Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 2)
Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 2)
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the May issue of R&R. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]
ANATOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The physical and anatomical features of the figure depicted on the Shroud of Turin have undergone extensive scrutiny and analysis. The man’s hands appear to be positioned over the genital area, with the right hand fully covering any nudity. To maintain this position, either the body would need to be tilted forward with arms stretched downward, or the elbows would need to be propped up and the wrists drawn together.1 However, after death, muscles lose tension and postural control, causing the limbs to relax. Without nervous activity to sustain specific positions, a corpse’s arms are likely to fall to the sides once muscle tension dissipates. Therefore, maintaining a hand-over-groin position post-mortem while supine is improbable.2
Ercoline, et al. found significant deviations between the man on the Shroud and normal human anatomy, specifically regarding the length of the fingers, length of one arm, size of the hips, and the placement of the elbows.3 The researchers concluded that these deviations could not be due to normal anatomical variations. According to some scholars,4 the anatomy of the left hand and arm appears unusually elongated and the fingers disproportional to allow for this modest covering. By applying principles of medical human proportion, researcher Elio Quiroga Rodriguez conducted an analysis revealing that the figure on the Shroud exhibits an exaggerated arm length, notably showing the left arm as approximately 7 to 10 centimeters longer than a typical arm.5 This discrepancy does not align well with known anatomical norms. Unfortunately, either the torso of the image on the Shroud is too short or the arms are too long for the hands to cover the genitals.
One might argue that trauma from crucifixion could cause such a deformation. However, studies like that of Bordes, et al.,6 which utilized direct forensic techniques, refute this claim. Even with shoulder, elbow, and wrist dislocations resulting from crucifixion, such an event would not cause an arm to extend to the exaggerated proportions observed. Furthermore, the hypothesis suggesting that the head is leaning forward is difficult to substantiate and does not align well with the anatomical expectations of a relaxed supine posture.7 These discrepancies raise questions about the anatomical accuracy and potential anachronisms present in the Shroud’s depiction.
Fanti, et al.8 also observed that the buttocks and legs do not appear flattened against the cloth, even where direct pressure on it is expected. The fatty tissue of the buttocks is not affected by rigor mortis, so if a real man, dead or alive, in rigor or not, was placed on the cloth, some evidence from 3D image software should show this contact flattening. However, there is none.
The hair depicted in the Shroud seems to be flowing towards the man’s shoulders, instead of falling towards the ground. Interestingly, the hair is not matted with blood, as one would expect from the trauma of a crown of thorns. Rather, the hair itself appears clean. In addition, there are some blood spots that seem to fall around the hair, as opposed to dripping from it.9 Coroners Bucklin and Zugibe accurately note that scalps bleed precipitously, but there still lacks an adequate explanation for the lack of blood on the hair and the blood that appears to lie outside the hair.
Caja and Boi10 recently analyzed the Shroud’s body image and bloodstains to assess the anatomical characteristics of the depicted figure. Upon detailed examination of high-quality images of the Shroud, the researchers observed significant discrepancies between the frontal (anterior) and posterior (back) views. According to Caja and Boi, in the frontal view of the image, both ankles are visible and aligned parallel, with no overlap or superposition of the feet. However, in the posterior view, the right foot is notably plantarflexed (pointed downward), a position not reflected in the frontal image. Additionally, the degree of plantarflexion differs substantially between the two views—14.5 degrees in the frontal view and 32 degrees in the posterior view—nearly double. In the posterior view, the right foot appears to be beneath the left, while in the frontal view, the right foot appears on top. These discrepancies between the two images, which should theoretically depict the same moment in time, raise concerns about the accuracy of the representation. The researchers concluded that there is no anatomical or scientific explanation for these anomalies.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Shroud clearly depicts nail wounds from nails driven through the dorsal area (top) of the feet, whereas all archaeological remains of crucified victims discovered to date exhibit piercings through the sides of the heel bone in a straddling formation.11 Although variations in crucifixion methods or regional practices could explain these differences, there are no documented examples of nails being driven through the top of the feet, nor is this method depicted in early artistic renderings. In recognition of the fact that very few crucified victims have been discovered and that all of them, thus far, demonstrate piercing through the sides of the heel bone, the depiction of nail wounds and blood patterns on the Shroud—indicating a dorsal penetration through the foot—lacks any known archaeological basis. This inconsistency calls into question the Shroud’s authenticity, suggesting that its portrayal may be more aligned with artistic interpretation than historical accuracy, as it does not reflect the documented practices of Roman crucifixion methods.
In addition, proponents of the Shroud’s authenticity often argue that if someone were attempting to create a forgery, they would have depicted the crucifixion wounds with the hands as they were commonly portrayed in medieval art, aligning with contemporary beliefs. Instead, they claim that the nail marks on the Shroud are located where the Romans actually placed them—through the wrists. While there is no direct archaeological evidence of nail wounds in the wrists of crucifixion victims, it is plausible to infer that the wrists would have been the most likely location for nail insertion by the Romans to maximize the inflicted torture and ensure the victim’s support on the cross. This assertion corresponds with the idea that nailing through the wrists would effectively bear the weight of the body, unlike the hands which would likely tear under the strain.12 However, the image on the Shroud shows the left hand resting over the right, with the palms turned inward toward the body. This inward orientation does not allow for definitive identification of the placement of the nails.
Advocates of the Shroud’s authenticity, such as Paul Vignon,13 have endeavored to explain the origins of the scourge marks visible on the Shroud. To account for the circular marks, a theoretical device was envisioned—one equipped with somewhat spherical blunt objects attached to the ends of its lashes, each culminating in a lead weight capable of producing the impression of two side-by-side balls, resembling a small dumbbell. Having conceptualized this scourge, Vignon14 sought to reconstruct the likely direction of the strikes and even speculated on the positions the torturers might have assumed during the beating. He went so far as to create a facsimile of this hypothesized three-strap instrument of torture, publishing a photograph of it in his second book. Notably, in this reconstruction, he deviated from his earlier description by replacing the imagined small dumbbells with two rounded weights, akin to bullets, spaced at least three centimeters apart.
Many of these hypothetical flagrums have been materially reconstructed, following Vignon’s example, and presented as if they were faithful replicas of an ancient original, despite the complete absence of any historical evidence for such an instrument. One such reconstruction is currently on display at the Shroud Museum in Turin. The museum’s audio guide even claims, “The flagellation in Roman times was carried out with instruments like the one shown here, which has been faithfully reconstructed.”15 Flagrums such as these have been presented as corresponding to a typical or even unique model purportedly used in Roman times and allegedly well-documented by archaeology—a claim that is entirely unfounded.
Despite the lack of evidence, some have manipulated this absence into an argument supporting the Shroud’s authenticity. For example, Gaetano Intrigillo16 poses the question: how could a hypothetical forger have known about the Roman flagrum taxillatum, a device supposedly forgotten for centuries and only rediscovered through archaeology, and then replicated its distinctive marks so precisely on the Shroud? The implication is that the forger could not have known, thereby bolstering the Shroud’s authenticity. However, this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The forger could not have known about the flagrum taxillatum because such an instrument has neither been forgotten nor rediscovered—it has never been documented. To date, no evidence exists that a flagrum taxillatum ever existed, nor have any marks made by such an instrument been discovered.
THE SHROUD AND CRUCIFIXION HYPOTHESES
Several scholars have attempted to estimate or conjecture how Jesus’ crucifixion physically occurred using the Shroud as a guide. Since the early 20th century, medical professionals and scholars have sought to examine the blood patterns on the Shroud in an effort to make informed inferences about Roman crucifixion methods. This approach lacks both an archaeological and scientific precedent.
Most of the Shroud advocates with a medical background, like Robert Bucklin, a forensic pathologist, and W.D. Edwards,17 a medical doctor, have adhered to the classical interpretation established by Pierre Barbet,18 which identified a single wound in the center of the right foot as depicted on the Shroud. Most of these advocates agree, based upon their interpretations of the blood distribution on the Shroud, that the left foot was likely nailed atop the right foot, necessitating a severe contortion of the foot and ankle, which would also require the leg and knee to show an abnormal position.
Paul C. Maloney, following the work of Dr. Joseph M. Gambescia, argues that the Shroud suggests two nails were used to secure the right foot, flattening it against the stipes of the cross. This would account for the downward flow of blood and capillary spread observed on the bottom of the foot. In contrast, the left foot, secured with only one nail, retained its natural arch, which would have limited capillary action and the spread of blood.
However, Caja and Boi’s19 research identified a clear mismatch between the frontal and posterior images concerning the proposed overlap of the feet. The frontal image shows a bloodstain originating from the right foot or ankle, running between both feet, with no corresponding stain from the left foot. The bloodstain from the right foot appears to indicate a nail entry at the midfoot region (Lisfranc’s joint). In contrast, no bloodstain on the left foot corresponds to a nail entry point. The discrepancies between the frontal and posterior images of the feet cast doubt on the single-nail hypothesis and the overall consistency of the Shroud’s imagery.
ORIGIN THEORIES
The Shroud of Turin has been the subject of various theories attempting to explain the detailed imprint and blood marks, each supported by different researchers and evidence.
Painting or Artistic Technique
As previously noted, McCrone,20 among others, has proposed that the Shroud was painted using iron oxide and other pigments, a conclusion based on his analysis of particles found on the cloth. Although this theory has faced criticism, it remains a plausible explanation, particularly given the prevalence of relic creation during the medieval period. Despite the conflicting views, it is evident that the image as it exists today is extremely superficial, with any pigment being almost imperceptible and very finely dispersed. A significant part of the image appears to result from the yellowing of the fibers themselves. Charles Freeman21 offers an intriguing solution to this puzzle, suggesting that over time, the original pigment has been removed, leaving only the “shadow” of its former presence.
Medieval Photography Theory
Nicholas Allen’s22 research on the imprint transfer on the Shroud points to the possibility that the Shroud of Turin was a product of medieval ingenuity, created using a photographic process involving a camera obscura and a quartz lens. Allen argues that the Shroud was deliberately manufactured for a noble or religious audience, rather than for public display, and that the image on the Shroud was created using a form of medieval photography, not traditional painting methods. His hypothesis explains all the Shroud’s unique characteristics, such as the superficiality of the image, its high level of detail, and the absence of pigment. Allen also believes that the medieval creators of the Shroud finalized their work by carefully trickling blood to the areas of the image corresponding to the wounds from nails and thorns on the crucified body. According to Allen, the bloodstains were applied in a manner consistent with the artistic practices and conventions of the late 13th century.
Allen’s work23 challenges previous interpretations and asserts that the Shroud’s creation involved a sophisticated process that was ahead of its time. He contends that this medieval photographic technique would have required advanced knowledge of optics and light-sensitive chemicals, which, while difficult to accept, provides a logical explanation for the Shroud’s mysterious features. Ultimately, Allen concludes that the Shroud’s image was intentionally crafted to appear miraculous, exploiting contemporary religious beliefs, and should be understood within the context of medieval art and science.
Scorch or Thermochemical Process
This theory, as championed by Emily Craig and Randall Bresee,24 suggests that the image was formed through a chemical or thermal process, possibly involving a heated statue or bas-relief. The superficial nature of the image and the lack of brush strokes support the idea that heat or light could have transferred the image onto the linen. The bloodstains would have been added later as droplets atop the corresponding anatomical areas.
Pellicori25 successfully replicated the coloration and some properties of the Shroud of Turin by applying certain substances to linen fabric and then heating it to induce oxidation and dehydration of the fibers. The applied substance acted as a catalyst, resulting in a more intense yellow color in the treated areas. Building on this approach, Craig and Bresee used a dust-drawing technique with nearly colorless aloe powder. The aloe powder, intended to catalyze oxidation and dehydration rather than produce direct coloration, was used to create an image of a human face on paper. This image was then transferred to linen, which was subsequently heated in an oven at 200°F for approximately five hours to induce the oxidation and dehydration of the linen fibers.
Naturalistic or Contact Theory
This hypothesis posits that the image was formed by direct contact between a body and the cloth, with body fluids reacting chemically with the linen fibers. Pierre Barbet supported the idea that the image was formed by natural chemical processes resulting from the direct contact of the body with the cloth. Raymond Rogers,26 a chemist who worked on the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), considered the possibility that chemical reactions might have contributed to the image formation, although he also explored other mechanisms such as Maillard reactions.27
While the Contact Theory provides a naturalistic explanation for the Shroud’s image, it faces challenges. For instance, critics argue that the theory does not fully account for the three-dimensionality and uniformity of the image, and that a perfect imprint would be difficult to achieve without significant distortion. Despite this, the Contact Theory remains one of the possible explanations for the Shroud’s enigmatic image.
Radiation or Energy-Based Theory
Introduced by John Jackson,28 this theory suggests that a burst of radiation or energy, possibly during the resurrection, created the image. It attempts to explain the Shroud’s unique characteristics, such as the alleged lack of pigments and the precise, superficial image.
The idea of a coronal discharge or any other form of radiation as the mechanism behind the Shroud’s image formation is as speculative as other theories and lacks both empirical evidence and biblical support. Throughout the Bible, there are several instances of miraculous resurrections performed by Jesus and the apostles, yet none are described as emitting any kind of radiation or energy. Examples include the resurrection of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7), Jairus’s daughter (Luke 8), Lazarus (John 11), Tabitha (Acts 9), and Eutychus (Acts 20). In none of these cases is there any mention of light, energy, or radiation accompanying the resurrection.
Discussion on Theories
Although current scientific understanding does not fully explain the phenomenon observed in the Shroud, several rational solutions have been proposed, even if none have been perfected. The hypothesis that an artist could have created the image on the Turin cloth is bolstered by historical evidence. Historians have identified over 40 documented copies of the Shroud from the 14th to 16th centuries, suggesting that earlier replicas likely existed.29
It is plausible to suggest that an image originally intended to portray the serene repose of death could have been later repurposed to vividly depict the sufferings of Christ with the use of real blood. This transformation would have served to enhance the Shroud’s status as a relic and an object of intense veneration. Additionally, it is conceivable that what began as painted blood was later augmented with real blood to bolster the cloth’s authenticity as a sacred relic. Alternatively, the blood could have been added on top of an image that was deliberately created to represent a crucified Jesus.
CONCLUSION
According to the New Testament, Jesus was alive for nearly six weeks after His resurrection, fully restored from death. In this context, relics such as the Shroud, which are associated with the dead, would have held no significance. The remnants of Jesus’ suffering, such as the cross, nails, crown of thorns, and seamless tunic, were all discarded and only “rediscovered” centuries later. There is no biblical or historical reason to believe that His grave wrappings, considered unclean according to Jewish customs, would have been uniquely preserved.
Moreover, the New Testament does not indicate any interest in preserving such items, nor does it suggest that they even existed as relics. Attempts to link the Shroud to biblical texts, such as the interpretation of the word proegraphe in Galatians 3:1 as referring to a picture or image, are etymologically and contextually implausible. The lack of biblical and traditional support for the preservation of any such relic further undermines the claim that the Shroud of Turin could be an authentic burial cloth of Christ.
Historical records show that there was no interest in searching for Jesus’ burial cloths until the latter half of the sixth century, with no prior documentation of their existence.30 It wasn’t until this time that references to such relics began to appear, alongside other artifacts associated with Christ. Over the centuries, numerous “sister” shrouds surfaced, each claiming to be genuine, and many found their way into the most prominent cities across Christendom. France, especially during the Carolingian period, became a hub for these relics, though many were later exposed as medieval forgeries, such as the Shroud of Cadouin and the Shroud of Carcassonne. In Spain, the Shroud of Oviedo continues to be venerated despite dating back only to the eighth century. The Shroud of Turin stands out among these various relics because it uniquely features the image of a tortured body, unlike others that typically portrayed only the face, like the Veil of Veronica and the Mandylion of Edessa. The existence of numerous shrouds claiming authenticity raises substantial doubts about the legitimacy of the Turin Shroud.
While the Roman Catholic Church may have a vested interest in the Shroud as one of its most prominent medieval relics, it has never officially claimed the Shroud to be authentic. The Church’s teachings emphasize the resurrection itself, rather than any material object, as the foundation of faith. Likewise, Protestants who adhere to the principle of sola Scriptura find their assurance in the Bible’s narrative and the testimonies it records. Note that believing that the Shroud is genuine does not mean that one needs to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, just that He actually died. Therefore, one does not need to be Christian to believe that the Shroud is real.
Despite the extensive scientific analysis conducted on the Shroud of Turin, the most critical evidence lies within the biblical text itself. According to the Scriptures, there were multiple cloths used to cover Jesus’ body at His burial, not a single shroud. The Gospel accounts, particularly in John 20:6-7, clearly describe both a linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head. This explicit detail directly contradicts the notion that the Shroud of Turin could be the sole burial cloth of Jesus. The existence of only one shroud fails to align with the biblical narrative, undermining its authenticity as the true burial cloth of Christ.
The Shroud of Turin, much like the Egyptian pyramids, stands as a testament to the enigmatic abilities of its creators. Despite the passage of centuries, the precise methods employed in constructing the pyramids remain elusive, suggesting that the Egyptians possessed capabilities and technologies that may no longer exist today. Similarly, the Shroud of Turin represents a creation that defies easy explanation. While vastly different in purpose and form, the artisans behind the Shroud clearly possessed the skill to craft a detailed and lifelike image, potentially augmented with blood, pointing to an advanced understanding of both art and anatomy.
The Shroud of Turin continues to captivate and fuel intense interest despite its carbon dating to the medieval period and the clear discrepancies with biblical accounts. This enduring fascination is largely driven by the unresolved mystery surrounding how the image of a crucified man was imprinted onto the linen cloth. Van Biema31 notes the persistent and aggressive defense of the Shroud’s authenticity by its adherents, who challenge scientific conclusions because, even after extensive analysis, no satisfactory explanation has been provided for the formation of the image. The scientific community remains perplexed, and many proposed explanations are dismissed as speculative. This ongoing mystery, coupled with historical documents and modern scientific theories that keep the debate alive, sustains the Shroud’s allure, drawing both skeptics and believers into the conversation. The Shroud’s enigmatic nature, combined with the lack of a definitive explanation, ensures that interest in it remains strong.
However, for Bible believers, the need for material evidence of Jesus’ death is unnecessary. The Shroud, whether real or fake, does not affect the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is already affirmed by the accounts of numerous witnesses documented in the New Testament, and no relic is required to substantiate this truth.
Endnotes
1 Raymond E. Brown (2002), Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), pp. 151-152.
2 E.A. Mare (1999), “Science, Art History and the Shroud of Turin: Nicholas Allen’s Research on the Iconography and Production of the Image of a Crucified Man,” South African Journal of Art History, 14[1]:66-83; R.E. Brown (1984), “Brief Observations on The Shroud of Turin,” Biblical Theology Bulletin, 14[4]:145-148.
3 Ercoline, et al (1982), “Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society,” Westin Hotel, Seattle, Washington (New York: IEEE), October 28-30.
4 See Elio Quiroga Rodriguez (2024), “Unveiling Deception: An Approach of the Shroud of Turin’s Anatomical Anomalies and Artistic Liberties,” Archaeometry, July, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382219566_Unveiling_Deception_An_Approach_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin’s_Anatomical_Anomalies_and_Artistic_Liberties; Joe Nickell (1983), Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books); Edward Steers, Jr. (2013), “The Shroud of Turin,” Hoax: Hitler’s Diaries, Lincoln’s Assassins, and Other Famous Frauds (Louisville, KY: University Press of Kentucky), p. 146.
5 Rodriguez.
6 S. Bordes, et al. (2020), “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33[1]:12-21.
7 Andrea Nicolotti (2019), The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press), pp. 253-342.
8 Giulio Fanti, et al. (2005), “Evidences for Testing Hypotheses About the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud,” The Third Dallas International Conference on the Shroud of Turin, September 8-11, Dallas, TX, p. 9.
9 Ibid.; Luigi Garlaschelli (2010), “Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and Its Image,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 54[4]; Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, 127.
10 V.L. Caja and M. Boi (2018), “The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin Through the Anatomical Traits of the Lower Limbs and Feet,” Archaeometry, 60:1377-1390.
11 Nicholas Haas (1970), “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv’at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20:38-59; Emanuela Gualdi-Russo, et al. (2019), “A Multidisciplinary Study of Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy: A Possible Case of Crucifixion?” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 11[4]; David Ingham and Corinne Duhig (2022), “Crucifixion in the Fens: Life & Death in Roman Fenstanton,” British Archaeology, 182:27, January-February.
12 This assumption is supported by anatomical considerations that Stephen Bordes, et al. concluded from their experiments with cadavers that the most probable site for nail insertion was through the carpal bones of the wrist. See Stephen Bordes, et al. (2020), “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33[1]:12-21; cf. Zugibe.
13 Paul Vignon (1902), Le Linceul du Christ (Paris: Masson), pp. 110-116; Paul Vignon (1939), Le Saint Suaire de Turin (Paris: Masson), pp. 55-60.
14 Vignon (1939), p. 55.
15 Andrea Nicolotti (2024), “The Scourge of Jesus and the Roman Scourge: Historical and Archaeological Evidence,” For the Study of the Historical Jesus, 15[1]:1-59.
16 Sindone Gaetano Intrigillo (1998), L’istruttoria del Secolo (San Paolo: Cinisello Balsamo), p. 111.
17 W. D. Edwards, W.J. Gabel, and F. E. Hosmer (1986), “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 255[11]:1455-1463.
18 Caja and Boi, “The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin,” 60:1377-1390.
19 Walter McCrone (1990), “The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?” Accounts of Chemical Research, 23[3]:77-83.
20 Charles Freeman (2014), “The Origins of the Shroud of Turin,” History Today, 64[11].
21 N.P.L. Allen (1995), “Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photonegative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin,” De Arte, 51:21-35; N.P.L. Allen (1997), “On Proto-photography and the Shroud of Turin,” History of Photography, 21[4]:264; N.P.L. Allen (1993), “Is the Shroud of Turin the First Recorded Photograph?” South African Journal of Art History, 11:12-32; N.P.L. Allen (1994), “A Reappraisal of Late-thirteenth Century Responses to the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin: Encolpia of the Eucharist, Vera Eikon or Supreme Relic?” Southern African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4[1]:62-94. Allen argues that the Shroud was created using a primitive form of photography involving a camera obscura and light-sensitive chemicals like silver nitrate. This theory accounts for the high level of detail, negative image, and superficiality observed on the cloth. Allen’s experiments successfully replicated these features, making this one of the more scientifically grounded explanations for the Shroud’s origin during the 13th or 14th century.
22 N.P.L. Allen (1997), 21[4]:264.
23 Emily A. Craig and Randall R. Bresee (1994), “Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 34[1], January.
24 S.F. Pellicori (1980), “Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, 19:1913-1920.
25 Pierre Barbet (1955), A Doctor at Calvary (New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons).
26 R. Rogers (2008), A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin (Florissant, CO: Lulu Press).
27 See also T. De Wesselow (2012), The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection (New York: Penguin Group).
28 J.P. Jackson (1991), “An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain All Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image,” History, Science, Theology and the Shroud, ed. A. Berard (St. Louis: Richard Nieman), pp. 325-344; L. Gonella (1987), “Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin: Problems, Results and Methodological Lessons” in Turin Shroud Image of Christ? Proceedings of Symposium in Hong Kong, 1986, pp. 29-40,31; Mark Antonacci (2012), “Particle Radiation from the Body Could Explain the Shroud’s Images and its Carbon Dating,” Scientific Research and Essays, 7[29]:2613-2623.
29 F.C. Tribbe (1983), Portrait of Jesus (New York: Stein and Day), p. 63.
30 Andrea Nicolotti (2019), Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends; Andrea Nicolotti (2022), “The Shroud of Turin: Anything Left to Say? The History of Christianity’s Most Controversial Relic,” Biblical Archaeology Review, April 6, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/the-shroud-of-turin-anything-left-to-say/.
31 D. Van Biema (1998), “Science and the Shroud,” Time Magazine, April 20, https://time.com/archive/6732613/science-and-the-shroud/.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
posted by Believer | 4:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home