From Forensics to Faith: The Shroud of Turin's History and Authenticity Under Scrutiny

From Forensics to Faith: The Shroud of Turin's History and Authenticity Under Scrutiny

On Amazon:
From Forensics to Faith: The Shroud of Turin's History and Authenticity Under Scrutiny
Paperback:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CV81QVH9/

Kindle version:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CV65HNTD/

The infographic panels can be downloaded here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yUUQfz_CGQejruIJwOKMMX8xNluAhPjL?usp=sharing


Joe Marino, Author of: The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé
Grasso’s book is an up-to-date treatment of the mysterious Shroud of Turin, believed by many to be the actual burial cloth in which Jesus was buried, although there are numerous skeptics who believe the Shroud is nothing but a clever medieval forgery.
     Grasso painstakingly examines all aspects of the Shroud and incorporates recent “infographics,” with its many excellent photos and graphics that complement the text.  He meticulously analyzes the Shroud’s correspondence with the gospel accounts; a detailed look at the mechanics of crucifixion; the Shroud’s possible history back to the 1st century; the science of the Shroud from the first photos taken in 1898; the extensive 1978 examination of the Shroud by “The Shroud of Turin Research Project;” the unique image properties of the images, including blood, pollen and 3D information; the infamous C-14 dating in 1988; various proposed hypotheses of how it could have been faked;  the virtual impossibility of it having been forged, textile analysis, including Old Testament and New Testament background;  a look at the Sudarium of Oviedo, believed by some to be the face cloth mentioned in the Gospel of John; the Shroud’s link with the Resurrection, the implications of the Shroud and addresses common objections against the Shroud’s authenticity.

This is one of the finest books on the Shroud available and should be in the library of anyone interested in the Shroud. 

Robert A. Rucker, nuclear engineer, www.shroudresearch.net 
The 2024 book “From Forensics to Faith” by Otangelo Grasso covers extensive discussion of all essential topics related to the Shroud of Turin in about 540 pages.  This includes what can be seen on the Shroud (Chapter 1), history of the Shroud (Chapters 2 to 4), scientific examination (Chapters 5 and 6) and carbon dating of the Shroud (Chapters 7), how the images were produced (Chapters 8 and 9), fabric, blood, and other evidence (Chapters 10 to 13), comparison of the Shroud to Biblical evidence (Chapters 14 to 20), and meaning of the Shroud for us today (Chapters 21 and 22).  Of special delight is the images created by the author related to the Shroud and Jesus, especially Jesus’ face on the cover of the book that was produced from the front image on the Shroud.  What a delight it would be to leave this book face up on your coffee table or other prominent location to allow others to see the face of the most important person who ever lived.    

The Shroud is the empirical link to the gospels, confirming all the narratives as true. Discovered to be photonegative in 1898 by Secondo Pia, the negative of the Shroud's image revealed a more distinct and detailed view of the man's face and body, enhancing the realism and depth of the figure.  Further intrigue was added in 1976 when analysis with a VP-8 Image Analyzer revealed encoded 3D information in the Shroud's image, unlike any conventional 2D image, indicating a unique image formation process. And now, using modern advanced AI tools, Otangelo Grasso was able to get a very close realistic image of how the man on the Shroud that many believe to be Jesus looked like in real life.

The photonegative, and 3D characteristic strengthens the case for the authenticity of the Shroud.  Pollen grains found on the Shroud have been traced to plants native to the regions around Jerusalem, lending geographical credibility to its origins. The weave and textile patterns of the linen cloth are consistent with materials available in the first century, aligning with the historical period of Jesus's life and death. The bloodstains on the Shroud have been analyzed and identified as type AB, with properties consistent with genuine human blood, containing traces of bilirubin, a compound produced by the human body in response to severe torture. The image on the Shroud resides on the utmost surface of the linen cloth, and investigations by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) confirmed it is not a painting, adding to its enigma.





In November 2022, I visited the Othonia Atheneum Apostolorum Shroud Exposition in Rome. Upon returning home, it struck me that the informational panels I had seen were nearly two decades old, dating back to 2005. Considering the advancements and discoveries made in the scientific study of the Shroud since then, I felt a compelling need to update these materials. Motivated by the significant developments in understanding the Shroud's imagery, I embarked on a project to create a new series of infographics. These were designed to be more visually driven and less reliant on text, reflecting the latest insights. From December 2023 to January 2024, I crafted 20 such infographics and compiled comprehensive background information to support each panel. This endeavor culminated in the creation of a book that presents this updated and enriched perspective on the Shroud.


Chapter 1 Intro and description of the Shroud & History of the Shroud
Chapter 2 6th. to 14th. century of the Shroud
Chapter 3 Secondo Pia's 1898 discovery
Chapter 4 3d Information on the Shroud
Chapter 5 STURP Investigation from 1978 
Chapter 6 The Radiocarbon dating
Chapter 7 The Shroud, a forgery?
Chapter 8 How was the image made?
Chapter 9  The Flagellation
Chapter 10 Head Wounds, and the Crown of Thorns
Chapter 11 The Sorrowful Path 
Chapter 12 Golgotha - Calvary - The Crucifixion 
Chapter 13 The death
Chapter 14 The burial
Chapter 15 The Resurrection 
Chapter 16 The Linen
Chapter 17 The Blood
Chapter 18 Pollen, Limestone, and Micro traces
Chapter 19 Bought, Purchased, Randomed and Redeemed 
Chapter 209 Addressing Common Objections about the Shroud & Some Renderings & Images

Chapter 1



What is the Shroud of Turin?

Bible References To The Burial Shroud Of Jesus
1. Matthew 27:59
And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud
2. Mark 15:46
And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.
3. Luke 23:53
Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid.
4. John 19:40
So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.
5. John 20:5
And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
6. John 20:6
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there,
7. John 20:7
and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.

The Shroud of Jesus presents an image that captures a pivotal moment, the most important event in human history: the resurrection of Christ. It acts as a physical validation of the narratives found in the New Testament, underscoring the veracity of the teachings and prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments concerning the Messiah. This remarkable relic is a divine testament, providing tangible evidence of God's power. It is also the receipt of the unfathomably high price paid through the sacrifice made by Christ, shedding his blood on the cross for our sins. Those who investigate and study it will find undeniable evidence that strengthens their faith, alleviates uncertainties, dispels any doubts, and brings hope, joy, and peace into their hearts. We are not alone. The sentiment it evokes affirms the belief that we have a benevolent, loving creator, that has a plan individually for each of us, that extends into all eternity. We are created by Him, to live with Him and to be a part of His family. The purpose of our existence is simple and elegant: To love God, to love others, and to be loved by Him.

The facial features of the man on the shroud, while indistinct, convey a sense of nobility, Lordship, peace, serenity, and solemnity. The eyes are closed, giving an impression of peace or repose.

The Shroud, commonly called the Shroud of Turin is a piece of linen cloth that bears the image of a man who has been crucified. It is a rectangular linen cloth measuring approximately 14.3 feet by 3.7 feet and is kept in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. There is powerful evidence the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, that bears his actual image. The image on the shroud appears as a negative image ( like a negative of a photograph)  and has most likely been formed by the imprint of the body that had been wrapped in the cloth after death.  The Gospels do describe the burial of Jesus in a linen cloth, which is a reference to the shroud. The Gospels describe Joseph of Arimathea taking Jesus' body, wrapping it in a clean linen cloth, and placing it in his tomb (Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53). The Gospel of John also mentions the burial cloth, stating that Nicodemus helped Joseph of Arimathea prepare Jesus' body for burial by bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes. They took Jesus' body, and wrapped it in linen cloths with the spices, according to Jewish burial customs (John 19:38-40). Scientists have inferred that a burst of 34 thousand billion Watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.

Rigor Mortis and the Crucifixion Imprint

Rigor mortis, the postmortem stiffening of muscles, is a critical forensic marker for determining the time elapsed since death. This process begins within 2 to 6 hours of death, initially affecting smaller muscles such as those in the jaw and neck, before progressing to the larger muscles of the limbs. The condition typically encompasses the entire body within 12 hours and remains for up to 72 hours before the onset of decomposition causes it to dissipate.
When rigor mortis is observed in the extremities, such as the feet, it signifies that the phenomenon has advanced through its initial stages and reached the lower parts of the body, indicating that a considerable period has passed since the individual's death. This is particularly relevant in forensic analysis when a body is discovered in a position reminiscent of crucifixion. The detection of rigor mortis in the lower limbs not only confirms the passage of time since death but also suggests that the body was maintained in a suspended state for an extended duration postmortem. The body's posture at the time of death can significantly influence the manifestation of rigor mortis. In cases where the body is suspended, the force of gravity may accelerate the stiffening process in the lower limbs. This aspect is crucial for forensic experts as they work to reconstruct the death timeline and understand the circumstances surrounding the individual's final moments. The comprehensive analysis of rigor mortis, along with other postmortem changes such as livor mortis and algor mortis, aids forensic investigators in estimating the postmortem interval more accurately. This thorough examination is essential for a deeper understanding of the events leading to and following death. The Shroud offers a unique case study in this regard. The detailed imprints on the Shroud are consistent with the forensic expectations of a crucified individual, providing insights into the posture and the nature of the wounds. The positioning of the body, as evidenced by the Shroud, aligns with the known effects of crucifixion and subsequent rigor mortis, offering a tangible link to ancient practices and the conditions of the period. This alignment between the Shroud's evidence and forensic science underscores the value of interdisciplinary studies in uncovering historical truths, further enriching our understanding of significant historical events and figures.

Crucifixion Mechanics and the Certainty of Death

The method of crucifixion, a historical execution practice, is characterized by its excruciating and prolonged nature. The positioning and nailing of the feet played a significant role in the victim's ability to prolong life during this agonizing process. The use of two nails for one foot and a single nail for the other was not merely a matter of convenience or cruelty; it served a specific purpose in the mechanics of crucifixion. This arrangement allowed for one foot to have a limited range of movement, enabling the victim to alternately push up to breathe and then relax, a cycle that could be sustained only while the victim remained alive. This ability to push up was crucial for the victim to stave off asphyxiation, as the crucifixion posture severely impeded normal respiration. The cessation of this movement was a clear indicator of death. Observers, particularly the Roman soldiers tasked with carrying out and overseeing executions, were well-versed in these signs. Their expertise in such matters was critical, given the Roman emphasis on ensuring the death of the condemned. The historical accounts indicating that the soldiers did not feel the need to break Jesus' legs, as was customary to hasten death in crucifixion if the victim was still alive, underscores their certainty of His death. This practice of breaking the legs, known as crurifragium, was a brutal method to induce rapid asphyxiation, ensuring the victim could no longer lift themselves to breathe. The narrative that the soldiers refrained from breaking Jesus' legs due to their confidence in His death aligns with the forensic analysis of crucifixion techniques and the physiological effects on the human body. This congruence between historical descriptions and modern forensic understanding lends support to the authenticity of the accounts of Jesus' death on the cross. Furthermore, the detailed analysis of crucifixion practices, including the specific use of nails in the feet, enriches our comprehension of the historical and physical realities of this form of capital punishment, providing a deeper context to the events described in historical texts.

The 1532 Fire

In 1532, a significant event tested the resilience of the revered cloth: a fire broke out in the church where it was safeguarded. This calamity led to the formation of two distinct scorch lines flanking the central image on both the front and dorsal sides, a testament to the intensity of the flames that threatened its destruction. Additionally, the aftermath of the rescue efforts is marked by water stains, remnants of the urgent attempts to quench the fire and save the cloth by dousing the metal container in which it was stored. The fire's heat, while causing damage, did not alter the image's integrity in a manner consistent with the application of organic compounds. If the image had been the result of such materials, the intense heat would likely have caused a gradation in the discoloration intensity, fading or altering the image in a discernible pattern. However, the absence of such gradation provides compelling evidence against the theory that the image was crafted using organic pigments or dyes. This resilience of the image, despite the exposure to extreme conditions, adds another layer of intrigue to the cloth's history. It suggests that the method of the image's formation is unlike any known artistic or chemical application, supporting the argument for its authenticity. The survival of the image, undistorted by the fire's heat, aligns with the understanding that the image's formation is not merely the result of human craftsmanship but possibly of a profound and mysterious event. The 1532 fire, rather than diminishing the cloth's value, has inadvertently contributed to its historical and scientific examination. The scorch marks and water stains have become part of its unique fingerprint, providing additional data points for researchers. These features offer insights into the cloth's material resilience and the conditions it has endured, further enriching the ongoing dialogue about its origins and the circumstances surrounding the image it bears.

Understanding the Patches and Patterns on the Shroud

In the wake of the 1532 fire, a meticulous effort was undertaken to preserve the integrity of the sacred cloth. The fire's aftermath left parts of the cloth charred, necessitating the removal of the damaged material. These areas were carefully restored with patches, a testament to the dedication to preserving this invaluable artifact for future generations. The distribution of these patches, along with the scorch marks, traces back to the cloth's folded state during the calamity, revealing a pattern that speaks volumes about the event's impact on the cloth. How the cloth was folded meant that a single corner bore the brunt of the fire's damage. This resulted in multiple sections, once unfolded, displaying the need for repair and thus the subsequent placement of patches. The pattern formed by these repairs and the scorch marks provide a unique insight into the cloth's condition at the time of the fire, illustrating how a moment of crisis has become an integral part of its history. The strategic placement of these patches, mirroring the scorch marks, not only served a restorative purpose but also added a new layer to the cloth's rich tapestry of history. Each patch, carefully sewn into place, represents a chapter in the ongoing story of the cloth's survival and reverence through centuries. This pattern of preservation, marked by the alternating patches and scorches, stands as a visible record of the community's dedication to safeguarding the cloth. Furthermore, the meticulous approach to the cloth's preservation, particularly in the aftermath of the fire, underscores the reverence afforded to it, consistent with its perceived authenticity. The care taken to maintain its integrity, despite the challenges posed by the fire, reflects a recognition of its significance beyond mere historical or artistic value. This reverence and the efforts to preserve the cloth in the face of adversity contribute to the ongoing dialogue about its origins, enhancing its mystique and the reverence it commands.

From Edessa to Turin

The Shroud's intricate history is illuminated by the distinctive L-shaped pattern of burn holes, a feature that intriguingly mirrors depictions found in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, dated between 1192-1195 AD. This correlation is pivotal, as it suggests the Shroud's presence in Constantinople before the city's sacking in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. The manuscript's depiction predates the commonly cited carbon-14 dating range of 1260 to 1390 AD, thus challenging these results and supporting the Shroud's earlier existence. Historically referred to as the Mandylion, the cloth's journey from Edessa, Turkey, to Constantinople, encapsulates its significance across centuries. Known as the Image of Edessa, its revered status in early Christian history is well-documented, positioning the Shroud as an artifact of profound historical and spiritual import, traceable back beyond 944 AD. This lineage underpins the argument against the carbon-14 dating, proposing that the Shroud's origins are indeed much older. Supporting this standpoint are various dating methodologies that align with a first-century origin. The analysis of the linen's tensile strength and reflectivity, the distinctive stitching patterns akin to those found at Masada, the Shroud's dimensions correlating with ancient measurements, the historical context of crucifixion practices, and the presence of a Roman Lepton coin dating to the era of 27-30 AD, collectively suggest an earlier date for the Shroud. These elements not only challenge the carbon-14 dating but also enrich the narrative of the Shroud's authenticity and its historical journey. The discrepancies in carbon dating have prompted alternative hypotheses, such as the possibility of an invisible reweaving or the impact of neutron absorption on the linen's nitrogen content, which could skew the carbon dating results. These theories, set against the backdrop of the Shroud's storied past, invite a reevaluation of its dating and further investigation into its origins. As scholars and enthusiasts gather to delve into these complexities, the conference will serve as a forum for robust discussion on the Shroud's dating, exploring the myriad of evidence and perspectives that surround this enigmatic artifact. The dialogue promises to shed light on the Shroud's historical journey, from its origins in Edessa to its current resting place in Turin, offering insights into its enduring significance and the mysteries that continue to envelop it.


The Forensic Testimony of the Shroud

The dorsal image of the Shroud reveals a compelling detail in the form of separated blood and clear serum emanating from the side wound, a feature that corroborates the biblical account of the crucifixion. This separation is a significant forensic clue, indicating that the heart had ceased its function long enough for the red blood cells to settle, a process that occurs postmortem. This detail not only aligns with the historical practice of crucifixion but also with the specific account of the piercing of Jesus' side, as described in the Gospel of John, where "blood and water" were observed to flow out. This alignment between the Shroud's markings and the biblical narrative is striking, offering a tangible link to the events described in the scriptures. The presence of both blood components on the Shroud suggests a level of physiological realism that adds depth to its authenticity. In the context of crucifixion, the occurrence of such a wound after death would not induce a typical bleeding response but rather a separation of blood components, mirroring the description found in John 19:34. The correlation of this detail with the scriptural account provides a nuanced layer of verification to the events surrounding the crucifixion. It serves as a bridge between the physical evidence present on the Shroud and the spiritual testimony found in the Bible, reinforcing the historicity of the narrative. This confluence of forensic evidence and scriptural description enriches the dialogue surrounding the Shroud, inviting a deeper reflection on its significance and the events it purports to document. This forensic detail, when considered alongside the broader context of the Shroud's imagery and historical journey, contributes to a multidimensional understanding of the artifact. It underscores the potential of the Shroud to serve as a focal point for interdisciplinary study, bridging the realms of science, history, and theology. 

The Marks of Sacrifice

The detailed examination of the scourge marks evident on the cloth reveals a harrowing narrative of suffering, aligned with the historical practices of Roman punishment. Between 100 to 120 scourge marks, consistent with the brutal application of Roman flagrums, are visible across the fabric. These flagrums, typically fitted with dumbbell-shaped weights at the ends of their leather straps, were designed to inflict maximum pain and damage, a fact that the pattern of wounds on the cloth attests to. The distribution of these marks, emanating from both sides, suggests a methodical approach by two executioners, each delivering blows from different angles. What is particularly remarkable about these wounds is the presence of blood serum halos that encircle the dried blood exudates, a detail only discernible under ultraviolet light. This phenomenon indicates that after the infliction of the wounds, blood seeped out, and as the red blood cells coagulated to form the central clot, the clearer serum separated and spread outwards, creating a distinct ring. This subtle but significant detail underscores the authenticity of the wounds represented on the cloth, as it reflects a natural physiological response to severe lacerations. The presence of these serum rings adds a layer of forensic credibility to the cloth, suggesting that the depiction of wounds is not merely artistic but bears the hallmarks of genuine bodily injury. This physiological accuracy reinforces the proposition that the cloth is an authentic burial shroud, bearing the true imprints of a crucified individual. The correlation of these scourge marks with historical accounts of Roman flagellation practices provides a tangible link to the period and manner of execution. This congruence between the physical evidence on the cloth and the historical context of Roman crucifixion methods further solidifies the argument for the cloth's authenticity.

The Burden of the Cross

The cloth bears silent testimony to a journey of immense suffering, as evidenced by the abrasions on both shoulders. These marks are consistent with the harsh impact of carrying a heavy, rough object across a significant distance. This physical burden, as imprinted on the cloth, aligns with the historical account of Jesus bearing his cross to the site of the crucifixion, as described in John 19:17. It is widely understood that the cross referred to in this passage denotes the horizontal beam, or patibulum, which the condemned were often required to carry to the place of execution, where the vertical stake would have already been erected. The presence of these abrasions on the cloth provides a tangible connection to the narrative of the Passion, offering a forensic detail that corroborates the biblical account. The specificity of these marks, located precisely where the patibulum would have rested and caused friction against the skin while being carried, underscores the authenticity of the cloth as a true burial shroud of a crucified individual. This detail adds a layer of historical and physical realism to the narrative, grounding it in the tangible reality of Roman execution methods. Moreover, the abrasions suggest a level of detail and physiological accuracy that transcends mere artistic representation. They reflect a genuine human experience of pain and endurance, captured in the fabric's weave. This confluence of historical, scriptural, and forensic evidence enhances the argument for the cloth's authenticity, providing a multifaceted perspective on the events it is believed to represent.

Crown of Thorns

The cloth meticulously records the echoes of a brutal act, with puncture wounds visible on both the front and back of the head area. These wounds are consistent with injuries that would be sustained from a sharp, thorn-like object being forcibly applied to the scalp. This evidence aligns with the biblical accounts of the crown of thorns placed upon Jesus' head and subsequently beaten into place with rods, as detailed in Matthew 27:30 and Mark 15:17-19. The presence of these puncture wounds on the cloth serves as a poignant physical testament to the narrative of suffering and humiliation described in the scriptures. The detailed imprints of these wounds on the cloth go beyond mere artistic depiction, suggesting a level of authenticity and specificity that points to a real event. The distribution and nature of these wounds correspond with the crown of thorns' description, reinforcing the cloth's role as a genuine burial shroud of a crucified individual. This correlation between the physical evidence on the cloth and the scriptural descriptions provides a tangible link to the historical events of the crucifixion. Furthermore, the forensic analysis of these wounds offers insights into the nature of the object used and the severity of the act. The wounds suggest a cap-like application of thorns, pressed and beaten into the scalp, causing multiple, deep puncture wounds. This brutal act, captured in the fabric of the cloth, echoes the scriptural accounts of mockery and torture, providing a stark visual representation of the suffering endured. The examination of these wounds within the context of the cloth's wider narrative invites a deeper contemplation of the events leading up to and including the crucifixion. It bridges the gap between historical record and spiritual reflection, offering a visceral insight into the physical realities of the Passion. As such, the cloth stands as a profound artifact, not only of historical significance but also as a focal point for theological and meditative reflection on the depth of suffering and sacrifice embodied in the crucifixion narrative.

Pollen Imprints

The cloth harbors microscopic witnesses to its geographic and historical journey, notably through the presence of pollen grains. Among these, specific pollen types unique to the region surrounding Jerusalem stand out, embedding the cloth within a distinct geographic context. This botanical signature provides a tangible link to the land and the natural environment of the area, further grounding the cloth in a real-world setting that aligns with the historical narratives. Remarkably, pollen from a plant characterized by long thorns has been identified in the vicinity of the head imprints on the cloth. This detail is particularly significant given the biblical accounts of the crown of thorns placed upon Jesus' head. The correlation between the presence of this specific type of pollen and the scriptural description of the crown of thorns adds a layer of authenticity to the cloth. It suggests not only a geographical alignment with the historical setting of Jerusalem but also a direct connection to the events described in the New Testament. The identification of these pollen types on the cloth is more than a mere botanical curiosity; it represents a forensic bridge to the past, offering clues to the cloth's origins and the events it is believed to depict. This botanical evidence supports the notion that the cloth was present in the Jerusalem area during a time consistent with the historical period of the crucifixion. Moreover, the presence of pollen from a thorn-bearing plant around the head area of the cloth resonates deeply with the symbolism and reality of the suffering depicted in the crucifixion narrative. It serves as a silent but potent testament to the authenticity of the events described in the Gospels, reinforcing the physical and historical credibility of the cloth. The integration of botanical forensics with historical and scriptural analysis enriches the multidisciplinary study of the cloth. It opens new avenues for understanding its origins and the profound narrative it carries, bridging the realms of science, history, and theology. As such, the pollen imprints on the cloth not only anchor it within a specific geographical and historical context but also contribute to the ongoing dialogue about its significance and the events it purports to document.

The Mysteries of the Shroud's Images

The images on the cloth, both front and dorsal, present a fascinating enigma in the realm of historical artifacts. Not only do these images serve as negative impressions of a crucified man, but they also encapsulate three-dimensional information, akin to a topographical map, that correlates with the distance between the cloth and the body at the time of image formation. This unique feature is not found in any conventional artistic or photographic methods known to date, setting the cloth apart in its singularity. Upon closer examination, the image formation on the cloth is remarkably precise, affecting only the top one or two layers of fibers in each thread, which consists of 100 to 200 fibers. This level of detail extends to the microscopic scale, where the thickness of the discoloration on each fiber is less than 0.4 microns—narrower than a single wavelength of light. Such precision defies the natural capillary action that would occur if the image were created using liquid mediums, as there is no evidence of liquid spreading or soaking between the fibers and threads. The nature of the discoloration itself is indicative of a profound alteration at the molecular level, where the covalent bonds of the carbon atoms within the cellulose molecules of the linen have changed. This alteration, characterized by dehydration and oxidation, is not consistent with any known forms of manual artwork or intentional aging by human hands. The absence of any conventional medium or method that could replicate these intricate details and effects leads to the conclusion that the image could not have been the work of an artist or forger, at any point in history. How the image of a crucified man was imprinted on the cloth, given these distinctive characteristics, remains a subject of intense speculation and inquiry. Theories abound, yet no definitive explanation has emerged that fully accounts for the combination of negative imaging, three-dimensional data content, microscopic precision in discoloration, and the lack of capillary action. This cloth, with its enigmatic imprint, continues to challenge the boundaries of our understanding, inviting scholars, scientists, and theologians alike to ponder its mysteries. As we convene to discuss and delve deeper into these complexities, the conference promises to be a nexus of interdisciplinary exploration. The aim is not only to unravel the scientific and historical underpinnings of the cloth's images but also to contemplate the broader implications of its existence and the profound message it may hold within its fibers.

The Facial Features of the man on the Shroud

The cloth presents a haunting portrayal of suffering, with facial features that suggest a harsh physical ordeal. The swollen cheeks and a disfigured nose on the image hint at a severe beating or a traumatic fall, resonating with the biblical accounts of the trials faced during the final hours. The Gospel of John (18:3) alludes to such a beating, while the synoptic narratives in Matthew (27:32) and Mark (15:21) recount the arduous journey to the crucifixion site, during which a fall under the weight of the cross is implied. A closer examination reveals abrasions on the tip of the nose, within which traces of dirt are embedded. This microscopic detail not only underscores the violence of the fall but also situates the event in a gritty, real-world context. The presence of dirt within the wounds adds a layer of authenticity to the image, suggesting that the figure did not merely suffer in a sanitized, abstract sense but interacted with the earth in a moment of vulnerability. The specificity of these injuries, captured on the cloth, transcends mere representation. It offers a tangible connection to the historical figure's final journey, marked by physical suffering and human frailty. The detailed depiction of these facial wounds challenges the notion of an artistically crafted forgery, pointing instead to a genuine imprint of a man who endured significant physical trauma. The correlation between the facial features on the cloth and the scriptural descriptions of the events leading to the crucifixion provides a poignant intersection of history, archaeology, and theology. This confluence invites a deeper reflection on the nature of the suffering depicted and its significance within the broader narrative of the crucifixion. As we gather to explore the mysteries of the cloth, these facial features and their implications stand as a central point of inquiry. The discussion will delve into the forensic and historical analysis of these wounds, seeking to understand their origins and the story they tell. This exploration is not just an academic exercise but a journey into the heart of a narrative that has shaped centuries of thought and belief, offering insights into the physical realities that underpin a pivotal moment in history.

The Spear Wound

The front image of the cloth bears a stark and poignant mark: an elliptical wound approximately 2 inches wide, a detail that aligns with the dimensions of a Roman spear. This wound, referenced in the Gospel of John (19:34), is not just a testament to the brutality of the act but also serves as a crucial piece of forensic evidence that supports the cloth's authenticity. The shape and size of the wound are consistent with the historical understanding of Roman weaponry, providing a tangible link to the methods of execution used during the period. More significantly, the area surrounding this wound reveals traces of both blood and a watery fluid, suggestive of a post-mortem flow. This detail is crucial, as it indicates that the wound was inflicted after death, consistent with the biblical account of the piercing of Jesus' side to confirm His death. The presence of both blood and a separate watery fluid mirrors the scriptural description of "blood and water" flowing from the wound, a phenomenon that occurs when blood settles and separates into its constituent parts after the heart has stopped beating. The accuracy of this detail on the cloth—both in terms of the wound's dimensions and the nature of the fluids emanating from it—challenges the notion of a medieval forgery. Reproducing such precise physiological reactions and Roman military specifics would have been nearly impossible without a deep understanding of post-mortem blood separation and the exact dimensions of Roman spears, knowledge not typical of the medieval period. This wound, with its forensic and historical fidelity, invites a deeper examination of the cloth's origins and the events it purports to document. It stands as a focal point for discussions at the conference, where experts from various fields will delve into the implications of this and other features of the cloth. The aim is to unravel the layers of history, science, and theology intertwined within the fabric, offering insights into the enduring mystery of the cloth and the narrative it carries.

The Blood Evidence

The analysis of the bloodstains on the cloth reveals a level of detail that significantly corroborates the crucifixion narrative. The blood flow patterns on the arms, displaying two distinct angles, reflect the physiological response of a crucified individual alternating between positions to breathe. This shifting, a desperate measure to alleviate the suffocation inherent in crucifixion, is mirrored in the blood flow directions observed on the cloth, lending credence to its authenticity as the burial shroud of a crucifixion victim. Further bolstering the case for authenticity, the substance identified as blood on the cloth has undergone a battery of tests, affirming its biological origin. These tests have conclusively proven that the stains are composed of real human blood, characterized by the presence of both "X" and "Y" chromosomes, indicative of a male origin. The determination of the blood type as AB adds another layer of specificity to the biological evidence. The blood's high bilirubin content is particularly telling. Bilirubin levels rise in response to the breakdown of red blood cells, a condition consistent with severe physical trauma, such as a beating. This biochemical marker aligns with the historical accounts of the physical sufferings endured, providing a poignant testament to the brutality of the events leading up to the crucifixion. Contrary to expectations for ancient bloodstains, which typically darken to a black or deep brown over time, the blood on the cloth retains a reddish hue. This unusual coloration has been the subject of much speculation and scientific inquiry, with multiple theories proposed to explain the phenomenon. Among these, the high bilirubin content itself is a plausible factor, as it can impact the degradation and coloration of blood over time. The confluence of forensic, historical, and scriptural evidence as represented by the bloodstains on the cloth offers a compelling argument for its authenticity. The detailed examination of these stains provides not only a window into the physical realities of crucifixion but also a testament to the individual's identity and the ordeal endured. 

Nail Marks on the Shroud

The depiction of crucifixion in medieval art often presents a stylized interpretation, with nails piercing the palms of the hands. This imagery, while iconic, contradicts the practical and anatomical realities of crucifixion as understood through archaeological findings and historical research. The palms, lacking the structural support of bone above the area of penetration, would not have been able to sustain the weight of a human body during crucifixion. Archaeological evidence has clarified this aspect, showing that nails were more likely driven through the wrists, where the bones could provide the necessary support. The cloth, in stark contrast to medieval artistic conventions, displays a remarkable adherence to this anatomical and archaeological understanding. The marks suggestive of nail wounds are located not in the palms but in the wrists, aligning with the more accurate portrayal of Roman crucifixion practices. This detail is not only consistent with the physical realities of such an execution but also with the findings from archaeological excavations of crucifixion victims. The precise location of the nail marks on the cloth challenges the notion of a medieval origin, as it predates widespread archaeological insights by centuries. The accuracy of these marks suggests a level of knowledge about crucifixion practices that was not common during the Middle Ages, further supporting the cloth's authenticity as a genuine burial shroud of a crucifixion victim. This congruence between the nail mark locations on the cloth and the archaeological understanding of crucifixion practices adds a significant layer of historical credibility to the artifact. It invites a reevaluation of the cloth's origins and the events it is believed to depict, bridging the gap between historical artifacts and scriptural accounts.

The Unique Depiction of Thumbs on the Shroud

The cloth presents an anatomical detail that significantly diverges from the iconography typical of medieval art: the thumbs are depicted as folded under, a posture not seen in the conventional representations of the crucifixion from the Middle Ages. This specific detail provides a compelling insight into the physiological reactions to the crucifixion process, particularly about the placement of the nails. Nailing through the wrists, as opposed to the palms, would likely impact the median nerves, leading to an involuntary reflexive contraction of the thumbs. This physiological response is accurately reflected on the cloth, suggesting a level of anatomical understanding that surpasses the artistic conventions of the time. The absence of the thumbs in the image aligns with what would be expected from nail placement through the wrist, further corroborating the cloth's depiction of crucifixion with historical and anatomical accuracy. This detail challenges the notion that the image could be a medieval creation, as it incorporates a nuanced understanding of human anatomy that was not widely recognized until much later. The precise portrayal of the thumbs adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the cloth's authenticity, suggesting that its creation was the result of direct contact with a crucified body rather than an artistic endeavor. The discussion of this unique anatomical feature at the conference will delve into the intersection of art, history, and medicine, exploring how the cloth's depiction of crucifixion stands apart from contemporary artistic representations. This exploration will contribute to a deeper understanding of the cloth's origins and the events it is believed to represent, highlighting its significance as a historical and religious artifact.

The Masada Stitch

A distinctive feature of the cloth that has intrigued scholars is the three-inch wide side strip, attached with a sewing technique that bears a striking resemblance to a stitch found exclusively at Masada, a site destroyed in 73-74 AD. This unique stitch, nearly identical to the one employed in the construction of textiles unearthed at Masada, provides compelling evidence pointing towards the cloth's creation in the first century. The presence of this stitch on the cloth is more than a mere curiosity; it serves as a tangible link to a specific time and place in history, offering a clue to the cloth's origins that align with the era of the crucifixion. The rarity of this stitching technique, coupled with its geographical and temporal association with Masada, strongly suggests that the cloth, and by extension the side strip, originates from a similar period. The purpose of the three-inch side strip remains a subject of speculation, yet the prevailing theory suggests it was integral to the cloth's original construction. This could indicate a practical aspect of textile making at the time, perhaps related to the dimensions or the intended use of the cloth. The meticulous attachment of this strip, utilizing a stitch characteristic of the period and region, further underscores the cloth's historical authenticity and its potential as a first-century artifact. The discussion of the side strip and its unique stitch at the conference will delve into the broader implications of textile evidence in understanding the cloth's origins. By examining the sewing techniques, materials, and patterns used in the cloth's construction, scholars aim to shed light on the cultural and historical context in which it was made. This exploration not only enriches our understanding of the cloth itself but also offers insights into the textile practices of the era, contributing to a more nuanced appreciation of the artifact's significance in the tapestry of history.

The Limestone Evidence on the Shroud

Among the myriad of clues the cloth offers, one of the most compelling is the presence of small chips of travertine aragonite limestone found in the dirt near the image's feet. This particular type of limestone, known as "Jerusalem limestone," is predominantly found in the Jerusalem area, offering a geographical marker that ties the cloth directly to this historic locale. The spectral analysis of these limestone particles reveals a near-identical match with samples from the area surrounding the Damascus Gate, the gateway nearest to Golgotha, the site traditionally recognized as the location of the crucifixion. This remarkable correspondence in the spectral signature between the limestone on the cloth and that of Jerusalem's environs strongly suggests that the individual whose death is memorialized on the cloth had indeed traversed the streets of Jerusalem before the crucifixion. The specificity of this limestone, unique to Jerusalem, serves as a geological fingerprint, providing substantive evidence that anchors the cloth in a specific time and place. The implications of this finding extend beyond mere geographical significance; they offer a tangible connection to the historical setting of the crucifixion narrative. This limestone evidence supports the authenticity of the cloth as a burial shroud of someone who was in Jerusalem in the first century, aligning with the historical period of the events described in the New Testament. As scholars gather to discuss the multifaceted evidence presented by the cloth, the limestone findings will be a focal point, offering insights into the environmental and geological context of the era. This discussion will explore the integration of geological science with historical and scriptural analysis, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the cloth's origins and the events it is believed to depict. Through this interdisciplinary exploration, the limestone evidence on the cloth stands as a testament to the historical and geographical authenticity of the narrative it bears. There is one item that should be on a burial cloth such as this that is not present.  That one item is the product of the body's decay.  There are no body decay products on the Shroud of Turin, even though the pristine nature of the blood marks indicates that this Shroud was not lifted off of the body from which the blood had come.




Pre-1355 History of the Shroud:  Evolution of Christ Iconography

Chronology of the Shroud

On August 9th, 48 BC, a significant event in the Roman Civil War unfolded at Pharsalus in central Greece, where Julius Caesar and his legions triumphed over the larger forces led by Pompey the Great, aligned with the Roman Senate. Following his defeat, Pompey fled with remnants of his army to Egypt, only to be assassinated upon his arrival. Caesar, chasing Pompey, arrived in Alexandria to find himself amid Egypt's civil conflict, becoming a target for local factions. Facing a large Egyptian military force aiming to eliminate him, Caesar's situation seemed dire. At this critical juncture, Antipater the Idumaen, a lesser-known leader from near Judea, intervened significantly. Josephus documented Antipater's arrival with 3,000 armed Jewish men, alongside support from Arabs and Syrians, bolstering Caesar's position. This support not only facilitated Caesar's survival but also contributed to the eventual shift from the Roman Republic to Caesar's autocratic rule. Caesar, in gratitude, appointed Antipater as procurator of Judea, laying the foundations for the Herodian Dynasty, which would have profound implications for early Christian history. Antipater's son, Herod the Great, and his descendants, including Herod Agrippa and Herod Antipas, played pivotal roles in the New Testament narratives, from the massacre of Bethlehem's infants to the crucifixion of Jesus and the persecution of early Christians. Despite the Herodians' adversarial actions towards Christianity, Antipater's aid to Caesar indirectly fostered the religion's growth. Caesar's subsequent decrees granted religious freedoms to Jews throughout the Roman Empire, inadvertently creating conducive environments for the spread of Christianity. These Jewish communities and their synagogues, along with their Gentile neighbors, became fertile ground for the missionary efforts of early Christian figures like Peter and Paul, significantly aiding in the propagation of the Christian faith.

In 34 AD, following the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, in Jerusalem, a wave of persecution swept through the early Christian community. This led to many followers of Jesus seeking refuge beyond the city, spreading their message to Jewish communities in Phoenicia, Cyprus, and particularly in Antioch. It's believed that Barnabas was dispatched to Antioch, possibly on the instruction of Peter. At that time, Antioch was a major urban center of the Roman Empire, ranked only behind Rome and Alexandria in Egypt in terms of importance. Around 40 AD, under the guidance of Barnabas and later Paul, Christian missionaries in Antioch began to increasingly direct their evangelistic efforts towards non-Jewish populations. This marked the beginning of Antioch's pivotal role as a hub for Christian missionary activity. Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Antioch emerged as the preeminent center of Christianity, boasting the largest Christian community in the world at that time. It was in Antioch that the term "Christian" was first coined, earning the city the title "Cradle of Christianity." Additionally, St. Luke, a native of Antioch, composed both the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles within this vibrant city.

Peter's missionary endeavors are less clearly defined than Paul's well-documented journeys. While we don't have precise dates and routes for Peter's travels, insights can be gleaned from the First Epistle of Peter. This letter, possibly penned by Peter from Rome around 60-63 AD or by a follower between 70-90 AD, is a theological gem of the New Testament, offering deep insights into Christology, the nature of the Church, and Christian conduct. The epistle's greeting hints at Peter's missionary reach, addressing believers scattered across Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. This suggests Peter's involvement in these regions, whether through direct visits or his influence. Further historical texts, like the fifth or sixth-century Doctrine of the Apostles, record Peter's foundational role in establishing the church in areas including Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, and Galatia, leading up to his time in Rome. Peter's timeline, traditionally accepted, includes:

Around 35 AD, Peter is believed to have played a key role in founding the church in Antioch, later returning to Jerusalem by around 40 AD, and being present there in 42 AD. In 42 AD, Peter faced threats from Herod Agrippa, leading to his miraculous escape from imprisonment. Despite Acts of the Apostles mentioning Peter's brief stay in Caesarea, many scholars speculate his journey led him to Rome, a significant center for the Jewish diaspora and fertile ground for spreading the Gospel. Peter is noted to have returned to Jerusalem around 44 AD for the Jerusalem Council, which took place circa 49-50 AD. This council was pivotal in deciding that Gentile converts need not fully adhere to Jewish customs, including circumcision. Following the council, tradition places Peter back in Antioch until around 54-55 AD, after which he is said to have embarked on a second journey to Rome. Peter's final years were spent evangelizing in Rome and Italy, culminating in his martyrdom under Emperor Nero, approximately between 64-68 AD. This timeline, while not exhaustive, sketches a broad outline of Peter's contributions to the early Christian mission, reflecting his pivotal role alongside Paul in the spread of Christianity.

Between 68 and 70 AD, amidst the turmoil and onset of hostilities in Jerusalem involving Jewish zealots and Roman authorities, key Christian artifacts, including an "image of our Holy Lord and Savior," were transported out of the city for safety. This period followed the martyrdom of James in 62 AD and was marked by escalating tensions that eventually led to open conflict in 66 AD. Recognizing the imminent danger, members of the Jerusalem Church sought refuge, many heading towards Antioch and other safe havens in Syria. This exodus, including the safeguarding of sacred objects, is documented in a sermon attributed to Saint Athanasius, the 4th-century Bishop of Alexandria. Delivered during the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, Athanasius' sermon recounts the careful removal of a significant Christian relic, described as a full-length "image of our Lord and Savior," from Jerusalem to Syria around 68 AD, as part of the broader effort to protect the Christian community and its heritage from the perils of the Jewish-Roman conflict.

“But two years before Titus and Vespasian sacked the city, the faithful and disciples of Christ were warned by the Holy Spirit to depart from the city and go to the kingdom of King Agrippa II, because at that time Agrippa II was a Roman ally. Leaving the city, they went to his regions and carried everything relating to our faith. At that time even the icon with certain other ecclesiastical objects were moved and they today still remain in Syria. I possess this information as handed down to me from my migrating parents and by hereditary right. It is plain and certain why the icon of our Holy Lord and Savior came from Judaea to Syria."
Encyclopedia, Vol. V, Robert Appleton Company (New York 1907-1914)




Apostle Thaddeus and King Abgar Icon. St. Catherine monastery (Sinai) Byzantine. Empire, 10th C.

The Image of Edessa

The Image of Edessa, also known as the Mandylion, is intertwined with the tale of how Christianity came to Edessa. The legend of the Mandylion claims that  Taddai brought the Shroud soon after 33AD to Edessa.   This story is told in the document known as "The Teaching of Addai," a text that dates back to the late 4th or early 5th century. According to tradition, King Abgar V of Edessa, suffering from an illness, heard of Jesus Christ's miraculous healings and sent a correspondence to him, requesting both healing and that Jesus seek refuge in his city. In the account recorded in "The Teaching of Addai," rather than Jesus Himself visiting Edessa, He sends one of His disciples, Thaddeus (also referred to as Addai), in His stead after the Ascension. Thaddeus arrives in Edessa, heals King Abgar, and facilitates the conversion of the king and his subjects to Christianity.

Tetradiplon

In examining the various terms associated with the Image of Edessa, one particularly significant Greek word stands out: 'tetradiplon', used exclusively in Greek literature to describe this image. Its unique application indicates a distinct characteristic of the Image, setting it apart from other depictions of Christ. Surprisingly, modern historians have largely overlooked the importance of this term and its implications, which might challenge prevailing assumptions about the Image. Understanding 'tetradiplon' is not straightforward, despite its apparent simplicity. The word combines the elements for "four" and "fold over in two." However, it's unclear whether this implies the cloth was folded over twice to create four layers, folded in four to make eight layers (four double layers), or folded in a manner resulting in sixteen layers. Since 'tetradiplon' is uniquely associated with the Image of Edessa and no comparative object exists, deciphering its exact meaning is challenging. The term 'diplon', meaning folded in two, creates two layers. However, there are no similar numerical terms like 'triplon' or 'hexaplon'. Words like 'diploos' mean double, and 'hexaploos' means six times larger, but these don't provide a clear comparison for 'tetradiplon'. If 'diplon' signifies two layers, 'tetradiplon' could imply either sixteen layers (folded over twice four times) or eight layers (four double layers achieved through three folds). However, there's a method of folding a large cloth involving four actions to achieve four double layers: first folding it in half, then in quarters three times. The exclusive use of 'tetradiplon' for the Image of Edessa signifies its significance in understanding the cloth's appearance. If the Image was folded multiple times, it couldn't have been imprinted onto a solid surface like wood. The term suggests the cloth was reasonably large, larger than what would be required for just a facial image. This inference, supported by John Damascene's description of it as 'himatión' (a large piece of cloth), is a crucial yet often overlooked point in understanding the nature of the Image of Edessa.

In the "Acts of Thaddaeus," as well as in texts derived from it, the cloth associated with Jesus is referred to as τετράδιπλον. A translation from 1978 notes that τετράδιπλον literally means "folded in four." Building on this detail, there's a hypothesis suggesting that the image from Edessa and the Shroud of Turin might be the same. This theory posits that if the Shroud were folded four times, it would display only the head and upper torso of the figure depicted. As a result, it is conjectured that observers might perceive it merely as a smaller cloth imprinted with the face of Jesus, not realizing that a full body image was concealed within the layers.

Petrus Soons: he HALO that has been discovered in a variety of photographs and that fits the size of the round opening in the TETRADIPLON, showing only the head of the Man on the Shroud, is a very strong indication that IAN WILSON’s theory that the Shroud of Turin and the Cloth of Edessa (Tetradiplon, Mandylion) are identical is true. Because there is no anatomical detail visible of the surface of the body in the region of the upper thorax of the image of the Man on the Shroud, the head looks like disembodied and floating. That was probably the reason that for many centuries people did not know and realize that this cloth contained the image of the whole front and back of the body, apart from the fact that the TETRADIPLON was mounted, framed and covered with a precious cloth, leaving the round opening showing the face only. This object was considered so sacred that very few people were permitted to even touch or see it. This discovery means also that we can date the Shroud of Turin to at least the year 525 A.D. when the Cloth of Edessa was rediscovered in the niche above the city gate. This would also prove that the sample that was taken from the Shroud for the Radiocarbon Dating of 1988 was not representative for the whole Shroud.

TWO OTHER DETAILS VISIBLE IN AND AROUND THE HALO THAT WE WILL FIND BACK IN BYZANTINE ART
When you take a good size photograph of the whole Shroud and double it in four you will find on one side the image of the face only. Reconstructing what the Byzantine artist did in the past when framing the image and finding the center of the circle around the head, you will first make a vertical line in the middle of the cloth and then make a horizontal line crossing both eyes. (artistically spoken the center of the face is between both eyes). Where the vertical and horizontal line cross you will find the center that you need to construct the circle to create the round opening in the covering precious cloth to make the face visible. Now we have the round opening in the middle of the cloth. If you do that you will find that the center of the circle will end up IN THE CORNER OF THE RIGHT EYE. The reason for this is that the image of the Man on the Shroud is not exactly in the middle of the cloth but displaced about 2-3 cm to the left side of the median line.
The measurements of the Mandylion are 113 cm x 55.2 cm, when the cloth is “doubled in four”. A second observation is that the border of the covering on the top of our HALO is smaller than the border on the bottom of the Halo. The diameter of the HALO was measured by me to be about 48 cm.




Acheiropoietos

Another term often associated with the Image of Edessa is 'acheiropoietos', meaning 'not made by human hands'. This term is notably absent in the Septuagint (LXX), likely due to the absence of an equivalent Hebrew word. The positive form 'cheiropoietos' appears in contexts like Isaiah 2:18, where it is used to mock the statues of false gods, described as human-made. In the New Testament, the concept of 'acheiropoietos' emerges as a distinctly Christian idea. Mark 14:58 contrasts a human-built temple with a spiritual temple that Christ would establish, and 2 Corinthians 5:1 and Colossians 2:11 use the term to describe heavenly dwellings and spiritual circumcision, contrasting them with their earthly, human-made counterparts. The adjective 'acheiropoietos' wouldn't apply to an obviously painted icon. Yet, in the earliest account of the Image's origin in the Doctrine of Addai, dating around AD 400, it is explicitly stated that Hanan, the king's archivist and artist, painted Jesus’ portrait. This account gives no indication of a miraculous origin for the Image. This description raises questions about whether the author had seen the Image and, if it was indeed a painting, why later versions diverge so significantly. Subsequent narratives uniformly assert that the Image was not a painting but an 'acheiropoietos' – an image not made by human hands. Interestingly, some copies of the Narratio de imagine Edessena on Mount Athos show uncertainty about this. When referring to Abgar's belief in the Image on the cloth, the text suggests that it might be a painted image, although in first-hand texts from Megistes Lavras and Iveron, the negative ('not') appears to be a later addition. Megistes Lavras 644 and von Dobschütz's version omit the negative, implying that the Image is a painting. However, considering the overall context of these manuscripts, this is likely a copyist's error, later corrected to maintain consistency with the general understanding that the Image was an 'acheiropoietos'.

Regardless of the actual nature of the Image of Edessa, it was most likely not a painting, and therefore, a non-human creation. This viewpoint aligns with the chosen terminology in the text, emphasizing the Image's divine origin.
Michael Whitby introduces a compelling theory about the origin of the term 'acheiropoietos' as applied to the Image of Edessa. He refers to Procopius, who describes a Persian mound in Edessa that was set ablaze with divine assistance, attributed to the Image, as 'heiros kheirpoiētos'. The use of this term, implying divine intervention, eventually became associated with the Image itself. Hans Belting, however, considers the term 'acheiropoietos' overly complex and contradictory. He argues that an image not made by human hands paradoxically implies it is not an image at all but the actual body. This interpretation, however, seems to diverge significantly from the intentions of the authors who described the Image of Edessa as 'acheiropoietos'. Their description implies a miraculous creation of the Image through divine power, not a human-made painting. Andrew of Crete (circa 660-740 AD) further clarifies this concept, explicitly stating that the Image of Edessa was not a painting: "First of all, the sacred image of our Lord Jesus Christ that was sent to Abgar the ruler, which is an imprint of his bodily form and owes nothing at all to work with paint..." This statement strongly supports the notion that the Image was a miraculous imprint of Christ's form, distinct from any painted representation.

Mandylion

The term "Mandylion" became prevalent when the Image of Edessa was brought to Constantinople. Theories about the origin of this word vary, with many suggesting a link to the Arabic 'mandil'. However, it seems almost implausible to disregard the influence of similar words in various languages: Greek 'mantilion' and 'mandalion', Latin 'mantilium', Aramaic 'mantila', and late Greek 'mandikē'. These terms typically refer to a large cloth, like a monk's mantle or a tablecloth. Another term often associated with the image on the cloth is 'morphē'. This word is central to the discussion in Philippians 2:6-7-8, where it is debated whether it implies that Jesus was equal to God or, as Adam was made in the image ('eikōn') of God, Jesus was less than God. Other words used to describe the Image of Edessa include 'sindon' (linen cloth), 'eikōn' (image), 'sudarium' (John Damascene, the Letter of the Three Patriarchs), 'ptukhion' (Leo the Deacon), and 'epi tō prosōpō' (on the face). However, none of these terms provide additional clarity about the precise nature of the Image of Edessa.


A full-body image

In his "Historia Ecclesiastica," Ordericus Vitalis provides a somewhat perplexing account of the image Christ sent to Abgar: Abgar, the ruler of Edessa, received a sacred letter from Lord Jesus, along with a precious linen cloth. Jesus had used this cloth to wipe the sweat from his face, and on this cloth, the image of the Savior was miraculously imprinted, shining forth. This image astonishingly revealed both the form and the size of the Lord's body to all who beheld it. At first glance, the description suggests that the image on the cloth should only be of Jesus' face, as that was what he wiped with it. However, Vitalis then indicates that viewers of the cloth could see an image of the entire body of the Lord. This appears contradictory: how could a cloth used to wipe Jesus' face display an image of his full body? Yet, such contradictions were not uncommon among writers of that era, who often seemed less concerned with consistency than contemporary authors might be. The narrative surrounding the Image of Edessa evolved, adapting, and expanding as new contexts emerged. The various attributes of the Image, as described in different documents, were likely adaptations to suit specific circumstances rather than discoveries of inherent qualities of the Image itself. Understanding what might prompt authors to describe the Image as a full-body representation is challenging unless such a portrayal was based on the actual appearance of the Image. Each new generation reinterprets and transforms texts, blending past and present. This approach implies that modifications to the text, including changes in details, reflect more about the beliefs of the readers or listeners than the original author's intentions. In the case of a tangible object like the Image of Edessa, later additions or observations could be more accurate than earlier accounts, particularly if they are based on direct eyewitness evidence rather than mere hearsay. These later accounts might correct earlier misunderstandings. Definitive conclusions about the origins of the Image of Edessa are elusive. The exact timing of its first mention in historical records is uncertain, as is the period of its actual creation. There exists a longstanding tradition that the Image was hidden and rediscovered centuries later. Its association with Christ and the assertion that it was not made by human hands were not crucial for establishing its ancient connection to Christianity in Edessa.

The letter attributed to Christ and the dispatch of a disciple named Thaddaeus or Addai was a more explicit way of suggesting that Christianity had deep roots in Edessa from early times. However, such traditions need to be critically examined for additional evidence. The diverse and often contradictory conclusions drawn by researchers about the origins of the Image of Edessa highlight the uncertainty surrounding its emergence. Regarding the nature and appearance of the Image, it is widely believed, based on various accounts, to have been a linen cloth bearing the face of Jesus. This depiction is consistent with the most popular legend, in which Jesus, during Ananias's visit, presses a cloth to his face and sends it back to Abgar. This version suggests that the Image was a miraculous facial imprint of Christ made during his lifetime. However, the narrative becomes more complex. A different account, emerging around the tenth century, speaks of a cloth pressed to Jesus's face during his agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. This version appears in Gregory Referendarius' sermon when the Image was moved from Edessa to Constantinople. The "Narratio de imagine Edessena" presents both the Gethsemane and Ananias versions, indicating a hesitance to forsake the traditional account while acknowledging the newer one. The author admits the existence of two versions without endorsing either as definitive.

During the 8th through 10th centuries, additional evidence suggests that this is a large, folded cloth depicting Christ's full, bloodied body.

The 8th through mid-10th centuries were to make the Holy Image of Edessa the most famous icon in the Christian world, offer clues as to its physical appearance, but also reflect predictable contradictions stemming from the great secrecy in which it was kept. John of Damascus (d. 749), a defender of image veneration, wrote “he [Jesus] took a cloth (rakos) and applied it to his face and impressed on it his own likeness (charakter), which is preserved until the present day” (Cameron 1998: 40). This description, similar to and perhaps derived from the Acts of Thaddeus, appears to be the most common way of understanding it during these centuries. Pilgrims traveling to the Holy Lands and Syrian-educated churchmen migrating elsewhere would undoubtedly spread what they heard about the Image. It is said that Pope Stephen (752 – 757) remarked “that he had often heard the story from those coming from the eastern parts of how Christ imprinted his face on a linen cloth and sent it to Abgar” (Chrysostomides 1997: xxxiii). Texts from outside greater Syria mentioning the Image are few before the later 8th century, but the great iconoclastic controversy (726 – 843) gave a major boost to its notoriety. Iconodules (“image lovers”) used it to argue Christ sanctioned pictures by making one himself.

In the image-friendly atmosphere of the Second Council of Nicaea (787) the Edessa Icon was noted several times, and Evagrius’ history was used to help explain its past. The assembled ecclesiastics were concerned “with establishing the proper degree of respect for religious images-veneration (proskynesis), but not worship (lateria)” (Cameron 1998: 45). Theodore Abu Qurrah, from the same monastery and with the same theological views as John of Damascus, wrote (very early in the 9th century) “As for the image of Christ ... it is honored by veneration especially in our city, Edessa, the blessed, at definite times, with its own feasts and pilgrimages” (Cameron 1998: 46). By the early 10th century Alexandrian Patriarch Eutychius assigns a lofty status to the Image writing “the most wonderful of His relics which Christ has bequeathed to us is a napkin in the Church of ar-Ruha [i.e., Edessa] .... With this Christ wiped His face and there was fixed on it a clear image, not made by painting or drawing or engraving and not changing” (Cameron 1983: 90). Eutychius uses the Arabic word mandil, usually understood to mean a handkerchief-sized cloth; other writers sometimes used “sweat-cloth” (soudarion), again suggesting modest size. These writers certainly imply that Christ’s imprint (ektypoma) was only of his face.

From the 8th to the mid-10th centuries, the Holy Image of Edessa gained renown as the most celebrated icon in Christianity. This period offers insights into its physical characteristics, although the secrecy surrounding it led to inevitable contradictions in descriptions. John of Damascus, an advocate for the veneration of images, who died in 749, described the Image as Jesus imprinting his likeness onto a cloth, a view mirroring the Acts of Thaddeus and widely accepted at the time. The story of the Image likely spread through pilgrims visiting the Holy Lands and Syrian-educated churchmen relocating to other regions. Pope Stephen, reigning from 752 to 757, reportedly heard tales from Eastern travelers about Christ transferring his facial image onto a linen cloth for King Abgar.

References to the Image outside the greater Syrian region were scarce until the late 8th century. However, the Iconoclastic Controversy (726 – 843) significantly amplified its fame. Proponents of icon veneration, called Iconodules, cited the Image as evidence of Christ's endorsement of images, as he himself created one. The Second Council of Nicaea in 787, fostering a pro-image environment, mentioned the Edessa Icon multiple times, using Evagrius' history to elucidate its background. The Council focused on defining the appropriate reverence for religious images: veneration (proskynesis) but not worship (latria).

Theodore Abu Qurrah, sharing theological views with John of Damascus and belonging to the same monastery, wrote in the early 9th century about the special veneration the Image received in Edessa, including dedicated feasts and pilgrimages. By the early 10th century, Alexandrian Patriarch Eutychius elevated the Image's significance, describing it as a miraculous napkin (mandil in Arabic, implying a small cloth) housed in the Church of ar-Ruha (Edessa). He emphasized the Image's enduring nature, not created by human artistry and unchanging over time. The term "sweat-cloth" (soudarion) used by some writers suggests its modest size, and it's clear from these accounts that the imprint (ektypoma) on the cloth was solely of Christ's face.

During these centuries, the emergence of new Christ images shows a notable influence from both the Shroud face and the Edessa Image. Wilson posited that artists replicated the facial area visible through the circular opening of the Image's slip cover, adapting it into various depictions of Jesus (Wilson 1979). This idea aligns with Vignon's earlier observation that numerous Pantocrator (Christ Enthroned) images bore a strong resemblance to the Shroud face, evident in the presence of distinctive "Vignon markings" (Wilson 1991).



One particular image in Rome’s Catacomb of St. Pontianus, dating back to the 7th century, drew attention due to its unorthodox features, such as an open topped square between Christ’s eyebrows, in addition to other characteristics aligned with the Shroud face, like a raised eyebrow and a long nose with one enlarged nostril (Wilson 1991).


Two 6th-century artworks in Rome – the mosaic in St. John Lateran and a painted panel in the Sancta Sanctorum Chapel – were both labeled as acheiropoietos, suggesting their inspiration from an original "not made by hands" image.

No known depictions of the Image in its frame exist from before the 10th century, yet certain works seem to capture the Christ face within a circular halo, similar to later representations of the Icon. Wilson identified two late 6th-century pilgrims' flasks (believed to be based on a now-lost mosaic from Jerusalem) and a 7th-century icon of Saints Sergius and Bacchus in Kiev, each featuring a rigid, front-facing face within a circular field (Wilson 1979).
The Veronica portrait, a revered Vatican relic potentially dating to the 8th century (though Wilson suggests the early 11th), is often considered by scholars to be a derivative of the Edessa Image (Meagher 2003). The more widely known Veronica image, displaying a very realistic face, likely diverges from the original icon’s appearance, which is thought to have had a more blurry, impressionistic texture akin to the Shroud.
During this era, the prevailing notion that the Edessa Icon was merely a small cloth depicting Jesus' face is contested by accounts implying a connection to the Turin Shroud and suggesting a larger cloth with more comprehensive imagery.

Wilson's observation of the term "tetradiplon" in the Acts of Thaddeus is particularly noteworthy. This term, indicating a cloth "doubled in four," in a narrative not primarily about the Image but rather Edessa's evangelization, implies firsthand knowledge of this unique characteristic. This detail becomes meaningful if the cloth was large, bearing a face in the same position as on the Turin Shroud. Andrew of Crete in the early 8th century described the Image as the imprint of Christ's "bodily appearance," diverging from descriptions limited to just a face. This implies a cloth large enough to cover a body, raising questions about its actual size compared to a mandil. John Damascene's reference to Christ imprinting his facial image onto Hanan's himation, an outer garment approximately the size of the Shroud, further supports this larger size hypothesis. The Image's color and texture are alluded to in the account of Athanasius bar Gumoye’s painter who reportedly "dulled" its colors. A 9th-century Constantinople writer, referring to an earlier description by Patriarch Germanos, described the Image’s face as "sweat-soaked." This term could be an attempt to describe the Shroud's unique, diffuse, monochromatic, and moist-like appearance, familiar to those acquainted with the icon colors of that era. Massoudi, a 10th-century Muslim historian, seemingly unaware of the Abgar story, understood the cloth to be used for drying Christ after baptism. Scavone interprets this as indicating a larger cloth used on a damp body, a more straightforward, natural explanation. Massoudi's awareness that the Icon "circulated" before reaching the Edessa cathedral suggests there may have been more extensive knowledge about its early history that has not been preserved. Yet, these references are merely suggestive. A more definitive link between the Icon and the Shroud would require a clear assertion of a full-body image, specifically depicting Christ’s Passion. Such evidence, indeed, does exist.

In the 1960s and 1970s, research into the Image of Edessa initially overlooked significant evidence that the Syrian custodians of the Icon might have been aware of the concealed full-body image within its folds. It was believed that the cloth was folded and framed during the time of Abgar and remained unchanged until the 11th century. However, a 12th-century Latin text by the monk Odericus Vitalis, one of the earliest to reveal the full-body image, suggested a different story. Ernest von Dobschutz, a 19th-century historian, had noted that this and similar Latin documents from around the same period, which reported a full-body image, likely had their origins in a Syriac text from around 800. This hypothesis was further supported in 1993 with the discovery of an earlier Latin text from the 10th century, known as Vossianus Latinus Q69. These manuscripts, containing the "Oldest Latin Abgar Legend," suggest that the Edessa Image depicted the entire body of Jesus and likely originated from a Syriac source predating 769. In these texts, Jesus responds to Abgar's request for a visitation by promising to send a linen cloth. This cloth, as described, would reveal not just the features of Jesus' face but a divinely replicated image of his entire body. The narrative then continues to unfold, providing further insights into the history and nature of the Edessa Image.

The 10th-century tract Vossianus Latinus Q69, translating a probable 8th-century Syriac text, describes the Edessa cloth as depicting a whole-body image of Christ. This revelation began to hint at the true nature of the icon, previously thought to be just a facial imprint. The tract vividly describes how Jesus laid his entire body on a white linen cloth, resulting in the divine transfer of not only the lordly features of his face but also the majestic form of his entire body. This linen, remarkably preserved over time, was said to be housed in a great cathedral in Edessa, Syrian Mesopotamia. The original source of this legend, likely an earlier Syriac text, brings into focus the possibility that the Edessa Image aligns with the image on the Shroud. Furthermore, some of these texts, including Vossianus Latinus Q69, subtly hint at a connection between the cloth and Christ’s Passion. One particular passage describes how the cloth's appearance changed throughout Easter day, mirroring Christ’s life stages from infancy in the early hours to the fullness of age at the ninth hour, coinciding with the time of Christ’s Passion and Crucifixion. This description, suggesting a dynamic and evolving image, has led some scholars to speculate that the Edessa cloth could have borne a wounded, bloodied whole-body image similar to that on the Shroud. The text implies that the image might have been revealed progressively during an Easter ritual. However, a clearer understanding of these mysteries would require additional evidence, ideally from eyewitness accounts. By the later part of the 10th century, more such witnesses appear, providing further clarification on the nature of the Edessa Image.

Vossianus Latinus Q69, describing the Edessa Icon, also intriguingly mentions a mysterious Easter ceremony during which the image seemed to transform throughout the day to depict various stages of Christ's life, culminating in his Passion. This reference to a dynamic, changing image during a ritual adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of the Icon. In the early 7th century, Byzantium, under Emperor Herakleios, witnessed a series of military victories that briefly restored its glory before the rise of militant Islam, which led to Edessa falling under Muslim control in 639. The subsequent centuries saw the empire endure two Arab sieges of Constantinople and grapple with internal strife, notably the iconoclasm controversy. This period was marked by a division between iconodules, who venerated religious images, and iconoclasts, who opposed them, often with the support of the emperor's authority. This conflict resulted in injuries, banishments, and the destruction of much religious art. Eventually, iconodules triumphed in 843, restoring the use of religious images in Byzantine life. The imperial family played a significant role in religious affairs and sought to acquire major icons and relics for prestige.

In 943, to mark the centenary of the "Triumph of Orthodoxy," Emperor Romanus Lacapenus sent an army to seize the Edessa Image from the Muslims. The declining military might of the Muslims meant little resistance to the Byzantine forces. Although Islam shared an iconoclastic stance, Muslim rulers appreciated the fame and economic benefits brought by pilgrims to cities harboring revered relics. In 944, a deal was struck with the city’s emir, involving payment, prisoner release, and assurance of no further attacks in exchange for the Image. However, the Christian populace resisted, initially offering copies. It was only after a bishop, familiar with the original, identified the true Icon that it was handed over, despite protests from the Edessan people. At this time, the Eastern Christian Empire was nearing its zenith. Constantinople, formerly Byzantium, stood as Europe's most splendid city. It was a hub of art, culture, and commerce, preserving the legacy of the Roman Empire. Its wealth from trade, along with its magnificent palaces, churches, and shrines, made it the envy of the world. This historical backdrop provides context to the reverence and intense devotion the Edessa Icon inspired, as well as the fervor surrounding its eventual transfer to Constantinople.



In the 10th century, Constantinople, Europe's most eminent city and the heart of the Orthodox Christian world, received the Holy Image of Edessa, the most venerated Christ picture of its time, into its treasury of relics. Subsequently, almost all Orthodox churches began to feature representations of this Image within their church art, as noted in the December 1983 issue of National Geographic. The Image was first brought to the Church of St. Mary Blachernae in the city's northwest corner on the evening of August 15, 944, coinciding with the Orthodox celebration of the Assumption of the Virgin. A select group of clergy and nobility gathered to preview this renowned picture. An event, possibly that same night or shortly after, was depicted in a small painted miniature from the 12th or 13th century, part of over 600 illustrations for a history by the Greek John Skylitzes. This miniature shows the aging emperor embracing a cloth with a typical Jesus face, stretched in a picture frame. Adjacent to the Image is a long cloth, possibly indicating the actual size of the cloth or a separate handling cloth used for protection (Crispino 1992).
However, the later artist made a significant error in depicting the Jesus face. According to a 10th-century account by Symenon Magister, the emperor’s sons, present at the viewing, could barely make out a faint face, while their brother-in-law and future emperor, Constantine VII, an artist himself, could discern various facial features. This struggle to interpret the image suggests that the nobility, accustomed to the finest art in Christendom, were actually viewing a blurry image akin to that on the Shroud. The following day, the Image was officially welcomed into the city, described as the new palladium, amidst high psalmody, hymns, and a bright display of torchlight in a procession involving the entire populace. A contemporary history records the event, emphasizing the indescribable joy, tears, prayers, and thanksgiving from the entire city as the divine image was paraded through the streets. This historical account vividly captures the profound impact and reverence the Holy Image of Edessa held upon its arrival in Constantinople.



Shortly after the arrival of the Edessa Image in Constantinople in August 944, Emperor Romanus, his sons, and their entourage had a private viewing of this revered relic. Although a picture made about two hundred years later depicts a clearly imprinted face of Jesus on the cloth, contemporary accounts noted difficulties in discerning the face, as recorded in "The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century, No. 237" (March 1991). During the grand celebration on August 16th, the Holy Image was placed on the Mercy Seat in the Hagia Sophia, the most prestigious church in Constantinople. It was later stored in the Pharos Chapel, a secretive area within the emperor's Great Palace, reserved for the most valued treasures. Around this time, another exclusive viewing occurred, likely for a select few. An 11th-century copy of a sermon preached during this event was discovered in 1986 by Shroud researcher Gino Zaninotto. The sermon was delivered by Gregory, an important cleric and archdeacon of Hagia Sophia, who possibly oversaw the Icon's reception in Constantinople. Gregory revealed in his sermon that a delegation had traveled to Edessa, hoping to uncover manuscripts detailing King Abgar's actions. They found numerous Syriac manuscripts, which they translated into Greek.





Gregory clarified in his sermon that the Image was not created during Christ's ministry, but rather when Jesus, enduring his passion, used the linen cloth to wipe his sweat, which was falling like drops of blood during his agony. As Gregory spoke, the Image was likely more visible to the audience than on any other public occasion. He described the reflection of Jesus' image as imprinted solely by his sweat, falling like drops of blood, and referred to it as the work of God. He mentioned the combination of sweat and image, and also noted the presence of blood on the Image, drawing parallels to the Gospel accounts of blood and water flowing from Jesus' side when lanced on the cross.
Gregory's words initially led many to believe he was indicating a visible wound on the Image, reflecting the wound on Christ's side. However, recent scholarship suggests that the Greek text only shows Gregory reflecting on the Gospel narrative, not observing such a wound in the Image. This interpretation still leaves open the possibility that the Image could have borne a side wound, seen or not. Gregory's account serves as a firsthand testimony, linking the Image more closely to the events of Jesus' Passion, and advancing the association with the Shroud.

After the Edessa Image arrived in Constantinople in August 944, a privileged display was organized, where the knowledgeable cleric, Gregory, observed features reminiscent of “sweat ... falling like drops of blood” from Christ’s head, evoking thoughts of the wound in Jesus’ side. A few years later, Emperor Constantine VII, who had a significant collection of relics, mentioned possessing “blood from his side,” raising questions about its acquisition. In the following year, the Icon was honored with its own feast day on August 16th in the Orthodox calendar. To commemorate this event, a detailed history, possibly authored by Emperor Constantine VII, was written. Known as the "Story of the Image of Edessa," it's the first comprehensive account of the Image's 900-year history, offering a close-up eyewitness perspective since its arrival in Constantinople. Also called the “Festival Sermon,” it claims to be grounded in “painstaking inquiry into the true facts” from historians and Syrian traditions. This work likely drew from the same Syrian manuscripts as Gregory's earlier sermon. The Story recounts King Abgar's ailments and his request for Jesus to come to Edessa. According to the narrative, Jesus declined but promised to send a disciple after ascending to his Father. He then washed his face, leaving an impression of his likeness on the towel. A variation of this story in the manuscript suggests the Image was created during Jesus' agony in Gethsemane, where sweat, likened to drops of blood, transferred his divine face onto the cloth. Thaddaeus, the disciple sent by Christ, brought both the Gospel and the Image to Edessa. Abgar noted the Image's supernatural qualities, observing that its likeness was due to sweat, not pigments. The Story also details how the Image was revered in Edessa, later concealed atop a city gate during a period of Christian persecution, and then rediscovered during a Persian siege, as described by historian Evagrius. The narrative includes numerous miracles and may have been a lecture to a select audience, echoing Gregory's sermon.

However, historians view much of the early history of the cloth as described in the Story with skepticism, considering it semi-legendary. The narrative does not equate the Image with a burial shroud but speculates on the nature of the face, comparing it to blood marks on the Shroud and suggesting the bloody sweat from Gethsemane as a possible cause for its appearance. The Story aligns with a hypothesis that the Shroud, like the Image, was hidden and later rediscovered. 

A significant flood in Edessa in 525 and subsequent rebuilding might have provided an opportunity for this rediscovery, aligning with the emergence of Shroud-like Jesus faces in Ravenna mosaics in the early 540s. Additionally, reports of Assyrian monks associated with the Edessa Image traveling as "icon evangelists" in the early 6th century lend credence to this theory. The Story also recounts a later event in Edessa's history when Turkish forces in 1146 destroyed the Christian civilization there. During their year-long search, they discovered many hidden treasures, suggesting a historical precedent for valuable items being lost and later found.

The early documents hinting at a full-body image on the Edessa Icon, alongside the more explicit claims in the "Oldest Latin Abgar Versions" and the observations of Jesus' Passion made by Gregory and others who closely examined the Image, gradually led its new custodians in Constantinople to consider that what they had acquired in 944 might actually be Christ's burial shroud. By 958, Emperor Constantine VII was aware of several Passion relics in his treasury, as detailed in a letter aimed to bolster his troops near Tarsus. He mentioned possessing relics like the precious wood, the unstained lance, and notably, the life-giving blood from Christ's side, and the sindon, among others. This reference to the sindon is considered the earliest mention of any burial cloth in Constantinople. The precise identity of this sindon has been a subject of debate, especially given the lack of a celebratory welcome for such an important artifact. However, its existence gains clarity in light of the rediscovered Gregory Sermon. If the Edessa Image was indeed the Turin Shroud, it's plausible that the emperor and chief clerics would recognize and utilize it as such. From this point forward, a shroud is documented in Constantinople at least once each century, albeit kept under great secrecy and never directly shown to the public until just before its 1204 departure.

The term "Mandylion," commonly used to refer to the Edessa Image and derived from the Arabic word "mandil" (handkerchief), was not initially used as a name for the Icon upon its arrival in Constantinople in 944. It became more commonly used later in the 10th century, although not by its caretakers. The late 10th-century writer Leon Diaconos still describes it as a large cloth, calling it a peplos (robe). Monasteries on Mt. Athos around this time or slightly later recorded the old Abgar stories, with the king now asking for a full-body painting of Christ. Once in Constantinople, a painted picture of the Image became standard in most Eastern churches, with the original considered the source of Christ's true appearance. Early depictions typically show Jesus' face in a circular opening of an ornate, trellis-pattern slipcover. The Icon's horizontal, landscape shape in many early pictures aligns with the Shroud being "doubled in four." Why the Edessa Image's true nature as a burial shroud was not openly declared raises questions. The depiction of a brutally beaten, bloodied, and naked Christ on the Shroud was contrary to early Christian sensibilities, which found such imagery abhorrent. Early Christian art was hesitant to depict Christ realistically on the cross, with more vivid portrayals emerging only in the 13th century in the West. The stark reality of the crucifixion's effects visible on the Shroud likely led to its cautious handling and prudent silence about its true nature. Understanding of the Christian Orient at the time suggests that the guardians of the Shroud were unlikely to publicly display it, particularly in conservative regions like Syria and even in the relatively more liberal Constantinople. Furthermore, Constantinople's authorities faced the challenge of how to present such a sensitive and significant relic.

The dilemma faced by new Emperor Constantine VII and the Orthodox tradition was how to reconcile the deeply ingrained story of the Edessa Image, a face cloth believed to bear the imprint of Jesus, with emerging evidence suggesting it was more than just a facial portrait. This Icon had become a celebrated part of extra-biblical stories and a pillar in Orthodox tradition. The idea that it might have been something else all along would have been a challenging revelation for both the emperor and the patriarch. The Edessans had seemingly promoted the story of the Abgar facial portrait to obscure the full truth of the Image. However, various hints and versions of the story, including mentions of tetradiplon, himation, and the "Oldest Latin Abgar Legend" which alluded to a full-body image, indicated that the true nature of the relic was gradually being revealed. Faced with this situation, Emperor Constantine VII seems to have chosen a more nuanced approach. A possible solution was the introduction of a copy of the Mandylion into the emperor’s collection of relics. This strategy allowed for the continuation of the old Abgar tradition while simultaneously acknowledging the presence of burial linens. By the late 11th century, records indicate the existence of both a Mandylion and burial shrouds, suggesting that the original Edessa Image may have functioned in both capacities for a time. The Byzantines could thus preserve the old traditions and avoid disclosing the true origins of the new shroud. An additional point of interest regarding the Edessa Image, now referred to as the Mandylion and potentially also the Shroud of Constantinople, is the possibility of it having been folded or “doubled in four” for centuries. This hypothesis is supported by the presence of fold marks at one-eighth length intervals on the Turin Shroud, as observed by Dr. John Jackson, a leading scientist on the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research team. These folding patterns, not known to have been used during the Shroud's documented history since the 14th century, along with other crease lines, suggest a complex history yet to be fully uncovered.

In 1939 Paul Vignon, Professor of the Catholic Institute in Paris, published his second book on the Shroud, Le Saint Suaire de Turin, devant la Science, l’Archéologie, l’Histoire, l’Iconographie, la Logique. A large format, greatly expanded successor to his first book, Le Linceul du Christ. Etude Scientifique,from 1902.



THE VIGNON MARKINGS. The French scholar Paul Vignon noticed these and other markings recurring in Byzantine portraits of Jesus, seemingly deriving from features visible on the Shroud

(1) Transverse streak across forehead,
(2) three-sided "square" between brows,
(3) V shape at bridge of nose,
(4) second V within marking 2,
(5) raised right eyebrow,
(6) accentuated left cheek,
(7) accentuated right cheek,
(8 )enlarged left nostril,
(9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip,
(10) heavy line under lower lip,
(11) hairless area between lower lip and beard,
(12) forked beard,
(13) transverse line across throat,
(14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes,
(15) two strands of hair.

French researcher Paul Vignon identified an additional fourteen unique features commonly found in Byzantine portraits of Christ, which appear to be derived from the Shroud. Among these features is a distinct triangle situated just below the "topless square," an anomaly also present in the Shroud. This topless square, akin to a trail of clues left behind, acts as evidence of the Shroud's existence six centuries prior to the date suggested by carbon dating. Regarding the Image's location in Edessa after its rediscovery, the city faced a devastating flood in 525, resulting in the tragic loss of thirty thousand lives. At that time, the Byzantine Empire was ruled by Emperor Justin I, soon to be succeeded by his accomplished nephew Justinian, famed for constructing the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Justinian invested heavily in Edessa's recovery, including rerouting the Daisan river to prevent future floods and reconstructing the city walls. It is speculated that during these renovations, the Image may have been found hidden in the old Kappe gateway. Furthermore, Justinian built a splendid new cathedral in Edessa, mirroring the grandeur of the Hagia Sophia, which could have served as a new home for the Image.

Although no remnants of the cathedral are visible today in Şanliurfa, historical accounts describe it with great admiration. Comparable to the ambiance created by the water-surrounded mosques in Şanliurfa’s fish-pools area, the cathedral was constructed entirely from stone, topped with a dome reminiscent of the one in Constantinople. Its marble, noted for its texture, was even compared to the ‘Image not made by hand’—another nod to the 6th-century portrayal of the Image. The cathedral's interior once boasted mosaics, and while these are no longer intact, their craftsmanship can be inferred from the contemporary mosaics found in a Byzantine governor's villa in Şanliurfa’s Haleplibahce Park. The Hagia Sophia of Edessa became the renowned residence for the Image after its long concealment, playing a role similar to the Temple of Jerusalem that housed the Ark of the Covenant. The Image was celebrated in Syriac hymns as containing 'the very essence of God.' Despite the apparent security of the Image in its new cathedral, Edessa was never far from strife. Between 609 and 626, the Persian ruler Khosraw II seized control of Edessa, likely with the assistance of the city's Monophysite community, who opposed the Byzantine Empire's Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. Khosraw handed over all Orthodox churches, including the Hagia Sophia, to the Monophysites and began looting their treasures. The city was on the verge of losing its citizens to enslavement when Byzantine Emperor Heraclius recaptured Edessa. However, soon after Heraclius restored the churches, a new threat appeared: Islam. Edessa's Eastern Syriac-speaking population had always had a tenuous relationship with their Greek-speaking rulers in distant Constantinople. Consequently, when the Islamic Arabs arrived, there was little resistance from the locals. Under the Arabs’ generally tolerant rule of Christianity at that time, the Image's safety seemed assured. For a time, the Image existed in a peculiar equilibrium, where Edessa's Christian factions—Orthodox, Monophysite, and Nestorian—were kept in check by their Islamic rulers. A letter from a Nestorian bishop from this period refers to Edessa as a chosen sanctuary by God, hinting at a complete body imprint on the Image, similar to the Turin Shroud. However, if the Image of Edessa was indeed the Shroud, it was on the cusp of a dramatic turn of events.

1. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sn096Aug96.pdf
2. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sn088Apr95.pdf
3. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi42part10.pdf
4. https://www.shroudofturin.com/Resources/CRTSUM.pdf
5. https://biblearchaeology.org/research/the-shroud-of-turin/2284-the-shroud-of-turins-earlier-history-part-one-to-edessa?highlight=WyJqb2huIiwiam9obidzIiwiJ2pvaG4iXQ==
6. https://www.oldest.org/artliterature/jesus-paintings/
7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291332530_La_Sindone_e_l'iconografia_di_Cristo
8. https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.511

The Shroud of Turin and Ancient Coins: Tracing the Shroud's History Before the 13th Century


In ancient times, several coins depicted the face of Christ.  Byzantine coins back to about 692 AD contain images very similar to the image on the Shroud. Many believe that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval artifact of the 1300s and is therefore after the Byzantine Empire that flourished until to 1204, the year of the fall of its capital, Constantinople. Some experts have claimed that the image of the face on the Byzantine coins of the first millennium is remarkably similar to the face on the Shroud probably because the fourteenth-century artist who produced the Shroud had copied it from the image on the coins! This is absurd because of what we now know about the image. Experimental tests have shown that the image is not due to pigment so could not have been made by paint, dye, or stain, It does not fluoresce under ultraviolet light so could not be scorched from a hot object. And it contains 3D information so could not be a common photograph. In addition, attempts by scientists and artists over many decades have been unable to reproduce the very peculiar characteristics of the Shroud’s body image. This indicates there is no known method for an artist or forger to have made the image on the Shroud so that the image could not have been copied from the effigy on a coin. This is a very important fact because it indicates that the effigies of Jesus Christ on the coins must have been copied from the Shroud rather than the reverse. The coins minted from the seventh century onwards are not only a clear proof of the existence of the Shroud in the Byzantine period but also they add new interesting information on the topic. The Shroud must have already existed in 692, when the emperor Justinian II coined the first face of Christ, in agreement with the fact that the Shroud is Jesus’ burial sheet showing His image formed during the Resurrection. The official period of the Byzantine Empire started in 395 AD and ended in 1453 AD. 


Solidus coin issued in 437 to commemorate the wedding of Emperor Valentinian III to Licinia Eudoxia. The figure of Christ, depicted as clean shaven and with short hair, is shown standing between the married couple.

Byzantine Coins

The features of Christ as depicted on Byzantine Solidus coins show an astonishing correspondence to the image on the Shroud of Turin, providing compelling evidence of the Shroud’s influence on early Christian iconography. When examining the numismatic imagery, we notice several key characteristics that mirror those on the Shroud—a testament to its authenticity and its role as a template for these ancient depictions. The enthroned position of Christ on the coins resembles the posture of the man of the Shroud, as if the cloth itself captured a sovereign yet suffering figure. The detail of the right feet titled aligns with the positioning of the feet on the Shroud, which are not placed flat but are overlapped and set at an angle, just as one would expect if they had been nailed to a cross. The swollen eyebrow on the coins also corresponds to the swelling visible on the forehead of the Shroud’s figure, possibly indicating the same individual, who had suffered blows to the head. This is further supported by the wounds on the forehead of the coin’s imagery, reminiscent of the puncture wounds that would be consistent with a crown of thorns, as seen on the Shroud. Furthermore, the locks of hair represented as wounds on the coins could reflect the blood flows on the Shroud, which trail down in the hair in a manner consistent with gravity if the person had been in an upright position, as during crucifixion. The absence of ears in the coin depictions may not be a mere artistic omission but could suggest adherence to the Shroud’s image, where the hair and blood flows make the ears less discernible.
The detached hair and lowered right shoulder on the coins find parallels in the Shroud’s image, where the hair appears separated from the scalp—possibly due to the blood and fluids present during the burial—and the right shoulder carries the burden of a heavy object, likely the cross. Notably, the beard, crooked nose, and the long hair on one side are features distinctly captured on the Shroud and reproduced on the coins. Even the tears and the “T” shaped eyebrows of the numismatic portraits can be traced back to the Shroud, where similar marks are present. This confluence of details between the Shroud and the coinage of the period not only underscores the Shroud’s venerated status in the Byzantine era but also its potential as a visual source for the artists of the time. The fidelity of these features suggests that the artisans who minted the coins might have had direct access to the Shroud or to accurate copies of its image, cementing its place in the visual language of Christian iconography.

Council in Trullo or Quinisext (692 A.D.)
The Quinisext Council or Trullan was held in 692 A.D. under Justinian II.
“Thou shalt not paint a lamb for the type of Christ, but himself.” (Canon eighty-second.)
Jesus Christ had therefore to be represented as Himself BUT without the signs of His Passion.



Byzantine bronze follis struck AD 969-976 and the face on the Shroud of Turin

At some time during the short but distinguished reign of Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimiskes (AD 969- 976), an artist working at the Constantinople Mint was entrusted with the task of engraving an image of Jesus Christ for a new bronze follis. Earlier emperors had depicted Christ on gold and silver coins, but this was the first time that his likeness would appear on a mass-produced circulating coin.  The Emperor’s decision to depict Christ on his coinage instead of his own portrait may have been prompted by an exciting new acquisition. Constantinople had recently taken ownership of the holiest relic in Christendom, a mysterious image of Christ ‘not made by human hands’ but miraculously transferred onto a cloth, it was said, by Christ himself. Although it was considered too holy to go on public display at the time, our coin engraver would almost certainly have been granted the privilege of entering the Pharos chapel of Constantinople’s Imperial Palace for a special viewing in order to capture a good likeness. The cloth had arrived in Constantinople amidst much rejoicing on 15th August 944 after being acquired from the city of Edessa (today, Urfa in Southern Turkey).  

Two of the oldest known coins featuring depictions of Jesus Christ date back to the mid-5th century. These coins were minted to celebrate significant imperial weddings. The first, from 437, commemorates the marriage of Emperor Valentinian III and Licinia Eudoxia. The second, from 450, marks the union of Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria. On these coins, Christ is represented standing between the emperor and his bride, placing His hands on their shoulders. The inscription "FELICITER NUBTIIS" (meaning 'Happily Married') accompanies this imagery. The portrayal of Christ on these coins is consistent with the artistic representations of that era, depicting Him as clean-shaven with short hair, resembling the contemporary styles seen in paintings and mosaics.



In 692, Byzantine Emperor Justinian II, during his reign from 685-695 and 705-711, held the Council of Trullo, also known as the Quinisext Council, in the Trullan hall of his palace in Constantinople. This council, notable for being held without papal authority from Rome, is not classified as an ecumenical council. One significant outcome of this council was Canon 82, which later gained recognition from Pope Adrian I in a letter to Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople. Canon 82 advocated for depicting Jesus in human form rather than as a lamb, to better remember his life, passion, and redemption.

Around the same time, Justinian II introduced a groundbreaking design for the Byzantine solidus coin. This coin, first established by Constantine I around 309-310, was a key gold currency in the Eastern Roman Empire until the tenth century, eventually giving rise to the word "soldier" due to its role in military pay. The Justinian II solidus featured a novel depiction of Christ in a frontal position, with a cross behind his head, long, wavy hair, a beard, and a mustache. The image of Christ showed him bestowing a blessing with his right hand and holding the Book of the Gospels in his left, reminiscent of the Pantocrator icon. Encircling Christ's head were the words “Christ, King of those who rule.” The reverse side of the coin featured an effigy of Emperor Justinian II himself, accompanied by the inscription “Lord Justinian, the servant of Christ”.

One of the first official images depicting Jesus Christ on coins are those minted in 692 by Emperor Justinian II, including the gold solidus reproducing the bust of the blessing Christ on the obverse side.
There were two reasons for Christ’s appearance on Justinian II coins. The first reason is that the empire was threatened by Muslims who had become militarily aggressive, so the emperor needed a powerful symbol that God would protect the Byzantine population, which could be used and recognized everywhere. What symbol could better represent the power of God than the image of Christ minted on the highest-valued coins like the gold solidus?
The second reason is that Egypt was the source of paper (papyrus) for the Byzantine Empire and Egypt was controlled by Muslims. The emperor was irritated that Muslims had written a verse from the Koran on each of the papyrus sheets sold to him. Therefore, as a reaction, the emperor decided to pay for those paper sheets with gold coins portraying the image of the face of Christ. This reply was considered by Muslims to be offensive, so they melted the gold coins and used the metal for minting others with verses from the Koran.

Over two centuries after the fifth-century coins depicting Christ, new coinage emerged during the reign of Emperor Justinian II, between 692 and 695. These coins presented a markedly different image of Christ, closely resembling the visage seen on the Shroud. Justinian II was overthrown in 695, and during the rule of his successor, Leontios, coins ceased to feature Christ's image. However, when Justinian II reclaimed the throne in 705, Christ's likeness reappeared on coins, this time portrayed with a short beard and curly hair. This depiction aligns with the images of Christ found in two Syrian manuscripts from 586 and 634. The practice of depicting Christ on coins was discontinued after Justinian's death in 711, coinciding with the era of Byzantine Iconoclasm initiated by Emperor Leo III, which saw a ban on religious images. It was not until 843, with the restoration of icon veneration, that coins bearing Christ's image reemerged under Emperor Michael III (856–867), once again showing the Shroud-like face. This tradition of minting coins with Christ's image, including variations showing Him seated on a throne, persisted until the fall of the Byzantine Empire after the conquest of Constantinople in 1204.

Art historian Professor James Breckenridge was one of the pioneers in suggesting a connection between the lifelike image of Christ on coins from Justinian II's first reign and an acheiropoietos (not made by human hands) image, like the Image of Edessa. These coins, minted between 692 and 695, display a detailed facial depiction of Christ, with features resembling those on the Shroud of Turin. Dr. Alan and Mary Whanger conducted a thorough comparison between the Shroud image and high-resolution photographs of these early coins from Justinian's era. They employed a polarized image overlay technique, similar to their study of the Christ Pantocrator icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery. Their findings led them to believe that the coin's depiction was likely inspired by the Shroud. Specifically, Dr. Alan Whanger, in his 1983 research, pointed out that the coin image and the Shroud shared at least 65 points of congruence. He theorized that the coin's image was a numismatic icon possibly copied from the Edessan image, suggesting that the coin's die cutter might have directly referenced the Shroud while crafting the coin.

This theory, however, is not universally accepted. Some researchers have expressed skepticism about the 'points of congruence' argument used to establish this link. Nonetheless, recent research by Professor Giulio Fanti supports Whanger's hypothesis, indicating that the coin's die cutters might have indeed had access to the Shroud image. The coins from Justinian II's reign show Christ's face with some unique features also found on the Shroud, while other features are omitted or altered. This variation suggests subjective decisions by the engravers about which elements to include or exclude. The existence of multiple versions of these coins, each with slightly different depictions of Christ's face, could be explained by different die cutters interpreting the original image in their own ways.

The comparison between a gold solidus minted during 692 to 695 and the face on the Shroud of Turin reveals several striking similarities in their features. These shared characteristics include an unattractive appearance, asymmetric facial features, absence of royal symbols like a crown, long and uneven hair, and other specific details like a tuft of hair, large, round eyes, a long nose, and a sparse beard on the right side. Additionally, there is a noticeable swollen right cheek and a beardless area below the lower lip, with the beard being parted in two and longer on the left side.

The Byzantine coin engravers, known for their skill and attention to detail, are unlikely to have unintentionally included these irregular features. These were master craftsmen capable of producing highly detailed and symmetrical images, as seen in other portraits of emperors on coins of that era. The decision to depict Christ with these particular features suggests a deliberate choice to replicate the image of the Man of the Shroud, believed by some to be the true likeness of Christ, including its visible imperfections.

Professor Fanti addressed the similarity between the image on the solidus and the Shroud by calculating the probability of these features being coincidentally replicated without copying. He assessed each feature, assigning a probability to the likelihood of its random replication. For instance, the beardless area below the lower lip was given a one in four chance of replication, while the beard parted in two and longer on the left side was assigned a much lower probability. Combining these probabilities, Fanti calculated the overall likelihood that the solidus could have been produced without referencing the Shroud, considering all the outlined features. This analysis suggests that the engraver might have intentionally reproduced features from the Shroud.


Some representations of the bust of Christ from 692 to 1423 on Byzantine coins. From the left to the right, solidi of Justinian II (692–695), Michael III (842–867) and Basil II (976–1025), bronze follis of John I (969–976) and silver half stavraton of Manuel II (1391–1423).


On the left, the Russian icon of the nineteenth century shows an example of Mandylion; on the right, gold histamenon nomisma minted by Michael VII (1071–1078) showing Christ with a long beard.


Shroud face on the top and Christ Pantocrator in Saint Caterina’s Monastery in Sinai on the bottom. In the center are the original images; on either side the symmetrical images of the right and the left side of the face, highlighting the asymmetry.


On the center, the Cross of Justin II also known as “Crux Vaticana” (568–569). The front of the Cross (lower left) contains a Relic of the Christ’s Cross while the back is interesting because shows two medallions with busts of Christ similar to the Shroud (upper and lower right in the ϐigure). The medallion on the center (upper left) shows the Lamb of God as it was used to represent Christ at that time.


Christ Pantocrator reproduced on a silver vase of the sixth to seventh century from Emesa, the modern Homs in Syria (Louvre, Paris).


This overview of the face of Christ iconography from the first millennium shows the close connection of the typical features of these depictions with those of the Shroud face. The results clearly demonstrate the Relic had often been a model for the representations of Christ.

Right Shoulder Lowered

Another interesting detail of the bust of Christ shows His right shoulder lowered, not common in reproductions of ϐlawless men, but of Jesus Christ shown on the Shroud.
A recent study [Bevilacqua et al., 2014], disclosed that the Man of the Shroud has just the right shoulder lowered because it was probably dislocated after a fall while carrying the cross to Calvary. An anthropometric analysis report conϐirms glenoidal dislocation of the humerus of nearly 3 cm (about 1 in.). In agreement with this dislocation visible on the Shroud, some Byzantine coins report this peculiar feature in the depictions of Christ, see, for example, Fig. 3.49. In particular, the first coin from the left shows evidence of the protuberance of the lowered shoulder typical of dislocation, while the third coin accentuates this feature.


Examples of Christ showing the right shoulder lowered in agreement with the Shroud body image. From the left, gold solidus and gold semissis of Justinian II (692–692); gold solidus of Constantine VII (955–959); gold histamenon nomisma of ROMANUS III, 1028-1034. AV Histamenon Nomisma, Constantinople Mint.

Face details

Tuft of Hair on the Forehead



In 692, the Quinisext Council, also referred to as the Council in Trullo, brought about a significant shift in Christian art and iconography through Canon 82. This canon mandated that Christ should be depicted in human form in religious imagery, moving away from earlier symbolic representations such as the lamb. This change was a move towards a more literal depiction of Christ’s image.

In the same year, Emperor Justinian II initiated a significant change in the realm of coinage by minting the first gold solidus to feature the bust of Christ. Notably, these coins portrayed a distinctive tuft of hair on Christ's forehead. This detail, which became a recurring feature in subsequent coin designs, is thought to have been inspired by the imagery of the Shroud, particularly the 'blood flow' seen on Christ's forehead.

This depiction of the tuft of hair on the coins can be seen as aligning with the Council's directive to portray Christ in human form while avoiding the explicit representation of His Passion. Instead of depicting bloodstains, the engravers may have chosen to represent these markings as tufts of hair, subtly acknowledging the Shroud's influence while adhering to the Council's guidelines. This interpretation of the tufts of hair around Christ's head, avoiding a direct portrayal of His suffering, supports the idea that these artistic choices were influenced by the Shroud's imagery. This approach in numismatic and religious art suggests a nuanced understanding and representation of Christ in this period.

This tuft of hair, more than a mere artistic detail, signifies a deeper connection with the Shroud's depiction of Christ. It became a recurring element in many portrayals of Christ throughout the Byzantine Empire and beyond. Intriguingly, the 'Syrian Christ' coins, minted during Justinian II's second reign from 705 to 711, which did not follow the Shroud-like imagery, lack this distinctive tuft of hair. This absence further emphasizes the unique influence of the Shroud's depiction on the iconography of Christ, especially in the years following the Quinisext Council's decree.



During the reign of Emperor Constantine VII (920–959), a significant development occurred in the portrayal of Christ's face in Byzantine art, particularly noticeable after the triumphal arrival of the Mandylion-Shroud in Constantinople around 944. A key feature of the Shroud’s depiction of Christ’s face, a distinct “T”-shape formed by the eyebrows and nose, started to appear in these representations. This is particularly evident when examining the positive image of the Byzantine coins from this period. An example of this artistic influence can be seen in three gold solidi coins from the reign of Basil II (976–1025). These coins,  show a clear "T" shape in the area of the nose and eyebrows, closely resembling the facial features of Christ as seen on the Shroud. This stylistic element indicates a direct influence of the Shroud's imagery on Byzantine numismatic and religious art, reflecting a shift towards incorporating specific, recognizable features from the Shroud into depictions of Christ.

Swelling on the Right Cheekbone

The Gospel of Mark (15:19) describes an incident where Christ was struck on the head, which some believe is reflected in the Shroud's imagery, particularly in the form of a swelling on the right cheekbone. This detail is notably present in the depiction of Christ in Byzantine art, especially in the numismatic representations from the reign of Emperor Constantine VII (949–959).

This swelling on the right cheekbone is evident in the Shroud image. Further supporting this observation, the Figure below showcases two gold solidi minted during Constantine VII's reign, where the bust of Christ clearly exhibits a swelling in the corresponding area of the right cheekbone.

This specific detail of the swelling on Christ's right cheekbone has been replicated on many coins, particularly those minted between 949 and 959 under Constantine VII. This period follows shortly after the arrival of the Mandylion-Shroud in Constantinople in 944, suggesting that the coin engravers had direct access to the relic. This access likely enabled them to incorporate additional details, such as the swelling on the cheekbone, into their representations of Christ, drawing a closer connection between the Shroud's image and Byzantine iconography.




Byzantine Empire. Constantine VII. AV Solidus, Constantinople AD 945-959. Another example of the swelling on Christ's right cheekbone.

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, with Romanus II - AV Solidus - AD 945-959 - Constantinople Obverse: Ih. S SPE REX REGNANTIUM, facing bust of Christ, nimbate with three dots in each limb of the cross, raising right hand in benediction and holding book of gospels Reverse: CONSTANT' CE ROMAN M AVGG b. Rn, Facing, crowned busts of Constantine VII with short beard on left, wearing loros, and Romanus II, wearing chlamys, unbearded, on right, holding long patriarchal cross between them. struck on a broad flan with strong details and exceptionally fine and attractive portrait of Christ.

In the Byzantine representations of Christ's face, particularly on coins from the reign of Emperor Constantine VII, a notable feature is the elongation of the nose, which is often asymmetrical and sometimes curiously integrated with the mustaches. This characteristic is believed to be in line with the depiction of Christ on the Shroud, which shows a similar asymmetry, especially notable in the left nostril.

Figure 4.16 illustrates this detail. On the left side of the figure, two gold solidi from the period of 913–959 AD show Christ with a prominently long and asymmetric nose, closely resembling the Shroud's depiction. This is contrasted on the right side of the figure, where two coins from the reign of Romanus I Lecapenus minted on behalf of Michael III, known as histamenon nomisma, are displayed. These coins also feature a distinctively elongated and asymmetric nose, emphasizing the influence of the Shroud's imagery on Byzantine coinage and religious art during this era.

This detail's replication across various coins suggests a conscious effort by Byzantine engravers to capture the unique facial features of Christ as represented on the Shroud, further cementing the relic's influence on the artistic portrayal of Christ in this period.

Protruding Lower Lip and Gap in the Beard below It


Typical of the Jews is the protruding lower lip. Jesus Christ, a Jew, shows this peculiar feature on the Shroud body image that is evidenced by the gap in the beard below the lower lip.
The Byzantine engravers noticed this detail on the Shroud body image and reproduced it on their coins depicting our Savior. 



Three examples of the faces of Christ showing a prominent lip are evidenced by the lower gap in the beard. From the left, respectively, gold solidus and silver hexagram of Justinian II (692–695); gold histamenon nomisma of Basil II (976–1025).

Bipartite beard

Some faces of Christ on Byzantine coins, particularly those reproduced on the bronze follis, did not always receive direct approval from the Byzantine Emperor. As a result, they exhibit a greater variety of depictions, especially in details like the beard on Christ’s face. Some coins reproduce the bipartite, non-symmetric beard of the Shroud image, especially those of Justinian II (685–695, 705–711) and of Michael III (842–867). Others show a more common form of beard, as seen in some examples, indicating that the engraver of these coins focused their attention on reproducing other facial details, which they considered more significant.



Three examples of bipartite beard on Byzantine coins. From the left, respectively, gold solidus and tremissis of Justinian II (692–695); electrum histamenon nomisma of Michael VII (1071–1078).

Christ’s Face in the World’s Coins

Many of the world’s medieval coins show the face of Christ. 








ANGLO-SAXON, Primary Sceattas. Circa 705/10-715. AR Sceatt (12mm, 1.09 g, 10h). Series Z, type 66a. Mint in East Anglia. Facing head of Christ



An Exceptional Anglo-Saxon Silver Sceatt  Circa 715-720. Mint in East Anglia or Mercia. East Anglia and Mercia were two of the seven kingdoms that existed in Anglo-Saxon England during the early Middle Ages Facing the head of Christ with a curled mustache and forked beard. Similar to the Shroud, the face of Christ shows a forked beard, a relatively long nose, pronounced annulets forming the eyes, a complex shape of the mustache, and long hair.

Bronze Follis Coins

The bronze Follis coins minted during the reign of Emperor John I, unlike the more detailed gold solidus coins from Emperor Justinian II's era, displayed a somewhat different approach to coin engraving. These coins, produced between 969 and 976 AD, were not crafted with the same level of precision as the gold solidi but still depicted an image of Jesus Christ. The facial representation of Christ on these coins, while not as finely detailed, included notable features that suggest a direct influence from the Shroud of Turin.

Key characteristics on the bronze Follis coins that align with the Shroud’s depiction include a distinctive cross-shaped pattern formed by the eyebrows across the forehead, a small square beneath the moustache, and a noticeable injury on the cheek. Additionally, the coins show two parallel strands of hair on the left side of Christ's face and a forked beard. The inclusion of these specific features implies that the coin engraver might have deliberately chosen to replicate aspects of the Shroud's imagery in his representation of Christ. This suggests a conscious decision to incorporate elements from the Shroud, providing an intriguing link between these numismatic artifacts and the famous relic.



An analysis comparing the features on a bronze follis coin from the reign of Byzantine Emperor John I (969–976 AD) with similar features visible on the Shroud of Turin's facial image, as studied by Justin Robinson.


Schematic showing the date-stamped historical snapshots revealed by studies comparing the Shroud with several historical artefacts bearing a close correlation with features seen on the Shroud.



A Probabilistic Analysis of the Shroud of Turin’s Influence on 7th-Century Byzantine Solidus Coin Imagery

Upper image
Shroud face on the top and Byzantine Solidus Coin on the bottom. The Solidus coin was a widely circulated gold coin used during the late Roman Empire and into the Byzantine era, with the first Christian images appearing on them from the reign of Justinian II starting in 692 AD.
In the center are the original images; on either side the symmetrical images of the right and the left side of the face, highlighting the asymmetry. 

The bottom image 
Shows the transition the face on the Shroud of Turin into the gold Solidus coin featuring a representation of Christ. Both images depict a man with a long nose, full beard, and shoulder-length hair parted in the middle. The styling of the hair and beard is particularly similar, with wavy locks and a beard that is not too full but has several strands. Both images show a forward-gazing face with a solemn expression. The eyes are slightly open, and the eyebrows are straight, giving a sense of serenity. The proportions of the face, such as the distance between the eyes, the length of the nose, and the width of the mouth, are quite similar. These points of congruence suggest that the Solidus coin  has with high certainty been influenced by the likeness depicted on the Shroud.

1. Asymmetry of face. A comparison with the almost entirely symmetrical faces of the Byzantine emperors evidences the distinctiveness of the face of Christ in question, which is also asymmetrical on the Shroud. 
2. Facing Head with Mustache and Beard: Both the Shroud and the coin depict a face with a mustache and a forked beard, which was a common way to represent Christ during certain historical periods.
3. Quadruped Symbol: The reverse side of the coin features a quadruped, which is not directly related to the Shroud but is indicative of the iconography used during the period.
4. Cross-Shaped Nose: A "T" shaped or cross-shaped nose is noted on the coin, which is a stylistic feature found in some Byzantine representations of Christ. The man on the Shroud has also a long nose. 
5. Long Nose: Both images feature a long nose, which is a typical characteristic of Byzantine iconography of Christ.
6. Swollen Right Cheek and Sparse Beard: The Shroud depicts a swelling on the right cheek, possibly relating to the Gospel account of Christ being struck. Some coins also show the swollen cheek.  The coin also shows a beard that is sparser on the right side, potentially aligning with this depiction.
7. Bipartite Beard: The beard on the Shroud is depicted as divided, which is also seen on the coin.
8. Other Features: Additional features such as a long mustache, a flattened and slightly curved nose, and a high-arched left eyebrow are mentioned that can also be noted on the eyebrow of the man on the Shroud.

The congruences between the images are compelling evidence of direct artistic borrowing.  The similarities in the facial features—long nose, full beard, and shoulder-length hair parted in the middle—suggest a common source or inspiration. The proportions and the solemn expression of the face are remarkably similar, which indicates that the artists who designed the coin were either influenced by the Shroud or both the Shroud and the coin were based on a widely recognized iconographic tradition. The unique asymmetry observed in the face on both the Shroud and the coin could imply that the coin's engraver was referencing a real-life model, possibly the Shroud, rather than adhering to the more symmetrical and idealized Byzantine artistic conventions. The specific way the mustache and beard are rendered—forked and not too full—is a distinctive characteristic that could suggest the Shroud's influence if it predated the coins. These specific features, including the long nose and the depiction of a swollen right cheek, seem too specific to have been independently replicated by chance. The divided beard is another particular element that is present on both the Shroud and the coin, adding to the list of shared characteristics. A long mustache, a slightly curved nose, and a high-arched eyebrow are details that add to the complexity of the image and are evidence of a common prototype if they were not standard for the time.

Statistical Analysis and Odds
Given these points of congruence, a statistical analysis could be attempted to estimate the probability of these features occurring together by chance. For each feature, we could assign a probability of independent occurrence. Assuming, hypothetically, that each feature has a chance of 1 in 10 to occur independently, the combined probability of all these features occurring together would be  (1/10)n, where n is the number of independent features. With eight distinct features, the odds would be  ( 1/10) 8 , or 1 in 100,000,000, which is highly improbable.

Using polarized light superimposition, it has been shown that the face on the Shroud aligns with the one depicted on the Pantocrator coins when appropriately magnified. There are over 140 points of congruence—points that can be superimposed—between the Shroud face and the solidus and tremissis coins from the first reign of Justinian II. This number far exceeds the criteria set by U.S. forensic standards, which state that 45 to 60 points of congruence are enough to establish the identity or similarity between two images.



Byzantine Follis (AD 1028-1041) showing detail on the forehead that matches a bloodstain on the Shroud

A later bronze follis struck in Constantinople about fifty years later incorporates additional details that suggest that coin artists continued to have access to the original image. Intriguingly, there is a tiny mark in the centre parting of the hair in the forehead that resembles the inverted “3” shaped bloodstain that appears on the Shroud in the same area. In addition, the coin artist has replicated the way that the long hair appears to bunch at the shoulders. The eyebrows are represented with a long horizontal line, and there is the suggestion that the right eyebrow is slightly higher than the left. There is also a wound-like mark on the right cheek, a moustache that appears to slope down to the left and, most striking of all, a horizontal band across the throat.



1. Marinelli, E. (2014). La Sindone e l'iconografia di Cristo. [The Shroud and the Iconography of Christ]. October 2014. Link

Further sources: 

The Tradition of the Image of Edessa MARK GUSCIN 2014 Link

The Shroud of Turin A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses Link

The Shroud of Turin's Earlier History: Part One - To Edessa Link

Chapter 3





Secondo Pia's Photonegative Discovery

In 1898 Secondo Pia took the first official photograph of the Shroud

During the 1898 Exposition of the Shroud from 25 May to 2 June, Turin lawyer, city councillor and amateur but expert photographer, Secondo Pia (1855–1941), photographed the Shroud. Pia's first attempt to photograph the Shroud on 25 May was only partially successful. But he "managed two exposures and although they were less than perfect, already evident on these negatives was a rather strange effect".

"On the evening of 28 May he [Pia] returned to the cathedral and tried again. This time his equipment worked perfectly. Having exposed four photographic plates, he returned to his studio around midnight and began the process of developing them. What Pia saw that night in his darkroom astounded him. For, as the image on the negative plate took shape before his eyes, he found himself staring not at a confusing array of lights and darks, the usual effect of a photographic negative, but at a coherent likeness of a crucified man. Instead of the flat, enigmatic image seen on the cloth, the negative plate gave the impression of a substantial figure emerging from the background, a figure that looked like a real human body lit from in front ... Instead of the glaring mask of the Shroud, the negative revealed a remarkably convincing, three-dimensional image of man's face, his eyelids closed ... It was as if the Shroud itself was a photographic negative that could be developed into a breathtaking, positive image of the crucified Jesus. `Shut up in my darkroom,' Pia later recalled, 'all intent on my work, I experienced a very strong emotion when, during the development, I saw for the first time the Holy Face appear on the plate, with such clarity that I was dumbfounded by it...".

 Secondo Pia's 1898 negative photograph of the Shroud's face. Note that the bloodstains, which are dark red on the Shroud as one looks at it, being white on this negative, prove that the blood is not part of the image.
In the Museum of the Holy Shroud in Turin, which is located a short distance from the cathedral housing the Shroud itself, there is an antique plate camera with a precision Voigtländer lens dating back to the late nineteenth century. This camera played a pivotal role in reshaping the understanding of the Shroud's imprint in 1898. In that year, Italy was celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of its constitution, and as part of the festivities in Turin, there was a plan to publicly exhibit the Shroud. Don Nogier de Malijai, a twenty-seven-year-old Salesian priest and an enthusiastic amateur photographer, saw this as a unique opportunity to capture the Shroud's image through photography, a first of its kind. This concept wasn't entirely new, as back in 1842, during the celebration of the marriage of Savoy's Prince Victor Emmanuel, the Shroud had been displayed from the balcony of the Turin Royal Palace. At that time, a local instrument maker named Enrico Jest had developed equipment that could replicate France's innovative daguerreotype photographic process. If the Shroud had been displayed on a brighter day and for a longer duration, Jest might have had the chance to create the very first photograph of it.

However, even half a century later, the idea of allowing the Shroud to be photographed was met with reluctance, as it was considered inappropriate for such a sacred relic. In the late 19th century, the Shroud of Turin, then owned by King Umberto I of Savoy of Italy, was a subject of great intrigue. Despite his initial reluctance, King Umberto eventually allowed an official photograph of the Shroud. This task was unexpectedly given to Secondo Pia, a 43-year-old lawyer with a passion for amateur photography, who had never seen the Shroud before. Pia faced several technical challenges during this assignment. He could only photograph the Shroud as it was displayed behind glass, above the altar in the dimly lit cathedral. The need for electric lighting, then a novel and unreliable technology, added to the complexity. Additionally, Pia had to construct a three-meter-high platform for his camera to capture the image from the appropriate angle. The first attempt to photograph the Shroud took place on May 25, 1898, but it was fraught with difficulties, including issues with the electric lamps. Despite these challenges, Pia managed two exposures. These initial photographs already hinted at an unusual effect, though they were not perfect. Pia returned on the night of May 28, accompanied by Don Nogier and Felice Fino, a cathedral security guard and fellow photography enthusiast. Starting at about 9:30 p.m., Pia conducted two trial exposures, followed by Nogier and Fino who also took some unofficial photos. For the final, official shots, Pia used a high-quality Voigtländer lens and took four exposures, each lasting between eight and fourteen minutes, but only officially recorded two of them. Later that night, in his darkroom, Pia developed the best of the four plates. Instead of the faint impressions of the Shroud's imprints, he observed an extraordinary effect. The images revealed something far more remarkable than anyone could have anticipated.

The negative images of the Shroud of Turin, captured by Secondo Pia, revealed a transformation of its enigmatic imprints. Where previously the figures appeared as indistinct shadows, difficult to interpret and often perceived as grotesque, they now exhibited clear, natural light and dark shading, adding depth and realism. The bloodstains, now white in the negative, seemed to flow authentically from the hands, feet, and around the crown of the head. The man in the Shroud, instead of appearing flat and undefined, was now seen as a well-built, proportionate figure. Most striking was the face, dignified even in death and remarkably lifelike against the dark background of the negative image. Pia felt a profound sense of history, believing he was witnessing the true appearance of Christ as he was laid in the tomb, captured in a photograph hidden within the fabric. The discovery quickly made headlines, with the first report appearing in L’Italia Reale Corriere Nazionale on June 1, followed by an unofficial photo. However, skepticism soon arose. The Italia Corriere suggested on June 15 that the effect was due to Pia using a yellow filter. Other theories proposed it was an accident of transparency, over-exposure, or refraction. More damaging were insinuations that Pia had tampered with the negative, creating a hoax. Over the next three years, even some prominent Roman Catholic churchmen expressed doubts, focusing on the Shroud's unclear historical origins before its appearance in 14th-century France. This skepticism cast a shadow over the Shroud and Pia's reputation, similar to the controversy following the 1988 radiocarbon dating. A new opportunity to examine the Shroud arose in 1931 during the wedding of Prince Umberto of Piedmont to Princess Maria José of Belgium. The event drew millions to Turin, and the Savoy family chose to display the Shroud publicly. Giuseppe Enrie, a professional Turin photographer, was appointed to take new, official photographs. Between May 21 and 23, Enrie captured a series of definitive black-and-white photographs, with the Shroud free from any protective glass, using advanced photographic equipment. He took twelve official photos, including full and sectional views of the Shroud, the complete back body imprint, and various close-ups of the face and wounds, all showcasing pre-digital-era photographic excellence. Enrie's work, especially the natural-size negative of the Shroud man's face, was highly acclaimed. The crown prince Umberto, for whom the exhibition was held, was reportedly overwhelmed with emotion upon seeing these images.

The historic glass plate is now a significant artifact housed in Turin’s Museum of the Shroud. This plate, along with thousands of other negative photographs of the Shroud's face taken over the years by both professionals and amateurs, has helped to dispel any lingering notions that the phenomenon first revealed by Secondo Pia in 1898 was a hoax. Remarkably, Pia, then aged seventy-six, lived to see his work vindicated. He was invited to witness the exhibition along with a public notary and photographic experts, ensuring that Giuseppe Enrie's process was free from any deception.

Four decades later, in 1973, Pope Paul VI expressed his profound reaction to Enrie’s photograph of the Shroud, which he first saw as a young priest in 1931. During a televised address accompanying the Shroud's first color television broadcast, he described the image as strikingly authentic and deeply moving, possessing both human and divine qualities unmatched by any other image. Similarly, Leo Vala, a well-known London photographer and self-professed agnostic, praised the image in a photographic journal in the same decade. Vala, experienced in various visual processes, attested to the authenticity of the Shroud's image, asserting that it could not have been fabricated with any contemporary technology, highlighting its precise photographic quality and the perfection of its negative.

In Turin's Holy Shroud Museum, located near the cathedral where the Shroud is kept, there's an interesting artifact from the late 19th century: a plate camera equipped with a Voigtländer precision lens. This camera played a pivotal role in changing the way the world saw the Shroud of Turin. In 1898, as Italy celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of its constitution, the Shroud was publicly displayed for the first time in thirty years, coinciding with Turin's festivities. Don Nogier de Malijai, a young 27-year-old Salesian priest and photography enthusiast, saw this as a perfect chance to photograph the Shroud, something never done before. The idea wasn't entirely new, though. Back in 1842, during a display of the Shroud for the wedding of Prince Victor Emmanuel of Savoy, local craftsman Enrico Jest, who had replicated France's daguerreotype photographic process, almost managed to photograph it. However, the notion of photographing the Shroud was controversial, considered inappropriate for such a sacred artifact. King Umberto I of Savoy, the owner of the Shroud and son of Victor Emmanuel, was initially against the idea. After much persuasion, he allowed an official photograph to be taken, and the task unexpectedly fell to Secondo Pia, a 43-year-old lawyer and amateur photographer. Pia faced several challenges, including photographing the Shroud behind glass and suspended above the altar in dim cathedral lighting. He needed to use electric lighting, which was unreliable in 1898, and build a three-meter-high platform for his camera. His initial attempt on May 25 faced issues, but he managed two exposures which revealed a strange effect on the negatives. Pia, along with Don Nogier and Felice Fino, a cathedral security guard and camera hobbyist, returned on the night of May 28. They conducted trial exposures, with Pia using his best Voigtländer lens for the final, official shots. He took four exposures, varying from eight to fourteen minutes, though only two were officially recorded. These photographs of the Shroud marked a significant moment in its history, altering perceptions of this mysterious and sacred artifact.

That night in his darkroom, as Secondo Pia developed the best of the four plates, he could finally confirm the unusual effect he had noticed in his initial trial negatives. As the image developed, it revealed not the faint, hard-to-decipher imprints he had expected but something far more remarkable. In its negative form, the Shroud’s images, with their head-to-head double figures, transformed dramatically. The vague, shadowy outlines, often interpreted grotesquely by copyists, now displayed clear, natural shading, offering a sense of depth and relief. The bloodstains, appearing white on the negative, looked realistically as if they were flowing from the hands, feet, side, and around the head. The figure on the Shroud, previously perceived as almost cartoonish, now appeared as a proportionate, robust individual. Most striking was the face - dignified, lifelike, set against a dark background, yet all captured in a photographic negative. Pia felt an eerie sensation, believing he might be the first person in nearly 1,900 years to see the actual appearance of Christ's body as it was laid in the tomb. He had uncovered what seemed to be a real photograph, concealed within the cloth, only to be revealed by the camera's lens.

News of this discovery spread quickly. The first media coverage appeared in L’Italia Reale Corriere Nazionale on June 1, followed soon by one of the unofficial photos. Skepticism wasn't far behind, with the Italia Corriere on June 15 suggesting the effect was due to Pia's use of a yellow filter. Various scientific explanations were proposed, such as transparency, over-exposure, or refraction. More damaging were insinuations that Pia had tampered with the negative, implying the effect was a hoax. In the following three years, even prominent Roman Catholic church figures joined the skeptics. They pointed to the Shroud’s questionable historical record before its emergence in northern France in the mid-14th century, a time when it faced allegations of being a forgery. This skepticism cast a shadow over both the Shroud and Pia, akin to the doubts following the Shroud's 1988 radiocarbon dating. This cloud of controversy lingered for three decades, only beginning to clear when a new opportunity to exhibit the Shroud arose. In 1931, an event of great significance in Italy coincided with a momentous opportunity for the Shroud of Turin: the wedding of Prince Umberto of Piedmont, later King Umberto II, to Princess Maria José of Belgium. This event drew around two million visitors to Turin. To commemorate this occasion, the Savoy family decided to display the Shroud publicly from May 3rd to 14th. Additionally, they aimed to address the controversies surrounding Secondo Pia’s photograph by commissioning Giuseppe Enrie, a professional photographer from Turin, to take new, official photographs of the Shroud.


1


Altar with the exposure, 1898

Between May 21st and 23rd, Enrie embarked on this task, capturing a series of definitive black-and-white photographs. Unlike Pia's earlier work, these images were taken with the Shroud out of its protective glass, using significantly advanced photographic equipment. Enrie produced a total of twelve official photographs: four capturing the entire Shroud, segments of the Shroud in three parts, the full imprint of the body’s back, close-ups of the face and chest, the face at two-thirds and natural size, and a detailed sevenfold enlargement of the nail wound in the left wrist. These photographs represented the pinnacle of pre-digital black-and-white photography. One of the most striking images was the natural-size negative of the Shroud man’s face. Enrie described the moment he presented this plate to the Archbishop and other dignitaries as one of the most beautiful and moving of his career. Among the audience was Prince Umberto, for whom the Shroud display was organized, who was reportedly overwhelmed with excitement and emotion. The glass plate that Enrie used, which I had the chance to examine in 1994 at Enrie’s old studio, is now considered a historic artifact and is displayed in Turin’s Museum of the Shroud. This plate, along with thousands of similar negative photographs taken by professionals and amateurs alike, has helped to dispel the notion that the phenomenon Pia first observed in 1898 was a hoax. Pia, then 76, was alive to witness this vindication. He attended the showing with a public notary and photographic experts to ensure the integrity of Enrie’s process. Four decades later, in 1973, Pope Paul VI, during a televised address about the Shroud’s first color television broadcast, recalled his own reaction as a young priest to Enrie’s photograph in 1931. He expressed his awe at the image's authenticity and its blend of human and divine qualities. Similarly, Leo Vala, a well-known London photographer and an agnostic, commented in a photography journal that the image couldn’t have been faked, stating that even with modern technology, replicating such a perfect negative would be impossible. Vala emphasized the photograph's precise photographic quality, underscoring its authenticity.

The image is a photo-negative

The negative of Secondo Pia's full-length photograph of the Shroud [provided by Barrie Schwortz] taken in Turin Cathedral on the evening of 28 May 1898 during the 1898 Exposition. That this is a true negative is evident in that the black burnt areas from the 1532 fire are white and the white patches applied in the 1534 repair. And yet the Shroud man's image in Pia's photograph is a positive, which means that the image is a photographic negative! 


In 1898 Secondo Pia took the first official photograph of the Shroud. 

During the 1898 Exposition of the Shroud from 25 May to 2 June, Turin lawyer, city councillor and amateur but expert photographer, Secondo Pia (1855–1941), photographed the Shroud. Pia's first attempt to photograph the Shroud on 25 May was only partially successful. But he "managed two exposures and although they were less than perfect, already evident on these negatives was a rather strange effect".

"On the evening of 28 May he [Pia] returned to the cathedral and tried again. This time his equipment worked perfectly. Having exposed four photographic plates, he returned to his studio around midnight and began the process of developing them. What Pia saw that night in his darkroom astounded him. For, as the image on the negative plate took shape before his eyes, he found himself staring not at a confusing array of lights and darks, the usual effect of a photographic negative, but at a coherent likeness of a crucified man. Instead of the flat, enigmatic image seen on the cloth, the negative plate gave the impression of a substantial figure emerging from the background, a figure that looked like a real human body lit from in front ... Instead of the glaring mask of the Shroud, the negative revealed a remarkably convincing, three-dimensional image of man's face, his eyelids closed ... It was as if the Shroud itself was a photographic negative that could be developed into a breathtaking, positive image of the crucified Jesus. `Shut up in my darkroom,' Pia later recalled, 'all intent on my work, I experienced a very strong emotion when, during the development, I saw for the first time the Holy Face appear on the plate, with such clarity that I was dumbfounded by it...".

 Secondo Pia's 1898 negative photograph of the Shroud face. Note that the bloodstains, which are dark red on the Shroud as one looks at it, being white on this negative, prove that the blood is not part of the image.



Giuseppe Felice Pia, born in 1855 to an important family in Asti, Italy, and a lawyer by profession, chose photography as his passion. He began his journey in a challenging era for those who had to navigate through chemicals and prepare plates on the spot in itinerant workshops. Driven by his love for art history, he captured both well-known and unknown monuments in the region throughout his life, thus undertaking an extensive photographic campaign of the cultural heritage of Piedmont. The National Cinema Museum of Turin holds over 13,000 photographs taken by Pia, which help reconstruct the urban and architectural history of Piedmont.

However, what immortalized Secondo Pia in history was certainly his photograph of the Shroud of Turin, which revealed for the first time its nature as a photographic negative. This occurred in 1898: during the marriage of Prince Vittorio Emanuele III of Savoy to Princess Elena of Montenegro, it was decided to solemnly exhibit the sacred relic, as was the custom of the House of Savoy during major events and jubilees, for the veneration of the faithful. In this context, the idea, sponsored by Baron Antonio Manno, to photograph the Shroud was born. King Umberto I, despite some initial hesitations, granted permission, and the lawyer Secondo Pia, a skilled photographer who had already demonstrated great expertise without being a professional, was chosen for this prestigious task. Pia thus embodied two fundamental qualities: ability and disinterest.

To accomplish this truly "titanic" feat (remember, the Shroud measures 4.37 meters in length and 1.10 meters in height), a special photographic device capable of mounting a "giant" 50x60 cm plate was specifically constructed. After an initial failed attempt, on the evening of May 28, 1898, Pia finally succeeded in his task despite a series of technical problems. In the light of two electric headlights, an absolute novelty for the time, he exposed two 50x60 plates, one with a 14-minute exposure and the other with a 20-minute exposure. As soon as he finished, he immediately took the plates to the darkroom for fixing. The grandson of one of Pia's assistants, who was waiting outside the darkroom, recounted the event: "Pia stood on the threshold of the darkroom, his hands clutching the large plate still dripping with fixative. As my grandfather approached him, he was struck by the strange expression on his face. He looked down at the plate and saw. Standing there, one in front of the other, they couldn't take their eyes off that wonderful negative image, which, according to their photographic experience, should have been negative, and yet... It was Pia who broke the silence first: 'Look, Carlino, if this isn't a miracle!'" Secondo Pia was the first man in history to contemplate the Sacred Face of the Lord in "positive" after 19 centuries.

Secondo Pia (1855–1941), a lawyer from Asti, went down in history as the first photographer of the Shroud of Turin, the author of the image that received approval from the Church as a devotional part of the Holy Face of Jesus.

His achievement (for it was such) was made possible thanks to the support of Baron Manno, his patron in the difficult negotiations with the House of Savoy, the owner of the relic. Thanks to the negative, the photograph revealed details that could only be perceived with great approximation by the naked eye.

These details, after the dissemination of the image taken by Pia, sparked great controversy in public opinion, so much so that in 1901, Pia decided to authenticate the testimonies of those who were with him the night he photographed the Holy Shroud, to attest to the absence of trickery in the execution of the plates. In the act collected by the royal notary Giuseppe Cantù, it reads:

"On the night of May 28, 1898, at nine-thirty in the evening, Mr. Lawyer Secondo Pia set out to photograph the Holy Shroud. For this purpose, a special platform was constructed at a distance of eight meters and opposite the main altar, on which the Sacred Relic was exposed behind the Crystal, within a frame. On the said platform, Lawyer Pia placed his camera of fifty by sixty format, the Sacred Relic was illuminated by two electric spotlights each with its own reflector masked by frosted glass screens [for better light diffusion, ed.] placed in front of and to the side of the S. Relic and at a distance of about ten meters from the same, and with the caution that the one placed in cornu evangelii had a luminous power superior by about fifty candles to the opposite one, as is clearly seen from the photographic cliché. In preparing for the operation, Lawyer Pia took two poses, one of fourteen prime minutes and the other of twenty prime minutes. It is absolutely excluded that negatives were taken for transparency or in any other way different from the one mentioned above, the Holy Relic never having been removed from its frame and the crystal that guarded it."

According to the same report by Pia, the lens he used was a Voigtlander "with a two-millimeter diaphragm" and the plates were produced by Edward and developed in a solution of ferrous oxalate. To highlight the tones, he also placed a straw-yellow filter in front of the lens. The emotion upon discovering that on the first plate appeared a perfect "positive" portrait of the body made the lawyer drop it from his hands. The Shroud body image seen with the unaided eye is itself a photographic negative that becomes a photographic positive image only when photographed. On Pia's and Solaro's negatives, the bloodstains appear as white blotches, the camera therefore does record a negative image of these positive stains, which means that on the Shroud the bloodstains are not an image of blood, but the remains of blood.

The general public became aware of the Shroud. 

The Shroud had become an obscure relic by 1898, its owners the House of Savoy having before 1898 publicly exhibited it only five times in the nineteenth century, in 1814, 1815, 1822, 1842 and 1868. But Pia's photographs made the Shroud famous. The realization that the Shroud contained a negative image was shocking not only to Pia but to the owner of the Shroud, King Victor-Emmanuel III (1869–1947) and his advisors. They agreed that no public announcement should be made until they had considered the implications, but the news soon leaked out anyway. Newspapers around the world announced Pia's exciting discovery and the reading public was tantalized by the description of the mysterious, if not miraculous, nature of the Shroud's image. However, no newspaper published Pia's photographs in 1898-99, as photographs had not yet begun to appear in that medium. Only two magazines carried Pia's photographs, but one was a very poor reproduction of the full-length Shroud and the other was only of the face. Nevertheless, as newspapers and journals around the world began to publish Pia's photographs, a better understanding of his discovery and the Shroud gradually spread.

Beginning of scientific study of the Shroud. 

The Shroud entered the field of science on 28 May 1898, when Secondo Pia found that the image of the man on the Shroud was a photographic negative. Indeed it was not until the advent of photography in the 19th century that scientific study of the Shroud could begin. Pia's photographing the Shroud was the first scientific experiment on the Shroud without him realising it. The clarity of detail in Pia's negative photographs of the Shroud enabled it to be an object of serious scientific study for the first time. Scientific interest was aroused by the fact that Secondo Pia's photographic negative of the body showed details more clearly and gave a more natural appearance than the visually observed image on the cloth. Medical experts studied Pia's photographs and discovered that the image on the Shroud contained a degree of anatomical detail that far surpassed the medical knowledge of the fourteenth century. As the Shroud's known history from the mid-1350s predated by over 400 years the invention of photography in the 1820s, this observation stimulated scientific inquiry. In 1900, Yves Delage (1854–1920), an agnostic professor of anatomy at the Sorbonne and a director of the Museum of Natural History, showed his assistant, Paul Vignon (1865-1943), a Roman Catholic, the Pia photographs and encouraged him to begin a scientific investigation of the Shroud. From 1900 to 1902, Vignon and Delage, assisted by other scientists, undertook their investigation, based solely on Pia's Shroud photographs. In 1902 Delage reported to the French Academy of Science their findings which concluded that "The man of the shroud was the Christ"!

Sceptics attacked Pia and his photograph 

Scholars were also forced to take notice of Pia's photographs. Those scholars who were opposed to the Shroud's authenticity accused Pia of having forged his photographs or dismissed it as a hoax. Even the evidence of Solaro's negative photograph of the Shroud was not sufficient to convince those who didn't want the Shroud to be authentic. Doubts were expressed about Pia's amateur status as a photographer. In an age when most were still ignorant of photography, some claimed that Pia's photographic plate had been 'over-exposed'; others that it had been made by `transparency' with the light source behind the cloth. But as Pia pointed out, the Shroud had a red silk backing sewn on to it (in 1868 by Princess Clotilde of Savoy (1843–1911)), which had not been removed and would have prevented any transparency In 1899, in response to Pia's photographs, a Roman Catholic historian, Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923), published his edition of a memorandum purportedly written c.1389 by a Bishop of Troyes Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395), which claimed that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) had in c. 1355 investigated and discovered that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" and had even obtained the confession of "the artist who had painted it". But in this, Chevalier was guilty of "intellectual dishonesty" in that he failed to disclose that the d'Arcis memorandum was an unsigned, undated, unaddressed, draft. And what's more, Chevalier committed academic fraud in that he had without disclosing it, combined two documents and had added a date of "1389" and an address to Pope Clement VII (r. 1342-94) on the new combined document. Moreover, there is no evidence for (and much evidence against) that Bishop de Poitiers conducted an investigation into, or had a problem with, the Shroud. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the Shroud image is not painted! Chevalier's attack on the authenticity of the Shroud was taken up in England by Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856–1939), who translated Bishop d'Arcis's memorandum from Latin into English. Thurston therefore must have known that Chevalier was guilty of dishonesty and fraud regarding the d'Arcis memorandum but covered it up and therefore Thurston was also guilty of being an accessory to Chevalier's dishonesty and fraud. And just as the d'Arcis memorandum was wrong about the Shroud being a painting, so were Chevalier and Thurston also wrong about that, which was the basis of their entire argument! Chevalier did present one item of non-literary evidence against Pia's photographs, an opinion by a friend, amateur photographer Hippolyte Chopin. But Dorothy Crispino (1916-2014) called Chopin's 1900 letter of reply to Chevalier a "dizzy juggling of positive-negative," "a photographer's nightmare" and a "pretentious muddle"! Vignon summarised Chopin's argument into two parts. First, "under certain conditions ... [photographic] plates may give direct positives," but as Vignon pointed out, "Such exceptional conditions were not present, since M. Pia's plate is really a negative"(see above Pia's photograph where the black burn marks on the Shroud are white and the white repair patches are black). Second, "although a plate may be generally negative, certain parts of it may not be perfectly so, owing to the effect of color — yellow, for instance, often comes out black". But as Vignon pointed out, "The argument is only tenable if parts of the object are many colored, which is not the case here".

Confirmed in 1931 by Giuseppe Enrie 

Despite what we now know was the weakness and indeed fraudulence of the Chevalier-Thurston arguments against Pia's photographs, it was they who prevailed in scholarly and public opinion. Chevalier was even awarded in 1901 a gold medal of 1,000 francs by the Academie des Inscriptions with a censure against any future attempt to impose upon the credulity of the faithful by a fraudulent misrepresentation! In 1912 Thurston wrote an article against the Shroud for the Catholic Encyclopedia and for the next three decades, few Roman Catholics and even fewer Christians of other denominations believed in the authenticity of the Shroud. Then, after 33 years the Shroud exhibited in 1931 for 21 days from 4 to 24 May in Turin cathedral. The exposition was to mark the wedding on 8 January 1930 of the Crown Prince and later King of Italy, Umberto II (1904–83) and Princess Marie Jose of Belgium (1906– 2001). A Turin professional photographer, Giuseppe Enrie (1886-1961), was commissioned by the Shroud's owner, King Victor-Emmanuel III (1869–1947) to take a new definitive set of black-and-white photographs of the Shroud. They were to confirm (or otherwise) the results Pia had obtained over 30 years previously and to improve on them given the technical advances in photography over that time. Enrie was one of the foremost photographers in Italy, the editor of Vita Photographica ltaliana, and the owner of a studio and laboratory in Turin. On the night of 3 May 1931, Enrie took twelve photographs of the Shroud: four of the whole Shroud, three of sections of the image, the whole dorsal image, the face and chest, the face two-thirds size; the face full-size and the nail wound in the left wrist enlarged sevenfold. Enrie's camera had large glass photographic plates with filters designed to enhance image details. Princess Clotilde had insisted that there be a glass screen between Pia's camera and the Shroud but there was nothing between the Shroud and Ernie's camera. Enrie's photographs turned out to be of excellent quality and far superior to Pia's. 



Enrie's photographs and many others taken by visitors to the 1931 exposition, proved that the Shroud image is a photographic negative (compare Pia's full-length negative with Enrie's) and disproved anti-authenticists' accusations of fraud and a hoax against Pia. To prevent any accusation of fraud against Enrie, as had been made against Pia, Enrie developed his photographs immediately in a dark room set up in the sacristy of the cathedral. Also, Enrie took and developed his photographs in the presence of many witnesses, among whom were Prince Umberto II, Paul Vignon and Secondo Pia aged 76! In addition, Enrie had invited five professional photographers to attend and study his plates to verify his work. They each testified in writing before an invited public notary that none of Enrie's plates had been retouched and all had accurately captured what they could see on the Shroud.

The agnostic, yet pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow has stated that "The negative photo of the Shroud is Exhibit A in the case for the cloth's authenticity":

"The negative photo of the Shroud is Exhibit A in the case of the cloth's authenticity. It demonstrates that the image possesses a hidden structure, which could hardly have been conceived in the fourteenth century when the relic was first documented in Europe. Simply glancing at the automatic inversion of the image is enough to dispel the idea that it is a regular work of art. If it is a fake, it would have to be the most ingenious and improbable fake in history, a work of supreme skill and cunning. If it is not a fake, then the chances are that it is connected, as traditionally supposed, with the death and burial of Jesus."

First, since photographic negativity was not invented until the early nineteenth century, a medieval artist/forger could not have conceived of the Shroud Man's image being a photographic negative. The very concept of a photographic negative only came into existence with the discovery of photography in the early nineteenth century. A negative image therefore would have been an unimaginable conception before the invention of photography. Those who maintain that the Shroud is a medieval forgery must assume that it was made by an artist whose grasp of the negative-positive properties of photography was five centuries in advance of his time!

Second, a medieval artist/forger could not have created a photographic negative of the Shroud Man. Since the very concept of photographic negativity only came into the range of human knowledge when photography was invented in the early nineteenth century, it is impossible that a medieval artist/forger could have created the Shroud's photographic negative image. A medieval artist/forger creating a photographic negative of the Shroud man would not have been able to see what he was doing, so he could not have included the fine detail that there is on the Shroud. Moreover, a medieval forger creating a photographic negative Shroud image, centuries before the age of photography, would have had no means of checking his work. Modern artists who have tried to depict the Shroud with its negative image have all failed, even though they had a copy of the Shroud's negative photograph before them, their positive copies of the Shroud when photographed were very different from that of the Shroud. They all failed because the Shroud's photographic negative has a realistic perfection that no artist can achieve and which is only found in photographs. Indeed, when in the late 1970s the British artist John Weston, an agnostic, was commissioned to produce, tone by tone, a duplicate Shroud for the television documentary The Silent Witness, he became convinced of the Shroud's genuineness!

Third, a medieval artist/forger would not have wanted to create a photographic negative of the Shroud man, Jesus. An artist/forger depicting Jesus' body as it might have appeared on his burial garment, would not have chosen to do so with an artistry and detail that would have not been discovered for another 500 years, until the invention of photography which his age knew nothing about. Even if a medieval artist/forger could have created the Shroud image as a photographic negative, why would he have done so when no one of his time would have been able to appreciate his cleverness?

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic! That is, it is the very burial sheet of Jesus Christ, bearing the photographically negative imprint of His dead body as it lay wrapped in a linen shroud in His tomb (Mt 27:59-60; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) awaiting His resurrection (Mt 28:6-7; Mk 16:5-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:5-9). And therefore that photographically negative image is "a literal `snapshot' of the [Jesus'] Resurrection"!

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb, the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... its image ... becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection."

That is, the photographically negative image on the Shroud is that of "the body of the Lord Jesus" imprinted on His burial shroud when He "was raised [from the dead] by the glory of the Father":

"... in the Turin Shroud we have not only the linen cloth in which the body of the Lord Jesus was wrapped but also a representation of that body portrayed by other than human hands, by some supernatural process which confounds all explanation. ... the radiant incandescence of that almighty act of love and power when the Son of God `was raised by the glory of the Father' [Rom 6:4] has scorched his image and likeness on the Shroud, a sign for our scientific century which demands scientific proof ...".

That the Shroud image is a photographic negative is explained by STURPs John P. Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory":

"Jackson believes that today, twenty centuries later, we may have in our possession an image analogous to [a photograph taken by] a camera that recorded, in the darkness of the tomb, something that no human eye had ever seen. What John describes in the tomb [Jn 20:5-7] is that the burial cloths of Jesus were seen lying on the shelf where the body had been placed, but clearly flattened or deflated, without the body that they once contained. For Jackson, this is precisely the end condition of the Shroud after it has fallen through the body it wrapped, according to his hypothesis of image formation."




Poster created for the display of the Shroud of Turin in 1898. As can be observed, the negative image of the Shroud that became popular following Secondo Pia's photographs is not yet present. Upwards in the middle one sees the upper part of Bertola’s altar inside the Holy Shroud Chapel. Behind the grille, clearly visible, is placed, not visible, the case that contains the reliquary with the Holy Shroud. At the sides, with a writing, there is Sainte Chapelle of Chambéry and Turin Cathedral with the Holy Shroud Chapel’s dome. In the middle, below representation of the transport to the sepulchre. Between the two side writings commenting on the drawings; only the left one is historical: “meeting between Duke Emanuele Filiberto and St. Carlo Borromeo at the Palatina Gate”. The right one is a legendary hypothesis: “Presentation of the Shroud to Goffredo di Buglione in Jerusalem”. The long underlying writing is a Prayer approved by Pius IX on September 16, 1859, that recalls in its expressions the “Oremus” of the Mass in honor of the Shroud. The magazine of Sacred Art, published in that year (p.104), dedicated to the event the few following words mentioned by the newspaper “Italia Reale” - National Courier on June 1, 1898. “For a charge of the Committee, the only one who gets this authority, the Holy Shroud’s photograph was taken by the lawyer Secondo Pia, a distinguished and skilled student of photographic art. The photograph was a success and has exceptional importance for religion, history, and science. 1

The earliest photographs of the Shroud of Turin are not only a historical reference but also mark a pivotal moment in the commencement of scientific investigations (Barberis, 2001). The discovery of negative images and the ability to produce photographs with finer details have been crucial in advancing our understanding. By the late 19th century, photographic plates, recording instruments, and lenses had achieved significant quality. In 1898, Turin hosted the General Italian Exhibition to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Albertine Statute. Turinese Catholics showcased their vibrancy through a major Sacred Art Exhibition. A viewing of the Shroud was organized from May 25 to June 2, drawing about 800,000 visitors, half from outside Turin, averaging over 95,000 per day (Zaccone, 2001). Secondo Pia, a lawyer from Asti and a well-known semi-professional photographer, was appointed as the official photographer for the event. He requested permission from the king to take photographs during the viewing. Initially, the Royal House was hesitant due to potential speculations about the images, but ultimately, permission was granted.

Pia was authorized to take photographs on May 25 and May 28, 1898. A sliding platform was set up in front of the Shroud displayed in the cathedral. Lighting posed significant challenges; between the first and second sessions, at the insistence of Princess Clotilde of Savoy, the cloth had to be protected with a glass that reflected light. Additionally, unidentified vandals had removed the rods securing the platform. Using a large photographic instrument mounted on the platform and two lenses, first Dalmayer and then Voigdander, Pia conducted several test photographs with varying exposure times on the opening day of the viewing. Some of these were highly satisfactory. Upon review, it was noted that these photographs exhibited the characteristics of a photographic negative of the Shroud. Pia did not discuss these first two plates further. It is speculated that, in his great prudence, humility, and honesty, he did not feel capable of announcing such a sensational discovery (Zaccone, 1998) and waited for confirmation with subsequent photographs.

On the night of May 28, Pia had enough time for a second session. He conducted two tests and then four passes on large plates, clearly showing the Shroud's images as photographic negatives. This was because, in black and white photographic negatives, the images appear as positives, while in the original and photographic positives, they have a negative character. This behavior does not apply to the stains, traditionally believed to be blood. In areas corresponding to bloodstains, there's an actual transfer of blood material from the Man of the Shroud to the fabric. Unlike the body images, these stains appear negative in the photographic negative and positive in the positive, just like in the photograph of any biological sample. Pia was immediately struck by the results, as were the authorities and those informed about the discovery. There was a growing conviction among them of the absolute authenticity of the image captured through a technical procedure - the true and unique photograph of Jesus Christ, hidden for nearly two millennia. After some initial leaks in the "Cittadino di Genova," the news was officially published by "L’Osservatore Romano" on June 14, with an article titled "A Marvelous Fact."

Meanwhile, the June 1898 issue of the "Rivista di Fotografia," the bulletin of the Lombard Photographic Circle, detailed the sessions' technical challenges and informed specialists that the negative obtained by Pia, "seen in its luminous transparency in the dark environment where it was observed," had "a very powerful suggestive effect." However, there remained a certain skepticism about the seriousness and validity of Pia's work within the photographic community.

Expositions in the Middle Ages



The Shroud of Turin: A History of Devotion, Art, and Dynasty

The Shroud of Turin, an enigmatic and revered religious artifact, has a complex and fascinating history. The first documented evidence of its existence is a medieval lead pilgrimage medallion found in 1855 at the bottom of the Seine in Paris, near the Pont au Change, and currently housed in the Musée de Cluny. This medallion, along with numerous other artifacts discovered in the same location, attests to the tradition of pilgrims throwing such items into the river as part of an apotropaic rite upon entering Paris. These findings underscore the devotional significance of the Shroud in France since the 14th century. The Shroud is primarily renowned for being an extraordinary image. It is a direct and objective representation that requires no mediation for recognition. Its existence as an image is undeniable, and it has been replicated in various forms since its appearance. The Shroud began to be reproduced in different styles, materials, and techniques, aimed at making this image widely accessible, especially to those unable to attend its public displays.

Initially, depictions of the Shroud were devotional in nature, a trend that persisted for a long time. The production of various images of the Holy Shroud began in the 16th century, peaked in the Baroque period, and then declined until it was virtually replaced by photographs in the late 19th century. These images were primarily designed for religious practices. Apart from devotional reproductions, a substantial number of images were created to commemorate historical events, particularly highlighting the relationship between the Savoy dynasty and this dynastic relic. The Savoy acquired the Shroud from Marguerite de Charny, a granddaughter (but not a direct descendant) of Geoffroy de Charny. The circumstances of the acquisition were complex, given Marguerite's precarious claim and legal challenges from the canons of Lirey.

Initially, the Shroud played a private, predominantly female devotional role in the Savoy household, often traveling with the court. Its public significance grew over time, notably after the 1503 public display in Bourg-en-Bresse and the 1506 granting of the liturgy of the Shroud. It gradually assumed its role as a dynastic relic, symbolizing the divine favor and legitimacy of the Savoy dynasty. The presence of such a significant religious object was a common practice in European courts, signifying divine favor and entrusting the dynasty with its care. For the Savoy family, guardianship of the Shroud, which bears the image of Christ's face and wounds, was particularly prestigious. However, this also obligated the sovereign to embody the virtues of a true Catholic prince, recalling figures like St. Charles Borromeo or Blessed Sebastiano Valfrè.

From a devotional standpoint, the Shroud of Turin has been represented in a multitude of ways. Frescoes, adorning both public and private spaces, serve as significant testimonies to the Shroud, although many have deteriorated or become illegible over time. These frescoes, often placed in highly visible areas like house doors or town entrances, served an apotropaic purpose. Representations of the Shroud alone are rare; it is usually depicted alongside the Virgin Mary, who helps present it, or with saints who had some connection to it. These saints might be linked to devotions to the Incarnation and Passion of Christ, like St. Francis, or to other local or popular devotions, or even to figures associated with the dynastic pantheon. Occasionally, these depictions include historical elements, such as public displays of the Shroud. These frescoes are found across various regions, from Savoyard France to Piedmont and even Lombardy, with less presence in areas more recently acquired by the Savoy State. Frescoes are also a part of the interior decoration in places of worship. However, the knowledge and depiction of the Shroud extended far beyond these regions, as evidenced by artworks like the large canvas attributed to Francesco Bassano the Younger in Treviso Cathedral or the late 16th-century depiction in the Vatican's Gallery of Maps. The latter illustrates the growing religious significance of the Shroud within the Savoy territories.

Additionally, there are paintings of various sizes, sometimes created by notable artists, and a variety of personal devotional items like Books of Hours, small paintings, prints, and embroideries. With the advent of printing, the reproduction of Shroud images became widespread, enabling mass dissemination. The increase in Shroud representations in the mid-16th century coincided with various needs. With Emanuele Filiberto moving the capital to Turin and asserting his dynasty after challenging years, there was a keen interest in promoting the dynastic relic. This policy continued with his successors, coupled with a genuine personal devotion shared by the sovereign, court, and public. For instance, King Charles Felix's deep religious devotion led to a public display of the Shroud during his unexpected accession. Public displays of the Shroud, especially during dynastic events, became increasingly elaborate, reflecting the relic's attributed significance. After relocating the capital from Chambéry to Turin, symbolizing a new political will, Emanuele Filiberto commissioned three works from court historian Emanuele Filiberto Pingon. These works aimed to strengthen the dynasty's image and the new political direction. They included a reconstruction of the Savoy genealogy, a text on Turin highlighting its role and antiquity, and a book on the Holy Shroud – the first dedicated entirely to the relic. Pingon's efforts, despite some challenges and lack of documentation, laid the foundation for subsequent reconstructions of the Shroud's history and confirmation of its status as a relic. Beyond the "Savoyan need," the ecclesiastical perspective played a role. Post-Council of Trent, the Church saw representations of relics and images as powerful tools for catechesis and strengthening spirituality and doctrine.

The Shroud, with its unique characteristics, emerged as a key instrument in the Catholic Reformation. Esteemed figures like St. Charles Borromeo and St. Francis de Sales championed its significance, reinforcing its role in applying the canons of the Catholic Reformation. The Shroud's influence was further amplified through literature, including the publication of sermons that, while often initiated by dynastic interests, delved into theological and pastoral perspectives. A notable example is the sermons of Camillo Balliani, a Dominican and Inquisitor of Turin, who was committed to upholding correct doctrine and promoting the Council's directives. Alongside these theological works, devotional prints featuring the Shroud, accompanied by prayers, became popular. These prints served as aids for meditation and as introductions to the mystery of salvation represented by the Shroud. Another significant method of dissemination were full-sized copies or scaled-down versions of the Shroud on canvas. These replicas, prevalent from the 16th to the 19th centuries, were often produced for solemn expositions. The Savoy family used these copies as prestigious gifts for kings, foreign ambassadors, and apostolic nuncios, employing them strategically to strengthen dynastic ties established through matrimonial and military alliances.

However, these political and diplomatic practices only partly capture the essence of replicating the Shroud. Creating a copy was seen as an act of engaging with the mystery of the Shroud, transcending mere practical or secular purposes to attain a deeply religious dimension. The process of replicating the Shroud was not just an artistic endeavor commissioned by the Prince; it was a sacred act that brought the artist's eye and hand into close contact with the image of Christ, necessitating spiritual awareness and preparation. This reverence is exemplified by the ritual prescribed by Emanuele Filiberto for creating a copy for Philip II. The Shroud was displayed in a private chapel, illuminated by numerous chandeliers and lamps. While the royal painter worked on the replica, kneeling and with an uncovered head, pious clergymen recited the prayer of the forty hours. This solemn process was intended to ensure respect and devotion during the replication, contrasting with previous instances where painters approached the task casually and subsequently encountered misfortune, believed to be a sign of divine displeasure. This anecdote, detailed in Bonafamiglia's "La Sacra historia della Santissima Sindone," highlights the profound respect and solemnity accorded to the task of reproducing the Shroud's image.

The replication of the Holy Shroud of Turin involved a unique ritualistic process, where copies were often physically placed against the original Shroud. This act was believed to transfer some of the Shroud's sacredness to the copies, allowing them to partake in and convey the mystery the Shroud represents.

These authorized and certified copies are highly valued, as not all replicas can claim direct lineage from the original due to the absence of objective verification. Around these copies, various stories, including tales of fraudulent productions or miraculous occurrences, have emerged, adding to local folklore. In some communities, these replicas of the Shroud have been integrated into official liturgical practices, particularly on Good Friday, and into various devotional forms developed by popular piety, such as the Entierro rite, mysteries, and penitential processions. Special brotherhoods have even been established to oversee the care and devotion to these copies. The oldest known copy of the Shroud dates back to 1516, currently preserved in Lierre, Belgium. While few copies bear the artist's signature, many include inscriptions affirming their resemblance to the original in Turin or come with documents of authentication, other writings, or dedications. These copies are often adorned with intricate borders and ornaments. One notable example is the copy believed to have been received by Charles Borromeo from the Bishop of Vercelli, Carlo Francesco Bonomi. Borromeo venerated this copy in his private chapel, making it a Borromean relic in its own right. Additionally, princesses Maria Apollonia and Francesca Caterina, daughters of Charles Emmanuel I and declared venerable in 1838, were known for their devotion to the Shroud. During their travels, they carried copies of the original and presented them as gifts to their hosts. Interestingly, the characteristic of the original Shroud behaving like a photographic negative was not understood during the peak period of these copies' production. This feature was only discovered after the first photograph of the Shroud was taken by Secondo Pia in 1898. Pia's subsequent attempt to photograph a reproduction of the 1670 painting by Count Gay of Montariolo revealed that these copies lacked the original's negative-like quality. Not all copies were likely made directly from the Shroud but rather using preparatory drawings or sketches. This could account for certain discrepancies between the copies and the original, often seen in groups of replicas from specific periods. These painted copies of the Shroud hold significant historical and documentary value. They are essential for understanding the evolution and spread of devotion to the sacred linen and its establishment in communities responsible for these revered objects.


Shroud Exposition in 1931





In 1931, a grand exhibition in Turin celebrated the nuptials of Prince Umberto II of Savoy and Princess Maria José of Belgium. The majestic Duomo of Turin played host to not just scores of pilgrims but also an assembly of nobility and clergy, making for a grand public spectacle. The air buzzed with anticipation as many had journeyed to witness the splendor of the royal court. Newspaper headlines heralded an unparalleled procession, a cavalcade of knights, soldiers, and clerics, arrayed in their most ornate uniforms. The scene was one to behold, with throngs of pilgrims thronging the Duomo's steps, orderly managed by a robust security detail, as the devout trickled in from every direction, by foot and by carriage. The event, commencing on the 3rd of May, was a magnet for the masses, drawn to the rare public display of the Shroud from the cathedral's grilles. To accommodate the overwhelming turnout, the sacred relic was exhibited in this manner throughout. Spanning a fortnight, the exhibition was a Papal decree by Pope Pius XI, Achille Ratti, to mark the extraordinary Holy Year and the nineteen centuries since the Christian narrative of redemption. The opening day was a gathering of monarchs and the clergy, with the presence of five queens, a cardinal, and numerous bishops, as reported by the press. The cathedral was bathed in radiance, the holy linen veiled under a colossal cover. Notably striking was the sight of crutches abandoned by those who had been healed, a testament to the sanctity of the event. These were prominently displayed on June 6th, a testament from devotees hailing from Switzerland, Spain, France, and Ireland. The newspapers painted a vivid picture of the international crowd, unprecedented in its diversity. Tokens left by the Italian faithful bore the names of their hometowns, a poignant touch to the miracle-woven narrative. The humeral veil, initially presented to the gathered multitudes in Piazza San Giovanni, was later elevated by the bishops and paraded down the main aisle in a solemn procession. It was a moment of profound reverence, punctuated by the pealing of the Duomo's bells, quickly echoed by the tolling from across the city.






Hidden in The sanctuary of the Madonna of Montevergine during WWII

The sanctuary of the Madonna of Montevergine at the peaks of Mount Partenio is one of the most visited monasteries in Southern Italy. Every year, millions of pilgrims and devotees visit the Marian complex to pay homage to the Virgin Mary.

Many of these faithful are unaware that an indelible bond ties the abbey to the sacred Shroud, the linen cloth preserved in the Cathedral of Turin on which Christian tradition recognizes the image of Christ. For seven years, from 1939 to 1946, the Shroud was secretly hidden in the Marian complex, identified by the Church as one of the safest places to protect the relic from the ambitions of the Germans. It was well known that Hitler was obsessed with all objects connected to the figure of Jesus, a fact confirmed in 1938 when the Fuhrer, during his visit to Italy, made unusual and persistent inquiries about the Shroud, enough to suggest his personal designs on it.

The Pope, alerted to the possibility that Italy could enter the war, warned King Victor Emmanuel III, the owner of the relic at the time. This led to a top-secret operation, one that was even kept from Mussolini. It was September 1939, Germany had just crossed into Poland, officially starting the Second World War. Despite the neutrality declared by the Italian government, few were under any illusion that Mussolini would spare Italy the tragedy of conflict, which is why, in the utmost secrecy, on the night of September 6, the Shroud was removed from the Guarini Chapel to be transported to the Royal Chapel of the Quirinal Palace.

The King's idea was to hide the relic in the Vatican, but even within the sacred walls, the holy linen could fall into the wrong hands. Therefore, the Pope thought to move the Shroud to a lesser-known place: the Sanctuary of Montevergine. The Shroud arrived at the Benedictine monastery on September 25, where it was hidden behind the choir altar, where the monks recited Vespers. In the delivery report signed by Abbot Marcone, Canon Paolo Brusa, guardian of the Sacred Shroud, Prior of Montevergine, Bernardo Rabasca, and the King's chaplain, Giuseppe Gariglio, all provisions were written: the Shroud, rolled up, was placed in a silver box lined with brocade.

It was to be placed in a larger wooden box, wrapped in a canvas envelope sealed with lead seals and bearing the inscription: Reliquiarii, which would be hidden in the monastery's enclosure under the wooden altar of the Coretto da notte, locked with a sturdy wooden front. In an additional report, it was also established that, in the event of bombings or dangers, the abbot was authorized to move the Shroud to an even safer place: an artificial gallery dug into the living rock a hundred meters from the Coretto, which could be accessed through the monastery corridor, without the need to go outside.

Only on October 31, 1946, was the Shroud returned to Turin. For seven long years, the relic was kept safe from enemy designs, and everyone, including the monks of Montevergine, remained in the dark about the operation.

In 1943, the Germans, unaware and searching for partisans, came close to the coveted object. The soldiers entered the sanctuary during a raid, ascended the stairs leading to the room of the night choir, but finding the monks in prayer and moved by respect, they closed the door and left. They were so close to their goal, yet the operation was so well executed that it never crossed their minds that the Shroud could be hidden right there, in that room of prayer under the vigilant protection of Mamma Schiavona. The House of Savoy is the owner of the Shroud. During World War II, King Vittorio Emanuele III fears for the safety of the Shroud: he wants to protect it from bombs, but also from other threats, such as the fact that Hitler was searching for well-known relics. Only he, Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Secretary of State Luigi Maglione and Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (later Pope Paul VI), know about the operation. Not even Cardinal Fossati, archbishop of Turin, is informed. Initially one thinks of the Quirinal Palace, the Vatican or the Abbey of Montecassino, but they do not seem like safe places.

On September 7, 1939, two cars leave the Quirinal: their destination is the Monastery of Montevergine, where the Shroud remains hidden until the end of the war in a secondary chapel. In a letter dated June 10, 1946, just three days before his departure into exile, King Umberto II writes to Cardinal Fossati giving his consent for the Shroud to find its location in the Chapel that bears the name of him.

Cardinal Fossati arrives in Montevergine to bring the Shroud back to Turin but, before embarking on the return trip by car to Rome and by train from Rome to Turin, he authorizes an extraordinary display only for the religions of the monastery, which during those years They have hidden and protected the Shroud. It is the night between October 28 and 29, 1946: the Shroud is shown for only ten minutes.



The Shroud stayed in the Sanctuary of the Madonna di Montevergine in Mercogliano during the Second World War. In September 1939, King Vittorio Emanuele III was convinced that the sacred object placed in the chapel near the Royal Palace of Turin should be sheltered in a quieter place, that is, away from any Anglo-American aerial bombings. An extremely secret operation began, the Duce himself knew nothing of it. Some men took care to move the relic to Rome on 7 September, then the following day to the Quirinale. Before transferring it, it was well protected, I go over the words in the "delivery and temporary storage report of the Holy Shroud":
“…And therefore, after having been removed from its usual place, the silver box containing the said Relic was placed in a wooden box, closed with screws, lined with white cloth stitched all around and surrounded with string with knots the lead seal with the initials of the Count General Giovanni Amico di Meane, Regent of the Administration of the Royal House in Turin...".

Crown Prince Umberto I consulted Giovanni Battista Montini (future Pope Paul VI), then deputy of the Secretariat of State of His Holiness for Ordinary Affairs, so that the Vatican would take care of safeguarding the sacred object. The proposal was rejected, as Vatican City ran the same risk as Turin.

At this juncture, the Holy See summoned the abbot of Montevergine Ramiro Marcone. Without hesitation, the abbot went to his destination and communicated with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Maglione. The latter informed him of the invitation to move the relic to Montevergine, well the abbot was quick to accept the invitation. The choice fell on Montevergine not only because it presented itself as a safe place, but also because of the historical relationship that linked the House of Savoy with the Black Madonna. To tell one of her stories, in 1433 Margaret of Savoy donated a fresco by Pietro Cavallino dei Cerroni to the Sanctuary to express her devotion, as she escaped a shipwreck thanks to the intermediation of Mamma Schiavona.

On September 25th the sacred object was hidden in the religious building, in particular under the Coretto altar at night. If the structure were bombed, the sacred object would have to be moved to a safer place than the sacred place, in an artificial corridor 145 meters deep. The operation was so delicate that only a few members of the Sanctuary were informed of it. In 1943 during the Nazi-Fascist occupation of Italy, the Germans did not discover the Shroud during their routine checks in the Sanctuary. At the end of the war, it was not known what the fate of the relic would be, meanwhile in early June 1946 the House of Savoy abandoned its homeland and throne, after the Italian people expressed their opinion in favor of the Republic through a referendum. In these anxious moments, on 10 June 1946 a letter arrived at the Sanctuary, the House of Savoy clarified the fate of the Shroud, well the order was to return it to Turin.

The archbishop of the city of Turin, Maurilio Fossati, personally showed up in Montevergine on October 28, 1946, to bring the Shroud back to Turin. The abbot of the Sanctuary, Roberto D'Amore, asked the Cardinal to be able to see the Relic, Fossati with extreme benevolence agreed to the request. The reception hall was prepared for the Shroud display ceremony. At the end of the conference, at midnight the Cardinal opened the urns and discovered the Shroud. At 1.30 am the singular event ended, a documentary film immortalized everything. This was followed by the moving of the Shroud to the Chapel of the Madonna, the Cardinal celebrated mass at 5.30 am then came the moment of farewell, some present loaded the sacred object into the car. The trip included a short stop in Rome before arriving in Turin.


1969
Between the 16th and 18th of June, the revered Shroud was displayed within the hallowed confines of the Royal Palace's Chapel of the Holy Shroud. This display was not just for public veneration but also for a meticulous examination by a study committee, overseen by Cardinal Michele Pellegrino. The fabric was subject to a battery of photographic techniques, this time using color imagery, under the expert guidance of Giovanni Battista Judica Cordiglia, who was tasked with the official photographic reproduction. The photographic endeavor was comprehensive, employing various lighting conditions, including normal and infrared light, to capture and elucidate as many details as possible from both the fabric and the enigmatic image it bore. These photographs, preserved to this day, serve as a testament to this detailed analysis. Giovanni Battista Judica Cordiglia, not only an esteemed member of the Commission but also an acknowledged photographer, was specifically called upon due to a provocative hypothesis put forth by Kurt Berna, the president of Switzerland's 'Foundation of the Holy Shroud.' Berna, claiming a close friendship with Cordiglia, promulgated pamphlets bearing his controversial theory: that the Shroud had enfolded not the remains of the deceased, but a body that was still alive.



1973
The exhibition marked a historic milestone as it became the first ever to be broadcast via television. Millions of individuals watched from the comfort of their homes, while thousands of devout followers gathered in the hall of the Swiss at the Royal Palace in Turin. In a break from tradition and to facilitate the television broadcast, the Shroud was displayed vertically rather than in the horizontal orientation that had been customary until then. The live transmission, showcasing what is believed to be the image of Jesus, was initiated abruptly following scholarly studies. As reported by Ugo Buzzolan of 'La Stampa', who is recognized as a pioneer in television criticism, this strategic approach was adopted because, during the initial official display, a small fragment of the Shroud's fabric was sampled. This was done in order to conduct analyses on the material present on the fabric and to examine the numerous particles embedded within the linen's weave. Among the microtraces discovered, particularly notable were the pollen grains, meticulously identified by Swiss biologist Max Frei Sulzer, who was the head of the Zurich Scientific Police. His studies revealed the presence of over fifty distinct pollen types.

1978



In a moment of profound synchronicity for those of the Catholic faith, a remarkable event unfolded on August 27, 1978. It was the day following the appointment of the 264th pontiff, Albino Luciani of Venice, who took the papal name John Paul I. This was also when the venerated Shroud underwent a public display, marking 400 years since its relocation from Chambéry to Turin, a ceremonial exhibition that drew over three million pilgrims to the city over a span of forty-two days. Following the period of public veneration, an international cohort of over two hundred scholars, along with the esteemed president of the Tribunal and the director of Turin's International Center of Sindonology, embarked on a meticulous examination of the Shroud's fabric, particularly areas marked by blood. Their investigations yielded findings consistent with human biochemistry, noting the presence of calcium, protein, and iron in proportions typical of the human constitution, further determining the blood type to be AB.

1998
At the dawn of the Internet age, a significant event marked the close of the second millennium: the final exhibition of the Shroud and the inaugural online transmission of the Holy Mass led by Pope John Paul II in the Duomo. This event also commemorated the 100th anniversary of Secondo Pia's pioneering photograph of the Holy Shroud. Over the course of forty-five days, Turin became a focal point for over 1.5 million individuals, including pilgrims, the inquisitive, and the scientific community, who came to witness and scrutinize the relic. Despite extensive analysis, a consensus on the Shroud's authenticity remained elusive. The preservation of the Shroud was enhanced by innovative means: encased in a dual-layered, five-millimeter-thick acrylic, with a small gap of air in between for protection, and an inner layer made of a resilient acrylic material. A specialized crystal overlay, designed to be anti-reflective and to shield against ultraviolet light, ensures the safeguarding of the fabric. Henceforth, the revered image on the Shroud, known as the Holy Face, will be securely displayed within this protective enclosure.

2000
The turn-of-the-millennium exhibition orchestrated just a couple of years after its predecessor, was a heartfelt wish of Pope John Paul II, coinciding with the Jubilee, a significant event in Catholicism symbolizing forgiveness and spiritual renewal. This display made history not only for its unprecedented 72-day duration but also for its groundbreaking presentation: it marked the first use of a specialized aluminum case with slats, providing a new way for the public to view the mysterious image on the Shroud. As devotees made their pilgrimage from the Royal Gardens to the Cathedral, kneelers were thoughtfully provided along the path to invite moments of reflection and prayer. Despite the past adversity of a fire in the Guarini Chapel, the city proved its resilience, successfully hosting over two and a half million visitors. Turin was lauded for its exemplary management; throughout this extensive period, no untoward events occurred. Local businesses participated wholeheartedly, ensuring continuous service during the late August sales, while the city administration adeptly catered to every need of the vast crowds, offering an array of services including transportation, information booths, accommodations, and community dining experiences.



Recent scientific discoveries of the Shroud


Shroudencounter: 
1898: The Shroud was photographed for the first time. These first pictures led to the discovery that the image on the cloth is actually a negative. The image becomes positive in a photographic negative. This discovery startled the scientific community and stimulated worldwide interest.


1931: Guisseppe Enrie photographed the Shroud again with more advanced film technology confirming that the Shroud is indeed a negative image. Copies of Enrie's photos were circulated throughout the world prompting more scientific inquiry and interest. 

1950: Dr. Pierre Barbet, a prominent French Surgeon, published A Doctor at Calvary documenting 15 years of medical research on the Shroud image. He described the physiology and pathology of the man on the Shroud as "anatomically perfect". 

1973: Max Frei, a noted Swiss criminologist, was given permission to take dust samples from the Shroud that contained much pollen. He discovered 22 pollen species from plants that are unique to areas around Constantinople and Edessa, and 7 pollen species from plants common only in Israel. The pollen trail appears to corroborate the historical trail. 

1975: Air Force scientists John Jackson and Eric Jumper, using a VP-8 Image Analyzer designed for the space program, discovered the Shroud image contained encoded 3-D data not found in ordinary reflected light photographs. This discovery indicated that the cloth must have wrapped a real human figure at the time the image was formed. 

1978: The Shroud was on public exhibit for the first time since 1933 and was displayed for six weeks. At the close of the exhibition, 24 scientists comprising the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) analyzed the Shroud for five continuous days (122 hours) working in shifts around the clock. 

1980: National Geographic magazine published a landmark article on the Shroud further propelling the cloth into the science limelight calling it "One of the most perplexing enigmas of modern times". 

1980: This same year, microscopist Walter McCrone who was not part of the Shroud Project was given several fibers to analyze. After finding iron oxide particles and a single particle of vermilion paint, he broke ranks with the Shroud scientists who had agreed to make all findings public the following year. McCrone proposed that the Shroud was a painting of red ochre paint created from iron oxide particles suspended in a thin binder solution. However McCrone's findings in no way agreed with any of the highly sophisticated tests conducted by two dozen other scientists. His claims have all been dismissed. It turns out the iron oxide is a natural result of soaking the linen for days (retting) where iron ions from the water attach to the fibers and oxidize. The particles are randomly distributed over the entire cloth. 

1981: After three years analyzing the data The Shroud of Turn Research Project (STURP) made their findings public at an international conference in New London, CT. All the scientists agreed upon the following statement: "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and give a positive test for serum albumin." 

1988: The Shroud was carbon dated by three laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona. They indicated a date range from between 1260 to 1390 indicating the cloth to be only about 700 years old. This earth shattering news seemed to contradict the conclusions of STURP that gave support to the Shroud's possible authenticity. 

1997: Avinoam Danin, prominent Israeli Botanist and a professor at Hebrew University confirmed the presence of flower images on the Shroud. He verified 28 different pollen species and/or plant images. Many are from plants that grow only around Jerusalem. 

2002: The Shroud was restored to remove charred debris from the fire of 1532 to aid in the cloth’s preservation. All the burns and patches from the 1532 fire were removed. The shroud was attached to a new backing cloth as well.

2004: Textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, revealed that the stitching of a seam on the Shroud that runs the entire length known as the side strip is typical of Jewish burial shrouds found in Masada, Israel.

2004: Chemical research on image fibers offers clues as to how the image was formed. The entire cloth is covered with a razor thin layer of carbohydrates that adhered to the linen after being soaked in a soap weed detergent as part of an ancient manufacturing process. Something has interacted with this carbo-layer resulting in a discoloration of the cloth near or in direct contact with the body and is what causes the image to be visible on the cloth. 

2005: Thermal Chemist, Ray Rogers, followed up on new spectroscopic data showing the material of the corner cut for carbon dating may be different from the rest of the Shroud. He obtained thread samples from the C-14 corner and thread samples from the interior of the Shroud. Additional micro-chemical and spectroscopic tests showed the samples were not the same. Results published in a peer-reviewed journal confirmed initial concerns. The sample cut for C-14 dating appears to be from a medieval reweave instead of the original shroud.

"The radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.” 

The carbon labs violated the original sampling protocol. Three different samples were to be cut; instead only one sample was used. Ignoring caution from archaeologists, they cut the sample from the most handled area of the cloth, the outside corner edge exactly where it had been grabbed and held by Church authorities for numerous public exhibitions. It was an area that had the most potential for contamination, damage and repair.

2011: European researchers with the ENEA were able replicate the depth and coloration of the Shroud image using a 40 nanosecond burst from an UV excimer laser. This is the first time any aspect of the image has been reproduced using light. 

2013: Researchers with Padua University in Italy, using multiple samples from other linens of a known age ranging from the current era to 3000 BC, were able to develop a predictable rate of chemical and mechanical decay. Comparing fibers from the Shroud, they determined an estimated date range of 280 BC to 220 AD.10

1. Joseph G. Marino: If an Artist Created the Shroud of Turin: Some Specific March 13, 2022
2. Stephen E. Jones: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is Jesus' burial sheet!
3. The Mystery Man Exhibition
4. Pierre Barbet : A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ As Described by a Surgeon  1950
5. http://www.shroud.it/FOSSATI2.PDF

Further literature: 
http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/falcinellipiaweb.pdf
PHOTOGRAPHING THE HOLY SHROUD DURING THE 1898 EXHIBITION

Chapter 4 




3D Information encoded in the Shroud


Barbara M. Sullivan (1933-2016), with tracing paper and a photograph of the Shroud, was the first in 1973 to provide evidence that the entire image of the Shroud is three-dimensional. Alan D. Adler credited Sullivan with providing ‘the first evidence for 3-D information encoded in images of the Shroud.

Barbara M. Sullivan's pioneering work in 1973 marked a significant advancement in the study of the Shroud of Turin. Sullivan, utilizing a combination of tracing paper and a photograph of the Shroud, was the first to provide concrete evidence suggesting that the image on the Shroud contained intrinsic three-dimensional properties, a discovery that was groundbreaking at the time. Her method involved carefully analyzing the variations in the intensity of the image on the Shroud, which led her to propose that these variations corresponded to the distance from the cloth to the body it would have covered. This implied that the image formation process, whatever its nature, encoded spatial information, a concept that was revolutionary for the study of the Shroud. Alan D. Adler, a renowned chemist and Shroud researcher, recognized the significance of Sullivan's findings. He credited her with uncovering the first evidence of three-dimensional information encoded within the Shroud's images, which opened new avenues for scientific inquiry. This acknowledgment by Adler, a respected figure in the scientific community studying the Shroud, underscored the importance of Sullivan's contribution. Sullivan's work laid the groundwork for further research using more advanced technologies. Following her initial discovery, various researchers and scientists employed sophisticated image analysis techniques, such as the VP-8 Image Analyzer in the late 1970s, to further explore the three-dimensional aspects of the Shroud's image. These studies have contributed to a deeper understanding of the Shroud's properties and continue to fuel debates about its origins, the method of image formation, and its significance. The implications of Sullivan's discovery extend beyond the academic and scientific communities. For believers and enthusiasts, the possibility of the Shroud containing three-dimensional information adds to the mystery and intrigue surrounding the relic, providing a tangible link between science and faith. It raises profound questions about the nature of the image and its formation, contributing to the ongoing debate about the Shroud's authenticity and its place in history and religion. Barbara M. Sullivan's innovative approach and findings in 1973 have had a lasting impact on Shroud studies, bridging the gap between art, science, and spirituality, and inviting a multidisciplinary approach to understanding one of the most enigmatic relics in human history.

The Shroud of Turin continued to astound the world of photography throughout the 20th century. In 1976, after the Shroud had been captured in color for the first time, its unique photographic imprint caught the attention of a group of science educators at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, USA. Among them was physicist Dr. John Jackson, who gained access to the VP-8 Image Analyzer, an advanced device originally developed for NASA's space program. This technology was designed to convert shades of black and white into levels of vertical relief, viewable and adjustable on a television screen. Normally, a photograph, that records variations in light, does not contain depth information. Therefore, when analyzed with the VP-8, most images appear distorted, as the device is not intended to create a true 3D display but only a semblance of it.

However, the outcome was extraordinary when the Shroud's negative image was placed under the VP-8. It produced a consistent 'true' 3D effect. This effect allowed observers to move around the image on the TV monitor, similar to viewing a mountain range from a moving helicopter. The varied tones of the Shroud's image, referred to as 'intensity levels' by the scientists, seemed to encode the body's relief about its distance from the cloth at each corresponding image point.

This discovery was groundbreaking for the physicists and technicians who first experienced it. John Jackson likened his reaction to that of Secondo Pia when he first saw his photographic image of the Shroud in 1898. Peter Schumacher, the inventor of the VP-8 Image Analyzer, who personally brought the device to Jackson's team, shared similar sentiments. He was astounded when he saw the Shroud's full-body image on his system’s TV monitor, noting the relief of the nose, the proper contouring of facial features, and the body shapes of the arms, legs, and chest. He had never seen anything like it, either before or after, on the VP-8. The Shroud of Turin is the only item that has ever produced such results on this device. Schumacher, unfamiliar with the Shroud before this, expressed doubt about the possibility of a medieval artist-forger creating such a sophisticated image.

One must consider how and why an artist would embed three-dimensional information in the ‘grey’ shading of an image [when] no means of viewing this property of the image would be available for at least 650 years after this was done. One would have to ask why is this result not obtained in the analysis of other works. … Why would the artist make only one such work requiring such special skills and talent, and not pass the technique along to others?
How could the artist control the quality of the work when he or she could not ‘see’ grey scale as elevation? … Would an artist produce this work before the device to show the results was [even] invented?

Shortly after their groundbreaking discovery, John Jackson, along with approximately two dozen colleagues, found themselves in Turin, having obtained permission for the most comprehensive scientific examination of the Shroud to date. Their investigative methods encompassed a diverse array of photographic techniques, ranging from standard color photography to x-radiography, transmitted light photography, ultraviolet light photography, and photomicroscopy. Among the ‘STURP’ team’s professional photographers was Barrie Schwortz, a Los Angeles native of Jewish descent with no Christian affiliations. Initially skeptical, Schwortz expected to quickly debunk the Shroud’s authenticity. However, he became deeply engrossed in the research, working tirelessly throughout the team's 120-hour study period. His subsequent conviction in the Shroud's authenticity led him to establish the first website dedicated to the subject, which remains active. Thanks to STURP's efforts, a multitude of high-quality color photographs, including detailed close-ups of the Shroud, were disseminated widely. These images, along with more specialized photographic work from the team, are discussed in subsequent chapters of this book. While STURP's work was groundbreaking for its era, photographic exploration of the Shroud continued to evolve in the following years.

On June 25, 1997, shortly after the Shroud narrowly survived a significant fire in Turin Cathedral’s Holy Shroud Chapel, the relic was unexpectedly brought to Turin’s Church of the Confraternity of the Holy Shroud. Photographer Gian Carlo Durante summoned on short notice, captured the Shroud in its entirety and a close-up of the face in both color and black and white, using 13 × 18 and 10 × 12 format transparencies, respectively. Within a year, Durante's exceptional color photograph of the Shroud's face was featured on the cover of Time magazine, reaching over four million households worldwide. As Durante undertook this impromptu task, the dawn of digital photography was emerging, and he quickly embraced this new medium. In 2002, his expertise was sought again for extensive digital photography and scanning required to document Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg’s conservation work, which involved removing the Shroud’s sixteenth-century patches and backing cloth. This process revealed the Shroud's previously unseen underside for the first time in over four centuries. Durante's photographs, along with others, were swiftly compiled into a large-format color publication. In 2007, a mere fifty-five miles from Turin in Novara, a company named HAL9000 undertook a pioneering digital photography project of Leonardo da Vinci’s massive mural, The Last Supper, capturing it in 1,677 separate sections and digitally combining them to create a multi-gigabyte image available online. This technique allowed for a detailed examination of even the smallest segments of Leonardo’s deteriorating masterpiece on a personal computer. This method was well-suited for the Shroud. Consequently, on January 22, 2008, HAL9000 technicians were granted one day of direct access to the Shroud. They amassed 158 gigabytes of photographic data, capturing details as minute as one five-hundredth of a millimeter. A twenty-three-foot-long print of this image has been exhibited in Novara, and online access or a DVD, akin to the da Vinci project, is anticipated to be available by the time of this book's publication.

The advent of high-definition (HD) filmmaking has revolutionized the visual representation of moving images, bringing an unprecedented level of detail to the screen. Following in the wake of the HAL9000 team’s efforts, a British television crew, under the leadership of seasoned producer David Rolfe – a recipient of a BAFTA award for a Shroud-related documentary three decades earlier – embarked on a pioneering project. This marked the first instance of an English-speaking documentary team being granted permission to film the Shroud directly. On January 24, 2008, Rolfe’s lead cinematographer, David Crute, accompanied by a second cameraman, journeyed to Turin equipped with cutting-edge Sony HD 750 cameras. Their filming took place in the same sacristy room where I had viewed the Shroud in daylight back in 2000. However, for this television project, the room’s high windows were completely obscured, and the Shroud was illuminated using eight high-frequency Kino Flo fluorescent lights, selected for their minimal heat emission and steady light. Despite facing unforeseen challenges with the power supply, reminiscent of the difficulties Secondo Pia encountered a century earlier, Crute and his team successfully captured exceptionally high-quality footage of the Shroud. Portions of this footage were featured in a BBC documentary, presented by the renowned journalist Rageh Omaar, which aired on Easter Saturday in 2008. Even more fascinating is the comprehensive footage that remains unseen by television audiences. Rolfe instructed Crute to meticulously film every aspect of the Shroud's surface, from wider views to extreme close-ups. It’s in these close-up shots that the latest HD technology reveals novel insights. Viewing these images on a computer monitor, one can scrutinize the body image areas and the unique coloration of the bloodstains with such clarity and ease that it surpasses direct examination with a high-powered magnifying glass. Both Rolfe and Crute recognized that the extraordinary level of detail now accessible, coupled with the myriad of analysis techniques afforded by modern technology, has opened up new avenues for Shroud research. As Crute noted, within their footage lies additional layers of the image yet to be explored, suggesting a wealth of information still to be uncovered.

The advancements in high-definition technology have incontrovertibly corroborated the discoveries of Secondo Pia and Giuseppe Enrie regarding the Shroud's hidden negative imagery in a remarkably compelling manner. Despite the widespread replication of Enrie’s exceptional life-size negative plate, there have been sporadic skeptics who questioned its authenticity, suggesting that the orthochromatic plates used might have artificially enhanced the impression of detail. In the realm of digital photography, the absence of any chemical intermediary stands out. When examining a high-definition close-up of the Shroud's face captured by Crute, displayed in its natural color on a computer monitor, we can effortlessly transition the image to a greyscale, or black and white, with a simple keystroke. Another keystroke allows us to invert these tones to their negative form, revealing the same mirrored representation of the original body that the Shroud itself seems to capture. A further keystroke to reverse this mirror image presents us with the identical, remarkable visage that once astonished Pia, Enrie, and numerous others. This process provides immediate and straightforward validation that the Shroud's 'hidden photograph' phenomenon emerges whenever its image is converted to black and white and these colors are inverted. Using a sophisticated editing suite, typical in professional television production, it is even feasible to mimic the VP-8 Image Analyzer’s method of rendering the Shroud in three-dimensional relief. Given such compelling evidence, the burden of proof undoubtedly shifts to those who assert the Shroud to be a fabrication. They must account for how an individual, potentially as early as the Middle Ages and centuries before the advent of photography, could have engineered such a ‘hidden photograph effect’.

The VP-8 Image Analyzer is an analog device that was designed in the 1970s for evaluating X-rays and other imaging purposes. It converts image density (lights and darks) into vertical relief (shadows and highlights). When applied to normal photographs, the result was a distorted and inaccurate image. However, when it was applied to the Shroud of Turin, the result was an accurate, topographic image showing the correct, natural relief characteristics of a human form. These results are often referred to as "three-dimensional".

In 1976, a group of scientists who were using a VP-8 at Sandia Laboratories to evaluate x-rays put a 1931 Enrie photograph of the Shroud of Turin into the device and were able to visualize the three-dimensional properties that exist in the Shroud image1. This particularly intrigued two of the researchers present at the test, Dr. Eric Jumper and Dr. John Jackson. Stimulated by their startling discovery, they decided to form a research team to investigate what might have formed the image on the cloth, and within a few months, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) was born. The image on the Shroud of Turin yields a very accurate dimensional relief of a human form. One must conclude from this that the image density on the cloth is directly proportionate to the distance it was from the body it covered. In essence, the closer the cloth was to the body (tip of the nose, cheekbone, etc.), the darker the image, and the further away (eye sockets, neck, etc.), the fainter the image1. This spatial data encoded into the image eliminates photography and painting as the possible mechanism for its creation and allows us to conclude that the image was formed while the cloth was draped over an actual human body.

So the VP-8 Image Analyzer not only revealed a very important characteristic of the Shroud image, but historically it also provided the actual motivation to form the team that would ultimately go and investigate it.


The extraordinary image of the Shroud has been a constant source of intrigue for scientists. In 1976, physicist Dr. John Jackson and thermodynamicist Dr. Eric Jumper gained access to a VP-8 Image Analyzer, a device capable of converting two-dimensional black and white images into three-dimensional representations by generating a vertical relief profile based on the intensity of shading. When this device was used on normal photographs or paintings, it invariably produced a distorted result, rather than a recognizable three-dimensional version of the source image. However, when a negative of the Shroud was loaded into the device, it produced an accurate three-dimensional representation, with the facial features, arms, legs, and chest of the Shroud Man all contoured correctly (Fig. below).


The front image of the Shroud of Turin as it appears on the screen of a VP-8 Image Analyzer.


Display of 3D model based on the Shroud brightness map. The result astonished the VP-8 Image Analyzer’s inventor, Peter Schumacher, who had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before that moment. He stated, "I had no idea what I was looking at. However, the results are unlike anything I have seen before or since. Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results when processed through the VP-8 Analyzer." This led to an isometric projection study of the Shroud.


At the conference in Albuquerque, a cardboard statue was displayed, showcasing the details of the face of the statue. A complete figure of the "Man of the Shroud" was created, based on the data regarding the body's relief. Unfortunately, the image of the arms, which was damaged in the fire of 1532, significantly alters the overall appearance. Despite the rudimentary method used to recreate the figure, it remains a highly suggestive image. This statue represents an attempt to bring to life the figure imprinted on the Shroud of Turin. The creation of such a three-dimensional representation aims to provide a more tangible and realistic view of the "Man of the Shroud," based on the imprints and measurements derived from the Shroud itself. The damage to the Shroud, particularly the burns and alterations from the 1532 fire, poses challenges in accurately reconstructing the full image. However, efforts like this statue showcase the continuous interest in and fascination with the Shroud, as well as the desire to understand and visualize the figure it bears. This reconstruction, even with its limitations, offers a unique perspective on the Shroud, inviting viewers to engage with the artifact more physically and visually.

Only the frontal image of the Shroud man is three-dimensional. The dorsal or back image is not three-dimensional, having been formed by direct contact. The frontal image cannot have been formed by direct contact because it has areas that could not have been in contact with the cloth: for example the recessed areas between the nose and cheeks, the eye sockets and ears, the ribs, and part of the neck. This is consistent with STURP's John P. Jackson's "cloth collapse theory". Leo Vala In 1967, Leo Vala, a professional photographer and an agnostic made the first three-dimensional reproduction of the Shroud face by projecting a Shroud negative photograph onto a lump of clay and sculpting it. Vala published his experiment in the March 8, 1967 issue of Amateur Photographer, stating in the article:

"I've been involved in the invention of many complicated visual processes, and I can tell you that no one could have faked that image. No one could do it today with all the technology we have. It's a perfect negative. It has a photographic quality that is extremely precise." Vala became a critic of anyone who thought the image could have been produced by human hands.

VP-8 Image Analyzer 

In 1976 Robert William (Bill) Mottern (1924-2015), an image-enhancement specialist at Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, offered Jackson the use of an Interpretation Systems VP-8 Image Analyzer, an instrument that translates light intensity into vertical relief, to help in their investigations. Mottern was using the VP8 to analyze X-rays in his work at Sandia Laboratories. When a negative transparency of a Shroud photograph provided by Jackson was processed by the VP-8, they were amazed that on the VP-8's computer screen, they saw a correctly proportioned, three-dimensional image of the Shroud man. Being a transparency, Mottern was able to rotate the image and view it from the side and back. This proved that the Shroud image contains three-dimensional information since ordinary photographs processed by the VP-8 >appear distorted because they contain only light, not distance, information. A separate photograph of the face was later processed by the VP-8 and it also showed the same three-dimensional relief effect. That face photograph also confirmed the presence of unnatural bulges over the eyes, which they later proposed were coins placed over the eyes. For three-dimensional relief information, Jackson and others were able to construct a three-dimensional model of the Shroud image. Their work attracted the attention of other scientists and led to the formation in 1977 of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).2

Mark Niyr (2020): How was the three‐dimensional aspect of the image produced? It would be the quantity/density number of radiation strikes that would encode the three‐dimensional distance information between the body and the cloth. Since proton radiation rapidly attenuates and dies out (especially in air), more radiation strikes would impact the cloth where the Shroud was originally closer to the body and fewer radiation particles would strike where the body was originally further away from the cloth—thus encoding distance (three‐dimensional) information based on the quantity/density of colorized fibers. As the Shroud continued to pass through, it would also reach and encode parts of the body that were not originally touching the draped cloth. Altogether, this indicates that every pinpoint part of the body (including the hair) had to emit its own particle radiation upon the Shroud and do so in proportion to its distance from the Shroud, impacting the cloth in a straight‐line vertical manner between the body and the Shroud. Physicist Thomas Phillips (of the High Energy Physics Laboratory at Harvard University), biophysicist Jean-Baptiste Rinaudo (of the Center for Nuclear Medical Research in Montpellier, France, and the Grenoble Nuclear Studies Center in France), and Dr. Kitty Little (retired nuclear physicist from Britain’s Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Harwell) have each hypothesized that particle radiation irradiated the Shroud and that the source of the particle radiation was the body itself.  Dr. Little stated, “that the source of the illumination that had formed the image came from within—that is, from the body . . . as a whole.” In other words, the radiation did not come from some external source; rather, the radiation’s origin was directly from the body—from every pinpoint location of the body.  This facet (wherein each micro part of the body—the source of the radiation—radiates directly and exclusively from its specific point on the body to that corresponding exclusive point on the Shroud, thus irradiating an image) is something that no one has yet been able to reproduce. (How could a medieval artisan accomplish this? There is no technology yet in existence that can reproduce this.) STURP chemist Dr. John Heller remarked: “It is as if every pore and every hair of the body contained a microminiature laser.”1

Challenges in the Medieval Creation of the Shroud of Turin's 3D Encoding

During the Middle Ages, there was a limited understanding of optics, photography, and the concept of encoding three-dimensional data into a two-dimensional medium. The knowledge and techniques required to create a 3D image in a fabric medium would have been far beyond the capabilities of artists and craftsmen of that era. The Shroud's image is not a simple two-dimensional depiction. Analyses suggest that the intensity of the image encodes spatial information about the distance between the cloth and the body. Such a level of detail and understanding of spatial encoding is unprecedented and unexplained in medieval art. There are no known works from the Middle Ages, or any time before the invention of modern photography, that display a similar type of 3D encoding. If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, it would be unique not just in its subject and method of creation, but in the technology it implied. The physical and chemical properties of the image on the Shroud are distinct. The image is superficial, affecting only the topmost fibers, and does not penetrate the cloth like paint or other known substances used by medieval artists would. The concept of 3D rendering and encoding information related to depth in a flat image is a relatively modern concept, closely tied to the development of photography and computer imaging. There is no evidence to suggest that such concepts were understood, let alone applied, in medieval times.






A high-definition, precision three-dimension rendering of the face on the Shroud of Turin was created from a digitized version of the photograph of the Shroud taken by Giuseppe Enrie in 1931. Microsoft 3D Builder, a software app, was used to plot the brightness values in the photograph, similar to the VP-8 Image Analyzer.

3D images by Thierry Castex

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Shroud is the discovery of 3D information encoded in its imagery, a feature that was only uncovered with modern technology. This discovery raises significant questions about the origins and authenticity of the Shroud, particularly concerning the feasibility of a medieval forger creating such a sophisticated image.

The argument against a medieval forger successfully embedding 3D information in the Shroud is multi-faceted:

Lack of Technological Means: In the Middle Ages, the level of technological and scientific understanding was not advanced enough to conceive of 3D imaging, let alone implement it in an artwork. The process of creating a 3D encoded image requires a sophisticated understanding of light, shadow, and perspective, far beyond the capabilities of artists and craftspeople of that era.
Discovery with Modern Technology: The 3D information in the Shroud was only discernible with the advent of modern imaging technology. This suggests that if the Shroud were a forgery, the forger created features that they could not have understood or visualized, and which remained undiscovered for over 700 years. It seems implausible that a forger would embed features into the image that were not only beyond their comprehension but also undetectable by contemporaries.
Complexity of 3D Encoding: The 3D encoding on the Shroud is not a simple or random occurrence. It shows a nuanced understanding of spatial relationships and how these would be represented in varying shades of color and intensity. Such an encoding suggests an advanced, almost anachronistic understanding of imaging techniques that were unavailable in the Middle Ages.
Purpose and Motivation: If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, the motive behind creating it would likely be religious or financial gain. However, embedding undetectable 3D information into the fabric serves no purpose in this context. It wouldn't have made the forgery more convincing or valuable to a medieval audience, who had no way of perceiving or appreciating this aspect of the work.
Historical Consistency: There is no known precedent or parallel from the Middle Ages or earlier periods where such complex imagery with hidden 3D features was created. The art and crafts of that time, while often sophisticated in their way, do not display anything close to this level of complexity in image encoding.

The presence of 3D information in the Shroud of Turin adds a layer of complexity to its already mysterious history. The argument that a medieval forger could have created such an image with embedded 3D properties, only discoverable with modern technology, appears highly implausible given the technological and conceptual limitations of the time.

3D Processing applied to the Shroud of Turin / 3D Processing of the Shroud of Turin

The image of the body on the fabric of the Shroud of Turin contains 3D (three-dimensional) information whose amplitude is inversely proportional to the distance between the fabric and the body. That is to say that the parts of the body that are close to the fabric will have a dark tint, while the parts further away will have a lighter appearance. For example, the nose which touches the fabric will be darker than the eye sockets which will be further away. In other words, we can consider that there is a three-dimensional coding of the image distributed over a range of 256 gray levels (8-bit coding) in the case of a black-and-white photograph. Black will have level 0 and white will have level 255. For a color print, we will talk about coding on 3 x 8 = 24bits, because there are 3 fundamental RGB colors (red, green, blue).



In fact, to carry out the 3D processing in color, I first decomposed the images into R, G, B. I processed them one by one as 8-bit images (in gray level), then I recombined them all three to find the color (on 24 bits).

The processing of each R, G, B component consisted of applying a two-dimensional filter (FK) in the Fourier domain to remove the frame and the chevrons, then equalizing the amplitudes of the pixels in the image (in L2 quadratic norm) . This treatment amounts to eliminating the effects of scratches or streaks on the image and to harmonizing the amplitudes along the fabric. This also has the effect of reducing the level of background noise in the image.

This 3D view of the lying body shows that the tips of the knees are raised because the legs are bent. Bending your knees causes your knees to tighten and your thighs to spread.










3D Dorsal Views of the Front Side of the Shroud of Turin

By applying 3D processing to the digital image of the dorsal side we obtain a relief that is a little less pronounced than on the 3D images of the ventral side. The 3D dorsal image is a little distorted at the buttocks and back because of the numerous traces of flogging which disrupt the 3D conversion. However, thanks to 3D vision, we can see the thickness of the hair made up of a long ponytail that goes down to the middle of the back. Hair color appears to be somewhere between chestnut and red, but to be more precise it would be necessary to carry out an RGB chromatic calibration of the negative image printed on the linen fibers with a spectrophotometer.

In Figure 4 we observe an area without traces of flagellation which corresponds exactly to the location of the two symmetrical "L"s formed by 4 holes at right angles, which were drawn on the Codex Pray. According to the study that we carried out with Eric De Bazelaire and Marcel Alonso in 2007 (published in the CIELT journal of December 2007) this area without traces of flagellation would correspond to a fold which was made with the fabric to place there a kind of diaper (made of cotton) to absorb body fluids. If we remove this area from the image, the abnormally long legs return to normal proportions. This working hypothesis was presented at the MNTV Association Forum on February 6, 2010, in Paris, and was the subject of an article in the MNTV magazine 2






Original 3-dimensional statue that STURP members at the Air Force Academy as well as a handful of Cadets created using the data from the VP-8.

"The detailed study of the imprint left by the body on the shroud shows a variable intensity inversely proportional to the distance between the cloth and the body. In 1973, the face's relief was obtained from the photograph of G. Enrie from 1931 with the measurement of different intensities (work by P. Gastineau). In 1974, with the help of a microdensitometer (an instrument that measures the intensity of an image) and accurate reconstruction of the modalities with which a cloth similar to the Shroud is placed on a body, the American physicist John Jackson and his team demonstrated that the intensity of the image varies inversely proportional to the distance between the cloth and body, with a high level of correlation. This correlation can be demonstrated using a particular image processing technique that consists of transforming the various intensity levels of the image into different planes of a three-dimensional topographic relief. If the intensities of the image of the Shroud are correlated to the distance between the cloth and the body, then the relief image should correspond to the actual three-dimensional form of a human body (except for the secondary effect due to the draping of the fabric). On February 19, 1976, Jackson brought a photograph of the Shroud to the image processing laboratory of Bill Mottern. The image of the Shroud was analyzed with the VP-8 image analyzer, an analog computer that directly transforms image intensity into vertical relief. Surprisingly, the relief image appeared to possess perfect anatomical characteristics, even in correspondence with the most complex details of the face. The relief of the entire frontal imprint of the Shroud compared with the negative photograph of Enrie from which it was drawn. It is interesting to note how the intensities of various characteristics of the image in the photograph of Enrie (such as the face, torso, hands, etc.) were interpreted by the VP-8 analyzer as different levels of relief. It is evident how the entire structure of the three-dimensional image processed by the VP-8 analyzer resembles an extremely realistic human body.


1. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/niyr.pdf
2. https://www.linceul-de-turin.fr/page/1512703-cahiers-sur-le-linceul-de-turin

Chapter 5




The STURP ( Shroud of Turin Research Project)  from 1978

On the 19th of February in 1976, John Jackson, a physicist, held a crucial meeting with William Mottern, an expert in radiographic analysis at the Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico. Mottern was utilizing an innovative piece of equipment known as the VP-8 Image Analyzer to assess X-ray images for his research. This device had the intriguing ability to process images from various sources, not just X-rays, through input from a video camera. During an experiment with a 1931 photograph of the Shroud by Enrie, they discovered that the VP-8 could render image densities into a three-dimensional vertical relief. This resulted in a striking display on the VP-8's green screen—a detailed three-dimensional representation of a human figure. This indicated that the Shroud's imagery was embedded with spatial or topographical data that diverged from conventional photographs or artistic representations. The remarkable outcome from the VP-8 Image Analyzer galvanized Jackson and his team to pursue more in-depth research. In a serendipitous parallel, Professor Giovanni Tamburelli was undertaking an analogous study of the Shroud's imagery in Turin, utilizing advanced computer analysis techniques. During the period when physicist John Jackson was immersed in his research, another member of the team, Don Devan—who had recently finished a project at Los Alamos—was involved. It was around this time that a call came from Don to one of their colleagues, catching them somewhat off guard. The topic of conversation was the Shroud of Turin, which prompted an initial response of laughter from the colleague, given both their Jewish backgrounds and the religious nature of the Shroud.

Don elucidated that there had been a breakthrough in understanding the Shroud's imagery. A group of scientists who had made this discovery were in the process of forming a voluntary research team dedicated to a thorough examination of the cloth to decipher the creation of its image. He reassured that the exploration was to be conducted with a scientific lens and indicated the need for a proficient technical photographer to aid in the endeavor. The colleague was then presented with the inquiry of whether they had an interest in contributing their expertise to this scientific pursuit.



The use of the VP-8 Image Analyzer was a pivotal moment that led to the creation of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) team. Spearheaded by Jackson, the objective was clear: to gather a diverse group of experts, develop a series of non-invasive experiments within a comprehensive test plan, and ultimately obtain permission to physically examine the Shroud in an effort to understand how its image was formed. Eric Jumper quickly came on board as a co-founder, and together with Jackson, they started recruiting specialists capable of conducting scientific experiments to explore the mechanisms behind the Shroud's image formation. The team's goal was not to prove the Shroud's authenticity or to verify whether the image was that of Jesus. Over the next eighteen months, the team expanded, adding members on an as-needed basis. They operated in small regional groups across the United States, coordinating their efforts through telephone and postal mail. Remarkably, the entire team only met in person for the first time a month before they were scheduled to depart for Turin to begin their hands-on investigation of the Shroud.

In 1978, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (often abbreviated as STURP) made a scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin. It  was performed by an international team of experts. For five consecutive 24-hour days, they used the latest technology to study the front and back image.

The STURP Team

The team for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) comprised a diverse group of experts from various fields. Key participants included

The quotes are from Joe Marino's paper: STURP Members’ Quotations from Early Popular Secular and Religious Literature 

Joseph S. Accetta from the Lockheed Corporation,
Steven Baumgart and John D. German from the U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories, and
Ernest H. Brooks II, Mark Evans, and Vernon D. Miller from the Brooks Institute of Photography.

Vern Miller
 “What really astounds me about the image is its sheer beauty. Artistically, it’s comparable to the great masterpieces—the proportions, for instance. It’s better than a Michaelangelo or a Rafael. (…) I believe it’s the natural image of a man – as opposed to supernatural – and given enough time and study, we’ll find out how it was done. The reason I feel it is Jesus is I can feel its power. I have no proof of that. It’s just so beautiful to look at – pleasing. I know it’s not faked.”

Robert Bucklin represented the Harris County, Texas, Medical Examiner's Office, while
Donald Devan was from Oceanographic Services Inc.
Rudolph J. Dichtl from the University of Colorado,
Robert Dinegar, Donald & Joan Janney, J. Ronald London, Roger A. Morris, Ray Rogers, Larry Schwalbe, and Diane Soran from Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories.

Ray Rogers
"What I have done was go ahead with the list of hypotheses that I put in the 1977 proceedings and looked at the (acts I thought were sort of incontrovertible. Here I listed facts: color on one side only, no capillary flow of the colored medium, no diffusion into the fibers of the Shroud; .... The color is discontinuous on the fiber bundles."

“It is a very steep gradient and this should have made a tremendous effect on anything that was there either as a natural pigment, or a large natural organic molecule, or any of the materials to paint with.”*

“The probability of having a natural iron pigment that was available at the time of say 1300 (or something like that) is zilch . . . because you can see a blackening of iron pigments ...”**

“There was no movement of the color, no color change, and movement of the blood stains with the water that was poured on to put the fire out . . . There was no impedance to the flow of the water and I
think this is tremendously important, too because if any vehicle or medium had been used as the painting system . . . the water flow through it would have been impeded by the medium that was absorbed."

"In the fibers and the medulla of these fibers. There was impedance to the water flow of the image for the watermarks are symmetrical.”

“There's one way that I've been able to find so far of making linen fluorescent in that color, and that's only by scorching. The scorches on the Shroud are fluorescent, the image is fluorescent, the blood marks are fluorescent, and that's the only way I can get there.***

“Every one of those blood spots that I have been able to look at microscopically in photographs do not saturate the cloth. You can still see uncolored threads in the zone of the blood spots. Blood doesn't fluoresce. There is only one way that it fluoresces naturally, and that's in a disease called porphyria. My bets are that it is a metaporphyrin that causes the fluorescence in the porphyria of blood, and that is not one of the world's most stable compounds either to heat or formaldehyde. I think that it would be quenched of fluorescence by the heating, water, etc.”

“When I first heard about the shroud project, I didn’t want to get involved. I don’t like being identified with the lunatic fringe. Then I was told about the 1532 fire and that changed my mind. It seemed to me that the fire was a beautiful little unintentional natural experiment. There was hardly any oxygen inside the casket and chemically you just knew what was going on and what kind of thermal products were being left behind. Thanks to the molten silver, you could calculate the temperature gradient inside the casket. Knowing that, I figured that you ought to be able to tell what effect the fire would have had on the image, if it was painted. That’s when I decided to join the team.”

“We all agree that there’s blood on the shroud. We’ve found iron and protein in the blood area, we’ve found porphyrin, which is a constituent of hemoglobin, and we’ve even found what looks like bilirubin in the places that have been scorched. But then you say so what? The most fascinating observation about the image is the distribution of color, the fact that it just rests on top of the fibrils, and that there are fibrils in the off-image areas that look exactly like those that make up the image itself. That suggests that what we’re dealing with is some change in the chemistry of the cloth itself. It has been ‘aged.’ For some reason, the fibrils that make up the image got older faster than the rest of the fabric. By aging, I basically mean losing water. The reason why there’s an image is because in those places and only those places the cellulose in the flax has been dehydrated, giving you conjugated carbon double bonds. I think everyone in STURP concurs that the image is just degraded cellulose, that there’s actually nothing ‘on’ the linen. But there’s no consensus on just how the cellulose was degraded.”

“There are any number of ways to degrade cellulose apart from doing nothing and just letting it age. You can bake it or burn it or irradiate it and produce a scorch; or, you can add something to it that soil it or alter it chemically. The problem with chemically induced aging is that we can’t find anything on the shroud to account for it. We’ve spot tested with reagents looking for likely materials. Mass spectrometry, conducted at the University of Nebraska, tested for aloes, myrrh, oils, and so on—things that might produce some kind of contact image. Everything came out negative. You’d think we would have found something. I mean aloes, for example, has a bunch of glycosides in it that should stand out like a sore thumb. And these tests are sensitive. We picked up traces of the polythene bag the threads were wrapped in.”

“A scorch seems a bit more promising. If a scorch is produced at moderate temperatures, the predominant result is creation of conjugated double bonds, which is what we have. Roger and Marion Gilbert say the reflectance and fluorescence curves of the image and the area burned in 1532 are similar, although under ultraviolet light the scorches and the image behave differently. That’s a minus. There’s still the problem of actually making the image, even if it is a scorch. The image is too sharp and too uniform for any of the hot statue theories. I incline toward the idea of a scorch, but I can’t think how it was done. At this point you either keep looking for the mechanism or start getting mystical.”

“We may never figure out how the cellulose was altered, but the process seems to have stopped. The rest of the cloth is continuing to age naturally. In relation to the background the image is getting dimmer and dimmer all the time. Someday the aging fabric is going to catch up with it and obliterate it.”

Robert Dinegar
“As an unbiased scientist, I cannot state that the shroud is authentic. I know of no way we could prove it. I can’t think of a way. I can’t think of anyone who could think of a way. Personally, I have
this gut feeling that it’s the real thing.”
“For me it was the culmination of my career being able to put science and religion together, whether the shroud is a hoax or is not. Sure, I worried that some people would feel betrayed if it turned out to be a fake, and I worried that that sense of betrayal could even extend to their faith. But as a scientist I felt I had a duty to investigate and report. As a churchman …? Well, I’ve always known that the path to both ends was more dangerous than you’d think. Still, Christianity never depended on the shroud. And if it turned out to be real …?”

Larry Schwalbe
“We can see iron signatures everywhere and iron oxide is used in some pigments. But there is no difference between the iron concentrations in the image and the clear areas, so it doesn’t seem very likely that the color comes from iron-based pigment. The only place where iron concentrations are significantly higher than background is in the dark ‘blood’ areas. There is iron in blood, of course, and the amount of iron we found is consistent with what you’d expect from whole blood. But all we can really say for sure is that there’s iron.”

Joan Janney
 “I was looking at the shroud for an hour one night in Turin. The closer you get the less you see. How could you paint it in such a way that while you’re painting it you can’t see it? I’m not saying the shroud’s authentic. I’m just asking.”

Kenneth E. Stevenson came from IBM
"Scientists can (obtain three-dimensional information) from photographs of stars and planets, where the object is far enough away from the astronomer’s lens that its distance measurably affects the intensity of the light image received. But a three-dimensional image cannot be created from any normal photograph, negative or positive. Modern lenses, films and photographic papers simply are not sensitive enough…."

Al Adler from Western Connecticut State University,
Thomas F. D'Muhala from the Nuclear Technology Corporation.
Jim Drusik was part of the Los Angeles County Museum team,
Joseph Gambescia from St. Agnes Medical Center

Joseph Gambescia
“What science does is disprove. But from a scientific standpoint, we could never prove it. That [his belief that the Shroud is authentic] is an assumption I make from the facts. Science can only disprove that assumption. Scientifically, all we can say at this point is we’ve been unable to demonstrate that the Shroud is not authentic.”

Roger & Marty Gilbert from Oriel Corporation,
Thomas Haverty from Rocky Mountain Thermograph,
John Heller from the New England Institute.
John P. Jackson and Eric J. Jumper from the U.S. Air Force Academy

 Eric Jumper
“We had expected to find elements of dye or maybe body spices. But what we eventually found out was that there wasn’t anything to find. [He thinks the] Shroud is too good to be true. Personally, I wish we’d found it a painting. We’d be finished. But we’ve checked those claims. They just aren’t valid. We’ve not been able to close the door.”

John Jackson
“I got interested in the shroud when I was thirteen or fourteen when my mom showed me a picture of it. It made a great impression on me. Then, around 1968, I read a book about the shroud by John

Walsh and I was struck by the details you could glean from photographs. The whole field of image processing was just opening up then, and I knew I wanted someday to do some kind of analysis of the shroud. In early 1974 I met Don Devan from Information Sciences, Inc. in Santa Barbara, and we started doing some image-intensity works. Then I met Eric. And then the whole project took off.”

“You can take the image [from the “VP-8 Image Analyzer] and tilt it, turn it around, look at it in profile, make it do somersaults.”

“My responsibility is to scientific rigor. Let’s look at the whole picture. We know that the shroud has 3-D information on it. That could have happened by accident, but it took us a long time to figure out a way to duplicate the effect, even knowing what we were trying to do. The image is also a photographic negative, again something hard to produce before you had photography. Of course, that could have been an accident, too. Then there are the scourge marks. They’re the right shape and they change angles with elevation. The nail holes are in the right place. The ‘blood’ flows correspond with the angle of crucifixion. Remember that the Romans stopped crucifying people during Constantine’s reign, so it wouldn’t be easy for a medieval artist to get the procedure straight. Somewhere along the way, you’d think a forger would have made some mistake. But there aren’t any. And some of the little touches are very nice. There’s a bit of dirt near the soles of the feet. The blood from the lance wound runs along the side of the body and onto the back. Some of the scourge-mark structures

are so fine you can pick them up only under UV. Any one of these things you can explain away. But when you add up everything we know, the argument against a forgery acquires a certain force. As for whether the image is Christ’s, all I can say is that the wounds are consistent with the gospel accounts. I mean this was no ordinary execution. Look at the guy! Somebody really wanted to do him in, not just kill him but torture him to death.”

Jean Lorre and Donald J. Lynn from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Donald J. Lynn

“You could see the lash marks vividly – like splattered blood! The images- body and blood do not fluoresce but the background of the Shroud does. The blood marks are definitely different from the body marks – no doubt about it. The blood marks seem to flake. We discovered dirt at one of the footprints! It is quite clear where the Raes’ samples were removed and the larger is indeed from the major portion of the cloth. The blood marks clearly go through the other side of the cloth but the body images do not. We want to further explore how linen was made in Jesus’ day. The computer broke down but we were able to get all the data gathered, anyway. It’s going to take years to assess this material.”

Robert W. Mottern from Sandia Laboratories,
Samuel Pellicori from Santa Barbara Research Center,
Barrie M. Schwortz from Barrie Schwortz Studios were also integral to the project.
 "I was a skeptic when I went to Turin. I’m not now, at least not in terms of whether it’s a fake or not. It’s not.”
“One newspaper said I’d converted because of the shroud. That’s not true. I was brought up in an Orthodox Jewish home and I’m still Jewish. But the shroud forced me to look at what I believed. I had never done that before. I tend to think it is Jesus – not categorically – but it probably is.”

The STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) team dedicated a year and a half to meticulously planning a comprehensive set of non-destructive tests to be executed within a limited yet effective timeframe. They meticulously developed protocols for each experiment, strategically scheduling them to fit within a 96-hour testing window. All these preparations were compiled into a detailed, 65-page spiral-bound notebook. This notebook was not only a guide for the team's examination but also a document submitted to Turin for final approval.

The team's efforts paid off when they received permission to examine the Shroud. The approval came from King Umberto II, Duke of Savoy, who was the owner of the Shroud in 1978. To facilitate effective communication with the Church and the custodians in Turin, the STURP team also collaborated closely with the Holy Shroud Guild based in Esopus, New York. This collaboration was crucial in navigating the complexities of the project, given the Shroud's religious and historical significance. In September 1978, just under a month before their departure to Turin, the entire STURP team convened for the first time in Amston, Connecticut, at an event informally known as the “Dry Run.” This gathering was a pivotal moment for the diverse group of team members, who until then had been collaborating remotely. It provided them with the opportunity to meet face-to-face, which was crucial for the team's cohesion and effectiveness. More importantly, the Dry Run served as a rehearsal stage where they could set up and test their various instruments, many of which had been custom-designed and built specifically for the Shroud project. It was also an opportunity to practice the procedures they planned to implement during their examination of the Shroud. This meeting in Connecticut was a critical step in ensuring that every aspect of their meticulously planned investigation was ready and functional, setting the stage for their imminent work in Turin.







 
Informal group portrait of the STURP team at Kennedy International Airport  -Sept. 29, 1978



Prof. Giovanni Riggi’s endoscopic camera focusing light transilluminates the #3 bloodstain on the forehead, revealing higher density in blood areas



Max Frei, during the examination of the Shroud, employed a technique where he used commercial sticky tape, applying it to the cloth. He controlled the pressure of application with his thumb. Years later, Alan Adler observed and noted that the application of this tape left behind a residue of gum on the cloth. This residue subsequently attracted dirt and dust to the areas where the tape had been applied.





Surrounding the cloth and preparing to begin the analyses, here we see a significant part of the STURP team observing the Shroud for the first time. In a last-minute decision, the Archdiocese of Turin allowed an Italian group to take some samples before the American team began their detailed work. Max Frei was a part of this initial group. This moment marks a critical juncture in the scientific study of the Shroud of Turin. The involvement of both Italian and American researchers underscores the international interest in the Shroud and the importance placed on its analysis. The decision by the Archdiocese to allow preliminary sampling by the Italian team reflects the careful and controlled approach to studying this revered artifact. Max Frei's participation in the initial sampling adds to the significance of this phase, given his expertise and contributions to the field. This collaborative and multinational effort to analyze the Shroud demonstrates the blend of scientific rigor and respect for religious sentiment that characterizes the ongoing research into this enigmatic and revered piece of history.


















Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy
Infrared Thermography
Infrared Photography 3




A Summary of STURP's Conclusions

Editor's Note: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data and the submission of their research to highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific journals, the following official Summary of STURP's Conclusions was written by John Heller (in non-technical language) and distributed at the press conference held after STURP's final meeting in October 1981:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence, and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or death. There has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations that may be attractive are completely precluded by chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have a scientifically sound explanation, from a physical, chemical, biological, and medical viewpoint. At present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something that resulted in oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known that can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved. 1 2

1. https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
2. https://docplayer.net/49057880-The-shroud-of-turin-research-project-1978-scientific-examination-of-the-shroud.html
3. https://sabanasanta.org/carbono-14/
4. https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/heritage-series/heritage-series/roger-morris/?fbclid=IwAR3BEAhdtNSOVRLpjpdEvWg5eJOMWls9hqvxhGYrrjYYUXSN6hQUDmU0iww
5. https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,968744,00.html
6. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ten-years-on-the-debunked-turin-shroud-gets-a-second-coming-1142298.html

Chapter 6 


The Radiocarbon dating from 1988

Hypotheses to Reject the Carbon Dating

Several hypotheses have been proposed to account for the carbon dating results of the Shroud of Turin, which suggest a date range of 1260-1390 AD, significantly later than the death of Jesus around 33 AD. These hypotheses, presented in their rough chronological order of proposal, include:

Neutron Absorption Hypothesis: Initially posited by Tom Phillips in 1989, this hypothesis suggests that neutron radiation could have increased the Shroud's C14 levels, thus skewing the carbon dating. This idea was introduced in a letter to the editor in the same issue of the journal Nature that published the original carbon dating results by Damon and colleagues.

Contamination Hypothesis: It has been speculated that substances such as wax or talc, added through handling or preservation efforts, might have contaminated the Shroud, affecting the carbon dating results. However, this hypothesis is largely dismissed due to the improbability of such significant contamination and the rigorous cleaning methods applied to the samples before testing.

Fire Damage Hypothesis: The Shroud was damaged in a fire in 1532, leading some to suggest that carbon from the fire might have altered the carbon dating. Like the contamination hypothesis, this idea has been largely set aside for similar reasons.

Bioplastic Coating Hypothesis: This hypothesis posits that a film of bioplastic material, produced by bacteria, could have formed on the Shroud's fibers, thereby altering the carbon dating. This hypothesis has been generally dismissed after detailed fiber analysis showed minimal evidence of such coatings.

Invisible Reweave Hypothesis: Suggests that the section of the Shroud sampled in 1988 had been expertly rewoven with a mix of original and newer threads—the latter from around the early 1500s. The high-quality reweaving, potentially using techniques from that period, might have been indiscernible, leading to mixed dating results. This "invisible reweave" hypothesis accounts for the discrepancy by proposing that the sampled area was not purely of ancient origin.

Carbon Monoxide Interaction Hypothesis: This hypothesis proposes that variations in the C14/C12 ratio could result from interactions with carbon monoxide, which might differ from those with carbon dioxide. This could potentially skew carbon dating results. However, this hypothesis is broadly rejected due to the lack of credible mechanisms and evidence from other historically dated fabrics not showing similar discrepancies.

Each of these hypotheses attempts to reconcile the carbon dating results with the belief that the Shroud is much older than the medieval period, though not all have been widely accepted by the scientific community.

Among the various hypotheses proposed to explain the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, hypotheses 2, 3, 4, and 6 have largely been dismissed by the scientific community. The most discussed remaining hypothesis is the invisible reweave hypothesis, which posits that parts of the Shroud were expertly rewoven in the 16th century, mixing newer threads with the original ones. This could potentially account for the carbon dating results, which placed the Shroud's creation between 1260 and 1390 AD. However, this hypothesis struggles with the uniformity of the subsample dates, which ranged only from 1155 to 1410 AD, not extending to either the era of Jesus around 33 AD or the early 1500s, when the reweaving was purported to have occurred. Furthermore, this hypothesis does not address the dating of the face cloth associated with the Shroud, which has been dated to 670 AD, and there is no evidence of reweaving on the Shroud itself upon close examination by textile experts.

Invisible reweaving, a technique known from the 16th century, could potentially make alterations to a garment hard to detect at a glance, especially on a thick fabric with a simple pattern. However, the Shroud's fine 3-to-1 herringbone twill weave would likely reveal such changes under detailed scrutiny by specialists, particularly with modern microscopy. Despite thorough examinations, no conclusive evidence of such reweaving has been found near the area sampled for carbon dating in 1988, leading to skepticism about this hypothesis.

The neutron absorption hypothesis remains as the only other significant explanation. Initially proposed in 1989 by Tom Phillips, it received minimal attention until recent advancements in computer and nuclear analysis technology made detailed simulations possible. The hypothesis suggests that neutron radiation might have altered the Shroud's carbon-14 levels, thus affecting the dating results. Advanced simulations using MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particle) software, developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory and validated by numerous nuclear experiments, have lent some support to this theory. MCNP, endorsed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for various nuclear analyses, allows for detailed modeling of nuclear interactions, including those that could affect carbon dating results. This hypothesis, revitalized by recent computational studies, offers a potential explanation for the dating discrepancies without the inconsistencies associated with the invisible reweave hypothesis.

The neutron absorption hypothesis
The neutron absorption hypothesis suggests an intriguing explanation for the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. According to this idea, the very same event that created the Shroud's mysterious images might have also emitted a tiny amount of neutrons. These neutrons, upon interacting with the nitrogen present in the Shroud's linen fibers, could have converted some of that nitrogen into new carbon-14 atoms through a specific nuclear reaction. This additional carbon-14 would make the Shroud appear much younger in carbon dating tests than it is. For instance, to shift the Shroud's dating from the time of Jesus (around 33 AD) to the period of 1260-1390 AD suggested by carbon dating, there would need to be a 16.9% increase in the density of carbon-14 atoms in the tested samples. This scenario could happen with the emission of just two quintillion neutrons, which sounds like a lot but is a tiny fraction compared to the total number of neutrons in a human body—about one neutron for every ten billion in a 170-pound person. Such a neutron release could theoretically come from a minuscule amount of the body's deuterium, a type of hydrogen, undergoing fission. Deuterium is particularly interesting because it splits apart more easily than other atoms. This hypothesis is compelling for explaining the Shroud's carbon dating results because it aligns with several key observations: the overall dating to 1260-1390 AD, the consistent pattern in the dating across different samples from the Shroud, and the dating results of the Sudarium, another ancient cloth believed to be related to the Shroud. Advanced computer simulations, using a program known as MCNP developed by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, support this theory by showing how such neutron emissions could indeed lead to the observed carbon dating results.

The neutron absorption hypothesis offers an explanation for the intriguing carbon dating results of the Shroud of Turin. This hypothesis suggests that a burst of neutrons was emitted from the body wrapped in the Shroud, possibly at the time of the images' formation. These neutrons, upon colliding with the nitrogen atoms in the linen fibers, could have transformed some of the nitrogen into new carbon-14 atoms, thereby altering the Shroud's apparent age when measured through carbon dating. To be considered robust, a hypothesis must not only align with established facts but also offer predictions that can be empirically tested. The true test of a hypothesis lies in these predictions; if they are proven incorrect through experimentation, the hypothesis must be revised or discarded. Conversely, if the predictions hold up under scrutiny, the hypothesis becomes more credible, though never absolutely proven, as scientific inquiry always allows for future findings to provide new insights.

The neutron absorption hypothesis, in particular, makes several testable predictions:

Distribution of Carbon-14: If neutrons were indeed emitted from the body and absorbed by the Shroud, the distribution of newly formed carbon-14 within the cloth should match the neutron distribution predicted by advanced computer simulations, specifically those conducted using the MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particle) software. Therefore, carbon dating of various sections of the Shroud should reflect this distinct pattern of carbon-14 distribution.

Presence of Long-Lived Isotopes: Besides affecting the carbon in the linen, the emitted neutrons would likely interact with other elements present in the Shroud and its surroundings, including the limestone of the tomb. This interaction is expected to produce long-lived isotopes such as Chlorine-36 and Calcium-41, which have half-lives of approximately 99,400 and 301,000 years, respectively. Since these isotopes decay very slowly, a significant amount of them should still be detectable today. The hypothesis predicts that these isotopes would be found both on the Shroud and in the limestone of the tomb, with their distribution corresponding to the neutron distribution calculated by the MCNP software.

These predictions offer a pathway for testing the neutron absorption hypothesis. By examining the Shroud and its historical context for evidence of these isotopes and the predicted distribution of carbon-14, researchers can assess the validity of this hypothesis. Such investigations are crucial for advancing our understanding of the Shroud's history and the events that may have led to its unique characteristics. The neutron absorption hypothesis is built on the idea that an intense and short burst of radiation, possibly including neutrons, was emitted from the body that the Shroud wrapped. If these neutrons interacted with the nitrogen in the linen fibers, they could have converted some of it into new carbon-14 atoms through a nuclear reaction. Since carbon dating measures the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12, this additional carbon-14 could make the cloth appear much younger than it is. The hypothesis challenges a fundamental assumption of carbon dating—that the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio in a sample changes only due to the decay of carbon-14 over time. If new carbon-14 was indeed added to the Shroud, this would introduce a systematic error in the dating, making the Shroud seem younger. At the specific corner of the Shroud where samples were taken in 1988, it's estimated that a 16.9% increase in carbon-14 atoms would be needed to shift the dating from around 33 AD to the 1260-1390 AD range found in tests. Exploring the source of this hypothetical radiation burst and whether it's feasible remains a complex challenge, potentially involving advanced theoretical work in particle physics and string theory, as well as further empirical studies on the Shroud itself. This hypothesis stands out because it aligns with several observed facts from the carbon dating of the Shroud: the average dating range of 1260-1390 AD, the consistent pattern in the dating results across different Shroud sections, and the dating of the Sudarium of Oviedo, believed to be another cloth associated with Jesus. Testing this hypothesis could involve additional carbon dating at various Shroud locations and measuring specific isotopes like Chlorine-36 and Calcium-41 on the Shroud and in the limestone of the burial tomb. The broader questions about the Shroud of Turin touch on its authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and whether the images on it could be the result of a unique event. The phenomenon of a body emitting enough neutrons to alter the carbon dating of its surroundings, or creating an image on a cloth, is unparalleled in known history, except in the case of the Shroud. This leads to fascinating speculation that the Shroud's mysteries could be tied to a unique event or process beyond current scientific understanding, potentially pointing to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This hypothesis not only aligns with scientific observations but also intersects with historical and religious accounts, offering a compelling piece of circumstantial evidence in the broader discourse on the Shroud's origins and significance. 20


Invisible reweaving repair with 16th-century cotton 


"Researchers, in large numbers, now believe that in the 16th century, a corner of the Shroud had been expertly repaired... leading to erroneous carbon 14 dating in 1988." -- Dan Porter, 2022

S. E. Jones (2015): In 1988 the Shroud of Turin was radiocarbon dated to 1260-1390. Between May and August 1988, three radiocarbon dating laboratories at universities in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, all using the same new Accelerator Mass spectrometry (AMS) method, radiocarbon dated samples that had been cut from the Shroud on 21 April 1988. At a press conference in the British Museum, on 13 October 1988, following leaks that the Shroud had been dated "1350", Prof. Edward Hall (Oxford), Dr Michael Tite (British Museum) and Dr Robert Hedges (Oxford), announced that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!". In 1989 Nature reported that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... 1260-1390.". In February 1989 the scientific journal Nature reported:

"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 ...".

The invisible reweaving repair theory requires that the repair be "approximately 60 percent of the C-14 sample consisting of 16th-century threads while approximately 40 percent were 1st century in origin". Oxford laboratory did find some old cotton threads in their sample, but they were only "two or three fibers". It would require "65 percent of the mass of the shroud ... to give a date of 1350 to a fabric originally dating from the time of Christ" but there was "less than 0.1 percent" of such contamination in the Shroud. Textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg inspected the Shroud as part of its 2002 restoration and she denies there is any evidence of reweaving.


Jim Bertrand wrote an article for the website "Insidethevatican", where he reports: It is well known that the Shroud has undergone several repairs throughout history, including after a fire in 1532. The Shroud was owned in the 1500s by Margaret of Austria, Duchess of Savoy, whose weavers were experts in the technique known as “French invisible reweaving.” The late STURP chemist Raymond Rogers, who first called Marino and Benford part of the “lunatic fringe,” analyzed their hypothesis, and to his surprise, admitted they were probably right. After being given an actual leftover sample from the 1988 dating, he confirmed the hypothesis. In 2005, he authored a paper in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta. He concluded that the C-14 sample was not representative of the main cloth, thus invalidating the results. 2

Raymond N. Rogers (2004): Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.3

An article in 2010 reported: that Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – the cloth may be from the time of Christ. 8

Further robustness to the reweaving hypothesis comes from Eric Poggel's article in the website Bereanarchive:

1. King Umberto II of Italy, whose family used to own the shroud, says that in 1694 they repaired the shroud's heavily frayed and missing edges. The first three Savoy Lords who possessed it, although they, unlike some of their predecessor Guardians, never purposely removed fragments from their areas with the image of the Corpus Sancti (Holy Body.)  Another fact confirmed by His Majesty was that it was traditionally affirmed, that at one point in the past, the edges of the Lenzuoli (Sheet) had become so tattered as to cause embarrassment or criticism of the Custodians, and those areas were repaired and rewoven using identical techniques, but obviously with similar, yet newer, materials containing dyes and other medieval manufacturing ingredients, in an attempt to better blend the new sections in, as best possible, with the original fabric.  In truth, the presence of medieval dyes was detected in these areas and this fact has been already pointed out by Scientists as additional proof of the inaccuracy of the 1988 Carbon 14 dating test results that placed the samples taken from these areas, as having been fabricated sometime in the middle ages.  In truth, any one of the aforementioned practices alone would also account, for not only the contamination of the fabric resulting in inaccurate Carbon 14 dating results but also, the different types of linen, dyes, resins, and fabric patches discovered to have been present on the outermost edges of the sheet that usually held by Bishops during the exposition of the Sacred Relic to the public for veneration." From pages 265-267:  "The removal of all patches and of the reinforcement Holland Cloth backing of the Holy Shroud, in the year 2002, confirmed what King Umberto had stated, namely that small sections of the repaired and rewoven edges, had continually been removed from the Sacred Relic and probably as late as the second half of the 17th century. That the practice of removing small fragments and even full length or width threads from the outer edges [of] the Holy Shroud, was a family tradition only finally suppressed by Duke Vittorio Amedeo II of Savoy, was another fact Umberto II of Savoy confirmed to Blue Army Founder and Shroud Devotee John Mathias Haffert, in the mid-1960’s.  It was the same Vittorio Amedeo II, who along with his wife, the Infanta Anna d’Orleans, personally assisted Blessed Sebastiano Valfre on June 6th, 1694, in repairing the Sacred Burial Cloth of the Christ, shortly before transferring the Sacred Relic to the new Chapel of the Guarini. Later, it became a tradition on June 6th of each year for the Savoy Royal Family to distribute relics of the backing cloth.  It was in 1694, that in accordance with the Savoy Family tradition, some of the removed sections of thread were then woven into full-size replicas of the Sindone (Shroud) for private or public veneration in Convents and Cathedrals during popular Holy Week celebrations.  Unlike the meticulous repair work that had been carried out in previous centuries by religious expert weavers following the damage caused to the Shroud by fires which left little trace of the removed sections, the intervention of the Savoy and the Blessed was aimed primarily at replacing the cloth backing of the Relic giving it added thickness and strength and also a better contrast to the image.  The last intervention by religious sisters had been considered poor by the various members of the House of Savoy since, rather than reweaving the areas nearest the outermost edges that were either missing or had frayed from manipulation and wear, they had camouflaged them with cloth coverings and patches.  The backing of black cloth added by Blessed Sebastiano Valfre was later removed by Princess Maria Clotilde di Savoia, (1843-1911) Consort of Prince Napoleon, who substituted it for pink silk on April 28th, 1868, on account of the backing having also become deteriorated from manipulation and removal of pieces for relics."

2. Before the 1988 carbon dating, archaeologists William Meacham and Paul Maloney, as well as textile expert John Tyrer each independently warned that the bottom left corner looked like it had non-original material added from a repair, and wouldn't be a good place to cut a sample for carbon dating.

3.  Chemists Ray Rogers, Robert Villareal, and Alan Adler, as well as microscopist John L. Brown, and Pam Moon each independently examined fibers from the shroud. They found pigments and large amounts of plant gum, likely from tempera paint, coating the fibers from the cloth near and on the carbon dating samples. This yellow coating was similar in color to the linen on the rest of the shroud but undyed white cotton was visible on the inner fibers and where the thread passed below another (image below). Brown described this as "obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud."63a This dye/coating isn't found on the rest of the shroud.



4. Cotton fibers were found in the carbon-dated corner of the shroud by at least 8 different researchers, from 1975 to 2009. Not as a surface contaminant, but woven into the threads, and this cotton wasn't found in the rest of the otherwise linen shroud. 

Problems with the 1988 carbon dating procedures

They didn't follow the proper pre-arranged protocol to take multiple samples from multiple areas rather than taking one sample from the location most likely to be contaminated. Many suspicious and unscientific activities surrounded the 1988 carbon dating of the shroud, including The carbon-14 team excluded all previous researchers who had worked with the shroud, causing much protest. There was a laborious search for a 13th-century linen cloth that had the same color and rare 3-in-1 herringbone weave as the Shroud of Turin. From the same period when the Shroud was allegedly forged.19a 19b 19b 44 The entire ceremony to cut carbon-14 samples from the shroud was recorded on video, except when two men inexplicably took the cut samples to another room for 30 minutes and returned with them inside opaque containers. Together this evidence makes a powerful case the 1988 carbon date cannot be considered accurate and therefore should not be used as an argument against the Shroud of Turin's authenticity.  The remainder of this article outlines this evidence in great depth. Former BSTS (British Society for the Turin Shroud) editor Mark Guscin comments in reviewing Joe Marino's 2020 book on the 1988 carbon dating: There is a very widespread idea that Shroudies are a group of religious fanatics, while "scientists" are a homogenous group of people (in clean white coats and in nice clean laboratories) who are extremely knowledgeable, calm and never moved by such earthly concerns as money, fame or personal ambition. And they all agree with each other because science is one and true. No matter what you think about the Shroud, this book should shatter that illusion forever. The scientists involved in the carbon dating were as human as you could imagine; fame-seeking, selfish, money-grabbing, and disloyal. They were hopelessly disorganized, seemed to have little idea about what they were dealing with, and to care about it even less, they showed an unbelievable lack of respect for anyone who didn't share their ideas, and that includes other scientists involved in the dating.

"Secret" 1982 carbon dating

A "secret" and poorly documented carbon dating was performed on two ends of an 8cm thread given to STURP chemist John Heller, who was given the thread by STURP chemist Alan Adler, who received the thread from yet another STURP chemist, Ray Rogers, who collected the sample.  John Heller gave the thread to mineralogist George Rossman, who used Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTMS), a non-typical carbon dating technique, to date each end of the thread separately.  One end of the thread which was covered in starch dated to either 1000 AD or 1200 AD (reports vary), while the other non-starchy end dated to 200 AD.  An 8cm thread can be seen missing from the shroud near the bottom left corner. 12

Recent tests contradict the C14 test from 1988

Robert J. Spitzer (2015): Four contemporary dating tests: The vanillin dating test of Dr. Raymond Rogers, the two spectroscopic analyses (of Dr. Giulio Fanti, et. al), and the compressibility and breaking strength tests (of Dr. Giulio Fanti, et. al) date the Shroud to a time commensurate with the life and crucifixion of Jesus.13

Myra Adams wrote an article for the website Christianity.com in 2019, where she reported: In 2017 French researcher, Tristan Casabianca filed a legal action against the British Museum, which oversaw the C-14 testing labs in 1988. The museum complied and finally released all the raw data. Casabianca’s research team ran new tests and concluded in their 2019 report that numerous dates fell outside the range published in “Nature.” They prove that the Shroud cloth sample is not homogenous, and the 1988 results, famously reported with “95% confidence” are suspect. Casabianca’s team supports the widely-held belief that something went awry with the C-14 tests, which for the ensuing decades discouraged Shroud research and disparaged the Shroud as a medieval fake. Casabianca and his team are advocating that the Vatican authorize a variety of new 21st-century testing methods not available in 1988 or 1978 during STURP’s testing. 4

T. CASABIANCA (2019): Recently, we obtained the raw data and, for the first time, measured their convergence with the radiocarbon dates published in Nature.
Our results, which are compatible with those previously reported by many other authors (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013), strongly suggest that homogeneity is lacking in the data. The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth. 5

Bryan Walsh (2019): The Shroud became, and remains, the focus of scientific inquiry because it is not known how the images on it were formed. Most recently Casabianca et al. (2019), based on information obtained after a legal filing with the British Museum, showed that some of the original Shroud date measurements reported by the three laboratories to the British Museum were modified from their original ‘raw’ laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an unstated methodology. Our review and analysis of the Shroud radiocarbon data reveal a significant shortcoming in the original report by Damon et al. (1989). The shortcoming begins with the lack of adherence to the protocol that W-W define for combining the inter-laboratory data sets.

The overall conclusion is that Damon et al. (1989) did not follow the W-W recommendation to reconsider the data. Rather, they chose to weight equally each of the three means – the scatter-weighted Tucson data and the quoted error-weighted Zurich and Oxford data – to find their arithmetic mean. They then estimated the standard error of that mean by combining the standard errors of those means as if all the data were drawn from the same population. This procedure is inappropriate since it deliberately ignores the heterogeneous nature of the data uncovered by the analysis and introduces errors into the statistical analysis.

Our analyses correct this deficiency, and in the process identify a statistically significant heterogeneity in the dates reported for the Shroud sample.  ( heterogeneity: The quality or state of consisting of dissimilar or diverse elements) Technically, this finding would preclude the step of combining the individual data sets and reporting the mean date as was done. Lacking this adherence to protocol, the finding of heterogeneity should, at the very least, have prompted a strong qualification to the reported final result. At this time, the source of the heterogeneity is unknown, but we consider two hypotheses either of which could account for the effect. One is that some inherent variation was present in the carbon isotopic composition of the samples themselves. The other is that some differences in the sample cleaning may have introduced differences in residual contamination. As an example of the latter, we recall that Oxford used petroleum ether as part of its pre-cleaning procedure whereas the other two laboratories apparently did not.

Fanti et al. developed a series of relationships between characteristics of fiber over time and a method of estimating the age of the fabric. He subsequently applied these techniques to a series of fibers extracted from the Shroud and derived an estimated calendar age of 90 AD +/− 200 yrs (Fanti et al., 2015). 6

Quoting from the abstract of the article: Giulio Fanti ( 2015): 
The present paper discusses the results obtained using innovative dating methods based on the analysis of mechanical parameters (breaking strength, Young modulus and loss factor) and of optochemical ones (FT-IR and Raman). To obtain mechanical results it was necessary to build a particular cycling-loads machine able to measure the mechanical parameters of single flax fibers 1-3 mm long.  two optochemical methods have been applied to test the linen fabric, obtaining a date of 250 BC by a FT-IR ATR analysis and a date of 30 AD by a Raman analysis. These two dates combined with the mechanical result, weighted through their estimated square uncertainty inverses, give a final date of the Turin Shroud of 90 AD ±200 years at 95% confidence level. 7 The study from 2015 was preceded by Fanti et al., by an earlier study from 2013, which made the news in several newspapers. For example, the Huffington Post reported:  Fanti and a research team from the University of Padua conducted three tests on tiny fibers extracted from the shroud during earlier carbon-14 dating tests conducted in 1988 The first two tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy, respectively, while the third employed a test analyzing different mechanical parameters relating to voltage. The results date the cloth to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D.. Fanti said that researchers also found trace elements of soil "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem." "For me, the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity," he wrote, adding that there also "no sure proofs." Much of the controversy about the Shroud centers around carbon-14 dating tests from 1988 that concluded the piece of linen was a medieval forgery. However, those results may have been contaminated by fibers used to repair the cloth during the Middle Ages.9

The above results were published in the book:  Il Mistero della Sindone 10 

A press release about the book in 2013 reported: The Shroud shows a not reproducible double image of a man who lived from 280 BC and the year 220 AD (rounded to the nearest tens), a period compatible with the documented presence of Jesus in Palestine. The carbon 14 dating performed in 1988 is not statistically reliable. Mineralogical investigations on dust vacuumed from the Shroud, show the coincidence in dozens of items with those made of dust picked up in Jerusalem and under the Holy Sepulchre. DNA studies on the same samples show an exposition of the Shroud to the Middle East region. These are the sensational results reported in an Italian book entitled "IL MISTERO DELLA SINDONE – Le sorprendenti scoperte scientifiche sull’enigma del telo di Gesù (THE MYSTERY OF THE SHROUD – The amazing scientific discoveries on the enigma of the Jesus’ cloth) written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta.

The studies led by Professor Giulio Fanti have been performed by the Universities of Padua, Bologna, Modena, Udine, Parma, and London. These studies show methodological errors in the radiocarbon data released in 1988 by three laboratories (Tuxon, Oxford and Zurich), that subjected to Carbon 14 test samples of the Shroud, placing it an age between 1260 and 1390. Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermic measurements at the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padua studied the Shroud for fifteen years and thanks to a multidisciplinary project on the Shroud assigned to him by the University of Padua in 2009 obtained these results. Using this project it has also been possible to study and partially reproduce the double body image of the Shroud. Dozens of tests have been conducted in 2010-2013 in the Laboratory of High Voltages of Padua University to explain the origin of the mysterious image. If we want today to reproduce a quite similar image on fabric in 1/2 scale, we require a voltage of about 300,000 V, but according to the American scientist Igor Bensen, a voltage of 50,000,000 would be necessary for the Shroud body image in a 1/1 scale.

Now Fanti focused his studies on the dating of the Shroud. After robust statistical analyses in collaboration with the Universities of London (Anthony Atkinsons), Parma (Marco Riani) and Udine (Fabio Crosilla), he has shown, through robust statistics, the origin of the difference of more than 200 years between the laboratories of Arizona and Oxford in the response of carbon 14 on the Shroud. A statistical model has highlighted the systematic tendency to change: if for a few centimeters of fabric there are differences in 200 years, it’s easy to think that there are thousands of years of variations along the nearly 4.5 m of the Shroud, possibly caused by the mysterious energy that produced the image.

To date the Shroud using alternative methods both Raman and FT-IR tests have been used to obtain two different chemical datings with the collaboration of professors Anna Tinti and Pietro Baraldi respectively of the universities of Bologna and Modena. In addition, a multiparametric mechanical method have been used at Padua University after the construction of a new ad-hoc machine capable of acquiring the results of loading and unloading cycles of single linen fibers. Using a petrographic microscope Fanti was able to separate Shroud linen fibers from dust particles vacuumed from Shroud; the fibers were mounted on suitable supports and then, with Dr. Pierandred Malfi performed tests of tension and compression after analyzing about a dozen of antique fabrics (from bandages of mummies Egyptians of 3,000 BC, linens of Masada (Israel, 70 AD) and Medieval tissues up to recent ones.

Five mechanical parameters (tensile strength, Young’s modulus in direct and reverse cycle, loss factor, and loss factor in reverse cycle) have been selected to obtain five different age-dependent curves of the samples. After this Fanti has measured the corresponding mechanical properties of the Shroud finding the corresponding point on the scales just determined. Combining the five mechanical results, the following date for the Shroud results: 400 AD with an uncertainty of plus or minus 400 years at a 95% confidence level. With Raman and FT-IR spectra the Italian team measured the concentration of particles of particular atomic groups of flax fibers. At the same confidence level, the first produced the date of 200 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 500 years, the latter that of 300 BC with swings forward and back of 400 years. Combining the two chemical methods with the mechanical one it results a mean date of 33 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 250 years at 95% confidence level that is compatible with the period in which Jesus Christ lived in Palestine. About the mineralogical investigations, the dust vacuumed from the Shroud revealed traces of limestone and clay minerals showing high iron content that is consistent with dust present in Palestine. 11

Liberato De Caro (2022): The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition.14 

In a private email exchange, Barrie Schwortz listed the following peer-reviewed papers as the five most important articles that challenge the c14 date:

ROGERS, Raymond N. - “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin” [January 20, 2005] Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) pp.189-194. (Includes 5 illustrations)
BENFORD, M. Sue and MARINO, Joseph G. - Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud - Chemistry Today, vol 26 n 4, [July-August 2008]
CASABIANCA, Tristan - MARINELLI, Emanuela - PERNAGALLO, Giuseppe - TORRISI, Benedetto - Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence From Raw Data - Archaeometry, 22 March 2019
WALSH, Bryan and SCHWALBE, Larry - An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 29, February 2020
SCHWALBE, Larry A. and WALSH, Bryan - On Cleaning Methods and the Raw Radiocarbon Data from the Shroud of Turin - International Journal of Archaeology 2021; 9(1): 10-16 - March 12, 2021.

Modern Scientific Shroud Investigations

J. Marino (2022): The age of modern scientific investigation of the Shroud of Turin began in 1898, with Secondo Pia, an Italian amateur photographer, taking the first public photographs of the Shroud. When it was discovered that the Shroud image turned positive on the negative glass plate, science began to show an interest, primarily in finding how the image was imprinted on the cloth. Although the House of Savoy owned cloth until 1985 (the last King died in 1983 and willed it to the living Pope), the Church authorized a group known as the “Turin Commission” to do some limited scientific examination of the cloth in 1969 and 1973. According to archaeologist William Meacham in a 1983 article:

The Turin Commission conducted a series of tests aimed at clarifying the nature of the image. Thread samples were removed from the "blood" and image areas for laboratory investigation. Conventional and electron microscopic examination revealed an absence of heterogeneous coloring material or pigment. The image and "blood" stains were reported to have penetrated only the top fibrils; there had been no capillary action, and no material was caught in the crevices between threads. Both paint and blood seemed to be ruled out, and magnification up to 50,000 times showed the image to consist of fine yellow-red granules seemingly forming part of the fibers themselves and defying identification. Finally, standard forensic tests for haematic residues of blood yielded negative results.

In 1978, a group known as the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), mainly from the United States and most of whom worked in the U.S.’ space and nuclear programs, was given access to the cloth for five straight days (one hundred and twenty hours) to do non-destructive multi-disciplinary studies on the cloth. They published their findings in more than twenty peer-reviewed papers. Their conclusion stated:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations that may be attractive are completely precluded by chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation that is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known that can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately. Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

Since the testing had to be non-destructive, the much-hyped radiocarbon dating test (C-14), which had only been invented in the late 1940s, was believed to date most objects within about a one-hundred-year range accurately, was not done at that time. However after 1978, more scientists and researchers continued to study the cloth. It was stated in the renowned Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology that it’s widely believed: “The Shroud of Turin is the single, most studied artifact in human history” (page 200). 15


Cutting and weighing the sample for its subsequent division and distribution. After making the appropriate cut, Professor Testare weighs the removed fabric on a precision scale. This small strip was later divided into several fragments and sent to three laboratories. Unfortunately, four different official versions of the weights and measurements of each fragment were released, which at the time fueled rumors of a possible fraud in the laboratories' actions.


The particle accelerator used in the Oxford laboratory. Three laboratories volunteered to analyze the Shroud for free: those in Tucson (Arizona), Oxford (England), and Zurich (Switzerland). They used the carbon-14 dating method through the particle accelerator (AMS), which had recently been launched.


Clarification from Professor Michael Tite. As the coordinator of the test and the director of the research laboratory at the British Museum, Professor Michael Tite acknowledged - after the complete report was published in Nature - that the C-14 dating was not sufficient to establish that the Shroud of Turin was a fake. He clarified that such a claim goes beyond the evidential scope of the results obtained and attributed the misinterpretation of his words to the media. Presented here is the letter he sent to the scientific advisor of the Archbishop of Turin, apologizing for this misunderstanding. In it, he specified that he did not believe the Shroud to be a forgery.

He wrote in the letter, dated 14th of September 1989: 
Following our recent meeting in Paris, I am writing to put my record the fact that I do not consider that the result of the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud shows the Shroud to be a forgery. As you have correctly pointed out, to describe the Shroud as a forgery implies a deliberate intention to defraud and the radiocarbon dating clearly provides no evidence in support of such a hypothesis. I myself have always carefully tried to avoid using the word forgery in discussing the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud but I fear that the description of the Shroud as a forgery has still crept into a number of newspaper articles based on interviews that I have given. I can therefore only apologise once again for any problems that such reports have caused you and others in Turin. I was very pleased to meet you and Professor Testore again in Paris. 18




What are the main reasons for unreliable radiocarbon test results?



Rogue dates are common in archaeology and geology … Such has been my experience as an archaeologist who has excavated, submitted and interpreted more than one hundred carbon 14 samples from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Historical sites. Of the dates obtained, 78 were considered credible, 26 were rejected as unreliable and 11 were problematic. I mention this merely to inform the non-specialist …1
William Meacham, archaeologist, Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 2000

Chapter 7



The Shroud, a forgery? 

The Chronicles of Frank: The Mastermind Behind the Forgery of the Shroud:  Millennium's Greatest Riddle

Once upon a modern Monday, I, a brilliant yet underappreciated inventor, decided to unravel history's most persistent prank—the Shroud of Turin. So, I cranked up my time machine (which closely resembled a retrofitted refrigerator) and set the dial to Ye Olden Times.

Whoosh! With a sputter and a cough, the machine deposited me into a medieval atelier where I found an artist, let's call him "Frank," a man whose beard was as majestic as his ambition. Frank was in the middle of creating the biggest oopsie-daisy of the millennium. There he was, dabbing away at a piece of linen with the focus of a cat chasing a laser pointer. Little did he know, his paint concoction had the magical ability to embed 3D information, a feature that would bamboozle scientists for ages. I approached Frank, clearing my throat. "Good morrow, sir! I see thou art crafty with thine brush." Frank, startled by my sudden appearance yet proud of his work, puffed out his chest and declared, "Behold, the future marvel of the world! It shall be my greatest masterpiece!" "I'll say," I replied, inspecting the cloth. "Your work will cause quite the stir in... um, future art circles." Frank grinned, a twinkle in his eye. "Oh, it's just a little something I whipped up between other, less important projects—like inventing the toothbrush." I chuckled. "Well, you've certainly outdone yourself. Scholars will scratch their heads, scientists will squabble, and historians will haggle over this little number for centuries." Frank looked puzzled. "Really? But it's just a mix of wine, berries, and a pinch of—" "No, no, don't tell me! The mystery is half the fun," I interrupted, winking. "Plus, you wouldn't want to spoil the surprise for all those PhDs." As I prepared to leave, I couldn't help but admire Frank's unwitting genius. His artistry would become a time-traveling troll, a historical hiccup that echoed through the ages. I hopped back into my time fridge, leaving Frank to his devices, his brush still in hand, and his destiny as history's greatest artistic prankster assured. And so, with a flicker and a flash, I returned to the 21st century, just in time for lunch. As for the Shroud, well, let's just say it remained the ultimate conversation starter at every science convention.

While the whimsical tale of Frank and his medieval artistry makes for a delightful romp through time, the reality of the Shroud of Turin's authenticity is subject to serious debate and scientific inquiry. The hypothesis that the Shroud is a medieval forgery, crafted by a talented artist capable of embedding 3D information into the cloth, is not plausible by any means and should cause skepticism.  The level of scientific knowledge and artistic sophistication required to create a forgery with 3D encoding capabilities would be anachronistic for the Middle Ages. No known artistic techniques from that time could accomplish this feat. Medieval artists often created works for financial gain or ecclesiastical commission. A forgery of such complexity, without clear financial or social reward, would be unusual for the time. Pollen grains found on the Shroud are from plant species native to the areas surrounding Jerusalem. The weave and style of the linen cloth also correspond to ancient textiles from the Near East, rather than European methods prevalent in the Middle Ages. The image on the Shroud contains no pigment, suggesting it was not painted. The coloration of the fibers is only superficial, affecting only the topmost fibers, which would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve with known medieval techniques. While radiocarbon dating tests performed in 1988 suggested a medieval origin, subsequent analyses have pointed out potential flaws in the testing process, including the possibility of contamination or the testing of repaired patches rather than the original cloth. The image on the Shroud displays detailed anatomical correctness that would be unlikely for a medieval artist to fabricate, given the limited medical knowledge of the time. Despite numerous attempts, modern artists and scientists have been unable to replicate the Shroud's imagery fully, using either medieval or modern techniques. While the middle age forgery hypothesis presents an entertaining narrative, the complexities and peculiarities of the Shroud of Turin are not plausible. The evidence points to the authenticity, and a correct date back to 33D, when Jesus left his imprint as testimony of his supernatural power, and truthfulness of the biblical identity, and historicity.

Requirements for a Hypothetical Medieval Forger of the Shroud of Turin

Knowledge of 1st Century Crucifixion: Understand Roman crucifixion methods, including nail placement and crown of thorns.
Multi-Disciplinary Expertise: Master over 100 scientific fields to ensure detail accuracy.
Modern Medical Insight: Possess advanced medical knowledge comparable to a contemporary surgeon.
Unparalleled Artistic Technique: Utilize an unknown art process to create a detailed negative image with 3-D effects.
Predictive Photographic Understanding: Anticipate principles of photographic negativity before their invention.
Ancient Cloth Acquisition: Obtain and use authentic Middle Eastern cloth from the relevant era.
Heat-Resistant Coloring Agent: Employ a unique, heat-resistant coloring substance.
Inclusion of Microscopic Details: Incorporate minute details visible only under modern scanning technology.
Authentic Blood Application: Accurately apply blood from a trauma victim.
Matching Sudarium Creation: Craft the Sudarium of Oviedo with corresponding features to the Shroud.
Specific Geological and Botanical Materials: Source Jerusalem limestone and specific Middle Eastern pollen, especially from thorn-bearing plants blooming in spring.

Is the Shroud of Turin a Genuine artifact or a manufactured relic? 

- The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.
- The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known as 20th-century science.
- The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65° from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.
- The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had "spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.
- The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.
- The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th-century forensic examiners that the "man in the shroud" had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.
- The forger, against all conventions of medieval artistry, painted the body he was "hoaxing" as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.
- The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.
- The forger was clever enough to "salt" the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th-century palynological analysis.
- The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to "paint" an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed.
- The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away to discern the shadowy image as he continued.
- The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited ponytail, sidelocks, and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.
- The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the "man in the shroud" consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.
- This forger was such an expert in 20th-century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography, and 3-D computer analysis that he has foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael, and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings.

If the Shroud of Turin is a forgery of the 14th century, as the radiocarbonists claim, and not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval "forger" must be accepted.  If the Shroud was "forged" it would have to have been painted.

Required Knowledge for a Medieval Forger to Create the Shroud of Turin and the Probability of Its Forgery

How to create an image that is completely inverted (perfect negative)

The pathologic details of death by Roman crucifixion including
-Flagra markings and dimensions
-Blood Present on Cloth Before the Image
-High blood bilirubin content indicative of trauma victim
-Nail in wrist center causes thumb adduction
-Lancea spear dimensions
-Nails at appropriate sites
-Specific goniometry of blood flow patterns from wrist
-Post-mortem pooling of blood
-Distinct blood stains over the cap of the skull suggestive of “cap of thorns”

The Shroud of Turin is renowned for its unique characteristic: it bears a negative image of a man, where the dark and light areas are inverted compared to a normal photograph. This inversion means that what would typically appear light in a regular image appears dark on the Shroud, and vice versa. Replicating such an image requires a deep understanding of photographic negative techniques, a challenging feat in both historical and contemporary contexts. In traditional photography, negatives are used to achieve this effect. In these negatives, colors, and brightness are inverted, making dark areas in the real world appear light, and light areas appear dark on the negative. However, translating this concept into painting or drawing is a much more complex task. It demands a meticulous and counterintuitive approach to the standard practices of art. An artist would need to intentionally reverse the usual patterns of light and shadow. This process requires visualizing the scene as if it were being viewed through a photographic negative, with every tone and shade flipped. Creating such an inverted image by hand, especially in historical times, presents a significant challenge. It necessitates not only exceptional artistic skill but also a profound understanding of how light interacts with objects and how this interaction would be represented in an inverted format. This knowledge of photographic techniques, which were not widely understood or available until centuries later, makes it exceedingly unlikely that a forger, particularly from an earlier historical period, could have accurately produced such an inverted image. The complexity involved in creating a perfect negative image by hand adds to the mystery and ongoing debate surrounding the Shroud of Turin. It underscores the enigmatic nature of the Shroud, contributing to its status as an object of enduring fascination.

The pathological details of crucifixion as observed on the Shroud of Turin provide a compelling, albeit gruesome, insight into the methods and consequences of Roman crucifixion practices. These details align with historical accounts and forensic analysis, adding a layer of authenticity to the Shroud's depiction.

Flagra Markings: The Shroud displays markings that are consistent with wounds inflicted by a Roman flagrum. This whip typically featured multiple leather thongs with metal balls or bone pieces at the ends. The markings on the Shroud reflect the distinctive size, shape, and pattern of these tips, suggesting a repeated lashing that was standard in Roman scourging practices. This would result in deep, contused lacerations across the body, particularly the back, buttocks, and legs, reflecting the brutal efficiency of the flagrum in inflicting pain and injury. The presence of flagra markings on the Shroud of Turin not only suggests the use of a Roman flagrum in the infliction of wounds but also raises a profound mystery about how these marks were accurately transferred from the body to the cloth. The Shroud displays a detailed and precise set of markings consistent with the size, shape, and pattern of a flagrum's tips, indicating repeated lashing. These markings, observed as deep, contused lacerations, are especially pronounced across the back, buttocks, and legs, aligning with the known brutality of Roman scourging practices. The enigma lies in understanding how these detailed impressions could have been transferred onto the fabric of the Shroud with such accuracy and clarity. Traditional methods of contact transfer, such as pressing a cloth against a wounded body, are unlikely to yield such precise and well-defined imprints. Furthermore, the nature of the wounds, involving contusions and lacerations, complicates the idea of a simple direct transfer mechanism. Several theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, but none have been conclusively proven. Some suggest a chemical interaction between the body (possibly through post-mortem changes) and the fabric, while others hypothesize a yet-to-be-understood physical or energetic process that occurred at the moment of the body's wrapping or thereafter. What adds to the mystery is the consistency and uniformity of the wound imprints on the Shroud. If they were the result of a direct transfer from a body, the distortion and variance due to the folds and drapes of the cloth would be expected. Yet, the markings on the Shroud display a near-photographic precision that defies simple explanations based on known physical and chemical processes of image transfer from a three-dimensional body to a two-dimensional cloth. This unexplained aspect of how the flagra markings were accurately transmitted from the body to the Shroud remains one of the many enigmatic features of this ancient artifact, contributing to its enduring intrigue and significance in both religious and scientific communities.

Blood Evidence and Bilirubin: The presence of high bilirubin levels in the bloodstains on the Shroud could be indicative of severe physical trauma. Bilirubin is a byproduct of the breakdown of red blood cells, and its elevated levels are often found in individuals who have experienced significant physical stress or injury. In the context of the Shroud, these high levels suggest the individual had undergone severe physical abuse prior to death, consistent with the brutal nature of Roman crucifixion and scourging. The hypothesis of high bilirubin levels in the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin, indicative of severe physical trauma, adds a layer of complexity to the discussion of the Shroud's authenticity and the challenges a potential forger would face. If the presence of elevated bilirubin is accurate, it implies that the individual whose image is on the Shroud experienced extreme physical stress or injury, consistent with the brutal practices of Roman crucifixion and scourging.

To authentically replicate the bloodstains with high bilirubin levels, a forger would need access to the blood of a person who had undergone severe physical trauma, akin to the brutality depicted in Roman crucifixion. This requirement presents not only a logistical challenge but also a deeply unethical and criminal one, essentially requiring the forger to be complicit in murder or severe abuse. During the time periods when forgery of the Shroud is often hypothesized to have occurred (Middle Ages, for instance), there was no known scientific understanding of bilirubin or its relationship to physical trauma. A forger would have to possess advanced biomedical knowledge that was centuries ahead of its time, making it highly improbable. From a forger's perspective, there would be little to no benefit in going through the considerable trouble of obtaining blood from a tortured individual. The nuances of bilirubin levels and their implications would not have been understood or appreciated by observers at the time. Using blood from any source would have achieved the visual effect of bloodstains without the added complexity of ensuring it came from a specific type of trauma. The act of obtaining blood from a tortured individual would carry immense risk and complexity, far exceeding the challenges of traditional forgery techniques. It would involve not just the act of forgery, but also engaging in or commissioning acts of extreme violence, which would significantly increase the risk of exposure and punishment. In light of these hurdles, the theory that the bloodstains on the Shroud were the result of a forgery becomes increasingly implausible. The specific details, such as the elevated bilirubin levels indicative of severe trauma, add layers of complexity that would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate with the knowledge and resources available in historical periods when such a forgery could have been attempted.

Nail Wounds: Contrary to popular depictions of crucifixion, historical and anatomical evidence suggests that nails were driven through the wrists, not the palms. This method was more structurally sound for supporting the weight of a body during crucifixion. The Shroud shows evidence of nail wounds in the wrist area. Moreover, it depicts a specific detail - the adduction of the thumb (inward movement towards the wrist) - which is a known anatomical reaction when nails are driven through the wrist's median nerve. This detail corroborates the historical accuracy and physiological realism of the Shroud's depiction. The depiction of nail wounds in the wrist area on the Shroud of Turin, as opposed to the palms, is a significant detail that adds to the debate over its authenticity. This anatomical accuracy, particularly the specific detail of the thumb adduction (inward movement towards the wrist), is a crucial element that aligns with modern medical understanding but would have been highly unlikely for a forger from the Middle Ages to know or understand. During the Middle Ages, the common artistic representation of crucifixion almost invariably showed the nails being driven through the palms of the hands. This was the widely accepted and depicted method, influenced by religious iconography and theological interpretations rather than anatomical accuracy. A forger in this era, therefore, would likely have followed this conventional depiction and placed the nail wounds in the palms in any fabricated relic. The level of anatomical detail necessary to depict the effects of nailing through the wrists, including the thumb's adduction due to median nerve injury, was far beyond the medical knowledge of the Middle Ages. This specific detail is consistent with modern medical understanding but was not known or understood until much later. Therefore, a forger from this period would not have the requisite knowledge to accurately represent this detail. The medical understanding in the Middle Ages was rudimentary compared to modern standards. Knowledge of the intricate details of nerve damage and its specific effects on hand movement was not within the scope of medieval medicine. The depiction of such details in the Shroud suggests a level of anatomical and physiological understanding that would be extraordinary and highly unlikely for a forger of that era. Artists and craftsmen in the Middle Ages were heavily influenced by religious and cultural norms. The portrayal of crucifixion in art and artifacts was more about theological symbolism and less about historical or anatomical accuracy. A forger, seeking to create a believable relic, would likely adhere to these norms rather than deviate based on anatomical accuracy. If a forger had, by some chance, stumbled upon this anatomical detail, depicting the crucifixion in a manner contrary to the accepted norms would have been a significant risk. It could have led to skepticism and disbelief, as it would have contradicted the widely held and depicted beliefs of the time.

Lance Wounds: The Shroud features a side wound, likely inflicted by a Roman lancea. This type of wound is consistent with the historical use of a spear to either hasten death or confirm death in crucifixion victims. The size and shape of the wound on the Shroud align with the dimensions of Roman spears used during the period. The location of the wound, traditionally near the heart, suggests a deliberate action to either cause death or verify it, which was a common practice in Roman executions to ensure the victim did not survive the crucifixion. Each of these details - from the flagra markings to the lance wound - contributes to a forensic narrative that aligns closely with what is known of Roman crucifixion methods. The accuracy of these details in the Shroud suggests a deep familiarity with these practices, further intensifying the mystery and historical significance of this enigmatic artifact. The depiction of a side wound on the Shroud of Turin, consistent with being inflicted by a Roman lancea, poses significant challenges for a hypothetical forger, particularly from the Middle Ages.

The precise replication of a wound inflicted by a Roman lancea requires detailed knowledge of Roman crucifixion methods and the tools used. In the Middle Ages, detailed historical knowledge about Roman execution practices was limited. A forger would need to have a very specific and accurate understanding of these practices, which were not commonly detailed in historical texts available at the time. The wound's location near the heart is anatomically significant. It suggests a deliberate action to either cause death or verify it. For a forger to accurately place this wound, they would need advanced knowledge of human anatomy, specifically the location of vital organs, which was not common knowledge in the Middle Ages. Medical knowledge of the time was rudimentary compared to today, and the accurate placement of such a wound would be unlikely. The size and shape of the wound as depicted on the Shroud are consistent with the dimensions of Roman spears. Replicating this would require the forger to have access to accurate replicas of Roman weapons or detailed knowledge of their design, which would be uncommon and difficult to obtain during the Middle Ages. If a forger were attempting to create a believable relic, deviating from the common perceptions and artistic representations of crucifixion at the time would have been a significant risk. During the Middle Ages, crucifixion was often depicted in a stylized, non-anatomical manner in art. A more accurate depiction, such as the side wound consistent with a Roman lancea, would have been out of the norm and might have invited skepticism and scrutiny. Creating a realistic-looking wound on a linen cloth that mimics the appearance of an actual spear wound is a complex task. It requires not just artistic skill but a deep understanding of how such a wound would appear on fabric after coming into contact with a body. This level of technical skill and understanding of forensic pathology would be highly unusual for a forger in the Middle Ages.

Blood Flow Patterns: Understanding the goniometry (measurement of angles) of blood flow from wounds, including those on the wrists and head, is crucial. This involves knowing how blood flows and pools under gravity, especially post-mortem. The accurate representation of blood flow patterns, including the goniometry (measurement of angles) of blood from wounds, presents a considerable challenge for a potential forger, particularly in historical contexts like the Middle Ages.  Accurately depicting blood flow patterns from wounds requires a sophisticated understanding of how blood behaves under various conditions, including the influence of gravity, body position, and the effects of injury and death. In the Middle Ages, such knowledge was not well developed or understood. This lack of understanding would make it exceptionally challenging for a forger to replicate realistic blood flow patterns, especially those from specific wounds like those on the wrists or head. Post-mortem blood flow is particularly complex. After death, blood pooling and flow are affected by factors like gravity, the rigidity of tissues, and the cessation of circulatory pressure. Replicating the nuances of post-mortem blood flow on a linen cloth, as seen on the Shroud, would require not only artistic skill but also a deep understanding of forensic pathology. This level of knowledge was not available in the Middle Ages. The goniometry of blood flow refers to the angles at which blood flows from wounds, influenced by the body's position and the force of gravity. Accurately representing these angles on a flat surface like the Shroud would require a forger to understand and calculate how blood flows from wounds on a three-dimensional body and then realistically transpose this onto a two-dimensional surface. Such calculations are complex and were beyond the scope of knowledge in historical times when forgery is suspected. The blood flow patterns on the Shroud are consistent with wounds inflicted in a crucifixion, including the specific locations and types of wounds. A forger would need to replicate not just generic blood patterns, but specific ones that correspond to known wounds, like those on the wrists and head from crucifixion. This requires a level of detail and anatomical accuracy unlikely to be possessed by forgers in the past. Beyond the scientific understanding, the technical execution of painting or imprinting blood flow patterns on fabric in a way that remains realistic over centuries is a significant challenge. The Shroud's bloodstains have been preserved in a manner that still allows for forensic analysis, suggesting a level of sophistication in the materials and methods used that would be atypical of medieval forgeries.

Cap of Thorns: Distinct stains on the head area of the Shroud suggest a cap or crown of thorns. These markings would reflect the pattern of such an object being pressed onto the scalp. Creating convincing stains on the Shroud of Turin to represent a cap or crown of thorns involves challenges that would have been extremely difficult for a forger to overcome, especially in historical times like the Middle Ages.  The pattern created by a crown of thorns would be complex and irregular, with multiple points of contact causing various wounds on the scalp. Replicating this pattern accurately would require a detailed understanding of how such an object would interact with the human head, including the specific points where thorns would penetrate the skin and how blood would flow from these wounds. Blood flow from scalp wounds behaves differently compared to other parts of the body due to the scalp's unique structure and blood supply. A forger would need to understand these specific dynamics to create realistic bloodstain patterns. In the Middle Ages, knowledge about the circulatory system and blood flow dynamics was limited, making it highly improbable for a forger to accurately replicate these patterns. If a forger attempted to create a physical crown of thorns to make the pattern, they would need to construct an object that closely mimicked the real thing in terms of size, shape, and the distribution of thorns. This task requires not only artistic skill but also a deep understanding of the morphology of such a crown, which was not a common object and had no standard design. Transferring the blood pattern from a three-dimensional object like a crown of thorns onto a two-dimensional surface like a cloth in a realistic manner is a complex process. The forger would have to master the technique of transferring bloodstains from the three-dimensional contours of a scalp onto the cloth without smudging or distorting the pattern, which would be a difficult task given the technology and materials available in the Middle Ages. The bloodstains suggesting a cap of thorns on the Shroud are consistent with what would be expected anatomically if such an object were pressed onto a person's head. A forger would need a sophisticated understanding of anatomy to ensure that the stains matched the locations where thorns would realistically penetrate and cause bleeding on a human head. The depiction of a cap or crown of thorns is specific to the narrative of Jesus' crucifixion. A forger would have to be motivated not only by the desire to create a convincing relic but also by the need to align it with specific theological and historical narratives. This requires a deep understanding of Christian iconography and the cultural context of the time.

Overall Image Creation: The Shroud is a full-body image, front and back, of a crucified man. The overall creation of such an image involves not only understanding these specific details but also how they interact to create a coherent, life-sized image. The creation of the full-body image on the Shroud of Turin, representing both the front and back of a crucified man, presents a series of significant challenges that would make forgery particularly difficult, especially in historical contexts like the Middle Ages.  Creating a life-sized, full-body image that is anatomically proportional and consistent from both front and back views is a complex task. It requires not only artistic skill but also a deep understanding of human anatomy and proportion. In the Middle Ages, while there were skilled artists, the level of anatomical precision needed for such a task was not commonly achieved. The Shroud depicts a three-dimensional figure on a two-dimensional surface. This requires sophisticated knowledge of perspective and shading to convey depth and form accurately. Such techniques were not fully developed or understood in the Middle Ages as they are in modern art. The image on the Shroud shows a consistent placement of wounds and bloodstains that align from the front to the back of the body. Achieving this level of consistency would be extremely challenging, as it requires precise alignment and understanding of how wounds would appear on a body subjected to crucifixion, including the effects of gravity and body positioning. The technique by which the image was transferred onto the Shroud is still a subject of debate and research. It is not consistent with painting, rubbing, or any known medieval image-making techniques. For a forger to create such an image, they would have needed to discover and apply a sophisticated and unknown method of image transfer. The Shroud displays detailed and accurate pathological features consistent with crucifixion, such as nail wounds in the wrists, scourge marks, and a side wound. Replicating these features with historical and medical accuracy would require knowledge that was not available in the Middle Ages. The image on the Shroud, despite being full-body, is remarkably uniform in its intensity and detail. This uniformity is difficult to achieve in a forgery, especially on such a large scale, as it would be easy to introduce inconsistencies and irregularities in the image-making process. The image on the Shroud lacks the stylistic elements typical of medieval artwork. It does not resemble paintings or drawings of the era but instead appears more as a detailed, photographic negative. A forger would have to consciously avoid any contemporary artistic styles, which would be an unusual and difficult approach.

Historical and Artistic Context: Understanding the historical context of Roman crucifixion methods and the artistic techniques available during the time believed to be the origin of the Shroud is also essential. When considering the historical and artistic context of the Shroud of Turin, especially in relation to the skills and knowledge available during the period believed to be its origin (often argued to be the Middle Ages), several factors significantly complicate the notion of it being a forgery. The Shroud depicts details of Roman crucifixion with a level of accuracy that would require detailed knowledge of these practices. During the Middle Ages, the comprehensive understanding of Roman execution methods, especially the specifics of crucifixion, was limited. Detailed information about practices like nailing through the wrists, the use of the Roman flagrum, or the spearing of the side was not commonly or accurately recorded in available texts. The artistic techniques available during the Middle Ages were largely incapable of producing the detailed, photonegative-like image seen on the Shroud. Medieval art, particularly in the realm of lifelike representation and detailed anatomical accuracy, was not as advanced as what the Shroud's image would require. The Shroud lacks brushstrokes, pigments, or other indications of being a painted or drawn piece, which were the common artistic methods of the time. The Shroud displays a detailed and anatomically accurate full-body image. In the Middle Ages, the understanding of human anatomy was rudimentary, as dissections and detailed anatomical studies were rare or even forbidden. The level of anatomical precision evident in the Shroud was not typical of the artistic or scientific knowledge of that era. The accurate representation of blood flow patterns, wounds, and the effects of torture on the Shroud would require advanced knowledge of forensic pathology, which was not available in the Middle Ages. The understanding of how blood flows from specific wounds, how it pools post-mortem, and how wounds inflicted by specific implements like the Roman flagrum or nails would appear, was beyond the scope of medieval knowledge. One of the key challenges for a forger would be to avoid anachronisms – that is, the inclusion of details or elements that did not exist or were not known during the supposed time of creation. The Shroud, however, does not display such inconsistencies, further complicating the notion of forgery. The Shroud had to align with the religious and cultural expectations of its time to be considered authentic. A forger would need not only the technical skill to create the image but also a deep understanding of the theological and iconographic elements relevant to the narrative of Christ's crucifixion. The Shroud is made on a fine linen cloth, and the image is embedded within the fabric in a way that is not consistent with known painting or image-making techniques of the Middle Ages. Creating such an image on linen without modern tools or chemicals would be exceptionally difficult.

Calculating the Odds of Forgery

For a forger to create the Shroud of Turin in the Middle Ages, they would have to possess advanced knowledge of Roman crucifixion methods, human anatomy, forensic pathology, and artistic techniques far beyond what was available at the time. They would also need to meticulously avoid anachronisms and align the image with contemporary cultural and religious beliefs, all while executing the image on linen in a manner not consistent with the art-making technologies of the era. These factors make the notion of the Shroud being a medieval forgery highly implausible. To provide a speculative calculation on the likelihood of the Shroud of Turin being a forgery, we need to consider several factors and estimate the probability of each being successfully forged in the medieval period. It's important to remember that this calculation will be highly speculative and not based on precise statistical data, as the actual likelihood involves a multitude of unknown and possibly unknowable variables.

Creating a Perfect Negative Image: Let's assume the knowledge and skill required for this would be extremely rare in medieval times. Probability of successful forgery: 5%.
Accurate Pathological Details of Crucifixion: Given the limited medical knowledge of the time, accurately representing these details would be quite difficult. Probability: 10%.
Flagra Markings and Dimensions: This requires specific historical knowledge and skill. Probability: 15%.
Blood on Cloth Before Image Formation: Replicating aged blood stains accurately would be challenging without modern chemical knowledge. Probability: 10%.
High Blood Bilirubin Content: This detail would be virtually impossible to replicate intentionally in the medieval period due to lack of biochemical knowledge. Probability: 5%.
Nail Wounds and Thumb Adduction: Accurate depiction would require advanced anatomical knowledge. Probability: 10%.
Lancea Spear Dimensions and Wound Representation: Requires specific historical and anatomical knowledge. Probability: 15%.
Appropriate Placement of Nails: Some historical knowledge required, but possibly achievable. Probability: 20%.
Goniometry of Blood Flow: Complex understanding of physics and anatomy needed. Probability: 10%.
Post Mortem Blood Pooling: Understanding of post-mortem physiology would be rare. Probability: 10%.
Blood Stains from a 'Cap of Thorns': This requires both artistic skill and a creative interpretation. Probability: 20%.

Using these speculative probabilities, we can calculate an overall likelihood. However, these probabilities are not independent - the likelihood of achieving one could affect the others. For a simplified calculation, we could multiply these probabilities. But in reality, the interdependence of these factors would make the actual calculation much more complex. The speculative calculation, based on the individual probabilities assigned to each factor, results in an extremely low overall probability of about 0.000000225% that the Shroud of Turin could have been successfully forged in the medieval period with all these specific details accurately replicated. To achieve one successful outcome with this success rate, approximately 440 million trials would be necessary. ​​

This calculation illustrates just how unlikely it would be for a medieval forger to possess the necessary knowledge and skills across multiple disciplines to create the Shroud as it exists today.  This is a highly speculative and simplified calculation, not taking into account the complex interdependencies between these factors or the unknown aspects of medieval technology and knowledge.

This calculation, despite speculative, underscores the unlikelyness of a forgery from medieval times. ​

The intersection between faith, and tangible, verifiable evidence

We are told that John entered the Tomb, where Jesus was buried, and “he saw and believed” (εἶδεν)17 (v. 8 ). Ὁράω serves well as a climax for all that has proceeded. This verb communicates the idea of “mental and spiritual perception.” It is sometimes used for the “supernatural.” Second, we should take note of the fact that there is no object for the verb ὁράω in verse eight: “He saw and believed!” But what exactly did he see? We are not told!  The burial Shroud was lying on the stone slab undisturbed, exactly as it had been before (bound with a couple of thin, linen wrappings), except now lying flat—“sunken down”—without the body.  The scene conveyed the conclusion that, somehow, the body had dematerialized and passed through the burial cloth to release itself from the bonds of death and imprisonment. Also, the identity of the “face cloth” is crucial in understanding this passage, but a crux interpretum concerns what one decides to do with the perfect tense of the verb “rolled up” (ἐντετυλιγμένον) in verse seven.



The body had not been stolen! Contrary to what Mary had concluded from her quick appearance at the tomb earlier in the day, the grave clothes are lying in such a way that theft of the body is ruled out. Besides, who would first unwrap the body and then take only the corpse, leaving the Shroud behind? And even if so, the cloth would have appeared smeared with blood, which, as we can see on the Turin Shroud, was not the case.  Second, no one had unwrapped the linens to set Jesus free! His glorious, resurrected body is now able to pass through shut doors. His glorious body had done the same regarding its captivity with the Shroud! His body had dematerialized and passed right through the linen. John could see how the bands of cloth used to secure the corpse to the Shroud were still tied. It is as though the body had somehow vaporized and gone right through the cloth! Now the linens are lying there entirely undisturbed in any way.

This is consistent with the only explanation that begins to answer how the image on the Shroud of Turin was formed (with all its inexplicable characteristics). Based on extensive scientific research over forty years, physicist John Jackson put forward an unconventional hypothesis:
I propose that, as the Shroud collapsed through the underlying body, radiation emitted from all points within that body and discolored the cloth so as to produce the observed image.
The face cloth had probably been used by Joseph of Arimathea when taking the body down from the cross. Once inside the tomb, before enveloping the corpse with the Shroud, the face cloth was removed, rolled up, and set aside.
Since the face cloth was not on the corpse when the Resurrection took place, it does not have an image on it like the Shroud of Turin.
This is in keeping with the Sudarium of Oviedo, a face cloth that has been in Spain since 616 AD. Scientific tests done on both the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo demonstrated that “both cloths touched the same face.”
The subsequent story of “Doubting Thomas” should not be divorced from our current passage.

Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”  Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

John 20:24-29. is a unique account in the New Testament, emphasizing the relationship between belief and having seen. Thomas wasn't present when Jesus first appeared to the disciples after His resurrection. Upon hearing from others that Jesus had risen, Thomas expressed skepticism. He declared that he would not believe it until he saw the nail marks in Jesus' hands and put his finger where the nails were, and his hand into Jesus' side. A week later, Jesus appeared again to the disciples, this time with Thomas present. He invited Thomas to touch His wounds and stop doubting but believe. Thomas responded by acknowledging Jesus as "My Lord and my God!" Jesus then spoke of the blessedness of those who have not seen and yet have believed. This account emphasizes the importance of faith and belief, even in the absence of physical evidence. This incident is unique to the Gospel of John and does not appear in the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—where Thomas is mentioned only in the listings of the apostles. It's noteworthy that this story illustrates a significant moment of personal transformation for Thomas, moving from doubt to profound faith upon encountering the risen Christ.

In John 20:27, the Greek word used for "see" is ἴδε (ide). This word carries the sense of visual perception or observation. When Jesus tells Thomas to "see" His hands, He is inviting Thomas to not just look, but to observe and understand the reality of His resurrected body. This invitation is a direct response to Thomas's earlier expression of doubt, where he stated he wouldn't believe unless he could see and touch the wounds of Jesus. The use of ἴδε in this context is significant as it addresses Thomas's skepticism and the need for physical proof of Jesus' resurrection. Jesus' words "reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing" further emphasize the call for Thomas to move from doubt to belief through physical and visual evidence. This moment highlights the compassionate and understanding nature of Jesus, as He addresses Thomas's doubts directly and provides him the evidence he sought to believe in the resurrection. The exegesis of this passage often focuses on the interplay between faith and doubt, sight and belief. While Jesus provides the physical proof to Thomas, His words also stress the blessedness of those who believe without seeing, thus setting a foundation for faith that goes beyond physical evidence.

The narrative showcases Jesus' understanding of human doubts and His willingness to meet people where they are, providing what they need to move towards faith. This incident with Thomas thus becomes a powerful example of how Jesus responds to human frailty and skepticism with grace and patience, inviting a deeper, faith-based understanding beyond mere physical perception. The incident with Thomas in the Gospel of John highlights Jesus' understanding and compassionate response to human doubts and skepticism. This narrative showcases a significant aspect of the Christian faith: Jesus' willingness to meet people at their point of need and doubt, providing tangible evidence to nurture faith. This approach underscores a profound respect for the human condition and its inherent fragilities.

The Shroud of Turin provides us tangible, physical evidence of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, much in the vein of Jesus' response to Thomas's doubts. Powerful evidence indicates that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus, bearing the image of a man who suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. The Shroud of Turin aligns with the perception that Christ understands and accommodates human needs for physical evidence. Just as Jesus invited Thomas to touch and see His wounds, the image on the Shroud offers physical evidence of the Gospel narratives. Faith comes ultimately by the action of the holy spirit, by hearing the word of God, but is also a result of the careful, rational examination of physical evidence in the world around us. As the apostle Paul writes in Romans 1.19-22:  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.

This passage offers a perspective on how the physical world and human reasoning can lead to an understanding of God's existence and attributes.  The creation of the world reveals God's "invisible qualities," specifically His eternal power and divine nature. By observing the world around us, its complexity, beauty, and order, we can infer the existence of a divine creator. The natural world acts as a testament to God's power and divinity, and through reason and observation, humans can come to an understanding of these attributes. This passage has been influential in shaping Christian thought on how faith and reason interact. It suggests that faith in God is not irrational or based solely on internal belief but is also supported by rational observation of the world.  Paul's message in Romans 1:19-22 is a call to observe the world and use reason as tools to understand and acknowledge the divine. It is a reminder that the physical world is not just a backdrop to human existence but a canvas that, to those who believe, reveals the handiwork of a divine creator.

The Shroud of Turin, much like the concept discussed in Romans 1:19-22, provides a physical, tangible element that invites observation and study, potentially leading to rational inferences about Christ's historicity and biblical identity. The Shroud represents a convergence of faith, history, and science, offering a unique opportunity for believers and skeptics alike to engage with the Christian narrative in a tangible way. The Shroud can be physically examined, studied, and tested. Its existence provides a tangible connection to the past, a physical object that can be scrutinized using scientific methods. The Shroud offers a direct link to the events of the Gospels, serving as a material witness to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. It engages with the human desire for concrete evidence, particularly events of such significant impact. Over the years, the Shroud has been subjected to various scientific analyses. This scientific engagement embodies the interplay of faith and reason, where faith does not negate the need for rational inquiry, but rather, invites it. The Shroud offers a focal point for personal reflection on the life and suffering of Jesus. This aspect resonates with the notion that the physical world, in all its complexity and mystery, can lead to profound spiritual insights and strengthen faith. The Shroud provides an opportunity to meditate on the nature of Christ's sacrifice and the central tenets of the Christian faith. The Shroud reflects the dynamic nature of faith, which accommodates questioning, discussion, and diverse viewpoints. This debate can be constructive, as it encourages deeper exploration and understanding of the historical foundations of Christianity. The Shroud serves a function similar to the role of the natural world as described in Romans 1:19-22. It stands at the intersection of faith and reason, inviting individuals to explore, question, and reflect. The Shroud challenges to consider the historical and spiritual dimensions of the Christian narrative, integrating scientific inquiry with spiritual contemplation.

The distinction between the creation of images and the prohibition against idolatry in the Bible is an important one, particularly when considering representations like those based on the Shroud of Turin.

Exodus 20:4-6 and Deuteronomy 5:8-10 explicitly forbid the making of idols. This commandment is rooted in the belief that God is transcendent and beyond any physical representation. The concern was that creating images or idols could lead to them being worshipped as gods, which would be a form of idolatry, a practice strictly forbidden in Judaism.  The New Testament does not specifically address the creation of religious images. Any image, icon, or representation should not be an object of worship. Images based on the Shroud of Turin are not objects of worship but aid in a deeper understanding of the suffering of Christ. These representations are not meant to be divine or to possess any power in themselves. Instead, they are reminders of the historical Jesus and his sacrifice.In the history of Christianity, particularly within the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, the use of religious images (icons, statues, paintings) has been a common practice for centuries. These images are not meant to be worshipped. The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD addressed the use of icons and distinguished veneration from worship, which is due to God alone. While some Christian denominations avoid the use of religious images almost entirely, others embrace them as powerful tools for spiritual engagement and education. This diversity reflects the broader Christian understanding that the relationship with God is personal and transcends physical representations. While the Old Testament prohibits the creation of idols for worship, the New Testament and Christian tradition do not explicitly forbid the creation of religious images. Instead, these images, like those based on the Shroud of Turin, aid in understanding, provided they are not themselves objects of worship.

Considerable efforts have been made to demonstrate that the Shroud is a fraud. The investigations to reproduce the Shroud of Turin only demonstrate that the best efforts do not suffice to come even close to the image of the original. The results are far away from the original, very poor, and can be easily identified as made by an artist. Copies have been made that look like it but they lack all of the image characteristics that make the shroud image unique. Science cannot explain nor replicate the image..the closest we have come to replicating it (allegedly) is by bombarding linen samples with VUV Excimer Lasers.

How was the image made?

- It's not a painting  If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes.
- The entire image is very superficial, Around 20 - 30 microns in-depth is approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) only on the uppermost surface of the fibrils, the inner side is not, thus it could not have been formed by chemicals, The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers.
- It's not a photograph: Secondo Pia's photograph showed that the image on the cloth is a negative: dark where it should be bright.
- It was not made by a natural chemical process It has been confirmed that the image is the result of oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the fibers of the shroud themselves. It is like the imaged areas on the shroud suddenly rapidly aged compared to the rest of the shroud. The image on the shroud is the only one of its kind in this world, and there are no known methods that can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological, or medical circumstances explain the image adequately (S.T.U.R.P's conclusion)
- The image was not produced by vapors from chemicals or vapors from the corpse itself. Vapors from chemicals, or from the corpse itself, do not explain how the image is present on parts of the body where the cloth clearly did not touch the body (i.e. areas on either side of Christ’s projected nose).
- A burst of 34 thousand billion Watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” We currently do not know of any natural cause for a human corpse producing ultraviolet radiation like this. A very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color the linen fabric. The total power of the VUV radiation required for instantly color the surface of a linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to the corporate body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts. 

Key points why the Shroud is not a forgery

1. We have good evidence that the Shroud existed before 1260, the earliest dating of the carbon C14 test from 1988. The Hungarian Pray Manuscript, or Codex, is dated 1192-95. The Codex was compiled at the ancient Benedictine monastery in Hungary. Two pen and ink drawings on one page of the Codex document the existence of the Shroud in 1192. The upper drawing is a depiction of Jesus' body being prepared for burial. Correspondences between the Pray Codex and the Shroud include 1. Jesus is nude; 2. His hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right over left (as it appears on the Shroud), covering His genitals; 3. No thumbs are visible on Jesus' hands; 4. His hands and fingers are unnaturally long; 5. Jesus is about to be wrapped in a double body-length shroud and 6. Red marks on Jesus' scalp and forehead are in the same position as the bloodstains (including the "reversed 3") on the Shroud. In the lower drawing, an angel is showing three women disciples of Jesus' empty tomb symbolized by a sarcophagus with an open lid. Correspondences between this lower drawing and the Shroud include: 7. The sarcophagus lid has a herringbone weave pattern; 8. Red zigzags match the inverted V-shaped blood trickles down the Shroud man's arms and 9. L-shaped patterns of tiny circles in the herringbone weave of the sarcophagus lid match the `poker holes' on the Shroud. It is inconceivable that all these detailed links with the Shroud, several of which are found nowhere else, could have occurred on a single manuscript page by chance.

2. Christ Pantocrator, St Catherine's monastery, Sinai Dated c. 550, is nearly perfectly congruent to the Shroud-face, for example, the high right eyebrow, the hollow right cheek, and the garment neckline. Using his polarized image overlay technique, Dr Alan Whanger found over 200 points of congruence between this icon and the Shroud. Even creases and wrinkles on the Shroud cloth have been rendered by the artist. Flower images in the halo around the head (nimbus) of this icon are found at the same locations on the Shroud. The artist has even rendered the x-ray images of the Shroud man's teeth as chapped lips! This means that this icon must have been copied directly from the Mandylion/Shroud in the mid-sixth century and so, once again, refutes the radiocarbon dating's 14th-century date of the Shroud.

3. In the Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain, is a linen cloth called the Sudarium Christi, or the Face Cloth of Christ. The Sudarium Christi has a well-documented history.  One source traces the cloth back as far as 570 AD. According to Jewish custom, blood lost while a person was alive was not as important as blood lost after a person dies, when the death was violent. Any blood or bodily fluid that came after death had to be buried with the body, so it had to be recovered. Blood Type: The blood type of the shroud - namely AB blood - matches the blood type of the Sudarium. Dr. Alan Whanger performed Polarized Image Overlay Technology which revealed seventy points of congruence between the blood stains on the Shroud as compared to the Oviedo head cloth on the front of the head, and fifty points of congruence between the blood marks on the back of the head. There is a deposit of dirt on the nose area bearing a large excess of calcium and low concentrations of strontium. This discovery matches the previous discovery of dirt on the nose of the Turin Shroud.

4. Bloodstains on the forehead of the man on the shroud, including the "reversed `3'", which perfectly show the distinction between arterial and venous blood, were discovered by Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603) in 1593. So the unknown medieval or earlier forger of the Shroud would have discovered the circulation of blood, at least ~238 years before Cesalpino!

5. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something that resulted in oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. There are no chemical or physical methods known that can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological, or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.  It's not a painting.  If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. However, the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes. The entire image is very superficial, Around 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) only on the uppermost surface of the fibrils.   A burst of 34 thousand billion Watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” We currently do not know of any natural cause for a human corpse producing ultraviolet radiation like this. A very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color the linen fabric. The total power of the VUV radiation required to instantly color the surface of linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to the corporate body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts. 

6. Botanist A. Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem determined the origin of the Shroud based on a comprehensive analysis of pollen taken from the Shroud and plant images associated with the Shroud. The most frequent pollen on the Shroud is identical to the most frequent pollen in sediments of the lake of Gennesaret sedimentary layers of two thousand years ago.  Danin's analysis suggests that flowers and other plant materials were placed on the Shroud of Turin, leaving pollen grains and imprints of plants and flowers on the linen cloth. Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum coexist in a limited area, according to Danin, a leading authority on plants of Israel. The area is bounded by lines linking Jerusalem and Hebron in Israel and Madaba and Karak in Jordan. Frei was able to identify 49 species of plants, the pollen of which is represented in the dust of the Shroud. From the list of these plants it can be deduced that half of them do not grow in Europe, while it is present in the Middle East; in the other half, there are many Mediterranean plants. The first sampling on the Shroud On November 23, 1973, with the consent of the competent authorities, Frei took some dust samples from the Shroud’s margins using adhesive tapes. 

7. The yarn used to weave the Shroud of Turin is of very high quality, evenly spun, and it has been woven into an unusual, fancy weave for the time, called 3 to 1 herringbone twill.  There are no examples of herringbone twill weave from France up to and including the fourteenth century. The yarn was bleached before weaving rather than after the cloth was taken from the loom. This is a significant clue to the age of the cloth because medieval European linen was field bleached, a process that eliminates banding. The measurements of the Shroud are approximately 8 x 2 of the Assyrian standard cubit.  Such conformity to an exact 8 by 2 cubits is yet another piece of knowledge difficult to imagine of any medieval forger. A medieval artist/forger would be most unlikely to know the length of the standard cubit of Jesus' day, as this was only discovered by archaeologists in the 19th century!! Textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg revealed that the stitching of a seam on the Shroud that runs the entire length known as the side strip is typical of Jewish burial shrouds found in Masada, Israel.

What the Forger in middle age would have needed to know

1. How to create an image that is completely inverted (perfect negative)
2. The pathologic details of death by Roman crucifixion including
3. Flagra markings and dimensions
4. Blood Present on Cloth Before the Image
5. High blood bilirubin content indicative of trauma victim
6. Nail in wrist center causes thumb adduction
7. Lancea spear dimensions
8. Nails at appropriate sites
9. Specific goniometry of blood flow patterns from wrist
10. Post-mortem pooling of blood
11. Distinct blood stains over the cap of the skull suggestive of a “cap of thorns”

Each of these details - from the flagra markings to the lance wound - contributes to a forensic narrative that aligns closely with what is known of Roman crucifixion methods. The accuracy of these details in the Shroud suggests a deep familiarity with these practices, further intensifying the mystery and historical significance of this enigmatic artifact.

Leo Vala

In the fifties of the last century, LEO VALA, a professional photographer in London, did the first 3-dimensional experiments with the image on the Shroud of Turin. Vala employed a process that he called the Transflex Process of front projection. Using two positives of the 1931 Shroud photographs of the head, made by Giuseppe Enrie, and then projecting them on a bed of clay, using two projectors to create the matrix for a sculpture. After that he could sculpt the head. The result was quite stunning and showed the complete face image with lots of detail.



" I’ve been involved in the invention of many complicated visual processes and I can tell you that no one could have faked that image. " Leo Vala, a well-known London photographer and self-professed agnostic, 1967 was involved in the creation of three-dimensional photographs of the Shroud of Turin and he made an offer to donate proceeds from the public sale of his photographs to a Shroud investigation fund.





7TH APRIL 1967 Proceeds from the public sale of what Knightsbridge photographer Leo Vala claims to be a profile of Christ are to be donated to a Shroud investigation fund under which a photographic unit may be set up to make further studies of the Shroud in Turin. Mr. Vala made his offer to Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, V.C. who first obtained pictures of the Holy Shroud from which Vala produced his three-dimensional photographs. "I hope in this way to make some financial contribution towards helping to further the overall investigation. Meanwhile, I shall continue with my photographic studies In a determined effort to establish how this remarkable image was formed."







The 1mio$ challenge: If the Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done

"It was one of the most eagerly awaited scientific announcements of all time, and it pitted the world of faith against the world of rational thought, under the glare of the media. So when cutting-edge carbon-14 tests found that the Shroud of Turin was a forgery, it seemed like the final chapter for a relic that had been revered for centuries as the cloth in which Christ’s body had been wrapped when he supposedly rose from the dead at the first Easter almost 2,000 years ago. But one man – David Rolfe, a filmmaker whose documentary The Silent Witness had brought the shroud into the public eye in modern times, and who had converted to Christianity as a result of his research – wasn’t prepared to give up on it. He was convinced the carbon dating, carried out in 1988 under the direction of the British Museum and Oxford University, had been flawed. And now he claims he has the evidence to prove it. This week sees the release of a new film, Who Can He Be?, in which Rolfe argues that, far from the shroud being a definite dud, discoveries in the past few years have again opened the question of its authenticity.

So convinced is Rolfe that he’s issuing a challenge worth $1m to the British Museum. “If... they believe the shroud is a medieval forgery, I call on them to repeat the exercise, and create something similar today,” he says. “Because from all the evidence I’ve seen, if this is a forgery it’s the most ingenious forgery in history – and of course it dates back almost 2,000 years, to a time of far less sophisticated forgery techniques. “They said it was knocked up by a medieval oilman, and I say: well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. And if you can, there’s a $1m donation for your funds.” According to the gospel accounts, it was when they discovered Christ’s burial cloth on the floor of his tomb that his followers first believed he had risen from the dead. Across the centuries, the shroud has been venerated as that very piece of fabric.

Rolfe became aware of it about 45 years ago after he put out a request for ideas for documentaries, and the writer Ian Wilson, who had investigated the shroud – by then being kept at Turin Cathedral – got in touch. Rolfe was not a believer, but he found the history of the shroud fascinating. The documentary he went on to make won a Bafta in 1978 and brought the relic to international attention. “My program at no point said it was authentic, it said it was authentic, but it did pose questions, such as how did the image of the crucified man get onto the cloth, and did its provenance fit with the timeline of Christ?" says Rolfe. The most powerful moment for him came when he took photographs of the four-meter-long shroud for the first time and saw that the image of the dead man’s face was much more pronounced in the negatives. “It was almost as though it had been created for the photographic age,” says Rolfe. In the mid-1980s the Vatican, the owner of the shroud, agreed in principle that it could be dated using the latest technology. A few years later, the verdict made headlines around the world: the cloth dated from the 13th or 14th century, and could not possibly be authentic. It seemed the relic had had its day.
But Rolfe, who is now in his early 70s, was determined to debunk the debunking. “Five [testing] protocols were agreed on, but they were all abandoned,” he says. In the glare of world publicity, the tests became a political hot potato for the British Museum. The sample used for the tests, Rolfe argues in his new film, was too small and taken from a corner likely to have been repaired over the centuries.

Many would argue that, even if the shroud could be proved to be the burial cloth of the man named Jesus, that doesn’t amount to proof of his resurrection, the central tenet of Christian belief. “The carbon dating could show it was definitely from the time of Christ, but it’s still a stretch to go from that to seeing it as proof that he rose from the dead,” says Richy Thompson of Humanists UK. “What many non-religious people would say is, where is the evidence? Because if you’re going to make extraordinary claims, you need strong evidence to back it up.” Rolfe is unperturbed: he says the image on the cloth seems to have come from a massive burst of radiation, emitted in a fraction of a second. When it comes to dating, he’s certainly not alone in his skepticism. Barrie M Schwortz, a photographer who documented the shroud in 1978, says “murky” would be a good word to describe the events of 1988. “Today there are at least six peer-reviewed scientific articles that challenge the results of the carbon dating,” he says. In his view, the players involved were in a hurry to get the job done, because they wanted to get carbon dating on the map. “Those tests made it a household name,” he says. “I’m Jewish, so I don’t have a horse in this race, but I’ve come to believe it’s the authentic burial cloth because I’ve looked at the science.” The British Museum is less willing to get involved this time around. “Any recent questions about the shroud would be best put to those who currently care for it in the royal chapel of the cathedral of Turin,” a spokesperson said.

What, if the Shroud were a forgery?

In the Middle Ages, during centuries, indulgence was a BIG business for the catholic church. They were granted on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in exchange for money, which is claimed to allow a remission of sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Typically a writ of indulgence was issued by the Church and given to an individual who had demonstrated some type of penance, or good work.  Usually, priests were traveling from one town to another in middle age Europe, visiting the four corners of the known world with an entire entourage.   One method employed to finance the building of St. Peter's Basilica was the granting of indulgences in return for contributions.  A succession of popes and architects took 120 years to build it, their combined efforts resulting in the completion in 1590. It would cost an estimated 5,4 billion US$ today to build it.  One of the tools to collect money was also when priests were traveling to carry relics of the saints with them, usually consisting of the physical remains of a saint or the personal effects of the saint or venerated person preserved for purposes of veneration as a tangible memorial, and showing to the population. Of course that was an important tool. To show a piece of wood that was claimed to pertain to the cross of Christ, or a spine of Christ's crown, and so on. Now imagine, there would have been a way to produce such an amazing forgery of the linen cloth burial shroud in which  Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped after crucifixion. bearing his negative image. That, of course, would have been a tool of general amazement everywhere, were it would have been carried and shown. After showing it to the crowd, asking for indulgences and funds would have been much easier.  If there were a method to produce such an imprint, Rome would have built a FACTORY to make the artifact in considerable numbers, and given it to the traveling priests as relics to be shown. There would not be just one shroud known, but hundreds, maybe thousands and many still exist today. Each is a little bit different, but the technique, and consistency, are the same, and as such, comparable to each other. That would be a GREAT argument to deny the authenticity of all of them.

But there are many things unique on the shroud.  The blood strains can only be seen with UV light. Why would an artist back then ever put blood there which would not be visible, and provide no advantage at all? But even more remarkable than that, the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering from strong polytrauma-like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments points to a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.” What appears to be blood on the Shroud has passed 13 tests proving that it is real human blood.  The presence of "X" and "Y" chromosomes indicates that the blood is from a male.  The blood type is AB.  Most significantly, the blood is high in bilirubin which is a compound produced by the liver when it processes damaged red blood cells,  which occurs when a victim is severely beaten, as Jesus was.  There is pollen from Jerusalem, Palestine, and Edessa. Pollen is on the Shroud that is unique to the area around Jerusalem.  Pollen from a plant with long thorns was found around his head. The place where the nails are in the hands is anatomically correct. The image is NOT  there are no pigments whatsoever on the Shroud. If it were a forgery, with high certainty, it would have been painted. Who of the lay population would have perceived it?  The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers and the image goes just two or three fibers deep into the thread. The superficial image then disappears if a colored thread goes under another thread. The polysaccharide cover is approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) the inner side is not.

Secondo Pia's first photograph in 1898 showed that the image on the cloth is negative. The front and back (dorsal) images of the crucified man are negative images and contain 3D or topographical information content related to the distance of the cloth from the body.  Two nails are through one foot, but only one of the nails is through the other foot.  This allows one foot to rotate so that the victim can push up and down on the cross to breathe during crucifixion.  If the victim of crucifixion is not pushing up and down, then it is clear that he is dead.  The soldiers did not doubt that Jesus was dead. All paintings of the Middle Ages showed the nails through the center of the palms, but nails through the palms do not support sufficient weight since there is no bone structure above this location.  Archeology has confirmed that during crucifixion, the nails were driven through the wrists.  The Shroud shows the correct nail locations - through the wrist instead of through the palm. On the Shroud, the thumbs are folded under, contrary to all paintings of the Middle Ages.  Nails through the wrists automatically fold the thumbs under due to contact of the nail with the nerve that goes through the wrist.

In 2013, a research team from the University of Padua conducted three tests on tiny fibers extracted from the shroud during earlier carbon-14 dating tests conducted in 1988 The first two tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy, respectively, while the third employed a test analyzing different mechanical parameters relating to voltage. The results date the cloth to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D.. Fanti said that researchers also found trace elements of the soil "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem." "For me, the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity," he wrote, adding that there also "no sure proofs. The 1988 carbon C14 results may have been contaminated by fibers used to repair the cloth during the Middle Ages. The Shroud has four sets of burn holes in an L-shaped pattern.  This same pattern of holes appears on a picture in a document known as the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, which is dated to 1192-1195 AD.  This indicates that the Shroud of Turin ought to be identified as the cloth, sometimes called the Mandylion, that was in Constantinople until the city was sacked during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 AD.  It is generally believed that this cloth was brought to Constantinople from Edessa, Turkey, in 944 AD.  In Edessa, it was called the Image of Edessa.  Thus, the Shroud of Turin is the same as the Image of Edessa, so it can be historically traced back before 944 AD.  The stitching used to sew the 3-inch wide side piece onto the main Shroud is nearly identical to that found at Masada which was destroyed in 73-74 AD. The size of the Shroud is very close to 2 by 8 cubits - the ancient unit of measurement  The Shroud shows 100 to 120 scourge marks from two Roman flagrums, one striking from each side, with dumbbell-shaped weights on the ends of the straps.  The blood marks from these wounds show blood serum rings (visible only under UV) around the dried blood exudate. There are abrasions on both shoulders caused by the victim carrying a heavy rough object. The side of the front image on the Shroud shows a 2-inch wide elliptical wound - the size of a typical Roman spear. The blood running down his arms is at the correct angle for a crucifixion victim.  Two angles for the blood flow can be seen on his arms.  These two angles are consistent with the crucifixion victim shifting between two positions while on the cross to breath.

The Shroud is anatomically correct

Starting with French biologist Dr. Paul Vignon in the early 20th century, most medical doctors who have studied the Shroud believe that the image accurately depicts anatomically and physiologically an actual human body that has undergone the torture of crucifixion. Drs. Robert Bucklin and Dr. Frederick Zugibe, who each studied the Shroud for about 50 years and who performed a combined approximate 50,000 (!) autopsies, both believed that the Shroud image was that of a real, crucified man who died. It seems bizarre that some skeptics will bring up the aforesaid point about a difference of beliefs of where the hand wound was located as if that also practically disauthenticates the Shroud.  It’s fair to say that an overwhelming number of medical doctors believe that it’s not a forgery. In 1933 Pierre Barbet, a surgeon who spent years of research and experiments to prove the medical accuracy of the image on the Shroud and published a book, “Doctor of Calvary” concluded: “It was the homogeneous group of verification without one single weak link among them that made me decide to declare that authenticity of the Shroud from point view anatomy and physiology is scientific fact. It is my firm opinion that this shroud contains the dead body of Jesus as well as his divinity. I believe this just as I believe in law gravity.”



Barbet, Pierre. A Doctor at Calvary. New York: Image Books), 1963, pg. 185
Here, then, is the result of my anatomical and other research on the subject of the Wounds of Christ. I hope I have given the impression that I have conducted them with full independence of mind and with all possible scientific objectivity. I started out with a certain skepticism, more or less with a Cartesian doubt, to examine the images on the shroud; I was quite ready to deny their authenticity if they disagreed with anatomical truth. But, on the contrary, the facts gradually grouped themselves into a bundle of proofs, which carried increasing conviction. Not only was the explanation of the images so natural and simple that it proclaimed them to be genuine; but, when at first they seemed to be abnormal, the experiment demonstrated that they were as they should be, that they could not be different and as a forger would have portrayed them, following the current iconographic traditions. Anatomy thus bore witness to their authenticity, in full agreement with the Gospel texts. We possess, then, the shroud of Christ, bearing the image of His body and the marks of His blood. It is the noblest relic in the world, a corporal relic of Our Lord. For him who can read and can reflect, it is the most beautiful, the most moving of the meditations on the Passion.

Question: Why is the right arm longer than the left arm?
Answer: The observation that the right arm of the man depicted on the Shroud of Turin appears longer than the left has intrigued researchers and scholars. This apparent disparity in arm lengths is not merely an artistic anomaly but aligns with clinical findings associated with crucifixion, particularly when considering the physical ordeal that would involve carrying the patibulum (the horizontal beam of the cross). Crucifixion, as a form of execution, was designed to be torturous and prolonged, causing extreme physical strain. Carrying the patibulum, often a heavy wooden beam, would have been an arduous task, especially after enduring severe physical abuse like scourging. This act of carrying the crossbeam to the crucifixion site, as described in the biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion, could lead to shoulder dislocation, particularly under the weight and stress placed on the arms. Clinical research into the effects of crucifixion reveals that the positioning and nailing of the wrists, combined with the weight of the body hanging from the cross, would likely result in dislocation of the shoulders. Dislocation can cause one arm to appear longer than the other, a condition known as "visually apparent limb length discrepancy." This condition is consistent with what is observed on the Shroud. The right arm's apparent elongation on the Shroud could thus be a direct consequence of the shoulder dislocation, likely exacerbated by the weight of carrying the patibulum and the subsequent crucifixion. This detail not only aligns with what is known about the physical effects of crucifixion but also adds to the Shroud's historical and anatomical accuracy. Such clinical correlations lend credence to the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and its depiction of a crucified man. The consistency of these findings with the known effects of crucifixion supports the argument that the Shroud is indeed a genuine relic of a crucifixion, closely paralleling the biblical account of Jesus Christ's death.

Methods attempted to replicate the image on the Shroud

Researchers have attempted various methods to duplicate the image of the Man in the Shroud of Turin when multi-disciplinary research began in 1898. Here are some of the methods that have been attempted, and by whom, and their results, as they compare to the features of the Image of the Shroud of Turin, as determined by STURP, and other researchers:

The Ammonia hypothesis

The ammonia hypothesis is one of the many scientific hypotheses proposed to explain how the image of the Shroud was formed. It suggests that the image was created through chemical reactions involving ammonia vapors, which could have been produced by a decomposing body wrapped in the cloth. The hypothesis was first proposed by chemist John Heller and physicist Alan Adler. Heller and Adler were part of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) team. They suggested that the image could have been formed by a Maillard reaction, a type of chemical reaction between amino acids and reducing sugars. The hypothesis posited that ammonia released from the decomposing body reacted with the carbohydrate layer on the linen fibers, leading to a yellowed image of the face and body. Researchers attempted to replicate the conditions of the Shroud by applying ammonia and other chemicals to linen samples in controlled laboratory settings. They aimed to observe whether similar image characteristics could be produced. Microscopic and chemical analyses were conducted on fibers taken from the Shroud to detect any residues or compounds that would support the ammonia reaction theory. Experiments were also done comparing the results of the ammonia-based reactions with the actual properties of the Shroud image, including its superficiality, the lack of directionality, and the resolution of the image. Despite initial interest, the ammonia hypothesis faced several critical shortcomings that led to its decline in acceptance among the scientific community studying the Shroud: The detailed analyses of the Shroud fibers did not reveal the presence of chemical residues that would be expected from ammonia-based Maillard reactions.  The hypothesis struggled to account for specific characteristics of the Shroud image, such as its three-dimensional information and the extreme superficiality of the coloration, which only affects the topmost fibers without penetrating the cloth. Attempts to reproduce images with the same clarity, detail, and durability of the Shroud image through ammonia-based reactions were largely unsuccessful. The experiments could not replicate the nuanced features of the Shroud image, such as the precise definition of the wounds and the subtlety of the facial features. The hypothesis did not adequately align with historical and archaeological evidence related to burial practices and materials available in the 1st century, raising doubts about its plausibility. Other hypotheses and explanations, ranging from artistic creation to more complex chemical or physical processes, seemed to provide more convincing explanations for the Shroud's image. Due to these and other challenges, the ammonia hypothesis is not widely accepted as a satisfactory explanation for the formation of the Shroud's image. 

The Vapograph hypothesis

The "vapograph" hypothesis is another scientific hypothesis proposed to explain the formation of the image on the Shroud. This hypothesis suggests that the image was created by vapors, possibly from aromatic spices or oils used in ancient burial practices, or from a decomposing body, which reacted with the surface of the linen cloth to produce the image. The vapograph hypothesis was proposed by researchers who were exploring natural or chemical processes that could lead to the formation of the Shroud's image without human or artistic intervention. The exact originator of this hypothesis is less well-defined compared to more prominent hypotheses like the Maillard reaction theory proposed by Heller and Adler. The vapograph theory emerged as part of a broader investigation into how ancient burial practices, involving the use of spices and oils, might leave imprints on burial cloths. To test the vapograph hypothesis, several experiments were conducted: Application of Aromatic Spices and Oils: Researchers applied various spices and oils known to be used in ancient Jewish burial practices to linen cloths to see if they could produce an image similar to that on the Shroud. Some experiments involved controlled decomposition of animal bodies or human analogs wrapped in linen to observe whether any kind of imprint or image could be formed through natural processes. The hypothesis also led to experiments focusing on the chemical reactions that might occur between the linen and the substances released by a body or applied as part of burial rites, including gases and vapors. The vapograph hypothesis, while intriguing, faced significant challenges: The experiments often resulted in stains or discolorations on the linen, but these lacked the specificity, detail, and clarity seen in the Shroud's image. The images produced were typically diffuse and lacked the resolution and definition of the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin's image has unique three-dimensional properties that have been demonstrated through image analysis. The vapograph hypothesis struggled to account for how a vapor-induced image could contain encoded three-dimensional information. The chemical reactions proposed by the vapograph hypothesis did not align well with the known properties of the Shroud's image, such as the superficiality of the coloration, which affects only the topmost fibers of the linen. The use of specific spices and oils in burial practices does not necessarily support the formation of an image, and there is no strong historical precedent or archaeological evidence for such images being produced through this method in other contexts. As with the ammonia hypothesis, alternative explanations for the Shroud's image, ranging from artistic creation to more complex physical or chemical processes, seemed to provide more plausible explanations. Given these shortcomings, the vapograph hypothesis has not gained widespread acceptance as a definitive explanation for the image on the Shroud of Turin.

The Volksinger hypothesis

The "Volckringer pattern" hypothesis, sometimes referenced in discussions about the Shroud of Turin, is related to the phenomenon discovered by Jean Baptiste André Volckringer in the 19th century. Volckringer noticed that when leaves or flowers were pressed between the pages of books, particularly those with certain types of paper, detailed images of the plants could be transferred to the paper. This effect was attributed to the combination of pressure, moisture, and the release of volatile compounds from the plants, leading to a chemical reaction with the paper that produced an image. In the context of the Shroud of Turin, a similar hypothesis was suggested that the image on the Shroud could have been formed by natural processes involving the body's sweat, oils, and possibly other substances (like aloes and myrrh, mentioned in biblical accounts of Jesus' burial), reacting with the surface of the linen cloth under the conditions of the tomb. This hypothesis posits that these substances could have created an image through a process akin to the one observed by Volckringer with plant materials. To explore the Volckringer pattern hypothesis, researchers conducted various experiments: Experiments involved using models or analogs of the human body coated with substances that might simulate sweat, oils, or burial ointments, and then wrapping these models in linen to see if an image could be formed. Chemical analyses were conducted on the Shroud's fibers to identify any residues that might support the presence of substances consistent with those proposed by the hypothesis. Some experiments specifically looked at the effects of pressure and moisture, variables central to the original Volckringer patterns, to see if they could play a role in image formation on linen. The Volckringer pattern hypothesis, while intriguing for its naturalistic approach, encountered several challenges: While the hypothesis could potentially explain some vague imprints or patterns, it struggled to account for the fine detail, clarity, and resolution seen in the Shroud's image. The Shroud's image contains encoded three-dimensional information, which is difficult to explain through a process akin to the Volckringer patterns, where the resulting images are typically two-dimensional. Direct evidence linking the substances found on the Shroud to those necessary for a Volckringer-like reaction is limited. The chemical residues identified on the Shroud do not clearly support the specific reactions proposed by this hypothesis. The hypothesis does not adequately address the precise mechanism by which the image's superficiality is achieved, affecting only the topmost fibers of the linen, nor does it explain the absence of image under the bloodstains. Other theories, including artistic creation, advanced photographic-like processes, or more complex chemical reactions, provide alternative explanations that some researchers find more plausible.

The Hot Statue hypothesis

The "hot statue" hypothesis is a relatively less conventional hypothesis proposed to explain the formation of the image on the Shroud of Turin. It suggests that the image was created by thermal energy or radiation emanating from a heated statue or three-dimensional object, which then imprinted the image onto the cloth. The hypothesis was proposed by some researchers outside the mainstream scientific community studying the Shroud. The idea was based on the notion that if a cloth were draped over a hot, three-dimensional object resembling a human body, it could create an image with some similarities to the one seen on the Shroud, especially considering the Shroud's image's unique three-dimensional qualities when analyzed through certain imaging techniques. To test the hot statue hypothesis, a few key experiments were conducted: Researchers created sculptures or mannequins that approximated the size and shape of a human body and then heated these objects before draping linen cloths over them to see if an image could be transferred. Various temperatures were tested to determine at what heat levels the linen might begin to change color or scorch, and how these changes compared to the subtle coloration of the Shroud's image. The resulting images were analyzed to compare their resolution, depth, and detail against the characteristics of the Shroud's image, including the specificity of facial features, wounds, and other details. The hot statue hypothesis encountered significant challenges and criticisms: The images produced by the hot statue method were generally far less detailed and lacked the resolution of the Shroud's image. The technique struggled to reproduce the fine nuances of the face, hands, and other intricate details present on the Shroud. At temperatures high enough to cause color changes in the linen, the fabric often scorched or burned, leading to damage rather than the subtle coloration seen on the Shroud. The Shroud's image does not exhibit characteristics typical of scorch marks. While the hypothesis aimed to explain the three-dimensional properties of the Shroud's image, the resulting images did not capture the same kind of depth information that can be extracted from the Shroud's image through modern image analysis techniques.  The chemical makeup of the Shroud's image, as analyzed in various scientific studies, does not align well with what would be expected from an image created by heat-induced scorching of linen. The hypothesis lacks historical and archaeological evidence to support the idea that such a technique would have been used or known in the 1st century, making it an unlikely explanation for the Shroud's origin. Due to these and other issues, the hot statue hypothesis is not widely accepted within the scientific community as a viable explanation for the Shroud of Turin's image.

The scorching hypothesis

The "scorching hypothesis" regarding the Shroud of Turin posits that the image on the Shroud was created by some form of heat or thermal radiation, resulting in a scorch-like effect on the linen fibers. This idea suggests that the image was formed through a process akin to mild burning or singeing, which only affected the surface of the cloth, without damaging the linen structure. The scorching hypothesis has been proposed and explored by various researchers over the years, with no single individual credited with its inception. It gained attention as scientists and historians sought naturalistic explanations for the Shroud's image, considering the known effects of heat on linen and the superficial nature of the Shroud's image.  Researchers applied controlled heat sources to linen samples to observe the effects and to see if they could replicate the characteristics of the Shroud's image, such as the superficiality and the detailed pattern. Some experiments explored the possibility of thermal radiation (from natural or supernatural sources) as the cause of the scorching, testing how radiation might affect linen in ways similar to the Shroud. The scorched linen samples were analyzed to compare their physical and chemical properties with those of the Shroud, including the nature of the fibers, the coloration, and the penetration depth of the image. The scorching hypothesis, while offering a plausible mechanism for image creation, faces several significant challenges: The images produced by scorching techniques often lack the fine detail and clarity of the Shroud's image. Scorching typically results in more diffuse edges and lacks the precise resolution seen in the Shroud. The Shroud's image has unique three-dimensional information encoded in its intensity, which has not been satisfactorily replicated by any scorching experiments. The mechanism by which a scorching process could encode such information remains unexplained. Scorched images tend to have some degree of directionality and depth, which the Shroud's image lacks. The Shroud's image is extremely superficial, affecting only the topmost fibers, without any sign of heat damage that would typically accompany scorching. Chemical analyses of the Shroud have not shown the presence of substances or changes in the linen fibers that would unequivocally indicate a scorching process. The chemical markers typical of heat-induced changes in linen are not consistent with those found on the Shroud. The scorching hypothesis does not align well with historical or archaeological evidence regarding the known use and capabilities of linen in the relevant period, nor does it offer a plausible explanation for how such an image could have been created accidentally or intentionally in a historical context. Due to these and other issues, the scorching hypothesis is not universally accepted as a comprehensive explanation for the Shroud's image. 

Leonardo da Vinci



The Leonardo da Vinci hypothesis regarding the Shroud of Turin is a speculative idea suggesting that the famed Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud's image using his knowledge of science, anatomy, and art, along with early photographic techniques. This hypothesis posits that da Vinci, known for his innovative experiments and inventions, could have employed a form of camera obscura along with his understanding of chemistry to produce the Shroud's image, potentially as a commission or a personal experiment. The hypothesis was popularized by books and documentaries, notably by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince in their book "The Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?" published in the 1990s. They speculated that da Vinci, given his interest in optics, anatomy, and illusion, might have had both the motive and the means to create the Shroud as a form of "supreme illusion" or to question the Church's relics. Some researchers attempted to use materials and methods that would have been available to da Vinci, such as using a camera obscura and applying chemicals known in the Renaissance period to linen, to see if a similar image could be produced. The Shroud's image was analyzed from an artistic and anatomical perspective to see if it bore any resemblance to da Vinci's known works or his studies of the human body. The Shroud of Turin is mentioned in historical records that predate Leonardo da Vinci's birth in 1452. The earliest undisputed mention of the Shroud dates back to the 1350s, nearly a century before da Vinci's time. There is no documentary evidence to suggest that Leonardo da Vinci was involved with the Shroud or that he had the inclination to create such a relic. None of his extensive notebooks contain references to the Shroud or to the techniques that would be required to create it. While da Vinci was undoubtedly a genius in many fields, the specific techniques required to create the Shroud's image—especially its subtle gradations of tone and the precise anatomical detail—would be extraordinary, even for him. The hypothesis assumes a level of photographic understanding and chemical manipulation that is not documented in da Vinci's known works. The Shroud's image does not reflect Leonardo da Vinci's artistic style. Da Vinci was known for his detailed, dynamic compositions and his use of sfumato, characteristics not evident in the Shroud's image. The hypothesis suggests that da Vinci would have created the Shroud as a form of deception or to challenge the Church, which is at odds with what is known about his character and his relationship with his patrons, many of whom were prominent religious figures. Due to these and other issues, the Leonardo da Vinci hypothesis is widely regarded as speculative and not supported by historical evidence or scientific analysis.

The "brilliant painting" hypothesis by Walter McCrone

The "brilliant painting" hypothesis regarding the Shroud of Turin was proposed by Walter McCrone, an American microscopist and expert in chemical microscopy. McCrone analyzed samples of the Shroud and concluded that the image was created with red ochre (iron oxide pigment) and vermilion mixed with a collagen tempera medium. He suggested that the Shroud was a work of medieval art, painted by a skilled artist to represent the crucified Christ. McCrone's hypothesis emerged from his extensive analysis of the Shroud's fibers in the late 20th century. Using polarized light microscopy, he identified what he believed to be pigment particles consistent with red ochre and vermilion on the fibers of the Shroud, leading him to conclude that the image was a "brilliant painting." To support his hypothesis, McCrone conducted several tests: He examined individual fibers from the Shroud under a microscope, identifying pigment particles that he claimed were consistent with those used in medieval paintings. Further tests were conducted to analyze the chemical composition of the particles found on the Shroud's fibers, aiming to match them with known pigments. McCrone compared the Shroud's fibers with those from known painted artworks to ascertain similarities in pigment composition and application techniques. Despite McCrone's expertise and thorough analysis, his "brilliant painting" hypothesis faced significant criticism and challenges: Critics pointed out that McCrone's analysis did not convincingly demonstrate the presence of a binding medium that would be expected if the image were a painted work. Subsequent chemical analyses of the Shroud have not confirmed the presence of organic binders typical of painted artworks. The Shroud's image has unique properties, such as its superficiality (affecting only the topmost fibers) and the lack of directionality (consistent with brush strokes), which are not typical of painted artworks. The image also contains three-dimensional information, which would be difficult to achieve with paint. The Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), a team of scientists who examined the Shroud in 1978, did not find evidence to support the presence of paint pigments or media. Their findings suggested that the image was not produced by substances applied to the surface of the cloth. The hypothesis does not account for the historical documentation of the Shroud predating the time frame in which McCrone suggested it was created. Additionally, no known medieval artist has been associated with the creation of the Shroud, nor is there a record of such a complex and anatomically accurate "painting" being produced during the period. The Shroud's image has not flaked, cracked, or faded in ways typical of painted surfaces, especially considering its age and the fact that it has been subjected to numerous foldings, rollings, and environmental exposures over the centuries. While McCrone's hypothesis contributed to the debate over the Shroud's origins, it has not been widely accepted by the scientific community.

Just as the STURP team tested every known pigment known to the Middle Ages – and proved that the Image of the Shroud of Turin – was not a painting, in the same way – it can probably be shown to the public that no form of energy or radiation known to modern world – could produce image if Shroud if Turin- along with all other methods that have been tried.

Nicholas P L Allen's camera obscura hypothesis

Nicholas P. L. Allen's camera obscura hypothesis for the Shroud of Turin is a theory suggesting that the image on the Shroud could have been created using medieval photographic techniques involving a camera obscura. Allen, a South African art historian, proposed that an artist in the 14th century could have used a camera obscura, equipped with a lens and a pinhole, to project the image of a crucified man (either a statue or a volunteer coated with a substance responsive to light) onto the linen, thus creating the Shroud's image. Allen's hypothesis emerged from his studies on medieval art techniques and the history of photography. He was intrigued by the negative image on the Shroud, which resembles the photographic negatives developed centuries later. Allen conducted experiments to demonstrate that the materials and knowledge required for such a process could have been available in the 14th century.

He constructed a large camera obscura that could accommodate a human-sized object. This device was designed to project an image onto a surface, mimicking the conditions under which the Shroud's image might have been created. Allen applied chemicals known to be photosensitive (such as silver nitrate) to linen, which were available in some form in the medieval period. These chemicals could darken when exposed to light, potentially allowing the image to be "fixed" onto the cloth. He experimented with projecting the image of a three-dimensional object (representing the body of Christ) onto the chemically treated cloth to see if a Shroud-like image could be produced. Despite the innovative approach, Allen's camera obscura hypothesis faces significant challenges: There is little historical evidence to suggest that the camera obscura was used for complex photographic processes in the 14th century, particularly with the level of sophistication required to produce an image like the Shroud's. The hypothesis assumes the availability of advanced optical components (like lenses capable of producing a clear, focused image over a large surface) and a detailed understanding of light-sensitive chemicals, which certainly were not developed or understood in the medieval period.  Analyses of the Shroud do not show the presence of silver nitrate or other chemicals that would be expected if a photographic process had been used. The actual chemical nature of the Shroud's image remains a point of debate among researchers. The Shroud's image contains three-dimensional information and lacks directionality (shadowing effects that would be expected from a single light source), which are difficult to account for using a simple photographic projection. The use of a human model or a statue, along with complex photographic techniques, to create a religious relic would be highly unusual and controversial within the medieval religious and cultural context.





Hypothetical model. illustrating how the Shroud of Turin was manufactured c 1 260-1320 AD.

Professor Allen was notably reticent about certain details, particularly because it was contentious whether the supposed photographer used a real corpse or a human-like model. It's highly improbable that a corpse was used, considering that after "several days" in the blazing sun, it would likely have been half-decomposed and would have emitted an overwhelming stench. Additionally, this would have been a radical violation of medieval religious taboos. Moreover, a hung corpse, due to rigor mortis, wouldn't have remained in the same position for long and thus couldn't have looked like a lying figure. If it were a real crucifixion victim, the corresponding "bloodstains" wouldn't have likely transferred over the required focal distance of twice 15 meters onto the shroud. Another possibility is that the shroud was made in the Middle Ages using Allen's method, but with the aid of a plaster model of a living (or perhaps dead) man, which brings its contradictions. As Cennino Cennini wrote in his work "Il Libro dell'Arte," the technical means to make plaster face masks of living people were only developed in the 14th century. The model would have had straws in their nose to breathe while the plaster set on the face. Still, it would have been challenging to make a truly good plaster model, even without the advanced process Professor Nicholas Allen suggested was used for the shroud, which would have required at least basic knowledge of techniques to create a photo-like image. However, it's critical to consider the following: Assuming, albeit very unlikely, that a person in the late Middle Ages had such extensive knowledge of photographic technique - only to then completely forget this knowledge! - why did this suffice only to produce a "negative" that wouldn't have convinced any viewer at that time? The hidden "positive," where everything is clearly visible, would have remained unseen for the next 500 years, even by the photographers themselves. Combining Professor Allen's theory that the shroud is the projection of a plaster model with the hypothesis that the shroud is a "virtuoso painting," the "bloodstains" on the shroud would be mere smudges applied for effect. Yet, pathologists and doctors have sufficiently confirmed the medical authenticity of the stains, not to mention historical evidence that such an object as the shroud was in circulation before it was supposedly made as an impressive forgery. Without diminishing Allen's contribution, it can be summarized that his thesis has significant weaknesses, as do all other theories circulating to date that suggest the shroud image originated in the Middle Ages or later.




On the left: Photograph of the life-size body cast of a human subject (1993-4) based on the image as found in the Shroud of Turin.
Middle: Photograph of the Shroud of Port Elizabeth showing the negative, frontal image of the body cast of a tortured man.
Right: Photograph of the Shroud of Port Elizabeth showing the negative, dorsal image of the body cast of a tortured man.

Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph?
A Critical Examination of the Theory Barrie M. Schwortz

The proto-photography theory proposed by Prof. Nicholas Allen indeed demonstrated an ability to create images on linen cloth using medieval materials, but it fell short of replicating all the unique properties of the Shroud of Turin's image. To fully understand and provide a viable image formation mechanism for the Shroud, it's crucial to account for all of its distinctive features. Allen's approach, while impressive in its own right, may not have encompassed all the complexities of the Shroud's image. Just as it takes a professional artist to evaluate a painting comprehensively, the evaluation of a photographic theory like this should involve professional photographers who can scrutinize it from a technical perspective. Other professionals who have assessed Allen's theory have also arrived at similar conclusions. It's worth noting that while Allen was able to create a photographic image using medieval materials, he did so with the advantage of 21st-century scientific knowledge and techniques. It's akin to the idea that certain raw materials may exist on our planet today that could potentially lead to interstellar travel in the future, but their mere existence doesn't guarantee the immediate development of such technology. Achieving interstellar travel or replicating all aspects of the Shroud's image would require advancements in technology and knowledge that surpass our current capabilities. The argument that the mere existence of specific raw materials implies that someone from the past could have used them to invent technology far ahead of their time doesn't hold up. If we were to accept this premise, we might find ourselves searching archaeological sites worldwide for remnants of medieval cellular phones, microwave ovens, and nuclear weapons. Just because the raw materials for advanced technologies exist doesn't mean someone created them, especially if human knowledge and technological capabilities were not advanced enough to make it possible at that time. 1

1. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf


The powdered statue hypothesis

The "powdered statue" hypothesis is a theory proposed to explain the formation of the image on the Shroud of Turin. This hypothesis suggests that the image was created by dusting a statue or a bas-relief with a powdered substance that could then be transferred onto the linen cloth, creating an image. It was proposed by Italian researcher Luigi Garlaschelli, who aimed to demonstrate a possible medieval method for creating the Shroud's image. Garlaschelli's work was part of an effort to explore naturalistic and artistic methods that could have been used to produce the Shroud's image, considering the historical context and the materials available during the medieval period.

Garlaschelli conducted a series of experiments to test the powdered statue hypothesis: He used a bas-relief model of a human figure to simulate the body that would have been wrapped in the Shroud. A mixture of substances, including sulfur, vermilion, and a binder, was dusted onto the model. The choice of materials was based on substances known to have been available in the medieval period. Linen cloth was then pressed onto the powdered model to transfer the image, simulating how the Shroud might have been in contact with the body it was believed to have wrapped. The cloth with the transferred image was then artificially aged to give it a more authentic appearance and to test the durability of the image over time. While Garlaschelli's experiments provided a plausible method for creating a Shroud-like image, several shortcomings were noted: Although the method could produce an image with some resemblance to the Shroud, critics argued that it lacked the subtlety, detail, and three-dimensional qualities of the actual Shroud's image. Analyses of the Shroud have not detected substances like sulfur or vermilion, which were used in Garlaschelli's experiments. The chemical makeup of the Shroud's image does not align well with the materials proposed by the powdered statue hypothesis. The Shroud's image has unique physical properties, such as the superficiality of the coloration, affecting only the topmost fibers of the linen, and the lack of image under the bloodstains. These characteristics were not fully replicated by the powdered statue method. There is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the use of a powdered statue technique for creating religious artifacts or artworks during the period in which the Shroud is claimed to have been made. Despite these shortcomings, Garlaschelli's work contributed to the ongoing debate about the Shroud of Turin by demonstrating a hypothetical possibility for medieval technologies and artistic techniques to create complex images.

Garclaschelli seems to have made it a life mission to discredit the Shroud of Turin. His book, The Shroud on Trial, was published in 1998. In 2010 he published a Science paper: Life-size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image. His thesis was that linen can be aged artificially by heating it and then washing it in water. Next, red ochre (i.e., iron oxide) could be applied to a body, and the linen cloth then could be rubbed over the body’s prominent features. After that, the bloodstains, burn holes, scorches, and water stains could be added for the final effect. Garlaschelli tried to reproduce the image on the Shroud. He ordered a "herringbone" linen cloth the same as that of the Shroud, both in terms of yarn type and weight. The cloth was spread over a volunteer, and only the most prominent parts were rubbed with a reddish ocher pad. The image was then finished freehand after having spread the cloth on a flat surface. We have ascertained that it is not possible to apply the color with the pad in a uniform way when the body is still under the cloth. The face alone was made with a plaster bas-relief. This is the only way to avoid a complete distortion of the features and obtain a result similar to the face of the Shroud.


Garlaschelli claimed in the paper that the image on the Shroud is made up of two components: an iron oxide pigment on the fibers and a uniform yellow coloring throughout many of the fibers. It’s common knowledge that iron oxide was a regular ingredient in many medieval paints. Garlaschelli was not the first to come up with that hypothesis. McCrone, in the eighties, also concluded that the Shroud was simply a “beautiful painting.” He then celebrated the result on TV, claiming: Our results seem encouraging and should be welcomed as an interesting contribution to the resolution of doubts about what is the mysterious object par excellence. The premise of the iron oxide argument is simple, some iron oxide is rubbed on the Shroud. Except that virtually no iron oxide particles have been found on the Shroud at all, let alone the millions of particles you'd expect would cover it all. Professor Garlaschelli tried to explain the absence of any traces of iron oxide on the original Shroud by stating that the pigment on the original Shroud faded away naturally over the centuries. This is not a statement that you would expect from a serious scientist. The spectroscopic investigations being done in 1978 would not even show the slightest traces of iron oxide present on the Shroud and it is unscientific to state that they disappeared naturally, being an unsupported “ just so” assertion.   This also doesn't explain the bloodstains. There's no image under the bloodstains, whilst every attempt to replicate the Shroud by using iron oxide always adds the bloodstains AFTER. A forger would have to add the bloodstains in the correct positions, and then rub iron oxide around it perfectly. And around the bloodstains are fluorescent 'serum halos', which haven't been explained or replicated by proponents of this theory either.


The opinion of many is that the "second" Shroud is so unsuccessful that it should not appear among the evidence against but among those in favor of the authenticity of the find. However, as could have been foreseen, the new reproduction was soon archived and forgotten and a lot of criticism rained down on the association, especially from many experts, believers, and non-believers. Several studies have also certified the total diversity between the Shroud of Turin and the aping of Professor Garlaschelli. 3

The D'Arcis Memorandum

Joseph G. Marino (2022):  In an online article, historian Jack Markwardt, discussed, “[…] D’Arcis Memorandum, a medieval document in which Pierre d’Arcis, bishop of Troyes, alleged that an unnamed artist had once admitted to having painted the double body image that appeared on a cloth owned and exhibited by Geoffrey II de Charny, Lord of Lirey. Since this cloth and the Turin Shroud were then, and still are, generally considered as the same, the D’Arcis Memorandum, if authentic and credible, would rather decisively lay to rest the relic’s claim to first-century provenance.” 5

D. Selwood (2015): Our first definite knowledge of the shroud is an event in around AD 1355, when it was put on show in the tiny French village of Lirey, in Champagne. Its owners were the local knight, Geoffrey de Charney, and his wife, Jeanne de Vergy. Despite the insistence of the conspiracy brigade, there is no known connection between this Geoffrey de Charney (or his son of the same name) and the famous Knight Templar called Geoffrey de Charney, who was the preceptor of Normandy and was burned alongside Grand Master Jacques de Molay as a relapsed heretic in 1314, three-quarters of a century earlier. At the time of the 1355 exhibition, Henry de Poitiers, bishop of Troyes, conducted an inquiry into the cloth, concluding that it was a ‘fraud’ which had been ‘cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Nothing more is known of this episcopal inquiry, but in 1389 one of Henry’s direct successors, Bishop Peter d’Arcis, wrote to Antipope Clement VII in Avignon to tell him of Bishop Henry’s inquiry, and to complain that the linen was being displayed again. It seems that Peter did not succeed in getting the exhibition closed down, as Clement replied that he was happy for the cloth to be shown as ‘an image or representation’ of the true shroud. After around 60 years of being moved about, in 1453 Geoffrey’s granddaughter, Margaret, finally passed the shroud to the ducal house of Savoy, who took it to their capital at Chambéry in the Alps. 6

Stephen E. Jones (2022):  The d'Arcis Memorandum. One of two copies found only in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (National Library of France), of a draft, unsigned, undated, unaddressed document. Which was 1900 published in its original Latin by French Roman Catholic anti-authenticist historian Ulysse Chevalier (1841–1923), who fraudulently added title to make it appear to have been sent by Bishop d'Arcis to Pope Clement VII at the end of 1389. Chevalier's fraud was continued by Fr Herbert Thurston (1856–1939), another leading Roman Catholic opponent of the Shroud, who in 1903 published his translation of Chevalier's Latin into English. There is no evidence in either the Troyes or Papal archives of a final version of the d'Arcis memorandum that was sent to Pope Clement. However since the Pope did reply to d'Arcis' appeals it presumably is a record of d'Arcis verbal complaints to Clement VII through his nuncio, Cardinal de Thury. The value of the d'Arcis memorandum is that it is the earliest undisputed historical reference to the existence of the Shroud in c.1355.

In the memorandum, Bishop d'Arcis stated that "thirty-four years or thereabouts ... to the present year"(i.e. c.1355) at the Lirey church, an exhibition was held by its Dean of:

"... a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore"

D'Arcis appealed to Pope Clement VII to stop the exposition, claiming that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) had discovered that the Shroud was "cunningly painted": 

"... Henry of Poitiers ... then Bishop of Troyes ... after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed"

But d'Arcis provided no evidence in his memorandum to substantiate his claims, which he would have if there had been any. D'Arcis did not provide the name of the artist, nor a record of his confession, nor the source of his allegations. There is also no record of Henri de Poitiers conducting any inquiry into the origin of Shroud and d'Arcis did not even know its date! But there is a record of a letter of 28 May 1356, from Bishop Henri de Poitiers, praising Geoffroy I, ratifying the Lirey church, and approving its "divine cult", which presumably refers to the Shroud! It is also highly unlikely that Geoffrey I de Charny, the owner of the Shroud in the 1350s, one of France's most ethical knights, and a devout author of religious poetry, was complicit in forging Jesus' burial shroud. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the image of the man on the Shroud is not painted! .

In October 1389 Bishop d'Arcis appealed to Pope Clement VII about the current exhibition of the Shroud at Lirey, describing it as bearing the double imprint of a crucified man and that it was being claimed to be the true Shroud in which Jesus's body was wrapped, and was attracting crowds of pilgrims. But according to d'Arcis' information it had been discovered to be the work of an artist. 

In 1389,  Pope Clement VII allowed expositions of the Shroud to continue as a "figure" and "representation" of Jesus' burial shroud and commanded Bishop d'Arcis to "perpetual silence" on this matter. This unexpected siding of the Pope with the de Charnys against a senior bishop is explained by Clement, as Robert of Geneva, being not only a nephew of Jeanne de Vergy's second husband Aymon of Geneva, but also having been their neighbour. So Clement presumably had a private viewing of the Shroud and was told by Jeanne that her ancestor, Othon de la Roche (c.1170-1234) had looted the Shroud in the 1204 sack of Constantinople. The problem for the Pope was that the Byzantine Empire (c.330–1453) still existed and its Emperor John V Palaiologos (1332–1391) lived in Chambéry, France! So if the de Charny's continued to claim that the Shroud was Jesus' burial Shroud, John V would have known it was the one looted from Constantinople and demanded it be returned to him, creating a diplomatic crisis for the Pope!. It may be no coincidence that the year the Byzantine Empire ended, 1453, was the same year that Geoffroy II's daughter, Marguerite de Charny, transferred the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy (1440-1465).7

Stephen E. Jones (2016):  d'Arcis, Pierre According to the 1389 memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377–1395), one of his predecessors Bishop Henri de Poitiers (r. 1354–1370) had "thirty-four years" earlier, i.e. in 1355, discovered the forger who had painted the Shroud which had been exhibited in the Lirey church in 1355. But this predates the benevolent letter from Bishop Henri of Poitiers of 1356 in which he had praised the Lirey church, the indulgences granted by Pope Clement VII to pilgrims in 1357. Also, if the Shroud had been painted by a then-living forger, the Lord of Lirey, Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-56) and the canons of the Lirey church, would have known that and would not have exhibited the Shroud in 1355. If someone in the 1350s had publicly confessed to having painted the Shroud's image, why did pilgrims flock to see the Shroud when it was again exhibited in 1389? Nor would Pope Clement VII (1478-1534), having heard Bishop d'Arcis' objections, enjoined "perpetual silence" about this matter on Bishop d'Arcis and "allowed the second exposition to continue in 1389 until at least 1390 since there was in 1390 a Papal Bull granted new indulgences to those who visited the Lirey church and its relics. Neither Pope Clement VII nor Bishop d'Arcis' successor as Bishop of Troyes, Bishop Louis Raguier, considered the Shroud a fraud. Pope Clement VII was Robert of Geneva (1342–94), who was a nephew and neighbour of Aymon of Geneva (c. 1324-88), the second husband of Geoffroy I de Charny's widow, Jeanne de Vergy. So presumably the future Pope Clement VII had been given a private viewing of the Shroud in the ~20 years the Shroud was with Jeanne and Aymon in High Savoy from c. 1358 and Robert becoming Pope in 1378, and so knew about the Shroud, its history and how it came into the possession of Geoffrey de Charny and why this had to be kept secret. D'Arcis himself produced no proof that the Shroud was a painting nor did he mention the name of the supposed forger. There is no written record of any confession nor the name of the alleged artist. In fact the d'Arcis memorandum is the only medieval document alleging forgery of the Shroud. The most serious difficulty with Bishop d'Arcis' claim that Bishop Henri de Poitiers had discovered "the artist who had painted it" is that the Shroud's image is not painted. If d'Arcis had gained possession of the Shroud he would have found that it was not a forgery but the genuine burial cloth of Christ, which would have brought substantial financial benefit to his Troyes Cathedral. The coincidence between Bishop d'Arcis' false claim that the Shroud was painted in about 1355 and the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390, i.e. 1325 ±65 (see radiocarbon dating) is used as the basis for claims that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. "But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence ... Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve".8




De Charny kept the Shroud in his castle at Lirey and occasionally exhibited it to the public. The exhibitions of the Shroud in Lirey attracted thousands of pilgrims and visitors, who came to see the cloth and venerate it as a sacred relic.  In the meantime, in 1353, Henri of Poitiers, an abbey from the vicinity, was appointed Bishop of Troyes, Lirey’s nearest large city.


De Charny kept the Shroud in his castle at Lirey and occasionally exhibited it to the public. The exhibitions of the Shroud in Lirey attracted thousands of pilgrims and visitors, who came to see the cloth and venerate it as a sacred relic.  In the meantime, in 1353, Henri of Poitiers, an abbey from the vicinity, was appointed Bishop of Troyes, Lirey’s nearest large city.




The British Museum exposition about middle-aged forgeries in 1990, including the Shroud of Turin, was forced to retract





Page 81: The recent radiocarbon tests on the Turin Shroud are an important exception to this rule, their results proving what medieval historians have long known from a documentary source, that the Shroud was made in the mid-fourteenth century
Page 284: A fragment of the cloth was recently removed for radiocarbon dating, and samples measuring only a few square centimetres (equivalent to about 50mg) were apportioned to three accelerator laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona. The British Museum was asked to participate in the certification of the sampling and the statistical analysis of the results. The calibrated radiocarbon result, published in the journal Nature in 1989, was AD 1260–1390, which corresponds well with the Shroud’s first appearance in France. However, until it can be properly established how this striking image came into being, the mystery remains incompletely resolved. 4

In 1990, following the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, the British Museum, which had played a significant role in the dating process, organized an exhibition focused on forgeries. Within this exhibition, a large reproduction of the Shroud of Turin was displayed, prominently featuring the medieval date derived from the carbon-14 testing. This presentation implied that the museum considered the Shroud to be a forgery, based on the radiocarbon dating results. The inclusion of the Shroud in an exhibition on forgeries sparked controversy, particularly among those who believed in the authenticity of the Shroud. Arnaud-Aron Upinsky, president of the International Center for the Study of the Shroud of Turin (CIELT), was among the prominent voices that challenged the British Museum's portrayal of the Shroud. Upinsky wrote to the British Museum, providing what he argued was a scientific demonstration of the Shroud's authenticity. This demonstration aimed to counter the conclusions drawn from the radiocarbon dating and to present alternative viewpoints and evidence supporting the Shroud's authenticity. The pressure and arguments presented by Upinsky and others advocating for the Shroud's authenticity led to a significant response from the British Museum. The museum, facing criticism and possibly re-evaluating the evidence and the interpretations of the Shroud's history, was compelled to remove the reproduction of the Shroud from the exhibition on forgeries. 

The radiocarbon testing of the Turin Shroud, detailed in the book "Fake? The Art of Deception," presents a notable contradiction in its analysis and conclusions. On one hand, the book states that recent radiocarbon tests, which involved taking a small fragment of the cloth for analysis by three accelerator laboratories in Oxford, Zurich, and Tucson, Arizona, have provided results that align with the longstanding views of medieval historians. The British Museum played a role in overseeing the sampling process and analyzing the statistical data. The calibrated radiocarbon results, published in "Nature" in 1989, dated the Shroud to AD 1260–1390. This timeframe matches well with the Shroud's documented first appearance in France, suggesting a medieval origin. However, the book also acknowledges a significant unresolved aspect. Despite the radiocarbon dating aligning with historical records, the book admits, particularly on page 284, that the mystery of the Shroud is not fully resolved until the method of image creation is definitively understood. This acknowledgment highlights a contradiction. On one side, the radiocarbon dating is presented as conclusive evidence for the Shroud being a medieval artifact. Yet, on the other, the book concedes that the mystery surrounding the Shroud persists, primarily due to the unknown process through which the striking image was formed. This contradiction underscores a critical point in the study of historical artifacts: while scientific tests like radiocarbon dating can provide valuable chronological information, they may not fully answer broader questions about an artifact's origins or the methods used in its creation. In the case of the Turin Shroud, while the radiocarbon dating suggests a medieval origin, the mystery of how its image was produced remains an unresolved enigma, leaving room for further investigation and debate. 

In addition to the radiocarbon dating findings, recent scientific papers by researchers such as Tristan Casabianca, Giulio Fanti, and others have challenged the conclusions drawn from the radiocarbon tests on the Turin Shroud. These newer studies bring fresh perspectives and counterarguments to the debate over the Shroud's age and authenticity, indicating that the matter is far from settled. Tristan Casabianca and his team, in their research, have raised questions about the methodology and the sample selection used in the 1989 radiocarbon dating. They argue that the sample used for the dating might not have been representative of the entire cloth, possibly being contaminated or not original to the Shroud. This could potentially skew the dating results, leading to inaccurate conclusions about the Shroud's age. Similarly, Giulio Fanti's studies have employed alternative methods to date the Shroud. Fanti's approaches include mechanical and spectroscopic analysis, which suggest a much older age for the cloth, potentially aligning with the time of Christ. These studies propose that the Shroud could be ancient, contradicting the medieval date range suggested by the 1989 radiocarbon tests. The work of Casabianca, Fanti, and others represents a significant development in the ongoing debate over the Shroud of Turin. Their findings suggest that the Shroud's history and the process by which the image was created are complex and might not be fully explained by the radiocarbon dating alone. These contradictions highlight the importance of considering multiple lines of evidence and methodologies in historical and archaeological research.

William Meacham, archaeologist, Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, wrote: Rogue dates are common in archaeology and geology … Such has been my experience as an archaeologist who has excavated, submitted and interpreted more than one hundred carbon 14 samples from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Historical sites. Of the dates obtained, 78 were considered credible, 26 were rejected as unreliable and 11 were problematic. I mention this merely to inform the non-specialist … The case of the Turin Shroud exemplifies how new scientific insights can challenge established views, keeping the discussion open and dynamic.

The observations made by William Meacham, an archaeologist at the University of Hong Kong, shed light on a broader issue in the field of archaeology and radiocarbon dating, particularly relevant to the case of the Turin Shroud. Meacham notes that in his experience, which includes excavating and interpreting over a hundred carbon-14 samples from various archaeological sites, a significant portion of the dates obtained were either unreliable or problematic. Out of the samples he worked with, 78 were deemed credible, 26 were rejected as unreliable, and 11 were problematic. This experience is not unique in the field and highlights the challenges and uncertainties inherent in radiocarbon dating. In the context of the Turin Shroud, Meacham's insights are particularly pertinent. The 1989 radiocarbon testing of the Shroud led to the conclusion that the linen was produced in the medieval period, specifically between AD 1260 and 1390. This dating was presented with a high degree of confidence, often cited as being 95% certain. However, as Meacham's experience illustrates, radiocarbon dating can sometimes yield "rogue dates," which may not accurately reflect the true age of the tested material. The confidence with which the medieval date of the Shroud was presented potentially misled the non-specialist public. It suggested a level of precision and certainty that, as Meacham's experience indicates, may not always be warranted in radiocarbon dating. This is especially true considering the complex nature of the Shroud and the possibility of contamination or other factors that could have skewed the dating results. Furthermore, the subsequent challenges to radiocarbon dating by researchers like Tristan Casabianca, Giulio Fanti, and others, who presented alternative evidence and interpretations, underscore the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry. These challenges suggest that the story of the Shroud is not as clear-cut as the initial radiocarbon dating results indicated.

The Shroud is not a fake 

The Shroud image “has some features that we are not yet able to reproduce – they admit - for example, the gradient of the image caused by a different concentration of yellow-colored fibrils that alternate with unstained fibrils”. And they warn: “We are not at the conclusion, we are composing pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle”. The enigma of the image of the Shroud of Turin is still “a challenge for intelligence”, as John Paul II said. 1

G.Fanti (2015) The image is not made by pigments but is caused by oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the polysaccharides Primary Cell Wall PCW about 200 nm thick 2

Rucker, Robert. “Information Content on the Shroud of Turin.” 2016, pg. 19.
QUOTATION: (…) Since the image of the man on the Shroud of Turin indicates that he was crucified exactly as the gospels in the New Testament say that Jesus was crucified, the most reasonable explanation, if we allow ourselves to not be constrained by naturalistic presuppositions, is that this unique image encoding event is the result of a unique individual (Jesus of Nazareth) going through a unique event, such as the disappearance of his body from
within the Shroud as it lay in the tomb. Since this event must be outside of our current understanding of the laws of physics, we have no basis for rejecting the possibility of vertically collimated radiation being emitted from his dead body in such a unique event (…).

Is the man on the shroud Jesus?

The correlation between the wounds inflicted upon the Jewish man buried in the shroud and the wounds the New Testament reports as having been inflicted upon Jesus is remarkable: ‘comparison of the gospel accounts with the sufferings and burial of the man in the Shroud points to the strong likelihood that the man is Jesus Christ. The evidence is consistent at every point. The man of the Shroud suffered, died, and was buried the way the gospels say Jesus was.’53 These similarities don’t fit any other known victim of crucifixion, except Jesus.

The sufferings, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus, as described by the gospels, were different from the ordinary ways the Romans crucified criminals and the Jews buried their dead: ‘Jesus’ case was irregular. He was scourged, crowned with thorns, nailed to his cross [rather than tied], stabbed in the side (instead of his legs being broken), buried well [rather than thrown to the dogs] but incompletely, and his body left the cloth before it decomposed.’54 Because we know quite a lot about Roman and Jewish customs in these matters, we can estimate the probability of two men being treated, crucified and buried in this way, and hence the probability that the Jewish man in the Shroud was Jesus.

Peter S. Williams The Shroud of Turin: A Cumulative Case for Authenticity 
Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas note just eight irregularities present in both the New Testament and the Turin Shroud (there are others55 ) and make conservative estimates of the probability that these irregularities would occur in other crucifixion victims:

1. Both exhibit a severe beating and scourging (Matthew 27:26-30; Mark 15:15- 19; Luke 22:63-64; John 19:1-3). (1 in 2 probability that a crucified man other than Jesus was beaten in this way) 
2. Both had a crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29; Mark 15:17-20; John 19:2) – ‘Crowning indicates majesty and a crown of thorns would, of course, mock that proclaimed majesty. Jesus was crowned with thorns for this very reason. . . the man buried in the Shroud was also pierced through the scalp. If the man in the Shroud is not Jesus, what are the chances that this man, probably a criminal or slave, would have been crowned with thorns?’56 (1 in 400 probability) 
3. Many crucifixion victims were tied to their crosses with ropes, but both Jesus and the man in the Shroud were nailed there (Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 25- 27).57 (1 in 2 probability) 
4. Neither Jesus nor the man in the Shroud had their legs broken, the normal procedure for ensuring death (John 19:31-32). (1 in 3 probability) 
5. ‘To ensure that Jesus was dead, a soldier stabbed him in the side, and blood and water flowed from the wound (John 19:33-34). The same thing happened to the man in the Shroud.’ (The wound in the side of the Man in the Shroud exactly corresponds to the size of the tip of the Lancia, a Roman spear with a long, leaf-shaped head.) (1 in 27 probability) 
6. Few victims of crucifixion were given individual burials in a fine linen Shroud (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50-55; John 19:38-42). (1 in 8 probability) 
7. Both Jesus and the man in the Shroud were buried hastily (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1). (1 in 8 probability) 
8. Neither man decomposed in their Shroud. (1 in 10 probability) Despite using ‘deliberately conservative’58 estimates of the probability that ‘are most likely too low’, Stevenson and Habermas observe that: ‘multiplying these probabilities, we have 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus.’

Multiplying these probabilities, we have 1 chance in 82,944,000 that the man buried in the Shroud is not Jesus. 1

How can we be sure that the ‘Man of the Shroud’ is Jesus?

The latest and most dramatic discoveries concern a piece of writing on the Shroud itself. For years, people have been asking why below and to the sides of the chin there are three clear and regular lines where no imprint is present. The Paris-based organization CIERT (Centre International d’Etudes sur le Linceul de Turin, the International Centre of Studies on the Shroud of Turin), which I represent in Italy, has conducted studies in the most advanced institute in Europe for image analysis via computer, the Institut Optique d’Orsay, whose director is Professor André Marion. All official photographs of the Shroud were divided into tens of thousands of squares which were then given a corresponding optical density and transferred onto a visualization program. Using an extremely advanced program, some letters gradually began to emerge, in Latin and Greek: under the chin, we find written ‘Jesus’ and on one side, ‘Nazarene’. What is the explanation for this? The ‘exactor mortis’ the centurion charged with ensuring the execution of the condemned, had drawn strips of ‘glue’ onto the cloth on which he would write the name of the deceased with a red liquid. Where these strips were drawn, the cloth was impermeable and would not, therefore, be subject to the chemical process that subsequently formed the imprint.  I sent a photograph of these inscriptions to André Marion in Paris, and he has already discovered many similarities with the style of the writing only recently discovered on the Shroud. 2



The man on the Shroud was a Jew, according to the late Harvard physical anthropologist Carleton S. Coon. The man on the Shroud has shoulder-length hair which is parted in the middle, but of the numerous Greek and Roman portraits we have, there is not one of a man with middle-parted hair falling to the shoulders. Similarly, a full beard like that on the Shroud is rarely found in a Greek or Roman portrait, but Jews regarded a full beard as a mark of manhood. Also, the manner of the deceased lying on his back, his hands crossed in front covering his pelvic region, and his body covered with a single linen sheet.

Hair Style: The man has shoulder-length hair parted in the middle, which is not commonly seen in Greek and Roman portraits. Most depictions from those cultures show men with shorter haircuts and different styling, often without a middle part.
Facial Hair: The full beard represented on the Shroud is not typical of Greek and Roman portraiture, where beards, when present, were often closely trimmed or styled in a manner different from the full beard shown on the Shroud. In contrast, full beards were respected in Jewish culture as a symbol of manhood and maturity.

Nasal Features: While not explicitly mentioned in the excerpt, Middle Eastern individuals, including those of Jewish descent during the period, often had prominent nasal features. These are distinct from the typically depicted European features in Roman and Greek art, which tended to have straighter and narrower noses.
Burial Customs: The way the deceased is positioned — lying on his back with hands crossed covering the pelvic region, and the body covered by a single linen sheet — is consistent with Jewish burial practices of the period. In contrast, Roman and Greek burials often involved more elaborate practices, including the use of multiple garments and sometimes cremation, which was not a Jewish custom.

These observations are based on general historical and anthropological knowledge of the time and are used to differentiate cultural and ethnic characteristics commonly found in Jewish populations from those in Greek and Roman cultures.

There are three main alternatives regarding the identity of the person depicted on the Shroud of Turin, but the most widely accepted view is that it is a portrait of Jesus of Nazareth. 

While the image on the Shroud is faint, 30 features closely match the Gospel's description of Jesus' death. These features include the blood trails, which indicate the man's position when he bled, the puncture wounds on the forearms corresponding to crucifixion by wrists, the vertical torso indicated by the chest wound, the bloody feet and bent legs consistent with crucifixion on a vertical post, and the overall depiction of a crucified man. The facial abrasions and swollen features match the description of Jesus being beaten, the numerous scourge marks on the body correspond to the scourging Jesus endured, the head wounds align with the crown of thorns, and the scourge wounds on the shoulders and upper back suggest that Jesus carried his cross. Furthermore, the Shroud portrays a naked man, in line with the Gospel accounts. It also shows no broken bones, which agrees with John's statement that none of Jesus' bones were broken. The wound in the side, resulting from a soldier piercing Jesus, is also evident on the Shroud. Finally, the Shroud depicts a body that shows no signs of decomposition or animal attacks, indicating that it was recently deceased and kept safe, potentially in a sealed tomb. These connections between the Shroud man and Jesus provide strong evidence for their correlation.

Correlation of the man on the Shroud, with the narratives in the Gospels

1. He was beaten
2. He was whipped and scourged
3. Crown of thorns
4. He carried the cross
5. He was crucified
6. He was pierced on the side
7. Legs were not broken
8. Naked
9. He was buried soon after his death

The mentioned details (such as the injuries, crucifixion, side piercing, and non-breaking of legs) align with the biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and burial. 

1. He was beaten

The New Testament includes several passages that mention Jesus being beaten prior to his crucifixion. Here are a few verses that describe this:

Matthew 27:26: "Then he [Pilate] released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified."
Mark 15:15: "So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified."
John 19:1: "Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him."

These passages indicate that Jesus was subjected to scourging or flogging before being handed over for crucifixion. The details of the beating are not elaborated upon in the Gospels, but it is clear that Jesus endured physical suffering as part of the events leading up to his crucifixion.

The Shroud does show markings consistent with physical trauma, including facial injuries and wounds on the body, which some interpret as signs of beating. We see a large hematoma on his right cheek, probably a damaged cartilage of the nose, and a part of his beard missing. 

2. He was whipped and scourged

Jesus was subjected to scourging, which involved being whipped or beaten with a scourge—a type of whip or lash typically equipped with sharp pieces of metal or bone. This brutal act of punishment was intended to inflict great pain and humiliation upon the condemned person.

Matthew 27:26: "Then he [Pilate] released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified."
Mark 15:15: "Wishing to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified."
John 19:1-3: "Then Pilate took Jesus and had Him scourged. And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and put a purple robe on Him; and they began to come up to Him and say, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' and to give Him slaps in the face."

The purpose of scourging was to further humiliate and weaken the condemned person before crucifixion. The scourging itself was a severe form of punishment involving a whip or a lash with multiple leather thongs, often embedded with sharp objects such as metal or bone fragments. The lashes would cause deep cuts, bruises, and excruciating pain. The Roman authorities used scourging as a means to physically weaken and dehumanize the individuals who were about to be crucified. It served as a public display of power and a deterrent to potential criminals or rebels. The intent was to intensify the suffering and ensure a more prolonged and agonizing death on the cross.

The Shroud displays marks that are consistent with scourge marks. The abrasions on the chest, back, and lower limbs consisting of round, approximately 2cm long figures suggest injuries caused by a flagellum, a Roman torture instrument consisting of a wooden handle with cords at the end to which small metal balls were attached. The punishment was inflicted on a bent back and naked body, causing over a hundred such injuries. The detailed examination of the bloodstains and injuries on the subject's body provides valuable insights into the manner of his death and the torture he endured. 

3. Crown of thorns

The Gospel accounts mention the crown of thorns that was placed on Jesus' head as part of his suffering before the crucifixion. Here are the specific verses that describe this event:

Matthew 27:29: "And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down before Him and mocked Him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!'"
Mark 15:17: "They dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him."
John 19:2-3: "And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and put a purple robe on Him; and they began to come up to Him and say, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' and to give Him slaps in the face."

These verses describe how the soldiers, as an act of mockery and humiliation, twisted together a crown of thorns and placed it on Jesus' head. They intended to mock Jesus' claim to kingship, and they also dressed Him in a purple robe, which was a color associated with royalty. The crown of thorns added to Jesus' physical pain and served as a symbol of the suffering and mockery he endured before his crucifixion. The specific mention of a crown of thorns in relation to crucifixion is unique to the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion in the New Testament. There are no other documented cases in historical records or biblical accounts where the condemned individuals were specifically given a crown of thorns as part of their crucifixion.

The Shroud does show numerous sinuous bloodstains that can be seen on his forehead, the back of his neck, and throughout his hair, emanating from small wounds with pointed diameters. These stains radiate out from his head in a spoke-like pattern, suggesting that a helmet of sharp, pointed thorns was pressed onto his head.  The sinuous bloodstains on his forehead, neck, and hair suggest that the subject had a helmet of thorns pressed onto his head, causing small pointed wounds. The spoke-like pattern of the stains radiating from the head indicates the uniformity of the injury, possibly caused by the same object.

4. He carried the cross

The Gospel accounts describe Jesus carrying the cross or being made to carry the cross before his crucifixion. Here are the specific verses that mention this:

Matthew 27:32: "As they were going out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross."
Mark 15:21: "They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross."
Luke 23:26: "When they led Him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, coming in from the country, and placed on him the cross to carry behind Jesus."
John 19:17: "They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha."

These verses indicate that Jesus initially carried his own cross, but at some point during the journey to the crucifixion site, the soldiers compelled a man named Simon of Cyrene to help carry the cross. The weight and burden of the cross symbolize the suffering and sacrifice that Jesus endured in his crucifixion.

On the Shroud, at the height of the left scapular area and the right suprascapular area, quadrangular bruises can be observed. These marks are believed to have been left by the patibulum, the horizontal beam of the cross that the condemned sometimes carried on himself to the place of execution

5. He was crucified

Here are the verses from the Gospel accounts that describe Jesus being crucified:

Matthew 27:35: "And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots."
Mark 15:24: "And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take."
Luke 23:33: "And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left."
John 19:18: "There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them."

These verses explicitly state that Jesus was crucified, along with two other individuals who were criminals. 

The Shroud displays a full-body image that is consistent with the posture of a crucified individual. The long bloodstains on both forearms that appear to run upwards are actually formed when the body was hung on the cross, and therefore the wrists were higher than the elbows. The characteristic bloodstain on the left wrist formed by two divergent streaks is particularly noteworthy as it indicates two different positions assumed by the condemned on the cross. The characteristic bloodstain on the left wrist formed by two diverging streaks is particularly notable, as it indicates two different positions assumed by the condemned man on the cross. The blood flows from an oval-shaped wound caused by a pointed instrument, such as a nail. Particular attention should be paid to the location of this wound, which is not in the palm of the hand as depicted in the traditional iconography of crucifixion, but in the wrist. It is noteworthy that the image of the thumbs is absent from the shroud, which could be due to damage to the median nerve or tetanic contraction.


6. He was pierced on the side

John 19:34: "But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water."
In John 19:34, it is mentioned that one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear while he was on the cross. This event occurred after Jesus had already died. The purpose of piercing his side was to confirm his death and ensure that he had not merely swooned or fainted.

On the Shroud: On the right side of his chest, there is a large bloodstain that flows from an oval-shaped wound caused by a pointed and sharp object that struck between the fifth and sixth ribs, penetrating deeply. The characteristics of this wound indicate that it was inflicted after the man's death.


7. Legs were not broken

In the historical context of crucifixion during the time of Jesus, it was common for the legs of those who were crucified to be broken. Breaking the legs of the crucified individuals was a method used to hasten their death. When a person was crucified, their body weight was primarily supported by their arms and legs. Breaking the legs of the crucified person would prevent them from pushing up with their legs to relieve pressure on their chest, making it difficult for them to breathe. This would eventually lead to asphyxiation and a quicker death.

John 19:31-33: "Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs."

John 19:36: "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken.'"

On the Shroud, the depiction does not show any apparent signs of broken legs on the man. This aligns with the Gospel accounts, specifically in John 19:32-33, which state that the legs of Jesus were not broken during his crucifixion, unlike the legs of the two criminals crucified alongside him.


8. Naked

There are a couple of passages that suggest that Jesus was crucified without clothing.

In the Gospel of Mark (15:24), it is written: "And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take." This passage indicates that Jesus' garments were divided among the soldiers, implying that he may have been left unclothed.

Additionally, the Gospel of John (19:23-24) mentions the soldiers dividing Jesus' garments among themselves, but it also states, "But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, so they said to one another, 'Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.'" This verse implies that Jesus was wearing only a seamless tunic, which suggests he may have been without any other clothing.

However, it is important to note that the Gospels do not provide explicit details about Jesus' state of undress during the crucifixion.

9. He was buried soon after his death

Matthew 27:57-60:

"When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was 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 cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away."

Mark 15:42-46: "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. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. 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 corpse to Joseph. And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb."

Luke 23:50-53: "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 decision and action; 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 tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid."

John 19:38-42: "After these things, 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 permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So 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 in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there."

These verses describe how Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus, obtained permission from Pilate to take Jesus' body down from the cross and bury it. Joseph, with the help of Nicodemus, wrapped Jesus' body in linen cloths with spices and placed it in a new tomb. The burial took place quickly, as it was approaching the Jewish day of Preparation and the Sabbath.

1. http://docshare04.docshare.tips/files/14267/142675557.pdf
2. https://www.messengersaintanthony.com/content/man-shroud-has-name
3. https://www.uccronline.it/2010/04/10/la-sindone-della-uaar-e-del-cicap-e-una-perfetta-bufala/
4. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_LaUnOztbkP4C/mode/2up?view=theater
5. https://www.academia.edu/49761930/The_c_1389_dArcis_Memorandum_and_the_Authenticity_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin_an_English_Language_Bibliography
6. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/if-the-turin-shroud-is-the-work-of-a-medieval-artist-it-s-one-of-the-greatest-artworks-ever-created/
7. https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/search?q=Pierre+d%27Arcis
8. https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2016/01/problems-of-forgery-theory-index-z.html

Chapter 8



Characteristics of the Image on the Shroud

• Superficial—penetrates only top 2 micro-fibers
• No directionality such as brush strokes
• No outline to image
• No cementing of fibers as with paint
• Uniform intensity
• No variations in density as with known art works
• No particles between the threads (dust rubbing)
• No capillary action (except for blood)
• Negative image present
• Blood from actual wounds
• AB blood type, human male DNA

Superficiality: The image on the Shroud is remarkably superficial, affecting only the top two micro-fibers of the cloth. This suggests a delicate and precise mechanism of image formation, unlike conventional painting techniques. The image affecting only the top micro-fibers suggests an extraordinarily delicate formation process, unlike any known artistic method from the medieval period. This could imply that the image was formed by a process not understood or replicable by medieval artists.
Lack of Directionality: The absence of brush strokes indicates that the image was not created by standard artistic methods. This challenges the notion of the Shroud being a medieval forgery, as some have proposed. The absence of brush strokes or any directional marks typically associated with painting challenges the idea that it was a crafted artifact. It implies a formation process that is more complex and less human-driven.
No Outlining: Unlike typical paintings, the image on the Shroud does not have clear outlines. This contributes to the three-dimensional quality of the image when analyzed using modern imaging techniques. The lack of clear outlines is not characteristic of medieval painting, which often emphasizes outlines. This feature adds to the mystery of its creation, suggesting a process that is not manually controlled.
No Cementing of Fibers: The fibers are not glued or stuck together, as would be expected if paint or other typical artistic media had been used. The fact that the fibers are not cemented together as they would be with paint demonstrates that the image was not painted. This is a significant point against the forgery theory.
Uniform Intensity: The image's intensity is remarkably uniform. This uniformity is hard to achieve with conventional artistic methods, where variations in brush pressure and paint application typically result in different intensities. Achieving such uniform intensity across a large cloth would be extremely challenging with medieval technologies, implying that the image was not the product of conventional artistic methods of the time.
No Variations in Density: Unlike known artworks where density varies, the image on the Shroud shows a consistent density, further supporting the idea of a non-conventional formation process. This consistency across the image is not typical of hand-made artworks, where variations are almost inevitable. It suggests a process that is uniform and not subject to human error or technique.
Absence of Particles Between Threads: The lack of particles between the threads (like dust rubbing) suggests the image was not formed by powders or applied materials. The lack of extraneous particles indicates that the image was not formed by any applied substance, like powders, again suggesting a non-artistic process.
No Capillary Action: Capillary action, typical in fluid-based images, is not evident on the Shroud, except for the bloodstains. This is unusual for an image formed by liquid mediums. The absence of capillary action in the image formation, except for blood, indicates a process distinct from typical liquid-based image creation, like painting.
Negative Image: The Shroud's image is a negative, meaning it shows more detail when viewed as a photographic negative. This characteristic is unique and baffling, as it implies a complex formation mechanism. The presence of a negative image is perhaps one of the most compelling aspects. This feature is highly sophisticated and would have been unknown in the medieval period, suggesting the image was not deliberately created by artists of that time.
Blood from Actual Wounds: The bloodstains on the Shroud correspond to wounds depicted in the image, suggesting a real human body as the source. This has been a significant point in arguing for the Shroud's authenticity. The bloodstains correspond to the type of wounds one would expect from a crucifixion, consistent with the narrative of Jesus Christ's death. This correlation provides a compelling connection to the Shroud's purported historical context.
AB Blood Type, Human Male DNA: Analysis has indicated the presence of blood type AB and human male DNA. This is intriguing, especially considering the rareness of AB blood type in the general population during the medieval period. The presence of human male DNA and particularly AB blood type, which was very rare in the general population during the medieval period, adds a layer of authenticity. It suggests that the bloodstains originated from a real person and not from an artist's materials.

These features collectively build a strong case for the Shroud's authenticity. They suggest a formation process that is extraordinarily delicate, sophisticated, and not replicable with known medieval art techniques. The combination of these unique characteristics makes the Shroud of Turin a compelling and mysterious artifact that continues to intrigue and inspire debates among scientists, historians, theologians, and the general public. 

The image was not  made by:

X Paint
X Stain
X Dye
X Oil
X Acid
X Powder
X Heat / Burn

Is it a painting?


If the image on the Shroud were the work of an artist, one would expect to find pigments and dyes through chemical analysis, similar to the way art conservators study the works of Old Masters. However, the team from the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) found no significant traces of any artistic materials on the cloth that could account for the image. Additionally, there are no indications of the image being created with brush strokes. The image on the Shroud is extremely faint and was not recognized until 1898 when it was revealed in the negative of a photograph taken by Secondo Pia, an Italian amateur photographer. The subtle coloration of the flax fibers does not result from any external substance applied or infused into them; rather, it's the fibers themselves that have undergone a color change. This alteration in the fibers does not behave like typical dyes or paints, as it cannot be removed or altered by common chemical treatments. The STURP team concluded that the image represents the actual form of a "scourged, crucified man" and is not an artistic creation. The cloth also bears authentic bloodstains, with the blood type identified as AB, and contains traces of human DNA, though heavily degraded. Despite these findings, Walter McCrone, a chemical and microscopy consultant who worked with STURP, argued that the red stains thought to be blood were small particles of iron oxide or red ochre. This claim, like many others surrounding the Shroud, is highly contested and generally not accepted by the scientific community. Other theories, such as the image being a rubbing from a bas-relief or created by scorching the fabric against a bas-relief, have also been proposed but are inconsistent with the known physical and chemical characteristics of the Shroud's image.


The image was made by radiation

The distinct straw yellow hue of the image on the Shroud of Turin exhibits an extraordinarily fine superficiality when examined under a microscope. A single thread from the linen shroud is composed of approximately two hundred individual fibers, each with a diameter of about 20 microns. Remarkably, the discoloration attributed to the image does not extend beyond the very outermost layer of these fibers, penetrating less than 0.2 microns deep. This level of superficiality is consistent across all the colored fibers and does not affect the fibers that lie beneath the surface or are obscured by other fibers. The hypothesis involving radiation suggests a mechanism that could account for this extremely localized color change. According to this theory, a form of radiation could have caused a chemical alteration in the very thin, topmost layer of the fibers, affecting only the outermost surface to a depth of 0.000008 inches. This would mean the image is not a result of substances applied onto the surface, such as paint, but rather a transformation of the linen's fibers at a molecular level due to some form of radiant energy. This theory aligns with observations of the image's properties: its extreme superficiality, the lack of penetration beyond the surface-exposed fibers, and the absence of coloration between the fibers, which would be present if the image were formed by liquid dyes or pigments. If such a radiation event occurred, it would have been finely tuned to affect only the most minute layer, suggesting an event that is not easily replicated or explained by contemporary science. This specificity has led to a variety of interpretations, ranging from those based on naturalistic explanations to those invoking miraculous events, all of which continue to be subjects of analysis and debate within the scientific community.

At the Grenoble Nuclear Studies Center in France, Dr. Jean‐Baptiste Rinaudo conducted experiments involving the radiation of proton beams onto white linen using a particle accelerator. These experiments were aimed at replicating the straw-yellow coloration observed on the external image fibers of the Shroud of Turin. Remarkably, the experiments yielded results consistent with the Shroud's characteristics: the exterior of the fibers turned straw-yellow, while the interior part remained white. Dr. Kitty Little, a retired nuclear physicist from Britain’s Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Harwell, conducted similar experiments. She also observed comparable effects of radiation on linen, leading her to conclude that radiation might have played a role in forming the Shroud's image.

Fine-tuning of the radiation energy to produce the image on the Shroud

The need for fine-tuning the radiation energy in these experiments arises from the unique characteristics of the Shroud's image. The image is only superficial, affecting only the topmost fibers of the cloth. This suggests that whatever process caused the image did so without penetrating deeply into the fabric, which requires a very precise application of energy. Too much energy and the radiation would penetrate too deeply, affecting more than just the topmost fibers. Too little, and the color change might not occur at all. Therefore, achieving the correct balance is crucial to get the Shroud's unique image properties. This fine-tuning of radiation energy is significant because it points to the complex and delicate nature of the image formation on the Shroud, suggesting a process that goes beyond simple physical or chemical reactions. If we wanted to describe the precision more quantitatively, we could discuss the proportion of the fiber affected by the coloration compared to its total diameter:

- The diameter of an individual fiber is approximately 20 microns.
- The depth of coloration is less than 0.2 microns.

Less than 1% of the radius of each fiber was affected by the coloring. This ratio points to a highly precise radiation mechanism since it would require a source of energy capable of causing changes in such a minute area without affecting the rest of the material. A particular radiation energy level had to be responsible. The energy had to be precisely enough to cause a chemical change in the top layers of the fibers without transferring enough energy to penetrate and affect the lower layers and blurring the image.

The diameter of an individual linen fiber is approximately 20 microns (20 x 10^-6 meters).
The depth of the coloration on the Shroud is less than 0.2 microns (0.2 x 10^-6 meters).

This ratio, 0.01 or 1%, indicates that the coloration process would have had to be extremely finely tuned to affect only 1% of the radius (since the radius is half the diameter) of the individual fibers, assuming uniform coloration around the fiber. This fine-tuning would suggest an incredibly precise and localized energy distribution. It implies that the radiation source would have to deliver energy that is sufficient to modify the very surface of the fibers but not powerful enough to penetrate beyond this extremely thin layer.  However, this doesn't take into account many variables such as the distribution of energy along the fiber, the non-uniformity of natural fibers, the geometry of the fabric weave, and the potential for energy absorption and scattering within the cloth. The fine-tuning would involve adjusting factors such as the wavelength, energy level, intensity, and exposure time of the radiation, as well as considering the environmental conditions and the specific properties of the linen. Achieving the precise effect observed on the Shroud would require the consideration of multiple variables with narrow ranges of acceptable values. This level of precision underscores the complexity of the task and the advanced understanding of materials science and radiation physics that would be necessary to replicate the Shroud's image.

Based on the data from the ENEA experiments, we can attempt to estimate the fine-tuning required for the radiation that may have created the image on the Shroud of Turin. The key factor here is the power level of the radiation, which, as per ENEA's findings, was extremely high.

Radiation Power Level: The ENEA experiments suggest that a power level of approximately 34 trillion watts (or 34 terawatts) of VUV radiation would be necessary to replicate the Shroud's image. This is an extraordinarily high level of power, far beyond the capability of any existing VUV light source.
Radiation Type: The type of radiation used in these experiments was VUV, which falls in the ultraviolet spectrum but has shorter wavelengths and higher energy than the typical UV light.
Energy Density: The power density estimated by ENEA was about 2000 MW/cm² over a surface area of 17000 cm². This high energy density indicates that the radiation would need to be extremely focused and precisely targeted.
Duration of Exposure: The ENEA's reference to a "short and intense burst" suggests that the exposure time would be very brief. This precise duration is critical, as too long an exposure could cause damage to the linen, while too short might not produce the desired effect.
Environmental Conditions: As with any fine-tuning estimate, environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and the specific composition of the linen would play a role in how the radiation interacts with the material.

The fine-tuning estimate based on ENEA's data involves extremely high power levels of VUV radiation, with a very high energy density, applied in a short, intense burst. The exact duration and environmental conditions would also be crucial, but these details are not specified in the ENEA report. This level of fine-tuning is currently beyond the capabilities of existing technology and highlights the unique and unexplained nature of the Shroud's image.

How to explain that the image on the Shroud is not distorted? 



Claim: The cloth could not have been in touch with everything so closely. And if the fabric was in contact with the face, it would not look like the picture on the left, but the one on the right. A bit of the same principle as a bitmap image of faces to games.

Response: The image on the Shroud of Turin has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate. The left-hand image appears to show a face with clear, proportional features, while the right-hand image appears distorted, as if the fabric was in direct contact with the features of a face, compressing and spreading the image as might happen with a cloth lying directly on a three-dimensional object. The undistorted appearance of the image on the Shroud of Turin suggests that the image formation process was not simply due to direct contact with a body. One hypothesis that has been put forward by researchers to explain the undistorted image of the Shroud is the idea of a radiation process or a burst of energy. This theory proposes that the image was formed by some form of energetic process that caused a reaction on the surface of the cloth itself, rather than through direct contact. Physicist John Jackson, for instance, proposed a "cloth collapse" theory, suggesting that as the Shroud collapsed through a dematerializing body, it could have recorded radiation emanating from all points within the body. This would create a more uniform and undistorted image, much like the one seen on the left-hand image of the Shroud. This idea is further supported by the unique superficiality of the image, with the discoloration of the linen fibers penetrating only slightly into the cloth, without any capillary action that would be expected if the image were formed by liquids (blood, oils, etc.). Ultimately, the exact process of image formation on the Shroud remains a mystery, and while the "radiation" or "energy burst" theories might offer a plausible explanation for the lack of distortion in the image, they are still a subject of research and debate within the scientific and scholarly communities. The blood strains can only be seen with UV light. Why would an artist back then ever put blood there which would not be visible, and provide no advantage at all? But even more remarkable than that, the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering from strong polytrauma-like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments points to a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.” What appears to be blood on the Shroud has passed 13 tests proving that it is real human blood.  The presence of "X" and "Y" chromosomes indicates that the blood is from a male.  The blood type is AB.  

When a person is cruelly tortured, the blood undergoes terrible hemolysis, when the hemoglobin literally ‘breaks up’. In thirty seconds, the reaction reaches the liver, which doesn’t have time to deal with it and discharges a volume of bilirubin into the veins. Alan Adler has discovered a very high quantity of this substance in the blood on the Shroud. It is this substance that, when mixed with methemoglobin of a certain type, produces that vivid red color. The color of the blood belonging to the ‘Man of the Shroud’ is chemical proof that, before dying, he suffered terrible torture. According to Professor Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua, the analyses show how “the peculiar structure, size, and distribution of the nanoparticles cannot be artifacts made over the centuries on the fabric of the Shroud.” Many fanciful reconstructions of the Turin Shroud being a painted object are once again denied.” Additionally, Fanti says, “the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering from strong polytrauma-like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments points a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.”



New research from ENEA on the sacred Linen kept in Turin 14.12. 2011

Enea, the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, has published a report on five years of experiments conducted in the ENEA center of Frascati on the “shroud-like coloring of linen fabrics by far ultraviolet radiation”. “Simply put: we tried to understand how the Shroud of Turin was imprinted by an image so special that it constitutes its charm, and poses a great and very radical challenge, "to identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a color similar to that of the image on the Shroud. "

Scientists (Di Lazzaro, Murra, Santoni, Nichelatti and Baldacchini) start from the last (and only) comprehensive interdisciplinary exam of the sheet, completed in 1978 by a team of American scientists from Sturp (Shroud of Turin Research Project). A starting point that all too often those who write about and dissect the Shroud prefer not to take into account, in spite of what is evidenced by available information verified by an accurate control on “peer-reviewed” journals, that is, approved by other scientists in objective and independent ways. The Enea report, with a lot of fair play and almost "en passant", very clearly refutes the hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin might be the work of a medieval forger. The hypothesis was supported – against many weighted arguments – by the results of the disputable and probably biased - C14 measurements; a test whose credibility has been rendered ​​very fragile not only by objective difficulties (the possibility that the fabric is contaminated is very high, especially since its historical journey is only partially known), but also from proven factual errors of calculation and the inability to obtain “raw data” from the laboratories for the necessary controls. In spite of repeated requests. An omission which in itself can throw a heavy shadow over the scientific accuracy of the episode.

The report notes: “The double image (front and back) of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining which is identical in all its facets, would be impossible to obtain today in a laboratory, as discussed in numerous articles listed in the references. This inability to repeat (and therefore falsify) the image on the Shroud makes it impossible to formulate a reliable hypothesis on how the impression was made.

In fact, today Science is still not able to explain how the body image was formed on the Shroud. As a partial justification, Scientists complain that it is impossible to take direct measurements on the Shroud cloth. In fact, the latest in situ experimental analysis of the physical and chemical properties of the body image of the Shroud was carried out ​​in 1978 by a group of 31 scientists under the aegis of the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc. (STURP). The scientists used modern equipment for the time, made ​​available by several manufacturers for a market value of two and a half million dollars, and took ​​a number of non-destructive infrared spectroscopy measurements, visible and ultraviolet, X-ray fluorescence, thermograph, pyrolysis, mass spectrometry, micro-Raman analysis, transmission photograph, microscopy, removal of fibrils and micro-chemical tests”. The analysis carried out on the Shroud did not find significant amounts of pigments (dyes, paints) nor traces of designs. Based on the results of dozens of measurements, the STURP researchers concluded that the body image is not painted nor printed, nor obtained by heating. Furthermore, the color of the image resides on the outer surface of the fibrils that make up the threads of the cloth, and recent measurements of fragments of the Shroud show that the thickness of staining is extremely thin, around 200 nm = 200 billionths of a meter, or one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter, which corresponds to the thickness of the primary cell wall of the so-called single linen fiber. We recall that a single linen thread is made ​​up of about 200 fibrils.

Other important information derived from the results of the STURP measurements are as follows: The blood is human, and there is no image beneath the bloodstains; the gradient color contains three-dimensional information of the body; colored fibers (image) are more fragile than undyed fibers; surface staining of the fibrils of the image derive from an unknown process that caused oxidation, dehydration and conjugation in the structure of the cellulose of the linen”. In other words, the color is a result of an accelerated linen aging process”. As already mentioned, until now all attempts to reproduce an image on linen with the same characteristics have failed. Some researchers have obtained images with a similar appearance to the image of the Shroud, but nobody has been able to simultaneously reproduce all microscopic and macroscopic characteristics. “In this sense, the origin of the Shroud image is still unknown. This seems to be the core of the so-called “mystery of the Shroud”: regardless of the age the Shroud, whether it is medieval (1260 - 1390) as shown by the controversial dating by radiocarbon, or older as indicated by other investigations, and regardless of the actual importance of controversial historical documents on the existence of the Shroud in the years preceding 1260, the most important question, the “question of questions” remains the same: how did that body image appear on the Shroud?”.

There are two possibilities, the scientists write, on how the sheet of the Shroud was placed around the corpse: placed above and below (not in full contact with the whole body stiffened by rigor mortis) or pressed on the body and tied in order to be in contact with almost the entire body surface. “The first method is supported by the fact that there is a precise relationship between the intensity (gradient) of the image and the distance between the body and the cloth. Furthermore, the image is also present in areas of the body not in contact with the cloth, such as immediately above and below the hands, and around the tip of the nose. The second method is less likely because the typical geometric deformations of a three dimension body brought into contact in two dimension sheet are missing. Moreover, there is no imprint of body hips. Consequently, we can deduce that the image was not formed by contact between linen and body”.

It is this observation, “coupled with the extreme superficiality of the coloring and the lack of pigments” that “makes it extremely unlikely that a shroud-like picture was obtained using a chemical contact method, both in a modern laboratory and even more so by a hypothetical medieval forger”. “There is no image beneath the blood stains. This means that the traces of blood deposited before the image was. Therefore, the image was formed after the corpse was laid down. Furthermore, all the blood stains have well-defined edges, no burrs, so it can be assumed that the corpse was not removed from the sheet. “There are no signs of putrefaction near the orifices, which usually occur around 40 hours after death. Consequently, the image is not the result of putrefaction gases and the corpse was not left in the sheet for more than two days”.

One of the assumptions related to the formation of the image was that regarding some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength), which could fit the requirements for reproducing the main features of the Shroud image, such as superficiality of color, color gradient, the image also in areas of the body not in contact with the cloth and the absence of pigment on the sheet. The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.

“However, Enea scientists warn, "it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. 8

Resumed: Today Science is still not able to explain how the body image was formed on the Shroud.  The analysis carried out on the Shroud did not find significant amounts of pigments (dyes, paints) nor traces of designs.  Recent measurements of fragments of the Shroud show that the thickness of staining is extremely thin, around 200 nm = 200 billionths of a meter, or one-fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter, which corresponds to the thickness of the primary cell wall of the so-called single linen fiber.  We recall that a single linen thread is made ​​from 50 to 200 fibrils. the gradient color contains three-dimensional information of the body; colored fibers (image) are more fragile than undyed fibers; surface staining of the fibrils of the image derive from an unknown process that caused oxidation, dehydration and conjugation in the structure of the cellulose of the linen”. In other words, the color is a result of an accelerated linen aging process”. The “question of questions” remains the same: how did that body image appear on the Shroud?”. The image was not formed by contact between linen and body”. It is this observation, “coupled with the extreme superficiality of the coloring and the lack of pigments” that “makes it extremely unlikely that a shroud-like picture was obtained using a chemical contact method, both in a modern laboratory and even more so by a hypothetical medieval forger”.  “There are no signs of putrefaction near the orifices, which usually occur around 40 hours after death. Consequently, the image is not the result of putrefaction gases and the corpse was not left in the sheet for more than two days”. One of the assumptions related to the formation of the image was that regarding some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength), which could fit the requirements for reproducing the main features of the Shroud image, such as superficiality of color, color gradient, the image also in areas of the body not in contact with the cloth and the absence of pigment on the sheet. The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. “However, Enea scientists warn, "it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts

Turin Shroud really could be Jesus burial robe , says scientist

20/11/2011: A NEW study suggests that one of Christianity’s most prized but mysterious relics – the Turin Shroud – is not a medieval forgery and could be the burial robe of Christ. Italian scientists conducted a series of experiments that they said showed that the marks on the shroud – purportedly left by the imprint of Christ’s body – could not have been faked with technology that was available in medieval times. Sceptics have long claimed that the 14ft-long cloth is a forgery. Radiocarbon testing conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona in 1988 appeared to back up the theory, suggesting that it dated from between 1260 and 1390. But those tests were in turn disputed on the basis that they were contaminated by fibres from cloth that was used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages. The new study is an intriguing piece of puzzle baffling scientists for centuries spawning an industry research books and documentaries. “The double image front and back of scourged crucified man barely visible on linen cloth Shroud Turin has many physical chemical characteristics impossible obtain staining,” concluded experts Italy National Agency New Technologies Energy Sustainable Development. The scientists set out to “identify physical-chemical processes capable generating colour similar to conundrum shade texture depth included. “Of the imprints on the cloth could be produced only with the aid of ultraviolet lasers producing extremely brief pulses of light. They said the image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by “some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)”. Although they stopped short of offering a non-scientific explanation for the phenomenon, their findings will be embraced by those who believe that the marks on the shroud were miraculously created at…” The text seems to discuss a theory about how imprints on a cloth could only be made with ultraviolet lasers producing brief pulses of light. It mentions an image of a bearded man believed to have been created by some form of electromagnetic energy, such as a flash of light at short wavelength. The authors refrain from offering non-scientific explanations but note that their findings may appeal to those who believe in miraculous creation theories regarding marks on this particular shroud. The moment of Christ’s Resurrection. “We are not at the conclusion. We are composing pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle,” the team reported. Prof Paolo Di Lazzaro, who led the research, said: “When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things such as miracles and resurrection. But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes. “We hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate but we will leave the conclusions to experts, and ultimately to conscience of individuals.” The research backs up outcome tests between 1978 and 1981 carried out by group American scientists who called themselves Shroud Turin Research Project. They conducted 120 hours X-rays ultraviolet light tests concluded that marks were not made paints pigments dyes that image was not “the product artist”, but at same time it could be explained modern science. One Christianity’s greatest objects veneration shroud shows imprint man whose body appears have nail wounds his wrists feet pinpricks thorns around forehead spear wound his chest Each year attracts millions pilgrims Turin cathedral where it kept climate-controlled case Vatican never said whether believes shroud authentic or not although Pope said image “reminds us always” Christ’s suffering.






2012 - The Telegraph

Still in the news in December 2011 as new evidence is unearthed.

The following is reproduced from the Daily Mail
PETER STANFORD "The Turin Shroud DOES have miraculous powers... whether it is genuine or not"Face of Turin Shroud 22nd December 2011
Italian scientists claim shroud was created by 'supernatural event' as burst of ultra-violet light necessary to leave imprint on cloth wasn't then possible. Implication from research is that image of Jesus was scorched onto linen by divinely generated light given out by His body Shroud believers welcome new scientific research 'proving' its existence But Vatican still refuses to comment on the long-running saga

Puzzle: The Turin Shroud's origin is endlessly debated. Still, the Catholic Church has placed the cloth in a cathedral as an object of worship The Catholic Church has never publicly accepted or rejected popular belief that the Turin Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. But it has done everything short of that to encourage devotion to this ancient piece of linen, on display in Turin Cathedral, which bears the markings of a man who appears to have been crucified.  The extraordinary sepia image on the cloth is simply — as Pope Benedict XVI likes to put it in that careful, precise way of his — ‘an image that reminds us always of Christ’s suffering’.

Yet, this week, a group of Italian scientists claimed the shroud was created by a ‘supernatural event’ rather than the machinations of medieval forgers. The academics concluded that the sort of burst of ultra-violet light necessary to have left such an imprint on the cloth just wasn’t possible by any human endeavour in any age other than our own technically advanced one with its access to lasers. The implication of their findings is that the image was scorched on to the linen as a result of a divinely generated light given out by Jesus’s body when he rose from the dead. Believers in the shroud hail the research by scientists at Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) as proof that it is genuinely the cloth of Christ. They claim it backs up the work of a group of American scientists from the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) from the Seventies.
These scientists established by careful analysis of the fibres of the cloth that the image of the bearded, crucified man had not been painted on to the cloth. It was not, they concluded, ‘a natural formation’.  Science, say the believers, appears to have provided no reasonable answer to counter the belief of generations of Christians that this is the image of Christ on the shroud in which his body was wrapped when it was taken down from the cross.

Giving a closer look at flax fibers







Hierarchical structure of the flax plant ( Linum usitatissimum L.). The technically used fi bre bundles are located in the outer part of the flax stem and consist of several flax fibres 5


A single thread contains around a hundred hundred micro-fibrils, with only the top three micro-fibrils of the elementary fiber carrying the image. This level of superficiality makes it physically impossible for any artist to paint with such precision. The image on the Shroud of Turin is formed through a molecular modification of the surface linen fibrils. In this modification, single covalent bonds are transformed into double covalent bonds. As a result, it is the conjugated dehydrated cellulose within the linen that carries the image. Examining a photomicrograph of the nose region, one of the darkest areas of the image, it becomes apparent that the microfibrils are not held together with any paint or binder. Thus, it is the molecularly modified linen fibrils themselves that comprise the image visible on the shroud today. Flax fibers are natural fibers obtained from the stalks of the flax plant (Linum usitatissimum), commonly used to produce linen. These fibers are valued for their strength, durability, and smoothness, making them ideal for textiles. Flax fibers are extracted from the bast or skin of the stem of the flax plant. This plant is cultivated specifically for its fibers, although its seeds (linseeds) are also harvested for oil and other uses. The fibers consist of elementary fibers, which are individual plant cells. These cells have a primary cell wall, a secondary cell wall, and a central hollow area called the lumen. Flax fibers are predominantly composed of cellulose, a natural polymer that gives strength and structure to the plant. They also contain hemicellulose and pectin, which bind the fibers together and add flexibility. Flax fibers are known for their strength, absorbency, and ability to dry faster than cotton. They are also naturally smooth and straight, which contributes to the quality of the linen fabric.


cross-section of the stem of the flax plant. The fiber bundles, which are the fibers used for textiles are located just under the skin.


Photographs of a cross section of a flax stem. (a) The white markers show the bast fibres bundles.  Clearly deducible is the ribbon-shaped morphology of the fibre bundles. The scale bar represents 0.1 mm. (b) Magnification of a, the white markers show spots where the interfibre bonding within the fibre bundle is virtually absent, the grey markers show the individual elementary fibres. The fibre bundles are packed together in a tape-like morphology. The scale bar represents 50 µm


Stem morphology. Cross-section of linseed phloem fibers ( Linum usitatissimum L.): (A ) epidermis (ep), hypodermis (hd), bundle of phloem fibers (bph), endodermis (en), primary phloem (pph), secondary phloem (sph), cambium (ca), secondary xylem (sxy); (B) a distinct border between G-layer and Gn-layer is visible in phloem fibers (arrows); (C) elementary phloem fibers (eph), middle lamellae (ml), plasmalemma (pm), lumen (lu), secondary cell wall (scw), primary cell wall (pcw); (D) elementary phloem fibers, gn – newly deposited gelatinous layer of secondary cell wall, g – mature gelatinous layer of secondary cell wall.




Multiscale nature of flax fiber

Single Linen Fiber ( Fibril) 1


Schematic representation of a section of the elementary fibre ( 10 -20 nm) or plant cell. Shown is also the fibrillar structure in the secondary cell wall.


Cross section of flax fiber as polygonal with 5–7 sides as is shown in Figure 1b.

Elementary fibers

Elementary fibers are the single cells of the flax plant, which are used to make linen. Each of these fibers is composed of a primary cell wall, a secondary cell wall, and a lumen, which is a hollow channel running through the center of the fiber. The lumen is quite small, making up only a tiny portion of the fiber's cross-section. These elementary fibers have a high cellulose content, ranging between 65-75%. They also contain about 15% hemicellulose (mainly xylan) and 10-15% pectin. Pectin is primarily found in the primary cell wall, along with some lignin and hemicellulose. The primary cell wall of these fibers is thin, measuring around 0.2 micrometers. Additionally, flax fibers contain 2-5% waxes, some of which are located on the surface of the primary cell wall. These waxes might come from the plant's cuticle, which consists of cutin (an aliphatic polyester) and soluble waxes, predominantly palmitic acid. The secondary cell wall forms the majority of the fiber's diameter in flax fibers and is primarily composed of cellulose and hemicelluloses. Cellulose, made up of the monosaccharide D-glucose, forms strong intra- and intermolecular hydrogen bonds. These bonds significantly influence the physical and chemical properties of cellulose, giving it considerable stiffness. The cellulose molecules are mostly arranged in crystallites, which are interspersed with amorphous regions.

Microfibrils

In the secondary cell wall, the cellulose crystallites form highly crystalline microfibrils. These microfibrils are bonded together by an amorphous hemicellulose phase, which plays a significant role in the fiber's strength. Removing hemicellulose from the fiber greatly reduces its tensile strength and can cause the fiber bundles to disintegrate into microfibrils. Studies using small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) and transmission electron microscopy have shown that the cellulose microfibrils are very small, with a cross-section of approximately 1x5 nm² and a diameter between 1 and 4 nm. These microfibrils are tightly packed in a fibrillar structure, forming meso fibrils about 0.1 µm in size. These fibrils are oriented spirally around the fiber axis, a structure that is visible under a scanning electron microscope.




Flax Stem: It starts with the flax plant, which has a stem diameter of approximately 1-3 millimeters.
Bundles: The stem is composed of bundles that are about 100-300 micrometers in diameter.
Fibers: These bundles are made up of individual fibers that have diameters ranging from 10-30 micrometers. The fibers are shown in more detail, displaying their microfibrils, lumen, and various layers such as the secondary wall, primary wall, and cell wall. The middle lamella is also indicated.
Individual Fibers: A closer look at the individual fibers before they are spun.
Spinning: The process of spinning these individual fibers into yarn is illustrated. The spinning action twists the fibers together to form a coherent and stronger yarn.
Fiber Yarn: A visual representation of the twisted fiber yarn is provided.
Natural Linen Thread: Finally, the image shows the finished product, a spool of natural linen thread labeled as "60/2", which indicates the thread weight and ply, along with the length of "1500 feet".



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.  The Shroud image is a faint and superficial image caused by a translucent and discontinuous yellow discoloration of the fibers. In the points where the image is present, the discoloration affects only 2 or 3 fibers on the topmost part of the threads of the cloth. In each fiber, the yellow discoloration penetrates only for 200 nm in the external cell layer.



Approximately 50 fibers compose each thread in the Shroud of Turin, based on the average fiber diameter of 10-20 micrometers and the thread diameter of 0.15 millimeters.



Phase-contrast microscopy of a single image fiber. Image is a reddish-brown caramel-like complex carbon bond, a chemical change within a super thin coating of crude starch on the fabric's outermost fibers. It is not paint or any kind of applied pigment. It is likely caused by bodily amine vapors reacting with saccharides in the starch.

Shroud of Turin Chemistry of the Images
A single image fiber from the Shroud of TurinSome of the cellulose fibers that when twisted together make up the threads of the Shroud's cloth are coated with a thin carbohydrate layer of starch fractions and various sugars. This chemical layer, which is about as thick as the transparent scratch-resistant coatings used for eyeglasses, is essentially colorless and is found only on the outermost fibers near the surface. In some places, the layer has undergone a chemical change that appears straw-yellow. This chemical change is similar to the change that takes place when sugar is heated to make caramel or when proteins react with sugar giving beer its color. And it is the straw-yellow, selectively present in some parts of the carbohydrate layer, that makes up the image we see on the Shroud. When scientists speak of image fibers they are referring to the coating on lengths of fiber that have undergone this chemical change. 6

The image on the Shroud is not a painting. The polysaccharide cover, approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches), is colored; the cellulose on the inner side is not. To put that in perspective: Fine hair has a diameter of approximately 0.05 mm, is equivalent to 50 micrometers (µm). Medium hair, ranging from about 0.051 mm to 0.1 mm, is equivalent to 51 to 100 micrometers (µm). 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter, is 0.0002 mm, which is equivalent to 0.2 micrometers (µm) or 200 nanometers (nm) is significantly smaller than the diameter of human hair, whether fine or medium. For perspective, 0.2 micrometers (200 nm) is about 250 times smaller than fine hair and about 255 to 500 times smaller than medium hair. This size (200 nm) is much closer to the scale of very small particles, like some types of viruses or ultrafine dust particles, rather than the comparatively much larger scale of human hair.

Unique Method of Transfer of Blood from Body to the Cloth

The man depicted in the Shroud of Turin appears to have sustained over 130 distinct injuries, which can be categorized into five primary types: scourge marks, wounds on the side, head wounds, wounds on the feet, and wounds on the wrists. These injuries seem to have been inflicted sequentially, starting with the scourging, followed by the head wounds, then the crucifixion nail wounds in the wrists and feet, and finally, the postmortem side wounds. The pattern and direction of the blood flows, particularly from the side wound, appear to have been altered postmortem, especially when the body was carried horizontally, feet first. Given that crucifixion typically lasted several hours, medical experts estimate that bleeding from the various wounds could have continued for a period ranging from four to twelve hours. This suggests that the blood on the Shroud varied in age, from relatively fresh to coagulated blood that was up to twelve hours old. Remarkably, all these coagulations transferred to the cloth in a manner that is unprecedented in recorded history. The representation of these wounds on the Shroud aligns closely with natural physiological reactions to bleeding and changes in position. This ranges from the large side wound to the tiny scourge marks, all of which are anatomically accurate on the Shroud. Dr. Pierre Barbet, a battlefield surgeon, was one of the first to note the unique nature of the bloodstains on the cloth. He observed that the bloodstains on the Shroud did not mirror the kind of smearing or diffusion typically seen on bandages removed from wounds of various ages, from fresh to several days old. This led him to comment on the unusual correspondence between the bloodstains on the Shroud and the wounds. Paul Vignon and Pierre Barbet, in their attempts to replicate these kinds of blood marks on linen, found it impossible to achieve the same level of precision as seen on the Shroud. They noted that if the blood was too wet when it came into contact with the cloth, it would spread or run, while drier blood would only leave a smudge. The clearly bordered, picture-like clots on the Shroud seemed to defy reproduction by simple staining methods. The unique characteristics of these bloodstains suggest that they could not have been created simply through direct contact between a bloody body and the surrounding linen cloth. This observation, while initially seeming to challenge the notion of the Shroud as an actual burial cloth, might instead point to something more extraordinary and possibly miraculous.

The Enigma of the Shroud of Turin: Scientific Challenges and Unanswered Questions

No single theory comprehensively explains all the characteristics of the image on the Shroud of Turin. Before publishing their final report on the image in 1981, members of the STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) team dedicated over 150,000 hours to studying the Shroud and examined various theories in light of the characteristics just mentioned. In a graphical representation, these theories and characteristics were tabulated to assess their likelihood or incompatibility. Modern science, which adheres to the empirical method, requires the ability to replicate a phenomenon to assert that it occurred in a specific way. In the case of the Shroud, we have an imprint whose formation process remains unknown, yet its characteristics are well-documented. None of the proposed theories meet the requirement of explaining ALL these features, and therefore, no single theory can be deemed valid or complete.

The challenge lies in the Shroud's unique combination of features – its negative image, three-dimensionality, and detailed portrayal of wounds, among others. These characteristics are so specific and complex that they defy simple explanations or reproduction using current scientific knowledge and technology. The inability of existing theories to fully account for all aspects of the Shroud's image has kept the debate and research around it alive and ongoing. This situation exemplifies the limitations and challenges of scientific inquiry, especially when dealing with historical artifacts of unknown origin. The Shroud of Turin, therefore, continues to be a subject of fascination and mystery, not only for its religious significance but also for its enigmatic presence in the realm of scientific study.



Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D. In the film “The Silent Witness,” by David Rolfe.
The markings on this image are so clear and so medically accurate that the pathological facts that they reflect concerning the suffering and death of the man depicted here are in my opinion beyond dispute.

Dr. Robert Bucklin, M.D. as cited in Fitzpatrick, Marie. “The Shroud of Turin Controversy: Part 2.” Garabandal, October-December 1989, pg. 22.
The medical data from the Shroud supports the Resurrection. When this medical information is combined with the physical, chemical, and historical facts, there is strong evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection.

Dr. Robert Bucklin, one of the Shroud of Turin forensic experts, played a pivotal role in the analysis of the Shroud. The negative image of the Shroud often likened to a medical examination of a cadaver, has attracted significant attention from legal and medical professionals. These experts, intrigued by the anatomical precision of the image, are among the most convinced of the Shroud's authenticity. Their argument hinges on the notion that, until the modern era, no artist has been able to depict the wounds of Christ with such realism and accuracy. In their view, the Shroud contains no anatomical "errors." The Shroud, according to these specialists, not only reflects the physical suffering and death of Christ as described in the Gospels but does so with a level of medical and archaeological accuracy that is striking. This verisimilitude prompted Pope John Paul II to describe the Shroud as a "mirror of the Gospel." The comparison between the visible marks on the Shroud and the scriptural descriptions of Christ's Passion provides clear evidence that the man depicted in the Shroud is indeed Jesus.

1. https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/modern-science-cant-duplicate-the-image-on-the-shroud-of-turin
2.  Giulio Fanti Optical features of flax fibers coming from the Turin Shroud (2015)
3. https://edepot.wur.nl/517183
4. Chen, F. (2020). Unidirectional All-Cellulose Composites from Flax via Controlled Impregnation with Ionic Liquid. Polymers, 12(5), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12051010.
5. https://sci-hub.wf/10.1533/9781782421276.1.35
6. http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-chemistry.htm
7. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077341/The-Turin-shroud-DOES-miraculous-powers--Whether-genuine-not.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
8. https://www.sindone.info/DILAZZA2.PDF

Chapter 9 



Jesus Passion

Sufferings in the Night



On the night of Good Friday, April 3, AD 33, a series of events unfolded, marking a culminating moment in Christian history. This period, from midnight to the early hours of the morning, involved Jesus Christ's journey and the ordeals he faced, as recorded in the Gospels.



During the night of Good Friday, as recorded in the Gospels, Jesus Christ's journey took him through several significant locations in Jerusalem, beginning at midnight and continuing into the early hours of the morning.

Midnight to 1:00 AM - Journey from the Garden of Gethsemane to Annas' Residence:  After his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was taken to the home of Annas, the father-in-law of the then-high priest Caiaphas. Annas, who had significant influence despite being deposed as a high priest, interrogated Jesus. During this interrogation, an officer struck Jesus, challenging his response to Annas.  This location is believed to be near what is now known as the Wohl Archaeological Museum.

1:00 AM - Transfer to Caiaphas' Residence:  Following the initial questioning, Jesus was sent, still bound, to Caiaphas, the high priest. This site is currently identified with the Saint Peter in Gallicantu Monastery, a place thought to be where Caiaphas' house once stood.

2:00 to 3:00 AM - Interrogation at Caiaphas' Home:  At Caiaphas' residence, the chief priests and council sought evidence against Jesus to justify a death sentence. During this interrogation, Jesus affirmed his divine identity, which led to accusations of blasphemy and a unanimous decision of his guilt.

3:00 to 5:30 AM - Physical Abuse Under Caiaphas' House:  This period was marked by severe physical mistreatment. Jesus was subjected to spitting, mocking, striking, and blindfolding, as the guards and others reviled him, demanding he prophesy who had struck him.

Around Sunrise (6:30 AM) - Appearance before the Sanhedrin:  As dawn broke, Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin, the assembly of Jewish leaders, in the Temple's Chamber of Hewn Stones. Here, he faced further questioning about his divine claims, which only solidified the leaders' resolve to condemn him. The Chamber of Hewn Stones, where this assembly took place, was a significant location within the Temple complex. After the Sanhedrin's interrogation, Jesus was taken to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, who resided at Herod's Palace. The location of this palace is now marked by the Tower of David Museum complex.

The Role of Judas in Locating Jesus: With a significant number of pilgrims in Jerusalem, finding a specific individual would have been challenging. However, Judas Iscariot, familiar with Jesus' habits and past resting places, led the soldiers directly to him in the Garden of Gethsemane. This was after the Last Supper, and Jesus had not returned to Bethany, where he previously stayed with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.

Background on Annas and Caiaphas: Annas, once the high priest, remained a figure of considerable authority despite his removal from the position by the Roman prefect Gratus. His relationship with Caiaphas, his son-in-law, and the current high priest, gave him continued influence in religious and political affairs.

This sequence of events, spanning the hours from midnight to sunrise, encapsulates a night of intense physical and emotional suffering for Jesus, as narrated in the Gospel accounts, culminating in his eventual trial and crucifixion.

This sequence of movements during the night represents a critical phase in the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus. Each location played a key role in the narrative of his trial and condemnation, reflecting both the religious and political dimensions of the situation at that time. Jesus, after being apprehended in the Garden of Gethsemane, was first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the reigning high priest. From there, he was transferred to Caiaphas' residence. During this harrowing night, Jesus endured intense physical abuse. As dawn approached, he was led to the Sanhedrin's council chamber within the Temple for further interrogation. Throughout this ordeal, Jesus traversed approximately 2.4 miles across the challenging topography of Jerusalem, characterized by its dark, uneven, and hilly streets. All this occurred while he was bound, without sleep, and suffering from hunger and thirst. The early morning hours brought cooler temperatures, around the mid-40s Fahrenheit, exacerbating his physical strain as he continued to lose fluids due to the night's abuse. Amidst this physical and emotional torment, a profound moment of personal betrayal unfolded. Peter, one of Jesus' closest disciples and the one he had chosen to lead after him, denied knowing Jesus, adding a layer of emotional anguish to the physical suffering he was already enduring. This denial happened as Jesus was facing one of the most challenging moments of his life, underscoring the depth of his isolation and suffering during these critical hours.

During the night leading up to Good Friday, the Gospels recount that Jesus experienced various forms of physical maltreatment. This began when an officer struck him at Annas' house, as mentioned in John 18:22. Throughout the night, as described in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus was subjected to spitting, blindfolding, slapping, and a barrage of punches. The guards, likely exhausted from their day's duties and frustrated by the late-night vigil, vented their aggravation on Jesus. The Greek terms used in the Gospels – 'rhapisma' and 'rhapizo' – are translated variably as 'slapped', 'received with blows', or 'struck with a hand'. These terms, as per Strong's Concordance, can imply striking with a rod, though typically they refer to slapping with an open hand. Another Greek word, 'kolaphizo', signifies brutal fist strikes and excessive force, translating to 'struck' in Matthew and Mark. Luke's Gospel uses two different terms for 'struck' – 'paio' and 'typto', both implying beating or striking, often with a fist. Collectively, these accounts indicate that Jesus was both slapped and punched.

Luke, known for his meticulous reporting, uses the term 'derontes' to describe Jesus' suffering. This word, derived from the root 'der' (related to skin, as in 'dermatologist'), primarily means 'flaying the skin' or 'beating'. Given that Matthew and Mark also mention face strikes, Luke's use of 'derontes' might suggest additional forms of physical abuse. In the New Testament, derivatives of 'dero' are used to describe various forms of punishment, including beating, flogging, and striking with great violence. According to the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon and BDAG, 'dero' historically meant 'to skin or flay', but later evolved to imply significant skin damage through beating or whipping. There's a tradition in Jerusalem of two scourging pillars used for Jesus' torture – one beneath Caiaphas' house and the other near Pontius Pilate's praetorium, recently identified near the Tower of David in the Old City. The first pillar is located in the Crusader-era Chapel of the Apparition in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, while the latter is venerated in Rome's Basilica of Santa Prassede. This duality of locations reflects the intense and varied nature of the physical abuse Jesus endured during those hours.

Jesus is condemned to death

"So...Pilate...took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this righteous man's blood; see to it yourselves.'... 'His blood be on us and on our children'" (Mt 27:24-25).

The water of political compromise became the betrayal of the known and proclaimed Truth, and signified the handing over of the Innocent One to ill-intentioned enemies: it became blood!

Historically this sad event was confined to a few Jews, even though they formed a cleverly manipulated crowd that day, and led to a wavering Roman judge. However, the fingers pointed at him are innumerable: those of the entire human race which, because of the mystery of sin, which involves everyone, accuses him, the Innocent, Holy One, King by divine origin and by the right of conquest, and points at him the finger of accusation as a mock king, rendered powerless, ridiculed, humiliated, rejected, condemned. Moreover, he is mystically condemned by our sinful judgments when these are passed on the actions and intentions of any innocent man, with whom he identifies himself: "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40).

We now examine the Shroud’s array of injuries, seemingly inflicted by a whip with hard, dumbbell-shaped objects attached to its lashes. The Christian Gospels, with their characteristic brevity, provide minimal detail about Jesus's scourging. The Gospel according to John succinctly states: ‘Pilate then had Jesus taken away and scourged.’ Similarly, Matthew’s account is terse: ‘And having Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified.’ Yet, beyond the Gospel narratives, contemporary Roman-era historians and authors provide a more vivid depiction of the brutality of scourging. Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, described the Roman governor's merciless flogging of Jews: ‘He ordered them all to be stripped and lacerated with scourges... Some had to be carried out on stretchers and died at once, while others lay sick for a long time despairing of recovery.’ This account, along with others, indicates that victims were stripped naked, a state particularly degrading for Jews, which seems to be corroborated by the Shroud's imagery.

The lethality of scourging is clarified upon consulting historical sources. The term ‘flagrum,’ the Latin for ‘scourge,’ reveals the Roman scourge as a particularly gruesome instrument. Common to various designs was the incorporation of elements to enhance flesh damage, such as ‘tali’ (small sheep bones) and ‘plumbatae’ (lead pellets) – features consistent with the markings on the Shroud. The number of lashes in a Roman scourging varied based on the severity of the crime and the victim's citizenship status. Approximately a hundred individual dumbbell impressions are discernible on the Shroud, often appearing in pairs, suggesting a flagrum with at least two lashes. This is corroborated by a Roman coin depicting the flagrum in a gladiatorial contest. Saint Paul, a Roman citizen, recounted receiving ‘thirty-nine lashes by the Jews’ five times, but this limitation was specific to Jewish law. Therefore, we lack a definitive benchmark for the number of lashes Pilate might have ordered for Jesus, and by extension, what might be expected on the Shroud.

The flagellation

Date: Good Friday, April 3, AD 33
Time: Late morning
Location: The praetorium, located in Herod’s Palace, near the Jaffa Gate on the western side of Old Jerusalem, within the Tower of David complex.

Gospel Account: According to the Gospel of Luke, Pilate convened the chief priests, rulers, and people, declaring, “Behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him; I will therefore chastise him and release him.” (Luke 23:13, 15–16). However, the people insisted on crucifixion. Pilate, in an effort to appease the crowd, agreed to their demands. Mark’s Gospel narrates that Pilate, after trying to understand the accusation against Jesus, eventually succumbed to the crowd's clamor for crucifixion. Jesus was scourged and handed over for crucifixion, and the soldiers escorted him inside the palace, also known as the praetorium (Mark 15:12–16).

Historical Context: Early on that fateful Friday, Jesus, after enduring a night of extreme suffering, was taken from the Temple’s Chamber of Hewn Stones to Herod’s Palace, a distance of approximately 800 meters. Pilate, who governed from this palace during his visits to Jerusalem, especially during Jewish festivals, was there to maintain order. This location, near the Jaffa Gate and the Tower of David on the west side of Old Jerusalem, is distinct from the traditional starting point of the Way of the Cross near the Church of the Flagellation, and about 400 meters from Calvary.

The Scourging: Roman punishment, designed to be a public spectacle as a deterrent, likely took place outside Herod’s Palace. Jesus, stripped of his clothing, was probably bound to a pole or column during the scourging, a method supported by ancient oral tradition, although the Gospels do not specify this detail.

Revised Understanding of the Passion: The instrument of torture, the Roman 'flagrum,' was believed to have lead balls or sheep bone ('talus') attached near the ends of its thongs. This design was intended to inflict severe wounds. It was a common belief that Jesus, after his arrest, was taken to the Praetorium of the Fortress of Antonia, where Pontius Pilate resided and governed. This was necessary since only the Roman authorities could sanction an execution. Archaeological findings, such as a flagrum discovered in Pompeii, suggest that it consisted of three leather cords tied to a handle, with sharp objects like bones, stones, glass, or metal tied into the strips to maximize injury and pain.


The Flagrum






The Roman flagrum, also known as the flagellum, was a brutal instrument of torture and was likely used in the flagellation of Jesus, as described in the Biblical accounts of the Passion. This tool was infamous for its cruel efficiency in inflicting severe physical harm.

Description of the Flagrum

Design and Construction: The flagrum typically consisted of a handle made from wood, to which several leather thongs were attached. The length of these thongs varied, but they were generally long enough to wrap around the body and strike the front as well as the back.
Embedded Objects: What made the flagrum particularly vicious were the small objects, such as metal balls, sharp pieces of bone, or hooks, that were often woven or attached to the leather thongs. These objects ensured that each strike not only hit the skin but also tore it, leading to deep, painful lacerations.
Method of Use: The person administering the whipping, usually a Roman soldier or executioner, would lash the victim's back, buttocks, and legs. The flagrum was designed to inflict maximum damage with each strike, causing deep bruises, ripping the skin, and even tearing into underlying tissues and muscles.

Use in the Flagellation of Jesus

Historical Context: Roman scourging, as part of the process of crucifixion, was a form of severe punishment and humiliation. In Jesus' case, the flagellation was ordered before his crucifixion, as detailed in the Gospels.
Physical Impact: The use of the flagrum would have caused immense pain and significant blood loss. It was not uncommon for victims of such scourging to go into shock due to the intensity of the pain and the extent of the injuries.
Purpose: Beyond physical punishment, the flagellation served as a method of weakening a victim before the crucifixion and as a stark warning to others about the consequences of defying Roman authority. In the narrative of Jesus' crucifixion, the flagellation underscores the severity of his suffering before his death.

The flagellation of Jesus using a Roman flagrum, as described in the Christian tradition, stands as one of the most vivid and painful episodes in the Passion narrative, illustrating the extreme nature of Roman punitive practices and the extent of Jesus' suffering in the hours leading up to his crucifixion.

The Virgae





The Roman virgae were a type of rod or whip used for corporal punishment and torture in ancient Rome. While the more commonly known flagrum (or flagellum) was a whip with multiple leather thongs, often embedded with metal balls or bone pieces, the virgae were somewhat different in their construction and use.

Material and Construction: The virgae were typically made from branches of trees, often those that were flexible yet strong. They were essentially slender, straight rods or sticks.

Purpose and Usage: Unlike the flagrum, which was designed to inflict deep, lacerating wounds, the virgae were used more for beating and causing pain through blunt force. The rods would cause bruising and surface-level trauma, which, while extremely painful, generally did not lead to the same level of physical damage as the flagrum.

Use in the Context of Jesus' Torture

Historical Accounts: While the Gospels primarily mention scourging, which typically refers to the use of the flagrum, it is plausible that the virgae were also used. The Roman practice of scourging often involved a variety of instruments to inflict pain and weaken a prisoner.
Severity of Punishment: The use of both the flagrum and virgae would suggest a particularly severe form of punishment. The flagrum would cause deep tissue damage, while the virgae would add to the physical suffering through intense beating.
Symbolic and Practical Implications: The Romans used such methods of torture not only to punish but also to instill fear and assert authority. In the case of Jesus, the use of these instruments would have been both a form of physical punishment and a means to make an example of him to the populace.

While the flagrum was known for its brutal efficiency in causing deep, lacerating wounds, the virgae were more associated with causing pain through blunt force. Their potential combined use in the torture of Jesus would signify a particularly severe and agonizing ordeal, reflective of the harsh methods of punishment employed in Roman times.



Exterior of the Franciscan Monastery of the Flagellation. This site, which marks the beginning of the modern Stations of the Cross in Jerusalem, is where Christians in the Middle Ages believed that the flagellation (scourging) took place. At that time, it was thought that Pilate would have judged and scourged Jesus at the Fortress of Antonia. That has now been demonstrated to be false.

The Praetorium, as detailed in the Gospels (Matthew 27:27, Mark 15:16, John 19:9), was the central setting for the trial and scourging of Jesus. This significant location comes into focus particularly on Good Friday morning, as described in John 18:28, when Jewish leaders presented Jesus to Pontius Pilate. Lacking the authority to impose capital punishment, they altered their accusation from blasphemy (Matthew 26:65) to sedition, framing Jesus as a challenger to Roman rule by claiming he was the King of the Jews (Luke 23:2–3). Historically, the term "praetorium" had dual meanings: it referred to a Roman general's tent within a military camp and also denoted the official residence of a Roman governor. This latter definition often implied a residence of considerable grandeur, such as a country estate or palatial home. The Christian tradition, particularly since the sixteenth century, has commemorated the Way of the Cross starting at the Franciscan Monastery of the Flagellation in Jerusalem. This site, believed to be where the Fortress of Antonia once stood, is connected to the Temple and served as a strategic location for Roman soldiers to monitor the influx of pilgrims during major Jewish festivals like Passover. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon provides further insights, describing the praetorium in Jerusalem as a magnificent palace constructed by Herod the Great. This palace was reportedly used by Roman procurators, including Pilate, as their official residence during visits from Caesarea for public duties. Archaeological and historical evidence suggests that this palace, rather than the traditional site near the Fortress of Antonia, was the actual location of Jesus' trial and scourging. By the nineteenth century, scholars began to recognize that the traditional site of Pilate’s trial and Jesus’ scourging did not align with historical and archaeological findings, pointing instead to Herod’s grand palace as the more likely setting for these pivotal events.



The practice of scourging before crucifixion, as described in historical texts, is a well-documented aspect of Roman execution procedures. In their 1986 article, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ," William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer offer a detailed account of this practice: “Flogging was a legal preliminary to every Roman execution, exempting only women, Roman senators, or soldiers (except in cases of desertion). The typical instrument for this was a short whip (flagellum) with various lengths of single or braided leather thongs. These thongs were embedded with small iron balls or sharp sheep bone fragments at intervals.”

This passage, frequently cited in scholarly discussions, draws from two key sources: Dr. Pierre Barbet’s “A Doctor at Calvary” and Martin Hengel’s 1977 work “Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross.” 

Edwards and his colleagues use the term “flogging” to describe this brutal act. It's crucial to note that flogging was a common form of punishment in both Roman and Jewish contexts during ancient times. The Gospels provide limited details about Jesus’ scourging, likely because the readers at the time were presumably familiar with such punishments. In the Gospels, Mark (15:15) and Matthew (27:26) use the term phragellosas, translating to “scourged.” John (19:1) employs emastigosen, which also means “scourged,” “whipped,” or “chastised.” Luke’s account (23:16, 22) is slightly different, merely stating that Pilate intended to have Jesus “chastised” (paideuo) as a means of reprimand rather than a death sentence. It is from Luke, often noted for his meticulous approach as a physician, that we understand Pilate’s intention for the scourging to serve as the entire punishment for Jesus: “A third time he said to them, ‘Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him’” (Luke 23:22).

The Shroud of Turin shows fascinating details, especially when examined as a photographic negative. On the Shroud's dorsal side, from the shoulders down to the legs, including the exposed buttocks, round, dumbbell-shaped marks are observed. These marks are similarly present on the frontal image, covering the chest, abdomen, thighs, and legs, while sparing the head, neck, and groin. The arms, from shoulder to elbow, are obscured due to patches sewn onto the Shroud, though the forearms are visible on the front side. The nature of these marks has been debated: while some interpret them as evidence of scourging wounds, others, following a high-resolution examination, argue that they differ in appearance and origin from the dumbbell-shaped marks on other parts of the body.

The Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 made several key observations about these marks. Under UV fluorescence, these dumbbell-shaped "scourge" marks appear darker and more sharply defined than in visible light, consistent with the spectral characteristics of iron porphyrin compounds. The geometric similarity of these marks is also notable, with fine "scratches" emanating from their distal ends in UV-stimulated fluorescence photographs. Visually, these marks have a reddish, diffuse look with darker spots within, but under ultraviolet light, they absorb heavily and resolve into parallel scratch-like lines in groups of three or four. According to researchers Miller and Pellicori, the areas surrounding these marks fluoresce, indicative of serum separating from blood. The fine scratch marks might result from surface irregularities on the lead pieces used in scourging. Analysis of sticky-tape samples from these reddish-brown marks, including the dumbbell-shaped areas, reveals not only heme derivatives (indicating hemoglobin from red blood cells) but also bile pigments and albumin, key proteins in serum. This supports Dr. Pierre Barbet’s hypothesis and the findings of Miller and Pellicori that the blood images on the Shroud represent clotted blood with surrounding “haloes” of separated serum. Italian researchers Barbara Faccini and Giulio Fanti suggest that the Shroud’s marks correspond to different types of torture instruments, possibly a flagrum or virgae. They have identified over 150 marks on the frontal image and more than 200 on the dorsal side, which they attribute to scourging. Their analysis includes a photograph of a proposed flagrum with two lead balls on each of three leather strips. Some images on the Shroud imply two or three lead balls per strip, and the scratch-like images, most evident under UV imaging, could result from the leather impacting the skin or from irregularities on the lead pieces.

The Shroud displays distinct marks that many attribute to scourging. Among these, the most conspicuous are the dumbbell-shaped marks, believed to have been caused by small, ball-shaped, hard (likely metal) objects striking the skin. These marks are approximately a third of an inch in diameter, slightly larger than the thickness of a standard pencil eraser. When these dumbbell-shaped blood marks on the Shroud are compared to scourging instruments discovered in the Roman catacombs, there appears to be a correlation, suggesting the existence of a tool in ancient Rome that could have produced these specific marks on the figure depicted on the Shroud.

Other marks on the Shroud seem consistent with wounds inflicted by virgae, a different type of scourging tool. These marks are overlaid by the dumbbell-shaped ones, indicating they were made earlier. This sequencing raises the question of whether these initial wounds could have been inflicted by Jewish guards in the dungeon beneath the house of Caiaphas on the night before, aligning with Luke’s account (22:63) of Jesus’ beating, described as derontes in Greek. However, the exact nature and sequence of these events remain uncertain, largely because virgae, typically made from perishable materials, have not survived as archaeological evidence. Regarding the reconstruction of Jesus' scourging, Italian researcher Flavia Manservigi has emphasized the limitations in determining the exact methods or tools used. In a 2015 email, she noted that while her research confirmed the existence of scourging practices during the Roman era that could produce marks similar to those on the Shroud, it is not definitively possible to ascertain the exact method or implement used in Jesus’ case. The varying terms used in historical texts suggest different scourging tools, and while a flagrum (a whip with heavy objects at the ends) aligns with the Shroud's marks, this remains a hypothesis rather than a certainty. Manservigi’s research thus underscores the complexity and uncertainty in fully understanding the specifics of the scourging as depicted on the Shroud of Turin.

The Pillar of the Scourging

Throughout history, two specific pillars have been venerated as the sites of Christ's scourging. One is believed to have been in the Sacred Pit, while the other is associated with the scourging that was ordered by Pontius Pilate. German historian Michael Hesemann posits that fourth-century pilgrims in Jerusalem revered the pillar from the house of Caiaphas, which is now the location of Saint Peter in Gallicantu, as the pillar of scourging. This particular pillar was relocated to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the year 614, following the destruction of the original Basilica of Saint Peter by the Persians. The dimensions of this pillar are notable; it stands approximately 25 inches tall, though it is visibly broken at the top, suggesting it may have once been much taller. The possibility that Jesus was bound to this pillar in the dungeon beneath Caiaphas’s house and beaten with rods, such as virgae, remains a plausible scenario within the context of these historical and religious traditions. This pillar, with its broken top and storied history, continues to be an object of reverence and a symbol of the events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In the late fourth century, another significant pillar emerged from the shadows of history. This pillar, initially concealed on Mount Zion, was hidden away following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. By the year 383, it was presented publicly, marking a new chapter in its veneration. 






Flagellatio secundum Sindonem

The pillar's journey continued in 1009 when it was moved to Constantinople. Remarkably, it survived the destruction ordered by Caliph Al-Hakim, who commanded the demolition of the church where it was housed. In a further twist of fate, the pillar found a new home in 1223 when it was transported to Rome. Today, it resides in the Church of Santa Prassede. Crafted from Egyptian marble—a material famously used by Herod the Great in his construction projects, including the Temple—this pillar has dimensions that speak to its historic significance. It stands 25 inches (63 centimeters) high and has a base diameter of 16 inches (40 centimeters), tapering to a narrower 5 inches (13 centimeters) at the top. Notably, the pillar features a spot at the top where a thick, metal ring was once attached, presumably used to bind prisoners. This pillar, with its rich history and travels across the Mediterranean, remains an enduring symbol of the events that led to Jesus Christ's crucifixion, capturing the imagination and reverence of generations.

Marinelli (1996): The nuns of Chambéry, in their meticulous restoration work after the fire of 1532, had the opportunity to observe the Shroud at length; the lacerations and bruises inflicted on the flagellated man are not so frequent on the back, where you can find a place of prominence, but are instead spread over the entire surface of the body. They are in clusters and at a density that suggests a severe beating, extending from the shoulders down to the calf muscles. The lashes intertwine with each other, ending in dumbbell-shaped weights that have torn the flesh. The entire body is lacerated with ferocious wounds produced by a Roman flagrum. Research conducted by the dedicated monsignor Giulio Ricci, a studious man who has dedicated much of his life to the Shroud, has highlighted particularly interesting aspects.

The victim was not a Roman citizen, otherwise, he could not have been sentenced to such a cruel punishment. The signs above are numerically superior to those expected for a standard execution; they had to endure successive tortures. These lashes are indeed counted as part of the punishment; the flagellation was infinite like a sentence to death; this action underlines the direction of the lashes, which we rarely find in any documented zone, a testimony of particular fierceness and a cold determination of some parts of the body. The instruments used had to be corrected with pieces of bone or metal.

The Man of the Shroud was flagellated naked, because the lesions of the flagrum are clearly visible, as the lesions on the back; they are there, where a curved iron bar, probably tied to a low column base, stood. The flagellation preceded the sentence to the capital punishment of the patibulum, because the lacerations on the shoulders are added to the whip wounds.

Biblical testimonies related to the passion of Jesus: Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged (John 19:1). 
The soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They began to call out to him, 'Hail, king of the Jews!' Again and again, they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him (Mark 15:16-20).  Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the inscription was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek (John 19:20). Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews (John 19:19)." 1

Experts maintain that if the Shroud had remained wrapped around the body for more than those hours, the time which is necessary for the dissolution of the blood (fibrinolysis) there would have been an excessive softening of the fibrin and the consequent diffusion of the blood fluid, the beginning of the decomposition of the corpse. The aforementioned hours correspond to the three days in which Jesus' body was in the tomb. -They took the body of Jesus and bound it (wrapped it) with linen bandages with spices (Jn.19,40)

Degrees of Roman Corporal Punishment: From Fustigatio to Verberatio

Fustigatio (beating) - This was a less severe form of punishment involving hitting the person. It was often used for minor offenses and was intended as a disciplinary measure rather than a sentence for a crime.

Flagellatio (flogging) - A more intense form of corporal punishment, flogging involved whipping the individual's back with various instruments like rods or whips. This was often used for more serious offenses and could lead to significant physical harm.

Verberatio (severe flogging, scourging) - The most severe form of the listed punishments, verberatio was a brutal form of flogging that could result in deep tissue damage and was sometimes fatal. The whips used in verberatio were often tipped with metal or bone to inflict maximum damage.

Jesus, according to Christian doctrine and historical records, was subjected to the punishment of scourging or severe flogging (verberatio) before his crucifixion. This was part of the Roman judicial penalty and was intended to weaken a condemned person before execution. In the accounts of Jesus's Passion, it is described that he was scourged by Roman soldiers, which would have been an extremely painful and damaging ordeal. This act is a central element of Christian narrative, reflecting the suffering that Jesus underwent before his death.








Giulio Ricci's study of the Shroud of Turin includes a detailed examination of the flagellation marks, leading to significant insights. According to Ricci's analysis, the patterns of the wounds suggest that the "Man" of the Shroud was flogged by two professionals who knew precisely where and how to strike. The distribution of the marks indicates that the entire body was systematically targeted, consistent with Roman-style flagellation. Ricci's research identified approximately 120 lash marks, a number significantly higher than the maximum of 39 lashes typically administered under Hebrew law, and with a different instrument. This disparity in the number and style of the wounds points to a Roman method of punishment rather than a Hebrew one. A particularly noteworthy aspect involves the use of ultraviolet light photography, which revealed trails of serum in the wounds on the back. These trails, invisible to the naked eye, suggest that the body was bent forward during the flogging. The presence of serum trails, along with the systematic pattern of the wounds, strongly indicates that these injuries were real and inflicted on a living person. Ricci's findings contribute to the understanding of the Shroud of Turin as more than just a medieval artifact. The detailed analysis of the flagellation marks supports the theory that the image on the Shroud is that of a person who endured a brutal and historically accurate form of Roman punishment, aligning with the biblical account of the crucifixion. This meticulous study of the wounds enhances the Shroud's significance in both historical and religious contexts.

The exact position Jesus was in during his scouring remains uncertain, as there is a lack of definitive evidence from the Roman Empire's artwork or ancient literature that specifically illustrates or describes how victims were secured to pillars for this punishment. While traditional depictions often show Jesus naked, facing a pillar with his hands tied above his head and feet barely touching the ground, other portrayals suggest a different scenario where he is shackled to a lower pillar, bent over it, with his forearms resting atop. A relevant reference to scourging can be found in the New Testament, specifically in Acts 22:24–25, which describes the preparation for Saint Paul’s scourging. In this passage, Paul is described as being “tied … up with the thongs,” using the Greek word proteinô. This term implies an action of extending or stretching out the body, suggesting a position that would increase the severity of the punishment, leading to more pronounced lacerations of the skin. From a dermatological perspective, this can be likened to the tension applied to the skin during surgery to allow for deeper and more precise incisions. The implication of proteinô could mean that the body was either stretched forward over a pillar or tied with hands raised high. This ambiguity in the historical and scriptural accounts leaves the exact position of Jesus during the scourging open to interpretation. The various portrayals reflect the different methods potentially used in Roman scourging practices, each with its specific implications for the severity and nature of the wounds inflicted.


The scourging as depicted on the Shroud reveals significant details about the nature of this brutal punishment. Notably, the scourge marks are absent on the upper extremities, suggesting that the individual(s) administering the scourging (verberatores) focused exclusively on other areas. The question arises: what would be the impact of being struck by virgae and a flagrum on the back of a naked individual, especially one already weakened by a prior beating in the dungeon beneath Caiaphas’s house? Roman scourging was not governed by a legal limit on the number of strokes, a stark contrast to Jewish law, which capped the number at thirty-nine to avoid counting errors. According to researchers Manservigi and Morini, the Roman executioners, if not delivering a death sentence, were tasked with avoiding the death of the victim. The lack of a predefined limit meant the consequences varied based on the tools used. Given that Pilate initially intended the scourging to be Jesus’ sole punishment (Luke 23:16, 22), it's likely he instructed the verberatores to avoid causing death. If Jesus had already endured a severe beating with rods in Caiaphas’s dungeon, the subsequent flagrum strikes would have quickly reopened any dried wounds, leading to profuse bleeding. The expected physical damage from such a scourging would include welts, large bruises, abrasions, lacerations, and bloody blisters covering the back, sides, buttocks, thighs, and legs.

Contrary to some beliefs, sheep bone fragments on the flagrum (used in non-Roman locations) likely did not penetrate through to the muscles of Jesus’ back. If the Shroud is indeed Christ's burial cloth, it shows no evidence of tearing wounds deep enough to expose muscles. However, severe beating with the metal balls could have caused extensive bleeding from contused muscles, either beneath the skin or breaking through to the surface in more intensely struck areas. The scourge marks on the Shroud present a fan pattern on the back, suggesting a specific angle of striking, possibly with Jesus upright or bent over a low pillar. The ferocity of the strikes is evident, with Jesus likely being turned or even thrown to the ground for further scourging on the front side. The ensuing pain would have been excruciating, potentially leading to loss of consciousness and significant blood loss. The visible wounds likely represent only a portion of the actual damage. As Dr. Barbet theorized, wounds consisting of deep contusions and bruising without external bleeding would not be visible on the Shroud, suggesting an underestimation of the true extent of the injuries sustained.

Physiological impact of scourging

Types of Injuries

The man depicted in the Shroud of Turin appears to have sustained over 130 distinct injuries, which can be categorized into five primary types: scourge marks, wounds on the side, head wounds, wounds on the feet, and wounds on the wrists. These injuries seem to have been inflicted sequentially, starting with the scourging, followed by the head wounds, then the crucifixion nail wounds in the wrists and feet, and finally, the postmortem side wounds. The pattern and direction of the blood flows, particularly from the side wound, appear to have been altered postmortem, especially when the body was carried horizontally, feet first. Given that crucifixion typically lasted several hours, medical experts estimate that bleeding from the various wounds could have continued for a period ranging from four to twelve hours. This suggests that the blood on the Shroud varied in age, from relatively fresh to coagulated blood that was up to twelve hours old. Remarkably, all these coagulations transferred to the cloth in a manner that is unprecedented in recorded history. The representation of these wounds on the Shroud aligns closely with natural physiological reactions to bleeding and changes in position. This ranges from the large side wound to the tiny scourge marks, all of which are anatomically accurate on the Shroud. Dr. Pierre Barbet, a battlefield surgeon, was one of the first to note the unique nature of the bloodstains on the cloth. He observed that the bloodstains on the Shroud did not mirror the kind of smearing or diffusion typically seen on bandages removed from wounds of various ages, from fresh to several days old. This led him to comment on the unusual correspondence between the bloodstains on the Shroud and the wounds. Paul Vignon and Pierre Barbet, in their attempts to replicate these kinds of blood marks on linen, found it impossible to achieve the same level of precision as seen on the Shroud. They noted that if the blood was too wet when it came into contact with the cloth, it would spread or run, while drier blood would only leave a smudge. The bordered, picture-like clots on the Shroud seemed to defy reproduction by simple staining methods. The unique characteristics of these bloodstains suggest that they could not have been created simply through direct contact between a bloody body and the surrounding linen cloth. This observation, while initially seeming to challenge the notion of the Shroud as an actual burial cloth, might instead point to something more extraordinary and possibly miraculous.

The Scourging and Mocking of Jesus:

Matthew 27:26-30: Jesus is flogged, and soldiers place a crown of thorns on his head, mock him as the "King of the Jews," spit on him, and strike him.
Mark 15:15-19: Similar to Matthew, Mark describes Jesus being scourged, mocked with a purple robe and a crown of thorns, and beaten on the head.
Luke 22:63-65; 23:11: Luke mentions Jesus being mocked and beaten by Herod's soldiers, though the scourging is not explicitly described.
John 19:1-3: John details the scourging, the crown of thorns, and the purple robe, along with Jesus being struck and mocked by the soldiers.

The Shroud of Turin features over a hundred scourge marks on the man's front and back, from shoulders to lower legs. These marks, most noticeable on the back, are dumbbell-shaped and lie in parallel, diagonal groups of two or three across the body. The consistency in the size of these marks contrasts with their varying intensity, ranging from mild bruises to deep punctures, with many showing blood presence. The bifid nature of these wounds implies they were caused by a two-pronged instrument like the Roman flagrum, a whip typically having lead or bone pellets at the end of leather thongs. The distribution and shape of the scourge marks led medical examiners to infer that the man was whipped or scourged, likely from behind. The radiating pattern of blows, more pronounced on the right side, suggests the involvement of two individuals, with the one on the right being taller and focusing more on the lower body. The man's posture during this scourging, possibly with elevated arms or hands tied, is deduced from the marks' distribution. These numerous scourge marks are a dominant feature of the dorsal image on the Shroud.

The physiological impact of scourging, particularly in the context of severe cases such as that of Jesus Christ as described in Biblical accounts, involves a range of traumatic effects on the body due to repeated blunt force trauma. This type of punishment typically leads to extensive bruising, swelling, and the accumulation of tissue fluid. As the skin endures continuous strikes, it can become severely damaged, leading to the formation of shallow ulcers or open, bleeding wounds. These injuries can rupture repeatedly, causing both external and internal blood loss, and contributing to circulatory shock. Circulatory shock occurs when the blood volume is significantly reduced, impairing the circulation of blood and leading to insufficient oxygen supply to the body's tissues. This condition is exacerbated by severe pain, which heightens oxygen demand due to increased breathing rates and heart output. The pain also activates the sympathetic nervous system, triggering responses such as profuse sweating, which further depletes the body's fluids. In addition to these effects, blunt trauma to the chest can cause several complications. One such complication is pneumothorax, or a collapsed lung, which happens when air leaks into the space between the lungs and the chest wall due to tears in the lung tissue. This can lead to a reduction in lung capacity and, in severe cases, complete lung collapse.

Moreover, chest pain resulting from such trauma can cause the victim to take shallower breaths to minimize pain, a response known as "splinting." This reduced respiratory effort leads to less air intake and can exacerbate the pain during deep breathing. Another complication is pleural effusion, which can occur with or without blood presence. This condition arises when blunt trauma causes small blood vessels in the lungs to rupture, allowing blood to leak into the pleural cavity. This accumulation of fluid can be significant and is detectable in medical imaging like chest X-rays. For instance, a volume of about 500 milliliters of blood in the pleural cavity can rise to the level between the fourth and fifth ribs, which is an important consideration in understanding the impact of injuries such as those described in the Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion.

The symptoms and consequences of pleural effusion and hemothorax, as well as other complications resulting from severe scourging, present a complex and debilitating scenario. These conditions can manifest through various signs and symptoms, significantly impacting the body's function and overall state.

Cyanosis and Asymmetrical Chest Movement: Cyanosis, characterized by bluish discoloration of the skin, is a common symptom due to inadequate oxygenation of the blood. If the hemothorax is unilateral, it can lead to unequal chest expansion during breathing, further complicating respiratory efforts.

Cardiovascular Responses: The body's response to such trauma often includes a rapid heartbeat and low blood pressure. These are compensatory mechanisms trying to maintain adequate blood flow and oxygen delivery despite the loss of blood volume.

Skin Condition: The physical stress and blood loss can result in pale, cool, clammy skin, indicative of poor perfusion and the onset of shock.

Respiratory Efficiency Reduction: Fluid accumulation around the lungs reduces the lung tissue's ability to efficiently exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. This inefficiency necessitates an increased breathing rate to compensate for reduced oxygenation, causing further pain due to damaged chest muscles and ribs.

Flail Chest and Pulmonary Contusions: While flail chest, a condition where a segment of the chest wall moves independently due to multiple rib fractures, is unlikely in the absence of bone fractures, the chest trauma can still lead to pulmonary contusions. This results in blood and fluid accumulation in the lung tissue, hindering gas exchange and leading to symptoms like chest pain, breathlessness, and potentially coughing up blood.

Shock and Dehydration: The combination of blood and fluid loss can lead to shock, especially in an upright position where gravity further challenges blood circulation. Dehydration exacerbates this, causing symptoms like a dry mouth, severe headache, dizziness, palpitations, and muscle cramps.

Blunt Cardiac Trauma and Heart Damage: Chest trauma may also impact the heart, potentially causing damage to heart valves, coronary arteries, or the heart muscle. Such damage can be life-threatening, leading to cardiac arrest or heart rhythm disturbances.

Pericardial Injuries and Hyperkalemia: Injury to the pericardium (the sac surrounding the heart) can lead to pericardial effusion, where fluid accumulation impedes the heart's ability to pump effectively. Additionally, severe muscle damage from scourging can cause hyperkalemia, a dangerous increase in blood potassium levels, which can disrupt heart rhythms and lead to ventricular fibrillation.

Overall Physical Condition: The cumulative effect of these injuries would have left a person in a state of intense pain, significant blood loss, and potentially in a preshock or shock state. This condition would render the individual's vital signs unstable and their physical condition severely compromised.

The physiological toll of severe scourging, as described in historical accounts like that of Jesus Christ, involves a multitude of severe and life-threatening conditions affecting the respiratory, cardiovascular, and muscular systems, compounded by the critical impact of shock and dehydration.

Royal Treatment

On the morning of Good Friday, April 3, AD 33, a significant event took place at the praetorium, located within Herod's Palace near the Jaffa Gate on the western side of Old Jerusalem's walled city, now part of the Tower of David complex. This event, detailed in the Gospels, involved a mock coronation orchestrated by the Roman soldiers.

Narrative from the Gospels

Mock Coronation at the Praetorium: Jesus was brought inside Herod's Palace, known as the Praetorium. There, the Roman soldiers assembled an entire battalion for a cruel charade.

Crown of Thorns and Purple Cloak: In a twisted parody of royalty, they dressed Jesus in a purple cloak, a color traditionally associated with nobility and royalty. They then fashioned a crown out of thorns and forced it onto his head, causing physical pain and symbolizing mock royalty.

Mockery and Abuse: The soldiers taunted Jesus with false homage, saluting him as the "King of the Jews." They struck him on the head with a reed, spat upon him, and knelt in feigned reverence. This act of mockery was not only physically abusive but also deeply humiliating.

Public Presentation and Final Sentencing: After this episode of mockery, Jesus was presented to the crowd in his crown of thorns and purple robe. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, showed Jesus to the public, declaring, "Here is the man!" Despite Pilate's attempts to reason with the crowd, they vehemently demanded Jesus' crucifixion. Eventually, Pilate conceded and handed Jesus over to be crucified.

This account in the Gospels highlights the intense physical and emotional abuse Jesus endured. The mock coronation was not only a form of physical torture but also a way to publicly humiliate and degrade him. This event was a prelude to his final journey to Golgotha, where he would be crucified.

In the late morning of Good Friday, April 3, AD 33, a pivotal event occurred at Herod's Palace, located on the western side of Jerusalem's fortified city. Pontius Pilate, under immense pressure from the gathered crowd, made a consequential decision to free Barabbas, a convicted murderer, and instead condemn Jesus to death. This act of exchanging Barabbas ("son of the father") for Jesus Christ (the true Son of the Father) was a moment of profound irony and injustice.

Details of Jesus' Mockery and Suffering

Condemnation and Abuse: After Jesus was condemned, the Roman soldiers took him inside the palace. Freed from the constraints of public scrutiny, they indulged in cruel and degrading treatment of Jesus.

Mock Coronation: Playing on the accusation against Jesus of claiming to be a king, the soldiers derisively mocked him. They dressed him in a robe to mimic royal garb and fashioned a crown from thorny branches, likely from the Zizyphus spina Christi, a plant common in the region known for its long, sharp thorns.

Physical Torment: The soldiers placed this crown on Jesus' head and repeatedly struck him with a wooden staff, driving the thorns into his scalp. Given that scalp wounds bleed profusely, this would have resulted in significant blood loss. Additionally, when they removed the robe from Jesus, the action likely aggravated the wounds from his earlier scourging.

Symbolic Humiliation: The soldiers' actions were not only physically painful but also symbolically degrading. They spat on Jesus and forced him to hold a wooden staff as a mock scepter, completing their parody of a royal figure.

Royal Treatment" in the Gospels: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John detail this cruel mockery as part of Jesus' "royal treatment." This included the mock crown, robe, scepter, and forced homage from the soldiers, all intended to ridicule his claim of kingship.

Fulfillment of Prophecy: This episode of mockery was in line with Jesus' own predictions about his suffering in Jerusalem, where he foresaw being delivered to the Romans, mocked, scourged, and crucified before his resurrection on the third day.

In this episode, the soldiers' actions were not only a severe physical assault but also a profound mockery of Jesus' identity and mission. The juxtaposition of a mock king's regalia with the brutal reality of his impending crucifixion serves as a stark symbol of the suffering and humiliation Jesus endured in the hours leading up to his death.

The Royal Robe

As recounted by Matthew, before dressing Jesus in the royal robe, the guards removed his tunic. Given the severity of his scourging, the tunic would have adhered to the coagulated blood, torn skin, and muscle on his back and chest. Removing it would have reopened and aggravated these wounds, causing intense pain. The garment placed on Jesus is referred to as a 'chlamyda' in Matthew 27:28. This was a short cloak or cape, commonly worn by Roman military officers and soldiers. The cloak, likely dyed in shades of red or purple to symbolize royalty, was mockingly put on Jesus to parody his claim of kingship. As the new robe dried on Jesus' back, adhering to his open wounds, it would have further increased his suffering, especially as he was subjected to mockery and physical assault during this time.

The Romans called it the King's Game which was used in various ways to mock the victim. Here is another example.
………Arguably, though, the most striking example of this prisoner exploitation comes from the quill pen of Philo (20BC – AD50). Philo records how Roman soldiers treated a mentally disturbed man named Barabbas. The similarities between what they did to him and what was done to Jesus are incredible.
“He was driven as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, (they) flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem (crown), and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a scepter they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the wayside and gave to him; and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state. (From Flaccus, 36-39)

The Royal Staff - The "Reed" Scepter

The term 'reed' used in the Gospels, specifically 'kalamo', refers to a plant used for various purposes, including making wands or staffs. This is distinct from the 'gnome', a type of bulrush used for making papyrus. The plant that most probably provided the 'reed' or staff given to Jesus is Arundo donax, known as the giant reed or Cyprus cane. This plant is robust, resembling bamboo more than a flexible, wavy plant. It commonly grows in waterside areas and can reach heights over 30 feet under ideal conditions. Arundo donax was used for a variety of purposes, including crafting walking sticks, measuring rods, fishing rods, and musical instruments. Due to its thickness and weight, comparable to a modern pool cue, a staff made from this plant could inflict considerable harm. The actions of dressing Jesus in the royal robe and providing him with a 'reed' scepter were not only symbolic mockeries of his perceived claim to royalty but also contributed to his physical torment. The robe's attachment to his wounds and the potential use of the reed as a weapon would have added layers of pain and humiliation to his already grave suffering. After equipping Jesus with symbols of mock royalty - the crown, robe, and staff - the soldiers commenced a grim parody of homage. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark describe how the soldiers, having given Jesus a reed as a scepter, then used it against him, striking his head. This act was not just a physical assault but also a method to drive the thorns of the crown deeper into his scalp, thus avoiding injuring themselves in the process.

The Scalp's Susceptibility to Bleeding

The scalp is known for its high blood supply, making even small cuts bleed profusely. This is compounded by the scalp's tension, which causes wounds to gape wider than their initial size. The scalp's layered anatomy, comprising dense fibrous tissue, fatty compartments, and the galea, makes it challenging to stem bleeding. The fibrous septae, attaching to the scalp arteries, prevent these vessels from constricting when cut, leading to continuous bleeding. Due to the scalp's structure, compressing cut veins and arteries to stop bleeding is difficult. Many scalp veins lack valves, allowing for significant blood loss, potentially even from the brain, via emissary veins that pass through the skull. The substantial blood loss from the scalp wounds, especially given the continuous bleeding, would have contributed significantly to the overall physical trauma Jesus experienced, potentially influencing the rapidity of his death on the cross.

Further Mockery and Physical Abuse

According to the Gospel of John, soldiers also struck Jesus' face with their hands and spat on him. They knelt before him in mock homage, hailing him as the "King of the Jews," adding emotional humiliation to physical torture. After tiring of their mockery, the soldiers removed the robe from Jesus, reopening his scourged wounds that had clotted to the fabric. This action was followed by redressing him in his own outer garment, which would soon become an object of gambling among the soldiers. This was the second of three instances on that day when a garment, dried to Jesus’ bloodied back, was forcibly removed, each time reopening and aggravating his wounds. In this portrayal, the soldiers' actions not only inflicted severe physical pain but also were laden with symbolic mockery. The use of the crown, robe, and staff in a perverse imitation of royal homage served to deepen the humiliation and suffering of Jesus in the hours leading up to his crucifixion. In fact, in him, each man is our brother. Through this mysterious yet real presence of God in our neighbor, each of us can find his hand among all generations, with the index finger pointing in condemnation, for over centuries the water from Pilate's jug has become a river, added to by each one of us—a river of blood, of his blood. In the overwhelming mystery of men who condemn the Incarnate Son of God to death, there is also room for those who welcome his blood in blessing—those who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb through the "great tribulation" (Rev 7:14). It was of these that Jesus spoke when he called them "blessed." Blessed when, like himself, they are persecuted for love of justice, or condemned (on condition that, together with him, they offer up this humiliation to the Father). The hands of those who suffer, even if in the past they were used to condemn, are now used in the offering, held together by love to form an overflowing chalice, from which the blood of Christ flows down to redeem using the mystical stigmata of pain. This is the silent offering of the suffering and persecuted Church; it is the offering of those who make over to Christ their bodies and souls to complete what is still lacking in the Passion of Christ, the Head of the Church, for their sanctification and that of those sinful members for whom there is “still the hope of pardon” (St. Ignatius of Antioch). Unexpectedly, the Holy Shroud gives us evidence of the dreadful institute of the mock royal honors.



This depiction shows a chaotic, excessively large crown of thorns placed upon the head of Jesus. The crown symbolizes the harsh treatment and mockery he faced. It suggests that the soldiers, young and uneducated, acted with cruelty and disdain. This image captures the depth of suffering experienced by Jesus, highlighting the extent of human depravity and malice. It serves as a reminder of the profound sacrifice and the weight of the world's sins that he bore.

The whole this condemned'! 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 miter.

"They plaited a crown of thorns and 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!' and struck him with their hands..." And they spat upon him and took the reed and struck him on the head" (In 19:2-3; Mt 27:29-30; Mk 15:17-19). The blood must have streamed down all over his face!

The Holy Shroud shows us a surprising fact in the imprint of the face: there are only a few trickles of blood, and these flow only either straight down or towards the right, and never towards the left. These trickles followed while Jesus was on the cross, some from wounds still open from the crowning with thorns, others from the right side of the mouth. It is important to note that of the ten trickles of blood from the occiput, seven tend toward the left. (Those which flowed during the crowning with thorns can be seen transferred onto the linen cloth with which, according to an ancient tradition, a pious woman of Jerusalem wiped the face of Jesus before he was crucified.)

Theological meaning

These events hold profound theological significance. These moments are not just historical accounts of physical suffering and humiliation; they represent deep spiritual truths and reflections on the human condition, as well as the nature of Jesus' mission and sacrifice. The Roman soldiers' act of mockingly clothing Jesus in a royal robe and crown of thorns serves as a poignant symbol of human misunderstanding and sin. This act of mockery was directed at Jesus’ claim to spiritual and divine kingship, misunderstood by those who expected a political or earthly king. This scene powerfully illustrates the contrast between human expectations of power and glory, and God's way of humility and sacrificial love. The crown of thorns is a powerful symbol. Thorns often represent sin, suffering, and the fall of humanity in Christian theology. By wearing the crown of thorns, Jesus took upon himself the sins and sufferings of humanity, offering redemption through his pain and eventual death.  Jesus' experience of extreme physical and emotional suffering reflects a profound solidarity with the human condition. Jesus, being fully divine and fully human, experienced the depths of human pain and humiliation. This act of sharing in human suffering is a testament to God's love and empathy for humanity. The events leading to the crucifixion highlight the paradoxical nature of Jesus' kingship and mission. The cross, an instrument of torture and humiliation, becomes the symbol of triumph over sin and death. The mockery of Jesus as a king, with a crown of thorns and a purple robe, ironically underscores the truth of his kingship in a spiritual and eternal sense. The suffering of Jesus is not a defeat but a transformative act. Through his suffering and death, Jesus transformed the meaning of pain and loss, offering hope and redemption.  The treatment of Jesus serves as a stark reminder of the cost of discipleship. It reflects the call to take up one's cross, to follow Jesus not only in glory but also through the path of suffering and humility. These episodes in the Passion of Christ, while reflecting historical events of suffering and mockery, are deeply imbued with theological meaning. They speak to the core of our Christian belief about who Jesus is, what he accomplished, and what this means for humanity's relationship with God and with one another. It’s a reminder of the profound mystery of God’s love manifested in what seems to be the darkest moment of human history.

Ecce Homo

When Pontius Pilate presented Jesus to the crowd with the words "Ecce homo" ("Here is the man," as stated in John 19:5), Jesus stood before them clad in a purple robe, his head bleeding under the crown of thorns, and his body marked by bruises. This scene was a stark fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah about the Suffering Servant: "His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness" (Isaiah 52:14). Isaiah further described the Servant as having "no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem" (Isaiah 53:2-3). In such a state, Jesus' appearance would have evoked revulsion and rejection, aligning with Isaiah's depiction of a figure marked by sorrow and suffering, devoid of any conventional attractiveness.

This gruesome spectacle not only fulfilled prophecy but also highlighted the paradox of Jesus' mission and suffering. Despite his innocence, he endured mockery, torture, and eventual crucifixion. His experience resonates with humanity's aversion to suffering and ugliness, yet it also offers a profound lesson in endurance and the deeper meaning of suffering. Jesus' voluntary acceptance of suffering was not merely an act of endurance but a profound expression of love and purpose. Christ's suffering, particularly in the face of injustice and cruelty, was interwoven with his teachings, offering an answer to the profound question of the meaning of suffering. In his agony, Jesus exemplified the redemptive power of suffering borne out of love and purpose. The Song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah poignantly captures how the Messiah's suffering, though unjust and painful, brings healing and redemption. This message is echoed in the Gospel, reminding believers that suffering for Christ's sake, while challenging, aligns them with his mission and promises ultimate redemption. In this context, mockery and suffering for being Christ-like are reframed not as defeats but as spiritual victories, a concept Paul echoes in Romans 8:31: "If God is for us, who can be against us?" The believer is called to embrace suffering for the sake of Christ, transforming it into an offering for the conversion and salvation of others, much like Christ himself did.

Thus, the image of Jesus, bloodied and mocked, challenges believers to find strength in their own trials, remembering that Christ has already borne the greatest suffering. It serves as a powerful reminder that in Christ, even the most profound suffering can be transformed into a source of strength, hope, and salvation.

Toward the Place of Execution

On that fateful Good Friday morning, April 3, AD 33, a momentous event unfolded as Jesus, having endured mockery and physical abuse, commenced his solemn journey from Herod’s Palace to the site of his crucifixion at Golgotha.

Journey to Calvary - The Via Dolorosa

The Gospel of Matthew recounts how, after the soldiers finished mocking Jesus, they removed the purple robe and redressed him in his own garments, preparing him for the journey to the place of crucifixion. John’s Gospel vividly describes Jesus setting out, bearing the cross on his own, towards Golgotha - the place named for its resemblance to a skull. This journey symbolized the weight of suffering and sin he was carrying for humanity. As narrated in Mark, Simon of Cyrene, a bystander, was compelled by the Roman soldiers to carry the cross for Jesus. Simon’s involvement illustrates how the burden of the cross extends beyond Jesus to touch the lives of others. Luke captures a poignant moment where Jesus, amidst his suffering, addresses the women of Jerusalem who mourned for him. His words were both a prophecy and a reflection of the gravity of the events unfolding. In Mark’s account, Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh, a gesture of slight mercy to dull the pain, but he refuses it. This act signifies his choice to fully embrace the suffering ahead. The journey and the physical cross Jesus carried represent more than just physical objects and actions. They symbolize the immense spiritual burden of sin and redemption. Jesus’ acceptance of the cross aligns with his prayer in Gethsemane: “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42), embodying the ultimate act of submission to the divine will. The tradition of the Stations of the Cross, especially observed during Lent, reflects on various aspects of this journey. While not all stations are explicitly found in Scripture, they have become a significant part of Christian devotional practice, offering deep reflections on Jesus’ suffering and sacrifice. The cross Jesus bore can be viewed both literally and metaphorically. It represents not only the physical weight of the wooden cross but also the spiritual weight of human sin and the redemptive suffering of Christ. This journey to Calvary, laden with symbolism and deep spiritual significance, represents a pivotal moment in Christian theology. It underscores the themes of sacrifice, redemption, and the transformative power of embracing one’s cross, be it literal or metaphorical, in the path of faith and devotion. The term "stauros" (or "stauron" in its male accusative singular form) as mentioned in the Gospels and ancient Greek writings, refers to the cross that Jesus, and later Simon of Cyrene, carried to Calvary. The nature and composition of this "stauros" have been subjects of historical and theological inquiry. Was it a single piece of wood, or two pieces attached together? And how heavy was it, truly?

Understanding 'Stauros' in Ancient Greek Context

Ancient Greek literature provides insights into the use of the 'stauros' in the context of punishment and execution. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing about the fifth century BC, mentions the use of a long piece of wood (xulo prosdesantes) in torture. This beam was used to stretch the arms of a slave being whipped. Chariton, a Greek novelist from the first century, describes a group of men being sent to execution, each carrying a 'stauron' (pole). In his narrative, the 'stauron' seems to refer to a singular piece of wood. He also describes a scene where a man is crucified, indicating that 'stauron' could also refer to the traditional cross used in crucifixions. Plutarch, a Greek historian from the first century AD, mentions that it was customary for criminals sentenced to execution to carry their 'stauros' to the site of their execution.

Implications for Jesus' Journey to Calvary

The historical context suggests that the 'stauros' could have been either a single large beam or a more traditional two-piece cross. The exact nature of the cross that Jesus carried is not explicitly detailed in the Gospels. Regardless of its specific form, carrying the 'stauros' was undoubtedly a significant physical burden, especially considering Jesus' weakened state following his scourging and torture. Beyond its physical weight, the 'stauros' carried by Jesus symbolizes the burden of sin and the impending sacrifice for redemption. This adds a profound spiritual dimension to the physical act of carrying the cross. The 'stauros' that Jesus carried to Calvary was a significant instrument of his Passion, both physically and symbolically. While the precise physical form of this 'stauros' remains a topic of historical debate, its role in the narrative of Jesus' crucifixion is undeniably central, representing the weight of suffering and the path to redemption. Plautus, an ancient Roman playwright from 255 to 185 BC, provides critical insights into Roman practices and terminology related to crucifixion. His works, particularly comedies, offer glimpses into the lives of slaves and the societal norms of his time, including the execution methods.

Understanding the Patibulum in Roman Context

In his plays, Plautus mentions the 'crucem' (cross) and describes a situation where a character, posed as if carrying a 'patibulum', is mocked for resembling someone on their way to crucifixion. Plautus’ work clarifies that the 'crux' (cross) and the 'patibulum' are distinct, with the latter referring specifically to the horizontal beam to which a victim’s arms were fastened. An ancient Roman law, the Lex Puteolana, detailed the procedure for executing slaves, explicitly mentioning the 'patibulum' being carried to the 'crux'. This text outlines the logistical aspects of crucifixion, including the provision of materials and payment for those involved in the execution.

Implications for Jesus' Crucifixion

The Gospel of John’s reference to Jesus carrying his 'stauros' to Golgotha aligns with Roman practices where the condemned carried the 'patibulum' to the site of crucifixion. This supports the interpretation that Jesus carried the horizontal beam of the cross. Scholar John Granger Cook suggests reading Greek accounts of Roman executions (including the Gospels) with an understanding of Latin terminology. In this light, the Greek 'stauros' in the context of Roman crucifixion likely refers to a 'patibulum'. The probable scenario, based on historical texts, is that the 'patibulum', or horizontal beam, was carried by the condemned to the site where the 'crux', or vertical post, was already erected. The victim, once nailed to the 'patibulum', was then hoisted and attached to the 'crux'. This interpretation is consistent with the writings of Firmicus Maternus, an early fourth-century Christian apologist, who describes the victim being fastened to the 'patibulum' and then raised onto the 'crux'.

The historical and literary evidence from the Roman era, including Plautus’ plays and legal texts like the Lex Puteolana, provides a clear picture of crucifixion practices. These sources suggest that the 'patibulum' was the horizontal beam carried by the condemned, including Jesus, to the site where it was then affixed to the upright 'crux', forming the traditional T-shaped cross. Stauros and patibulum, though often used interchangeably, have distinct meanings historically. In the context of ancient Roman crucifixion, these terms are related but refer to different parts of the crucifixion apparatus. The term "stauros" in Greek and "crux" in Latin originally could mean a pole or a cross. This usage is an example of synecdoche, a figure of speech where a part of something represents the whole or vice versa. For example, "stauros" could refer to the entire cross or just a part of it. "Patibulum," on the other hand, specifically refers to the crossbeam of the crucifixion cross. In Latin, the upright post of the cross is sometimes called a "stipes." The term "stipes" was also used for a sharp pole used for a different form of execution, which was not employed by the Romans but by the ancient Persians. The use of synecdoche in ancient texts can lead to some confusion. For instance, it's said that Jesus carried a cross (stauros) to his crucifixion. In this context, "stauros" could mean the entire two-piece cross or just the crossbeam (patibulum). The interchangeability of these terms was clarified in the early 5th century by the Roman writer Macrobius, who indicated that "patibulum" (Latin) and "stauron" (Greek) were used synonymously. This was significant in the translation of Latin terms into Greek in the original Gospels. The term "patibulum" is derived from a Latin word meaning “to stretch out” and refers to a wooden beam or length of wood used to stretch out or extend something, particularly in the context of punishment. In common usage, it specifically refers to the horizontal beam of a crucifixion cross. Historical references, such as those from Seneca the Younger, further illustrate the use of these terms. Seneca mentioned an individual nailed to a cross spitting on spectators from his patibulum, indicating that the patibulum was part of the crucifixion apparatus.  While "stauros" and "patibulum" have been used interchangeably in some historical contexts, they generally refer to different components of the crucifixion apparatus, with "stauros" potentially referring to the entire cross or its parts, and "patibulum" specifically denoting the crossbeam.


What Size Was the Stauros Jesus Carried?

The exact size of the crossbeam, or patibulum, that Jesus is believed to have carried is not definitively known, but various authors have made educated guesses based on historical and physiological considerations. Dr. William Edwards and colleagues suggest that the crossbar might have weighed between 75 and 125 pounds. This estimate considers references to Dr. Barbet and information from the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia published in 1975. However, it's important to note that Dr. Barbet's reference to the weight of the cross in his book was in response to a claim about the cross's height, not its weight. He mentioned that if the cross were 9 feet tall, it would weigh approximately 275 pounds, a figure he seemed to regard as excessively high. These estimates involve several assumptions and are based on limited historical data. The actual weight of the crossbeam would have depended on various factors, including the type of wood used and the specific dimensions of the beam. However, the suggested range of 75 to 125 pounds gives a general idea of the physical burden that carrying such a beam could have entailed.






The Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem in Rome houses what is claimed to be a relic of the cross (stauros) of the Good Thief, traditionally known as Dismas. While complete measurements of this relic are not available, analysis of a photograph showing a segment of this length of wood alongside a portion of what is purported to be Christ's titulus (or a medieval replica based on radiocarbon dating) allows for some estimations. The width of the titulus is reported to be about 25 centimeters (nearly 10 inches). Using this as a reference and analyzing the ratios in the photograph, the length of the stauros fragment is estimated to be between 174 and 180 centimeters (about 6 feet), depending on how much of the titulus is obscured by its frame. Additionally, the thickness and width of the wood are roughly estimated to be about 6 centimeters (less than 2.5 inches) and 13 centimeters (5 inches) respectively. Given these dimensions, the volume of the stauros fragment is estimated to be around 0.014 cubic meters (about half a cubic foot). Relics of the True Cross are believed to be made of European black pine (Pinus nigra), which has a dry weight of around 475 kilograms per cubic meter. Based on this, the mass of the Good Thief’s stauros would be approximately 6.7 kilograms, or about 15 pounds. This estimation, it should be noted, is speculative and should be taken as an educated guess. To provide a comparison, a 6-foot-long 2 by 6 board of Douglas fir, which weighs around 2.5 pounds per foot, would have a similar weight. If the cross section of the stauros was initially almost square, measuring slightly larger than 5 by 5 inches, its weight could have been around 30 pounds. These figures offer a perspective on the possible physical characteristics of the stauros in question, though they are based on assumptions and limited data.

The belief that Jesus carried only the horizontal part of his cross, known as the patibulum, aligns with the narrative in the Gospels. Although there are various speculations about the size and weight of the crossbeam Jesus bore, the exact dimensions remain unknown. What is certain is that carrying the cross was an immense burden for him, especially considering his physical state at the time. Jesus, having endured extreme physical and mental stress, was in a state of near shock. He had been deprived of food, water, and sleep, and had suffered significant pain and blood loss. This would have left him extremely weak and disoriented, with symptoms like rapid breathing, cool and clammy skin, nausea, and possibly vomiting. His pulse would have been weak, and his eyes may have appeared lackluster and staring. Furthermore, the lack of sleep, with Jesus having been awake for over thirty hours by the time of his crucifixion, would have amplified his experience of pain. It's unclear whether the crossbeam was tied to Jesus’ wrists or arms, but it's a plausible scenario. Tying his hands to the crossbeam would have prevented him from using his hands to cushion his falls, exacerbating his suffering. Each fall could have driven the crown of thorns deeper into his scalp. The constant movement would have aggravated the pain from the previous beatings, scourging, and mocking he endured, and his dehydration would have made his condition even more torturous. Despite these challenges, Jesus, embodying both divine and human natures, exerted every ounce of his strength and willpower. He carried a piece of wood sturdy enough to support his weight at Calvary, drawing on the very limits of his physical and mental endurance, exemplifying a literal and profound commitment to his purpose.

In his book "A Doctor at Calvary," Dr. Barbet examines the Shroud. Analysis of the Shroud reveals details that align with the biblical account of Jesus' journey to Golgotha, known as the Way of the Cross. By combining insights from the Gospels, Church Tradition, and the geography of Jerusalem with observations from the Shroud, a more detailed picture of Jesus' experience emerges.

According to the Gospels and historical geography, Jesus' journey involved:

- A walk from Pilate's praetorium (located in Herod's Palace) to Golgotha, a distance of about 400 meters or a quarter of a mile.
- Initially carrying the crossbeam himself before requiring assistance.
- Simon of Cyrene being enlisted to help carry the crossbeam for part of the journey.

Church Tradition suggests that Jesus fell three times while carrying the crossbeam. This is plausible given his severely weakened state and the challenging conditions of the route, which included a rough terrain with loose stones.

The Shroud of Turin provides physical evidence that supports this narrative. Notable findings include:

- Marks on the knees, particularly more pronounced and jagged on the right knee, suggesting injuries from falls.
- A notable difference in the appearance of the knees, with more significant markings and apparent swelling on the right knee.
- An excoriation on the back, measuring about 10 by 9 centimeters, located slightly higher than a larger mark over the left shoulder blade. This could indicate where the crossbeam rested.
- Evidence suggesting the right shoulder may have been dislocated, as indicated by the alignment of marks and the overall image on the Shroud. This could explain the necessity of Simon's assistance, as carrying the crossbeam with a dislocated shoulder would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible.

These observations from the Shroud, when considered alongside the biblical and historical context, offer a compelling, albeit speculative, account of Jesus' physical state and the challenges he faced on the Way of the Cross. The Shroud of Turin, believed by some to bear the image of Jesus, shows distinctive marks that align with events described in the biblical narrative of his crucifixion. One of these is the noticeable swelling on the right cheekbone, which could be attributed to various incidents during his ordeal, such as the beating at Caiaphas's house, the mocking and striking by Roman soldiers, or a fall on the way to Golgotha. Given the severe physical strain Jesus was under, including significant blood loss and pain, falls during his journey would not be unexpected. The Shroud seems to corroborate this, displaying abrasions on both knees, with more severe and numerous abrasions on the right knee. This suggests a fall or multiple falls on his right side, likely with the crossbeam on his shoulders. In such a scenario, Jesus might have instinctively turned his head to the left, causing his right temple, cheekbone, and the area around his right eye to bear the brunt of the impact against the crossbeam. This is supported by the Shroud’s indications of more pronounced swelling around the right eye and cheek, a deep abrasion on the right cheek, and even injury to the right upper eyelid. An interesting parallel can be drawn from Saint Padre Pio, a well-known stigmatist. He confided to Karol Wojtyla (later Pope John Paul II) that his most painful wound was on his right shoulder. After Padre Pio's death, a bloodstained undershirt with a large stain on the right shoulder was found, which, if Padre Pio bore the wounds of Christ, might mirror what Jesus experienced. The rough crossbeam could have aggravated Jesus' scourging wounds, chafing against his shoulders and upper back as he carried it. Combining the insights from the Shroud and the account of Padre Pio’s stigmata provides a vivid picture of Jesus during his journey to Golgotha. It suggests a visage marked by focused determination, a swollen face, and a body bearing the visible effects of his ordeal — halting steps, bloodstained knees and shoulders, and a possibly weakened right arm. This portrayal helps to deepen the understanding of the physical and emotional toll of his journey to the place known as Calvary or the Place of a Skull.

The condemned was then dressed and led to the gallows. The titulus, hung around the neck or carried by a herald, announced to the passersby the cause of the condemnation, the name of the condemned, and his crime. Those responsible for the execution carried out a patibulum. If they were slaves or people of low status, they were led with a rope tied around their neck, at the feet or at one end of the patibulum.

Throughout the journey, they were pulled and dragged, beaten and wounded, to arrive exhausted and weak at the place of execution. A compassionate passerby might offer them a bitter drink, a wine mixed with myrrh or gall, as a small relief from the pain.

At the place of execution, located outside the city walls, the execution stake, the stipes, was already planted in the ground vertically. The cross could be of different types: the crux immissa or crux commissa in the form of our 'T', or the crux simplex, which was only a simple stake. The clothes of the condemned were removed for the execution; only a small cloth covered the hips, but the Romans did not always respect this modesty.

The condemned were then tied to the cross with ropes, iron nails, and sometimes with cuffs around the wrists; sometimes they were left free."

Was Jesus Still Wearing the Crown of Thorns Along the Way to Calvary and on the Cross?

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 exult, in their own way, the royalty that 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, to demonstrate 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. This crown must have made his face run with blood—that face which had already been beaten and punched, and made the target of spitting!

Pilate's intention to free Jesus expressed twice before the scourging, crumbled at the prospect of being involved in a charge of rebellion against the emperor: “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend” (Jn 19:12). Thus Pilate decreed death on the cross for Jesus. At this point, the episode of the crown of thorns ends, since, when Jesus had to put his own clothes back on (Mk 15:20) and be tied to the crosspiece for the painful journey, the bundle of thorns would have had to have been removed from his head.

No reliable historical source would allow one to state that the crown of thorns was put back on Jesus’ head again. The only sources that would suggest this derive from artistic representations, and these are several centuries after the event. Likewise, there is no evidence that it was removed and put on again after Jesus had been stripped of his clothes on Calvary. Furthermore, the tunic, which was made in one piece with an opening at the neck, could not have been put on or removed without first having removed the crown.

"...and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull" (Jn 19:17).


1. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/the-real-story-of-jesus-christs-crown-of-thorns/news-story/ec56fd4a5016c533aabcc08e8bcdd72d
2. https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-shroud-of-turin-35the-man-on-shroud.html

Chapter 11



Jesus is tied to the crosspiece

The analysis of the Shroud of Turin reveals intricate details about the injuries that Jesus endured. Two prominent excoriated areas are observed on the victim's shoulder blades. These abrasions align with injuries caused by friction against a heavy, coarse object, such as the crossbeam of a crucifix. Within these abrasions, variations in the scourge marks indicate that the whipping preceded the shoulder injuries. It's well-documented that victims of crucifixion often carried their crossbars to the execution site. The substantial weight of such a beam, coupled with the possibility of falling under its burden, is likely to have contributed to these shoulder wounds. The scenario of falling and being struck by the descending crossbeam is supported by evidence on the Shroud, including scratches, lesions, and abrasions on the front of the knees. White light photography and ultraviolet fluorescence lighting have further revealed these knee injuries. Additionally, microscopic examination of the Shroud has discovered dirt particles on the knees, nose, and soles of the feet, suggesting contact with the ground. Another significant injury, as noted by some pathologists, involves the positioning of the man's arms on the Shroud. They appear forcibly bent, covering the groin area. This posture suggests that the shoulder girdle might have been broken or dislocated, a condition often seen in post-mortem handling by morticians. During burial preparations, rigor mortis is typically alleviated by massaging the muscles between the neck and shoulder, allowing the arms to be repositioned. Observations indicate that the right shoulder is positioned approximately five degrees lower than the left, most noticeable in the dorsal view of the Shroud. Dr. Pierre Barbet theorizes that this asymmetry points to a dislocated shoulder. This injury could have happened during the manual repositioning of the arms at the burial, from a fall, or while the victim was engaging in the physically taxing act of lifting and lowering himself on the cross. If this shoulder dislocation occurred while the individual was still alive, it would have been a source of intense and agonizing pain.

The subsequent set of injuries observed on the Shroud is indicative of abrasions on the shoulders, seemingly inflicted by friction against a substantial object, likely a heavy beam. In this context, the Gospel narratives provide a more detailed account than they do for the scourging. The Gospel of John explicitly mentions, ‘carrying his cross, he [Jesus] went out to the Place of the Skull [where he would be crucified].’ However, it is also recorded, notably in Luke and the other Synoptic Gospels, that Jesus did not bear this load for the entire journey: ‘As they were leading him away they seized on a man, Simon from Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and made him shoulder the cross and carry it behind Jesus.’

The Romans’ decision to compel Simon of Cyrene, a bystander, to assist in carrying the cross is consistent with Roman crucifixion protocols. These procedures not only mandated scourging as a standard precursor to crucifixion but also required the condemned to transport their patibulum, or crossbeam, to the site of execution. It is important to note that the patibulum constituted only part of the cross; typically, the vertical post, possibly a stripped tree trunk, was a permanent fixture at the execution ground. Even so, the burden of carrying a substantial wooden beam, especially following a brutal scourging, would have been an excruciatingly difficult task. The abrasions seen on the Shroud align precisely with what one might expect from Jesus’s initial efforts to bear such a crossbeam, particularly given the already severely lacerated state of his shoulders.




Jesus Carries the Cross

Matthew 27:31-32: Jesus is led away to be crucified and Simon of Cyrene is compelled to carry the cross.
Mark 15:20-21: Similar to Matthew, Mark describes Jesus being led out with the cross, which Simon of Cyrene is forced to carry.
Luke 23:26-31: Luke also mentions Simon of Cyrene, adding Jesus' interaction with the women of Jerusalem.
John 19:16-17: John states that Jesus went out, carrying his own cross to the place called “The Place of a Skull”.




At the time of Jesus, both in Rome and Jerusalem, those who had been sentenced to death on the cross had the crosspiece or patibulum tied behind their shoulders, with their arms outstretched. The patibulum was a large wooden beam that, at the moment of execution, was placed in one of various ways onto the vertical stake which was already fixed into the ground.

Historians speak of the reluctance of these unfortunate condemned men, who struggled against being tied to the crosspiece so that the use of force was needed to constrain them. That day the two thieves must have behaved similarly.

Not so Jesus. "Oh! You should know with what sincere love the Creator of life welcomed this wood of the cross, not through force, but spontaneously!" Jesus foretold the same spontaneity behavior for St. Peter, prophetically emphasizing, during his third apparition following the resurrection, that he would die by crucifixion as an expression of love: "Do you love me more than these?... Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep.... When you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go" (Jn 21:15-18). Thus, in imitation of him, Peter was to repeat in Rome the attitude of Jesus in Jerusalem. Jesus had given himself up voluntarily to passion, with love, and with no constraint. He, like his Vicar after him, spontaneously stretched out his arms to receive the wood of the cross.

The shoulders of the Man of the Shroud show two large imprints in the area of the left scapula and above the right scapula. The parallel lines drawn on the photograph on the following page show the slant of the patibulum (20°), the staurós of the Synoptic Gospels and of St. John. The nature of the imprints should be mentioned: the contusion on the left scapula, which is more extensive than the other, shows that this area supported more of the weight of the wood than did the other area, higher up, which is less marked. This agrees with the fact that, in this case, the lower end of the crosspiece was tied to the left ankle. Any movement made by the Man of the Shroud while he was

"walking would tend to make the crosspiece slip lower, and so weigh down even more on this area, while the other area would be eased.

It should also be mentioned that, in those areas marked by contact with the crosspiece, the marks of the scourging are also clearly visible. This unusual detail can be explained by the fact that the shoulders of the Man of the Shroud were first struck by the whips and were then protected by the clothes on the way to the place of crucifixion. Had it not been for the clothes, the rough wood in contact with the skin would have notably opened the lacerations, and thus clearly altered the whip marks. We have seen from the trial of Jesus that he was scourged before being condemned to death, not to get him to talk, but as a "lesson" which was to serve him for the future...since he was to be freed (Lk 23:16, 20-22)."

“When Pilate decreed death with the chilling words: “You will go to the cross!” Jesus was again clothed in his garments and was spared a second scourging, which was normally given to common criminals and was carried out along the way to the place of execution.

This surprising proof that a scourging was carried out before the crosspiece, tied to the shoulders, left its two well-known imprints, is supported by the geometry of the whip marks, which overall show two clear converging points, one focal point to the right and another to the left.^4 This corresponds with the scourging of a man in a stationary position, carried out by two Roman scourgers: the number of whip strokes (the whip had three thongs or cords which were weighted at the ends) far exceeds (there are over 121) the 40 strokes prescribed by Moses in Jewish law.

^4 This has also been confirmed by the digital enhancement of the Holy Shroud images done by Dr. Lynn of Pasadena.”


THIRD STATION: THE FIRST FALL



The Gospel story does not tell us that Jesus fell along the via dolorosa, nor does it mention the whipping of the two thieves who were to share the same punishment as the Lord. But their death, which had already been decreed, previous to and independent of the death of Jesus, was by custom preceded by being whipped, naked to the waist, along the way. Thus the painful procession from the Antonia Tower begins with the scene of whipping striking the thieves at random, and with the sound of their curses and wild cries as they writhed under the blows.
It is easy to see the principal direct cause of the falls of the Man third in line: the top ends of the crosspieces were, for reasons of security, tied together by the rope; also, Jesus had been made to put on his long garment again.

C.I. Lekai, Hist. Rom. (Fragments of Nonius), ed. Peter, 2, 78."

"At every stroke of the whip, the thieves must have writhed about, dragging and pushing each other. It was the Third of the condemned men who suffered from this. He had already been scourged and, stumbling along under the wood of the cross, he was forced to the ground. The left leg, tied to the end of the crosspiece, gave way at the sudden tug, and the left knee struck violently against the paving stones of the roads of Jerusalem, while the heavy crosspiece, which before the fall was supported diagonally above the right shoulder blade, began to press down with all its weight on the left shoulder blade, already repeatedly struck by the whip. Jesus' hands were tied to the crosspiece, so he could not stop his face from striking the flagstones, while his only support (which was his sole means of avoid-"ing concussion of the brain) was the rope that tied his crosspiece to that of the nearer criminal.

This reconstruction, based on literary historical texts, and confirmed in several ways by close study of the Shroud, supports the Christian tradition that Jesus fell at least three times along the via Dolorosa.

The first feature on the Shroud that confirms this and which holds good for all the other possible falls (that is, up to the time when the crosspiece was untied from his shoulders, after which his manner of walking changed completely) is to be found in the lacerated contusions on the left knee of the Man of the Shroud.

The other features are to be found in the various contusions on the face which inevitably suffered the consequences of the impact. The first of these features I see in the swelling on the left brow and cheekbone, and I associate it with the first fall. Compared to the other swellings on the face, these seem the least serious; and, as the agony of the situation would have become progressively more overwhelming, right up to the point where it was thought advisable to untie the crosspiece from Jesus’ shoulders, I attribute it to the first fall."

The second fall 



"A second fall can be “read” on the face of the Shroud in a remarkable swelling in the middle of the forehead and in the fracture of the nasal septum. When the Shroud was brought into contact with the forehead, it did not touch the sides of the forehead; the swelling in the middle came into contact with the material and left its imprint there, while the adjacent areas are shaded. According to the judgment of experts, between the edge of the nasal septum and the beginning of the cartilage, a concave area can be seen, indicative of a fracture caused by some blow."

The third fall 


"The area above the right eyebrow and on the right cheekbone must have suffered the main shock of this last fall which was undoubtedly very violent, as even the strength of the other condemned men must have been waning by that time. The swelling resulting from the violent contusion has so disfigured the right eye as to make it unrecognizable."

Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus carry the cross 


"“As they were marching out, they came upon a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was coming in from the country; this man they compelled to carry his cross” (Mk 15:21; Mt 27:32).

Such a serious decision—unique in the history of crucifixions—that of lifting the crosspiece from the shoulders of the condemned Man to allow him to reach the Place of the Skull alive, must have been taken because of his serious state of physical exhaustion, and also because they did not want to see him die ignominiously by the wayside. It was taken, in effect, because of a false compassion to satisfy the cruelty of Jesus’ enemies, who wanted at all costs to see him die on the cross.

From a medical point of view, the face of the Man of the Shroud appears seriously injured and disfigured. Apart from the bruising already mentioned and the fracture of the nasal cartilage, both directly caused by the falls along the wayside, that face had previously undergone other injuries. On the right cheek, on a level with the lower part of the nose, a large swelling is visible, which brings to mind a violent blow from a stick. Another sign of a similar blow can be seen in the swelling visible in the center of the forehead, where the trickle of blood in the shape of a “3” begins.

Experts also draw attention to the swollen upper right lip and to the chin.1 Doctors do not exclude the possibility that the condemned Man might have collapsed through cerebral shock if these conditions had been repeated.

When the beam was untied from his shoulders and given to Simon of Cyrene,2 Jesus was still lying on the ground, tied by the ankle. He must have been helped to his feet to continue on his arduous journey. Meanwhile, the Cyrenian looked on with tears in his eyes and willingly embraced the heavy beam which he carried loose on his shoulders as far as Calvary.

Gedda, La Passione di Cristo secondo la Sindone, in Tabor, V, 1950, pp. 513-547.
The oldest pictures of the Way of the Cross (15th and 16th centuries) show Simon “helping” Jesus to carry the cross, holding the end of the longer upright beam, but leaving the rest of the cross on the shoulders of Jesus. (15th century: H. Multscher, 1400-1467; and the miniaturists Jean and Paul De Limbourg, Cristoforo de Predis, and Maestro di Altbach. 16th century: Altorfer, 1535-1607, and many others.) This false artistic exegesis has led to the justification of the second and third falls of Jesus “under the cross” at a time when it was in reality, according to the Gospels, on the shoulders of Simon.
The original meaning of the verb used by the evangelists, angariareunt, is “requisition, compel by mandate”, i.e., to compel someone to work without payment, which does not necessarily indicate, as in this case, any reluctance on the part of the man of Cyrene."

Jesus consoles the women 


Luke 23:27-32:  A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. 28 Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’[a] 31 For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” 32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed.

Jesus is stripped of his garments 



"“Then they cast lots to divide his garments” (Lk 23:34).

In the area of the flexory muscle of the radial carpus of the left forearm can be seen some trickles of blood which run in similar directions to those on the same hand. However, while the two little trickles—at an angle of about 35° to each other—from the nailhole in the left wrist illustrate the two painful movements of sagging and raising up, those on the radial carpus were probably reopened when the soldiers pulled off Jesus’ clothing. In fact, that part of the forearm would have been pressed tightly against the cloth because of the way the beam had been bound. When the beam was untied, the clothes would have stuck to the wounds until they were removed. Since he was put on the cross immediately, the small amount of blood which oozed from the wounds flowed down in two clearly differentiated directions, similar to those on the wrist."

"“And he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of the skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha. There they crucified him with two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them” (Jn 19:17-18). “They have pierced my hands and feet” (Ps 21:16).


GOLGOTHA/CALVARY



1. Plan of Jerusalem showing Jesus' route from Gethsemane to Golgotha.
2. Jesus is arrested in Gethsemane and brought to the house of Caiaphas.
3. Jesus is transferred to the Temple to be 'tried' by the Sanhedrin.
4. He is sent to Pilate at Herod's Palace to get Roman agreement to his death.
5. Pilate sends him to Herod Antipas at the Hasmonean Palace.
6. Herod mocks Jesus and then returns him to Pilate.
7. Pilate eventually accedes to demands for Jesus’ death, and he is sent to Golgotha for crucifixion.

The trajectory that Jesus is believed to have walked, often referred to as the "Via Dolorosa" or the "Way of Suffering," is a path in Jerusalem that follows the traditional route that Jesus took on the way to his crucifixion. It is a path marked by a series of stations, each commemorating an event along Jesus' journey from his arrest to his crucifixion. Here is a more detailed look at the distances and locations involved in this path:

Arrest in Gethsemane: Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, which is located at the foot of the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. The exact distance he walked from there to the house of Caiaphas isn't mentioned in the Gospels, but it's a short distance within the city of Jerusalem.

House of Caiaphas: After his arrest, Jesus was taken to the house of Caiaphas, the High Priest, where he was interrogated and held until morning. The house of Caiaphas was likely located in the upper city of Jerusalem, which would have been a walk of less than a mile from Gethsemane.

Trial by the Sanhedrin at the Temple: The next morning, Jesus was taken to the Temple where he was tried by the Sanhedrin. This would also have been a short distance, as the Temple was also in the upper city of Jerusalem.

Pilate at Herod's Palace: After the trial, Jesus was taken to Pontius Pilate at Herod's Palace, believed to be located on the western side of the city, near the site of the current Jaffa Gate. This would have been within a mile from the Temple.

Herod Antipas at the Hasmonean Palace: Pilate then sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, who was staying at the Hasmonean Palace. This was probably not far from Herod's Palace, potentially within the same complex or very close by, so Jesus likely did not walk a significant distance here.

Return to Pilate: After Herod's interrogation, Jesus was sent back to Pilate at Herod's Palace. Again, this would not have been a long distance.

Journey to Golgotha: After Pilate sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, Jesus was taken to Golgotha, also known as Calvary. The exact location of Golgotha is subject to debate, but it is traditionally believed to have been outside the city walls, possibly near the site where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands. This would have been a walk of about half a mile to a mile from Herod's Palace.

This was a difficult journey, considering the physical and emotional toll of the events as they unfolded, as well as the weight of the cross that he was forced to carry part of the way.

Chapter 12




The Crucifixion 

Matthew 27:33-44: Jesus is crucified at Golgotha, offered wine mixed with gall, and mocked. The sign above Jesus reads "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."
Mark 15:22-32: Mark’s account is similar, with the inscription "The King of the Jews" and Jesus being mocked by passersby and the two criminals.
Luke 23:33-43: Luke adds the detail of Jesus saying, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," and one of the criminals asking Jesus to remember him.
John 19:18-27: John includes the detail of Jesus’ clothes being divided by the soldiers and Jesus entrusting his mother to the disciple whom he loved.

The Event of Jesus' Crucifixion
Date: April 3, AD 33, observed as Good Friday
Timeframe: From noon until the early afternoon
Location: Golgotha, situated in a historical quarry outside Jerusalem's city limits, to the northwest of the urban enclosure.

We now turn our attention to the most compelling testament to the act of crucifixion as depicted on the Shroud – the bloodstains emanating from wounds that appear to be caused by nails in the wrists and feet. Interestingly, the Gospel accounts offer surprisingly limited physical descriptions of Jesus’s crucifixion. Phrases like ‘when they had finished crucifying him’ (Matthew), ‘Then they crucified him and shared out his clothing’ (Mark), ‘they crucified him and the two criminals’ (Luke), and ‘they crucified him with two others, one on either side, Jesus being in the middle’ (John) are notably sparse in detail. Remarkably, these accounts do not explicitly mention the use of nails, nor do they specify whether the nails pierced the wrists or the palms. The indirect reference to the use of nails comes from Thomas, a disciple, who expressed his doubt, saying, ‘Unless I see the holes that the nails made in his hands, and unless I can put my hand into his side, I refuse to believe.’

For a more detailed understanding of Roman crucifixion practices, we look to historical records outside the Gospels. Roman historians have documented instances of mass crucifixions during various rebellions. Notable examples include the crucifixion of six thousand of Spartacus’s followers along the Appian Way in 73 BC, the crucifixion of two thousand Jews post-Herod the Great's death in 4 BC, and the daily crucifixion of up to five hundred during the Jewish Revolt of AD 66–73. Despite the frequency of this punishment, Roman chroniclers provided scant details on the execution method, focusing more on its brutality. Cicero deemed it ‘the most cruel and atrocious of punishments.’ Josephus, a Jewish historian contemporary to Jesus, described a siege during the Jewish Revolt where the Romans threatened to crucify a beloved local figure, prompting the defenders to surrender to avoid witnessing such a ‘most pitiable of deaths.’

One of the rare pieces of archaeological evidence correlating with the Shroud’s depiction is the remains of Jehohanan, discovered in 1968 in a Jerusalem ossuary. A nail was found embedded in his ankle bones, indicating crucifixion. Jehohanan lived approximately within a century of Jesus. Unfortunately, the initial analysis of his remains by Israeli anatomist Dr. Nicu Haas was hastily conducted due to demands for rapid reburial by Jerusalem's ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. His findings later faced significant criticism and revision, responses to which Haas could not contribute due to his untimely death in 1987.

Narrative Derived from the Gospels:
At the third hour, they proceeded with Jesus' crucifixion (Mark 15:25). The soldiers, after crucifying Jesus, divided his clothing into four shares, one for each of them, while keeping his seamless tunic whole. Opting not to split it, they cast lots to decide its possession, thus actualizing the prophecy: "They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing, they cast lots" (John 19:23–25a).
Above Jesus, they displayed the accusation: “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37). Alongside him, they crucified two thieves, placing one on each side, thereby bringing to pass the scripture: "And he was counted among the lawbreakers" (Mark 15:27–28).

After a grueling journey of roughly a quarter-mile, aided by Simon, Jesus reached the crucifixion site, Calvary. He was in a state of extreme physical distress, exacerbated by torture and dehydration. His garments were likely adhered to wounds by dried blood. Exhibiting signs of weakness, disorientation, labored breathing, and perspiration, Jesus faced a significant loss of body fluids. The culmination of his agony was now to be expressed through the act of crucifixion.

Gospel Accounts and Roman Crucifixion Practices

The Gospel narratives detail several key events that transpired on the hill of Calvary:
- Jesus was disrobed, possibly completely.
- Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus' crossbeam to the execution site.
- Jesus was affixed to the crossbeam using nails.
- A placard stating Jesus' name and alleged offense was placed above Him.
- Jesus remained alive on the cross for approximately three to six hours.
- The crucifixion site was visible to a multitude of onlookers.
- From the cross, Jesus could both see and converse with those present.
- At the moment of His death, Jesus vocally expressed His agony.
- The quickness of Jesus' death caught Pilate off guard.
- Unlike the two criminals crucified with Him, whose legs were broken to hasten death, Jesus' legs were left intact.
- Post-mortem, Jesus' side was pierced by a spear, emitting a flow of blood and water.

Roman crucifixions lacked a uniform method, with the specifics varying from case to case. Drawing from both historical records and fictional representations, 
Cook's findings, reinforced by literature, archaeological evidence, graffiti, inscriptions, and artwork, indicate that:
- Public crucifixions were a frequent and horrific spectacle, so commonplace that the Gospel writers felt no need to elaborate on their details.
- While the Roman crucifixion process was not standardized, the evidence points to a variety of shared characteristics across different instances.

Crucifixion: A Historical Perspective on a Punishment of Humiliation and Suffering

The act of crucifixion in ancient times was not only a brutal form of execution but also a profound mark of disgrace:

- Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 165) pointed out the perceived folly in venerating someone who suffered such a fate: “Our so-called madness lies in placing a crucified individual in a position of honor just after the immutable and eternal God, the creator of all.” 
- Arnobius (d. c. 330) reflects the disdain for Christian worship of Jesus, emphasizing the ignominy of the cross, typically reserved for the lowest social strata: “Your worship of a crucified man—a mere mortal subjected to the shameful death reserved for the least of society—is the root of divine displeasure. Despite this, you proclaim him a deity, believe in his continued existence, and offer him daily prayers.”

It is historically acknowledged that crucifixion was primarily a punishment for slaves, individuals of low standing among Roman citizens, enemy combatants, and non-Romans. Exceptions did occur, where individuals of higher status were crucified, though such instances were against societal norms of the era. The lead-up to crucifixion often involved various forms of physical torture, such as whipping, burning (with or without the use of pitch), and the application of hot metal plates. Crucifixions were public spectacles, intentionally carried out outside city limits in well-traveled areas to maximize visibility and, by extension, the deterrent effect. Condemned individuals were commonly forced to walk to the site of their execution. Some were bound in chains, while others bore the weight of their crossbeam, or patibulum, as the upright stake, or stipes, awaited them at the execution ground. The Greek word "stauros" was commonly used to denote the crossbeam that Jesus is said to have carried, translating the Latin term "patibulum," which refers to that part of the cross.

The role of execution could fall to an official public executioner (carnifex) or military personnel such as a centurion or soldier. Early representations of crucifixion show the arms outstretched horizontally, with the victim's head level with or above the patibulum, and without any part of the stipes extending above it. The archaeological record and initial portrayals do not show one foot placed over the other; rather, they commonly depict knees bent outward with heels against the stipes. Less frequently, early images show each foot positioned to either side of the stipes. In the oldest images of crucifixion, the hands or wrists are bound by nails, restraints, or ropes to the cross. Notably, these depictions suggest the nails pierced the wrists, not the palms.

Affixing the nails, raising, and suspending Jesus upon the cross




The practice of crucifixion as conducted by Roman soldiers was a method of capital punishment that combined physical torture with a prolonged and public death. It was designed to be a deterrent, displaying the consequences of defying Roman law. Historical and archaeological evidence suggests the Romans were methodical in their approach to maximize suffering while prolonging life.  While traditional imagery often shows nails being driven through the palms, historical evidence suggests that the wrists were more likely the points of penetration. This area would better support the weight of the body and would not tear the flesh as easily as the palms might. In the case of Jesus, the Gospel accounts refer to 'hands,' which in the language of the time could have included the wrist area. The soldier, who appears to be a Roman executioner, would use a heavy, square hammer to drive the nails. The nails themselves were typically five to seven inches long with a square shaft. The executioner would have been trained to strike true and hard to ensure the nail pierced the flesh and lodged securely in the wood behind it. The condemned individual would be laid on the ground with the crossbeam (patibulum) behind them. The arms would be outstretched, and the executioner would nail each wrist to the patibulum. The precise location would likely be in the space of the wrist called Destot's space (just below the palm), where the nail could pass between the two rows of carpal bones without breaking any of them, but would likely rupture the median nerve, causing intense pain. The purpose of this agonizing procedure was not just to affix the person to the cross but to create a spectacle that would serve as a powerful message to onlookers about the might of the Roman Empire and the consequences of transgression.



Jesus arms are outspread and affixed to a horizontal beam, which is being held at each end by two soldiers. They are in the motion of lifting or positioning the horizontal beam, possibly preparing to elevate it to the vertical stake that stands in the background. Jesus had to exercise upward forces during the act of crucifixion. His arms are outstretched along the horizontal beam, and the body's weight is visibly pulling downward against the nails that would be driven through the wrists, anchored securely into the wood. The upward arrows signify the counterforce provided by the vertical stipes of the cross, which bear the tension of the suspended body. This tension between the downward pull of gravity and the rigid, unyielding structure of the cross creates a painful dichotomy, emblematic of the cruelty of the crucifixion process. “The forward movement of the body had different effects on the two hands because of the different angles caused by the shifting of the body to the right.



Next, the Roman soldier affixed the condemned's feet to the vertical beam of the cross with nails. The executioner's role was crucial, as he had to place the nails correctly to secure the individual while also prolonging the suffering, which was the grim intention behind the crucifixion method. The two other soldiers, elevated on pedestals, were holding up the patibulum, to which the condemned's hands were previously affixed. The trio forms a tableau that reflects a combination of cooperation and subjugation, a stark image that would have been understood as a display of authority and punishment. 





The Placement of Nails

The Gospel of John (20:24-29) provides insight into the crucifixion wounds of Jesus through His interaction with Thomas. The term used for "hand" in this account is derived from the Greek "cheri," which encompasses both the palm (palame) and the wrist (karpos cherion). Hence, the precise location where the nails penetrated Jesus' hands remains uncertain due to the lack of archeological evidence of a nail embedded in hand bones. The debate over the feasibility of palm crucifixion stems from anatomical considerations. The palms lack strong tissue across the metacarpals, suggesting that nails through this area might tear due to the weight of a body.

Archbishop Alfonso Paleotti in 1598, after observing the Shroud of Turin, asserted that the hands alone could not have borne the body's weight during crucifixion without tearing, a claim supported by sculptors' experiments on cadavers. 



The cadaver was crucified by Dr. Pierre Barbet to determine the true position of Jesus on the cross.

In the late 1940s, with the scientific atrocities of the war still fresh in people’s minds, German radiologist Hermann Mödder somehow managed to get away with crucifying medical students. Stretching their arms out to mimic the pose of Christ, the Cologne-based doctor hung students by their wrists and monitored their vital signs. After six minutes of hanging, the students’ blood pressure dropped, breathing became difficult, and their skin turned sickly damp. According to Mödder: “What will set in after the end of the sixth minute can be foreseen by the physician: unconsciousness, intense pallor, sweating. In short: collapse due to insufficient blood supply to the heart and brain.” Evidence shows that the Nazis carried out the same type of pseudo-crucifixion as a deadly form of torture. While imprisoned at Dachau, Father G Delorey was forced to watch as his doomed fellow inmates “were suspended from a horizontal bar using leather straps around their wrists… After their hanging for one hour, the victims could no longer exhale the air that filled their chest.” The only way victims could breathe normally was if they pulled their whole body up as if performing a chin-up at the gym. This agony could go on for up to six hours. According to Delaney, “Only at the end of the torture, when the victim’s strength failed, did asphyxiation take place, generally within two to four minutes.” Could Jesus have suffocated on the cross? If so, then he too would have raised his body to breathe like the Nazi torture victims. This is indeed what Pierre Barbet found when he examined the Shroud of Turin, the alleged burial shroud of Jesus. Dr. Pierre Barbet's experiments involved nailing a freshly severed arm through the palm with a thick nail and attaching an 88-pound weight. The palm split under this strain, leading him to conclude that a crucified individual's palms could not support the body's weight, especially if the person was of significant weight and the arms were extended.

However, Barbet's experiments had limitations:

- The force calculations assumed the feet were not supporting any of the body's weight.
- The tests were not repeated and relied on a single arm, whose medical condition requiring amputation may have compromised its strength.
- The unspecified medical condition, potentially gangrene, suggests that the arm's tissues may have been weakened, not reflecting the resilience of healthy human tissue.

These factors bring into question the reliability of his findings concerning the actual method of crucifixion used on Jesus.

Dr. Frederick Zugibe's 2005 Crucifixion Experiments

In 2005, Dr. Frederick Zugibe conducted experiments to explore the mechanics of crucifixion. He used men weighing between 174 and 204 pounds, securing them to crosses with leather gauntlets around their wrists and feet. The feet were positioned side by side against the upright post. His findings diverged significantly from Dr. Pierre Barbet's earlier experiments:

- Measuring the force exerted on each wrist, Dr. Zugibe found that with the arms at a 25-degree angle above horizontal (as in Barbet's setup), the force on each arm decreased to about one-third compared to a body hanging freely with unattached feet. 
- For a man weighing 176 pounds, the force per arm was approximately 69 pounds, less than half the individual's body weight. This indicates that the total force on the hands of a 176-pound man would be less than 140 pounds if his feet were attached and his arms were at a 25-degree angle above horizontal.
- If the arms were completely horizontal, the force on the wrists would be minimal, with most of the weight supported by the feet.

Earlier Crucifixion Experiment by Dr. Marie Louis Adolphe Donnadieu

Around 1900, in response to a colleague's claim that nails through the palms couldn't support a body on a cross, Dr. Marie Louis Adolphe Donnadieu experimented on a cadaver. He nailed it through one palm and published a photo of this in his book, aiming to settle the debate.

Ancient Images and Anatomical Considerations

- Early depictions of crucifixion, found on gemstones and in graffiti, often show the hands attached at the wrist. This aligns with anatomical logic, as the wrist houses a strong band of tissue (the flexor retinaculum, forming the carpal tunnel) around the wrist bones. 
- These depictions and anatomical factors suggest that it's more plausible for the nails during Jesus’ crucifixion to have gone through the wrists rather than the palms.

Considering the Perspective of a First-Century Roman Soldier in Crucifixion

Imagining the mindset of a Roman soldier in the first century, tasked with crucifying a resistant individual, the primary concern would be efficiency and effectiveness. The goal would be to choose a hand location that ensures a secure fastening to the cross, minimizing the risk of having to redo the task or facing criticism from superiors.

According to the Gospels, Jesus had nail marks in his “hands.” Given that the term "hands" could encompass both the palms and the wrists, the distal forearm is ruled out as a potential site for nailing. Comparatively, a nail through the palm, which mainly consists of soft tissue, poses a higher risk of the hand slipping off the nail, especially if the individual is struggling. In contrast, the wrist, with its eight tightly packed bones, presents a much more secure anchoring point. It would be considerably more challenging to pull a wrist over a nail's head than a hand.

Therefore, if Roman soldiers performing crucifixions aimed for the most secure and straightforward method, they would likely target the center of the wrist for nailing. This approach would reduce the likelihood of the condemned person's hand coming loose from the cross, ensuring the effectiveness of the crucifixion.

Dr. Pierre Barbet's Investigation into Crucifixion Methods

In 1935, Pierre Barbet, a surgeon at the Hôpital Saint Joseph in Paris, published "Les cinq plaies du Christ, etude anatomique et experimentale," where he explicitly aimed to determine the precise points of the nails' entry. Barbet reconstructed the crucifixion for his study, including X-rays and dissections. He aimed to demonstrate that the nails went through the wrists, not the palms. His experiments involved nailing the hands of cadaver arms to a cross; the palms consistently tore under the body's weight. Barbet then amputated an arm and drove a crucifixion-style nail through the wrist joint into a plank, using a heavy hammer to mimic the action of execution. The wrist's capacity to support the weight without tearing validated his hypothesis, which he backed with X-rays and anatomical diagrams.

The artistic interpretation of the stains on the Shroud of Turin often involves abstracting the cloth into an idealized projection screen. However, Barbet's approach negates the fabric's mere surface quality, treating it instead as a substantive layer amenable to surgical investigation, as if delving into the physicality of a body. He elevated the examination to a photographic level, using X-rays to analyze the wound marks created by piercing, further solidifying his evidence.

Dr. Pierre Barbet's research into crucifixion techniques was partly influenced by an observable wound on the Shroud of Turin's left wrist depiction. Barbet, along with Bevilacqua et al., conducted experiments using cadaver wrists to understand how crucifixion victims were likely affixed to crosses.

In his study, Barbet utilized a short, 2-inch nail with a diameter of 1 centimeter, aiding its visibility on X-rays. He positioned the nail at various points around the wrist's central bending fold at the palm's base, targeting a depression between the palmaris longus and flexor carpi radialis muscles. The nail was then driven through over a dozen freshly amputated forearms. Each insertion caused the nail to angle towards the elbow, exiting the dorsal wrist closer to the elbow than its entry point.

Barbet described the sensation as if the nail were moving through a "funnel" between the wrist bones, with no bones being broken in these trials. This observation aligns with the Gospel of John's statement that "Not a bone of him shall be broken" (John 19:36). The nail consistently traversed Destot’s space, bordered by the lunate, capitate, triquetral, and hamate bones.

Bevilacqua et al.'s Experiments

In contrast, Bevilacqua et al. used three right upper limbs from cadavers (not freshly amputated like Barbet's specimens). They nailed these limbs at the junction between the wrist and forearm and in two wrist locations, one of which was the same as Barbet's site. X-ray imaging was used to track the nail's path through the bones.

When nailing between the wrist and forearm, near the elbow and between the same two tendons as Barbet's experiments, the process resulted in no bone breakage, slight movement of the thumb towards the index finger, and minimal damage to the median nerve. Nailing towards the thumb side caused no fractures or nerve injuries, again moving the thumb slightly towards the index finger. Nailing towards the little finger side avoided fractures but passed through Destot’s space, injuring the flexor digitorum superficialis muscle's tendon and damaging the ulnar nerve and artery.


Destot’s space. The space is bounded by the hamate, capitate, triquetral, and lunate bones. This is the place where Dr. Barbet and others (Bevilacqua et al. [2014] and Bordes [2020]) discovered that a nail passes when pounded
into the middle of a wrist.

The interpretative study of the Shroud of Turin draws its validating power from the "reality" it presents—specifically, the visible markings on the cloth that align with the Gospel narratives. This necessitates empirical testing to substantiate its semiotic theories. The central inquiry pertains to the exact placement of the stains, particularly those that correspond to the wounds on the crucified body that the Shroud is believed to have covered (assumed to be the body of Christ). The stains in question are thought to be from the blood of the hands pierced during crucifixion. The challenge lies in pinpointing where the nails penetrated.

In a 2020 research study, Stephen Bordes and his team conducted experiments similar to those of Dr. Pierre Barbet, focusing on the crucifixion technique of driving nails through the wrist. Their objective was to trace the exact path of the nails through the wrist anatomy. In their procedure, they hammered a total of five nails, each through the wrist of a different cadaver. Consistently, every nail navigated through Destot’s space, a specific area within the wrist anatomy, without severing any artery or nerve.  Notably, the ulnar nerve remained untouched, positioned significantly medial to the path of each nail. Conversely, the median nerve, while close to the nails, was never directly contacted. The researchers hypothesized that the median nerve likely experienced mild stretching and was pushed sideways due to the space occupied by the nail and the consequent displacement of the carpal tunnel's contents. This study provided further insight into the physiological feasibility of crucifixion through the wrists, illustrating how nails could be driven through this area without causing direct nerve or arterial damage. In the case of the Man of the Shroud, the wound from a nail in the left wrist is evident. This is the first remarkable detail revealed about this crucifixion. Almost all artists, from the Byzantine period until today, have placed the nail in the palm of the hand. It has been proved by experiment that if an arm is nailed up by the palm of the hand and a weight of 40 kilograms (about 88 pounds) is attached to it, after ten minutes the hand gives way under the weight and tears away from the nail. The Romans, who were accustomed to this mode of execution, knew quite well that if they wanted to attach someone securely to the cross, the nail had to be placed either in the wrist or in the space between the radius and the ulna (the distal region). In the case of the

Barbet, La Passion de N.S. Jesus Christ selon le chirurgien, Dillen, Issaudun, 1950.
Plautus, Mostellaria, act. 2, scene 1, vv. 12, 13."

"Man of the Shroud, the wrist was chosen and the nail was hammered into the so-called destot space, where it met the median nerve. This 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. Medical experiments have shown that as soon as a nail is inserted into a wrist, even into a recently amputated one, the thumb is drawn over into the palm of the hand. This would explain why the imprint of the left hand of the Man of the Shroud
shows only four fingers and no thumb.

The man on the Shroud shows only four fingers

For a long time, a careful observation of the sheet would have led to the conclusion that the man on the Shroud had only four fingers: no signs of a thumb were discovered. It was a surgeon from Paris, Dr. Barbet, who found the explanation: a nail inserted into Destot's space necessarily severs or damages the median nerve, the nerve that flexes the thumbs, causing them to shrink towards the inside of the hand. Recent research, carried out by computer, obtained images in which it is observed that the thumbs of the man on the Shroud are present in the figure, but folded close to the palm. Destot's space was only anatomically described in the 19th century. How could a painter or possible forger know the consequences that a nail stuck in it would cause in the thumb, to reproduce them on the shroud?