The Shroud of Turin, Authenticated Again

A new study released last week included new evidence that links and further authenticates two holy relics that millions of Christians believe offer physical proof of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But before we explore the research and the relics, let us recall a New Testament passage concerning faith in Christ and the need for physical evidence. I mean the familiar story of “doubting Thomas” (John 20:24–29).

The apostle Thomas was absent when the resurrected Christ appeared to some of the apostles. On hearing the astonishing news, Thomas declared, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hand and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” A week later, Jesus appeared, giving Thomas the physical proof he demanded. Then Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

If in your faith walk you identify with Doubting Thomas, keep reading.

Remarkably, two ancient pieces of cloth, the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, are extant today. Both are revered as relics, and each bears the name of the city where it currently resides.

First and foremost is the Shroud of Turin. Secured in a vault in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, the Shroud is believed by millions to be the burial cloth of Jesus. It is a fine linen cloth, measuring 14.5 feet by 3.5 feet, and mysteriously displays a finely detailed negative photographic image — front and back, head to toe, of an anatomically correct man who appears to have been tortured, beaten, and crucified. Note that, in their accounts of Christ’s suffering and death on the cross, all four Gospels mention a “fine linen cloth.”

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but clearly seen on the body of the crucified man in the Shroud are gruesome markings consistent with the Gospel accounts of Christ’s Passion. You can count over 100 whip marks, possibly from scourging by Roman flagra, and identify on his wrists and feet obvious wounds that could have been from large spikes. Other markings are compatible with what could have been a crown of thorns. On closer examination, you can spot bruises (from beatings?) on his face, knees (from falling?), and the back of his shoulders (from carrying a heavy cross?), and a large bloody mark (from a spear?) in his side. Like the crucified Jesus in Gospel accounts, the man in the Shroud had no broken bones.

The Shroud, the most studied, analyzed, and tested religious relic in the world, has spawned a vast, global field of scientific study, called “sindonology,” but still baffles scientists. Its mysteries are many and complex. For brevity’s sake, I will only scratch the surface (so to speak).

First among the major mysteries is how the image was made. Second, what is the substance constituting the image, which can be scraped away with a razor blade? The substance is undetermined — all man-made materials have been ruled out — and only rests on top of the cloth; it does not penetrate the cloth’s linen fibers. The third mystery is related to the second: Blood from the crucified man penetrated the cloth, as one would expect, but also preceded the impression of the man’s image. “Blood first, image second” is a mantra of Shroud researchers. This order is logical if the “man in the Shroud” was in fact Christ, who would have been wrapped in the linen Shroud days before the electrical event (see below) that accompanied his resurrection and resulted in the human image.

The only evidence that would conclusively authenticate the Shroud against naysayers and claims of forgery is Jesus’ DNA. It would be matched against the blood — type AB — found on the Shroud and considered rare.

Enter the Sudarium of Oviedo. It resides in the Cathedral of Oviedo, in Spain. The Sudarium is a piece of linen cloth, 34 by 21 inches, thought to have been used to cover the head of Jesus immediately after the crucifixion (John 20:7). Unlike the Shroud, the Sudarium does not display an image. The Sudarium contains male blood of type AB, however, which matches the blood on the Shroud. Moreover, the patterns of blood flow on the Sudarium are consistent with those of a crucified man.

Indeed, the Sudarium and the Shroud covered the same person, as Juan Manuel Miñarro, the author of a study sponsored by the Spanish Center of Sindonology, recently concluded. “We have come to a point where it seems absurd to suggest that ‘by happenstance’ all of the wounds, lesions and swelling coincides on both cloths,” said the center’s president, Jorge-Manuel Rodríguez. “Logic requires that we conclude that we are speaking of the same person.”

The study’s conclusion was no surprise to Sudarium expert Janice Bennett, author of Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo, New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin (2001). Bennett, who has been studying the Sudarium since 1997, tells me that,

Although Miñarro stops short of linking the two cloths to Jesus, ample research has yielded staggering evidence. For example, both linens show bloodstains on the head, in approximately the same position, that were formed by sharp objects, similar to what thorns would produce. Jesus was the only person in recorded history to have been crowned with thorns before crucifixion.

Bennett explains as well that the Shroud and the Sudarium are consistent with Jewish burial customs of Jesus’ day:

Another important matter is that the cadaver that was wrapped by both the Sudarium and the Shroud suffered death by crucifixion, but was afforded a Jewish burial. This is highly unusual because most crucifixion victims were left on the cross for days and the bones were later deposited in common graves.

Bennett adds that the “new research establishes approximately 20 points of correlation [between the Shroud and the Sudarium], which more than satisfies the standards of proof used by most judicial systems around the world, which require only 8 to10.”

My own keen interest in the Shroud led me to visit Turin in 2010 and again in 2015, the last two occasions when the Shroud was on public display. Having written about it for years, I have forged relationships with some of the most renowned experts, including Russ Breault, president of the Shroud of Turin Education Project Inc., and Barrie Schwortz, who founded Shroud.com, the first and most comprehensive Shroud site.

Topping my list is Giulio Fanti of Padua University. In 2012, Fanti concluded that an electrical charge in the form of radiation is what likely caused the man’s image to be imprinted on the Shroud. He has also dated the Shroud to the time of Jesus, debunking the flawed carbon-14 testing conducted in 1988.

“While the Shroud of Turin shows both a double body image [the body’s front and back, as the cloth was wrapped around the body] and human bloodstains, the Sudarium of Oviedo only shows human bloodstains consistent with the blood principally coming out from the mouth and nose,” Fanti tells me. He elaborates:

There are many coincidences between Shroud and Sudarium that lead one to think that both sheets were used for the same person: Jesus Christ. Both have been used for a bearded man with moustache and long hair who was crucified. A significant match has been found when overlapping the Sudarium bloodstains on the Shroud face: Even the two bloodstains caused by the crown of thorns on the forehead of the Shroud man show a correspondence with the bloodstains of the Sudarium.

If you have read this far but, like Doubting Thomas, still need physical proof to accept the resurrection of Christ, I recommend that you research first the Shroud and then the Sudarium. Both have survived centuries. Their markings are consistent with Scripture accounts of Christ’s torture and execution. Both contain not only the same rare blood type but also pollen of a kind found only in ancient Israel. The Shroud and the Sudarium authenticate each other.

Blood stains on the Shroud of Turin are located where Christ’s crown of thorns would have been.

“Traditionally, the Sudarium has been considered a living testimony of Jesus’ passion and death on the cross, while the Shroud’s mysteriously formed image was hailed as a proclamation of his Resurrection,” Jane Bennett explains, in her beautiful description of this meeting of faith and science. “In the studies conducted on the Sudarium and the Shroud, science has served to corroborate eyewitness accounts that have always been considered by many as a mere profession of faith. In this case, science and faith — so often mistakenly believed to be incompatible — have only served to enrich each another and, in the process, bring the world closer to the actual truth of the events that transpired two thousand years ago.”

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:32).

— Myra Adams is a media producer and political writer.

Have they done a blood type test on the Veronica’s veil that is not at the Vatican. I can never remember how to spell the town

There's no blood on the Manoppello Veil. . . but there is pigment.

I deconstructed the claim that the Manoppello Veil was anything related to Jesus several years ago. I showed evidence that it was a self-portrait of Raphael Sanzio de Urbino which he painted on either Byssus (the rarest cloth in the world) or Cambric (a very fine cotton veil material), which he then sent to his pen pal and fellow artist Albrecht Dürer, who was also experimenting with painting on Byssus. There were extant letters between the two of them describing the paintings the two sent back and forth mentioning the double-sided nature and the transparent media. These letters and paintings were done about 100 years prior to the Manoppello image appearing in the village in the possession of a soldier.

The image appears to be almost identical to a self-portrait of Raphael at the age he was when he and Dürer were sending their experimental double-sided portraits back and forth to each other. As I said, the Manoppello veil has distinct pigment, especially on the areas where the white teeth and whites of the eyes show.

If it was Byssus, it would be highly unlikely to have been in the possession of some woman on the streets of Jerusalem. Byssus was woven from the golden or purple tendrils of a sea urchin. Such cloth was reserved for royalty in the Roman times, being literally worth a kings ransom because it was so hard to collect the raw material and so hard to weave. Possession by anyone other than Royalty was a crime. Cambric Cotton would be even further impossible because it was an invention of 13th Century French cotton weavers and required a loom that wouldn't be invented for 1200 years.

The Veronica's Veil held by the Vatican, which the legend of Manoppello holds was stolen by the soldier, is still in the Vatican. . . and it is a Linen Sudarium (a sweat cloth) that bears a bloody imprint of a face that doesn't look like much. It would be much more logically the veil or head cloth of a woman walking on a Jerusalem street than a cloth made of Byssus or Cambric Cotton.

Because of time constraints, the only part they did not wrap was the face, and they covered it with a cloth.

What New Testament translation are you using? 75 Lbs? Most of the one's I am familiar with use "about a 100 weight". . . and they don't differentiate it down to a mixture of Myrrh and aloes. Plus there are other descriptions that in Greek, the original language it was written in, define the cloth as a Syndon. . . a Shroud, not separate cloths. Let's look at Mark 15:46.

American Standard Version
And he (Joseph of Arimathea) Bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
Weymouth New Testament
He, having bought a sheet of linen, took Him down, wrapped Him in the sheet and laid Him in a tomb hewn in the rock; after which he rolled a stone against the entrance to the tomb.
World English Bible
He bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been cut out of a rock. He rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
Greek Text
καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καὶ καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησε τῇ σινδόνι καὶ κατέθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας, καὶ προσεκύλισε λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.
Greek Text Analysis
Verse 46. - And he bought a linen cloth (σινδόνα). This was a fine linen garment, or shroud, something like that in which the young man fled the night before (Mark 14:51, 52). And taking him down (καθελὼν αὐτὸν). It appears from these words that Joseph himself, assisted probably by Nicodemus and others, actually took the body of our Lord down from the cross. wrapped the sindon round him, and laid him in his own new tomb, which had been hewn out of the rock. The word rendered "tomb" is μνημεῖον, as being intended to be a memorial of the departed. And he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. The door here means "the opening," or "entrance." Thus, while our Lord died with the wicked, he was with the rich in his death (Isaiah 53:9).

The Greek word (σινδόνα), sindon, is SINGULAR. One Linen sheet, odawg, not lots of little tiny bandages. That interpretation and translation came about after Champollion created Egyptology. . . and people started thinking every eastern religion was similar.

But then it also says: "as is the burial custom of the Jews" which means you have to refer to the written customs of the Jews and learn exactly WHAT WERE the burial customs of the Jews at that time. A Shroud was what they used. . . not strips or bandages that many Christians conflate them into, ala Egyptian burial practices. They used strips of cloths to bind the lines and a CLOTH or binding ABOUT the face, not over the face if the family could afford a shroud, which did double duty. The cloth ABOUT the face bound the mouth shut in death to keep it closed. It passed under the jaw, behind the ears, and then was tied above the top of the head. Coins or potsherds were placed on the eyes to keep the eyelids closed.

The Sudarium of Oviedo shows signs of being diagonally rolled into a kerchief and then tied in just such a manner to have been used as the binding about the face, after it was used to cover the face of the man on the Shroud as he hung on a Cross and then again while he was being carried face down with a hand over his face. Again, this is based on scientific evidence and research.

Skulls from 1st Century Jerusalem cemeteries that have not been disturbed have been found with such coins or potsherds in the eye sockets where they fell when the flesh rotted away. We know these were Jewish graves and that it was a practice of the period. We have also excavated a Jewish grave from the first century which did not get collected unto its ancestors in a central ossuary after a year because an Earthquake destroyed the tomb. There were remnants of a large Syndon, a shroud, covering the skeleton. . . similar, but not as fine a cloth, as the one for the Shroud of Turin. The one in the grave appears to have possibly been a sail. It is the only surviving evidence of another such shroud, but it provides evidence of shrouds in Jewish burials beyond the Mishnah and Talmud which tells of their use.

Some people think that the burial wraps had formed into a cocoon, because of the procedures they used, and that was why, when Peter entered the tomb, he immediately “believed”. The cocoon was still intact.

There was no "cocoon" enwrapping Jesus' body. You are still conflating EGYPTIAN burial practices with Jewish practices. Nothing could be further from the truth. They simply did not do that. CLOTH was EXPENSIVE back then and they did not waste it on funeral practices, especially when a year later they had to go back and collect the bones to put in the central ossuary pit in the middle of the tomb with the rest of the previous tomb's occupants. Such a "cocoon" would make that job much harder. Jesus got a Shroud because a rich man bought one for him.

Think about it. . . if what you claim was true, how did Lazarus walk out of HIS tomb still wrapped in his grave clothes cocoon after Jesus resurrected him? The answer is they didn't bury people like you think.

1. I never said a word about strips or bandages. I think John’s account speaks for itself. I used the MEV, a modern revision of the King James. You should do a study of the way Jews buried their dead at that time. It was 75 pounds.

What about the other Gospels? You seem to ignore Mark's account of a SINGLE cloth purchased by Joseph of Arimathea. Why is that?

I've spent forty years studying the way Jews buried their dead. You obviously have not. In fact, you show you have patently not studied the customs of the Jewish people. If anything, you've studied the claims of someone who also hasn't really studied them either You claim there was a "cocoon" and that is NOT the way any Hebrew or Jew ever buried their dead which proves you never studies anything about it. Your description plainly showed your thought they used "strips or bandages" which a lot of Christians think based on a mis-understanding of Othonia. . . "burial clothes" or "burial cloths" from a few mistranslated versions of the Bible from the original Greek. QED you did indeed refer to "bandages or strips" when you referred to the "cocoon being still intact." when the Bible says nothing about such a thing. NOTHING. . . but the Bible DOES refer to a (σινδόνα), a Sindon, a single large cloth. . . which in Greek is often used to describe a sail, a sheet, or even a table spread. It does NOT describe what YOU describe nor do the Mishnah or the Talmud describe what you describe. They describe what I describe, again showing I know a lot more than do you about the topic than you.

2. You don’t really have any idea what you are talking about.

I know a lot more than do you. See above.

3. Other than that, there is no salvation connected with the shroud of Turin. You can believe in it with every ounce of your heart, soul, and spirit. It has no salvation value, even if it were genuine. It will always have to be taken on faith. Sort of like splinters of the cross.

Where have I said there is? I am following the science and the scholarship. YOU are not following either. You have one thing you obviously follow, a late ENGLISH TRANSLATION of a GREEK BIBLE. . . and a poor translation at that. Try reading it in the GREEK. . . and you will see that somethings are just NOT translatable word for word into English, because there are no equivalent English words, so the translator has to try and explain his or her interpretation of what he things it means.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.