The fit between the bloodstains on the Sudarium and the Shroud is too close and complex to have been mere coincidence. Yet for this to have been the work of a forger, he would have had to have access to the Shroud of Turin. But as Freeman himself admits, the Sudarium was "in Spain … in 1030," that is, 230 years before 1260 which is the earliest radiocarbon date of the Shroud!
But is that so? How good is the match-up proof? Why are so many people not convinced by this argument?
Jones puts it this way:
[Above: Perfect fit of Sudarium of Oviedo (right) to the face on the Shroud of Turin (left), in Bennett, J., "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image," 2001, plate 20. This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo once covered the bleeding head of the same man.]
Beyond reasonable doubt?
Colin Berry, who has a germaphobic or something like that fear now of commenting on blogs that he doesn’t own or control, disagrees on his own site, sans explanation. Really, you need to read the whole post, Was the blood on the Shroud applied with a monkish felt-tip pen (well, a somewhat primitive version thereof)?
Here’s the current offering from Stephen E. Jones, BSc, Grad. Dip. Ed, on the so-called ‘Sudarium of Oviedo’. His graphic and caption says it all. Perfect fit? In your dreams, Mr.Jones . . . .
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt” ? Ah yes – one of Jones’s favourite expressions – what he calls killing (as distinct from shooting) the fox. Shame he mistakes foxes for unicorns. There is, needless to say, absolutely NO CORRESPONDENCE whatsoever – but that’s the least of his problems as far as equating a burial cloth with a face cloth, both supposedly draped over the same part of the anatomy, and presumably competing for quality image time . . . .
Absolutely none?