imagedomenico, who comments here quite often, reacts to several of Antonio Lombatti’s arguments over at The Bible and Interpretation. domenico’s comments are always well thought out and on target as these latest comments illustrate. I have repeated them here:

1) History: It’s true that the Pope wrote in his bulla: "it had to be said with a clear and loud voice that it was a mere representation".

It’s also true that in the last version of the bulla this sentence was deleted; you can read about this matter: Emmanuel Poulle, « Le linceul de Turin victime d’Ulysse Chevalier », Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 2006, vol. 92, n° 229, p. 343-358

2) Anatomical correctness: many forensic doctors have studied the Shroud’s image and no one has found problems in the anatomy; I can remember: Antony Sava, Robert Bucklin, PierLuigi Baima Bollone, Frederick T. Zugibe (

You can read the last peer reviewed paper by Dr. Gilbert Lavoie: "A medical study of the surface anatomy of the image and a medical forensic evaluation of the blood marks of the Shroud of Turin in relation to image formation".

3) About the "amazing" life-size reproduction of the Shroud made by Prof. Garlaschelli, please read the peer reviewed paper: Heimburger,Fanti "Scientific comparison between the Turin Shroud and the first handmade whole copy".

4) I cannot believe that Prof. Gibson in the documentary said that Akeldamà Shroud is all wool and s-spun; I quote from his book: "since both the woolen and linen parts exhibit a type of warp that was both Z-spun and S-spun" ("The final Days of Jesus", p. 144).

5) Prof. Lombatti writes that "Shroud fans have never mentioned the Second Temple burial cloth remains that were found"; this is very incorrect since we have this 2010’s paper: Fulbright, "Akeldama repudiation of Turin Shroud omits evidence from the Judean Desert"

The Bible and Interpretation