Holy Shroud of Turin

Various relics ascribed to have been in physical contact with Jesus have been evaluated for the presence of blood, including the Tunic of Argenteuil, the Sudarium of Oviedo, and most famously, the Shroud of Turin. Congruence was reported for certain bloodstain patterns that overlap between relics, suggesting that they may have been associated with the same person. Interestingly, in all cases the blood type was found to be AB, which has also been described for certain Eucharistic miracles. Here, we discuss the theological and scientific significance of shared blood type and comment on the scientific validity of these findings.

In 1988, the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated to 1260-1390 AD. This paper summarizes why this date should be rejected: 1) it would have been impossible to form such an image on cloth during the Middle Ages, and 2) a proper statistical analysis of the data from the carbon dating indicates that an unexpected factor had probably altered the Shroud samples. Also discussed are reasons why the Shroud could date to the first century based on traditions, historical evidence especially the Pray manuscript, and the many other date indicators for the Shroud.

This is the PowerPoint slides to a presentation at the St. Louis Conference on the Shroud of Turin in October of 2014.  The title of the presentation was "MCNP Analysis of Neutrons Released from Jesus' Body in the Resurrection."  Many evidences indicate that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and several dating methodologies are consistent with a first century date for the Shroud, but the C-14 dating method dated the Shroud to the middle ages (1260 to 1390 AD).  To determine whether neutron absorption in the Shroud could explain this C-14 dating to the middle ages, the MCNP (Monte Carlo n-Particle) nuclear analysis computer code was used to model Jesus' body wrapped in a burial shroud laying in a tomb.  It was then assumed that neutrons were homogeneously emitted from within the body while it was wrapped in the Shroud.  MCNP calculations were used to prove that if 3.0 x 10^18 neutrons were homogeneously emitted from within the body, then three mysteries related to C-14 dating would be explained:  1) why the three samples cut from the bottom corner of the Shroud in 1988 gave an average C-14 date of 1260 to 1390 AD,  2) why the three laboratories were in such poor agreement with each other indicating a slope or gradient in the data of about 40 years per cm so that if the sample point were moved only one inch the date would change by 100 years, and  3) why the Sudarium of Oviedo (believed to be the face cloth of Jesus) was C-14 dated to 700 AD.  In offering solutions to these three mysteries by use of one assumption, this approach appears to be very promising, but more research is necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nei testi di alcuni sindonologi si trova citata una frase attribuita a un autore che viene definito come uno specialista del radiocarbonio: Michaël Winter. La frase viene usata con l'intenzione di screditare l'attendibilità dei test di datazione. Le affermazioni dei sindonologi sono false a diversi livelli.

After being photographed by Secondo Pia in May 1898, the Shroud of Turin proved to be more than a mere medieval relic: it becomes a true source of archaeological imagery, providing a wealth of information about a capital punishment widely used in the Roman world, but that there was not much scientific information available: crucifixion. Thus, following an interdisciplinary line, this article seeks to rescue, through the imagery question, not only the burial rites belonging to the ancient peoples, but also anatomical aspects revealed by the possible mortuary sheet of Jesus, pointed out by the first scientists who decided to study it.

Au cinéma, la Sainte Face a été plus dissimulée qu’exhibée – le plus souvent par le biais de voiles de Véronique rares et indistincts ou de linceuls pliés et mouvementés. Mais le motif hante le médium filmique à un niveau épistémologique, dans l’apparition même du visage du Christ sur la « toile » écranique. Cet article explore la manière dont la construction cinématographique de l’image christique a été traversée d’un intertexte avec la Sainte Face, sorte de paradigme pour la représentation du visage de Jésus au cinéma. Différentes pratiques et discours sont abordés, qui montrent combien « l’incarnation » de l’acteur, la « révélation » du gros plan, la mystification de l’éclairage, les « apparitions » du montage et la dématérialisation de la « projection » ont pu être envisagés en termes acheiropoïètes, et aboutir même à la censure du visage du Christ à l’écran, à la disparition de ces icônes trop « vraies ».

"Der Körper eines gefolterten Mannes ist seit dem 11ten Jh. visueller und affektiver Mittelpunkt des lateinischen Christentums. Die Darstellbarkeit des Christuskörpers ist gleichzeitig ein altes Streitthema und verweist auf das zentrale Thema der abendländischen Religionsgeschichte - die Fleischwerdung Gottes. Am Beispiel philippinischer Selbstkreuzigungsrituale und der Faszinationsgeschichte des Turiner Grabtuchs untersuche ich Obsessionen, die sich auf die Materialität des Christuskörpers richten und ihn nicht, wie theologisch üblich, metaphorisch und symbolisch entleiben.
Diese bis in die Gegenwart anhaltende Leidenschaft am tatsächlichen Fleisch und Blut Christi und an der Physiologie seiner Schmerzen ist weder archaischer Restbestand noch entstammt sie dem „Untergrund“ katholischer Frömmigkeit (Daxelmüller). Sie folgt vielmehr einer immanent angelegten Logik dieser Religion, die eben ohne die Gründungserzählung von Folter, erlittenem Schmerz, Hinrichtung und leibhaftiger Wiederauferstehung nicht denkbar ist. Die Heilsbotschaft dieser Religion ist untrennbar mit dem menschlichen Körper verbunden. Überdies erzeugt die Behauptung der Doppelnatur Christi eine stete Spannung zwischen Körper und Bild, zwischen unsichtbarem und sichtbarem Körper, und wirkt jenseits der Religionsgeschichte auf vielfältige Konfigurationen europäischer Geistes- und Kulturgeschichte. "

According to the Gospels, Jesus suffered the flagellation before his crucifixion. The texts do not clarify the form and materials of the scourge that was utilized. Since the beginnings of the modern era, several commentators have speculated about the scourge's form, on the basis of the Greek-Roman literary evidence and with reference to flagellation relics. In the last few centuries, scholars have provided new indications that are exemplified in great dictionaries and encyclopedic works of Greek-Roman archaeology and antiquities, as well as in the consultation works available to biblical scholars. However, a close re-examination of the whole evidence compels us to dismiss nearly all data and to conclude that we know almost nothing about the materials and form of the scourge used at Jesus' time.

This is the third of three recent papers related to the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin.  The first in this sequence, paper 24, is titled “Understanding the 1988 Carbon Dating of the Shroud.”  It contains 37 pages including two examples of how measurement errors can affect measurement results.  The second in this sequence, paper 28, is a shortened version, i.e. an abstract, of the first.  It contains 12 pages and is titled “The Carbon Dating of the Shroud is Explained by Neutron Absorption.”  The third in this sequence, which is this paper, is only two pages.  It was written to explain why the carbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390 should be rejected, and to do so in as brief and simple a manner as possible.  This is accomplished by use of an analogy with an hourglass.  Adding sand to the top of the hourglass would produce an apparent time younger than the true time since the hourglass was turned over.  This is similar to carbon dating of the Shroud, in that neutron absorption would produce new C-14 in the cloth which would shift the measured age to be younger than the true age.

British art historian Thomas de Wesselow, trained at Courtauld, claims that it was the image on the Turin Shroud that prompted Jesus' disciples to believe in the Resurrection. While appreciating the author's study of the relic, the review points out why exactly his point of view is wrong.

The following is a consolidation of important historical references of the Shroud through the early centuries found in multiple sources. I have gathered the most significant references here in one document. Together, they form a compelling argument for a historical trail that traces back a thousand years earlier than the 14 th century as promulgated by the carbon dating tests of 1988. These important references indicate the cloth was in Constantinople before it was stolen in 1204 and later revealed in Lirey, France in 1356. However, due to the silence of the "missing years," (1204-1356) critics allege there is no historical evidence of its existence prior to its emergence in France, a claim that is now seriously challenged by these documented references.

The Shroud of Turin contains good-resolution full-size images, without pigment, of the front and back of a naked crucified man. This paper proposes a multi-step process for formation of these images. By following the evidence on the Shroud where it leads, without a presupposition of naturalism, a hypothesis for image formation can be developed that is consistent with the macroscopic and microscopic evidence on the Shroud. How the image was formed on the Shroud is similar in some respects to how the image of a person is formed on photographic paper. To form the image on the Shroud requires that the mechanism that discolored the fibers to discolor only the right fibers and the right length of fibers. To accomplish this, the discoloration mechanism must be controlled by information. This information must be that which defines the appearance of a naked crucified man, because that is what the image is, and this information must be deposited on the cloth to control the discoloration mechanism. This information must come from the body, because it is only inherent to the body. It was not inherent to the air or limestone in the tomb. This information can only be transported or communicated from the body to the cloth in a focused manner by radiation such as charged particles or infrared, visible, or ultraviolet light. Thus, the proposed hypothesis for image formation involves radiation emitted from the body that carries the information to the cloth that is required to control the discoloration mechanism. We can see the image because this information has been encoded into the pattern of discolored fibers that make the image. The radiation is believed to primarily be charged particles that caused a static discharge from the top portions of the fibers facing the body. This static discharge would cause heating due to electron flow, and possibly ozone production, that could discolor fibers consistent with the microscopic properties of the discoloration on the fibers in the image. This process also naturally results in a negative image that contains 3D or topographical information, and threads with a mottled appearance.

La Sindone è emblema della fede.
La fede è storia, e, in virtù di ciò, richiede che nei suoi confronti ci si rivolga con un approccio critico-scientifico.
Tuttavia la stessa fede rivela come tale appressamento risulti insufficiente e limitato, ovvero da compensare e corroborare, in quanto questa è considerazione del Signore Gesù Cristo a partire dalla sua comunione col Padre e con lo Spirito.

L’elaborato in questione parte da un’idea alquanto ardita: porre a raffronto, mantenendo sempre come fondale l’osservazione della Sindone, le risurrezioni presenti nel Nuovo Testamento, con la Risurrezione per antonomasia, ovvero quella di Gesù.

Some people are aware that there was a putative secret C-14 test on the Shroud performed in 1982 on a thread of the so-called “Raes sample” extracted from the Shroud in 1973.  (It was named after the late Belgian textile expert Prof. Gilbert Raes.)  However, there are very few people who are aware that there may have been at least two other secret C-14 testings of the Shroud.  Also little known are the facts that many more Shroud samples exist than previously thought, and that the number and provenance of at least some of the “Raes samples” are open to questions.  Of course, the more samples that existed, the more chance there was that individuals would try to date them.  The politics and intrigue here are a subset of what I have documented in my soon-to-be-released eight-hundred-page book The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé.

The earliest secret Shroud C-14 testing was possibly performed in 1977.  Another was possibly done in 1985.  Another one was definitely done in late 1994.  We will look at the documentation related to all of these reported tests.  This article will serve two purposes:  it will supply needed, detailed information about an important but little-known aspect of Shroud research, and it will also supply additional background information pertaining to the full background history of the 1988 dating.

In a topic as controversial as the Turin Shroud, it is always surprising to note that there remains a large area of consensus among scholars who hold opposite opinions on the origin of this piece of fabric. According to the consensus view, neither science nor history can prove that the Turin Shroud shows signs of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. However, the reasons provided for this important claim are not convincing, especially in light of recent developments in historiography and analytic philosophy.

To explain the characteristics of the image on the Shroud of Turin, along with the 1988 carbon dating and the characteristics of the blood on the Shroud, it is hypothesized that an extremely brief intense burst of vertically collimated radiation was emitted within the body of the crucified man that was wrapped within the Shroud. This radiation, probably consisting primarily of charged particles, caused a static discharge from the top fibers facing the body, which caused heating in a very thin surface layer on the fibers, which caused molecular damage to the cellulose in this thin layer. With the passage of time and possibly ultraviolet exposure, this thin damaged cellulose layer on the fibers gradually became discolored to form the image of a man that was crucified exactly as Jesus was crucified. By this process, the radiation controlled the location of the discoloration, thus encoding into the image the information that defines the appearance of a crucified man, so that the image could have this appearance. The evidence for this hypothesis is its ability to explain the characteristics of the image, carbon date, and blood on the Shroud.

Dopo aver trasferito la propria capitale da Chambéry a Torino nell’anno 1563, «Era mente del duca di Savoia Emanuele Filiberto, ricuperati suoi stati […], di avere presso di sè la Sindone […] che ordinariamente lo teneva in Ciamberì». A Chambéry, infatti, «non pareva molto sicuro [il sacro Sindone] per li continui tumulti delli Hugonotti ne paesi vicini della Francia, et Delfinato».

The Mandylion or image of Edessa, first mentioned in the 6th century, was a depiction of Christ's face, described by some texts as a painting and by others as a miraculous imprint on a cloth. It is reasonable to believe that this mysterious cloth was the Shroud which is today kept in Turin, folded in such a way as to show only the face.
The protagonist of the events related to the Edessan image is Thaddeus-Addai, who is at times defined as “apostle” and at other times simply as disciple. The identification of Thaddeus-Addai with the apostle Judas Thaddeus or one of the 70 (or 72) disciples remains an issue which deserves further studies; however, considering the research already conducted, a possible relation between the numerous literary witnesses and the figure of Judas Thaddeus is not to be ruled out.

The Turin Shroud bears an image of an apparent crucified man, chemically the result of some dehydrative, oxidative, and subsequent carbonyl conjugative process of cellulose [3] In the here described experiment the (lower) calyx side (bottom) part of an apple is imaged on a linen cloth with a special corona discharge mechanism. The calyx part of an apple can be compared in size and profile to approximately one eye on the Turin Shroud. The corona mechanism of this experiment is capable of approximately produce an image of objects that are between 0 and 10mm away from the object while maintaining sharpness. Corona imaging experiments had been previously done in 2014 by Giulio Fanti et al. [1] This experiment distinguishes itself from this previous experiment in that the setup and mechanism is substantially different. Energy considerations from this mechanism lead to the conclusion that the image on the shroud could have been formed with one single average lightning-bolt following the here described technique.

Au cours de la première moitié du XVIe siècle apparut à Besançon un suaire qui reportait l’image du Christ mort. Selon une tradition qui se répandit aux environs de 1750, le chevalier Othon de la Roche avait pris possession en 1204, au cours de  la quatrième croisade de Constantinople, de ce suaire qui fut amené en Bourgogne. La légende devint tellement notoire qu’elle supplanta celles qui avaient été inventées lors des deux siècles précédents. Pendant la Révolution, on vit dans le suaire de Besançon une simple peinture et il fut détruit. Au XXe siècle, sa légende fut reprise à propos d’un autre suaire, celui qui se trouve de nos jours à Turin, donnant naissance à une histoire tout à fait rocambolesque : le suaire qui se trouve aujourd’hui à Turin ne serait en fait que celui de Besançon qui aurait été remplacé frauduleusement par une copie lors de l’incendie de la cathédrale de la ville en 1350.
Ce livre raconte la véritable histoire du suaire de Besançon et la création des fausses légendes médiévales le concernant. Il apparaît que l’entreprise d’Othon de la Roche fut inventée, sur la base de documents falsifiés, par l’auteur d’un écrit anonyme contenu dans le manuscrit 826 de la Bibliothèque d'étude et de conservation de Besançon ; ce manuscrit contient aussi un autre écrit, tout autant anonyme, qui, lui, nie l’authenticité de la relique. Le lecteur trouvera ici la transcription intégrale du manuscrit, accompagnée d’un commentaire historique, et découvrira l’identité des deux auteurs jusqu’ici inconnus.

According to ancient tradition, the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.  To determine whether this could be true, more historical and scientific research has been done on the Shroud of Turin than on any other ancient artifact.  The purpose of this paper is to summarize the results of the scientific research on the Shroud of Turin.  This summary is based on the opinions of most Shroud researchers and on research by the author.  Research on the Shroud is summarized using nine summary statements.  A multi-step argument is given that the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus of Nazareth.  Two objections to these conclusions are considered – that they violate the laws of science and that the authenticity of the Shroud is disproven by the 1988 C14 dating of the Shroud, which concluded that the Shroud dates to 1260 to 1390 AD with a 95% probability.  Four reasons are discussed which indicate that this conclusion is not justified by the evidence.  This includes consideration of 14 indicators of the Shroud’s date and 6 indications that the 1988 statistical analysis of the C14 dating results was inadequate.  The neutron absorption hypothesis is used to explain the apparent C14 date to 1260 to 1390 AD.

According to legend, the Mandylion was an image of Christ’s face imprinted on a towel, kept in Edessa. This acheiopoieton image (“not made by human hands”) disappeared in the eighteenth century. The first records of another acheiropoieton relic appeared in mid-fourteenth century France: a long linen bearing the image of Jesus’ corpse, known nowadays as the Holy Shroud of Turin. Some believe the Mandylion and the Shroud to be the same object, first kept in Edessa, later translated to Constantinople, France and Italy. Andrea Nicolotti traces back the legend of the Edessean image in history and art, focusing especially on elements that could prove its identity with the Shroud, concluding that the Mandylion and the Shroud are two distinct objects.

More research has been done on the Shroud of Turin than any other ancient artifact. Many dedicated individuals and groups in many countries are doing this research, yet many controversies remain due to the small size of most samples and lack of access to the Shroud. This paper summarizes five areas related to this research. Regarding philosophy, research on the Shroud should be done by following the evidence where it leads, which is forensic science, while rejecting the requirements of naturalism so that the researcher can have a neutral mindset in the research. There is a continuous history of the Shroud back to about 1356, but there is convincing evidence that it was in Constantinople prior to 1204 AD, with copies of it in art and coins back to the 6 th and 7 th centuries. There is good evidence that the image was caused by radiation that altered the structure of the organic compounds in the linen fibers, perhaps by means of a static discharge from the fibers. This radiation must have been emitted from within the body to carry the information from the body to the cloth that was required to control the mechanism that discolored the fibers. The best explanation for the carbon dating of the Shroud to 1260 to 1390 AD is that neutrons were included in this radiation. These neutrons formed new C 14 in the fibers which could have shifted the C 14 date forward by up to thousands of years, depending on the location on the Shroud. The most reasonable conclusion is that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, and that the image resulted from a unique event involving Jesus' body as it was wrapped within the Shroud.

This paper argues that between the arrival of the Holy Mandylion in Constantinople in 944 and 1195 there are many relics and artefacts which survive today and point to a detailed knowledge of the crucifixion of Christ.  The Blutritt, the Holy Blood of Bruges, the Holy Sponge and the Crown of Thorn all tell some of the story of the crucifixion.  The Madrid Skylitzes, the Pray Manuscript, the armlets of Frederick Barbarossa, the Gospel of Judith of Flanders, the Melisende Psalter and the magnificent mosaics in Sicily and in the Holy Sepulchre were created during the rule of inter-related families.  The artefacts consistently show the face of Christ with features which match the Shroud of Turin.  They show a right-sided spear wound, long hair, a pronounced inverted V shape on the chest, retracted thumbs, and a swelling to the neck, all consistent with what is visible on the Shroud.  One armlet of Frederick Barbarossa shows Jesus lifting his Shroud out of the tomb; the Melisende Psalter illustrates the grave clothes.  All these pieces of evidence suggest that, during this period, the sindon of Jesus was well known, and that the facial features and bodily wounds of Christ closely resemble the Shroud of Turin.

Criteria of historical assessment are applied to the Turin Shroud to determine which hypothesis relating to the image formation process is the most likely. To implement this, a ‘Minimal Facts’ approach is followed that takes into account only physicochemical and historical data receiving the widest consensus among contemporary scientists. The result indicates that the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high; historians and natural theologians should therefore pay it increased attention.

Le résultat de l’analyse des données brutes confirme et renforce le discrédit de la datation de 1988. Indéniablement, cette découverte fournit une bonne raison (peut-être la seule que pouvait accepter la communauté académique « mainstream ») pour une nouvelle datation, qui doit nécessairement avoir lieu dans un cadre interdisciplinaire. Les résultats de 1988, sans homogénéité ni fiabilité, bâtis sur des données dont la représentativité n’est pas garantie, ne permettent pas de conclure que le lin du Suaire de Turin a été fabriqué entre 1260 et 1390 après Jésus-Christ.
Cette datation est discréditée mais révélatrice, car elle constitue un cas pratique de la crise de la reproductibilité que traverse actuellement la science, une crise qui va jusqu’à impacter nos vies quotidiennes. Mais cette crise, si elle explique en grande partie pourquoi tant de controverses scientifiques autour du Linceul perdurent, nous interroge aussi sur notre connaissance du tissu : à quelles études académiques pouvons-nous nous fier ? Plus largement, comment formons-nous nos croyances et nos convictions ? Plus que jamais, le Linceul de Turin, « défi à notre intelligence », est une porte d’entrée pour mieux nous comprendre dans notre époque.

On the face of it, it seems unlikely that the Turin Shroud, believed to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus, would have survived to our day.  Although the Gospels mention burials cloths/shrouds, none of them mention an image, which the Turin Shroud contains.  The cloth can only be reliably-historically-traced to the 1350s, which was also a period of many fake relics.  In addition, in 1988, three labs that performed a C-14 test dated the cloth to AD 1260-1390, a range in which the 1350s falls.  But there are reasons why all of that isn’t as damning as it would appear to be.  It’s possible that the image on the Shroud didn’t develop for many decades after Jesus’ death.  There are actually many mentions in history of Jesus’ burial cloths, some of which could actually be the Shroud known to be in Turin today.  (See my www.academia.edu article “Possible Post-Biblical and Pre-1350s References in History to the Shroud of Jesus – an English-language Bibliography.”)  Just because many fakes are relics doesn’t mean that every relic is bogus.  The validity of the 1988 C-14 dating test has been questioned by many scientists and researchers.  (See my 2020 book The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé.)
    If the Turin Shroud is authentic and wrapped the body of Jesus, the image contained on should accurately reflect an authentic Roman crucifixion and also the realistic anatomy and physiology of that event.  Most medical people who have studied the Shroud tend to believe that it the data from the Shroud is consistent with a 1st century Roman crucifixion of a Jewish man.  There are a few medical opinions that the Shroud is not consistent with an authentic burial, but they are far outweighed by the majority of persons who believe it is.  Many people believe that because this is the case, it is a very strong point in favor of authenticity, asserting that it would be highly improbable for a medieval forger to be able to fool dozens of 20th and 21st century doctors, as part of a multi-disciplinary study that has made the Turin Shroud the most intensely-studied artifact in human history.
    This bibliography will list sources that discuss medical aspects and/or crucifixion as it relates to the Shroud.  The article will be updated in the future as needed.