Revisiting the Shroud, Part 2

In part 2, we will continue our examination of the Shroud of Turin, focusing on the Shroud’s amazing image, and on recent scientific studies of the artifact, before drawing a conclusion concerning its authenticity. 

The Images 

The images on the Shroud are, of course, the key point of controversy, presenting problems for both sides of the debate. Proponents point to several characteristics of the images that, they say, could only be explained by a miracle. 

First, as we have pointed out, the Shroud bears negative images. Not only was the concept of positive/negative images unknown in the fourteenth century, but also the motivation for such a project is unfathomable. Does it make sense to imagine the forger created a negative image knowing one day the photographic process would be invented so this work would mystify the world? 

Second, the images bear a striking resemblance to the crucified Christ “described” in the Gospels. The images are of a Jewish or Semitic man’s body both front and rear view, about five feet eleven inches tall. The man sports a beard and long hair, perhaps in an unbound pigtail after the Jewish custom, parted in the middle. The body is naked—an unusual feature if it were a piece of medieval art—but consistent with Roman crucifixion practices. The hands are folded across the midsection in a death repose. 

What are most clearly reminiscent of the Christ, though, are the numerous wounds to the body, precisely matching those inflicted on Jesus by the Roman scourging and crucifixion. The back is laced with some 90 to 120 cuts similar to those produced by the Roman flagrum, the lead-and-bone-tipped whip used in scourging (John 19:1). The face shows severe swelling under the right eye as well as other facial wounds (John 19:3). The scalp bears scars and blood stains as if a cap of thorns had been forced upon it (John 19:2). The shoulders and legs are both severely scarred, as if the man bore a heavy weight and stumbled under it (John 19:12). The wrists and feet are pierced and bleeding as a crucifixion would have left them. The left foot was placed over the right and secured with a single nail, as portraits traditionally depict. The pierced wrists differ, however, from most artworks, which show the nail prints in the palms. Only a nail placed through the wrists, Stevenson and Habermas argue, would have supported the weight of a body on the cross. Finally, the frontal image shows a distended abdomen, a sign of death, and a puncture wound on the right side. The swollen abdomen is another departure from traditional art, which incorrectly depicts Christ with a sunken belly. The side wound approximates the shape of a Roman lance (John 19:34). 

In 1938, Professor Paul Vignon, of the Institut Catholique de Paris, published The Holy Shroud of Turin: Science, Archeology, History, Iconography, Logic. Vignon compared the image of the Shroud to the oldest paintings and mosaics of Christ and found the iconography of Christ (the artistic depiction of His likeness) changed at the end of the fourth century when the Shroud was supposedly brought to Edessa. Vignon concluded this new iconographic model of Christ corresponded exactly with the image on the Shroud, leading him to declare the Shroud was the basis of these changes. A recent artificial intelligence (AI) produced image of Jesus based on the image on the Shroud supports Vignon’s theory, given the image looks very similar to artistic portrayals of Jesus going back before the Early Middle Ages. 

Third, defenders of the Shroud argue it could not be the work of an artist, since the images show no evidence of brush strokes or pigments associated with medieval artistry. Walter McCrone, a famous microscopist with the STURP team in 1978, claimed the bloodstains were actually red pigment. He argued the amount of iron oxide he found in his sample of the Shroud’s bloodstains was much too great to be from human blood. Other STURP members disputed his claim, however, and McCrone quit the team in disgust. 

Fourth, and most interestingly, the Shroud images blur and fade to the eye at distances closer than six feet. This would have made it impossible for an artist to see what he was painting. 

As a result of these and other image characteristics, supporters of the Shroud have concluded only a miracle could have produced the images. Some suggest they are result of a burst of radiation or of heat condensed from the body of Jesus at the moment of His resurrection. However, since no one has been able to duplicate that process, it remains pure conjecture, hotly disputed even by Shroud defenders. 

On the other hand, critics have claimed to have found a method of duplicating the Shroud without painting the images. Joe Nickell, a photographer, has published a photo of a bas-reliefi image made using only materials and methods known in the fourteenth century.ii Nickell made a pigment of myrrh and aloes and rubbed on a bas-relief, a piece of sculpture resembling a three-dimensional painting, of Bing Crosby. Then he made a rubbing from the bas-relief onto the cloth. The result was an image with no brush strokes, which closely resembled the type of image on the Shroud. 

In rebuttal, Stevenson and Habermas argue Nickell’s image has none of the clarity and resolution of the Shroud’s, nor does the Shroud show an accumulation of myrrh and aloe particles required to form the image in Nickell’s technique. Consequently, they reject his explanation of the images. 

Wild criticizes the images from two different directions. He admits he cannot explain how the images were made, though he favors a technique similar to Nickell’s, using a heated bas-relief to scorch the Shroud. Experiments done by STURP team members have disputed the scorch theory. 

Wild also claims some of the anatomical features of the man in the Shroud are not consistent with human anatomy. In particular, Wild claims the right arm and fingers of the right hand are abnormally long, so they can properly cover the genital region in a modesty pose. The only way such a pose can be maintained on a dead body is to tie the hands together, but like the soudarion mentioned earlier, no such ties are evident on the Shroud. 

Moreover, while not disputing the genuineness of the bloodstains, Wild argues they flow down the body and the Shroud as if Christ were still on the cross. If the bleeding had occurred while Christ was in the tomb, the blood should have puddled directly around the wounds. Thus, he concludes, an artist used real blood to create the unnatural stains. 

Shroud defenders reply that the body of Jesus would not have been washed, as was the Jewish custom, before placing Him in the tomb. There would not have been enough time since the Sabbath was coming on. Hence, the bloodstains would have been the result of bleeding while Christ was still on the cross. Wild disputes this notion, saying if the disciples had time to anoint the body with one hundred pounds of spices (John 19:39, 40), they had time to wash the body as well, as Jewish law commanded. 

Recent Shroud Studies 

In April 1988, radiocarbon laboratories in Oxford, England; Arizona; and Zurich, Switzerland, were chosen to attempt to date a small segment of the Shroud, divided into three pieces. At the same time, blood samples from the crown-of-thorns bloodstains were also taken for later study. Recent studies have concluded that the stains on the Shroud are, indeed, blood, not paint pigment of any kind. 

In October 1988, the results of the three labs were published. The Shroud, they all agreed, was made between 1260 and 1390. The findings were considered “conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is medieval” according to the results published in the journal Nature. For most of the world, this was the end of the story of the Shroud. 

However, in 2012 and 2015, further studies on the samples taken in 1988 concluded that the earlier radiocarbon dating was in error and the Shroud probably did date from the first century. Then, in 2017, a researcher found that the linen Shroud was contaminated with traces of fungus and calcium carbonate. It turned out that the sample area had been repaired with new threads in the 1500s, making it unsuitable for carbon dating. 

That same year, a team from the Hospital University of Padua, Italy, conducted a forensic study of the Shroud’s image to determine how the person died. They found that the victim had expired exactly as Christ did in the Gospels, likely the result of a heart attack after being crucified. 

More recently, in 2022, Italian researcher Liberato De Caro used a new method, Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) technology, to redate the Shroud. The technology measures the natural aging of flax cellulose and then calculates the time since its manufacture. De Caro compared the linen thread of the Shroud to a similar linen cloth found at the Jewish fortress at Masada, which was destroyed by the Romans in AD 73, and concluded that both dated back to the first century. 

Additionally, isotope tests done earlier this year indicate that the flax used to make the linen material of the Shroud came from the Middle East. Archaeologist William Meacham, who authorized the study, concluded, “The possibility that this cloth is actually the burial shroud of Jesus is strengthened by this new evidence.”iii 

The Verdict 

Forty years ago, when I originally wrote about the Shroud, it was just a few years before the 1988 carbon dating tests, and little was known for certain concerning the artifact. Now, there are reasons to believe the Shroud might be authentic, given it was likely produced in the first century. Still, there are issues that remain. 

I do not find the bloodstains argument to be very compelling. Whether or not the body was washed is crucial to the Shroud’s authenticity, but considering the circumstances of Christ’s burial, it is impossible to say with certainty that the body was or was not washed first. Wild’s charge concerning the unrealistic anatomy of the man in the Shroud is, I think, potentially much more serious. So far, no rebuttal has been forthcoming. I should note Wild admits damages to the Shroud in the 1532 fire could account for part of the elongation of the right arm. 

Then there is the problem of harmonizing the Shroud and the Gospel accounts. B. F. Wescott notes the linen cloths mentioned by John were similar to bandages described in Greek medical texts.iv The singular linen cloth of the other Gospels was an outer wrap, he believes, which went over the others. If Westcott is right, his view would both remove the “contradiction” in the Gospels and cast doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud. 

Finally, we should note the last mention of the Shroud in the New Testament is in John 20:6, 7, when Peter and John inspected the empty tomb following Jesus’s resurrection. None of the New Testament epistles refers to the Shroud. Rather, the proofs of the deity and resurrection of Christ offered by the New Testament writers focus on fulfilled Messianic prophecies made by Old Testament prophets and by Jesus,v the empty tomb,vi and the post-resurrection appearances to His disciples.vii Whether or not the Shroud is authentic, the apostles never saw fit to use it in their testimony of Christ, just as they never used the cup He used at the last supper, the crown of thorns placed on Jesus’s head, the robe placed on Him at His trial, or any other artifact associated with His death or resurrection.