Is the Shroud of Turin the authentic burial cloth
of Christ?
The Shroud of Turin, an ancient linen cloth 14 feet by 4 feet, has been hailed around the world as the genuine burial garment of Jesus. Scores of people have supported its authenticity. Pope Paul VI proclaimed the Shroud to be “the most important relic in the history of Christianity” (U. S. Catholic, May 1978, p. 48). The image on the cloth is purported to be the very image of Jesus Christ and demonstrates tangible proof of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Many have called it the world’s greatest mystery. The Shroud’s proponents claim that the image stands up to twentieth century analysis as being humanly impossible to “fake” or “duplicate.”
After quite extensive research, we have come to view the Shroud with great skepticism. It seems that much of the Shroud research has been accomplished in the light of preconceived convictions about the cloth’s authenticity. There are many accurate problems with holding that the Shroud is authentic.
Prior to 1350, there is no historical evidence to prove authenticity or even the existence of the Shroud. A. J. Otterbein in The New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “The incomplete documentation on the Shroud makes some hesitant to accept its authenticity. Such hesitancy is justified if one considers only the historical evidence.”
Forgery
About 1900, a letter was found in a collection of documents owned by Ulysse Chevalier. The letter was written in 1389 by the Bishop of Troyes to the Anti-Pope of Avignon, Clement the VII. The letter explained that an investigation had exposed the artist who had painted the Shroud and he had confessed. Many were disturbed that the cloth was being used for financial gain. The letter further pointed out: “For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real Shroud of our Lord, having the Savior’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the Holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint; while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy evangelist would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time.” The letter added that the forger had been exposed and referred to “the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.”
Its History
Geoffrey de Charney acquired the Shroud sometime before
1357. It was displayed for veneration in 1357 at a collegiate church in
A photographer by the name of Secondo Pia photographed the cloth’s image in 1898. To everyone’s surprise it was discovered that the imprint on the cloth was a negative.
...
3-D Image
One claim of the Shroud proponents is that the image on the
cloth can be reproduced into a 3-D image with an Interpretations Systems YP-8
Image Analyzer. This equipment is
Dr. Marvin Mueller, Ph.D. in physics of the Los Alamos Lab, states: “The relative image darkness is determined by optically scanning a photograph of the Shroud image. Next, a correlation plot of image darkness vs. cloth-body distance is made. To maximize the correlation numerous adjustments are made in the detailed drape shape of the cloth. “The final adjusted correlation is fairly good, and a smoothly declining function approximating an exponential is extracted. However, except for measurement errors and except for the smoothing involved in extracting the function from scattered data, one winds up with just a 3-D relief of the human model chosen for the experiment! “The irony is that the smoothing process itself produces distortion of the relief, but it also affords the possibility that some of the characteristics of the Shroud image can now be superimposed on the relief of the human model chosen for the experiment! “Thus, the resultant ‘statue’ is some blend of the characteristics of the human model and the Shroud image-not, as has been asserted, a statue of the Man of the Shroud. “What STURP has done is to demonstrate it can obtain a fairly good correlation between the image darkness on the Shroud and the corresponding cloth-body distance obtained when a particular male body of the proper size is overlaid with a particular cloth draped in a certain way. But, because correlation is not causality, that is all STURP has done” (from The Los Alamos Monitor, December 16, 1979, p. B–6).
Blood Stains
Alleged blood stains on two small particles and twelve threads of the Shroud were analyzed for authenticity. Prior to recent testing done on the Shroud, it was determined by the scientists that no conclusive evidence existed for the stains on the cloth being human blood (Thomas Humber, The Sacred Shroud, p. 178). Recent tests conducted in 1978 have led protagonists to believe that “the blood stained areas had spectral-characteristics of human hemoglobin” (S. F. Pellicori, “Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, 15 June 1980, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 1913–1920). However, the issue still remains that a forger with a proper method would logically use human blood to create the most realistic image possible. The presence of blood or hemoglobin on the Shroud is not valid evidence to warrant claims of authenticity.
Duplication
The Shroud proponents set forth various pieces of evidence to support their claims of authenticity. Such pieces of evidence were (1) no brush mark; (2) no image penetration of the fibers (it is purely a surface phenomenon); (3) presence of a powder alleged to be aloes; (4) the “pollen fossils” found on the cloth alleged to be from the time of Christ.
Most of the above is answered by a bas-relief image created
by Joe Nickell. A picture of the image is found in the November–December 1978
issue of The Humanist and in the November 1979 issue of Popular Photography.
Nickell employed a technique using only fourteenth century material and methods
to recreate or duplicate a negative imagery as found on the Shroud. This
technique produces a negative. He did not paint his image, but used a bas-relief
and applied a wet cloth to it, and when it had dried he used a dauber to rub on
powdered “pigment.” Nickell used a mixture of myrrh and aloes. It did not leave
brush marks. Nickell writes: “My rubbings, even on close inspection,
appear to have been created without ‘pigment.’ I used a mixture of the burial
spices-myrrh and aloes-which duplicates the ‘scorch-like’ color and numerous
characteristics. “It is interesting to note that (according to Encyclopedia
Americana, 1978) aloes actually have ‘served as a dye or pigment.’ “A major
point is that this ‘pigment’ does not penetrate the fibers, remaining (as is
said of the coloration on the Shroud) a purely ‘surface phenomenon’-shown by
cross-sectioning and microscopic examination… “Two members of the secret (and
later exposed) official Shroud commission, appointed in 1969 to examine the
cloth, suggested the imagery was the result of some artistic printing technique
employing a model or moulds. That is a pretty accurate description of the
technique I found to be successful. “Shroud enthusiasts maintain they have found
‘no evidence of pigment’ on the cloth, although there is reportedly evidence of
a ‘powder’ said to be aloes. They point out that there are no brush strokes;
that, around the burn holes (from a chapel fire in 1532), there is no darkening
of imprinted areas; and that the imagery has ‘no directionality’ (as from brush
or finger application). These, however, are all characteristics of my technique!
“The report did mention the discovery of various yellow-red to orange ‘crystals’
(or ‘granules’) and certain ‘globules’ which tally with the appearance of myrrh
and aloes. These spices (available to the forger at the twice-a-year Champagne
Fair or at his local apothecary’s) probably contained the ‘pollen fossils’ from
the
Christ’s Graveclothes
Probably the most damaging evidence against the authenticity of the Shroud is the disharmony of the Shroud burial procedure with the New Testament accounts of Christ’s burial. “In ancient times the hair was cut (T. B., Moed. Kat., 8b), but it is now only washed, and nine measures of cold water are subsequently poured over the corpse (during which, in some places, the dead is settled in an upright position), and this constitutes the actual religious purification… “The corpse is, of course, thoroughly dried, care being taken not to leave it uncovered the while. Women have to undergo the same process of purification at the hands of their own sex. In Acts 9:37 we have an instance of a woman being washed before burial in New Testament times. “It was formerly the custom also the anoint the corpse, after cleansing, with various kinds of aromatic spices… . It will be remembered that when Mary was reproached with an unnecessary waste of ointment, Jesus exclaimed, ‘Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burial’ (John 12:7). And we find it recorded that a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 100 lbs. weight, was subsequently brought for the body of Jesus (Ibid 9:39). “After the rite of purification has been carried out in the customary manner, the corpse is clothed in grave-vestments (Mish. Sanhed. 6.5)… They are identical with the sindon of the New Testament (cf. Matthew 27:59, etc.) being made of white linen without the slightest ornament, and must be stainless. “They are usually the work of women, and are simply pieced together, no knots being permitted, according to some, in token that the mind of the dead is disentangled of the cares of this life, but in the opinion of others, as representing the expression of a wish that the bones of the dead may be speedily dissolved into their primitive dust (Rokeach, 316). No corpse, male or female, must be clothed in less than three garments” (from The Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 7, 1895, pp. 260, 261).
There are several problems that arise when Shroud
proponents study the New Testament. The first is that there is a conflict with
the burial cloth. It is clear in the Jewish burial customs and in the New
Testament that there were several pieces of cloth involved in Christ’s burial,
not one 14-feet-by-4-feet piece of material such as the Shroud. John 20:5–7
clearly indicates there was a separate piece wrapped about Christ’s head. It was
found by itself apart from the body wrappings. However, the cloth of
A third problem with the cloth of
The Spices
A fourth problem with harmonizing the Shroud with the New
Testament burial accounts is the spices. The body would have had to have been
washed. Ian Wilson observes: “
Other Shrouds
Many people are not cognizant of the fact that after the
Crusades many different Shrouds circulated throughout medieval Europe at the
same time as the cloth of
No New Testament Witnesses
It is totally unthinkable that the apostles and Christians of the first years of Christianity would not mention a cloth that had an image scorched on it of the crucified and resurrected Christ. In the face of death they proclaimed Jesus Christ alive. They constantly gave personal testimony of Christ’s resurrection appearances in the most adverse situations. Is it conceivable that no one, especially the New Testament writers and church fathers, would ever mention the Shroud in relationship to Christ and His resurrection?
Conclusion
The evidence so far in no way supports the Shroud’s
authenticity as the burial cloth of Christ.