All  
The Shroud of Turin: modern, digitally processed image of the face on the cloth [left] and the full body image as seen on the shroud [right].

The Shroud of Turin: Jesus' Bloodstained Burial Cloth or a Fascinating Forgery?

Print

The Shroud of Turin is believed by many to be the bloodstained burial cloth Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped in after his crucifixion. But skeptics say it is a forgery, or at best only a religious article of historical significance. What can modern research tell us?

The Shroud of Turin , a pale sheet of woven fabric approximately 14-feet (4.5 meters) –long, might be considered unremarkable save for the distinctive reddish-brown markings on its front and back. The image of a prone man with hands folded can be made out on the cloth, with both the front and back views of the head meeting neatly at the middle of the sheet, suggesting it was folded over the front and back of a naked body in death. Countless horrible wounds to the body are revealed through the images on the fabric, from slashes to gouges, piercings, and welts. These images strongly indicate to proponents the evidence of crucifixion and the Biblical description of the death of Jesus. But science and history suggest there’s more to the story.

The full length of the Shroud of Turin. Scientists and scholars cannot resolve the mystery of the shroud.

The full length of the Shroud of Turin. Scientists and scholars cannot resolve the mystery of the shroud. ( Public Domain )

The Hidden History of the Shroud of Turin

Historical record can place the shroud in the late 1300s. Scholars debate its existence previous to 1390, describing the period before that as “very murky territory.” Even during the middle ages there was disagreement over authenticity of the cloth, with written claims at the time between church officials suggesting it was a forgery. However, historians raise the possibility that several such ‘shrouds’ were making the rounds at the time, and forgery claims might have had nothing to do with the cloth found today in the cathedral in Turin, Italy.

Since the 15th century, the existence of that shroud is well documented. It was deeded to the House of Savoy in Italy in 1453, and suffered damage in a fire. Patches and repair-work have been done at various times on the artifact. It was set in a chapel in the 17th century, but it wasn’t until 200 years later that it was put on public display and first photographed.

Full length negatives of the Shroud of Turin.

Full length negatives of the Shroud of Turin. ( Public Domain )

It was these photographs which elevated the cloth from relic to sensation. The photos were not remarkable in and of themselves, until viewed in the reverse negative, whereupon a detailed image of a wounded, bearded man became clearly visible. It had previously been suspected that the stains and images were painted on the linen by an artist at some point in its history, but the discovery of the detailed body image found embedded within the fabric drastically rewrote theories, and convinced many that the images were made through contact with an actual human corpse. Some Christians believe the image was transferred from Jesus’ body onto the cloth with a release of “divine light” or energy upon his resurrection.

A poster advertising the 1898 exhibition of the shroud in Turin. Secondo Pia's photograph was taken a few weeks too late to be included in the poster. The image on the poster includes a painted face, not obtained from Pia's photograph.

A poster advertising the 1898 exhibition of the shroud in Turin. Secondo Pia's photograph was taken a few weeks too late to be included in the poster. The image on the poster includes a painted face, not obtained from Pia's photograph. ( Public Domain )

If this was indeed the death shroud which encased the body of the historical Jesus of Nazareth , that would date the cloth to 30 AD, the biblical date of the death of Jesus. However, this dating is at odds with later historical record, as well as the modern scientific research on the artifact.

Scientific Examinations and Bombshell Revelations

A variety of tests have been carried out on the shroud since scientists were first allowed to examine it in 1969, including physical examinations, chemical analyses, and radiocarbon dating. Initial examinations led to the formation of an 11-member Turin Commission composed of scientists and advisors, and in 1977 the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) was born.

Their findings, based on a gamut of rigorous tests, were reported in 1981, stating:

"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 blood stains 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."

The researchers found no sign of artificial pigments, meaning the image had been made by a real human body, but the question of how this had happened was not answered.

Radiocarbon 14 dating of the cloth revealed the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD, a bombshell finding, conflicting with the timelines of the death of Jesus. But critics alleged that the samples of fabric that were tested came from more recent patches, rather than the original cloth.

And in 1998 the office of the former Cardinal Archbishop of Turin, Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, issued a statement that the radiocarbon dating was tampered with in an “overseas Masonic plot.”

Adding to the wealth of strange findings on the enigmatic shroud, Italian researchers in 2015 discovered that the cloth may have been made in India , and contains DNA from all over the world. By sequencing DNA from dust and pollen on the shroud, the origins of people and types of environments that the cloth has come into contact with have been revealed.

It shows that the cloth may have been manufactured in India, and traveled the world before coming to Italy in the Medieval period, giving rise to doubts about a Medieval European origin. Plant types revealed from DNA sequencing included horsetail, clovers, ryegrass and chicory – pointing to origins from Asia, Middle East, or the Americas .

The Body Within

Stains indicate the proposed wounds and blood of the dead man. The images on the cloth are said to show a body damaged by cuts on nearly all surfaces; punctures, gouges and linear wounds can be seen. On one hand a large, round pierce mark is visible, and similar large puncture wounds can be seen in the feet.

The renowned Shroud of Turin, religious relic and mysterious artifact.

The renowned Shroud of Turin, religious relic and mysterious artifact. ( Public Domain )

The man’s bearded face is interpreted to be swollen and misshapen from severe beatings. Stains from blood are seemingly everywhere, especially near the area of the face and both arms.

The Question of Questions – How was the Image Made?

For all the scientific tests, no good answers present themselves on how the image in the shroud came to be, save, as believers would have it, a miracle. It has been determined the images are not painted on, but are imbued within the linen, and numerous attempts have been made to recreate the images, and to reproduce the unusual penetration of the color into the fabric, but have all fallen short. Physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro and leading expert on the phenomenon of the shroud calls this “the question of questions”: how was the image produced?

Di Lazzaro and colleagues used state-of-the-art lasers to direct short, intense bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen to try to replicate the shroud’s images. In the end they were not successful in matching the shroud’s qualities, nor even could they reproduce a whole human figure. Regardless of the age of the cloth, science cannot duplicate the Shroud of Turin. How was this artifact created so many years ago?

“It is unlikely science will provide a full solution to the many riddles posed by the shroud. A leap of faith over questions without clear answers is necessary—either the ‘faith’ of skeptics, or the faith of believers,” Di Lazzarro told National Geographic in 2015.

3-dimensional model of the Shroud of Turin imprint.

3-dimensional model of the Shroud of Turin imprint. (Flickr/ CC BY 2.0 )

Results of the Most Recent Study

The Shroud of Turin was examined once again in 2018 . This time, forensic investigators used a fresh approach to examine the alleged blood stains on the shroud. Matteo Borrini of John Moores University and Luigi Garlaschelli, an organic scientist, decided to carry out an experiment to see if the shroud is actually fake. They employed a forensic technique called bloodstains pattern analysis (BPA) to see what the necessary arm and body position would have had to have been to make the blood pattern seen on the Shroud of Turin.

A volunteer was enlisted for the experiment. Human and synthetic blood were applied to the person who laid out in various poses over a cloth. Then the blood spatter patterns obtained in the experiment were compared to what is depicted on the shroud.

The results published in the Journal of Forensic Science suggest the Shroud of Turin is almost certainly a fake. They state the BPA was a result of someone adopting several poses and some of the blood on the cloth fell off of someone standing above the shroud. This information contradicts the belief that Jesus was buried in the cloth lying down. They describe the different positions necessary to meet the BPA visible on the shroud as follows:

“The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a ca 45° angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject. The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back—of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse—are totally unrealistic. Simulation of bleeding from the nail wounds contacting wood surfaces yielded unclear results.”

However, the findings have been criticized by at least one forensic scientist, who suggests the BPA could have resulted through the transportation of a corpse in the cloth.

Does the Shroud’s Authenticity Really Matter?

The latest investigation indicate that the Shroud of Turin was most likely one of the many fake religious relics made in Medieval Europe.  But Borrini himself has stated that the status of the shroud as a fake shouldn’t be seen as an attack against the faith of believers.

The cloth’s authenticity has never even been officially declared by the Catholic Church, and it has only been described as a “mirror of the gospel”, and even a “distinguished relic” by Pope John Paul II. As The Independent mentioned following the 2018 discovery, “The official Church position is that the shroud is only an artistic representation of Christ and not a holy relic.”

Nevertheless, the church encourages devotion to it, and the cloth has been protected and venerated by the faithful for centuries. It now sits on display under bulletproof glass in an airtight, environment-controlled case in Turin, northern Italy where it is guarded by cameras, drones, and police.

Philip Ball, former editor of science journal Nature hinted at the shroud’s enduring challenge: “it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling.” Parts of the puzzle are still unresolved decades later, securing the Shroud of Turin as one of the more controversial and inexplicable relics in history, regardless of its authenticity.

Top Image: The Shroud of Turin: modern, digitally processed image of the face on the cloth [left] and the full body image as seen on the shroud [right]. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

By: Liz Leafloor

References

Barcaccia, G.  et al.  Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud.  Sci. Rep.  5, 14484; doi: 10.1038/srep14484 (2015).

Charles Freeman. “The Origins of the Shroud of Turin” 2014. HistoryToday.com [Online] Available at: http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin

Rhodi Lee. “ Shroud Of Turin Possibly Created In India But Contains DNA From Plants All Over The World: Study. ” 2015. TechTimes.com [Online] Available here.

April Holloway. “Could ancient earthquake explain face of Jesus in Shroud of Turin?” 2014. Ancient-Origins.com [Online] Available here.

Frank Viviano. “Why Shroud of Turin's Secrets Continue to Elude Science” 2015. NationalGeographic.com [Online] Available here.

Mark Guscin, B.A. M.Phil. "The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin". 1997. Shroud.com [Online] Available at: https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

Comments

Hello Stuart

Well, that is a surprise, to find that at least one previous commentator is looking in on this dated thread and/or receiving alerts informing of new comments.

The matter of the Shroud's earliest recorded history is something that interests me greatly. The Knight and Lomax hypothesis re the imprisoned/tortured Jacques de Molay hypothesis was interesting, indeed ingenious. But some of the chemistry was, how shall we say, a little inventive, especially the singlet oxygen involvement, lactic acid etc. One feels there should be known precedents before buying into that. For a while I had my own J de M theory based on his having finally been slow-roasted at the stake. Might the TS have been produced as a scorch off a hot metal template intended to represent the terrible fate of the Templar Grand Master. I'll spare you the details of that experimental programme and why I finally abandoned it in favour of something without an obvious Templar connection (except that Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Lirey, first recorded owner of the Shroud, was thought by celebrated genealogist Noel Currer-Briggs to have been the nephew of the almost identically-named Geoffroy de Charney, one of de Molay's closest lieutenants who died alongside him at the stake in that fateful day in Paris approx 1314. (is there an edit facility?)

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the focus where this investigator is concerned is now squarely on the Lirey Lord of the Manor, not an obscure country squire as so many sindonological sites would have us believe. He was in fact one of the highest in the land, a favourite of the King (John The Good), who was a prime mover in founding the Order of the Star, based it's said on England's then recently formed Order of the Garter. There are at least two reasons why Geoffroy was the one who came to proudly display the Shroud and create that fascinating Lirey badge (and the Machy mould for a second variant). However, this comment is already too long, and my coffee is getting cold, so I'll post this, and be back later with more about the circumstances that could have inspired Project Shroud circa the 1350s in medieval France. Please stay tuned.

Here's an excessively long and wordy link to something I posted recently re Lirey history:

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/what-hap...

Colin, why would anyone want to ‘fake’ or ‘paint’ a shroud produced during the middle ages? There are no other articles like it from the time before, during or after. You haven’t sold me on your hypthesis I’m sorry. I’m still leaning toward the Jacques de Molay theory as laid out by Knight and Lomas.

There’s a persistent theme on display in the preceding comments here. It’s the problem faced by anyone attempting to imprint off a 3D subject – living, dead or statue - onto linen. It’s variously known as “lateral distortion” arising from the so-called “wrap-around effect”.

Sure, it’s easy to demonstrate for oneself at home, say by smearing one’s face with chocolate spread or similar, then lying down and getting someone to press linen onto and around the sides of one’s face. Sure, the result could be the so-called Agamemnon mask-effect, one where the face looks far too wide, showing that “lateral distortion”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon

But what’s this got to do with the Shroud of Turin one might ask? My answer: precious little, if anything, provided one starts by making some reasonable assumptions, like:

1. The Shroud is of medieval origin, if one accepts the radiocarbon dating, warts an’ all.
2. Someone – a medieval artist or mere artisan - set out to model what a double-body IMPRINT onto linen might look, first when fresh, and then aged for many centuries.
3. That same individual then did some trial experiments, so became quickly aware of the image distortion that can result from using a 3D subject to produce a 2D imprint.
4. That individual did not abandon the project. Instead he persevered to produce the image that today we call the Turin Shroud.

So how did he get a realistic-looking body image? Answer: he didn’t. That was not his goal. His goal was to produce what would be immediately perceived as a CONTACT IMPRINT. It did not need to look too realistic, like a well-executed painting. Had he done so, folk would have scarcely given it a second glance (“Oh look, another devotional work of art”). No, he wanted an image that was strangely unrealistic, and in that respect could be said to have been successful beyond his wildest dreams.

So what did he do “right” in terms of producing a highly credible artefact, suggestive of a real body imprint onto a sheet of linen?

Answer: he wanted an image that was what today we call a “negative”. Parts of the anatomy that an artist might show in lighter tones, notably the light-reflecting prominences such as nose forehead, chin etc, would be shown dark, and parts that an artist might show as dark, due either to being in hollows, like eye sockets, or in the shadows cast by prominences, would be shown as light. Why the need to reverse the tones? Because that’s what happens when one imprints off a 3D template, instead of placing it in the light and painting it, or taking a modern photograph. Our medieval ‘modeller’ would have been fully aware of the tone-reversal that occurs with contact imprinting, from artefacts like brass rubbings, heat scorches from hot irons etc.

All that remained was to obtain that negative imprint in a manner that made it IMMEDIATELY obvious to a first-time viewer that it was an imprint, not a painting. That required imprinting off the highest relief only, studiously avoiding the slightest hint of wrap -around effect. The end result was to produce an imprint akin to that of a footprint in wet sand – negative with “bits missing”. How might that have been best achieved? It was a question of ensuring the technology was fit-for-purpose, as indeed it was. How was, or might that, have been achieved?

End of Part 1. Part 2 is in preparation and will follow in due course.
I have placed a copy of this comment onto my own site:

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/

Wounds merely inferred by the blood--good point.

No one has gotten by the distortion problem so the fake/not-fake issue is settled.
(Spoiler Alert: It's a fake.) It is interesting to try to investigate the origin and history though.

This article, like so many others regarding the Shroud, makes frequent mention of there being "wounds" visible in the body image, mixed in with references to associated bloodstains

Were that true, then the case for authenticity is strengthened, given that the nature of the body image is still a matter for speculation (though this investigator considers he has provided a feasible model with his flour-imprinting/oven-baking model).

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/

However, it's simply not true that the body image shows injury or damage to flesh and skin. The evidence for scalp wounds from an otherwise invisible crown of thorns rests on bloodstains on the head and hair. Evidence for a nail wound in a hand or wrist rests on bloodstains alone, and likewise for a lance wound in the side. The scourge marks, supposedly from a Roman flagrum, some 372 of them in all we're told, are entirely due to imprinted blood, there being no evidence in the body image.

One does not wish to make light of the task of the medieval artisan, intent on simulating/modelling what the double body imprint in sweat and blood of the crucified Jesus might look like some 1300 years later, as per radiocarbon dating (1260-1390). But let's not overstate it either. The task is greatly simplified if there's no need to simulate wounds (punctures, gashes etc) in the basal body image, if all that needs to be done is to paint blood onto the Shroud linen at all the 'biblically-correct" locations so as merely to SUGGEST the presence of underlying wounds. That's as far as it goes - suggested, not actual images of wounds,. Why would wounds leave an imprint anyway if still seeping blood?

If attempting to apply the scientific method to the mysterious and 'enigmatic' Shroud, it's absolutely imperative that facts be ruthlessly separated from fancy. Were that done more often, the Shroud might seem marginally less mysterious and enigmatic, while still undoubtedly a work of human ingenuity.

Pages

Next article