Persuasive Essay - The Shroud of Turin

Ross M. Caron

Professor: Holly Pappas

English 101

May 12, 2011

Is the Shroud of Turin Authentic?

    “No single artifact of the past has so exemplified the interface between science and

    Religion as the Shroud of Turin.  What are the facts and how do we separate the

    facts from both religious and scientific bias and agenda-based conclusions?  We

    must separate the shroud from that which is responsible for bias, namely that it

    is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth and investigate it instead as a putative

    article of a first century crucifixion and burial.” (Kilmon 1).

The origins of the shroud and its image are the subject of intense debate among scientists, theologians, historians and researchers.  A shroud and a small cloth placed over the face of Jesus were described in all four gospels of the Bible.  When the negative image of what looked like a crucified man on a burial shroud believed to be Jesus’ was first discovered by an amateur photographer, Secondo Pia, in 1898 the shroud became an  been an object of worship for Christians around the world.

What does the scientific research tell us to help solve the debate?  In this persuasive essay, written as an assignment for my BCC English 101 class, my question is this:  “Is the Shroud of Turin an authentic artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion and burial?” After reviewing a wealth of scientific research (both for and against authenticity) and using a variety of research media that included books, journal articles, websites, even a History Channel television special, I hope the reader of this essay will be able to reach an unbiased conclusion that is the answer to the question is yes.    

Caron 2

The first modern scientific testing began in 1978 with a detailed examination of the actual shroud.  Testing was performed by a team of American scientists.  It is important to the shroud debate and to this essay to note that the Catholic Church did not select the scientists. The STURP team was selected by the scientific community and members of the team were scientists from a number of fields like physicists, biologists, chemists.  The remaining team members were experts in a variety of fields such as photography, police criminology, NASA engineers, etc.  It is also important to the debate note that many of the team members voluntarily identified themselves as complete skeptics or atheists. 

The study was the most comprehensive scientific research study of the shroud to date.  The results were published in a three-part article that appeared in a three part Journal article in “The Glyph” – the Journal of Archaeological Institute of America. 

After a multitude of sophisticated tests, here is the list of major STRUP’s results compiled in my own words.  The actual full report can be read in The Glyph Journal article.

-          The image was of a severely abused and crucified man with Semitic characteristics.   

-          The man was severely abused and scourged with the distinctive “dumbbell” markings of a Roman flagrum.

-          Bloodstains show that the hands were nailed through the wrists and through the feet. (This is an important distinction because we now know this is the way Roman crucifixion was done. If the shroud were a Christian forgery, then the bloodstains from the nails should have appeared through the center of the hands as most paintings depicted through the centuries.)

-          After several tests the bloodstains were determined to be real blood. Two experts on the team were able to determine the blood as type AB.

-         

Caron 3

Bloodstains were applied to the cloth prior to the formation of the image on the shroud.

-          That the bloodstains on the cloth are not artist’s pigment but are real blood and although the shroud linen contains particles of iron-oxide, the iron oxide is not responsible for the image on the cloth and is not the remnant of artist’s pigment.

-          The analysis of the blood of the cloth demonstrated high levels of bilirubin consistent with the severe concussive beating consistent with Roman crucifixion.

-          All other bloodstains evident were consistent with where they would be located in a Roman crucifixion.

More amazing evidence was that even though not attributed to Jesus Christ by the STRUP team, all of the other bloodstains that appeared on the shroud and were listed in detail matched perfectly with the description of the wounds received by Jesus as described in the bible.  In particular, the STRUP blood study showed bloodstains in the following areas: about the head and brow (from the crown of thorns) and the left thoracic area with pooling under the small of the back and under the feet (from the stabbing of his side to assure he was dead.) 

Another important piece of evidence for Christians as to whom the man on the shroud was is that the man’s legs were not broken.  Again, this is an important point to mention because a person being crucified under Roman law would normally have their legs broken.  This was to assure that death would come quickly.  In the case of Jesus Christ, the bible reports that his legs were not broken.   Final mention from the STRUP report was: “They found no reliable evidence of forgery, and called the question of how the image was formed a ‘mystery’. (Kilmon 7).

In 1988 the only controversial evidence to the shroud not being an authentic 1^st century artifact, came from one test only – the Carbon 14 Dating.  Results from three different labs stated that “the linen of the shroud was manufactured, came from the Middle Ages sometime between 1260 CE and 1390 CE. (Kilmon 4).   However, three peer-reviewed articles have since been published contending that the sample used for dating may have had been contaminated.  Issues include that the samples were taken from the part of the shroud that had been repaired after a fire in 1532 in the chapel where it was kept.  Also problematic was that the carbon from the fire could affect the findings of “carbon” dating accuracy.

Caron 4

Since the controversial Carbon 14 Dating results in 1988 there have been numerous new historical researches as well as additional scientific research to try and determine the age of the shroud.

Two scientific tests I was able to find determined the shroud’s age as first century.  One major study was done in 2000 by botanist Max Frei, who obtained the sample from the shroud during the STURP investigation.   Of the 58 species of pollen contained in the shroud, the most important results of this test were: the age of the linen of the shroud was determined to be the 1^st century and manufactured and woven somewhere in the Middle East.  And that 17 of the plants came from Europe (where the shroud artifact has been stored for 7 centuries) and the remaining 41 species were native, to the Middle East, some exclusively to the area of the Dead Sea and Turkey.  These are the areas you would expect an authentic article like the shroud for Jesus Christ would have been made. (Wikipedia 4)  

Also, in 2002 two scientists, Joseph Kohlbeck and Richard Levi-Setti, examined the dirt particles found on the shroud.  After extensive testing they reported that the particles were identical to samples from ancient Jerusalem tombs.  (Wikipedia 4)  

Historical evidence for the shroud being a much older than the Middle Ages date given by the carbon 14 dating was also presented by the History Channel’s March 2011 television special entitled “Jesus-The Lost 40 Days”.  The program highlighted the efforts of a team of graphic artists led by graphic artist, Ray Downing, working on bringing the face of Jesus Christ “to life” using the shroud of Turin. 

Caron 5

The program included interviews of some of the 1988 STURP team members.  They discussed the research and findings that have taken place since 1988.   According to Russ Breault, a member of the Shroud of Turin Education Project, “Since the 1988 STURP study researchers have found historical evidence that the shroud existed much earlier than the 14^th century.” (Jesus -The Lost 40 Days. 15 April. 2011.). First Breault pointed to an object called the Hungarian prayer manuscript which was completed in 1191and shows an illustration of the shroud. This manuscript is still in existence today and documented to 1191, so this moves the date of the shroud back by more than three centuries when compared to the carbon dating results.   

Even more powerful is the object called the Sudarium of Oviedo.  This is the cloth believed to be wrapped around the face of Jesus right after crucifixion.  It was found in Oviedo, Spain and has resided there since 616.   The four bible gospels report a small towel being wrapped around the face of Jesus right after crucifixion, with the shroud being wrapped over it.  According to scientists, if the Sudarium cloth was authentic, then it would be much bloodier than the shroud.  When Ray Downing, the head graphic artist from the History Channel television special, laid a digitally exact computer generated Sudarium (which was much bloodier than the shroud) over a digitally exact layout of the shroud, the blood on the Sudarium lined up exactly over the face on the shroud.   So, if the Sudarium, which is historically verified to at least 616 and the shroud, are connected to the same time period, the shroud can safely be historically documented to 616 AD.  This brings us much more in line with the shroud having been in existence at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.   An even more interesting side note is that a 2002 study showed that the blood on the Sudarium is also AB – the same type as the blood on the shroud.

Because this essay is limited to a certain length, I must end my essay here. I may have exceeded the limit somewhat, but I wanted to make sure I presented information for and against the shroud’s authenticity. For readers who would like to review the documented research in more detail, all resource information is included in the attached bibliography. 

Caron 6

So, do I think my research found an answer to the question I posed?  I do and I believe the answer is actually given very well in this final quote from Russ Breault: “The shroud is either authentic or it’s not. From the point of science it can never be proven, but - there is a different view of evidence and that is the courtroom definition as to whether it’s authentic or not.  I believe if the shroud of Turin was put on trial to determine if it was authentic, the jury would find it authentic.” (Jesus -The Lost 40 Days. 15 April. 2011.).

I agree.  Now, the question is up to you to answer.  What do you believe?

Annotated Bibliography:

 “Jesus-The Lost 40 Days.”  History Channel. 

According to the Bible, Jesus appeared to more than 500 people during the 40 days but there is little recorded about these events in the bible.   The bulk of this program was concerned with filling in the gaps in the historical record from the time of the resurrection to the day Jesus is said to have ascended into heaven.  However, I included this resource because it had an excellent current segment on the Shroud of Turin, which included interviews with scientists who had taken part in the 1977 study of the shroud and even offered verifiable information on evidence that proved the shroud was in existence as early as 600 years after the death of Jesus.

Kilmon, Jack: “The Shroud of Turin Genuine artifact or manufactured relic?” The Glyph, the Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America, San Diego, Vol 1, No. 10 (Sept 1997); NO. 11 (Dec 1977); No. 12 (March 1998).  This was an excellent resource because it pulled together all the questions scientists set out to answer during their exam of the shroud and presented the factual results.

Schwortz, Barrie M. “The Shroud of Turin.” (STERA,Inc.) Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc. Schwortz, Barrie M. 

  21 Jan. 2011. 22 April 2011. 

http://www.shroud.com

This website states that they have concluded the shroud is a real relic that depicts Jesus Christ at the moment of Resurrection. However, I still think it was a good resource to include because it provides such a quantity and variety of information that it could be in verified for its validity.  

“The Real Face of Jesus.” History Channel 17 April 2011.

This program shares new data on the shroud, trying to answer the question everyone wants to know:  It the shroud real or a forgery?  It uses cutting-edge digital technology to  determine that the image on the shroud is not a flat image embedded on/in an ancient cloth but it is a three-dimensional, like a sculpture.  This program uses the revolutionary CGI process pioneered in Stealing Lincoln's Body and brings to the screen what the program describes as “the most accurate representation ever seen of what many believe to be Jesus Christ”. 

Vikan, Gary. “Debunking The Shroud - Made by Human Hands”. November/December 1998. Reprinted from Biblical Archaeology Review.Volume 24 Number 26. 1998. 29 April, 2011

http://www.skepdic.com/should.html

This resource lists itself as a skeptic site.  It is one of three skeptic sites I reviewed.  Even though I reviewed it in depth I don’t consider it a reliable source because all the points they made were points that had later already been addressed and disproved.    I was surprised that all skeptic sites I researched made no attempt to give any links to journals or other scientific materials that could be used to substantiate their statements.  I was disappointed not to find a “legitimate skeptical site” because I was hoping to be able to present some legitimate material from both sides of the question. None of the “skeptic” research sites I reviewed did this.

Wilcox, Robert K. The Truth about the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery.

Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2010.

Wilcox is a journalist (New York Times, National Geographic, etc.) and author who spent over 30 years investigating the Shroud. This book is a follow up to his 1977 book “Shroud” and has been updated to include the latest research details and interviews with scientists who performed many of the tests on the shroud.  Wilcox’s book concludes that the shroud is genuine.