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."

[Zavien Doombringer]

as I have, it was dis-tasteful. My appologies to all offended.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Please clean up aisle 24, sorry for the poor choice of graphics...

[unspun]

"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."
---
I've had that happen to my collars and cuffs....

[happydogdesign]

So the confession of the shroud's creator to the local bishop, Pope Clement's declaration that the shroud was a fraud, the contradictions to biblical and other contemporaneous historical accounts of burial procedure, the lack of any historical pedrigree, the many scientific tests dating the object to the 1300's, and the chemical analyisis showing the stains to be tempura paint are all negated by the wild claims of an Italian attorney/amateur photographer using 19th century equipment? Hey-ya sold me!

[r9etb]

That has not been determined! AND without DNA?

Blood typing does not require DNA. It detects the proteins that are on the surface of the red blood cell.

All living things have DNA, even if it was only Mary's Genes, there would be DNA! It is infact Paint!

As noted above, DNA is not required.

That said, some scientific analyses say it's blood. Others claim it to be paint. It could well be both -- perhaps some ancient monk wanted to make the blood stains stand out. But the fact is, reputable scientists have determined that their tests returned an AB blood type.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

If you think that piece of evidence outweighs the pigment-free, negative image with an embedded 3D, topographic map, then you better turn in your detective badge.

Besides, you're ignoring two other important pieces of historical evidence. First, the Shroud indicates a body whipped with a Roman flagrum, a distinctive whip unknown to the medievals that contained dumbell shaped weights at the end of the cords, the purpose of which was to tear away flesh. Secondly, the Shroud indicates crucifixion through the wrists. The medievals believed that Jesus was crucified through the hands, as medieval art attests. However, experiments on cadavers have shown that crucifixion through the hands cannot support a body on a cross.

[Alberta's Child]

If the image on the shroud was painted there, then it should be possible to replicate it, right?

Has this even been attempted?

And this cunning artist from the 1300s sounds like he was quite talented -- I'd love to see some other great works of his.

[Aquinasfan]

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).

John 20

1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"
3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb.
4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.
6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,
7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.
8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.
9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Question: What did they see and what did they believe?

Wouldn't they have naturally assumed that someone stole the body, or that it had been moved, as Mary Magdalene suggested?

Read it again:

6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,
7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.
8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

Would this reaction conform to the disciple seeing an image on the Shroud?

[Aquinasfan]

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

Your anti-Catholic animus is clouding your ability to judge scientific evidence. How do you explain the creation of the negative image? How do you explain the fact that the negative image also contains an embedded 3D topographic map of a human body? How do you explain that this image is unique in the world? How do you explain that the image is pigment-free?

[Aquinasfan]

It is apparently quite rare to unearth the body of somebody who was crucified.

John 19:38

Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away.

[William Terrell]

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.

You mean Hebrew males like these, which Jesus was?

Joseph Lieberman
Paul Newman
Ted Koppel
Harrison Ford
Efrem Zimbalist Jr.
Kirk Douglas
Kevin Costner
Stephen Breyer
Yitzhak Rabin
Michael Landon
Lorne Greene
Mike Wallace
Benjamin Netanyahu
William Shatner
Douglas Fairbanks
Cary Grant
Leonard Bernstein
Paul Simon
Ariel Sharon
David Frost
Morley Safer
Ari Fleischer 
Jack Benny
Alan King
Casper Weinberger
Carl Reiner
George Burns
Red Buttons
Sam Levinson
Bernard Goldberg
Robert Downey Jr.
Dustin Hoffman
Michael Douglas
Peter Sellers
Tony Curtis
Edward G. Robinson
Wolf Blitzer
Mel Torme
Paul Wellstone
Peter Falk
Leonard Nimoy
Jerry Springer
Arlen Spector
William Cohen 
Barry Goldwater
Robert Rubin
William Roth
Howard Metzenbaum
Hyman Rickover
Robert Reich
Russ Feinberg
Stanley Mosk
Arthur Burns
Milton Friedman
Bill Kristol
Victor Borge
William Kristol
Warren Rudman

[Aquinasfan]

The image resembles an X-ray more than anything else.

Yes. The current scientific consensus is that the image was created as the result of a burst of energy being released from the body.

[maryz]

LOL -- I knew there had to be a reason they all looked alike -- I know I can hardly tell one from another!

[happydogdesign]

I suppose one could find a chap of similar features, daub him with ochre, have him lie on a similar sized cloth, fold half over him and gently press to obtain an impression, touch up the details with tempura paint, soil the image a bit to give it a bit of patina and appearance of age, and then there would be a similar object.

No one claimed the artist was particularly talented, however he may have made other similar creations which did not survive long enough for a 19th century amateur photographer to discover their miraculous origins.

[Aquinasfan]

Yet they have determined the blood type to be AB...

And they match the blood in the Eucharistic miracles of Ovieto and Lanciano.

I wonder how the forgers did that?

[unspun]

"...as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed."
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Very interesting Aq... I've never noticed that potential, direct implication before.

Take a look at this post, boys and girls, if you like.

BTW, it says the cloth went around the head, it didn't say it didn't reach farther. It did seem to be something big enough for someone to want to fold it, though. I don't know what the customs were, but if someone used a shroud like this, it makes sense thay after applying it, they might wrap it to the body with strips of cloth.

But wouldn't Jesus have to be about 6'? The Bible says that "He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." (Isaiah 53:2) That height would make for quite a shoot.... People towering eight or so inches above others tend to be regarded with terms such as "majestic" etc., but not necessarily, I suppose. King Saul's height was notable. It would help one speak in a crowd, crack a whip, etc. Maybe the cloth was stretched or relaxed with time though, too. God knows these things.

[Alberta's Child]

I suppose one could find a chap of similar features . . .

One problem with this is that the image on the shroud is that of a man who would, by all accounts, tower above other males in either 1st century Israel or in Italy in the Middle Ages. There is no clear reference in scripture to the physical stature of Jesus Christ, so one would have to wonder why someone who went to such great detail in creating this "picture" would have gone out of his way to use a person who was so inordinately tall.

[happydogdesign]

So you claim that the artist using a tall subject when there is no scriptural reference to Jesus' height is further proof of the object's divinity? That, coupled with claims of the 19th century amateur photographer, is solid proof that this object proclaimed by the artist and religious authorities as fraudulent truly is authentic.

I must be off, as my Aunt Tilly, while dining at Cracker Barrel, spilled sausage gravy down the voluminous bosom of her favorite muu muu. The resulting stain, if turned sideways and viewed at the right angle of light streaming through the cracked window of her laundry room, appears to depict the unicorns showing up late for the departure of Noah's Ark. Prove that it is not a miracle, oh ye of little faith.

[Alberta's Child]

So you claim that the artist using a tall subject when there is no scriptural reference to Jesus' height is further proof of the object's divinity?

Yes. For the same reason that the nail wounds shown on the shroud are in the wrists instead of the palms of the hands -- There is nothing in either scripture or in contemporary art (from that era) that would have prompted anyone at the time to take such an unusual characteristic into account when making a fake relic.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Before or after the crusades? Before the mingling of the people or after?