Shroud of germs (Shroud of Turin theory)

The Guardian (UK) ^ | Thursday June 12, 2003 | Laura Spinney

[Int]

Shroud of germs

Stephen Mattingly believes the Turin shroud was 'painted' by bacteria from a dying man's body. Laura Spinney meets the Catholic microbiologist challenging the medieval hoax theory

Laura Spinney

Thursday June 12, 2003

The Guardian

The image of a tall, bearded man bearing the marks of crucifixion that adorn the Turin shroud has never been adequately explained. Those who have attempted to answer the vexed question of the shroud's origins have often found themselves accused of poor science, even vested interests. So it is a brave man who enters the fray with a new and ultimately unprovable theory. But a respected American microbiologist has done just that, and is so convinced he is right, he has lathered himself in germs and put his professional reputation on the line to persuade the rest of us.

Stephen Mattingly of the University of Texas Health Science Centre in San Antonio believes the image on the Turin shroud was created not by human hands or any mystical power, as has been suggested, but by bacteria. The humble microbes, he says, multiplied in the wounds of a person who died very slowly, and whose corpse was then washed and wrapped in a linen sheet in readiness for burial. Washing the body made the wounds sticky, so the cloth stuck fast and became impregnated with bacteria. Finally, says Mattingly, the bacteria died, shedding proteins that gradually oxidised, causing a stain in the cloth that turned yel low and darkened, like a slow developing photograph.

The theory may be simple, but persuading people he is right will not be easy. In 1989, three separate scientific teams published a study of the shroud in the journal Nature. Using radiocarbon dating, they claimed the shroud must have come into being some time between 1260 and 1390 -suggesting that it was a medieval hoax rather than the genuine article. Their paper spawned much speculation as to who might have created the image, including one theory that it was the handiwork of Leonardo da Vinci. Mattingly thinks the three teams got it wrong. Modern bacteria on the linen could have messed up the dating technique, producing a date that was far too recent. He doesn't claim that the individual wrapped in the linen shroud was necessarily Jesus, but he does think microbes, not Leonardo, were the real artists behind the image.

If he is right, his theory could clear up some long-standing mysteries about the image: its striking three-dimensional quality, which he accounts for by varying densities of bacteria accumulating in the nooks and crannies of the dying man's body; the fact that it only appears on one side of the cloth; and, perhaps most damning of all for the artist hypothesis, the complete absence of brushstrokes. "Bacteria do not need a paintbrush," he says.

Mattingly is a Catholic and believes the biblical account of Jesus' death. But he insists the Turin shroud is not the basis for his belief. His experiments are nevertheless based on a set of assumptions gleaned from the Bible and what is known historically about crucifixion. It was the preferred means of dispatching criminals in the first century AD and took as long as 72 hours to kill a man.

Mattingly realised that during those three days, the unfortunate would bleed and lose other body fluids, all of which would encourage bacteria to multiply to unusually high levels.

One of the most common types of bacteria found on the human skin is Staphylococcus epidermidis, usually present in harmless concentrations of around 10m clumps, known as "colony forming units", per square centimetre. Estimating that during crucifixion, this number might increase by up to a hundredfold, Mattingly took swabs of Staphylococcus epidermidis from his skin and grew them, forming a "biofilm", a sugary matrix of microbes which can absorb water, becoming extremely sticky. He then killed the bacteria with heat to avoid infection, and smeared the biofilm back on to his hands and face. Sure enough, Mattingly found that his skin became very sticky where he had smeared on the mixture.

Having lathered on the bacteria, Mattingly applied a damp linen cloth to his hands and face, allowed it to dry, and peeled it off - with no little difficulty. He found the linen bore a straw-yellow imprint of the matching body part that became bolder over subsequent weeks. The bacterial imprint revealed fingernails, a ring and facial features, very similar in quality to the image on the Turin shroud.

Mattingly's findings have yet to be published in a scientific journal, but have already sparked controversy - including a difference of opinion with his collaborator, Barrie Schwortz. Schwortz was the official documenting photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (Sturp), set up by a group of US scientists in the late 1970s.

Schwortz cautions that there seem to be discrepancies between Mattingly's image and the shroud. For instance, the image of Mattingly's face is distorted by the wrap-around effect of the cloth, but the image on the shroud is not. Mattingly is defiant though: "I am convinced that bacteria painted the image," he says. "They would have to have, based on the conditions thatexisted during the crucifixion."

Having examined the shroud, Sturp concluded in 1981 that it contained no pigments, paints, dyes or stains, and that the image was probably created by oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose fibres of the linen itself. That is still the prevailing view, but according to Mattingly, there was not a single microbiologist on the Sturp team, and they only failed to find bacterial pigments because they did not look for them.

Even more contentious, however, is Mattingly's claim that microbes skewed the shroud's radiocarbon date - the claim on which his theory depends. The fragments of the shroud he has seen, he says, are "completely coated" with bacteria, just like any piece of dirty old linen might be. If the radiocarbon dating could be repeated on purified fragments, it might prove to have come from the first century AD, he says.

Robert Hedges at the University of Oxford's research laboratory for archaeology, who was part of the British effort to date the shroud, dismisses that as highly unlikely. "If the shroud was originally 2,000 years old, but is contaminated by modern material to give a date of AD1250, the labs must have measured material contaminated by 60% modern, 20th-century biofilm," he says. "I find this incredible. It would be more biofilm than cellulose."

New tests on purified linen would help to ascertain the truth, says Mattingly, but no further tests are planned. For now, the controversy is set to rage on. "Is this the burial linen of Jesus of Nazareth?" asks Mattingly. "We will never know for certain."

[The Red Zone]

Having lathered on the bacteria, Mattingly applied a damp linen cloth to his hands and face, allowed it to dry, and peeled it off - with no little difficulty.

That would be a sight.

[Alex Murphy]

Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it!

[Aquinasfan]

I guess it's a coincidence that the bacteria created a unique phenomenon, a negative image with imbedded 3D information (that wasn't discovered until the mid-70s with the use of a NASA terrain analyzer), on a shroud purported for centuries to be the burial shroud of Jesus.

[Japedo]

They had a show on National Geographic Channel (to be replayed at 6 pm est. time this Sat.) where they carbon dated it and didn't trace it back to Jesus. Instead traced it back to Da Vinci, Who was ahead of his time and also worked with 3-D images. It was very fascinating to say the least! :)

[Aquinasfan]

This is the only scientific data that contradicts the authenticity of the Shroud, and recent research suggests that the carbon dating could have been thrown off by fire damage to the Shroud.

The evidence in favor of the Shroud's authenticity is so overwhelming in fact, that many scientists who have undertaken the task of disproving the Shroud's authenticity have ultimately converted to Christianity or Catholicism.

[happydogdesign]

Historically, the Shroud of Turin is one of some forty reputed burial cloths of Jesus, although it is the only one to bear the apparent imprints and bloodstains of a crucified man. Religious critics have long noted that the Turin shroud is incompatible with the bible, which describes multiple burial wrappings, including a separate “napkin” that covered Jesus’ face (John 20:5–7).

The Turin cloth first appeared in north-central France in the mid-fourteenth century. At that time the local bishop uncovered an artist who confessed he had “cunningly painted” the image. Subsequently, in 1389, Pope Clement VII officially declared the shroud to be only a painted “representation.”

Years later, this finding was conveniently forgotten by the granddaughter of the original owner. She sold it to the House of Savoy, which later became the Italian monarchy. Eventually the cloth was transferred to Turin. In 1983 Italy’s exiled king died, bequeathing the shroud to the Vatican.

The shroud’s modern history has confirmed the assessment of the skeptical bishop and Pope Clement. Forensic tests of the “blood” — which has remained suspiciously bright red — were consistently negative, and in 1980 renowned microanalyst Walter C. McCrone determined that the image was composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.

Finally in 1988 the cloth was radiocarbon dated by three independent labs using accelerator mass spectrometry. The resulting age span of circa 1260–1390 was given added credibility by correct dates obtained from a variety of control swatches, including Cleopatra’s mummy wrapping.

These findings are mutually supportive. The tempera paint indicates the image is the work of an artist, which in turn is supported by the bishop’s claim that an artist confessed, as well as by the prior lack of historical record. The radiocarbon date is consistent with the time of the reported artist’s confession. And so on.

http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html

[Zavien Doombringer]

What debunks the shroud is also the image. It looks like a caucasian male from the 12th century, not a Hebrew male, which Jesus was. Also, Scripture says, Isaiah 52: 13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. 14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

Jesus's face would be unrecognizable to be a man. He was beaten to a pulp, his tongue would be swollen from dehydration.

The first person in the tomb after the resurection was Peter, he saw the burial clothes, but he never mentions an image on them. Jesus didn't stay long enough in the burial cloth for any thing to happen in it.

[Alberta's Child]

His experiments are nevertheless based on a set of assumptions gleaned from the Bible and what is known historically about crucifixion. It was the preferred means of dispatching criminals in the first century AD and took as long as 72 hours to kill a man.

Problem #1, Mr. Mattingly -- If the process you described is truly the origin of the image on the Shroud, then why aren't there more of them? Especially when you consider how relatively common a crucifixion was at the time.

[Alberta's Child]

One of the more compelling pieces of evidence about the Shroud is the physiological aspect of the "hand" wounds. If you look at any paintings of the crucifixion of Christ, you'll notice that almost all of them show the nails driven through the palms of His hands.

The image on the Shroud, however, clearly shows that the "hand" wounds are actually in the wrists. It would be physically impossible for a nail driven through a himan hand to bear the weight of a person's body, so when a person was crucified the nails were driven through the wrists between the two bones in the forearm (the radius and the ulna).

If someone in the 12th or 13th century were intent on deceiving the public with a fraudulent burial shroud, then why would he include a detail like this that conflicted with almost every accepted depiction of the event in question?

[Zavien Doombringer]

The wrist was considered part of the hand, crucifixions were still taking place in the dark ages!

[r9etb]

It looks like a caucasian male from the 12th century, not a Hebrew male, which Jesus was.

Other than your opinion on the matter, can you give us anything that would show us what a "Hebrew Male" looked like back then? I don't buy your claim.

For example, assume that a modern-day Rabbi shares many facial features with Hebrew males of the age. If we beat up the Rabbi on the left, might he not look very similar to the image on the right?

Jesus's face would be unrecognizable to be a man. He was beaten to a pulp

Not true. First off, we do not hear that his face was beaten to a pulp. He was struck about the face, and a crown of thorns was shoved over his head; but mainly he was whipped. The post-resurrection Gospel does not mention a beaten-to-a-pulp face, which it probably would have had it been too nasty. Still, we do read that He was not recognized by the men on the road, so perhaps his face was rather bruised and battered.

, his tongue would be swollen from dehydration.

Jesus was not on the cross long enough to become severely dehydrated. The cause of death was most likely exhaustion, asphyxiation, shock, and heart failure.

The first person in the tomb after the resurection was Peter, he saw the burial clothes, but he never mentions an image on them.

Peter apparently didn't examine the clothes closely, and the Gospel doesn't go into detail about them anyway, so we can't say whether he saw anything or not.

Jesus didn't stay long enough in the burial cloth for any thing to happen in it.

This guy's experiment only had the cloth on him until it dried -- a matter of hours. Jesus was wrapped in the cloth for three days -- plenty of time for the mechanism described to have taken place.

[r9etb]

Problem #1, Mr. Mattingly -- If the process you described is truly the origin of the image on the Shroud, then why aren't there more of them? Especially when you consider how relatively common a crucifixion was at the time.

Not a problem: crucifixion was reserved for criminals, who were generally not given proper funerals with shrouds. IIRC, their bodies were generally dumped into graves outside the city walls.

Jesus was given a proper burial, in a tomb and linen provided by Joseph of Arimathea. (See Mark 15:42-47.)

[Zavien Doombringer]

Other than your opinion on the matter, can you give us anything that would show us what a "Hebrew Male" looked like back then? Then again, IMHO - If you were to travel the world and see the difference in facial features of the local nationals, you can probably tell the ancestry of people,

the picture on the shroud looks "nordic" in stature. Possibly a Crusader.

To some, whom have never been able to experience traveling to other countries, as I have, courtesy of the United States Government, I probably couldn't either.

Can you tell the difference between a Philippino from a Mexican? How about Chinese from Japanese, Korean, and Thai? There are distinct differences.

[happydogdesign]

It never fails to amaze me that so many of those who consider themselves "faithful" will cling to shoddy hoaxes or Jesus shaped rust stains on a grain silo to bolster their faith. Manufacturing religious relics was a thriving industry in the middle ages, and every wide spot in the road had pieces of the true cross, bones of assorted saints, and a variety of gruesome souvenirs supposedly of divine origin.

A single unselfish act of compassion is far better proof of one's faith than a truckload of bogus doodads and relics.

[r9etb]

the picture on the shroud looks "nordic" in stature. Possibly a Crusader.

It also looks remarkably similar to the picture of the Hebrew Male I posted next to the picture on the shroud.

[Zavien Doombringer]

no, if you had them close up, you can see the jaw structures are not the same, the higher cheeks and wider eyes.

The only similarity is that they are human. It's like saying you look like me.

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

Holy Sheet!

[Zavien Doombringer]

Hey, I have a pocketful of indulgences, buddy...going cheap...keep it quite though, I got some priest after me. Want any?

[MEGoody]

"Especially when you consider how relatively common a crucifixion was at the time."

Generally, the bodies of the crucified were left on the crosses to rot and be eaten by birds. And even then, the bones were often just dumped. It wasn't all that common for them to be buried while there was still flesh on the bones.