Tuesday, May 8, 2018

'you claim that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture'

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

Bob

This is the fifteenth installment of my response in a separate post to your comment under my 2015 post, "The man on the Shroud #8: The evidence is over- whelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" I had replied in an interim comment referring to my 11 July 2012 post, "`according to John chapter 20, Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural) ... If Scripture is correct ... lets throw out the shroud'" where a reader

[Right (enlarge): Photograph of the Shroud in National Geographic[2], which shows that the wounds and blood- stains on the Shroud are fully congruent with the Gospels' description of Jesus' suffering and death.]

made the same logical error as you: that if there were two (or more) cloths in the Tomb, one of them cannot be the Shroud! But as I advised in the "Comments" section of my April 2018 Shroud of Turin News, and by a further comment yesterday (7 May 2018), I had decided to respond to your comment by a post rather than a comment because: 1) your comment was long with many points; 2) it enables me to once again respond to the logically fallacious claim that, since there were two or more burial cloths in Jesus' tomb, the Shroud cannot be one of them; and 3) it allows me to post for the first time on the issue of a Christian (indeed a Christian Elder), knowing the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity (including having seen the Shroud in Turin - see below), yet rejecting it as a mere "artefact" (again see below). Your words are in bold and prefaced by "<" to distinguish them from mine. I have corrected your typos. Bible verses I quote are from the English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise indicated.

>you claim that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture No, the Shroud is fully congruent with Scripture. See photo above and my 2013 series, "The Shroud of Turin: 3.1 The Bible and the Shroud." Both Jesus and the man on the Shroud:

  1. Were struck by blows to the head and body (Mt 26:67; 27:30; Mk 14:65; 15:19; Lk 22:63; Jn 19:3) [06Aug13].
  2. Were scourged with a Roman flagrum (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:1) [15Jul13];
  3. Were crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2) [08Sep13];
  4. Carried a heavy crossbeam (Jn 19:17) [02Dec13a];
  5. Fell while carrying their crossbeam (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26) [02Dec13b];
  6. Were crucified by nails through their hands and feet (Jn 20:25-27; Col 2:14) [02Dec13c];
  7. Died on a cross (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30) [02Dec13d];
  8. Legs were not broken (Jn 19:31-3 [02Dec13e];
  9. Were speared in the side by a Roman lance (Jn 19:34) [02Dec13f].
  10. Were wrapped in a Jewish linen sovev i.e. sindon (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) [30Sep15];
  11. Had a hasty burial (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54; Jn 19:14,31,42; Mt 27:62) [27Feb14];
  12. Were buried in a Jerusalem rock tomb (Mt 27:60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:41-42) [22Mar13];
  13. Were resurrected within 3 days (Mt 28:1-67; Mk 16:1-6; Lk 24:17; Jn 20:1-9)! [14Mar17; 04Sep17; 05Nov17; 18Jan12 & 22Dec11].

>which surely must be the final authoritative evidence. As a Bible-believing evangelical Christian for these last ~52 years, continuously attending evangelical Christian churches over all that time, I agree. But again there is no conflict between the Bible and the Shroud (see above). So yours is a false dichotomy.

>The shroud is a complete body image, that is, in direct contact with the body... No. A a contact image of a three-dimensional body would be extremely distorted when laid out flat, as anti-authenticist Marvin M. Mueller (c.1929-2015) pointed out:

"... there is no way that an image of the quality and beauty of the Shroud image could have been produced by contact of the cloth with a full relief (body or statue) - projection distortion in mapping a full relief onto a plane alone guarantees that, as has been made manifest in several experiments. To cite an extreme example: A sheepskin laid out flat does not much resemble a sheep"[3]
And while there are points on the Shroud where it contacted the body,

[Above (enlarge): Enrie 1931 negative photograph of the Shroud face[4], showing that the image was imprinted also on low relief areas immediately adjacent to high relief areas such as the nose, eyebrows and chin. This and the sharpness of the image proves that it was not formed simply by direct contact but by some form of radiation acting over a distance.]

e.g. the high points such as the tip of the nose, chin and knees, there are points where the Shroud cannot have made contact with the body, e.g. low areas immediately adjacent to high points, yet the image is there also. As another anti-authenticist, David Sox (1936-2016), accepted that, "the image seemed to be present even where the cloth could not have touched the body", which "suggest[s] a process acting over a distance":

"Ever since Pia's 1898 photographing, it had been noted that the image darkness on the Shroud varies from point to point suggesting a process acting over a distance. Paul Vignon had observed that the image seemed to be present even where the cloth could not have touched the body"[5].
This shows the image formation process involved some kind of radiation that projected across space. Experiments under the auspices of Italy's ENEA agency have shown that the closest to the Shroud man's

[Left (enlarge): ENEA's excimer (ultraviolet) laser which produced an image on linen closest to that of the Shroud, but "the total power ... required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height ... [would be] ... 34 thousand billion watts"[6]!]

image is that produced by a high energy, high frequency, ultraviolet laser [see 22Dec11]!

>but Scripture indicates this cannot possibly be the case as the body of Jesus was wrapped in TWO separate pieces of cloth As already mentioned above, this is an example of the fallacy that because there were two (or more) burial cloths of Jesus, one of them could not have been the Shroud. But no Shroud pro-authenticist, as far as I am aware, claims that the Shroud was the only burial cloth of Jesus in the Tomb. The Gospels state that Jesus' burial cloths included (Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament): 1. a "linen shroud" [Greek sindon] (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53); 2. a facecloth [Gk soudarion] (Jn 20:7); and 3. "strips of linen" [Gk othonia] to bind His hands and feet (see keiriais Jn 11:44) and the spices (Lk 24:12; Jn 19:40; 20:5-7).

Moreover, most (if not all) Shroud pro-authenticists, as far as I am

[Above (enlarge): "Comparison of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin"[7]. "The most striking thing about all the stains [on the Sudarium of Oviedo] is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud"[8].]

aware, maintain (as I do) that the facecloth [soudarion] is the Sudarium of Oviedo (above) [see 25May16, 24Jan17, 25Mar17 & 27Jul17].

>one described as linen... You are evidently relying only on the NIV (published in 1978 - 40 years ago), which while it accurately translates othonia as "strips of linen" in Lk 24:12; Jn 19:40 and 20:5-7 (see Mounce Interlinear above), it inaccurately translates sindon as "linen cloth" in Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53 (again see Mounce Interlinear above). Since you presume to be a Christian teacher of others (including me), then you should heed Scripture's warning that teachers of Christian things will held by God to a higher standard:

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (Jas 3:1)
That means you must do your homework and buy and read books on the topic (in this case the Shroud-see my library of ~200 Shroud-related books), and when quoting Scripture you must refer to the original languages, at least in interlinear Greek-English (one of which, Mounce's, is online) or Hebrew-English translations. Especially in this case when the Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet (according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence) and therefore you are "fighting against God" (Acts 5:39 NIV)! See future below on the consequences of that for Christians.

>which was wrapped around the torso & legs, No. It was "the body" of Jesus which was wrapped in a linen shroud:

"And Joseph took the body [of Jesus] and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud" (Mt 27:59); "This man [Joseph] went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud" (Lk 23:52-53)
It was "him", Jesus, who was wrapped in a linen shroud:
"And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him [Jesus] down, wrapped him in the linen shroud" (Mk 15:46).
You are an Elder of a Christian church, yet you are twisting Scripture (2Pet 3:16) to force it to fit your anti-Shroud position. By contrast, I don't need to twist Scripture to fit my pro-Shroud position-it already does!

>the other a 'cloth' wrapped around the head, according to John 20:7 (NIV) 'as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. That is a mistranslation by the NIV. The Greek rendered by it as "around" is epi "on" (e.g. "epidemic" = "on" + "the people"), not peri "around" (e.g. "perimeter" = "around" + "measure"). The ESV translates Jn 20:7 accurately by rendering it: "the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head." As does Jn 20:7 (Mounce).

>The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen Again the ESV translates this better: "...and the face cloth ... not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself" (Jn 20:7). The soudarion or facecloth (Jn 20:7), that is the Sudarium of Oviedo, was placed over Jesus' dead face while He was still on the cross (see video "Mark Guscin - Sudarium of Oviedo" and below). The soudarion was

[Above (enlarge): How the soudarion (i.e. the Sudarium of Oviedo was placed over Jesus' head after He had died hanging on the Cross[9]. See 26Jun08.]

then removed from Jesus' head when He was taken down from the Cross and enfolded in the Shroud. And then in the Tomb the soudarion was placed on the Shroud where it covered the very top of Jesus' head. There is a space between the frontal and dorsal head images wide enough to allow for the soudarion to have been on the crown or top of

[Above (enlarge)[10]: Gap of about 6½ inches (~16.5 cms) between the front and back head images, where the bloodstained "face cloth [soudarion] which had been on [epi] Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7) was, but the image being vertically collimated[11], i.e. straight up and down from the body[12], no image would have formed there. See 25May16.]

the Shroud man's head, since there no image would have formed:
"Still more interesting, there is no imprint of the crown of the head between the forehead and the dorsal view. If the sweat cloth [soudarion] was tied above, no imprint could be formed there on the Shroud. The space between the frontal and dorsal view is wide enough to allow for the sweat cloth, especially if we suppose that the Shroud was not loosely laid, but drawn quite taut over the head"[13].
>Some versions describe the body cloth as 'bandages' or strips... not one continuous piece of cloth as the shroud is. You are confusing the sindon a "linen shroud" (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53 Mounce) with the othonia "strips of linen" (Lk 24:12; Jn 19:40; 20:5-6 Mounce). In this instance the NIV translates more accurately than the ESV: Lk 24:12 (NIV) "Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves ..."; Jn 19:40 "Taking Jesus' body, the two of them [Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus] wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen ..."; Jn 20:5-6 (NIV) "He [John] bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there...". A mistake that most Shroudies have made is that they wrongly assume that the sindon (Shroud) must have been left behind in the empty tomb and therefore the Shroud must be either included in the othonia, or be the soudarion. But see my 2014 "Servant of the priest" series where I provide evidence that Jesus took the sindon with Him out of the Tomb.

>Having personally seen the shroud in Turin a few years ago As I have mentioned previously [see 14Feb16] I have never seen the Shroud (nor attended a Shroud conference, nor even met another Shroudie) because I live in a suburb of Perth, Western Australia, which is "one of the most isolated major cities in the world" (Wikipedia), and I am the full-time carer of my wife who has Multiple Sclerosis (MS) which has rendered her a near-quadriplegic. So I had assumed that I probably never would be able to see the Shroud. But recently my wife has started having blocks of 2 weeks respite care in nursing homes, so it is now feasible that I can see the Shroud at its next exposition, depending on when that will be.

>I can agree that it is a fascinating artefact. I don't agree. If the Shroud were an "artefact" (i.e. man-made) modern science would have long ago discovered that, but it hasn't. What Ian Wilson pointed out in 1998 applies even more today, 20 years later:

"Indeed, if anyone had come up with a convincing solution as to how and by whom the Shroud was forged, they would inevitably have created a consensus around which everyone sceptical on the matter would rally. Yet so far this has not even begun to happen"[14].
Indeed, the very existence of many, mutually exclusive, sceptical theories of how the Shroud's image was formed itself shows that all "artefact" (i.e. forgery) theories have failed! Moreover, if the Shroud were a work of human art it would be the greatest artwork of all. But instead of featuring prominently in books of the world's great artworks, the Shroud is simply ignored by the art world, as though it didn't exist!

Furthermore, there are immense problems of the forgery (i.e. artefact) theory. See my series, "Problems of the Turin Shroud forgery theory." Also step through the "Problem for the forgery theory" sections in my, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" series: #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25 & #27 ...

And as leading Shroud anti-authenticists have conceded, if the Shroud is not a work of human art, then it is authentic, there being no third alternative:

Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939) - "As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished ... If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified"[15]

Steven Schafersman (quoted approvingly by Joe Nickell) - "As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[16] and Stevenson and Habermas[17] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[18]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic [i.e. not "a product of human artifice"], the image is that of Jesus'"[19].

>but NOT the shroud of Jesus... Why does one who is a Christian Elder, who claims to believe the Bible which states that Jesus was buried in "a linen shroud" (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46 & Lk 23:53), dismiss out of hand that that linen shroud has survived down to this day as the Shroud of Turin? [For my answer see future below.] Even the agnostic Professor of Anatomy at the Sorbonne, Yves Delage (1854–1920), on the basis of the anatomical perfection of the man's image on Secondo Pia's 1898 negative photographs of the Shroud declared:

"I recognize Christ as a historical personage and I see no reason why anyone should be scandalized that there still exist material traces of his earthly life"[20].
>>They don't even know where the real tomb is.... That is both irrelevant and false. It is irrelevant because even if it were true it

[Above (enlarge)[21]: Cross-section showing that the Church of Holy Sepulchre was built over both the Tomb of Jesus and the site of His crucifixion (L. Calvary, Gk. Golgotha - Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Jn 19:17): "Today's Church of the Holy Sepulcher sets over two sites: Calvary and the tomb of Jesus. Both these sites were in the same garden outside the walls of Jerusalem in 30 AD, and now they are under one roof. John wrote that they were close to each other: `At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.' - John 19:41-42 [NIV]"[22].]

would not have any bearing on the authenticity of the Shroud. But it is false because there is no good reason to doubt that the Church of Holy Sepulchre was built over the site of Jesus' Tomb (and also over the site of His crucifixion-see above). The Gospels state that both Christians (Mt 27:60-61; 28:1-8; Mk 15:46-16:8; Lk 23:50-24:12; Jn 19:38-20:18) and Jews (Mt 27:62-66; 28:11-15) in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection knew where His tomb was. The early church historian Eusebius (c.260-340) recorded that there were Christians living in Jerusalem up to immediately before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70, when the Christians, warned in prophecy, left Jerusalem to live in Pella across the Jordan River:

"The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella"[23].
That Christians had returned to live in and/or around Jerusalem soon after AD 70 is evident from there having been 14 Jewish Christian Bishops of Jerusalem from 107 up to the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-136[24]. Then from 135 to 325 there were 24 Gentile Christian Bishops of Jerusalem[25]. So from 30/33-325 [see below] there never was a time when Jerusalem Christians could have forgotten where Jesus' tomb had been!

About ten years after Jesus' death, King Herod Agrippa I (r.41-44), the "Herod the King" of Acts 12:1-23, began the construction of Jerusalem's Third Wall[26], which enclosed within the city the Tomb and Golgotha, which at the time of Jesus' death were outside Jerusalem's then wall (Heb 13:12; Mk 15:20; Jn 19:17)[27]. In 130 the Roman Emperor Hadrian (r.117–138) visited the ruins of Jerusalem and decided to rebuild it as a city dedicated to the god Jupiter and renamed Aelia Capitolina[28]. Then in 136, following the crushing of the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-136, Hadrian formally reestablished Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and forbade the presence of both Jews and Christian in the new Roman city[29]. From 136–140 Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount and also a temple to Venus on the site of Golgotha/Calvary[30]. The Tomb was buried under the rubble of the ruins of Jerusalem used to level the site, but the location of nearby Golgotha was marked by the temple to Venus[31]! After Hadrian's death in 138 his successor, Emperor Antoninus Pius (138–161), relaxed the restrictions on Christians' presence in the city[32].

In 325 Macarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem (r. 312-335), at the Council of Nicaea, petitioned the Emperor Constantine I (r. 306-337) to demolish Hadrian's temple to Venus and uncover the tomb of Christ[33]. So Macarius knew, presumably from accurate but now-lost traditional sources, where the Tomb was underneath the rubble[34]. Constantine granted Macarius' petition and in 326 Constantine's mother, Empress Helena (c. 246-c. 330), travelled to Jerusalem and having been told by Macarius the exact location ofGolgotha/Calvary and Christ's tomb[35], ordered the demolition of Hadrian's Venus temple and their excavation[36]. That by 326 these sites were inside Jerusalem's wall but Scripture states that Jesus was crucified and buried outside the city's walls [see above] adds credibility to Macarius' correct identification of these sites[37]. Then in 326 Constantine ordered the construction of two churches, connected by a great basilica (the Martyrium) an enclosed colonnaded atrium (the Triportico) with the site of Golgotha in one corner, and a rotunda which contained the Aedicula (Edicule), which in turn enclosed the rock-cut Tomb that Helena and Macarius had identified as the burial site of Jesus (see above)[38]. Construction of the Church of Holy Sepulchre was completed in 335[39].

In 614 the Church was damaged by fire when the Persian king Khosrow II (r. 590-628) invaded Jerusalem [see "614"][40]. In 630, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-641) restored Jerusalem and rebuilt the Church[41]. But then in 1009 the Muslim caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (996–1021) ordered the complete destruction of the Church[42]:

"... the 'basilica of the Lord's Sepulchre [was] destroyed down to the ground'. ... everything was razed 'except those parts which were impossible to destroy or would have been too difficult to carry away' ... The Church's foundations were hacked down to bedrock. The Edicule and the east and west walls and the roof of the cut-rock tomb it encased were destroyed or damaged ... the north and south walls were likely protected by rubble from further damage. The `mighty pillars resisted destruction up to the height of the gallery pavement, and are now effectively the only remnant of the fourth-century buildings'"[43].
In 1048 partial reconstruction of the ruined Church by order of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042-1055) was completed[44]. But despite spending vast sums on the project, construction was concentrated on the rotunda and its surrounding buildings, leaving the great basilica in ruins[45]. The rebuilt Church consisted of a court open to the sky, with five small chapels attached to it[46]. In 1099 Jerusalem was recaptured by soldiers of the First Crusade [see "1095"][47]. The crusaders unified the chapels on the site by placing them all under one roof, completing their reconstruction

[Above (enlarge): The Church of the Holy Sepulchre today. The large dome on the left is over the Tomb, the smaller middle dome is over the church itself (the Katholikon) and the small dome below and to the right of the latter (not the one in the courtyard) is over the site of Golgotha/Calvary[48], i.e. the Rock of Calvary-see "8" on this plan.]

during the reign of crusader Queen of Jerusalem, Melisende (r. 1131–1153) in 1149[49] [see "c.1149"].

In 1555 Franciscan friars rebuilt the Edicule and extended it to create ante-chamber[50]. A protective marble sheath was also then installed over the Tomb[51]. A fire in 1808 caused the dome of the rotunda to collapse and smash the Edicule's exterior, but these were rebuilt in 1809–1810 by a Greek architect Nikolaos Komnenos[52]. The current

[Above (enlarge): The rotunda (which contains the Edicule, which in turn contains the Tomb of Jesus-see future below) and its ante-chamber extension, from the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre[53].]

dome of the rotunda dates from 1870 and was restored during 1994–1997, as part of extensive modern renovations to the Church[54]. During the 1970–1978 restoration works and excavations inside the building, and under the nearby Muristan, it was found that the area was originally a quarry, from which white meleke limestone was mined[55].

In 2016, restoration works were performed in the Edicule, including temporarily removing the 1555 marble cladding (see above) which

[Above (enlarge): A restorer removes debris beneath a broken marble slab to expose the original limestone rock surface of the burial bed of Jesus[56]! The Shroud has limestone dust adhering to it, particularly its underside, which matches the limestone of Jerusalem cave tombs [see 22Mar13]!]

protected the burial bed of Jesus[57]. The original limestone burial bed of Jesus was revealed intact, meaning that the Tomb location had not changed and confirming the existence of the original limestone cave walls within the Edicule[58]! The Tomb was then resealed shortly after[59].

>and NOTHING pertinent to the crucifixion or the Burial has survived. Wrong! See above that the both the sites of Jesus' crucifixion, Golgotha, and His burial Tomb have survived, having been preserved, against all the odds, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. But why would one who is a Christian, let alone a Christian Elder), claim that "NOTHING" (emphatic) "pertinent to the crucifixion or the Burial has survived"? Anti-Christian atheists like Richard Dawkins:

"It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others, Professor G. A. Wells [1926–2017] of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist?. Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity"[60].
would be very happy with your claim and see it as further evidence for their position that Christianity is false and atheism is true.

>Anyway it is totally irrelevant.... I don't know you, so I can only go by your words, and by your claims that "NOTHING pertinent to the crucifixion or the Burial has survived" (your emphasis) and that it is "totally irrelevant" the overwhelming evidence that Jesus, who is ruling over all (Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9) has graciously left us in the Shroud of His suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection, which has brought and kept untold millions to Christ, tells me that your mind has been taken captive by an anti-realist, anti-historical, anti-truth and therefore anti-Christian philosophy (Col 2:8). Presumably a form of Gnosticism with its radical dualism, denying that God has any involvement in the material world.

>as the Angel said, 'He is not here...He is risen' Again you are twisting Scripture (see above). The angel also showed the women the material evidence that Jesus had risen, "the place where he [Jesus] lay":

Mt 28:5-6 "But the angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.'"

Mk 16:6 "And he said to them, 'Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.'"
And Jesus has graciously provided that twenty centuries later, we can "see the place where he lay" (see above)!

>and that in itself is far more important and relevant than any piece of cloth. The Shroud is not just "any piece of cloth". You yourself went to Turin to see it and you admitted that it is "fascinating" (see above). But the Shroud is far more than merely "fascinating". Again the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is the very burial sheet of Jesus!

>how is the Shroud in any way relevant to the Gospel.? The Shroud provides complementary, extra-Biblical confirmation to a post-Christian world that does not accept the Bible as evidence, that the Gospel accounts of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus are true. Protestant evangelical Christian apologist Gary Habermas includes the Shroud in his "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus" (1984):

"The description of the man who was apparently buried in the shroud has also been enlightening. The scientific team pathologist and other medical doctors determined that the man was crucified and was dead, with his body in a state of rigor mortis. The more the wounds were studied, the more it became obvious that this man's injuries were the same as the gospel reports of Jesus' crucifixion. The most interesting facet of this study is that many unnatural things were done to Jesus and these same things appeared on the shroud. Both men suffered a series of punctures throughout the scalp from many sharp objects, a seriously bruised face, a horrible whipping (over 100 wounds from this beating have been counted on the shroud), abrasions on both shoulders from a rough, heavy object, and contusions on both knees. Both men had the more normal wounds associated with crucifixion; namely, punctured feet and wrists. Strangely, both men escaped having their ankles broken, as was normal, but both had post-mortem chest wounds instead, from which blood and watery fluid flowed. Both men were buried hastily in fine linen and were buried individually. 19 Strong indications that the man buried in the shroud is Jesus comes from the correspondence between the two. They agree even down to the small details in about one dozen areas which were not normal crucifixion procedures. The chances are quite minimal that two men would have so many agreements, especially in points of abnormal circumstances. Also, no areas of contradiction apparently exist"[61].

To be continued in the sixteenth installment of this post.

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. Weaver, K.F., 1980, "Science Seeks to Solve ... The Mystery of the Shroud," National Geographic, Vol. 157, June, pp.730-753, 737-740. [return]
3. Mueller, M.M., in Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 299. [return]
4. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
5. Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, p.99. [return]
6. Tosatti, M., 2011, "The Shroud is not a fake," The Vatican Insider, 12 December. [return]
7. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.122. [return]
8. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.17.27. [return]
9. Bennett, 2001, p.118. [return]
10. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
11. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," 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.184-189, p.188; Adler, A.D., "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, p.18. [return]
12. Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.118; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.35, 130. [return]
13. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.95-96. [return]
14. 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.235. [return]
15. Thurston, H., 1903, "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, p.19, in Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.52. [return]
16. Wilson, 1979, pp.51-53. [return]
17. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.121-129. [return]
18. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
19. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42; in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
20. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.26; Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, p.107; Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, p.235; Wilson, 1979, p.34; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 47; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.5; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.186; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.196; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.32; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.20. [return]
21. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre - Jerusalem, Israel," Steemit, 2017. [return]
22. "The Church of the Holy Sepulcher," Jerusalem 101, 2 December 2014. [return]
23. Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History," Book III:V, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1966, p.86. [return]
24. "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem: Jewish Bishops of Jerusalem," Wikipedia, 27 February 2018. [return]
25. "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem: Bishops of Aelia Capitolina," Wikipedia, 27 February 2018. [return]
26. "Walls of Jerusalem: Jewish postexilic city," Wikipedia, 21 April 2018. [return]
27. Biddle, M., 1999, "The Tomb of Christ," Sutton Publishing: Stroud UK, p.1. [return]
28. "Timeline of Jerusalem: Late Roman period (Aelia Capitolina)," Wikipedia, 15 May 2018. [return]
29. Ibid. [return]
30. Ibid. [return]
31. Biddle, 1999, p.1. [return]
32. "Timeline of Jerusalem: Late Roman period (Aelia Capitolina)," Wikipedia, 15 May 2018. [return]
33. "The Church of the Holy Sepulcher," Jerusalem 101, 2 December 2014. [return]
34. Perkins, P., "Sepulchre, Church of the Holy," in Achtemeier, P.J., et al., eds, 1985, "Harper's Bible Dictionary," Harper & Row: San Francisco CA, pp.925-926. [return]
35. "The Church of the Holy Sepulcher," Jerusalem 101, 2 December 2014. [return]
36. "Helena (empress): The `True Cross' and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre," Wikipedia, 12 May 2018. [return]
37. "The Church of the Holy Sepulcher," Jerusalem 101, 2 December 2014. [return]
38. "History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Construction," Wikipedia, 12 December 2016. [return]
39. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Construction (4th century)," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
40. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Damage and destruction (614–1009)," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
41. Ibid. [return]
42. Ibid. [return]
43. Ibid. [return]
44. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Reconstruction (11th century)," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
45. Ibid. [return]
46. Ibid. [return]
47. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Crusader period (1099–1244)," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
48. Biddle, 1999, p.3. [return]
49. Ibid. [return]
50. "History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Later periods," Wikipedia, 12 December 2016; "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Ottoman and later periods," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
51. Ibid; Ibid. [return]
52. Ibid; Ibid. [return]
53. Romey, K., 2017, "Exclusive: Age of Jesus Christ's Purported Tomb Revealed," National Geographic, November 28. [return]
54. History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Later periods," Wikipedia, 12 December 2016; "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Ottoman and later periods," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
55. History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Later periods," Wikipedia, 12 December 2016. [return]
56. Romey, 2017, National Geographic, November 28. [return]
57. "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Ottoman and later periods," Wikipedia, 18 May 2018. [return]
58. Ibid. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Dawkins, R., 2006, "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, p.97. [return]
61. Habermas, G.R., 1984, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.158. [return]

Posted: 8 May 2018. Updated: 22 May 2018.

Sunday, May 6, 2018

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

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

[Previous: April 2018, part #1] [Next: May 2018, part #1]

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

Contents:
Editorial
"Mounting evidence for the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity," Denver Catholic, Jared Staudt, 16 April 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 April up to issue #100, February 1997. [Right (enlarge)]. This was a special 80 page issue, which I am emailing to Barrie in ~20 page quarters. By late April, I had emailed him up to page 39, i.e. about half-way. Issues in the archive are still up to #93, February 1996.

News: In April I continued preparing a previously mentioned media release, outlining my hacker theory which I will post here when it is completed. I may then email a copy of it to news outlets in anticipation of an upsurge in media interest in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating as the thirtieth anniversary of the announcement on 13 October 1988 [see 23Jul15] that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390" draws near. I received an email reply from the "well-known Shroud author" (see previous) regarding the April 1989 phone call he received from a male with a German accent who said had committed "espionage" in falsifying the results of the 1988 dating. He said he is too busy to start dealing with the queries he would inevitably receive if his name was attached to this event. He also said that, "the connection is still too tenuous to me to be written off by others as anything more than a coincidence." I replied to him:

"I thank Jesus (the Man on the Shroud) who is ruling over all (Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9), for your original telling Joe [Marino] of your phone call and him telling me. If you ever get past your deadlines and have time to answer queries about the phone call, please let me know. You don't have to say you believe it was Karl Koch, just that it was a phone call you received."

Posts: In April I blogged only 3 new posts (latest uppermost): "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourteenth century (2)" - 13th; "Water stains #28: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," - 5th; "Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, March 2018," - 2nd.

Updates There were no significant updates in the background of past posts in April.

Comments: In April I deleted 3 posts as sub-standard, 1 of which was incomprehensible, 1 made bare assertions without evidence or references, and 1 was in a foreign language.

On 16 April I published a comment under my recent "Water stains #28 post in which the anonymous commenter had "expected" me to add "a further ... problem ... with the forgery theory ...For the relic to have ever been stored in such a way" (i.e. in an earthenware jar) "suggests that it was in peril." I responded that:

"I deliberately did not speculate why the ancient earthenware jar containing the Shroud, at some point in time had been partly filled with water, because no one knows. It most likely was the result of an accident, because partly filling the jar would not have hidden the Shroud."
However, today (7 May 2018) I am about to post a further comment (when it can be linked to this post), admitting that, "I had missed the commenter's point, thinking only of the water, not the fact that this would indeed "suggest" that the Shroud was stored folded tightly in an earthenware jar at a time when "it was in peril," namely in the early first century when the tiny Christian church was under threat of persecution by ts far more numerous enemies, the Jews and Romans":
"I later read in Barbara Frale's 2012 book, "The Templars and the Shroud of Christ,"

[Left: I definitely do not endorse Frale's thesis that the Shroud was "The mysterious idol of the Templars" (p.19)!]

that "Whoever raised the lid [of such an earthen- ware jar] would not have seen anything but a featureless mass of cloth, too tightly turned in on itself to show even the abundant marks of blood":

"Rather, it was a container designed for other purposes, where the Shroud was perhaps only provisionally housed. The shape of the object is exactly like that of the terra-cotta amphoras found in Qumran, which held the 800 or more manuscripts of the Essene library. In effect, amphoras were very versatile containers in which anything could and would be stored, from oil to grain to books. At the very bottom of that container there must have been some water, a small amount but enough to dampen the lower part of the cloth. This reconstruction seems to open a new and promising path of research. No doubt that kind of earthenware container was a highly commonplace object, made all over the Middle East and certainly not only in Qumran, but the community that lived in isolation on the Dead Sea shore had several features that might have made it a safe refuge for the earliest Christians, persecuted by the Jerusalem authorities almost from the time of Jesus's death. At any rate, if Salcito and Guerreschi's reconstruction is correct, it argues for a phase in the Shroud's history in which this object was not exhibited to the veneration of the faithful, but, on the contrary, hidden: Whoever raised the lid would not have seen anything but a featureless mass of cloth, too tightly turned in on itself to show even the abundant marks of blood. As is known, Jewish tradition held blood in horror and saw it as necessary to destroy anything that had come into contact with corpses, being in the highest degree impure and able to pollute people, things, and places." (Frale, B., 2012, "The Templars and the Shroud of Christ," Skyhorse Publishing: New York NY, p.171)
I then realised that I had missed the commenter's point, thinking only of the water, not the fact that this would indeed "suggest" that the Shroud was stored folded tightly in an earthenware jar at a time when "it was in peril," namely in the early first century when the tiny Christian church was being persecuted by its far more numerous enemies, the Jews (Acts 8:1-3; 11:19; 12:1-3)."
On 23 April I published a comment under my 2015 post, "The man on the Shroud #8: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" from a Bob Mullins who is an Elder in a Surrey UK Christian church. His first line was: "Stephen... youclaim [sic] that the shroud is genuine, yet this is contrary to scripture which surely must be the final authoratative [sic] evidence." My interim reply was:
"Bob. Thanks for your comment. I am very busy with my current post, so I will reply to your comment when I have time. In the meantime, see my post of 11 July 2012: "`according to John chapter 20, Jesus was wrapped in linen cloths (plural) ... If Scripture is correct ... lets throw out the shroud'" in response to a comment of 31 May 2012 under my post, "My critique of `The Pray Codex,' Wikipedia, 1 May 2011," where a reader made the same logical error as you, that if there were two (or more cloths) in the Tomb, one of them cannot be the Shroud."
I had since decided to respond to Bob's comment in a separate post, which will be next after this one.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, I did not blog about my hacker theory in April.

My book: In April I completed the "Sixth century" and "Seventh century" 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 previous).

Pageviews: At midnight on 30 April 2018, Google Analytics [Below (enlarge)] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 885,877. This compares with 735,259 (up 150,618 or 20.5%) from the same time in April 2017. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (highest uppermost) as: "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (5): Coins over eyes," May 10, 2013 - 329; "The Shroud of Turin: 3.3. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were scourged," Jul 15, 2013 - 185; "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear," Mar 18, 2011 - 154; "Three-dimensional #20: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Feb 5, 2017 - 138; and "X-rays #22: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!," Apr 20, 2017 - 112.

As can be seen on the map above, China is white, indicating little or no pageviews of my blog from there when once China was dark green, indicating many pageviews. So presumably the atheistic Chinese government has blocked my Shroud of Turin blog as a threat to their shaky anti-Christian worldview!

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]

Posted: 6 May 2018. Updated: 14 May 2018.

Friday, April 13, 2018

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Fourteenth century (2)

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
FOURTEENTH CENTURY (2)
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is part #15, "Fourteenth century (2)" of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. Because of this post's length, I have decided to again split the fourteenth century, this time into parts (2) 1351-1375 and (3) 1376-1400. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 14th century (1) #14] [Next: 14th century (3) #16]


14th century (2) (1351-1375).

[Above (enlarge): Lead pilgrim's badge or medallion in the Cluny Museum, Paris[2] from the first undisputed exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France from c.1355-56[3]. [See "c.1355-6".]

1351 Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–1356) returned to France from his captivity in England [see "1349d"] in July after his huge ransom of 12,000 ecus was paid by King John II (r.1350–1364)[4].

c.1351 Around 1351-1352 a painted copy of the Shroud with the frontal image only began to be exhibited in Besançon[5] [see "1349b" and "1375"].

1352 In January Geoffroy was created a founding member of the knights of the Order of the Star[6], members of which, like the Knights Templar, took a vow never to flee in battle[7].

c.1352 Birth of Geoffroy II de Charny (1352-98) to Geoffroy I de Charny and Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428)[8].

1353 According to its Act of Foundation, construction of the Lirey church began on 20 February 1353 and was completed on 20 June 1353[9]. In June 1353, King John retrospectively granted Geoffroy I permission to build a collegiate church in Lirey[10]. See Introduction and "c.1343" where, according to my theory, Geoffroy by now had the Shroud[11].

1354a In January Geoffroy resubmitted his petition of five years previously to Pope Clement VI (r. 1342-1352) [see "1349c"] to the new Avignon Pope Innocent VI (r. 1352-1362), for approval that the by now built Lirey church be elevated to the status of a collegiate church[12]. Its clergy had increased to six canons, one of whom was the ruling Dean, together with three assistant clerics[13] - for a tiny a village of only ~50 houses [14][see "1343c"]!

1354b Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) was appointed Bishop of nearby Troyes[15].

1354c In August Pope Innocent VI recognised the Lirey church's canons and its collegiate status and granted indulgences to pilgrims visiting the church[16]. Yet despite extant lists of the various relics held by the Lirey church in 1354, none mention the Shroud[17]! There is an explanations for this: as we shall see the Shroud never was the property of the Lirey church but remained the private property of Geoffroy I de Charny and/or Jeanne de Vergy and their heirs[18].

1355 In June Geoffroy I was again [see "c.1347"] appointed bearer of the Oriflamme, the French sacred battle standard[19].

c.1355 First exposition of the Shroud in undisputed history at Lirey,

[Right (enlarge)[20]: Rebuilt Church of St. Mary, Lirey, France. It was on these grounds in c.1355 that the Shroud was first exhibited in undisputed history.]

France[21]. This date is based on a 1389c memorandum by the then Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395) [see future "1389c"], to Pope Clement VII (r.1378-94), which stated that the Shroud had been exhibited in Lirey "thirty-four years or thereabouts" previously[22], that pilgrims were told it was "the true shroud of Christ" and that "from all parts people came together to view it"[23].

c.1355-6 Pilgrim's badge or medallion in the Cluny Museum, Paris [see above][24], from the first exposition of the Shroud at Lirey, France, in c.1355-56. It was found in 1855[25] by a French archaeologist, Arthur Forgeais (1822-78) in the mud of the Seine River, Paris[26], under the Pont au Change bridge[27]. Forgeais found hundreds of pilgrim's medallions to various holy places at that location (but only one of the Lirey Shroud exposition), which indicates it was a pilgrim `wishing well' site[28]. The badge depicts the actual Lirey exposition[29], with the arms and hands of two clerics (whose heads have broken off[30]) holding the Shroud[31] as well as the exposition platform and its support posts (the tops of which have also broken off) are on either side[32] (see below). The clerics are holding a full-

[Above (enlarge)[33]: The top `third' of the Lirey pilgrim's badge showing part of the arms and the hands of two clerics holding the Shroud, between the broken off support posts of the Lirey exposition platform.]

length representation of the Shroud[34] (below), the first known[35].

[Above (enlarge)[36]: The middle `third' of the Lirey pilgrim's badge depicting the full-length Shroud.]

The man on the Shroud is depicted front and back, head to head[37] and naked[38]. Despite the small, about 6.2cm. by 4.5cm. (or 2½ in. by 1¾ in.), size of the badge[39], the mold-maker even depicted the Shroud's herringbone weave[40] [see 16Jul15a]. Under the Shroud is a depiction of the reliquary (below) in which the Shroud was then kept[41]. That this is a depiction of the Shroud's reliquary and not a

[Above (enlarge)[42]: The bottom `third' of the Lirey pilgrim's badge showing the reliquary in which the Shroud was then kept. The coat of arms shields of Geoffroy I de Charny are on the right of the reliquary and that of Jeanne de Vergy is on its left[43]. The roundel in the centre represents the empty Tomb[44], and around it are instruments of the Passion: a flagrum, the scourging column, the lance, pincers, nails, and the cross upon which is hung the crown of thorns[45].]

depiction of the de Charny and de Vergy coats of arms themselves, solves the apparent problem of Jeanne's coat of arms seeming to be on the right and Geoffroy's on the left[46]. That the reliquary has Geoffroy I's coat of arms[47] indicates that he was still alive at the time of the exposition[48] and therefore the badge (and the exposition) must be dated before his death at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356[49] [see "1356c"]. It is most unlikely that the exposition took place, or continued, after Geoffroy I's September 1356 death in the Battle of Poitiers [see "1356c"] because not only would Jeanne have been grieving the death of her husband, but King John II had been captured [see "1356d"], the French army had been decimated and roving bands of English "companies" remained behind in France after the Battle of Poitiers [see "1356e"], which would have made it too dangerous for pilgrims to travel, let alone the danger to the Shroud [see "1359"].

1356a In a letter dated 28 May 1356[50], Bishop Henri de Poitiers, writing from his diocese of Aix (presumably Aix-en-Othe)[51] formally ratified Geoffroy I's letters instituting the Lirey church, praised him and approved its "divine cult":

"Henri, by the grace of God and of the Apostolic See, confirmed bishop elect of Troyes, to all those who will see this letter, eternal salvation in the Lord. You will learn what we ourselves learned on seeing and hearing the letters of the noble knight Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Savoysy and of Lirey, to which and for which our present letters are enclosed, after scrupulous examination of these letters and more especially of the said knight's sentiments of devotion, which he has hitherto manifested for the divine cult and which he manifests ever more daily. And ourselves wishing to develop as much as possible a cult of this nature, we praise, ratify and approve the said letters in all their parts a cult which is declared and reported to have been canonically and ritually prescribed, as we have been informed by legitimate documents. To all these, we give our assent, our authority and our decision, by faith of which we esteem it our duty to affix our seal to this present letter in perpetual memory. Given in our palace of Aix of our diocese in the year of Our Lord 1356, Saturday, the 28th of the month of May"[52].
1356b On 19 September 1356 the Battle of Poitiers was fought at

[Left (enlarge): Battle of Poitier at Nouaillé-Maupertuis in 1356, in the Chronicles of Froissart, c.1470[53]. The mounted French knights in armour (right) were no match for the longbows of the English foot-soldiers (left)[54].]

Nouaillé, near the city of Poitiers in Aquitaine, western France[55]. An English army led by Edward, the Black Prince (1330–1376)[56], defeated a much larger French army led by King John II (r.1350–1364)[57]. The loss included the capture of King John II[58], his son Philip II (1342–1404), and much of the French nobility[59]. The effect of the defeat on France was catastrophic, leaving the country in the hands of the 18 year-old Dauphin, and future King, Charles V (r.1364-1380)[60].

1356c Death of Geoffroy I de Charny on 19 September 1356 in the Battle of Poitiers[61]. He died, Oriflamme in hand[62], interposing his body between an English lance and King John II[63]. Geoffroy's body was buried in a nearby graveyard[64] but 14 years later, in 1370, his gallantry was publicly recognized when his remains were given a state funeral and reburied in the Abbey of the Celestins in Paris[65] [see "1370"].

1356d King John II was taken captive in the same Battle of Poitiers[66]. The Treaty of Brétigny in 1360 set John's ransom at 3 million crowns, so leaving his son Louis I, Duke of Anjou (1339–1384) in English-held Calais as hostage, John return to France to raise the funds[67]. However in 1363 Louis escaped and John for reasons of "good faith and honour" voluntarily returned to England[68] where he died in 1364 and his body was returned to France[69].

1356e Marauding bands of English soldiers, called "companies," after the Battle of Poitiers, began roaming the French countryside looting towns[70].

1357a Twelve bishops of the pontifical court at Avignon grant indulgences to all who visit the church of St Mary of Lirey and its relics[71].

1357b Also in June there was a peasants' revolt, known as the Jacquerie, which spread into Lirey's Champagne region, and although it was directed primarily against the nobility in manors and castles, there was also indiscriminate looting[72].

c. 1358 Due to the threats of the "companies" [see "1356e" and "1359"] and the peasants' revolt [see "1357b"], presumably the Shroud was taken in c. 1358 by Geoffroy I's widow Jeanne, with her two young children Geoffroy II (1352–1398) and Charlotte (c.1356-1398), to a safer region of France[73]. Such as her castle at Montfort-en-Auxois [Right (enlarge)[74].] (aka Montfort near Montbard)[75] which was ~93 km (~58 mi) south of Lirey. [see 16Feb15a].

1359 A "company" (see "1356d") under English knight Robert Knolles (c.1325–1407) attempts to capture Troyes but under the leadership of Bishop Henri de Poitiers, the attack failed[76]. Lirey is only ~12 miles (~19 km) from Troyes[77] and such a valuable and well-known religious artifact as the Shroud would have been a prime target for one of "the companies" so presumably it had already been taken to a safer region of France [see "c. 1358"].

c. 1359 Jeanne married the wealthy and influential Aymon IV of Geneva (c. 1324-1388)[78], an uncle of Robert of Geneva (1342-94) who became Pope Clement VII (r.1378-94)[79] [see future "1378"]. Then she took her two children Geoffroy II and Charlotte, and the Shroud from Montfort to the safety of one of Aymon's estates in High Savoy (that part of France bordering both Switzerland and Italy), probably Anthon[80] [see 16Feb15b]. Aymon's domains were close to Annecy where Clement VII had been born and grew up[81]. Because of Clement VII's unexpected siding with Geoffroy II and Jeanne's 1389 exposition of the Shroud against Bishop d'Arcis' objections [see future "1389c"], presumably Jeanne had privately shown the Shroud to Robert of Geneva and explained its history: how her ancestor Othon de la Roche had brought the Shroud from Constantinople to Burgundy, via Athens [see "c1332"] [82]. So Pope Clement VII would have known the true facts about the Shroud's history, how it had come into the possession of the de Charny family and why this must remain a secret [see 15Aug17] [83].

1370 Geoffroy I was given a hero's reburial at the Abbey of the Celestins in Paris by John II's son, King Charles V (r.1364-1380)[84].

1375 Archbishop Guillaume (William) de Vergy (r. 1371–1391)[85], claimed to have found the original Besançon shroud lost in the 1349 fire [see "1349b"] [86] and `verified' it by a `miracle' of laying that `shroud' on a dead man who immediately revived[87]! Thus a de Vergy `verified' by this `miracle' that this was the original Shroud[88], which fits the theory that the de Vergys arranged the transfer of the Shroud from Besançon in Burgundy to Jeanne de Vergys in Paris[89] [see "c1343"]. This painted copy of the Shroud with the frontal image only[90] [see "c1351"] was kept at Besançon until it was destroyed in 1792 during the French Revolution[91]. Guillaume was a favourite of John II's older son, King Charles V[92] and came into conflict with John II's youngest son Duke Philip II of Burgundy (1342–1404), whom he excommunicated and took refuge at Avignon[93]. Where he was in 1391 made Cardinal of Besançon by Avignon Pope Clement VII (r.1378-94)[94].

c.1375 Only known other examples of herringbone twill linen weave in

[Left (enlarge): The larger fragment of only known other examples of a herringbone twill weave in linen (the grey part is a reconstruction), dated the second half of the fourteenth century[95], in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, ref. no. 8615-1863[96]. This 18 cm x 10.5 cm fragment, the larger of two (see ref. 7027-1860), is of coarser weave than the Shroud and was sold to the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1863 by a Franz Bock who attributed it to Italy[97]. They are the only known examples of herringbone twill linen (which the Shroud is - see 16Jul15b]), so how could a medieval forger have obtained a ~4.4 m x 1.1 m [see 16Jul15c] herringbone twill linen sheet?]

the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[98].

To be continued in the next part #16 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. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.197; Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.30-31; 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.277; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.10; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.231; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.44-45; Wilson, 2010, p.218. [return]
5. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," [1946], Sheed & Ward: London, p.9; O'Connell, P. & Carty, C., 1974, "The Holy Shroud and Four Visions," TAN: Rockford IL, p.8; Guerrera, 2001, p.11. [return]
6. Wilson, 1979, p.198; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.31; Wilson, 1998, p.277; Wilson, 2010, p.218. [return]
7. Wilson, 1979, p.198; Wilson, 2010, p.218. [return]
8. Crispino, D.C., 1982, "Recently Published," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 4, September, pp.32-35, 34; Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, p.35; Wilson, 1998, p.279. [return]
9. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.6, 9; Rinaldi, P.M., 1978, "The Man in the Shroud," [1972], Futura: London, Revised, p.20; Crispino, D.C., 1981, "Why Did Geoffroy de Charny Change His Mind?," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 1, December, pp.28-34, 30-31. [return]
10. Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.37, 49; Guerrera, 2001, p.10; Oxley, 2010, p.48. [return]
11. Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.28; Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.97; Oxley, 2010, pp.46, 48. [return]
12. Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.31; Tribbe, 2006, p.41; Oxley, 2010, p.111; Wilson, 2010, pp.220, 277, 302. [return]
13. Wilson, 2010, p.220; Tribbe, 2006, p.41. [return]
14. Wilson, 2010, p.219. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, p.278; Wilson, 2010, p.220. [return]
16. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.20; Wilson, 1998, p.278; Wilson, 2010, p.220. [return]
17. Wilson, 1991, p.20; Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
18. Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, p.101; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.44; Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, p.32; Currer-Briggs, 1988, pp.36-37; Piana, A., 2007, "The Shroud's "Missing Years," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 66. December, pp.9-25, 28-31. [return]
19. Wilson, 1979, p.259; Oxley, 2010, p.52. [return]
20. "Lirey, France," Google Street View, August 2008. [return]
21. Oxley, 2010, pp.4, 49; Wilson, 2010, pp.221-222, 302. [return]
22. Humber, 1978, p.96; Wilson, 1979, pp.91, 267; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.14; 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, 174; Wilson, 1991, p.19; 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, 66; Wilson, 1998, pp.111, 120, 122, 126; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.151-152; Guerrera, 2001, p.14; Wilson, 2010, p.222[return].
23. Wilson, 1979, p.268; Guerrera, 2001, p.14; Oxley, 2010, p.53; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.14. [return]
24. Adams, 1982, pp.30-31; Wilson, 1998, p.127; Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
25. Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127. [return]
26. Bonnet-Eymard, B., "Study of original documents of the archives of the Diocese of Troyes in France with particular reference to the Memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis," 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.233-260, 245; Wilson, 1991, p.194; Wilson, 1998, pp.126-127; Tribbe, 2006, p.42. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, p.194; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.5. [return]
28. Foster, A., 2012, "The Pilgrim's Medallion / Amulet of Lirey," BSTS Newsletter, No. 75, June. [return]
29. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.12. [return]
30. Adams, 1982, p.31; Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.246; Wilson, 1998, p.127; Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, p.127; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
32. Scott, 2003, p.12. [return]
33. Latendresse, 2012. [return]
34. Adams, 1982, pp.30-31. [return]
35. Wilson, 1979, p.224D; Adams, 1982, pp.30-31; Wilson, 1986, p.5; Wilson, 1991, p.21; Wilson, 1998, p.127; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
36. Latendresse, 2012. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, p.224D; Adams, 1982, p.31; Maher, 1986, p.961; Wilson, 1986, p.5; Wilson, 1998, p.127; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Wilson, 2010, pp.302-303. [return]
38. Wilson, 1998, p.127; Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
39. Wilson, 1998, p.126; Scott, 2003, p.12; Wilson, 2010, p.221; Foster, A., 2012. [return]
40. Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Scott, 2003, p.12; Foster, A., 2012; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
41. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.246; Guerrera, 2001, p.103. [return]
42. Latendresse, 2012. [return]
43. Wilson, 1979, p.224D; Maher, 1986, p.96; Wilson, 1986, p.5; Wilson, 1998, p.127; Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
44. Wilson, 1979, p.224D; Wilson, 1986, p.5; Wilson, 1998, p.127; Antonacci, 2000, p.150; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Scott, 2003, p.12; Wilson, 2010, p.221. [return]
45. Wilson, 1998, p.127; Guerrera, 2001, p.103; Scott, 2003, p.12. [return]
46. Oxley, 2010, p.52; Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
47. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.128; Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
48. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.246; Antonacci, 2000, p.151; Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
49. Oxley, 2010, p.49. [return]
50. Bulst, 1957, p.9; Wilson, 1979, pp.90, 193, 259; Currer-Briggs, N., 1984, "The Holy Grail and the Shroud of Christ: The Quest Renewed," ARA Publications: Maulden UK, p.65; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.49; Scavone, 1989, pp.15-16; Wilson, 1991, p.20; Wilson, 1998, p.128; Antonacci, 2000, p.152; Guerrera, 2001, p.10; Tribbe, 2006, p.42; Wilson, 2010, p.303. [return]
51. Wilson, 1998, p.278; Wilson, 2010, pp.224, 229. [return]
52. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.242; Wilson, 1991, p.20; Wilson, 1998, pp.128, 278; Guerrera, 2001, p.11; Wilson, 2010, p.224. [return]
53. "File:Battle-poitiers(1356).jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 23 April 2017. [return]
54. Wilson, 1979, p.199; Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.18; Oxley, 2010, p.471; Wilson, 2010, p.224. [return]
55. "Battle of Poitiers," Wikipedia, 29 April 2018. [return]
56. Adams, 1982, p.44; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.49. [return]
57. Wilson, 1979, p.199; Antonacci, 2000, p.151; "Battle of Poitiers," Wikipedia, 29 April 2018. [return]
58. Wilson, 1998, p.278; "Battle of Poitiers," Wikipedia, 29 April 2018. [return]
59. "Battle of Poitiers," Wikipedia, 29 April 2018. [return]
60. Ibid. [return]
61. Adams, 1982, p.44; Guerrera, 2001, p.12; "Geoffroi de Charny: Death," Wikipedia, 17 April 2018. [return]
62. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.49; Wilson, 1998, p.278; 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.64. [return]
63. Wilson, 1979, p.91; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.49; Wilson, 1991, p.21; Wilson, 1998, p.278; Ruffin, 1999, p.64. [return]
64. Wilson, 1998, p.278. [return]
65. Wilson, 1979, p.91; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.49; Wilson, 1991, p.21. [return]
66. "John II of France: Surrender and capture," Wikipedia, 6 April 2018. [return]
67. "John II of France: Treaty of Brétigny," Wikipedia, 6 April 2018. [return]
68. "John II of France: Louis' escape and returning to England," Wikipedia, 6 April 2018. [return]
69. "John II of France: Death," Wikipedia, 6 April 2018. [return]
70. Oxley, 2010, p.51. [return]
71. Wilson, 1998, p.279; Guerrera, 2001, p.12; Oxley, 2010, p.52. [return]
72. Oxley, 2010, p.50. [return]
73. Oxley, 2010, pp.51-52. [return]
74. "Château de Montfort," Tourisme en Bourgogne, 2014. [return]
75. Piana, 2007. [return]
76. Oxley, 2010, p.51. [return]
77. Wilson, 1986, p.11; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.37; Wilson, 1998, p.129; Ruffin, 1999, p.65; Antonacci, 2000, p.151; Scott, 2003, p.13; Oxley, 2010, p.51. [return]
78. Wilson, 1979, p.203; Adams, 1982, p.33; Wilson, 1991, p.18; Wilson, 1998, p.279; Guerrera, 2001, pp.12-13; Oxley, 2010, p.68; Wilson, 2010, p.229. [return].
79. Wilson, 1979, pp.203, 205; Adams, 1982, p.33; Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.43; Wilson, 1991, p.18; Currer-Briggs, 1995, p.34; Guerrera, 2001, p.13; Oxley, 2010, p.83. [return]
80. Wilson, 1991, p.18; Wilson, 2010, pp.229-230. [return]
81. Wilson, 1991, p.18. [return]
82. Oxley, 2010, p.83. [return]
83. Currer-Briggs, 1988, p.43. [return]
84. Wilson, 1979, p.203; Wilson, 1991, p.21; Wilson, 1998, p.279; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.43. [return]
85. Bonnet-Eymard, 1991, p.245; Scavone, 1991, p.199. [return]
86. Scavone, 1991, pp.199-200. [return]
87. Ibid; Guerrera, 2001, p.12. [return]
88. Scavone, 1991, p.200. [return]
89. Ibid. [return]
90. Ibid; Guerrera, 2001, p.12. [return]
91. Guerrera, 2001, p.12. [return]
92. "House of Vergy: Notable members," Wikipedia, 18 November 2017. [return]
93. "Guillaume de Vergy," Wikipedia, 8 March 2018. [return]
94. "House of Vergy: Notable members," Wikipedia, 18 November 2017. [return]
95. Wilson, 1998, p.69. [return]
96. Ibid. [return]
97. Wilson, I., 1990, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 26, September/October, pp.11-18, 14. [return]
98. Wilson, 1998, p.69. [return]

Posted: 13 April 2018. Updated: 14 May 2018.