THE PASSION, DEATH, AND BURIAL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AS
REVEALED THROUGH THE SHROUD OF TURIN AND THE ERRORS OF THE 1988 CARBON DATING
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
DR. WILLIAM MARSHNER
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY
CHRISTENDOM COLLEGE
BY
ASHLEY MARIE DEMARCO
FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA
NOVEMBER, 2006
DEDICATION
To my parents,
Who brought me to see the Shroud of Turin during it exposition in the Jubilee year 2000, which led to my initial interest with the Shroud, and later on inspired me to write on this fascinating topic.
To Dominick Severance, my fiancé,
Who assisted and supported me through the completion of this thesis while he was studying in Rome; I couldn’t have done it without him – thank you.
And to Sarah Ford,
Who has been a wonderful friend and roommate with me for three years: here’s to all the great memories, laughs, and ‘nervous breakdowns’ we shared together while writing our senior theses.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1
CHAPTER ONE:
THE STORY OF THE BURIAL
OF CHRIST AS SEEN ON THE
SHROUD OF TURIN: AN
ACCOUNT CONSISTENT WITH
THE GOSPELS AND ANCIENT
JEWISH BURIAL CUSTOMS…………………………………………………………...4
CHAPTER TWO:
THE PASSION AND DEATH
OF JESUS CHRIST: A WALK TO
MOUNT CALVARY WITH THE
SHROUD OF TURIN……………………………………………………………………18
CHAPTER THREE:
THE 1988 CARBON DATING
DEBATE…………………………………………………………………………………28
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..39
INTRODUCTION
“The Shroud shows Jesus at the moment of his greatest helplessness and reminds us that in the abasement of death lies the salvation of the whole world.”
-Pope John Paul II
Held traditionally as the ancient burial cloth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Shroud of Turin is a long linen sheet with the imprint of a severely scourged, crucified victim. Since 1578 the Shroud has been preserved in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. Throughout its history, the Shroud was occasionally brought out for public displays and veneration, the last time in honor of the Jubilee year 2000. The Shroud measures fourteen feet three inches long by three feet seven inches wide, showing the frontal and dorsal images of the man. The linen sheet is a faded yellow color “made of a three-to-one herringbone weave with a ‘Z’ twist,” a weave pattern common to the first century in the Middle East. The linen cloth is made of flax, and textile experts also believe that it is of a Middle East origin. Photographs reveal that the crucified man appears to be a Semitic Jew, who “was between 30 and 35 years of age, measured at approximately 5’11” in height and weighed about 175 pounds.” The man on the Shroud was clearly not washed prior to burial as he is covered in scourge wounds, some of which have left visible blood marks transferred from body to cloth. Characteristics such as the crowning of thorns, the side lance wound, and other details of Christ’s crucifixion can be found on the image. Through detailed analysis and examinations into its authenticity, the Shroud of Turin has been found to parallel the Gospel accounts of Christ’s Passion, Death, and Burial, which support its claim to authenticity regardless of the erroneously alleged 1988 carbon dating results.
The image on the Shroud is a feature not found on any other ancient burial cloth. There are so many amazing characteristics of this image that it has perplexed the modern world. The image was not produced by any artistic substance, including paints, dyes, inks, pigments, or any liquids. If it was the work of an artist there would also have to be an outline of the image and a light focus; there is no evidence of these on the Shroud. In addition, there is also no evidence of brush strokes, a tool a medieval artist would most likely use if he were to create such an image. No other known technique has been able to reproduce the image. The image also only touches the topmost fibers of the cloth. The image has left many scientists puzzled at the very nature of its formation.
One of the most critical dates in the history of the Shroud happened during an exposition in 1898. On May 25-28 the Shroud was photographed for the first time by “a Turin lawyer and amateur photographer” named Secondo Pia. When he viewed the negative photograph of the image he was amazed to discover that the negative is actually a positive image of the man. With photography only shortly in the making, Pia’s breakthrough discovery advanced the knowledge of this mysterious image.
In On Sunday, May 24, 1998 His Holiness Pope John Paul II gave an address on the Shroud of Turin calling it “one of the most unsettling signs of the Redeemer’s suffering love.” The late Holy Father exhorts the believer to grasp the message of the Shroud, looking upon it as a “sign of the Passion” and “a mirror of the Gospel.” Casting aside arguments for or against its authenticity, John Paul II brings to light the inherent value of the image, which he calls a “unique gift.” The Shroud speaks of suffering, death, sin, resurrection, but most importantly it “can help us better to understand the mystery of the love of God’s Son for us.” In a sense, the Shroud is a tangible sign of Our Lord’s love for us, calling us to see how our sins were the cause of the suffering on the Shroud. Whether the Shroud is real or not, God has allowed us to see more into the mystery of His Son’s Passion and Death, helping us become more in touch with the reality of suffering, sin, death and resurrection of the body.
CHAPTER ONE
THE STORY OF THE BURIAL OF CHRIST AS SEEN ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN: AN ACCOUNT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOSPELS AND ANCIENT JEWISH BURIAL CUSTOMS
“The gospel accounts of the burial of Jesus constitute one of the critical touchstones for deciding whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic or counterfeit,” notes Werner Bulst, S.J. in his book The Shroud of Turin. All four Evangelists maintain that Christ’s burial in the tomb was according to “the burial custom of the Jews,” with the burial cloth purchased by Joseph of Arimathea. The Shroud of Turin is revered today by many as that same burial cloth which wrapped Our Lord’s body after being taken down from the cross. British historian Ian Wilson says that,
If genuine, the Shroud is a record of a burial, a Jewish burial that reputedly took place nearly two thousand years ago of none other than Jesus Christ. Among the key questions therefore to be considered are the extent to which it is compatible with known Jewish burial customs of the time and, above all, the specifically recorded burial of Jesus Christ.”
As theological, archeological, and scientific studies have shown, the Shroud of Turin conforms to the Gospel accounts of Christ’s burial and ancient Jewish burial customs. This fact confers a probable authenticity upon this holy relic.
John speaks of the burial of Christ in 19:38-42:
After this Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who had first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds’ weight. They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.
Matthew 27:57-61 says:
When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulchre.
Mark 15:42-47 says:
And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day Before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. And he brought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
Luke 23:50-56 says:
Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, who had not consented to their purpose and deed, and he was looking for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud, and laid him in a rock-hewn tomb, where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and how his body was laid; then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.
All four Gospel accounts of Christ’s burial record the purchase of Christ’s burial shroud by Joseph of Arimathea, who was responsible for taking Our Lord’s body and placing him in the tomb before the Sabbath. He was a wealthy man and a member of the Sanhedrin. Christ’s body was wrapped in a long linen sheet because this was in accord with the burial customs of the Jews. John says that Jesus was “bound in linen cloths with the spices;” Matthew says that He was placed in “a clean linen shroud;” and Mark and Luke note just a “linen shroud.” While John notes more than one cloth, the Synoptic Gospels note just one cloth. Many have taken John’s Gospel to refer to “a sweat cloth generally understood to be linen strips used in binding the spices in with the corpse.” These sweat cloths may also be understood as that which bound Lazarus, as John described him in similar terms when he left the grave. The burial cloth referred to in the Synoptic Gospels is called in the Greek sindon, which translates to mean a “large linen sheet,” or shroud. Dr. Pierre Barbet says that it was
much longer than it was broad, which they fist placed round the head then over the body; one may compare it to the “himitation” of the Greeks, the Roman “peplum,” or better still, the “palla’ worn by women. It could be worn as underclothing or at night, or be used as a shroud for the dead.
Thus, there are no inconsistencies between John’s Gospel and the Synoptic accounts. In fact, Jewish burial customs required that anyone who was killed by the government must be buried in a single sheet. The use of a single sheet for a burial cloth makes the Shroud of Turin thus conform to the Gospels and Jewish burial customs.
The four gospel accounts of Christ’s burial in the tomb give almost exactly the same descriptions. More is known about Christ’s crucifixion than his burial. The Gospels say that He was buried according to “the burial customs of the Jews,” but what the known customs of Jewish burial were at the time and the way in which the man on the Shroud was buried seem to be in conflict. The circumstances of Christ’s death, in fact, put the Biblical portrayal of his burial and the ancient Jewish burial customs in accord with each other.
The Gospels make no mention of Christ’s body being washed prior to burial. According to the burial customs of the Jews, however, the bodies of the deceased were washed prior to burial. The man on the Shroud of Turin was clearly not washed before being placed on the shroud. It is imperative, then, to confirm the authenticity of the shroud that Christ’s body was not washed prior to burial. Dr. Gilbert Lavoie states that “if Jesus had been washed according to the Jewish custom, then one would have to conclude that the Shroud of Turin is not the shroud of Jesus.” This is true for the fact that clearly the man on the Shroud of Turin shows no sign of being washed; in fact, he was so carefully placed on the Shroud that great care must have been taken not to disturb any of the bloodstains. In The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity Fr. Vittorio Guerrera refers to the Mishnah for ancient Jewish customs in burial practices: “According to the Mishnah, a collection of oral laws first codified by Rabbi Judah around 200 A.D., the first step in the burial process was to wash the body with warm water and to anoint it only if the limbs are not moved (Shabbat 23:5)” Among the many procedures in the burial process, washing the body of the deceased is a practice held in the Jewish rite even today. However, since the Jewish burial customs required the washing of the body, a local Christian tradition generally credited in the Middle Ages, held that Christ’s body was washed prior to burial. The Blood and the Shroud says that, “traditional Jewish funerary preparations required the corpse to be wasked scrupulously from head to foot according to the practice of taharah.” Not only are the Gospels silent about any burial washing, but there is a Jewish law which has “four conditions which prohibit the body from being purified: if a Jew dies a violent and bloody death, if a Jew dies by capital punishment for a crime of a religious nature, if a Jew is an outcast of the Jewish community, or if a Jew is murdered by a Gentile.” All of these conditions can be applied to Jesus. According to Jewish burial customs Christ’s body could not be washed if his body contained “blood that flowed during life, mingled with blood that flowed at the time of death. Mingled blood. It was life-blood, the blood that makes atonement. It was unclean and therefore had to be buried with him.” Christ’s body contained “mingled blood” because he died by crucifixion, which was one of the most violent ways to die. Thus, despite the fact that Christ’s burial was hasty, there were other reasons in Jewish law for Christ’s body not to be washed prior to burial. Christ was the victim of a violent death; so the circumstances of his burial would be different from one who was to die an honorable death.
The New Testament refers to washing the body of the deceased in the Book of Acts. Acts 9:36-43 relates the story of a good woman named Tabitha of Joppa. Acts 9:37 mentions the washing of her body after she died: “In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room.” Earlier on in Acts, however, there is no mention of washing the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira, a husband and wife who died shameful deaths. Acts 5:6 tells of Ananias’s death and burial:
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
Acts does not mention any washing of Ananias’s body, whereas such a custom was explicitly mentioned for Tabitha. Sapphira’s death and burial is recorded in Acts 5:7-11; she was accused of the same deed her husband was accused of, and she fell dead at Peter’s words as well. She was buried beside her husband, and her burial does not mention any washing of her body either.
To understand correctly the meaning of the phrase in John 19:40 that Jesus was buried “according to the Jewish burial customs,” a review of some Greek words is needed:
Several similar words were used in the Greek language to refer to burial, including the verb X ntafi V zw, which means “to bury” or “prepare for burial,” the Greek noun X ntafiasm ` H, which means “burial” or “preparation for burial,” the Greek noun X ntafiat Z H, which means “one who prepares for burial” or “one who burries” or “burrier.” The precise word utilized depended upon the context. In John 19:40, the Greek verb X ntafi V zein is used in the infinitive form. Since a hurried burial of Jesus is mentioned throughout the Gospels, as is the fact that the burial process had not been completed, the context would clearly call for the translation of “prepare for burial.” This translation is supported by the lack of any reference in the Gospels to Jesus’ dead body being washed, which would have violated Jewish burial custom because he died a violent death. In a similar manner, Matthew 26:12 also uses the infinite form the verb X ntafi V sai, and indeed this interpretation is the only one that makes sense.
Thus, the washing of Christ’s body is in accord with Jewish burial customs. The circumstances of Christ’s death on the cross, and the hurried burial process due to the Sabbath account for the fact why Christ’s body was specifically not washed.
Although it is clear that the man on the Shroud of Turin was not washed, and that it seems highly unlikely that Christ’s own body was washed in consideration of the circumstances of his death, there has been the traditional belief that Christ’s body was indeed washed. Tradition holds that there is a stone on which Christ’s body was washed and anointed. This stone can be found in Jerusalem today at the Church of the Holy Sepulchere. Ian Wilson says that, “the faithful revere to this day a reddish-colored stone … which has been known since Byzantine times, [and] is specifically called the ‘Stone of Unction.’” Because of this Christian belief, a medieval forger would also have expected Christ’s body to be washed prior to burial. Thus, the traditional interpretation of John’s Gospel makes it impossible for a fake shroud to be produced to false expectations of Christ’s burial.
Also, not only were the deceased normally to be washed before burial, but also dressed in linen garments. The Shroud of Turin, however, has the image of a man buried naked in the Shroud cloth. Again, this apparent contradiction between the Shroud and Jewish burial customs can be overcome. The Mishnah states that “the corpse needed to be dressed in tachrichim, that is, a complete set of burial garments typically including a head covering, shirt, breeches, surplice and girdle.” However, Jewish burial customs also required that the deceased were to be buried in the clothing they were wearing when they died, so that if they died naked they were to be buried naked. This would explain why the man on the Shroud was buried naked.
Jewish customs also required that their dead be buried with their eyes shut, chin tied in a chin band, hands and legs tied, and the hands placed across the pelvis. These instructions can also be found in the Mishnah. All of these features can be seen on the Shroud of Turin. The man on the Shroud is so placed that
his elbows protrude from his sides and his hands are crossed over the pelvic area . . . Recent archeological excavations at the Qumran community found that the Essenes buried their dead in the way represented on the Shroud. Several skeletons were found lying on their backs, faces pointing upward, elbows bent outward, and their hands covering the pelvic region. The protruding elbows rule out an Egyptian type mummified burial.
The hair of the man on the Shroud is another notable feature, one which a forger would not have imagined, for it was not the traditional idea. On the Shroud the man’s hair is tied in a ponytail in the back of his head. This is a feature of Christ that was not imagined in the Middle Ages. Verdict on the Shroud notes: “The German scholar Gressman and the French scholar Daniel-Rops have shown that it was a common fashion for Jewish men in Jesus’ time to wear their hair caught at the back of the neck in a pigtail form. Orthodox Jewish rabbis and scholars confirm this.” Orthodox Jewish rabbis and scholars also confirm that the hairstyle of the man on the Shroud is in line with Jewish men of the first century.
Oftentimes, to keep the eyes of the dead closed coins would be placed on them. A remarkable finding of coins over the eyes of the man on the Shroud was identified in 1977 by Dr. Jackson and Dr. Jumper. Using a VP-8 Image Analyzer on the Shroud face “which reduces the background and sharpens the images,” small objects were detected over the man’s eyes that were found to be Pontius Pilate coins. The four letters that can be seen on the coin are “UCAI” which formed part of the Greek inscription “Of Tiberius Caesar.” Fr. Francis Filas, S.J., looking in the History of Jewish Coinage, and of Money in the Old and New Testaments, found the coins on the man’s eyes to be the Pontius Pilate lepton, otherwise known as “the Julia lepton,” which was “struck in 29 A.D. in honor of Tiberius’ mother, Julia.” Archeological excavations have found coins on the floors of Jewish tombs. In The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery Mary and Alan Whanger note that, “there is little archeological evidence regarding the use of coins as part of Jewish burial practices, since almost all burials from the first century B.C. to the third century A.D. that have been excavated are secondary burials.” However, the custom for centuries has been to use coins to keep the eyes of the dead closed. Although the gospels cannot confirm the use of coins in Jesus’ burial, the customary procedures at the time can point to its veracity.
Another seemingly vague matter can be found in John’s Gospel where Jesus is said to have been “wrapped” in the shroud. Yet, this wrapping most likely did not refer to the body being wrapped in strips of cloth like a mummy. This has been a common misconception in the case of the Shroud because of the story found in the Gospel of John where Lazarus is being raised from the dead. John 11:44 says that Lazarus had his hands and feet bound, but this does not necessarily mean that he was wrapped like an Egyptian mummy. Dr. Barbet says that, “one thing seems to be certain, that it had nothing in common with the embalming practiced by the Egyptians. In the whole of the Bible, we only find two examples of mummification, those of Jacob and Joseph; this was in Egypt, for they had become half Egyptian.” However, in the case of Lazarus, a Jew, the word “wrapping” does not necessarily mean swathed like a mummy. In fact, the word “wrapped” in the “literal sense of the Greek word means ‘to envelop.’” This envelopment is consistent with how Jesus was laid on the Shroud. Guerrera says that, “the body of Jesus was laid on a single linen sheet that was drawn up the back and down the front of the body, and His limbs were bound.” As Lazarus had his hands and feet bound, so too the Shroud of Turin shows that the man had his hands and feet bound as well, which was in accord with the Jewish burial customs. Ian Wilson gives the reasons behind this Jewish custom:
We can also detect that, as in Jewish custom, the man of the shroud seems to have been bound at head, hands, and feet. On the Shroud there is a distinct gap between the frontal and dorsal images of the head, almost certainly indicating the presence of a chin band tied around the face. At the region of the wrists we may perceive that there is an apparent break in the blood flow immediately to the left of the covering hand. A binding cloth or cord at this point would almost certainly have been functionally necessary to counteract the effects of rigor mortis, which according to some medical opinion would have tended to return the arms to the original crucifixion position. In the area of the feet, the possible presence of a similar cord or binding cloth is less obvious, but there is a blank in the image at precisely the most likely position.
At the time of Jesus’ death the Sabbath was drawing close at hand. The Gospels note that this fact was the cause of Christ’s rather hurried burial in the tomb because work was is not permitted on the Sabbath. Thus, all of the burial customs could not be completed. This, too, is why the women went back to Christ’s tomb on the third day after the Sabbath was over to anoint his body. The anointing was never completed because, when the women arrived at the tomb, they found it empty: Christ had risen from the dead. These women had come to the tomb to complete the burial procedures that were interrupted due to the Sabbath.
Although Christ’s body was never anointed after his death on the cross, which was a burial custom of the Jews, there is, however, a “pre-anointing story” found in all four gospels. Matthew 26:6-13 tells the story:
Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table. But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.
This story is also recorded in Mark 14:3-9 and John 12:3-8. Luke also records a “pre-anointing story,” but his is about the sinful woman who washed Our Lord’s feet with her tears and long hair, and anointed them with a jar of expensive oils. Our Lord says of this woman:
“Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with anointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.”
This significant gospel story is recorded in Luke 7:36-50. It is clear that these gospel stories of Christ’s body being anointed before burial were most likely due to the fact that his body would not be anointed after death. Fr. Guerrera says that, “If this anointing were merely a common gesture of hospitality, it is doubtful that this episode would have been recorded at all by each Gospel writer.” When each gospel writer records the same event it is very significant.
The place in which the Jews buried their dead is also of great importance to the authenticity of the Shroud. Luke 23:54 says that Joseph of Arimathea laid Jesus “in a rock-hewn tomb, where no one had ever been laid.” This is consistent with Jewish custom. There are examples of these “rock-hewn tombs” in Jerusalem today. Secondly, from the Gospel account it is also clear that Christ was laid in a tomb that was not occupied by anyone else before him. Msgr. Ricci says that this was part of Jewish law; Christ’s body could not contaminate the bodies of the just and therefore had to be laid in a new tomb. Ian Wilson says that members of the same family would share a tomb. After each one died and his body decomposed, the remains would be gathered and stored in a wooden chest so that room could be made for the next member of the family. He says that, “in this way many members of the same family could occupy one tomb.” In Christ’s case and that of anyone else who died a dishonorable death, the body must turn to ashes before it could be placed in a common tomb. The Shroud of Turin also shows a man who was laid out flat on his back in the tomb. This, too, is consistent with Jewish burial customs.
The Jews would bury their dead on the day of death. This duty was not only customary but essential “due to the climatic conditions” which would cause “rapid corruption.” The man on the Shroud of Turin, however, shows no signs of decay. This fact not only supports the authenticity of the Shroud as the burial cloth of Christ, but more importantly, is physical evidence of the resurrection of Christ.
Dr. Pierre Barbet is a French surgeon who gave a physician’s perspective on the Shroud of Turin in his book Doctor on Calvary: the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon. Barbet, in his chapter on Christ’s burial, describes the process of carrying Christ from the cross to the tomb:
The body was not wrapped in the shroud till after it had been carried to the tomb; during the journey the blood from the inferior vena cava and the lower limbs flowed out through the wound in the side; otherwise the blood would have drenched the shroud. After death from tetany the rigidity of the body is both sudden and extreme; it becomes like an iron bar. May I repeat what the method would have been; the nail of the feet would be removed, which would not be altogether easy; then the patibulum would be unfixed, two men holding the ends while another upholds the right heel, which is behind the left. Finally, as the combination of the body and the beam of wood is too heavy, two others twist a sheet so as to make a band to support the loins. The rest of the venuous blood coming out of the heart, in the horizontal position, drenches this sheet and coagulates in its folds in irregular windings. (All these details, as we have seen, are verified on the Shroud of Turin, and they are not details which a forger would have imagined.)
In addition, close examination of the man’s heals on the Shroud reveal fingerprints of those who had carried him to the tomb. Dr. Barbet’s medical analysis of the Shroud of Turin puts forward significant scientific evidence for the cloth’s authenticity.
One of the most significant conclusions that have resulted from the studies of the Shroud of Turin is the fact that the corpse lay in the burial cloth for no more than three days. There is no evidence of bodily decomposition on the Shroud. If the body had started to decompose, then there would be decomposition stains on the Shroud. Such a miraculous fact brings to light the miracle of the Resurrection. The Gospels tell us that Christ lay in the tomb for three days, and then rose from the dead. The Shroud of Turin tells us that the corpse could have only been laid in the burial linen for no more than three days. In Jesus’ time the corpse was only removed from the burial linens after the body had decomposed and turned to ashes, which would then be removed to make room for the next member of the family. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the Shroud of Turin is the Shroud of Jesus Christ.
The way in which the man on the Shroud of Turin was buried is thus completely in accord with the recorded burial of Jesus in the Gospels. Biblical exegesis and archeology have provided further evidence in support of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Christ. In fact, if the authentic burial cloth of Christ, the Shroud of Turin is able to provide more details about Christ’s burial, supplementing the Gospel accounts. In no way does the Shroud contradict the Gospels or ancient Jewish burial customs, a fact which points to it being the authentic burial cloth of Christ.
(Paper continues after references)
John Paul II, “Address of His Holiness Pope John Paul II [on the Shroud of Turin]”, http://www.sindone.it/getfile.asp?tipo=pubblicazioni&id=20, accessed 29 November 2006.
Fr. Vittorio Guerrera, The Shroud of Turin: a Case for Authenticity (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 2001), 1.
Joan Carroll Cruz, Relics (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1984), 50.
http://www.sindone.it/getfile.asp?tipo=pubblicazioni&id=20.
Werner Bulst, S.J., The Shroud of Turin, trans. by Stephen McKenna, CSs.R. and James J. Galvin, C.Ss.R. (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1957), 77.
Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin: the Burial Cloth of Christ? (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1978), 38.
Pierre Barbet, M.D., A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon, trans. by the Earl of Wicklow (Harrison, New York: Roman Catholic Books, 1953), 139.
Gilbert R. Lavoie, M.D., Resurrected (Allen, Texas: Thomas More, 2000), 74.
Fr. Vittorio Guerrera, The Shroud of Turin: a Case for Authenticity (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 2001), 33.
Ian Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud (New York: The Free Press, 1998), 54.
Ian Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud (New York: The Free Press, 1998), 261.
Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1981), 46.
Msgr. Giulio Ricci, The Way of the Cross in Light of the Holy Shroud (Milwaukee: Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud, 1982), 67.
CHAPTER 2
THE PASSION AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST: A WALK TO MOUNT CALVARY WITH THE SHROUD OF TURIN
Many have thought of the Shroud of Turin as a record of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. John Paul II calls the Shroud a “tragic and enlightening sign of the Passion.” Indeed, the Shroud of Turin is an image of intense suffering and a brutal death. One of the most remarkable aspects of this relic is that it mirrors the Gospel accounts of Christ’s Passion and death. If it is the authentic burial cloth of Christ, then the Shroud is a first class relic of Jesus Christ; for the real human blood would be the blood of the Son of God. The Shroud also tells much of what Roman crucifixion practices were, and medically speaking, how these affected the body of the victim. From the scourging, crown of thorns, nail wounds, side wound, and every other characteristic of Christ’s crucifixion, the Shroud of Turin is the story of Christ’s Passion and death on the cross.
One of the most notable features about Christ’s Passion that sets Him apart from other crucified victims is the crown of thorns. Matthew 27:28-30 says: “And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” The crown of thorns that the soldiers made to mock Jesus is also recorded in John 19:2-3 and Mark 15:17-19. After Jesus was scourged, He was stripped of his cloths and dressed as a mock king. The crown of thorns was placed on his head to complete this mock ‘kingly’ attire.
There are many signs on the Shroud of Turin for a crown of thorns being placed upon the crucified victim’s head. The trickles of blood that have dripped from the forehead point to the fact that the crucified man wore a circular crown of long thorns that punctured deep into his scalp, which resulted in the loss of much blood. Mark Antonacci states in The Resurrection of the Shroud that, “Several physicians have noted that a cap of thorns would produce head wounds identical to those on the man in the Shroud.”
Punishing a crucified victim would not usually include placing a crown of thorns, for such a cruel deed was done to Jesus Christ alone to mock his claim as King of the Jews. Msgr. Giulio Ricci writes in The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud:
From the Gospels and from the historical context of the trial of Jesus, it is clear that the crowning with thorns went beyond Roman penal procedure and was simply a cruel joke thought up by the soldiers of the Praetorium to exalt, in their own way, the royalty of Jesus had shortly before asserted during His trial in front of Pilate. It was after the “Ecce Homo!”, that is, when Pilate showed Jesus to the people, with the intention of demonstrating that he had been given an exemplary punishment, that Jesus appeared with the many marks of the scourging, dressed as a mock king with a purple mantle, and with a crown of thorns on His head.
Stevenson and Habermas in their book Verdict on the Shroud say that it is an “improbable occurrence” if the man on the Shroud was not Jesus to be crowned with thorns. The only reason that Jesus was crowned with thorns was to mock Him for claiming to be the Son of God and King of the Jews. Thus, the crowning of thorns is a particular characteristic of Christ’s crucifixion; this characteristic can be seen on the Shroud of Turin. The Turin cloth clearly points to the fact that this it is not merely any man’s burial shroud, but Jesus Christ’s alone.
Throughout the centuries Christian art has depicted the crown of thorns as a circular headband, rather than a cap. The Gospels give no indication as to the shape of the crown of thorns. However, on the Shroud of Turin “the whole of the cranium shows signs of a remarkable crown woven from long thorns which, in accord with the Eastern custom for the coronation of kings, was placed not around but on top of the head like a mitre.” St. Vincent of Lerins says that Our Lord had a crown of thorns that was in the shape of a Roman pileus, which “was a sort of semi-oval head dress made of felt, which enveloped the head and was specially worn during work. It was also a mark of liberty, and the expression used for the liberation of a slave was: “Servum ad pileum vocare—To call a slave to the pileus.” The ignorance of Christian artists as to an accurate portrayal of the crown of thorns bears further witness to the authenticity of the Shroud against the work of a medieval artist.
Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French surgeon and devout Catholic, gives a medical examination of the Shroud in his book A Doctor at Calvary, in which he lends a detailed study to the crown of thorns. With medical knowledge, Barbet is able to state what wounds from a crown of thorns should be seen on the Shroud. First, Barbet notes that a crown, or rather cap, of thorns “would have wounded the whole surface of the cranium and also the forehead.” This can be seen on the Shroud of Turin, except for the top of the head; Barbet says that the lack of any signs of wounds on the top of the head shows that the head “must have been covered by the classical bandage which was used to keep the mouth shut.” Next, Dr. Barbet gives an analysis of the flows of blood from the head:
In the image, on the back portion, one can see flows of blood the whole way up the head, each one coming down from the wound made by a thorn and following irregular courses. They all stop at a rather concave line fairly high up, which must mark the place where the band of rushes was drawn tightly against the nape of the neck. And then there is another series of large flows underneath which seems to become lost in the mass of hair.
Another interesting feature of the head wounds that Barbet sees is “behind the head” where “most blood is accumulated.” He is not surprised, however, at this because while Jesus was on the cross the thorns would puncture even more deeply into his scalp each time he drew His head back on the cross, resulting in the loss of even more blood. It is impossible to think that a medieval artist could have painted such perfect and accurate blood flows to make even a detailed medical examination conclude that these wounds must be from a real person.
Unlike the crowning of thorns, scourging was a common preliminary procedure to crucifixion among the Romans. A condemned man would be scourged as punishment for his crime before he was executed. Often, although not in Jesus’ case, the condemned man would continue being scourged as he bore his cross on the way to execution. John 19:1 says, “Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him.” After Jesus was scourged the soldiers put the crown of thorns on His head, mocking Him and spitting in His face. This intense suffering was only the beginning of His passion and the prelude to His long and difficult journey to Mount Calvary.
The Shroud of Turin shows approximately one hundred and twenty scourge marks covering the man’s body both front and back. The scourge marks are in a dumb-bell shaped pattern, which “generally run parallel and diagonal across the body in groups of two or three.” On the Shroud they are best seen on the dorsal, or back, image. Since the scourge wounds are more visible on the back image, “physicians further believe the man was whipped from behind.” There is blood in many of the wounds, some varying from light to deep gashes. According to Jewish Law the maximum amount of lashes allowed during scourging was forty, but for the Romans there was no limit to the number of strokes. Death would often be the result from the scourging alone. The man on the Shroud was clearly not spared any lashes as his body is covered in scourge wounds.
In Resurrected, Dr. Gilbert R. Lavoie comments on Dr. Pierre Barbet’s examination of the scourge marks. Lavoie says:
Like Barbet, I contemplated these scourge marks, and I envisioned two floggers, one on each side, standing slightly behind the victim. They would have alternately flogged their victim at shoulder height, causing the oblique stripes of the back. Then they would have struck at waist level, causing the lower oblique leg wounds. Each strike of small bones on flesh would tear the skin, and blood would flow. Later, these open wounds would ooze clear body fluid like the scraped knees of my boyhood. These injuries would remain moist for hours and eventually allow for the transfer of their paired shapes from body to cloth.
Lavoie was restating Barbet’s medical analysis of the scourge wounds, noting how these wounds appear visibly clear on the Shroud. Such a meticulous examination of the scourge wounds led Dr. Barbet to make this detailed conclusion.
The instrument used in scourging was most likely the Roman flagrum, which is a whip used to tear off pieces of flesh from the victim. It had leather cords with metal balls tied to the end, or some sharp object. Since the scourge wounds are in the same shape and run in two parallel wounds, Dr. Barbet believes “that each flagrum had two thongs, and they are laid out in the form of a fan, the centre of which would be the executioner’s hand.” In The Blood and the Shroud, Ian Wilson notes that, “During the excavations of Heculanaeum, the Roman city that was buried with Pompeii during the Vesuvius volcanic eruption of AD 79, an actual flagrum was discovered sufficiently intact to be put on display, its dumb-bell-shaped metal tips readily matching those of the Shroud.”
After Jesus was scourged, he was made to carry a wooden cross. On the Shroud of Turin there is evidence that the man’s shoulders are worn by the carrying of some heavy object. John 19:17 says: “So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of the skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha.” Antonacci tells how the shoulder wounds would have been caused by the weight of the beam of wood: “Two broad excoriated areas are present across the victim’s shoulder blades (fig. 12). These scrapes are consistent with surface abrasions caused by contact between skin and a heavy rough object.” From the size and shape of the shoulder wounds, there is evidence that Christ did not carry a full cross “T,” but rather a cross beam called the patibulum. Dr. Barbet gives his medical analysis of these wounds as well:
These lacerations [on the shoulder blades] are not caused by a blow. They are excoriations produced by the violent rubbing of a hard mass which is weighing against these parts which protrude and offer resistance. The skin is rubbed away by the beam as it passes roughly across the back, till it reaches the earth.
Msgr. Ricci notes that
At the time of Jesus, both in Rome and Jerusalem, those who had been sentenced to death on the cross had the cross-piece or patibulum tied behind their shoulders, with their arms outstretched. . . . which, at the moment of execution, was placed in one of various ways on to the vertical stake which was already fixed into the ground.
The patibulum that Jesus carried would have rubbed and weighed on his shoulders such as to leave the marks that are on the Shroud.
The Gospels also tell us that along the road Jesus had his cross carried for him by Simon of Cyrene. Matthew 27:32 says: “As they were marching out, they came upon a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; this man they compelled to carry his cross.” Msgr. Ricci notes that it was “unique in the history of crucifixions” to have someone help a condemned man make it to the place of crucifixion alive. There could be no other reason for this decision. The traditional view of the Church is that Jesus fell three times while carrying his cross, and after the third time He was given help from a passer-by named Simon of Cyrene. Thus, not only are the man’s shoulders bruised and cut, but also his knees, most likely from falling under the weight of the patibulum. Experts have calculated the weight of the patibulum to be approximately an average of one hundred pounds. The severe scourging Christ received prior to carrying the heavy cross beam, in addition to a hard and uneasy path to Mount Calvary are sufficient reasons for falling repeatedly.
After carrying His cross and arriving at Golgotha, Christ was nailed to the cross by the executioners. Christ’s crucifixion is a fulfillment of Psalm 21:16-18: “They have pierced my hands and my feet—I can count all my bones—they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots.” Luke 23:34 tells us that the soldiers cast lots to divide Christ’s garments. All four Gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified. The man on the Shroud was clearly crucified, evident from the nail wounds on the wrists and feet.
Among the Romans, crucifixion was a common way to execute condemned criminals. The Shroud gives detailed knowledge into this cruel practice. Crucifixion dates before the Romans, says Ian Wilson, “a form of execution practiced by the Scythians, Persians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians.” While the Persians began this practice, Constantine eradicated it as the first Christian emperor. Historians further believe that the Romans learned of crucifixion from the Carthaginians. The Shroud bears much evidence that the man buried in it was a Jew crucified under the Romans, a crucifixion which corresponds to the Gospel accounts of Christ’s crucifixion and death.
Contrary to traditional belief, Jesus was not pierced by the nails through the palms of his hands. Not only does the man on the Shroud show wounds in the wrists, but also medically speaking such piercing through the palms would not attach him securely to the cross. Dr. Barbet, among many other doctors, “performed numerous experiments on amputated limbs to determine which places were to be considered in nailing the hands and feet.” The conclusion from these tests determined that the only proper place to nail would be the wrists; nails would tear through the hand if placed in the palms. Barbet says:
Were the nail driven into the middle of the palm in the traditional manner, between the third and fourth metacarpals, it would perforate the skin and the palmar aponeurosis, would perhaps injure the superficial arterial palmar arch, slip between the flexor tendon, traverse the interosseous muscles, and would emerge between the extensor tendons. The body when hanging drags on the nails.
Another interesting feature on the Shroud is that the thumbs are hidden inward on the palms of the hands. Dr. Barbet also made this remarkable discovery during his tests on amputated limbs and cadavers. On the Shroud the nail was driven into the Destot space, which is an opening between the bones of the wrist. Although the nail actually did not break any of the bones in the wrist, it did make the Destot space larger and “injured the median nerve which flexes the thumbs, causing the thumbs to contract.” Msgr. Ricci notes that, “this nerve [the median nerve] is both sensory, so that when injured it causes excruciating shooting pains, and motor, affecting the movement of the thumb through the thenar muscles.” Even on amputated wrists the thumb is drawn inward into the palm. A medieval forger would not be able to imagine these intricate medical details.
Oftentimes, to speed up the process of death in crucifixion, the executioners would break the legs of the victim. Werner Bulst says that breaking the legs would hasten death because “the victim thus lost the support afforded by the feet.” The Gospels tell us that the soldiers did not break Christ’s legs as He was already dead. John 19:33 says that, “when [the soldiers] came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.” On the Shroud there is no sign that the legs of the crucified man were broken.
The next passage in John says: “But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.” The lance that was thrust into Christ’s side to confirm death can be seen on the Shroud. The lance would have caused instant death if it had not already occurred. On the Shroud this wound can be seen in the right side of the crucified victim’s body. Mark Antonacci notes that, “the elliptical lesion on the man’s side also matches in detail several excavated examples of the roman lancea, a spear of varying length, which had a long, leaflike tip that thickened and rounded off toward the shaft.” The wound in the side measures one and a half inches. Dr. Barbet says that much blood would have flown from this side wound, but only a small amount can be seen on the area in which the blood clotted.
Biblical exegesis, archeology, and science once again bear witness to the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Christ. Not only is the Shroud confirmed by the Gospels, but also brings to light more details about the Gospel accounts. As the Holy Father Pope John Paul II said, the Shroud of Turin “not only spurs us to abandon our selfishness but leads us to discover the mystery of suffering, which, sanctified by Christ’s sacrifice, achieves salvation for all humanity.” Through the image of the suffering of Our Lord on the Shroud of Turin, He draws us closer to Him by silently bearing witness to the horrible sufferings that He had to endure for the salvation of the world.
CHAPTER 3
THE 1988 CARBON-14 DATING DEBATE
“The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites [scientists] to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers.”
-Pope John Paul II
In 1988 the Shroud of Turin was finally tested using the radiocarbon dating method. All three laboratories conducting the test gave a date range of 1260-1390, declaring their results as conclusive. With this breaking news, the media immediately stated that the Shroud was a medieval forgery. Although many people believed that this was the end of the debate, subsequent examinations into the nature of the 1988 tests proved that their results should not be accepted. Prior to 1988, the Shroud of Turin had been thoroughly studied and examined, all results pointing to its authenticity. Unfortunately, the most mysterious and controversial object in history had the most poorly conducted radiocarbon tests. The errors of those involved primarily included lack of knowledge and experience with the Shroud, choosing the worst sample site, and the failure to check the accuracy of the data results. For these reasons, the 1988 carbon-14 tests on the Shroud of Turin must ultimately be cast aside as irrelevant to its authenticity.
Carbon-14 testing is a relatively new method of dating ancient artifacts, developed by Willard Frank Libby in the mid 1900’s. Libby was a chemistry professor from the University of Chicago who “hit upon the idea during four years’ development work on the first atomic bomb.” His discovery of the use of Carbon-14 in dating the age of ancient artifacts was a breakthrough for archeology, and in 1960 he was deservedly awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this accomplishment. Shortly thereafter Libby asked if he could carbon date the Shroud. His request was denied only due to the considerable portion that was required at the time for sampling.
The size of the sample needed was later reduced to 100 centimeters with Harry Gove’s invention of the accelerator mass spectrometer at the Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory in Rochester, New York. Gove’s technique required the sample to be a smaller quantity (milligrams instead of grams), but with the same level of accuracy as Libby’s method. In addition, Gove’s method was less time consuming, whereas Libby’s took months to count the carbon-14 atoms. With his colleagues, Gove had his machine first tested in 1977 using new pieces of charcoal and graphite as samples to count the carbon-12 and carbon-14. Charcoal was used because of its predetermined carbon content, and thus scientists would know first hand if this method worked. In The DNA of God? Dr. Garza-Valdes discusses how Harry Gove’s invention works:
In mass spectrometry, the organic matter is burned and its carbon dioxide is collected and transformed, by a catalyzer, into a pellet of graphite. The pellet is placed in the accelerator and converted into gas, transforming the carbon atoms into ions, which accelerate at different velocities according to their weight. As a result, they deflect at different degrees in the mass accelerator and are counted in different places of the mass spectrometer.
I would like to emphasize again that the important factor in quantitative analysis through the mass accelerator is the relation between the number of atoms in carbon-12 and in carbon-14. If the sample contains several organic substances, the mass spectrometer will register the sum of all the atoms of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in each of them without differentiating among them. The AMS will give the average of the carbon-14 in the mixture.
Counting the amount of the different types of carbon isotopes gives an average of the radiocarbon remaining in each component of the sample. This is why the age given by the radiocarbon tables of the sample from the Shroud of Turin is not the age of the cellulose of the linen; it is the average of the radiocarbon still present in the linen added to the radiocarbon of other substances on the Shroud (bacteria, fungi, and bioplastic). The accelerator mass spectrometer is unable to differentiate between the radiocarbon atoms (carbon-14) of each component.
Dr. Garza-Valdes shows how Harry Gove’s technique would give a flawed date for the Shroud if the carbon count was thrown off by the presence of other organic substances. Gove’s invention had only been used for ten years by the time it was used to date the Shroud.
The scientists, however, using Gove’s method believed that they could obtain an accurate date of the Shroud within 150 years. Their method held that the carbon-14 tests would be able to calculate “the date in which the flax used to make the linen died.” The flax plant is used to make the fibers of the linen cloth. Radiocarbon dating is used to date the age of ancient organic artifacts by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 and carbon-12 present. In the case of the Shroud, the flax used to make the linen cloth absorbed a small portion of carbon-14 when it was a living organic substance (before it was harvested).
Understanding the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud is dependent upon knowledge of carbon-14 itself. Otherwise known in chemistry as C 14 , carbon-14 is an unstable or radioactive carbon isotope. Radiocarbon “would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray impacts on nitrogen in the Earth’s atmosphere, which forms more of the isotope.” All living things contain certain amounts of the three carbon isotopes, carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14. The smallest portion in a living thing is carbon-14, which only comprises 0.0000000000015 percent; 98.89 percent is Carbon-12 and 1.11 percent is Carbon-13. Carbon-14 is an essential part of plant and animal life, as it becomes part of living things through their absorption of carbon dioxide (carbon-12). Dr. Garza-Valdes states that Carbon-14 is processed through the atmospheric carbon dioxide that
is utilized by plants, through the process of photosynthesis, using chlorophyll, and by bacteria, through the Calvin cycle on autotrophic carbon dioxide fixation. It is also used in microaerophilic conditions in which are formed carbohydrates (sugars) and other organic matter necessary for the growth and energy of the plants and bacteria.
The newly formed organic matter incorporates itself into the biological chain that utilizes the carbohydrates formed during the photosynthesis in plants or autotrophic carbon dioxide fixation in bacteria (Calvin cycle). These new organic systems incorporate in their metabolism the organic products that carry carbon-14.
While it was a living organism, the flax plant used to make the linen cloth absorbed carbon-14 through its exchange of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with the plant by photosynthesis.
The amount of carbon-14 that remains in an object of unknown antiquity can thus determine its age. Since carbon-14 is unstable, it begins to decay at an exponential rate when an organism dies. The carbon-14 decreases through beta particle decay and is formed into nitrogen-14. When alive, the organism has the same proportion of carbon-12 and carbon-14; however, when an organism dies this ratio is altered as the carbon-14 starts to decay. Libby calculated that it takes 5, 730 years for half the number of carbon-14 atoms to decay, which is known as the “half life” of the substance. Thus, “the relation between the two carbons, when measured, is what indicates the time that has passed since the organism died.” To obtain an accurate calculation of the carbon-14 atoms on the Shroud, samples were needed from different areas of the cloth.
The protocol established for the Carbon-14 dating tests specifically called for three samples to be taken from three different places on the Shroud. Instead, only one sample was taken and divided into three pieces. In 1986 the Turin workshop assigned “the well-respected Swiss textile specialist [Madam] Mechthid Flury-Lemberg of the Abegg Foundation in Bern” to cut the samples; however, in 1988 Giovanni Riggi di Numana and Dr. Franco A. Testore selected and cut the area for sampling. Madam Mechthid was given specific instructions on what areas she should avoid when deciding where to take the samples, such as the image and the burn marks; any contaminations in the samples would not produce accurate results. Due to their lack of knowledge about the Shroud, textile experts Riggi di Numana and Franco Testore cut with bare hands a single piece of the linen from the bottom right-hand corner of the frontal image, an area very close to the burn marks. It was clear that this outside corner was probably a source of contamination. In their book The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery Mary and Alan Whanger note that,
A major reason why obtaining an accurate carbon dating for the Shroud is so difficult is that it has been in the open, moved from place to place, and handled by hundreds of people. Most artifacts to be dated have been buried in one spot for thousands of years and are then taken directly to the laboratory. But the Shroud has been in contact with oils, wax, soaps, paints, ointments, open wounds, saliva, sweat, pollens, flowers and other plants parts, organic carbon compounds, microscopical fungi and bacteria, and insect debris. It is possible that preservatives, starch, and image-enhancers may have been applied. It has been used as an altar cloth with candles and incense either on it or nearby. It was almost destroyed in a fire that got hot enough to cause the silver box in which it was kept to begin melting (silver alloy melts at 900 degrees Celsius), thus subjecting the Shroud to extreme heat, water staining, and smoke. . . . Indeed, the carbon dating of the Shroud is probably the only one ever attempted on a cloth with such massive and varied contamination.
The massive and various sorts of contaminations on the Shroud may have greatly altered its carbon content. Ian Wilson says that, “The whole principle of the method [carbon-14 dating] depends upon the specimen not undergoing any exchange of carbon between its molecules and atmospheric dioxide, etc.” Before cutting the sample, the protocol also called for preliminary tests to be conducted so that the Shroud could be examined for any contaminations that may alter its date. These tests, however, were not conducted. Being held traditionally as a 2,000 year old relic, great care and concern should have been given to choosing the site for sampling of the Shroud.
In addition to the site chosen for sampling, today this area is believed to be a medieval re-weave. Fr. Guerrera says that, “Upon closer examination one notices the weave pattern of this patch cloth is “S” twist whereas the Shroud weave is “Z” twist.” Tests were done on the Shroud which found the sample area to have a different chemical composition than the rest of the cloth. On another small sample taken from a different corner, tests found cotton fibers. A recent study in 2000 found that the radiocarbon sample was 60% new material and 40% original material after detecting “expert reweaving that joined disparate materials almost at the middle of the sample.” In addition to cotton fibers, spliced threads were found in the carbon-14 samples that were not found elsewhere on the Shroud. These spliced threads contained a yellow dye that was used to match the rest of the other faded colors on the main body of the Shroud. Chemical analysis done confirms that these threads were made to look like the age-yellowed color on the rest of the Shroud. This skilled reweaving was noticed to be a weaving method used in medieval Europe.” These findings would be in accord with the history of the Shroud, as it had been scorched in a 1532 fire that nearly destroyed it. In 1534 Poor Claire nuns patched the area up with skillful mending, “a time when weaving had become an art and professional weavers were called upon to do ‘invisible mending’ on fine tapestries restoring them to their original condition.” The failure to check for evidence of re-weaving or contaminations has brought about one of the biggest mistakes made in the 1988 carbon dating.
Further evidence that may have altered the carbon date was discovered by Dr. Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, a pediatrician and microbiology professor at the University of Texas. Garza-Valdes discovered the presence of a bioplastic coating on the Shroud, which would not have been removed with the pre-cleaning processes used on the 1988 samples. Given the opportunity to cut a thread from one of the 1988 carbon sample trimmings, Dr. Garza-Valdes was able to discover on this sample a natural coating which gives the Shroud a shiny surface. In his book The DNA of God? Dr. Garza-Valdes writes about his discovery: “When I studied the thread with the optical microscope, I noticed that the surface of the hand-spooned flax fibers was not uniform. There was a transparent coating on the surface that was irregular, with some areas thicker than others.” In other studies of ancient textiles and Egyptian mummies, he found that the radiocarbon dating of these artifacts was off because of an unsuspected contaminant in the bioplastic coating. Dr. Garza-Valdes theorizes that this contaminant would not have been noticed in the Shroud’s bioplastic coating while it was being cleaned before the carbon dating. Thus, he believes that the 1988 carbon dating gave a much later date due to this contaminant.
Despite Libby’s remarkable discovery and Gove’s precise method of counting carbon-14 atoms, the science behind carbon dating is not without its flaws. With any contaminants, especially unsuspected ones such as bioplastic coating, the radiocarbon date could be off by many centuries. Such mistakes could have been avoided in the 1988 dating, but the experts and scientists involved did not follow the original guidelines given for the tests.
Three laboratories around the world were chosen to perform the carbon-14 tests on the Shroud: the University of Arizona at Tuscon, Oxford University, and ETH at Zurich, Switzerland. At the Turin Workshop of 1986 the original protocol called for seven laboratories to conduct the tests. The number, however, was reduced to three in order to allow for the least amount of cloth to be removed from the Shroud. The three laboratories selected wished to show their concern at the change in protocol from seven laboratories to three, so they wrote a letter to Cardinal Ballestrero, Archbishop of Turin:
We believe that reducing the number of laboratories to three will seriously reduce the credibility of the enterprise which we are also anxious to achieve. As you are aware, there are many critics in the world who will scrutinize these measurements in great detail. The abandonment of the original protocol and the decision to proceed with only three laboratories will certainly enhance the skepticism of these critics. . . .
For example, if only three laboratories participate, and one of them obtains a divergent non-understandable result, the entire project could be jeopardized but if the results from a larger number of laboratories are available, a divergent result would be more easily recognized as such and be treated appropriately in a statistically accepted manner. Clearly, it is the reduction of unrecognized nonstatistical errors in measurements that leads to increased confidence in the final result.
Harry Gove, however, retorted to this concern: “There was no scientific reason to make use of seven laboratories. Having a good number to carry out the test would in no way change the amount of uncertainty. Even if we were to use fifty laboratories.” Thus, it seems that the amount of laboratories involved did not pose a problem. Since all three laboratories were essentially using the same sample, they would all end up with the same result; in fact, this is what happened in the 1988 dating.
The very same laboratories chosen to date the Shroud had histories of errors in their carbon dating. Before the actual testing of the Shroud was done, the three laboratories were given samples of age-known artifacts to test. Their results clearly show that carbon dating is not a flawless method. The Zurich laboratory was given a 3,000 B.C. Egyptian flax to test; their result was off by 1,000 years! In 1988 Tucson’s laboratory dated a Viking cow horn to the year 2006. In 1984 the Lindow man was “unearthed from a peatbog in Cheshire, England.” Laboratories at Oxford, Harwell, and the British Museum received samples from his body for radiocarbon dating tests. Oxford dated the man to the first century A.D., Harwell to the fifth century, and the British Museum to the third century. Other similar examples have occurred in radiocarbon dating, leaving the date of some artifacts a mystery.
In 1988 all three laboratories used the accelerator mass spectrometer on the three samples of the Shroud. Not surprisingly, all three laboratories came up with the same result because the three samples were all taken from the same area and dated using the same technique. Many believe that using Libby’s more ‘drawn-out’ method on one of the samples would have given the carbon dating a better chance.
On October 13, 1988 the three laboratories released the results of their Carbon-14 tests. Cardinal Ballestrero officially released the results to the press in which he said that the three laboratories announced “that the internal of calibrated dates assigned to the fabric of the Shroud, with a degree of certainty of 95 percent, lied between A.D. 1260 and 1390.” Many of the scientists involved with the radiocarbon dating believed these dates were conclusive.
In 1982 there was a secret radiocarbon test conducted on the Shroud at the University of California’s nuclear accelerator facility “using a linear accelerator mass spectrometer technique, which was one of the newly developed methods for dating small samples.” The sample for this test was only a single thread, one end giving a date of 200 A.D. and the other 1000 A.D. The test was conducted in secret because permission had not yet been given for radiocarbon testing on the Shroud. Prior to this test starch was found on the sample. In The Resurrection of the Shroud Mark Antonacci states:
The molecular structure of starch is very similar to that of cellulose. Like wax, it, too, could chemically bind to cellulose, not be detected with the naked eye, and not be removed by the standard pretreatment processes. It could also alter the thread’s radiocarbon date by many centuries.
The existence of starch on the sample may explain why one end dated to 1000 A.D. It may further explain why the 1988 dating, samples of which were taken near starch, may be in error.
The first mistake many people made when the results of the Carbon-14 tests came out was to believe that Radiocarbon Dating is the ultimate and infallible test for dating an ancient artifact. Mary and Alan Whanger state that, “Carbon dating is regarded as one tool among many. If it disagrees with the preponderance of evidence, the carbon dating result is the one that routinely is assumed to be in error, not the other way around. But this is not what happened with the carbon dating of the Shroud.” Fr. Vittorio Guerrera says, “For many, the Carbon-14 test [of the Shroud of Turin] was an infallible scientific pronouncement that should be accepted without question. For others, the results of the test were an anomaly, for studies up to 1988 seemed to indicate that the Shroud was authentic.” Unfortunately, the massive amount of evidence in support of the Shroud’s authenticity was immediately ignored, while the popularity of carbon dating dominated the debate.
The overwhelming amount of evidence that the Carbon-14 tests of the Shroud are unreliable to date this relic shows that this one scientific test cannot stand as the sole arbiter of the Shroud’s authenticity. If one were to accept the radiocarbon tests as valid, then the next question to ask is: how could a medieval artist or forger produce a fake Shroud with the available skills and material in the fourteenth century? While the scientists conducting the tests have usually stood by their results, archeologists and other experts often times differ. Many scientists and experts of the Shroud have found the radiocarbon tests to be well planned but poorly executed. Through careful research into the Shroud’s 1988 tests, carbon dating has been found to be an unreliable method to date this ancient linen cloth and thus not adequate counter proof of the authenticity of this relic.
CONCLUSION
The Shroud of Turin has indeed become the most intensely studied and debated object in history. Physicians have studied in great detail the wound marks and have determined them to be anatomically and pathologically correct, as seen in Chapter Two. Theologians and Biblical exegetes have found the Shroud to be completely in accord with the Gospel accounts of Christ’s Passion, Death, and Burial, discussed in both Chapters One and Two. Archeologists have concluded that the Shroud is indeed a genuine artifact. Many other disciplines have brought forth further evidence in support of the Shroud’s authenticity. The Shroud of Turin, however, still remains an object of controversy, especially in view of the 1988 carbon dating results which dated it to the Middle Ages, a crucial error examined in Chapter Three. The Church encourages the continued study of its most precious relic, but more importantly to grasp the value of the image as a sign of Our Lord’s redemptive suffering and love for humanity. Although the Shroud of Turin still remains open to debate because it is not an article of faith, nonetheless it stands today as an object of veneration inspiring the onlooker to meditate the Passion and Death of Christ, and despite the lack of absolute certainty, to find it reasonable to believe in its authenticity.
John Paul II, “Address of His Holiness Pope John Paul II [on the Shroud of Turin]”, http://www.sindone.it/getfile.asp?tipo=pubblicazioni&id=20, accessed 19 November 2006.
Mark Antonacci, The Resurrection of the Shroud, (New York: M Evans and Company, Inc., 2000), 17.
Msgr. Giulio Ricci, The Way of the Cross in Light of the Holy Shroud, (Milwaukee: Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud, 1982), 8-9.
Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1981), 126.
Pierre Barbet, M.D., A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon, trans. by the Earl of Wicklow, (Harrison, New York: Roman Catholic Books, 1953), 84.
Gilbert R. Lavoie, M.D., Resurrected, (Allen, Texas: Thomas More, 2000), 28.
Fr. Vittorio Guerrera, The Shroud of Turin: a Case for Authenticity, (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 2001), 82.
Werner Bulst, S.J., The Shroud of Turin, trans. by Stephen McKenna, CSs.R. and James J. Galvin, C.Ss.R., (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1957), 50.
http://www.sindone.it/getfile.asp?tipo=pubblicazioni&id=20, 1.
John Paul II, “Address of His Holiness Pope John Paul II [on the Shroud of Turin]”, http://www.sindone.it/getfile.asp?tipo=pubblicazioni&id=20, accessed 29 November 2006.
Ian Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud, (New York: The Free Press, 1998), 180.
Dr. Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, The DNA of God? Newly Discovered Secrets of the Shroud of Turin, (New York: Berkley Books, 1999), 166.
Fr. Vittorio Guerrera, The Shroud of Turin: a Case for Authenticity, (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 2001), 114.
“Radiocarbon dating,” Wikepedia Encyclopedia (November 1, 2006), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating, accessed 2 November 2006.
Mary and Alan Whanger, The Shroud of Turin: an Adventure of Discovery, (Franklin, Tennessee: Providence House Publishers, 1988), 107.
Daniel R. Porter, “Analysis of the Carbon-14 Dating: What is Right and Wrong” (2005), http://www.shroudstory.com/breaking02.html, accessed 29 November 2006.
The Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., “The Story Behind the Shroud of Turin and the Carbon Dating Debacle”, http://www.shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html, accessed 19 November 2006.
Mark Antonacci, The Resurrection of the Shroud, (New York: M Evans and Company, Inc., 2000), 168.