the Hungarian manuscript is that there is a mark on Jesus’ forehead where the most visible bloodstain is found on the forehead on the shroud. Another exactness of the drawings and the actual shroud – it shows the unusually long fingers of the person whose image is on the cloth. And last, there are four holes drawn on the cloth of the shroud, which are called “poker holes”. These poker holes are burn holes, just as if a hot poker was plunged through the cloth when it was folded. No one knows how or why they are there. Because a painted copy shows the burn holes, it did not occur in the ChambĂ©ry fire of 1532. Some believe it was an accidental burn caused by coals from burning incense, for example. These burn holes are significant because the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, ca 1192-1195 AD shows the burn holes.
In 1024, French and Venetian knights of the Fourth Crusade besieged and on April 13th entered the city and looted it. Apparently among the treasures the Edessa Image cloth was taken by the looting knights. Knights were instructed by the Pope to take and safeguard any holy artifact they would find in their travels.
One year later, after Constantinople fell, Theodore Ducas Anglelos, in a letter to Pope Innocent III wrote:
The Venetians partitioned the treasure of gold, silver and ivory, while the French did the same with the relics of saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after His death and before the resurrection.
There were many sacred objects obtained and preserved in Venice, France and in other parts of Europe.
In 1207, Nicholas d'Orrante, the abbot of Casole and the Papal legate in Athens, wrote about relics taken from Constantinople by French knights and referred to a cloth that was seen “with our own eyes” in Athens.
At this time the historical trail of the Image of Edessa disappears.
Then, in 1356, Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight and descendant of a famous knight of the Fourth Crusade, displayed a burial shroud that he claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ. That shroud is now called the Shroud of Turin.
shroud-icon_comparison Another interesting historical fact – images/paintings of Christ in full frontal view didn’t appear until after the discovery of the Shroud found in Edessa. The painting Christ Pantocrator Icon painted on the walls of St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai. Photographs of the painting and the Shroud facial image were taken, and then grid lines were added in order to compare the facial features. Then without the gridlines, the photos were superimposed as shown to the left. It was found that they matched.
In the Hymn of the Pearl, within the Acts of Thomas, there are lines of poetry that was translated by M.R. James:
But suddenly, [when] I saw the garment made like unto me as it had been a mirror.
And I beheld upon it all myself (or saw it wholly in myself) and I knew and say myself through it.
that we were divided asunder, being of one; and again were one in one shape.
Yea, the treasurers also which brought me the garment
I beheld, that they were two, yet one shape was upon both, one royal sign was set upon both of them.
The forensic pathological examination of the cloth is most interesting and revealing. The person whose image is believed to be Jesus of Nazareth has been beaten and scourged (burned with some heated instrument). Then there are the wounds of crucifixion.
Pathologists who examined the cloth agree that the man was in a state of rigor mortis. The man of the shroud was flogged repeatedly and the marks are from a Roman flagrum or flagellum, which was a whip of short leather thongs that were tipped with bits of lead, bronze or bone, which tore into the flesh of the victim – meant to cause wounds and serious pain. Welts and contusions shaped like dumbbells appear on the man’s back, buttocks, and legs – and it appears that he was whipped by two men, one taller than the other, each standing on either side of the victim. The thorn of crowns that has been known in the story of the last hours of Christ would have produced some cut marks, thus the explanation of numerous puncture wounds around the top of the man’s head. However, the “crown” seems to have been a rough bunch of thorns, rather than a wreath-shaped crown as depicted in so many artistic recreations.
The man suffered from a beating and falling – a severely bruised left kneecap, a dislocated nasal cartilage, a large swelling near the right eye socket and cheekbone. The man of the Shroud was definitely crucified with large spikes driven through his wrists. Despite all the images of Christ on the Cross showing his palms pierced with nails – this is not only historically incorrect, but medically impossible. The body’s weight could not possibly bear a man whose hands were nailed – even if the person’s feet were nailed or supported with a board. The crucifixion method has been established by archaeologists in 1968 when they discovered a victim of crucifixion near Jerusalem at Givat ha-Mivtar.
The stains on the cloth that appear to be blood have been tested and are blood stains of real human blood. However, doubters, despite laboratory testing proving it is human blood, claim that the bloodstains should be black, yet the bloodstains on the Shroud are dark red. The following is explanations:
  • Ancient cloth, as it was manufactured in the Middle East during the first century, was starched on the loom and then washed in suds of the Soapwart plant. Ingredients of this natural soap are hemolytic, which could preserve the color red in bloodstains.
  • The blood on the Shroud is rich in bilirubin, a bile pigment produced when a human body is under severe traumatic stress. Bilirubin is bright red and stays red and will cause old blood to remain red in color.
  • Alan Adler, a professor of chemistry at Western Connecticut State University and an expert on prophyrins, the types of colored compounds seen in blood chlorophyll and many other natural products, concluded that the blood is real.
  • Alder and John Heller, Professor of Life Sciences at the New England Institute, published their conclusions that the bloodstains were genuine in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Applied Optics [1980]. They reported spectral analysis confirmed that the heme was converted into its parent porphyrin.
  • Baima Bollone, working independently also found the heme porphyrin and globulin in flakes of blood from Shroud samples.
  • X-ray-fluorescence spectra showed excess iron in blood areas, as expected for blood.
  • Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in the bloodstains but not in any other parts of the Shroud.
In 1988, a piece of the shroud was dated using the Carbon 14 method that revealed that the piece of cloth from the Shroud was made in the medieval period. Yet, the image is in 3-D, impossible to recreate by painting an image on cloth.
At the site entitled Rethinking the Shroud, it discusses the messed up carbon-14 testing done in 1988 – and an ironic explanation of how the image was transferred to the burial cloth called the Shroud of Turin, he relays the story of one of those who played a major role in the condemnation of death of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Entitled The Shroud of Caiaphas, the article …
Though scholars may debate how significant a role he played in the death of Jesus or how accurate are the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ trial for blasphemy, his name will forever be part of the story of Jesus’ arrest, trial and crucifixion. There can be no dispute that Joseph Caiaphas was the high priest in Jerusalem and head of the Temple high court, the Sanhedrin, when Jesus was executed. After Jesus’ death, Caiaphas would go on to persecute many in the early Jerusalem Church before being dismissed from his post in 37 CE [AD], by Lucius Vitellius, the Roman governor of Syria under Tiberius.
Though no longer the high priest, Caiaphas was still a man of privilege. … He certainly was among the
Jerusalem elite who, when he died, would be buried in one of tombs carved into the limestone outcroppings on the outskirts of Jerusalem. As was the Jewish custom then, his family would plan to return to his tomb, perhaps in a year or two, after his flesh had rotted away, to gather his bones and place them in a bone box. The 1990 discovery of his ossuary with the Aramaic inscription, Yehosef bar Kayafá tells us they did return for his second burial. …
Unknown to anyone then, something quite sensational happened in the minutes and hours after a great sealing stone was moved in front of the entranceway to Caiaphas’ sepulcher. …a modern day chemist can reconstruct what happened.
Slowly, two ghostlike, bleary images began to take form on Caiaphas’ fine linen burial wrapping, his shroud. Had there been light in the tomb and had someone been able to bear the stench of the amine vapors of cadaverine and putrescence, he might have been able to pull back Caiaphas’ shroud and witness the slowly forming straw-yellow images. …
No modern chemist would call the process magical. No, it’s a Maillard reaction, a complex chemical process that produces caramel-like products or Melanoidins. This image forming process probably happened frequently in the limestone tombs outside the walls of ancient
Jerusalem tombs. …
Thanks to the great Roman encyclopediast, Gaius Plinius Secundus, the man we know as Pliny the Elder (23-77 CE) we understand how linen was made in the first century.
In the article written by Daniel R. Porter entitled Where Have All the Skeptics Gone? he writes …
… It was not until 2005 that things changed. An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Themochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating was flawed because the sample was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist, and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the cloth was much older. It was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2,000 years old. …
It was Nature, another prestigious peer-reviewed journal that in 1989, reported that carbon 14 dating ‘proved’ the shroud was a hoax.
Rogers found no fault with the article in Nature. Nor did he find fault with the quality of the carbon 14 dating. He defended it. What Rogers found was the carbon 14 sample was taken from a mended area of the cloth that contained significant amounts of newer material. This was not the fault of the radiocarbon laboratories. But it did show that the dating was invalid.
ShroudExhibit There will be a conference sponsored by the Ohio Shroud Conference committee entitled Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma at The Blackwell Hotel on the grounds of The Ohio State University, August 14-17, 2008. The deadline for Abstracts for Regular Session Papers has passed (February 1st, 2008; however, the deadline for Abstracts for Poster Session Papers is July 25th 2008 for those interested or so inclined. You can download posters available here. Information at the Wikispace Shroud site contains information concerning properties of the Shroud, science in terms of chemistry, medical, measurements, physics, photography and image hypotheses; carbon-14 dating results and analysis; history; archaeology; theological discussion; issues and news releases.
Despite repeated proof that the Shroud image could not have been painted – National Geographic produced a documentary [reported by The Sydney Morning Herald] that there is a possibility that the -
Shroud of Turin was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by cheeky Renaissance man Leonardo da Vinci.
To me, this is nothing but a spin-off from the speculations from the novel, The Da Vinci Code.
Bibliography:The Shroud of Turin: An Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) – Raymond N. Rogers
The Shroud of Caiaphas – Rethinking the Shroud
Where Have All the Skeptics Gone? – Daniel R. Porter (
October 28th 2005)
Analysis of the Carbon 14 Dating: What is Right and Wrong – Rethinking the Shroud Objectively
Examination – Pictures of Jesus – Shroud Story
Turn Shroud Confirmed as a Fake – Richard Ingham based on French magazine [Physorg.com]
Wrapped in the Shroud – Steve Tomkins [BBC News]
The Shroud of Turin: All Sides of the Issue – Religious Tolerance
Shroud of Turin to be Retested – Donald Sensing [Sense of Events]
Fresh Tests on Shroud of Turin – Jonathan Petre, Telegraph.co.uk
Sudarium and Shroud – Angelfire
Sudarium of OviedoWikipedia
Leonardo: The Man Behind the Shroud?
Sacha Molitorisz, The Sydney Morning Herald [National Geographic documentary]
Sudarium – Wikipedia
Carbon 14 Dating Mistakes? – Daniel R. Porter [Innoval]
Turin Shroud Center of Colorado – shroudofturin.com
The Holy Shroud – Official Site – sindone.org
Shroud of Turin – Skeptic Dictionary
Shroud of Turin – Christian Urban Legends [Religious Tolerance]
Acheiropoietos Jesus Images in Constantinople: the Documentary Evidence – Daniel C. Scavone, University of Southern Indiana
Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, a Summary of 1978 Investigations – Analytica Chimica Acta, 1982
Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin – Applied Optics, 1980 – OSA
A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin – JH Heller, AD Adler – Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 1981
X-Ray Fluorescence Investigation of the Shroud of Turin – RA Morris, LA Schwalbe, JR London – X-Ray Spectrometry, 1980
The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science – BJ Culliton, Science Magazine, 1978
The Shroud of Turin Through the Microscope – SF Pellicori, MS Evans – Archaeology Magazine, 1981
Jesus Christ: The Real Story - GN Magazine
The Shroud of Turin - Blogspot, Stephen Jones

[I] It is an interesting note that an eyewitness, John, who was a disciple of Jesus and who was a familiar associate of the other disciples does not reveal the “other” disciple by name and with only a description of “whom Jesus loved”.

No comments: