Shroud Discovery

05/08/2026

Barrie Schwortz ‘ENOUGH!’

Enclosed is the initial statement in his article ‘ENOUGH!” In the BSTS newsletter (98) shortly before his death. Much of what he complained about still exists today.
It’s worth remembering what that sole intention of the STURP group actually was ; The Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) defined its primary objective with a very specific focus on the physics and chemistry of the cloth.
As quoted in their official documentation and the 1981 final report, the "sole aim" or primary goal was:

"To determine the scientific properties of the image on the Shroud of Turin, and what might have caused it."

An example of this can be seen in the paper written by Dr Eric Jumper and William Mottern (of STURP ) ‘Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin” (Applied Optics 1980)
Quote “Tests Performed .The goals of STURP are to determine through non- destructive testing the chemistry and character of the image(s) on the Shroud. Through the various tests performed on the Shroud we hope to address the question of authenticity (implying, of course, that inauthenticity is a possible out come) and image formation process(es).”

So what was the type of thing Barrie was complaining about? Here are a few examples:-

1. Andrea Nicolotti (2019 book on The Shroud of Turin)
Speaking about the STURP research in 1978 rather contradictorily said that the group “was assembled and led by those who had previously investigated the Shroud with the inclination to authenticate it” and “Almost all the material that has been produced is the work of those who are predisposed toward a particular outcome and are thus readily satisfied with conjecture about an object that they have never examined”

2. Prof Gove’s (who was co-inventor of the AMS method of C14 dating) attitude toward STURP is best summarized by his description of their proposed research in his book: "Adler [of STURP] then described the magnitude of the attack STURP wished to launch on the shroud—there would probably be four or five 'conservation textile people' involved—in addition to many other experts..."

He consistently portrayed STURP as an organization that sought to "protect" the Shroud's authenticity rather than test it objectively.

According to some accounts of the Trondheim meeting (1986), Gove declared in a polemical speech that he would "abandon everything" if STURP had any role other than the one allotted (which was effectively no role in the C14 process).

When Gove arrived in Turin in 1978, shortly before the Shroud of Turin Research Project conducted its experiments he said “Almost without exception, they were people who honestly believe it’s Christ’s Shroud. It’s a well known fact that scientists can produce whatever results the want. If you believe passionately in something, you can steer the results. My God, we’ve all been guilty of that.”
(Wrapped up in the Shroud. J.Marino p.317).

3. Prof Edward Hall who ran the Oxford carbon dating test in 1988 famously alluded to this in his conclusion in 1988. He took pleasure in, as he saw it, the debunking of any conviction that could not be rationally demonstrated. "There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century," he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. "Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it." And again, "Some people may continue to fight for the authenticity of the shroud, like the Flat Earth Society, but this settles it all as far as we are concerned."
It was said of him ‘He suspected what the answer would be, being a firm non-believer, but prejudice was never allowed to interfere with science. The pursuit of truth as revealed by science was a firm principle with him.’

However in his obituary he was quoted as saying that “Archaeologists should never find themselves in a position where a key argument or interpretation is based on a single measuring technique which cannot be cross checked “.
Which is a strange contradiction to his work on the C14 dating which indeed was exactly that.

05/04/2026

11/23/2025

Why Linen?

We often take for granted that the Shroud of Turin is pure linen without understanding why it was such an important fabric, spiritually to the Jews.

There is an interesting quote in Eusebius ‘Church History’ when he refers to the Memoirs of Hergessipus, who in his book 5 writes about James the Just .
“He alone was permitted to enter the sanctuary, for he wore not wool but linen. He used to enter the temple alone and was often found kneeling and imploring forgiveness for the people”
It is interesting because it points to the special place of linen and the forbidding of mixing wool and linen for the Jewish people.
The first biblical reference is in Exodus 28:42 where it specifies that Aaron’s robes and undergarments for entering the tent of meeting should be made of fine linen.
Leviticus 19:19 says that clothing should not be made of two kinds of material.
The observations about James correspond to Ezekiel 44:17-18 “ when they enter the gates of the inner court, they are to wear linen clothes, they must not wear any woollen garment while ministering at the gates of the inner court or inside the temple”
There are many references in the Old Testament. David for example danced with all of his might before the Lord wearing a linen ephod (2 Sam 6:14)
Jeremiah (13:1) is told to wear and then soil a linen sash. The clean sash showing the relationship of the people to their Lord and the dirty and soiled linen sash showing how the people had spoiled that relationship and could no longer be in a close relationship.
This spiritual significance is shown in the book of Revelation (15:6) when it speaks of the seven angels “ …they were dressed in clean, shining linen”

In Matthew 22: 1-14 there is the strange parable of the young man ejected from the wedding feast for not wearing wedding garments. Rev 19:8 offers an explanation.

The "wedding garment of the saints" refers to the fine linen clothing described in the Bible, which symbolizes the righteousness of Christ and the righteous acts of believers. It represents the spotless character and righteousness of Christ that is imputed to believers through faith, which is essential for entering the kingdom of heaven, and also includes the righteous deeds of believers that are a result of that transformed life.

The Shroud purchased by Joseph of Arimathea was described as a clean linen cloth ( Mat 27:59-60). It might not have been used for any other purpose. Knowing that Joseph was a wealthy man it could be presupposed that the cloth itself was an expensive, quality linen.

This proposition regarding the importance of the linen shroud is re-enforced by both modern and ancient Jewish burial customs.
The burial traditions of the Jewish people are still intimately linked to linen to this very day.
Yehuda Shurpin on chabad.org asks the question ‘Why are Jews buried in white linen shrouds ?’
He says that the time honoured Jewish custom is to bury our departed in ( inexpensive) linen shrouds and says that this dates back two millennia to the time of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (died in AD52) in the early first century.
The Talmud relates that at this time there was such social pressure to procure expensive shrouds that the strain it placed on families was even more painful than the death itself.
Things got so bad that families would sometimes abandon the co**se rather than to try and provide the deceased with socially acceptable shrouds.
Rabban Gamaliel asked that he be buried in simple linen (again the implication that expensive 3 over 1 herringbone weaves may have been an alternative).
In later generations this example was followed, it even becoming acceptable to bury the dead in plain h**p garments.
Shurpin also writes that ‘it is customary that not only the shroud but even the threads used to sew the pieces together, should be made of white linen. He says that mystics explain that “ there is a great secret” behind this custom.
As the soul embarks on the journey heavenward, being dressed in pure white linen, with nothing else mixed in, it serves as protection against any impurity or evil forces….when a person passes away and their soul ascends heavenward, he or she is compared to a priest entering Gods sacred abode’.

This connection between instructions given originally to Aaron regarding his linen clothing to enter the tent of meeting, and the burial shroud here become tangible. The dressing of a body in a linen shroud to enter the heavenly sanctuary being a reflection of Aaron’s original clothing required to enter the earthly sanctuary.
In Leviticus 16:23 Aaron is told to enter the sanctuary wearing the linen clothes but to take them off, wash himself and wear ordinary clothing to exit the sanctuary, thus showing the significance of appearing before the Lord in the right clothing.

This in itself adds much more meaning to the actions of Joseph of Arimathea than just procuring a clean linen shroud for the burial of Jesus.

Again from Chabad.org (this is a Jewish Kabbalistic website and has no affiliation to Christianity or the Shroud of Turin).

‘Dressing the deceased in traditional Tachrichim (linen burial shroud) is so important, and the meaning so profound, that Jewish law insists that the funeral be postponed until proper Tachrichim are obtained or made - even though the same Code of Jewish Law normally prohibits any unnecessary delays before burial.
Others explain that since Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is a day dedicated to introspection and repentance, we wear a kittel, which resembles a burial shroud. (In fact, in Yiddish, kittel can also mean “burial shroud.” This is another reason some wear a kittel made of linen, since burial shrouds are preferably made of linen.) Wearing it on Yom Kippur humbles our hearts, reminding us of our mortality and the need for repentance.’

So it is important to understand that Jewish tradition was for shrouds. The common objection that Johns gospel refers to ‘strips of linen’ and that the Shroud cannot be the burial cloth of Christ is a misunderstanding. Joe Marino quotes Father Raymond Brown on this matter.
,“There is really no ancient papyrus support for understanding the term to refer to strips of cloth, and there is no evidence that the Jews wrapped their co**ses with bands or strips similar to those for Egyptian mummies.”

Linen and especially the high quality, expensive herringbone weave Shroud of Turin cloth should be viewed in this context.
shroudofturin.uk

06/18/2025

The Kings Game

John 19:- ‘Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3 and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face.

“Suffered under Pontius Pilate”
“Was crucified, died and was buried” ( the apostles creed).

Michael Tite of the British Museum was the invigilator over all three laboratories in the 1988 carbon dating, and who later took over as head of the Oxford carbon dating laboratory from Prof Teddy Hall (who famously once said of the Shroud : “someone just got a piece of cloth, faked it up and flogged it”).
Later on Tite changed his mind as to how the image was made. He was so convinced of the medieval date of the cloth that he said, “The cloth must have once wrapped a genuine victim of a crucifixion”. He goes on, “this must have been a medieval crucifixion ….some Muslim soldiers must have given a captured Christian soldier a crucifixion in a mockery of Christ”.
(BSTS newsletter 86).
There are of course many reasons why this explanation makes no sense.
Our picture highlights the extend of the injuries suffered by the man on the cloth. The crown of thorns, the terrible scourging, the bruised and beaten face, the dislocated shoulder, the nails of the crucifixion.
Most of this was inflicted by the Roman soldiers. The article below throws a historical insight into the Passion itself and the intense suffering of the man in the Shroud and the cruelty of Roman soldiers.
As Pope John Paul II said, “the Shroud is a mirror of the gospels”.

The Kings Game:
The barbaric and contemptuous treatment that Jesus received was a somewhat regular, macabre game that Roman soldiers played with many (if not all) death row inmates. The cruel, barracks-room bullying that the gospels record, was the ruthless, Roman version of a last “privilege,” call it a final jeering, if you will.
As scholar Michael Green points out, “At the spring festival, they (the Roman soldiers) would dress up a prisoner as a king, pay him mock allegiance, grant all his last wishes…– and then scourge and kill him.” Green goes on to call this cruel and unusual punishment, “the king’s game.” And numerous instances of such mistreatment, are recorded in the pages of Roman history.
Consider, for instance, this historical excerpt from the writings of a Roman consul and historian named Cassius Dio. He is describing what solders did to a dethroned emperor, named Vitellius. The events described below took place December 22, 69AD.

“But the soldiers … seized Vitellius…bound his hands behind his back…And thus they led him down… along the Sacred Way….Some (of the soldiers) buffeted [punched] him, some plucked at his beard; all mocked him, all insulted him, making comments especially upon his riotous living, since he had a protuberant [fat] belly.
(He) did not die (from) the wounds, but was dragged to the prison,…while many jests and many opprobrious remarks were made about them…Then they cut off his head and carried it about all over the city.” (From Historia Romana, LXIV, 20:3-21:2)

Since the Romans prided themselves on this brand of vicious prisoner abuse, it is no wonder that, in time, other nations took note and began to treat Roman captives like they treated others. Plutarch, a Romans historian (AD 46-120), records how a boat-load of “pirates” treated a Roman prisoner of war.
“Whenever a captive cried out that he was a Roman (citizen) and gave his name, they would pretend to be frightened out of their senses, and would smite their thighs, and fall down before him entreating him to pardon them…Then some would put Roman boots on his feet, and others would throw a toga round him, in order, forsooth, that there might be no mistake about him again. And after thus mocking the man for a long time and getting their fill of amusement from him, at last they would let down a ladder in mid ocean…where they would push him overboard themselves and drown him.” (From Life of Pompey, 24:7-8)

Arguably, though, the most striking example of this prisoner exploitation, comes from the quill pen of Philo (20BC – AD50). Philo records how Romans soldiers treated a mentally disturbed man named Carabbas. The similarities between what they did to him and what was done to Jesus are incredible.
“He was driven as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, (they) flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem (crown), and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state. (From Flaccus, 36-39)
https//:shroudofturin.uk

(The wounds of the man on the Shroud highlighted))

05/08/2025

Last week we looked at the opinion of textile expert M.Flury-Lemberg that the Shroud is authentic. This week we repost an article from Biblical Science regarding the evidence of a specific Limestone compound. Travertine Aragonite, which was found on the Shroud and has an identical chemical match for the same substance found in Jerusalem.

According to Kohlbech the Jerusalem Limestone :
“was primarily Travertine Aragonite deposited from springs, rather than the more common calcite. Calcite and Aragonite differ in their crystalline structure - calcite being rhombohedral and aragonite being orthorhombic.
Aragonite is less common that calcite. Aragonite is formed under a much narrower range of conditions than calcite. In addition to the Aragonite, our Jerusalem sample also contained small quantities of iron and strontium, but no lead”

As Kohlbech points out, such findings do not prove that the Shroud came from Jerusalem , but such an origination would be a very reasonable explanation for the presence of the aragonite.

Next week we will look at archaeologist Bill Meachem’s work on the origin of the cloth which points most strongly to the Middle East.
https//:shroudofturin.uk

04/12/2025

I love mine!

Ghirelli® has long been synonymous with beauty and excellence in the Rosary world. Handmade jewelry made In Italy. Discover more on our Official Site.

01/13/2025

EWTN YouTube : your new Catholic source for motivation and inspiration. Watch the full EWTN Original Documentary "The Holy Winding Sheet: Exploring th...

01/11/2025

Enjoyable video as always with Fr. Mike, but check out his comments on the Holy Shroud at 28:55. ❤️

01/11/2025

The 2025 Shroud Conference and Symposium, July 30 to August 3, 2025, sponsored by the Shroud Educational Endeavors Corporation (SEEC), features a wide range of scientific presentations, a series of public sessions and a special tribute to Barrie Schwortz, one of the original STURP members, with a li...

12/21/2024

We are so honored to have special guest Barrie Schwortz join us live via zoom to discuss the Shroud of Turin. Mr. Schwortz is the official documenting photo...