Richard Henry
November 27, 2012
The Shroud of Turin is Jesus of Nazareth’s Authentic Burial Cloth
The Source of the Image Revealed
Under the cover of darkness, Jesus of Nazareth was arrested and brought to trial before the Jewish authorities. His captors repeatedly punched him in the face and spit on him, but that was only the beginning of his suffering. Early in the morning they brought him to Pontius Pilate, the Roman installed governor of the Judean Province. Pilate ordered that Jesus be flogged and crucified. Jesus was then beaten with a “Roman instrument called the flagrum” (Oxley 125). The flagrum is a whip that was capable of causing dreadful injuries. In fact, “The injuries caused by the scourging would have resulted in traumatic shock” (Oxley 162). In the interim, the soldiers were allowed to have some cruel fun with him. They created a crown out of a thorn bush and forced it onto his head, piercing his scalp and forehead. As the final stage of his punishment, Jesus was nailed to the cross through his wrists and feet. After he died, a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear in an upward thrust toward his heart. After taking him down from the cross, he was wrapped in a linen sheet and his body placed in a tomb. The linen cloth that enveloped him has graphically recorded the gruesome details of his chastisement. The linen cloth that Jesus was wrapped in is now known as the Shroud of Turin. Even though those who believe it is a medieval fake have challenged its authenticity, the Shroud’s history, weave pattern, pollen record, bioplastic coating, bloodstains, and uniqueness all testify to its authenticity.
After the crucifixion, Jesus was first laid on the cloth and then it was wrapped over his head and down to his feet completely enshrouding his body. To visualize what that would look like, just imagine going head first into a sleeping bag. On that cloth there now appears a faint image, yet on close examination it shows an astonishing replication of the exact punishment Jesus suffered. However, it was only after the advent of photography that the full detail of the Shroud was seen (Oxley 170). Although the Shroud of Turin illustrates all that was done to Jesus of Nazareth, it must be proven authentic. In order to prove that the Shroud of Turin is the same shroud that wrapped Jesus’ body, a connection must be made from its history.
What happened to Jesus after the third day is well established in the Gospels, but what is not recorded is what happened to the cloth he was wrapped in. It is not known because there is virtually no reference to the Shroud in early Christian writings. Some have asserted that this is reason to believe that it is not authentic. Nonetheless, if one considers the events during the early days of the church and the excitement generated by the resurrection, it is no surprise that it is not mentioned. No one wants to talk about a burial cloth when the person that was wrapped in it has come back to life.
Conversely, the mystery of where it went does need to be unraveled. In modern times it is customary at military funerals to drape caskets with a flag and after the burial present the family with the flag. It seems only natural that in a similar manner the empty shroud that had wrapped Jesus’ body was given to his family. It is also important to consider that Jesus’ family was part of the leadership of the early church and likely remained so for the first few centuries (Oxley 8)
Despite the lack of documentation, it is likely, because of the persecution of Jews and Christians by the Romans, that the Shroud was moved from Jerusalem to protect it. It may have been taken to Antioch because that was an important location in the administration of the early church. One school of thought maintains that it stayed with family until the fourth century when it was displayed for the first time in The Golden Basilica of Constantine (Oxley 20). It was after this that Shroud-like representations of Jesus began to appear. Before it was exhibited, Jesus was illustrated with a boyish clean-shaven look.
On the other hand, it is possible that it was taken to Edessa. In early Christian literature there is a legend that the King of Edessa wrote Jesus a letter asking him to come and heal him. According to the legend Jesus writes back and tells the King that he cannot come, but that after he has risen he would send one of his disciples. The story continues with one of Jesus’ disciples, Thaddeus, going to Edessa after the resurrection bringing with him a cloth that bore the image of Christ (Oxley 13).
Given the explosive growth of the early church, it is not surprising that the location of the Shroud during the first few centuries is unclear. Instead, confidence that it did exist can be extrapolated from the fact that stories about it exist and from the changes in Jesus’ appearance in the art of the time. In trying to trace family history, sometimes there is very little information to go on, but eventually enough pieces of the puzzle are gathered to begin to see a picture emerging.
One of the most important pieces of this puzzle is the Hungarian Pray Manuscript. Anyone who has seen a picture of the Shroud can see that it has four burn holes in it in an “L” shaped pattern. Similarly, it is also well known that the weave pattern of the Shroud is herringbone twill. On the other hand, tracing backwards to establish the early history of the Shroud, the creators of the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, which was produced in about 1192, must also have known about the weave and the L shaped pattern. Indeed, the Pray Manuscript contains illustrations of the “entombed and enshrouded Jesus of Nazareth” that “not only depicts the unique ‘L’ pattern of the burn holes but also the unique weave pattern of the Shroud” (Kilmon). In addition, this illustration bears remarkable similarities to the Shroud of Turin in several other ways that were unusual: the pose, the naked body, the thumbless hands, the nail wounds in the wrist, and the “distinctive ‘3’-shaped stain on the forehead” (Oxley 38). It is remarkably clear from these similarities that they were familiar with the Shroud, which establishes that it was in existence long before medieval times.
Having demonstrated from art and history that the Shroud is of early origin, the issue of carbon dating must now be addressed. In 1988, some Shroud fibers were submitted for carbon dating, but the results were not as expected. The carbon dating procedure set the date for the Shroud in the 1300s (Gove 287). On the other hand, according to Stephen Mattingly, it is possible that the carbon dating done on the Shroud was “thrown off” by “microbial contamination.” Carbon dating works by determining how much carbon 14 is left in an item. Mattingly’s hypothesis was that “because living organisms continue to take up carbon, their presence may make the cloth appear younger than it is” (Mattingly). In order to help resolve this question, Dr. Leoncio Garza-Valdes, adjunct professor of microbiology at the University of Texas, submitted samples of linen wrappings, tissues and bones from an Ibis mummy for carbon dating. The outcome revealed that “there was a significant discrepancy between the age of the bird and the age of its wrappings” (Garza-Valdes 71). The presence of this bioplastic coating has also affected the C14 dating of other textiles. For example, “The dating of mummy 1770 in the British Museum where the bones of the mummy dated 800 to 1000 years earlier than the textile in which the mummy was originally wrapped” (Kilmon). Because the Shroud has an even heavier bioplastic coating than the Ibis, there can be little doubt then that the Shroud is considerably older than the date set by the carbon dating procedure (Garza-Valdes 71).
Furthermore, in 1973, Dr. Max Frei, a Swiss police pathologist, studied samples of pollen from the Shroud. He reported finding many different types of pollen on the cloth that was from plants found only in Palestine (Oxley 200-01). Support for his findings has recently been given by Dr. Avinoam Danin, professor of Botany at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University. Danin stated in “Botany of the Shroud of Turin” that “The only area on earth where people could put together non-wilted specimens of these plants [with] the Man of the Shroud is . . . between Jerusalem and Hebron” (Wilcox 226). Also in 1973, “threads were taken from the Shroud for analysis . . . . The examination focused essentially on three things: the Shroud’s weave, its pollen record, and its apparent blood stains” (Drews 8). The weave was found to be consistent with first century patterns, and the pollen found was consistent with the area where Jesus was buried (8).
The secret of how the image on the cloth was formed has taken over two thousand years to be revealed. According to the research performed by Dr. Garza-Valdes, the bacteria that fed on the bodily fluids that were absorbed by the cloth, formed the image. Understandably, considering all that Jesus suffered, his body would have been covered in “sweat, salt, oils, blood, and urea” (56).Consequently, the areas of the cloth that were in direct contact with the body would have produced a darker image. It has been pointed out by Walter McCrone, a well-known microscopist, that there is iron oxide on the Shroud. While this is true, which he inferred to mean that the image was painted, the reality is that there is a better explanation. As they do their work, bacteria deposit the iron oxide, and “If you let the bacteria work slowly over time, perhaps hundreds of years, you will have a perfect image” (Garza-Valdes 58). Some would prefer a miraculous explanation for the image on the Shroud, yet the fact that it took hundreds of years for the image to form would help explain why it was not mentioned in early church history.
The uniqueness of the Shroud itself is a testimony to its authenticity. For instance, the specificity of detail on the Shroud is historically accurate and provides forensic information that would remain undiscovered until the twentieth century. First, consider that the body is depicted nude with a cap of thorns, and with the nail wounds in the wrists. These are all aspects of the image that are not typical of Christian art but are historically accurate. Secondly, consider that the nail wounds, the thumbs turned inward, the spear wound, the accuracy of blood flow, the three-dimensional information, the pollen from Palestine, the authentic weave pattern, and the presence of human male DNA, include forensic information that would not be known for two thousand years (Kilmon). Furthermore, the Shroud could only have contained a body that did not stay in it for more than a few days because the decaying of bodies “buried in linen leave behind stains of decomposition” (Wilcox 76). Hence, the body that was wrapped in it was either stolen or came back to life.
Perhaps the most significant find is the presence of blood on the Shroud. Dr. Victor Tryon, Director of the Center for Advanced DNA Technologies at the University of Texas, has been able to identify DNA from blood samples taken from the Shroud. The DNA contains both X and Y chromosones confirming that it is the blood of a human male (Wilson 91). This discovery essentially negates any claim that the Shroud was painted.
In summary, it has been established that the cloth is most assuredly of first-century origin and was in was in the area where Jesus was crucified. The carbon dating has been proven inaccurate because of the bioplastic coating on the linen fibers and it has been shown that error in dating ancient textiles is not uncommon. Similarly, although not all the dots of where it has been throughout history can be connected, there is enough evidence to conclude that the burial cloth of Jesus was protected and preserved throughout history. Also, the possibility that it could have been painted has been ruled out. First by establishing that there is blood of a human male on the Shroud and secondly by showing that the evidence in favor of it being a painting, namely the presence of iron oxide on the Shroud, has been proven the byproduct of the bacteria living on it. Furthermore, the illustrated record on the Shroud matches with the written details of Jesus of Nazareth’s punishment and death. These facts match in too many ways to think it purely coincidence. Moreover, considering the uniqueness of the Shroud, there is little chance that it could be the burial cloth of any other person and have survived for two thousand years.
All the evidence points to the fact that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, but at the end of the day no one can prove with absolute certainty that the Shroud is the burial cloth of any one person. A decision must be based on both the physical and circumstantial evidence or it must be taken by faith. This is as it should be.

Works Cited
Drews, Robert. In Search of the Shroud Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins. Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld, 1984. Print.
Garza-Valdes, Dr. Leoncio A. The DNA of God. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Print.
Gove, H. E. Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud. Bristol: Institute of Physics, 1996. Print.
Kilmon, Jack. The Shroud of Turin: Genuine Artifact or Manufactured Relic? N.p., 1997. Web. 23 September 2012.
Mattingly, Stephen. "The Shroud of Turin Coated in Plastic." BioScience 45.8 (1995): 575. Print.
Oxley, Mark. The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin. Central Milton Keynes: AuthorHouse, 2010. Kindle file.
Wilcox, Robert K. The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery. Washington: Regnery, 2010. Print.
Wilson, Ian. The Blood and the Shroud. New York: The Free Press, 1998. Print.