Full-length image of the Turin Shroud before the2002 restoration
TheShroud of Turin (Italian:Sindone di Torino), also known as theHoly Shroud[2][3] (Italian:Sacra Sindone), is a length oflinen cloth that bears a faint image of the front and back of a naked man. Because details of the image are consistent withtraditional depictions of Jesus of Nazareth afterhis death by crucifixion, theshroud has been venerated for centuries, especially by members of theCatholic Church, asJesus's shroud upon which his image wasmiraculously imprinted. The human image on the shroud can be discerned more clearly in a black-and-whitephotographic negative than in its naturalsepia colour, an effect discovered in 1898 bySecondo Pia, who produced the first photographs of the shroud. This negative image is associated with a popular Catholic devotion to theHoly Face of Jesus.
The documented history of the shroud dates back to 1354, when it began to be exhibited in the newcollegiate church ofLirey, a village in north-central France.[4]: 80–81 The shroud was denounced as a forgery by thebishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis, in 1389.[4]: 90–96 It was acquired by theHouse of Savoy in 1453 and later deposited in a chapel inChambéry,[4]: 141–142, 153–154 where it was damaged by fire in 1532.[4]: 166 In 1578, the Savoys moved the shroud to their new capital inTurin, where it has remained ever since.[4]: 191 Since 1683, it has been kept in theChapel of the Holy Shroud, which was designed for that purpose by the architectGuarino Guarini and which is connected to both theroyal palace and theTurin Cathedral.[4]: 233 Ownership of the shroud passed from the House of Savoy to the Catholic Church after the death of the former kingUmberto II of Italy in 1983.[4]: 415
The microscopist and forensic expertWalter McCrone found, based on his examination of samples taken in 1978 from the surface of the shroud usingadhesive tape, that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution ofred ochre pigment in agelatin medium. McCrone also found that the apparent bloodstains were painted withvermilion pigment, also in a gelatin medium.[5] McCrone's findings were disputed by other researchers, and the nature of the image on the shroud continues to be debated.[4]: 364–366 In 1988,radiocarbon dating by three independent laboratories established that the shroud dates back to theMiddle Ages, between 1260 and 1390.[6][7]
The nature and history of the shroud have been the subjects of extensive and long-lasting controversies in both the scholarly literature and the popular press.[8][9][10][11][12] Although accepted as valid by experts, the radiocarbon dating of the shroud continues to generate significant public debate.[13][14][4]: 424–445 Defenders of the authenticity of the shroud have questioned the radiocarbon results, usually on the basis that the samples tested might have been contaminated or taken from a repair to the original fabric. Suchfringe theories, which have been rejected by most experts,[15] include the medieval repair theory,[16][17][18] the bio-contamination theories[19] and thecarbon monoxide theory.[20][21] Currently, the Catholic Church neither endorses nor rejects the authenticity of the shroud as a relic of Jesus.
The shroud is rectangular, measuring approximately 4.4 by 1.1 metres (14 ft 5 in × 3 ft 7 in). The cloth is woven in a three-to-oneherringbonetwill composed offlax fibrils. Its most distinctive characteristic is the faint, brownish image of a front and back view of a naked man with his hands folded across his groin. The two views are aligned along the midplane of the body and point in opposite directions. The front and back views of the head nearly meet at the middle of the cloth.[22]
The image in faint straw-yellow colour on the crown of the cloth fibres appears to be of a man with a beard, moustache, and shoulder-length hair parted in the middle. He is muscular and tall (various experts have measured him as from 1.70 to 1.88 m or 5 ft 7 in to 6 ft 2 in).[23] Reddish-brown stains are found on the cloth, correlating with the wounds in the Biblical description of the crucifixion ofJesus.[24]
The shroud was damaged in a fire in 1532 in the chapel inChambéry, France. There are some burn holes and scorched areas down both sides of the linen, caused by contact with molten silver during the fire that burned through it in places while it was folded.[25] Fourteen large triangular patches and eight smaller ones were sewn onto the cloth byPoor Clare nuns to repair the damage.
In May 1898 the Italian photographerSecondo Pia was allowed to photograph the shroud. He took the first photograph of the shroud on 28 May 1898. In 1931 another photographer, Giuseppe Enrie, photographed the shroud and obtained results similar to Pia's.[26] In 1978ultraviolet photographs were taken of the shroud.[27][28]
Pilgrimage badge of Lirey depicting the Shroud and dating between 1355 and 1410[4]: 113
There are no definite historical records concerning the particular shroud currently atTurin Cathedral prior to the 14th century. A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by theByzantine emperors but disappeared during theSack of Constantinople in 1204.[29][30][31] Although there are numerous reports of Jesus's burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the 14th century, there is no historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently in Turin.[32]
In 1353 the village ofLirey, in north-centralFrance, was enriched with a smallcollegiate church endowed by the localfeudal lord, aknight namedGeoffroi de Charny.[4]: 80 Charny died in 1356 at theBattle of Poitiers.[9] Around 1355, the dean of thechapter of Lirey, Robert de Caillac, began exhibiting in the church a long fabric that bore an image of the mangled body of Jesus.[4]: 81 Nicole Oresme, theBishop of Lisieux, denounced the shroud as a forgery, believing it to be the work of clergymen for the purpose of making money for their churches.[33][34] In 1390 theBishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis, who had jurisdiction over the church in Lirey, wrote a lengthy memorandum toAntipope Clement VII (recognized as Pope by the Church in France during theWestern Schism), declaring that the Shroud was a forgery and that a previous Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, had identified the artist who had made it.[31][35] Clement issued abull allowing thecanons of Lirey to continue exhibiting the Shroud as long as they made it clear that it was an artistic representation of thepassion of Jesus and not a truerelic.[4]: 104–107
Inner courtyard of the palace of the Dukes of Savoy in Chambéry. On the left is the façade of theSainte-Chapelle where the Shroud was kept until 1578.
In 1415, duringthe last phase of theHundred Years' War, the Shroud was removed from the church of Lirey with the intention of depositing it temporarily at thecastle of Montfort for safekeeping.[4]: 130–131 Marguerite de Charny, the granddaughter of the knight who had endowed the church of Lirey, then took possession of the cloth and exhibited it at the church ofSaint-Hippolyte, Doubs.[4]: 131–132 Marguerite's refusal to return the Shroud to Lirey led to litigation. She carried the Shroud in traveling exhibitions, including toChimay andMons.[4]: 134–135 In 1453 Marguerite deeded the Shroud toLouis, Duke of Savoy.[4]: 141–142 For having sold the Shroud and disregarded the rights of the canons of Lirey, Marguerite wasexcommunicated by thecuria of Besançon in 1457.[4]: 145–146
The Shroud became thepalladium of theHouse of Savoy, and by 1466 it had been deposited in theducal chapel inChambéry, the capital of theSavoyard state.[4]: 153–154 In 1506Pope Julius II authorized the veneration of the Shroud as a true relic of Jesus.[4]: 158–161 In 1532 the Shroud was damaged by a fire in the chapel of Chambéry, when molten silver from the reliquary passed through the layers of folded cloth, leaving a symmetrical pattern of holes in the unfolded Shroud but without doing much damage to the image areas. ThePoor Clare nuns in Chambéry later sewed patches over those holes. In 1578Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy ordered the cloth to be brought toTurin, the new Savoyard capital, and it has remained in Turin ever since.[36]
Since the late 17th century, the Shroud has been displayed in the chapel designed for that purpose by architectGuarino Guarini and attached to both thecathedral and theRoyal Palace of Turin.[37] Repairs were made to the Shroud in 1694 bySebastian Valfrè, improving upon the earlier patching by the Poor Clares.[38] Further repairs were made in 1868 byPrincess Maria Clotilde of Savoy. The Shroud was first photographed in 1898, during a public exhibition. The Shroud remained the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was bequeathed to theHoly See according to the terms of the will of the former kingUmberto II of Italy.[39]
A fire, possibly caused by arson, threatened the Shroud on 11 April 1997.[40] In 2002 theHoly See had the Shroud restored. The cloth backing and thirty patches were removed, making it possible to photograph and scan the reverse side of the cloth, which had been hidden from view. A faint part-image of the body was found on the back of the Shroud in 2004. The Shroud was placed back on public display (the 18th time in its history) in Turin from 10 April to 23 May 2010; and according to Church officials, more than 2 million visitors came to see it.[41]
OnHoly Saturday (30 March) 2013, images of the Shroud were streamed on various websites as well as on television for the first time in 40 years.[42][43] Roberto Gottardo of thediocese of Turin stated that for the first time they had released high-definition images of the Shroud that can be used ontablet computers and can be magnified to show details not visible to the naked eye.[42] As this rare exposition took place,Pope Francis issued a carefully worded statement which urged the faithful to contemplate the Shroud with awe but, like most of his predecessors, he "stopped firmly short of asserting its authenticity".[44][45]
The Shroud was again placed on display in the cathedral in Turin from 19 April 2015 to 24 June 2015. There was no charge to view it, but an appointment was required.[46]
The Shroud has undergone severalrestorations and several steps have been taken to preserve it to avoid further damage and contamination. It is kept underlaminatedbulletproof glass in an airtight case. The temperature- and humidity-controlled case is filled withargon (99.5%) andoxygen (0.5%) to prevent chemical changes. The shroud itself is kept on an aluminium support sliding on runners and stored flat within the case.[citation needed] During a 2002 restoration by the Commission for the Conservation of the Shroud, thirty triangular patches and aHolland cloth backing that had been added by nuns in 1534 were removed. This restoration has been criticized as causing damage to the Shroud.[47]
Artistic depiction of the Shroud of Turin, incorporated into a scene of theDescent from the Cross, by painterGiulio Clovio, c. 1540. Clovio shows Jesus's right hand crossed over the left, which is not consistent with the image on the Shroud.[48]
The Gospels ofMatthew,[49]Mark[50] andLuke[51] state thatJoseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in a "linen cloth" or "linen shroud" or just in "linen"[note 1] (Greek:sindon) and placed it in a new tomb. TheGospel of John says that the body was wrapped in linen cloths (Greek:othonia), with a significant quantity ofmyrrh andaloes.[52]
TheGospel of John[53] states that after theResurrection of Jesus, "Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus's head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself." The Gospel of Luke[54] states: "But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened."
In all the places where they pretend to have the graveclothes, they show a large piece of linen by which the whole body, including the head, was covered, and, accordingly, the figure exhibited is that of an entire body. But theEvangelist John relates that Christ was buried, "as is the manner of the Jews to bury." What that manner was may be learned, not only from the Jews, by whom it is still observed, but also from their books, which explain what the ancient practice was. It was this: The body was wrapped up by itself as far as the shoulders, and then the head by itself was bound round with a napkin, tied by the four corners, into a knot. And this is expressed by the Evangelist, when he says thatPeter saw the linen clothes in which the body had been wrapped lying in one place, and the napkin which had been wrapped about the head lying in another. The term napkin may mean either a handkerchief employed to wipe the face, or it may mean a shawl, but never means a large piece of linen in which the whole body may be wrapped. I have, however, used the term in the sense which they improperly give to it. On the whole, either the Evangelist John must have given a false account, or every one of them must be convicted of falsehood, thus making it manifest that they have too impudently imposed on the unlearned.
Although pieces said to be of burial cloths of Jesus are held by at least four churches in France and three in Italy, none has gathered as much religious following as the Shroud of Turin.[56] The religious beliefs and practices associated with the shroud predate historical and scientific discussions and have continued in the 21st century, although the Catholic Church has never passed judgment on its authenticity.[57] An example is theHoly Face Medal bearing the image from the shroud, worn by some Catholics.[58] Indeed, the Shroud of Turin is respected by Christians of several traditions, includingBaptists, Catholics,Lutherans,Methodists, Orthodox,Pentecostals andPresbyterians.[59] Several Lutheran parishes have hosted replicas of the Shroud, fordidactic and devotional purposes.[60][61]
Some images currently held in Italy and other Western European countries, including theManoppello Image, have been revered asacheiropoieta of Jesus. These are usually associated with the tradition of theVeil of Veronica, according to which the image of Jesus's face was miraculously imprinted on the cloth thatSaint Veronica used to wipe the blood and sweat from the face of Jesus when she comforted him on theVia Dolorosa. Although some of these images were once objects of major popular devotions among Catholics, today they have been overshadowed by the fame and prestige of the Shroud of Turin. Another popularrelic of Jesus is theSudarium of Oviedo, which is kept in theCámara Santa of theCathedral of San Salvador, inOviedo, Spain. This is not anacheiropoieton, but rather a simple bloodstained cloth purported to have been wrapped around the head of Jesus after his death.
Today the Catholic devotions to theHoly Face of Jesus are usually associated with the negative image of the Shroud of Turin, as first captured inSecondo Pia's 1898 photograph. However, these devotions predate Pia's image, having been established in 1844 by the Carmelite nunMarie of St Peter, based on depictions of Jesus before his crucifixion and associated with the tradition of theVeil of Veronica. This devotion was then promoted by a French Catholic layman,Leo Dupont, who became known as the "Apostle of the Holy Face". In 1851 Dupont formed the "Archconfraternity of the Holy Face" in the city ofTours.[63]Pope Leo XIII approved the devotion to the Holy Face in 1885. The popular French SaintThérèse of Lisieux took the name "Thérèse of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face" when she became aDiscalced Carmelite in 1889. Saint Thérèse, who died in 1897, also helped to spread the devotion to the Holy Face before it became associated with Pia's photographic image of the Shroud of Turin.
The modern devotion to the Holy Face centered on the negative photographic image from the Shroud of Turin derives principally from an Italian nun born in Milan,Maria Pierina De Micheli, who reported havingvisions of Jesus starting in 1936. Sister Maria Pierina designed a "Holy Face Medal", based on Second Pia's photographs. This medal was eventually approved for private devotion byPope Pius XII.
A poster advertising the 1898 exhibition of the Shroud in Turin.Secondo Pia's photograph was taken a few weeks too late to be included in the poster. The image on the poster includes a painted face, not obtained from Pia's photograph.
In 1389 theBishop of Troyes sent a memorial toAntipope Clement VII, declaring that the cloth had been "artificially painted in an ingenious way" and that "it was also proved by the artist who had painted it that it was made by human work, not miraculously produced". In 1390 Clement VII consequently issued fourpapal bulls, with which he allowed the exposition, but ordered to "say aloud, to put an end to all fraud, that the aforementioned representation is not the true Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but a painting or panel made to represent or imitate the Shroud".[64] However, in 1506Pope Julius II reversed this position and permitted the faithful who believe the Shroud to be authentic to venerate it as such,[4]: 158–161 authorizing the public veneration of it with its own mass and office.[65]
The Vatican newspaperL'Osservatore Romano covered the story ofSecondo Pia's photograph of 28 May 1898 in its edition of 15 June 1898, but it did so with no comment and thereafter Church officials generally refrained from officially commenting on the photograph for almost half a century.
The first official modern association between the Shroud and the official Catholic Church dates from 1940, when SisterMaria Pierina De Micheli approached thecuria of Milan requesting authorization to produce a devotional medal based on the image of Jesus's face from the Shroud. This "Holy Face Medal" was approved byPope Pius XII and it was initially used as a means of protection during theSecond World War. In 1958 Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to theHoly Face of Jesus, and decreed that the "Feast of the Holy Winding Sheet of Christ" be celebrated every year onShrove Tuesday.[66][67][68]
In 1936 Pius XII had referred to the Shroud as a "holy thing perhaps like nothing else".[69] In 1998Pope John Paul II called the Shroud a "distinguishedrelic" and "a mirror of the Gospel".[70][71] His successor,Pope Benedict XVI, called it an "icon written with the blood of a whipped man, crowned with thorns, crucified and pierced on his right side".[69] In 2013Pope Francis referred to it as an "icon of a man scourged and crucified".[69] In 1983, archbishops of the Catholic Church and Greek Orthodox Church, as well as clergy of several Protestant churches attended a prayer service at the Shroud exhibit in Turin, where they "offered their corporate blessing" to the exhibit.[59]
In 1983 the Shroud was given to the Holy See by theHouse of Savoy.[72] However, as with all relics of this kind, theRoman Catholic Church made no pronouncements on its authenticity. As with other approvedCatholic devotions, the matter has been left to the personal decision of the faithful, as long as the Church does not issue a future notification to the contrary. In the Church's view, whether the cloth is authentic or not has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of what Jesus taught or on the saving power of his death and resurrection.[73]
Pope John Paul II stated in 1998 that:[74] "Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet."[75] John Paul II showed himself to be deeply moved by the image of the Shroud and arranged for public showings in 1998 and 2000. In his address atTurin Cathedral on Sunday 24 May 1998 (the occasion of the 100th year of Secondo Pia's 28 May 1898 photograph), he said: "The Shroud is an image ofGod's love as well as of human sin... The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age."[76]
On 30 March 2013, as part of the Easter celebrations, there was an exposition of the shroud in the Cathedral of Turin. Pope Francis recorded a video message for the occasion, in which he described the image on the shroud as "thisIcon of a man", and stated that "the Man of the Shroud invites us to contemplate Jesus of Nazareth."[44][45] In his carefully worded statement, Francis urged the faithful to contemplate the Shroud with awe, but "stopped firmly short of asserting its authenticity".[45]
Pope Francis went on a pilgrimage to Turin on 21 June 2015, to pray before and venerate the Holy Shroud and honourSt. John Bosco on thebicentenary of his birth.[77][78][79]
Sindonology (from theGreek σινδών—sindon, the word used in theGospel of Mark[80] to describe the type of the burial cloth of Jesus) is the formal study of the Shroud. TheOxford English Dictionary cites the first use of this word in 1964: "The investigation ... assumed the stature of a separate discipline and was given a name, sindonology," but also identifies the use of "sindonological" in 1950 and "sindonologist" in 1953.[81]
Secondo Pia's 1898 photographs of the shroud allowed the scientific community to begin to study it. A variety of scientific theories regarding the shroud have since been proposed, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis. The scientific approaches to the study of the Shroud fall into three groups:material analysis (both chemical and historical),biology and medical forensics andimage analysis.
The first direct examination of the shroud by a scientific team was undertaken in 1969–1973 in order to advise on preservation of the shroud and determine specific testing methods. This led to the appointment of an 11-member Turin Commission to advise on the preservation of the relic and on specific testing. Five of the commission members were scientists, and preliminary studies of samples of the fabric were conducted in 1973.[9]
In 1976 the physicist John P. Jackson, the thermodynamicist Eric Jumper and the photographer William Mottern usedimage analysis technologies developed in aerospace science for analyzing the images of the Shroud. In 1977 these three scientists and over thirty other experts in various fields formed theShroud of Turin Research Project. In 1978 this group, often called STURP, was given direct access to the Shroud.
Also in 1978, independently from the STURP research, Giovanni Tamburelli obtained atCSELT a 3D-elaboration from the Shroud with higher resolution than Jumper and Mottern. A second result of Tamburelli was the electronic removal from the image of the blood that apparently covers the face.[82]
In October 1978 a team of scientists affiliated with STURP took 32 samples from the surface of the Shroud, usingadhesive tape. Of those samples, 18 were taken from areas of the Shroud that showed a body or blood image, while 14 were taken from non-image areas. The chemical microscopistWalter McCrone, a leading expert in the forensic authentication of historical documents and works of art, examined the tapes usingpolarized light microscopy and other physical and chemical techniques. McCrone concluded that the Shroud's body image had been painted with a dilute pigment of redochre (a form ofiron oxide) in acollagentempera (i.e.,gelatin) medium, using a technique similar to thegrisaille employed in the 14th century bySimone Martini and other European artists. McCrone also found that the "bloodstains" in the image had been highlighted withvermilion (a bright red pigment made frommercury sulfide), also in a collagen tempera medium. McCrone reported that no actual blood was present in the samples taken from the Shroud.[5]
Other members of STURP rejected McCrone's conclusions and concluded, based on their own examination of the Shroud and the tape samples, that the image on the Shroud could not be explained by the presence of pigments.[9] Mark Anderson, who was working for McCrone, analyzed the Shroud samples.[83] In his book Ray Rogers states that Anderson, who was McCrone'sRaman microscopy expert, concluded that the samples acted as organic material when he subjected them to the laser.[84]: 61 McCrone resigned from STURP in June 1980, after giving back all of the tape samples in his possession to Ray Rogers.[85]: 124
John Heller and Alan Adler examined the same samples and agreed with McCrone's result that the cloth contains iron oxide. However, they argued that the exceptional purity of the chemical and comparisons with other ancient textiles showed that, whileretting flax absorbs iron selectively, the iron itself was not the source of the image on the shroud.[24]
After his analysis of the Shroud was first published in 1980, McCrone continued to argue in journal articles, public lectures, and in the bookJudgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (which appeared in 1996), that the Shroud had been painted in the 14th century and that it showed no traces of actual blood.[85] He also argued that the members of STURP lacked relevant expertise in the chemicalmicroanalysis of historical artworks and that their non-detection of pigment in the Shroud's image was "consistent with the sensitivity of the instruments and techniques they used."[5] For his work on the Shroud, McCrone was awarded theAmerican Chemical Society's National Award inAnalytical Chemistry in 2000.[86]
All attempts to replicate the image in the lab have so far failed, and the source and method of the shroud's image continues to be unclear.[13]
Radiocarbon dating has established that the shroud is medieval, and not from the time of Jesus.[7]
Independent radiocarbon dating tests were carried out in 1988 at theUniversity of Oxford, theUniversity of Arizona and theSwiss Federal Institute of Technology, following years of discussion to obtain permission from theHoly See. The tests were done on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud, and concluded with 95% confidence that the material dated to AD 1260–1390.[6] The dating matches the first appearance of the shroud in church history.[87][88] This dating is also slightly more recent than that estimated by the art historian W. S. A. Dale, who postulated on artistic grounds that the shroud is an 11th-century icon made for use in worship services.[89]
Some proponents for the authenticity of the shroud have attempted to discount the radiocarbon dating result by claiming that the sample may represent a medieval "invisible mending" repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth.[19][90][91][92][93][94] However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[20][15] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[16][17] the bio-contamination hypothesis[19] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[20]
In recent years, the radiocarbon dating data have been repeatedly statistically analysed in attempts to draw some conclusions about the reliability of the radiocarbon dating from studying the data rather than studying the shroud itself.[92][95][96][97][98] The studies have all concluded that the data lack homogeneity, which might be due to unidentified abnormalities in the fabric tested, or to differences in the pre-testing cleaning processes used by the different laboratories. The most recent analysis (2020) found that adjusting the results from two of the labs by just ten years would be sufficient to resolve the inhomogeneity and a slightly larger adjustment of 88 years would make all of the results agree with one another statistically.[96]
There are several reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood, but it is uncertain whether these stains were produced at the same time as the image, or afterwards.[99] McCrone (seepainting hypothesis) showed that these containiron oxide, and theorized that its presence was likely due to simple pigment materials used in medieval times.[100] Skeptics cite forensic blood tests whose results dispute the authenticity of the Shroud, and point to the possibility that the blood could belong to a person who handled the shroud, and that the apparent blood flows on the shroud are unrealistically neat.[101][102][103]
It has not been scientifically demonstrated that the blood is of human, or even primate, origin.[104]
A study published in 2011 bySalvatore Lorusso of theUniversity of Bologna and others subjected two photographs of the shroud to detailed modern digital image processing, one of them being a reproduction of the photographic negative taken by Giuseppe Enrie in 1931. They did not find any images of flowers or coins or anything else on either image.[105]
In 2015 the Italian researchers Barcaccia et al. published a new study inScientific Reports. They examined the human and non-human DNA found when the shroud and its backing cloth were vacuumed in 1977 and 1988. They found traces of 19 different planttaxa, including plants native to Mediterranean countries, Central Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Asia (China) and the Americas. Of the humanmtDNA, sequences were found belonging tohaplogroups that are typical of various ethnicities and geographic regions, including Europe, North and East Africa, the Middle East and India. A few non-plant and non-human sequences were also detected, including various birds and one ascribable to a marine worm common in the Northern Pacific Ocean, next to Canada.[106] After sequencing some DNA of pollen and dust found on the shroud, they confirmed that many people from many different places came in contact with the shroud. According to the scientists, "such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe but it would be also compatible with the historic path followed by the Turin Shroud during its presumed journey from theNear East. Furthermore, the results raise the possibility of an Indian manufacture of the linen cloth."[106]
In 2016, Italianpalynologist Marzia Boi proposed based on published pictures of pollen from the shroud that the most abundant pollen on the shroud was from genusHelichrysum and suggested that the former could have come from balms and ointments used in first century AD burial rituals.[107] The researchers who studied the pollen directly had identified it as fromGundelia tournefortii.
A number of studies on the anatomical consistency of the image on the shroud and the nature of the wounds on it have been performed, following the initial study byYves Delage in 1902.[108] While Delage declared the image anatomically flawless, others have presented arguments to support both authenticity and forgery.
The analysis of a crucified Roman, discovered near Venice in 2007, shows heel wounds that are consistent with those found onJehohanan but which are not consistent with wounds depicted on the shroud. Also, neither of the crucifixion victims known to archaeology show evidence of wrist wounds.[109]
Joe Nickell in 1983 andGregory S. Paul in 2010 separately state that theproportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of aGothic artist.[35][110] AsRaymond E. Brown noticed, a corpse in the relaxed position portrayed on the shroud could not be positioned such that its hand covers its genitals as portrayed.[111] The right arm and hand in the image appear to have been elongated to make this possible.
In 2018 an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The comparison between different tests demonstrated that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. In addition, the rivulets on the front of the image are not consistent with the lines on the lumbar area, even supposing there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times. These inconsistencies suggest that the Turin linen was an artistic or "didactic" representation, rather than an authentic burial shroud.[112]
Both art-historicaldigital image processing and analog techniques have been applied to the shroud images.
In 1976 scientists used imaging equipment from the AmericanNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to analyze a photograph of the Shroud image and decoded the shroud image into a three-dimensional image.[113] The optical physicist and former STURP member John Dee German has noted that it is not difficult to make a photograph which has 3D qualities. If the object being photographed is lit from the front, and a non-reflective "fog" of some sort exists between the camera and the object, then less light will reach and reflect back from the portions of the object that are farther from the lens, thus creating a contrast which is dependent on distance.[114]
The front image on the shroud is 1.95 metres (6 ft 5 in) long, and is not exactly the same size as the rear image, which is 2.02 metres (6 ft 8 in) long.[115] Analysis of the images found them to be compatible with the shroud having been used to wrap a body 1.75 metres (5 ft 9 in) long.[115]
The image could be compared tooshiguma, the making of face-prints as an artform, in Japan. Furthermore, the subject's physical appearance corresponds toByzantine iconography.[116][117]
The Shroud cloth is composed of threads of a nominal diameter of 0.15 mm, woven with fibers of linen with a diameter of about 10-20 μm.[118][119]
The Shroud image is a faint and superficial image caused by a translucent and discontinuous yellow discoloration of the fibers.[118][119] In the points where the image is present, the discoloration affects only two or three fibers on the topmost part of the threads of the cloth.[118][119] In each fiber, the yellow discoloration penetrates only for 200 nm in the external cell layer.[119]
A fiber is not necessarily colored for all its length, but, in the parts where it is, it has the property of being colored all around its cylindrical surface.[119]
Under the crossing threads of the weave, the image is not present.[119]
The discoloration seems caused by a kind of dehydrative oxidation process, which has discolored and chemically altered the surfaces of certain surface fibrils.[118][120]
The image of the Shroud is an areal density image, in the sense that the levels of darkness are not given by variations of the color, which instead is approximately constant all over the image, but by a variation of the number of yellowed fibers per unit area.[118][119] Therefore, it can be considered ahalftone image.[118] Furthermore, there is no difference in terms of distribution of fiber coloration and maximum densities between the front and the rear of the image.[118]
While the blood images could have come from a contact mechanism, the body image could not. The mapping between body-only image densities and expected cloth–body distances is not consistent with the image having been formed by direct contact with a body, as it is present even when it does not seem possible for the cloth to be in contact with the body.[120]
According toWalter McCrone, the technique used for producing the image on the shroud could well be the same as a medievalgrisaille method described in SirCharles Lock Eastlake'sMethods and Materials of Painting of the Great Schools and Masters (1847). Eastlake describes in the chapter "Practice of Painting Generally During the XIVth Century" a special technique of painting on linen using tempera paint, which produces images with unusual transparent features that McCrone compares to the image on the shroud.[5] McCrone also argued that the current image on the shroud may be fainter than the original painting, due to the rubbing off of the ochre pigment from the tops of the exposed linen fibers over the course of several centuries of handling and exhibition of the fabric.[85]: 106
In 2009 Luigi Garlaschelli, professor oforganic chemistry at theUniversity of Pavia, stated that he had made a full size reproduction of the Shroud of Turin using only medieval technologies. Garlaschelli placed a linen sheet over a volunteer and then rubbed it with an acidic pigment. The shroud was then aged in an oven before being washed to remove the pigment. He then added blood stains, scorches and water stains to replicate the original.[121] Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermic measurements at theUniversity of Padua, commented that "the technique itself seems unable to produce an image having the most critical Turin Shroud image characteristics".[122][123]
Garlaschelli's reproduction was shown in a 2010National Geographic documentary. Garlaschelli's technique included the bas-relief approach (described below) but only for the image of the face. The resultant image was visibly similar to the Turin Shroud, though lacking the uniformity and detail of the original.[124]
The art historian Nicholas Allen has proposed that the image on the shroud could have been formed as early as the 13th century using techniques described in the 1011Book of Optics.[125][126][127][128] However, according to Mike Ware, a chemist and expert on the history of photography, Allen's proposal "encounters serious obstacles with regard to the technical history of the lens. Such claimants tend to draw upon the wisdom of hindsight to project a distorted historical perspective, wherein their cases rest upon a particular concatenation of procedures which is exceedingly improbable; and their 'proofs' amount only to demonstrating (none too faithfully) that it was not totally impossible." Among other difficulties, Allen's hypothesized process would have required that the subject (a corpse) be exposed in the sunlight for months.[129]
The scientists Emily Craig and Randall Bresee have attempted to recreate the likenesses of the shroud through the dust-transfer technique, which could have been done by medieval arts. They first did a carbon-dust drawing of a Jesus-like face (using collagen dust) on a newsprint made from wood pulp (which is similar to 13th- and 14th-century paper). They next placed the drawing on a table and covered it with a piece of linen. They then pressed the linen against the newsprint by firmly rubbing with the flat side of a wooden spoon. By doing this they managed to create a reddish-brown image with a lifelike positive likeness of a person, a three-dimensional image and no sign of brush strokes.[130]
In 1978 Joe Nickell noted that the Shroud image had a three-dimensional quality and thought its creation may have involved a sculpture of some type. He advanced the hypothesis that a medieval rubbing technique was used to produce the image, and set out to demonstrate this. He noted that while wrapping a cloth around a sculpture with normal contours would result in a distorted image, Nickell believed that wrapping a cloth over abas-relief might result in an image like the one seen on the shroud, as it would eliminate wraparound distortions. For his demonstration, Nickell wrapped a wet cloth around a bas-relief sculpture and allowed it to dry. He then applied powdered pigment rather than wet paint (to prevent it soaking into the threads). The pigment was applied with a dauber, similar to making a rubbing from a gravestone. The result was an image with dark regions and light regions convincingly arranged. In a photo essay inPopular Photography magazine, Nickell demonstrated this technique step-by-step.[35][131][note 2] Other researchers later replicated this process.
In 2005 the researcher Jacques di Costanzo constructed a bas-relief of a Jesus-like face and draped wet linen over it. After the linen dried, he dabbed it with a mixture offerric oxide andgelatine. The result was an image similar to that of the face on the Shroud. The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 °C (482 °F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, includingbisulphite, which, without the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.[132]
Instead of painting, it has been suggested that the bas-relief could also be heated and used to scorch an image onto the cloth. However researcher Thibault Heimburger performed some experiments with the scorching of linen, and found that a scorch mark is only produced by direct contact with the hot object—thus producing an all-or-nothing discoloration with no graduation of color as is found in the shroud.[133]
TheMaillard reaction is a form of non-enzymatic browning involving an amino acid and a reducing sugar. Thecellulose fibers of the shroud are coated with a thincarbohydrate layer of starch fractions, various sugars, and other impurities. The potential source for amines required for the reaction is a decomposing body,[84]: 100 and no signs of decomposition have been found on the Shroud. Rogers also notes that their tests revealed that there were no proteins or bodily fluids on the image areas.[84]: 38 Also, the image resolution and the uniform coloration of the linen resolution seem to be incompatible with a mechanism involving diffusion.[119]
Various people claim to have detected images of flowers on the shroud as well as coins over the eyes of the face in the image, writing, and other objects.[134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][excessive citations] However, a study published in 2011 by Lorusso and others subjected two photographs of the shroud to detailed modern digital image processing, one of them being a reproduction of the photographic negative taken by Giuseppe Enrie in 1931. They did not find any images of flowers or coins or writing or any other additional objects on the shroud in either photograph, they noted the faint images were "only visible by incrementing the photographic contrast" so they concluded that these signs might be linked to protuberances in the yarn and possibly also to the alteration and influence of the texture of the Enrie photographic negative during its development in 1931.[105] The use of coins to cover the eyes of the dead is not attested for 1st-century Judea. The existence of the coin images is rejected by most scientists.[143]
An image in the medieval manuscript of thePray Codex (c. 1192–1195) has generated a debate among some believers since 1978.[144] Although the Pray Codex predates the Shroud of Turin, some of the assumed features of the drawing, including the four L-shaped holes on the coffin lid, have pointed some people towards a possible attempted representation of the linen cloth. However the image on the Pray Codex has crosses on what may be one side of the supposed shroud, an interlocking step pyramid pattern on the other, and no image of Jesus. Critics point out that it may not be a shroud at all, but rather a rectangular tombstone, as seen on other sacred images.[145] A crumpled cloth can be seen discarded on the coffin, and the text of the codex fails to mention any miraculous image on the codex shroud.[144]
Some proponents for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin have argued that the image on the shroud was created by some form of radiation emission at the "moment of resurrection".[146][147][148] However, theSTURP member Alan Adler has stated that this theory is not generally accepted as scientific, given that it runs counter to the laws of physics,[146] while agreeing that the darkening of the fabric could be produced by exposure to light (and predicting that despite the fact that the Shroud is normally stored in darkness and rarely displayed, itwill eventually become darker in the future).[149][unreliable source?] Raymond Rogers also criticized the theory, saying: "It is clear that a corona discharge (plasma) in air will cause easily observable changes in a linen sample. No such effects can be observed in image fibers from the Shroud of Turin. Corona discharges or plasmas made no contribution to image formation."[84]: 83 Even if ultraviolet radiation were proven to have formed the image, it cannot be proven that it was not natural, that of the sun, applied to the prepared cloth unevenly to create the image.[149][unreliable source?]
^Translations into English differ in the choice of words used.
^For his pigment, Nickell first used the burial spices myrrh and aloes, but changed to red iron oxide (the pigmentred ocher) when microanalyst,Walter McCrone identified it as constituting the shroud's image; McCrone had identified the blood as red ochre andvermilion tempera paint.[35]
^abTaylor RE (2012)."Radiocarbon Dating". In Silberman NA (ed.).The Oxford Companion To Archaeology. Oxford Reference (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-973578-5.
^Scott, John Beldon (2003).Architecture for the shroud: relic and ritual in Turin. University of Chicago Press. p. 302.ISBN978-0-226-74316-5.
^Miller, V. D.; Pellicori, S. F. (July 1981). "Ultraviolet fluorescence photography of the Shroud of Turin".Journal of Biological Photography.49 (3):71–85.PMID7024245.
^de Clari, Robert (27 August 2023) [Written 1216]."The History of Them That Took Constantinople".Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades. University of Washington Publications in the Social Sciences. Vol. 10. Translated by Stone, Edward N. Seattle: University of Washington (published 1939). p. 232.
^abPoulle, Emmanuel (December 2009). "Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin. Revue critique" [The sources of the history of the shroud of Turin. Critical review].Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique (in French).104 (3–4):747–782.doi:10.1484/J.RHE.3.215.
^Humber, Thomas:The Sacred Shroud. New York: Pocket Books, 1980.ISBN0-671-41889-0
^See House of Savoy historian Filiberto Pingone in Filiberto Pingone,La Sindone dei Vangeli (Sindon Evangelica). Componimenti poetici sulla Sindone. Bolla di papa Giulio II (1506). Pellegrinaggio di S. Carlo Borromeo a Torino (1578). Introduzione, traduzione, note e riproduzione del testo originale a cura di Riccardo Quaglia, nuova edizione riveduta (2015), Biella 2015,ISBN978-1-4452-8258-9
^John Beldon Scott,Architecture for the shroud: relic and ritual in Turin, University of Chicago Press, 2003,ISBN0-226-74316-0, p. xxi
^Architecture for the shroud: relic and ritual in Turin by John Beldon Scott 2003ISBN0-226-74316-0, p. 26.
^Ball, Ann (2002).Encyclopedia of Catholic devotions and practices. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor. p. 533.ISBN0-87973-910-X.OL3573616M.
^Ball, Ann (2002).Encyclopedia of Catholic devotions and practices. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor. p. 239.ISBN0-87973-910-X.OL3573616M.
^abDreisbach, Albert R. (2001). "A theological basis for sindonology & its ecumenical implications". Collegamento pro Sindone.Some twenty years ago this ecumenical dimension of this sacred linen became very evident to me on the night of August 16, 1983, when local judicatory leaders offered their corporate blessing to the Turin Shroud Exhibit and participated in theEvening Office of the Holy Shroud. The Greek Archbishop, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, the Episcopal Bishop and the Presiding Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church gathered before the world's first full size, backlit transparency of the Shroud and joined clergy representing the Assemblies of God, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians in an amazing witness to ecumenical unity.
^Dale, W.S.A. (1987). "The Shroud of Turin: Relic or Icon?".Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research.B29 (1–2):187–192.Bibcode:1987NIMPB..29..187D.doi:10.1016/0168-583X(87)90233-3. This paper is significant in that it was presented to the international radiocarbon community shortly before radiocarbon dating was performed on the shroud.
^abRiani, Marco; Atkinson, Anthony C.; Fanti, Giulio; Crosilla, Fabio (27 April 2012). "Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin".Statistics and Computing.23 (4). Springer Science and Business Media:551–561.doi:10.1007/s11222-012-9329-5.ISSN0960-3174.S2CID6060870.
^Busson, P. "Sampling error?" Letter inNature, Vol. 352, 18 July 1991, p. 187.
^Robert Villarreal, "Analytical Results On Thread Samples Taken From The Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth"AbstractArchived 11 October 2008 at theWayback Machine (2008)
^Brown, Raymond E. (2002).Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine. Wipf & Stock. pp. 151–152.ISBN978-1-59244-024-5. Retrieved11 September 2022.Another problem is the attention given to the covering of the genitals. In the Shroud, the man's hands are crossed on the genital area with the right hand completely covering any nudity. Wild notes that the body imaged in the Shroud is portrayed as relaxed in death, but in a relaxed position a man's joined hands will not cover his genitals if he lies on his back. Either the body has to be tilted forward and the arms stretched downward, or the elbows have to be propped up on the side and the wrists drawn together to hold the hands in place over the genital area. In the Shroud image also, the right arm is exceedingly long and the fingers of the right hand almost disproportionate, in order to allow the modest covering. Again, such a feature would be more understandable if the Shroud were an artistic production reflecting the interests of another era.
^abcdefghFanti, G.; Botella, J. A.; Di Lazzaro, P.; Heimburger, T.; Schneider, R.; Svensson, N. (2010). "Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality".Journal of Imaging Science and Technology.54 (4) 040201.doi:10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2010.54.4.040201.
^Fanti, G.; Heimburger, T. (2011). "Letter to the Editor Comments on 'Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and Its Image' by L. Garlaschelli".Journal of Imaging Science and Technology.55 (2) 020102.doi:10.2352/j.imagingsci.technol.2011.55.2.020102.hdl:11577/2485314.
^"Remaking the Shroud".Channel.nationalgeographic.com. 22 January 2015. Archived fromthe original on 6 April 2015. Retrieved6 June 2016.
^Allen, Nicholas P. L. (1993) "Is the Shroud of Turin the first recorded photograph?"The South African Journal of Art History, 11 November, 23–32
^Allen, Nicholas P. L. (1994)A reappraisal of late thirteenth-century responses to the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin: encolpia of the Eucharist, vera eikon or supreme relic? The Southern African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4 (1), 62–94
^Allen, Nicholas P. L. (1998)The Turin Shroud and the Crystal Lens. Empowerment Technologies Pty. Ltd., Port Elizabeth, South Africa
^Allen, Nicholas P. L. (1 April 1995). "Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photo-negative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambéry-Turin".De Arte.30 (51):21–35.doi:10.1080/00043389.1995.11761214 – via Taylor and Francis+NEJM.
^Ware, Mike (1997). "On proto-photography and the Shroud of Turin".History of Photography.21 (4):261–269.doi:10.1080/03087298.1997.10443848.
^Jackson, John P., Eric J. Jumper, Bill Mottern, and Kenneth E. Stevenson. 1977. "The three-dimensional image of Jesus' burial cloth",Proceedings, 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin, Holy Shroud Guild, New York, 1977, pp. 74–94.
^F. Filas,The dating of the Shroud from coins of Pontius Pilate, Cogan, Youngtown (Arizona), 1982
^N. Balossino,L'immagine della Sindone, ricerca fotografica e informatica, Editrice Elle Di Ci, 1997,ISBN88-01-00798-1
^A. Marion, A.-L. Courage,Nouvelles découvertes sur le suaire de Turin, Paris, Albin Michel, 1998,ISBN2-226-09231-5
^Squires, Nick (20 November 2009)."Jesus Christ's 'death certificate' found on Turin Shroud".The Telegraph. Rome. Archived from the original on 30 January 2011. Retrieved16 December 2011.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)Daily Telegraph: "Jesus Christ's 'death certificate' found on Turin Shroud"
^Lombatti, Antonio (1997). "Doubts Concerning the Coins Over the Eyes".British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter (45).
^Jackson, John P.; Jumper, Eric J.; Ercoline, William R. (15 July 1984). "Correlation of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human body shape".Applied Optics.23 (14): 2244.Bibcode:1984ApOpt..23.2244J.doi:10.1364/AO.23.002244.PMID18212985.
^G. Carter, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin",American Chemical Society Volume on Archaeological Chemistry, 1983
Di Lazzaro, Paolo (ed.) :Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA, 2010,ISBN978-88-8286-232-9.
.JPG)
.jpg)
