People view the Shroud of Turin on display at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, in this April 26, 2010, file photo. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Posted on 03/27/2015 2:24:37 PM PDT by NYer
“One of my favorite testimonials as to the authenticity of the Shroud,” says Barrie Schwortz, an expert on the Shroud of Turin, “actually came from my Jewish mother.”
This June, Pope Francis will be making a pilgrimage to Turin, Italy, home of the famous Shroud of Turin, which many believe is the 2,000-year-old burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The pope’s June 21-22 visit will include time venerating the Shroud at the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist. Francis will then visit the tomb of Bl. Pier Giorgio Frassati, buried in a nearby altar. The trip will also include a commemoration of St. John Bosco, founder of the Salesians and patron saint of youth who worked in Turin; this year marks the 200th anniversary of his birth. The papal visit will take advantage of April 19-June 24 exposition of the Shroud, which was last displayed in public in 2010.
The Shroud, which is a 14.5’ by 3.5’ linen cloth bearing the image of the front and back of a man who has been scourged and crucified, has been kept in Turin since 1578. Barrie Schwortz is one of the world’s leading experts on the Shroud. In 1978, Schwortz, a technical photographer, was invited to participate in the first ever in-depth scientific examination of the cloth, known as the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRUP). A non-practicing Jew at the time, he reluctantly agreed to be part of STRUP, fully expecting the team to prove that the Shroud was a painted image from the Middle Ages. But after many years of study and reflection he came to believe in its authenticity.
Troubled by frequent inaccurate media reports on the subject, in 1996 Schwortz launched a website to share the true story of the Shroud and scientific research that had been performed on it. Two decades later he still makes Shroud presentations in the media and to a variety of groups, including seminarians in Rome.
Schwortz recently spoke with CWR.
CWR: What are some of the most compelling arguments that the Shroud is authentic?
Barrie Schwortz: Thirty-seven years ago, when I went to Italy with STRUP to examine the Shroud, I assumed it was a fake, some sort of medieval painting. But after 10 minutes studying it, I knew it was not [a painting]. As a professional photographer, I was looking for brush strokes. But there was no paint and no brush strokes.
For 17 years I refused to accept that the Shroud was authentic. The last argument holding me back was related to the blood. The blood on the Shroud is reddish, but blood on a cloth, even after just a few hours, should turn brown or black. I had a conversation with Alan Adler, a blood chemist, on the phone and I shared my reservation. He got upset and asked, “Didn’t you read my paper?”
He had found a high content of bilirubin on the Shroud, which explains why the blood on the Shroud is red. When a man is beaten and has had no water, he can go into shock and the liver starts pumping out bilirubin. It makes the blood stay red forever. It was the last piece of the puzzle for me. I had nothing left to complain about. Sometimes I wonder why I hadn’t asked Alan Adler that question 17 years before, but I guess I wasn’t ready for the answer back then.
Although this was the final evidence that convinced me, it is no one particular piece of evidence that proves the Shroud is authentic. The entirety of evidence indicates that it is.
One of my favorite testimonials as to the authenticity of the Shroud actually came from my Jewish mother. She was originally from Poland, and had only a high school education. She heard one of my lectures, and afterwards we were driving home. She was quiet for a long time—you have to worry when a Jewish mother is quiet—so I asked her, “Mom, what did you think?” She said, “Barrie, of course it’s authentic. They wouldn’t have kept it for 2,000 years if it wasn’t.”
Now that was an excellent point. According to Jewish law, a blood-soaked shroud would have had to have been kept in the grave. To remove it, in fact, you would have been putting yourself at risk because you were violating the law.
The most plausible explanation to me for the Shroud, both because of the science and my own personal background as a Jew, is that it was the cloth that was used to wrap Jesus’ body.
CWR: What are some of the common falsehoods about the Shroud?
Schwortz: It would take hours to compose such a list. There seems to be a constant cacophony of nonsense being put out about the Shroud. One involves a medieval artist creating it by using three different photographic exposures and his own urine; I call that the “Shroud of Urine” theory. Now why would someone go to all that trouble when they simply could have painted an image?
The Shroud is a complex object, and a six-page article or 44-minute documentary—which must be entertaining—can’t do it justice. That’s why I created www.shroud.com so that people can review all the data and come to their own conclusion based on the facts.
CWR: What does the Shroud tell us about the physical sufferings of Christ?
Schwortz: It is literally a document of the Passion and the torture Jesus suffered. His face was severely beaten, and was particularly swollen around the eyes. I’m a fan of professional boxing; the facial image on the Shroud reminds me of a boxer who’s just lost a match.
The man has been severely scourged. Not only do we observe the wounds on the back, but the thongs wrapped around the body and hit the front as well. Forensically speaking, the image on the Shroud is more accurate than common depictions we see in art.
He has a spear wound on his side. His legs are not broken, as was typically the case with men who are crucified. His head and scalp are covered in wounds. Again, in art, we often see the Crown of Thorns depicted as a small circle resembling laurel leaves around Christ’s head. But that is not realistic. The soldiers actually took a thorn bush and smashed it down on his head.
We see the back of one hand, which indicates that the nails were driven not through the center of the palm, but an inch closer to the wrist. For a Roman soldier crucifying 20 or more people at a time, that makes sense. It’s the perfect place to drive a nail that will hold, and then you can move on to your next victim.
Regarding the feet, it’s impossible for us to judge if a single nail held both feet, or if nails were driven in each one. We have the actual remains of two crucifixion victims, and two nails were used in their feet.
CWR: Was he stretched out on the cross so that his arms were dislocated? And, had part of his beard been plucked out?
Schwortz: The forensic evidence tells us that he could have been stretched so that his arms were dislocated. And, we do observe a V-notch in his beard, indicating that it could have been plucked.
In the end, the forensic evidence indicates that the Gospel account is an accurate depiction of what happened during the Passion of Christ.
CWR: Some people have seen many other things in the Shroud, such as Roman coins covering Christ’s eyes.
Schwortz: Oh, yes. People see coins, flowers, and all kinds of other things that may or may not be there. Regarding the coins, on our STRUP team we had a NASA imaging scientist—a good Catholic, in fact—who indicated that the weave of the linen was too coarse to pick up the inscription of a coin. What we’re certain of is that we see an image of a man, and isn’t that what is important?
CWR: From your study of the Shroud, what kind of physical description of Christ can you offer us?
Schwortz: He was a well-built man; what we might describe as buff today. He had a strong upper body, a deep chest and good-sized shoulders. This makes sense, as he was a carpenter. At that time you’d have to go out and fell a tree, cut it up and carve it, all things which would require a lot of physical strength.
Regarding his height, it’s hard to tell. There is no defined edge of the image. It just fades out. The cloth, too, can be affected by humidity and stretched. That said, our best guess is 5’10” or 5’11”. So, he’d be a taller man for the time, but not so tall that the Gospel writers made note of it. In fact, we have the remains of Jewish men from the era that were over six feet.
CWR: Did he have a ponytail?
Schwortz: It certainly looks like it. Orthodox Jews of the period wore their hair long.
CWR: What can you tell us of the cloth itself?
Schwortz: It was a high-quality cloth that a man of high stature would have owned. It was probably made in Syria, and brought to Jerusalem on the back of a camel. Since it was imported, it would have been expensive. This is consistent with the Gospel account, which indicated that Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy man. He probably owned it and had been planning to use it for himself.
Before my own Jewish father died he planned out his entire funeral. It’s reasonable to believe that Joseph of Arimathea did the same. When Christ died he gave him his own shroud, planning to buy another one for himself at some later date.
CWR: Your website just celebrated its 19th anniversary.
Schwortz: Yes. In 1995, I was talking to a friend, and he said, “You know that Shroud thing you’ve been studying? It was a painting by Leonardo da Vinci.” I asked him where he got that information. He said, “My wife and I were at the grocery store, and we saw it in a tabloid at the check-out.”
Now Leonardo da Vinci was a pretty good artist, but we have documentation about the Shroud dating back 100 years before he was born. No one is that good! I remember writing myself a note: “Consider building a website.” I did, and I’ve been overseeing and adding to it ever since.
I realized long ago what a great privilege it was to be in that room in Italy with STRUP in 1978. But with that privilege came a responsibility. As I tell my audiences, I wasn’t in that room for me, but for you. I don’t know why God picked me to be there, but what better witness than a skeptic? I had no emotional attachment to or interest in the subject at the time.
CWR: What was involved in your time with STRUP in 1978?
Schwortz: We arrived a week early with 80 crates of equipment, which was seized for five days by Italian customs. We had a limited time to implement a 67-page test plan, and as we had lost five days of preparation, we weren’t certain we could run all of our tests.
The Catholic Church itself had very little involvement. The Church, in fact, didn’t own the Shroud at the time. King Umberto, Duke of Savoy (the former ruling family of Italy), whose family had owned the Shroud for six centuries, gave permission for us to study it. The Church in Turin was merely the custodian of the artifact.
We initially asked for 96 hours to study it, but we were allowed to see it about 120 hours. We were there to collect data, not draw conclusions. We were there to answer one simple question: how was the image formed? In the three years following we produced papers that were submitted to peer-reviewed journals. In the end, we could only tell how it did not get there. It was not a painting, it was not a scorch, and it was not a photograph.
Our team was composed of experts of a variety of faiths, from Catholics to total skeptics. We had Mormons, Evangelical Christians, and Jews. Our religious belief was not a criterion for being on the team. In fact, as a Jew, I felt uncomfortable being on the team and I tried to quit twice. One of my friends on the STRUP team, Don Lynn, worked for JPL and was a good Catholic. When I told him I wanted to quit because I was Jewish, he asked, “Have you forgotten that Jesus was a Jew?”
I told him I didn’t know much about Jesus, but I did know he was a Jew. He asked, “Don’t you think he’d want one of the Chosen People on our team?” He told me to go to Turin and do the best job I could, and not worry about being a Jew.
CWR: Are there any other objects in the world that compare to the Shroud?
Schwortz: There is nothing like it.
CWR: What effect have you seen the Shroud have on people? Schwortz: I’ve observed a broad range of responses. Some have no reaction, but for many others it revives their faltering faith. But, in the end, faith is not based on a piece of cloth, but is a gift of God stirred in the hearts of those who look upon it.
Its not a "claim." Their research has been recognized by peer review, and endorsed by the lead researcher from the carbon dating project before his death.
...,but the image looks too much like painting of Jesus ,painted hundreds of years later
Has it never occurred to you the Shroud was the "model" rather than the other way round? This objection is meaningless.
Perhaps you are referring to the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanicano.
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.
During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.
The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.
The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.
Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574.
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
 |
Fig. 1 - Eosine x 200. Overall histological aspect of a Flesh sample with fibers collected in bundles with longitudinal orientation as it occurs in the outer surface layers of the heart. |
 |
Fig. 2 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 250. An artery and, very close, a branch of the vagal nerve. |
 |
Fig. 3 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 400. Evidence of the "Rough" aspect of the endocardium; the syncytoid structure of the myocardial tissue |
 |
Fig. 4 - Elution-absorption test x 80. Above: Hemagglutination test on blood sample in Lanciano: on the left, anti A serum used; on the right, anti-B serum. Below: hemoagglutination test on a Flesh sample in Lanciano: left, with anti-A serum, right,with anti-B serum. It appears thus that the Flesh and the Blood in Lanciano belong to AB blood group. |
 |
Fig. 5 - Electro-phoretic pattern of Blood proteins (Cromoscan photometer). The profile of serum fractions is normal and superimposable to that of a fresh serum sample. |
In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.
Thank you for the comprehensive reply to this pernicious rumor that refuses to die.
RESURRECTION PING!
While there were a huge number of fake relics in Medieval Europe those that survive can be shown to be clever but crude forgeries. If the shroud were a Medieval fake, why would the image defy even the most sophisticate modern analysis? In those days a crude forgery would have fooled even the most educated. There would simply be no reason in those days to create such an elaborate hoax. There have also been I believe some very compelling questions about the radio carbon analysis.
I saw it too in 78 it was inspiring. We saw it on the last day of its exposition. Later that night after dinner we walked by the Cathedral and could see the STRUP team setting up their equipment!
Actually it was a combination of original Shroud AND 16th Century patch material that varied from 60% to 40% patch depending on where on the original sample the sub-samples were cut. This resulted in the variation in dating reported by the three testing labs results in the four sub-samples tested which did not overlap in their degrees of confidence. THAT should have been a big red-flag that something was wrong.
I thought this site was pretty good in defending the Shroud.
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Science/Image/height.html
Ping
P4L
It’s an image of Jesus at the very moment of His resurrection, made by the very light of his dematerialization.
That pernicious nature of the C-14 test was their intent. . . regardless that it has been falsified. . . and you are welcome. I did a lot of research and study to put all of that together. Feel free to use what you can from it.
The best argument against it being medieval fraud is the fact that fooling the hoi polloi and even the sophisticates of that era did not require sophisticated fakery. Grab a large cloth, smear it with some goat's blood in the appropriate locations, hang out a shingle and start collecting the sous of the pilgrims.
Some pig knuckles could substitute for the finger bones of John the Baptist. . . rinse repeat and you have the toe of Joan d'Arc. . . and the money flows in to your coffers.
That's one of the sites run by our fellow Freeper Shroudie.
Which came first? The paintings, or the image on the Shroud? The fact is that iconography, the study of religious art, shows that artistic images of Jesus started looking like the image on the Shroud with the appearance of a "miraculous not-made-by-human-hands image of Jesus on a cloth" called the "Image of Edessa," that had been walled up above the main gate to the city of Edessa to prevent it being destroyed by Iconoclasts from the 2nd Century until the 5th Century when an Earthquake revealed it. The Image of Edessa was reported to have been merely a facial image. . . however when the Edessan image was brought to Constantinople on August 15, 944 AD, the Sermon of Gregory Referendarius, the Arch Deacon of the Hagia Sophia on its arrival, described the cloth as not just a facial image, but the whole body. Excerpts from the Sermon of Gregory Referendarius where he is describing the image:
". . . A second light, immaterial and unique, came devotedly from you, an unexpected and material intertwining, natures distantly embracing heaven and earth, one living being made of two opposites: your human image, food from the clouds, a river flowing from a dry rock, and what is genuinely new under the sun, you were born a man in these last times from a virgin mother. You wiped clean the sweat of the nature you had taken on and what was wiped clean was transformed into an image of your unchanging form, just like Adam's form was drawn out of the ground, like the eyes of nature in the folds of the kneaded earth. . .. . . . For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint of Christ, since after the drops fell, it was embellished by drops from his own side., Both are highly instructive – blood and water there, here sweat and image. Oh equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side. . .
The only way that Gregory would be referring to an "unchanging form" and the wound in the side is if he had seen the Image of Edessa as a full figure image and not just a facial image.
It is thought that prior to coming to Constantinople, the Image of Edessa was encased in a lattice work frame. Drawings of the Image showed such a framework surrounding the image. When it arrived, it was probably taken out of the frame and exposed for what it truly was, the Shroud. It was reported to be a TetraDiplong. Double folded in Four. Folding the Shroud in such a fashion results in just the face showing and the Shroud has creases to this day from being folded in just such a fashion.
After 944 AD, the inventory of the religious relics held in Constantinople did not list the image of Edessa among the relics but did list, for the first time, the "Burial Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ".
It actually is not truly 3D, it is however a database of 3D data in a 2D representation, a terrain map in which 3D data is encoded in the image by distance being inversely proportional to the intensity of the image. i.e., the closer the cloth, the darker the image.
Thanks for the further explanation at your post # 28.
I have read that the interwoven material in the patch was cotton, not linen, which was proved because it glowed under ultraviolet light.
uhhhh, sounds like 3D to me....and many, many scientists.
Focus, man...and less leftist rambling!
A subject that has never failed to mesmerize me since I first read the book about it in 1978.
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.