The Shroud of Turin

• Let’s begin with what the four Gospels say about Jesus’ burial wrappings:

• • • Matthew says, “Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth” (27:59).
    • Mark says, “Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in linen” 15:46).
    • Luke says, Joseph “took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth” (Lk 23:53).
    • John says, Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus wrapped Jesus’ body in “strips of linen” with spices according to “Jewish burial customs” (19:38-42 NIV).

*The major difference in the NIV is “strips of linen” versus “linen cloth.”

• After seeing the empty tomb, Mary Magdalene told Peter and “the other disciple” (John) then:

Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (Jn 20:3-8)

• The Gospel of John gives the most detail about the linen and head cloth. (Some believe the Sudarium of Oviedo is Jesus’ actual head cloth. This post will only focus on the linen cloth.)

• What happened to the burial items after Peter and John saw them? The Bible doesn’t give us any more information. However, based on human nature, I cannot imagine Peter and John leaving their Lord’s shroud and face cloth in the tomb. If they didn’t retrieve the items, they would have made sure someone else did.

• While most items from the ancient world, especially burial cloths, have not survived, some believe Jesus’ burial cloth has survived and is located in Turin, Italy. This is known as the Shroud of Turin.

• Tracing the provenance of the Shroud of Turin is problematic and fosters doubt as to its authenticity. It could not have been called the Shroud of Turin prior to 1578 when it was moved to Turin, Italy so we must look for it under a different name. Some have argued that it was known as the Image of Edessa or the Mandylion, but there are serious problems with that theory. If it is Jesus’ burial cloth the best we can do is propose theories about its location during certain centuries. If it’s not authentic it was created in the Middle Ages and first shown in Lirey, France in the 1350s.

• The Shroud of Turin (henceforth called the Shroud) is highly interesting to many people. For example, the number of experts in various disciplines who have studied the Shroud and written on it in peer-reviewed journals in the past century is impressive. Why have all of these people, Christian and non-Christian scholars, thought it worthwhile to spend so much time on this one artifact? This is not the case with any other relic. Why are they doing this with the Shroud?

• It’s impossible for one person to master everything that has been said on the Shroud because it requires expertise in many different fields. (Hundreds of scholarly articles are posted on shroud.com.)

• The image on the Shroud corresponds with the sufferings of Jesus of Nazareth and especially with the Gospel of John’s account:

• • • scourge marks all over body (Jesus was flogged – Jn 19:1; the marks on the Shroud are consistent with a Roman flagrum)
    • blood coming from head (crown of thorns – Jn 19:2)
    • swelling on face (soldiers hit Jesus in the face – Jn 19:3)
    • crucifixion wounds in hand area and feet (in particular, the crucifixion wound is in the wrist and heel, which is medically accurate for effective crucifixions – Jn 19:18)
    • legs are not broken (only in John’s Gospel – Jn 19:33)
    • wound in side (only in John’s Gospel – Jn 19:34)
    • no decomposition – Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose from the dead on Sunday (Jn 20:1-18)

• Some debate the details of the scourge marks, but all the items put together can only mean one of two things—it is Christ’s burial cloth or someone was trying to make it look like Christ’s burial cloth. If it was a forgery, the forger did an incredible job of getting this one-of-a-kind image onto the linen.

• In 1978 30 scientists studied the Shroud “for five continuous days using state-of-the-art technology at the time.” This group of scientists, known as the Shroud of Turin Research Project or STURP, analyzed the data for three years then produced this statement:

“We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The bloodstains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery, and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.” 

• Why did STURP arrive at this conclusion? Here’s what they discovered about the Shroud:

• • • “No substances manually applied to the cloth.
    • No artistic substances such as paint, ink, dye, pigments, or stain were used to constitute the image.
    • No collagen binder as would be used with paint.
    • No fibers cemented to each other as with paint.
    • No capillary action — meaning no liquids were applied to form the image.
    • No substances found between threads, as with a dust rubbing.
    • Bloodstains on cloth test positive for heme, bile, serum albumin, and other human blood components. The blood is male type AB.”

*Since STURP produced this statement there has been debate whether it can be proven that the blood is human in origin, but all agree that the Shroud contains real blood. Also pigments have been found on the Shroud but nothing that could have created the image. For centuries artists copied the Shroud so their materials have contaminated the linen but these materials could not have formed the image.

Here are more features of this spectacular image:

• • • “The image is purely superficial. It does not penetrate the cloth – only rests on the top two micro-fibers. (Analogous to the Shroud image resting on the hairs of your forearm.)
    • “The image is a photographic negative that develops as a positive.
    • The image contains 3D “distance information” similar to a topographical map.
    • No directionality to the image, as found with a brush or any substance application tool.
    • No variation in the depth of the image. (Virtually impossible with human hands.)
    • The yellowing of the image is uniform in intensity.
    • No outline or defined edges to the image.”

• After more than a hundred years of studying the Shroud, we still don’t know how the image was formed on the cloth. This leads some to conclude that God miraculously created the image. Perhaps when Christ was raised from the dead his body emitted electromagnetic energy and the impact was imprinted on the linen. Others think invoking God at this point is too far of a leap—a God of the gaps explanation—like saying since we don’t know how the pyramids were formed God must have done it.

• In 1983 the Shroud was bequeathed to the pope and his successors.

• In 1988, “A small corner of the Shroud was cut and radiocarbon dated (C-14) by three laboratories in Oxford, Zurich, and Arizona. The labs determined a date range from between 1260 to 1390.” The scientists involved concluded that the Shroud is a medieval artifact with 95% certainty.

• The 1988 C-14 test has been criticized by some because the sample was only taken from one small section of the cloth and the cloth may have been contaminated undermining the results.

• “Since 1989, scholars interested in the TS [Turin Shroud] have often requested the raw data from the laboratories, without success (Pourrat 1991). This denial of access led to controversy and hindered the assessment of the analysis performed by the British Museum (Marinelli 2012; Rinaldi 2012). In 2017, several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the institutions involved in the TS radiocarbon dating were made. The British Museum replied favourably and made all its files, ‘not dated or arranged in any order’, available.” Researchers who have studied the raw data have found significant discrepancies calling into question the validity of the 1988 tests. (See here.)

• The Shroud has survived three fires, which explains its scorch marks. Click here for more detail on the 1997 fire. (For more details on the Shroud’s history from the 1300s, click here.)

• Prior beliefs influence those who look at the Shroud but not always. We see a reflection of our beliefs or internal states when we look at anything, but there are people who break the pattern. Here’s a Christian, who concludes, “As for me, after 23 years of study, I am very, very skeptical but mystified — with a dash of hope that it’s real.” On the other hand, though not a Christian, Barrie Schwortz, creator of the oldest website on the Shroud (shroud.com), argued that the Shroud was Christ’s burial cloth.

• The identity of the man in the image and how the image was made are two separate things. Those who think it is authentic do not have to explain how the image got onto the Shroud because God could have been involved in the image-making process. We are talking about the image of a man who was known for performing many miracles, whose corpse was wrapped in linen, then he was miraculously raised from the dead. I am not saying that the resurrection caused the image. I am saying that if the Shroud is Christ’s burial cloth, and if Christ performed miracles, it is not unreasonable to think that something miraculous could have caused the image.

• Those who think the Shroud is a forgery should work hard at explaining how the image was created. In this case, only human ingenuity and artistry would have been involved so the image-making process is something we could potentially uncover.

• I believe the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ, but I know the Christian faith is not dependent on the verdict of the Shroud in any way. Why do I think the Shroud is Christ’s burial cloth? First, it matches closely with the sufferings of Jesus as recounted in the Gospels so it must be the actual cloth or a forgery of Christ’s sufferings. Second, it has too many inexplicable features to be a forgery. For example,

• • • A full-length front and back image of a scourged and crucified human victim on one piece of linen. If this is a forgery, no other artist has produced such a work. And this forgery would require a real human death because the image is anatomically correct.
    • A completely nude depiction. If the image is a forgery, why would the artist depict Jesus naked? Medieval artists did not portray Jesus naked.
    • Negative image – who, in the Middle Ages, would bother to create a negative image which is barely visible? And who would have the skill to create such an image?
    • Highly superficial – who could create this image on only the top one or two fibrils – 1/16th width of a human hair.
    • Encodes 3D information – we don’t understand how this is possible with a 2D image.
    • Real blood – the blood was placed on the cloth before the image because there is no image under the blood. Why would an artist put the blood on the cloth before creating the image?
    • Nail marks – the location of the nail mark in the wrist and heel is unlike other works of art which place the nail marks in the hand and top of the foot.

• The cumulative effect of all of these features—and there are many more—leads me to think this could not be a man-made image. How was the image made? I don’t know, but I don’t think a human intentionally produced it. Could it have been created by a natural phenomenon that we do not understand? Perhaps. But why, as far as we know, did that phenomenon only occur with an artifact that looks like the image of Jesus of Nazareth? This is the only burial shroud in the world with a human image imprinted on it and that image looks like Jesus. How the image was formed is a one-of-a-kind mystery, which is what you would expect from the first-century miracle-working Rabbi.

Here are two insightful documentaries: