Oxford view on Shroud of Turin eagerly awaited

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: Is the Turin Shroud real or a medieval forgery? The centuries-old question may soon be answered, writes William Reville

THE TURIN SHROUD (TS) poses a fascinating mystery. It is a linen cloth (4.42m x 1.13m) bearing the image of a man that many believe is the crucified Jesus Christ. The cloth has been investigated scientifically but the jury is still out as to the age of the TS and the identity of the man whose image it carries. Much has been written on the TS. I would recommend Is the Turin Shroud a Fake? by Ian Wilson and Barrie Schwortz ( Folio Book of Historical Mysteries , 2008).

The TS bears the image of a man who appears to have been crucified and the shroud is kept in the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin. Many believe it is the cloth placed on Jesus Christ in the tomb. The image is in sepia tones but is much clearer as a black and white negative. Sceptics argue that the shroud is a medieval forgery.

Byzantine tradition refers to a shroud bearing an image of Christ taken from Jerusalem to Turkey in the first century, then lost, rediscovered and brought to Constantinople in 944. The TS lacks an unbroken record dating it back to the first century. It surfaced in France in the 1350s and was eventually bequeathed to Pope John Paul II in 1983.

A fragment of the TS was radiocarbon dated in 1988 by three different laboratories and their results are in agreement. The results claim a 95 per cent probability that the TS dates from between 1260 and 1390, with the odds against the TS dating from the first century described as "astronomical". The researchers interpreted the TS as a medieval fake - forging religious relics during the 14th century was big-business. But there are reasons to question the results of this radiocarbon dating.

Contamination of samples can pose serious problems in radiocarbon dating and have caused several anomalous results, described by Wilson and Schwortz. For example, Lindow Man, a well preserved ancient British human sacrifice, was found in a Cheshire bog in 1984. Samples taken from the body and surrounding peat were radiocarbon dated by three well-respected laboratories. These laboratories dated him respectively to 500 AD, 100 AD and 300 BC, each claiming accuracy to within 100 years.

In 1993 the suggestion was made at a TS conference that a natural bio-film of micro-organisms had built up on the surface of the shroud. Biofilms are common and widespread and are found on our skin, intestine and even on rocks. The mass of biofilm on the TS might skew the results of radio carbon dating. Subsequent microscopical examination of the TS showed the presence of the biofilm and the procedures used to clean the shroud sample for the 1988 radiocarbon tests failed to remove this biofilm. However, about 60 per cent of the mass of the TS sample would have to be biofilm to skew the results by 13 centuries! New radio carbon tests are now to be carried out on the TS at Oxford.

But, if the TS is a forgery, how was the image formed? One hypothesis is that the image was made by a medieval photographic process. This would involve hanging a linen cloth in a light-proof room in one wall of which is a quartz crystal lens. The cloth is impregnated with silver salts. Outside, a body is hung in strong sunlight. The lens is opened and over several days the image is exposed on the cloth. Then the forger must enter the room without letting light in and fix the image using urine or ammonia. Experiments using this technique have reproduced many but not all of the TS's image properties. However, it seems highly unlikely to Wilson and Schwortz that a medieval forger could have invented in one go a process that was later invented in several steps over an extended period.

What if the TS really is the burial cloth of Christ? The Gospels record that the disciples found the tomb empty and the linen cloths left lying there. The Gospel account of the resurrected Christ is that he was entirely different to a physically embodied Christ - able to pass through walls, and to appear and disappear suddenly. What if his resurrection involved nuclear events in his dematerialisation? Dr August Accetta, California, has carried out a fascinating experiment in which he injected himself with a radioactive compound used in medical imaging to show up internal organs. He then assumed the pose of the man imaged on the TS and a gamma camera imaged the radioactivity emanating from his body. The results astonishingly replicated most of the features of the image on the TS.

So there you have it. The TS story is still running strongly. We await the results of the Oxford radio carbon dating.

William Reville is Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Public Awareness of Science Officer at UCC - www.understandingscience.ucc.ie

Why then are there no other comparable images in all of recorded history?

Because the circumstances of its creation would have been virtually unique. The cloth would have had to stand in front of the original stone prototype, without touching the prototype, for hundreds of years to produce the image without causing distortion. Yet the Byzantine history fits the bill very nicely for such a scenario. The only discrepancy is that the Edessans who found the image believed that the cloth image was the prototype, and the stone image the copy.

And how can the fact that the rare blood type found on the Shroud (AB, which occurs in about 3% of the population) matches the blood type on the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano be explained?

That I can't say. But I've never been convinced that the bloodstains weren't deliberately placed there at some later date to lend authenticity to the image. One thing I've noticed over the years is that there are two major schools of thought regarding the Shroud. The first is that it's a medieval forgery, or at least a forgery of some kind. The second is that it's a miraculous relic associated with Jesus. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. I've been attacked equally from both sides.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that the cloth was found by the Edessans in 532 fully unfurled within the city wall, in front of a double statue also buried within that wall? The accounts of its discovery say that the Shroud was, in fact, found within the city wall after an earthquake, during repairs to that wall. For the Shroud to be stored, stretched to full length, held right alongside a life-size double statue with heads nearly touching, within the city wall is, to say the least, a singularly odd set of circumstances for hiding the Shroud within that wall! There is no possible rational reason for anyone to do that.

Or are you saying that the Shroud was created around 532 and left in front of some statue during its stay with the Edessans until the Byzantine emperor took it to Constantinople in 944? If this is the case, how does that square with the description of the Mandylion being an image of a face within a latice-work frame? Wouldn't the Shroud have to be fully unfurled the entire time to produce the image you refer to? Yet no contemporary sources refer to it as being in that condition.

I'm not sure I understand you.

The Byzantine history states that Abgar took the miraculous image created on cloth by Jesus ("Shroud" we can call it, just to avoid confusion, although there's no real proof that this was what we now know as the Shroud) and placed it before the city gates, where formerly pagan images were kept. Upon Abgar's death, his son reverted to paganism and began destroying images. To preserve the image, Abgar's followers hid it by bricking it up inside the wall, where it couldn't be seen. There it remained until its discovery around 500 years later, alongside an exact copy of the image on a tile ("keramion" in Greek). (I'm taking all this from memory, so don't fault me over minor details.)

My speculation (and it's only speculation) is that the original image was not on cloth, but on stone. A cloth image would quickly have gone to ruin exposed to the elements in Edessa. In concealing the image, Abgar's followers draped a cloth in front of it, for protection; out of reverence, or whatever--I don't profess to know. The cloth took the image from the original stone prototype; not the opposite, as its discoverers believed.

The prototype may very well have been a front-and-back Janus-type image for all we know. At this juncture, all I'm really suggesting is an image-forming mechanism. There's no way we'll ever know the details, or even be able to account for the caprices of human nature, in determining exactly how events played themselves out.

I'm reminded of a funny "Far Side" cartoon--in one panel a group of African missionaries is huddled in the dark, fearful of a native attack. "Don't worry," says one of them, "they only attack to the sound of the drums." In the next frame we see the natives themselves--standing by a large drum whose player has inadvertently beaten a huge hole into its side.

I think the problem with your theory, if I remember correctly, is that the existing image could not have been formed had the Shroud had been wrapped around a body (or statue), which then gave off radiation. If this were so, the human image would have been greatly broadened (consider the difference between the outer area of a cylinder and a front view of a cylinder).

Secondly, is there any known way that radioactive stone could create such an image in a first century, linen, Jewish burial cloth? The image was formed by the scorching of the outermost layers of the linen. To this day, scientists have been unable to recreate the phenomenon, as far as I know.

The current scientific evidence suggests that the image was caused by an intense burst of radiation emanating from a human body (or facsimile) onto a flat cloth suspended a short distance from the body.

Even if the shroud can be dated back to the time of the death of Christ it still would not be proof that it was His burial wrap.

No amount of empirical evidence can prove with absolute certainty that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus. But then, no amount of empirical evidence can prove the historicity of any ancient event (or artifact) with absolute certainty. The historicity of ancient events can only be known with varying degrees of probability.

However, the notion that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus is supported with overwhelming scientific evidence, making it the most verifiable ancient artifact in history.

Consider that, to this day, scientists have been unable to reproduce the image.

Consider also that the rare blood type (AB, occurring in 3% of the population) found on the Shroud of Turin also matches the Sudarium of Oviedo (purported to be the cloth that wrapped Jesus' head) and the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano (purported to be the flesh of Christ).

The odds of these three objects bearing type AB blood are 3/100 x 3/100 x 3/100 or 9 in 1,000,000, making the three-forgery theory astronomically improbable, and making a link to Jesus astronomically probable. No ancient artifact could be better correlated to a person and event than the Shroud of Turin to Jesus.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist who opines that the image was formed by intense radiation emanating from a human body, apart from the scientists who have, for one reason or another, bought into the miracle scenario. What I'm speculating is something very similar, only rather than a short, intense burst, I envision a long, low-level exposure. Slow-cooking, if you will.

Okay. But why would the Shroud be put into the city wall unfurled flat and straight, next to (but not touching, evidently) the "tile"? The whole scenario speaks of having to hide the Shroud quickly upon Abgar's successor's return to paganism. It takes much less effort to fold the Shroud, remove a stone or two from the wall and stick it in there, than it would to disassemble a 15x4 foot facing, place the Shroud in there flat and straight, and also a "tile" that has the same dimensions as the Shroud. The word "tile" doesn't match up particularly well with a nearly 15x4 foot object, but, in any case, I can't imagine anyone being able to disassemble that much wall frontage to get away with doing this. The whole point was to hide the thing! This more than implies the need for speed and a return of the wall to its original condition quickly.

Also, there is a contradiction in your basic concept. You say right off that, according to the Byzantines, Abgar's original image was on a cloth. The only source for this confirms the idea. But you say that the original image was in stone. There is not the slightest hint of this in any of the sources, and it contradicts the very origin of the Shroud as it relates to Abgar. According to the story, he needed a cure, and was given a cloth that Jesus "wiped" His Face upon. That the people might not have understood the origin of the cloth as resulting for the crucifixion, and rather might have been something Jesus merely wiped His face on, is understandable. Especially if it was already folded and framed, and was thought, therefore, to be much smaller than it is. But why would Jesus send Abgar a giant tile?

Further, you have a cloth laid out flat and straight put in front of the tile, with no real, apparent purpose for doing this. Surely, no 1st Century person would suppose that stretching a cloth in front of a tile would produce an image, so what would be the purpose in doing this? Again, the tile/Shroud needed to be hidden quickly. It would take enormous effort to get the cloth arranged "just so" inside of a wall that is partly disassembled. If no one would have dreamed that an image could be produced, why in the world would they go through all of this trouble? And what sources would you have that contradict the known story that the Shroud/Mandylion placed in the wall was made of cloth?

I'm not trying to be a pain. I've just never heard of this theory, and would like you to explain it. So far, just in human terms, it would take less faith to believe in the assumption that the standard story of the Shroud is genuine than it would take to believe in all of these extra steps and convolutions, done with no discernible purpose, as you theory demands.

But you seem to "buy into" a miracle scenario yourself. What are the odds that a cloth would just happen to be stretched, in the 1st Century, by people totally ignorant of radioactivity, in front of a double-statue made of mildly radioactive stone? Given even the possibility of that, what are the odds that, in addition, the image-making stone would just happen to to be carved for the purpose of illustrating Jesus Christ's crucifixion, of all people??!!

These 1st Century people either deliberately picked a radioactive stone to make this tile or statue you speak of, or it was a stupendous "coincidence" that they just happened to stumble on this material when making Jesus' image. The first scenario is impossible for them to have conceived deliberately. It is impossible that they would have had any knowing purpose in picking out radioactive material to use. That leaves us with "stupendous coincidence." Wow. Of all people to have this happen with! Not Julius Caessar, or Nero, or some Roman or other pagan god, or even just some wealthy patron of the arts. Nope! Jesus Christ Himself! Who woulda thunk it?

In order for the naysayers to avoid even the possibility that the Shroud is what it purports to be, we are now reduced to a one-in-a-hundred gazillion chance that a bizarrely radioactive stone was used to make an image of a Palestinian Jew later billions of people would recognize as God, the image would survive 2000 years with incredible clarity and consistency with known medical facts about crucifixion, and the method of image production would be utterly inexplicable, even with 20th and 21st Century science available to attempt the solve! That, is the kind of faith that can move mountains!

But you seem to "buy into" a miracle scenario yourself. What are the odds that a cloth would just happen to be stretched, in the 1st Century, by people totally ignorant of radioactivity, in front of a double-statue made of mildly radioactive stone? Given even the possibility of that, what are the odds that, in addition, the image-making stone would just happen to to be carved for the purpose of illustrating Jesus Christ's crucifixion, of all people??!!

You're not really understanding where I'm coming from--not surprising, because it's a convoluted subject that involves a number of disciplines, and isn't amenable to a trite explanation.

My take on it is that the whole thing was an amazing set of circumstances. No one set out to produce a figure on cloth; no one involved would have known that the image from a piece of stone statuary would get transferred to a piece of cloth. It was a freak happenstance that occurred when people tried to hide a statute that had been incorporated into the city walls of Edessa because the new leadership didn't particularly care for it. Sedimentary rock is well known to contain sometimes significant amounts of radioactive material, such as Thorium and Uranium.

If you go over the supposed history of Abgar V, you'll find that the least common denominator of all the stories is Abgar's desire to be cured of some kind of lingering and disfiguring illness (the image stories didn't arise until after the fifth century discovery of the Mandylion). Does it really beggar the imagination to suppose that at one point a desperate and very sick Abgar heard of Jesus's ministry (which seems to have been well-known at the time it was carried out) by way of the significant Jewish population of Edessa, and that in desperation he sought Jesus's assistance? Who knows? Perhaps Jesus actually cured him, or perhaps he only thought that Jesus had cured him. But there's a credible historical body of evidence suggesting that something along those lines happened, and out of gratitude he either became a Christian or showed favoritism toward the memory of Jesus and his sect. And what more natural thing than to create a lasting monument to his healer?

I don't deny the basics of the Abgar story at all. The only parts I don't accept are the assumption that the cloth was given to Abgar by Christ Himself (or sent to Abgar by Christ via His Apostles), and that Christ merely wiped His face with it as a sort of sweat cloth. I certainly have no problem, after discounting the things just noted, with the gist of the story. A few things got garbled or were even initially misunderstood, that's all.

But you still haven't explained how or why the person hiding the materials would have a 14+ foot cloth hidden in the wall totally unfurled, flat and straight. It makes no sense to do that at all, especially when, in your view, it was the tile or statue that was important. Yet, if the cloth were not flat, the image we see in the Shroud today couldn't possibly have occurred. It would be hopelessly distorted if the cloth were anything other than flat. How do you explain this? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a person would hide the cloth in this manner. Too labor intensive and too long an operation time-wise to have been done by someone merely trying to hide the cloth and tile in a wall.

Also, if the basic Abgar story is true, nowhere does it mention this tile you speak of. And the tile is enormous! I presume that it would be the same size as the Shroud image today, no? Why would Christ (or His Apostles, later on) give Abgar this giant thing? The concept alone, if true, would be utterly unique in history. I dare say that no one else ever thought to send a personal memento like that, before or since! If you're saying that the tile is just a copy of the cloth sent originally by the Apostles, the tile "copy" being made later by Abgar, then the cloth itself would have the same impression of a crucified man, front and back, no? Well, that's the Shroud!!! Why go through the extremely unwieldy subsequent step of having a fresh cloth stretched out in front of the tile and buried in the wall alongside it? Who would know that any image, no matter how faint, would be thereby made on the cloth? Your theory is far too complicated to be credible, and presupposes knowledge and motives that, frankly, are simply impossible for any 1st Century person to have had.

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.