FOREWORD
The Turin Shroud, long revered as the burial cloth of Jesus, has been the subject of extensive scientific and historical investigation. Walter McCrone, a prominent microscopist, concluded that the Shroud is a faded painting. His analyses identified the presence of red ochre pigment in the areas corresponding to blood, suggesting that the “blood” is actually paint. These findings indicate that the Shroud may have been created as an artistic representation rather than a miraculous imprint of a crucified body.
Historical evidence supports this possibility. In 1449, the Benedictine monk Cornelius Zantiflet described the Shroud as “an excellent picture of Jesus” and agreed with his bishop that it was a painting. While some argue that the lack of visible sketches or brushstrokes challenges the idea of a painting, historical examples, such as Leonardo da Vinci’s works, demonstrate that subtle, detailed images can be created without preliminary sketches or apparent brushwork.
Technical factors further support the painting hypothesis. The Shroud contains traces of iron oxide and other materials consistent with pigments, and later interventions, such as the addition of iron particles, may have enhanced the image. The cloth also exhibits scorch marks and damage from past fires, which could indicate exposure to heat during its creation or preservation. Moreover, traditional painting techniques on linen, including the use of gesso as a primer, could leave little trace detectable by standard testing methods, suggesting that STURP’s dismissal of the painting hypothesis is not conclusive.
Artistic considerations also align with the Shroud being a painting. Certain features, such as elongated fingers and quasi-negative imagery, match styles found in historical iconography and Egyptian shroud paintings. Comparisons with Byzantine icons indicate that some features of the Shroud may have been influenced by preexisting artistic conventions rather than being direct miraculous imprints.
In conclusion, while the Shroud remains an object of religious significance, both scientific and historical evidence make it plausible that it is a painting executed with unusual techniques. The combination of pigment analysis, historical accounts, and stylistic parallels with other artworks supports the hypothesis that the Shroud could be a carefully created artistic object rather than a supernatural artifact.
MC CRONE
Walter McCrone investigated the Turin Shroud and concluded it was a faded painting. Catholics were outraged, for they are determined to argue that the cloth is the burial cloth of Jesus, in which he left the imprint of his body and his blood following the crucifixion.
McCrone showed that the cloth is a painting and that the blood is really just paint, but it seems he may have been too keen to refute the Shroud’s authenticity. His tests showed the presence of a lot of paint on the cloth. He found that the blood contained the pigment red ochre and could not find it outside the image, proving that the claim of believers—that this pigment came from pictures placed on the Shroud to make them relics—is nonsense (page 27, Looking for a Miracle).
The poker holes on the cloth proved that it was not immune to damage. There was no way people would have been allowed to put damp pictures on the cloth, and the Church usually created relics just by touching a cloth or item to a holy object. Relics of St. Padre Pio, for example, are simply touched to his tomb.
There was no need to lay out the Shroud on an altar and put something all over it. Painted copies of the Shroud that were touched to it did not have enough paint on them to leave a significant trace. Snaps of these can be seen in Ian Wilson’s The Blood and the Shroud.
It is a fact that the entire cloth has traces of iron oxide. The biggest concentration is where water used to put out the fire in 1532 stained the cloth. Believers argue that it is a pure form, not the form used by artists—a blatant lie. It contradicts the fact that the impure form is found on the cloth, likely from devotees trying to bless paintings by laying them on the Shroud.
McCrone also found evidence that people had been working on the image to preserve it and make it seem more miraculous during the previous two hundred years (page 48, The Turin Shroud is Genuine). He found that iron particles were being added to make the blood. This idea of interference with the Shroud is backed by other pieces of evidence. It is possible that the Shroud was originally a faint painting but was altered over time into a kind of negative by the nineteenth century. We must remember that it was never photographed until 1898, when its properties as a negative were first discovered.
A MONK CALLS IT A PAINTING
The Benedictine monk Cornelius Zantiflet said he saw the Shroud and admired it as an excellent picture of Jesus. He agreed with his bishop that what he saw was a painting. This happened in Belgium in 1449. He wrote that it showed the outline of the whole body, including the wounded hands and side with red blood (page 336, The Blood and the Shroud).
Wilson accepts that this is the Turin Shroud, despite the monk calling it a painting. But nobody would suspect that a faint, sketchless image would be a painting. The Turin Shroud shows a man nailed through the wrists, but only one wrist is visible. The vague image would not have been called remarkable or admirable at the time (page 109), suggesting that this was not the Shroud in its current form. It was obviously a painting, which is why it did not take the world by storm like a blood print of a body would have. That superstitious age revered relics of Christ’s blood, and they would have adored the Shroud if it existed today in its current form.
NO SKETCHING
Some argue the image is not a painting because there was no sketching on the cloth. But sketching is not essential. The Turin image is subtle and ghostly, and that does not require sketches. If the substance used for the image also formed the outlines, they would have disappeared once the image was finished.
Leonardo da Vinci did not need to sketch. His masterpieces, The Last Supper and John the Baptist, show no evidence of sketching, as verified by x-ray tests. He painted without guidance and without visible brushstrokes. This demonstrates that an artist can create subtle, precise images without traditional sketching—one of the reasons the Turin Shroud has been taken seriously. Therefore, the lack of brush marks or sketches does not disprove the possibility of a painting.
BLUEPRINT FOR SCULPTURE?
The Sign claims the Shroud is more like a blueprint for a sculpture than a painting. However, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. The artist may have used sculptural blueprinting techniques to create the image, which is a plausible theory.
STYLE OBJECTION
Believers argue that the image is not a painting because of the style, such as missing thumbs and elongated fingers. However, Egyptian shroud paintings often depicted fingers this way. Additionally, many ancient images have a strong photographic negative effect, despite claims that the Shroud’s effect is miraculous. The negative is a quasi-negative—likely an attempt at a photographic effect that fell short. Forging a bad negative is easier than creating a perfect one.
ICONOGRAPHY
The Jesus Conspiracy (pages 152–153) inadvertently supports the Shroud as a forgery. It finds 15 similarities between Byzantine iconography and the Shroud’s face, such as a horizontal stripe on the forehead and a three-sided square. These features are hard to see on the Shroud itself, making it more plausible that the Shroud copied the icons rather than the icons copying the Shroud. Byzantine images depicted Jesus as glorious, not suffering, yet the Shroud man shows an enlarged left nostril—matching the iconography. This suggests the Shroud postdates the icons.
MULTI-PROCESSES
The Shroud may not have been created by a single process. Some argue it cannot be a painting based on certain features, but other elements support the possibility that it was at least partially painted.
STURP WON’T TEST PAINT ON LINEN
STURP dismisses the Shroud as a painting, yet it did not test how paint behaves on linen. Paint applied to linen sealed with gesso may leave no fibre cementation or flow marks. The paint must be applied carefully to avoid stiffening the cloth. Libro dell’Arte (1600s) advises using a knife and scraping off the excess. STURP did find a layer resembling gesso, along with chalk and gum (found in 2005), indicating the potential use of traditional painting techniques.
FINALLY
We conclude that the Shroud could be a painting. The painter used unusual methods. Signs of scorching may indicate the Shroud was painted and baked in an oven. Reason suggests we favor the most natural explanation if something appears unexplainable. We are not claiming this is the definitive explanation, only that it is possible.
What is more likely: that the cloth is a miracle, or that it is a painting? If it can miraculously bear the image of Jesus’ corpse, why could it not miraculously be a painting? The important question is what the image could be—not what it necessarily is.
Bibliography
Crone, Mc W. (1990). The Turin Shroud is Genuine. Portland, OR: Prometheus Books.
Nickell, J. (1998). Relics of the Christ. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Schwalbe, L. A., & Rogers, R. N. (1982). Physics and chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A summary of the 1978 investigations. Analytica Chimica Acta, 135, 3–49.
STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project). (1978). Final report of the Shroud of Turin Research Project. Dallas, TX: STURP Archives.
Wilson, I. (1998). The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence Regarding the Turin Shroud. New York, NY: Free Press.
Zantiflet, C. (1449). Letter on the Turin Shroud [as cited in Wilson, 1998].
Nickell, J (1990). Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Libro dell’Arte. (1600s). Treatise on painting techniques. Florence, Italy: Historical Manuscripts Collection.