Shroud of Turin Recreated by Scientist

He says his work proves the shroud is a fake and not the burial cloth of Jesus.

SUMMARY: An Italian scientist says he has recreated the Shroud of Turin to prove it is a medieval fake and not the cloth in which Jesus was buried. The linen shroud carries an imprinted image of the front and back of a crucified man which many Christians, especially Catholics, believe is that of Jesus Christ. Luigi Garlaschelli wrapped a specially woven cloth over one of his students, painted it with pigment, then baked it in an oven for several hours, and concluded by washing the cloth.

“What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak image,” Garlaschelli said. “Then for the sake of completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns, the scorching because there was a fire in 1532.” However, he did not have direct access to the actual shroud. Garlaschelli is not a Christian, and he said his work was funded by the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics.

The shroud’s supporters have said it displays some strange properties that could not have been produced by human hands. For instance, the image is superficial, has no pigment, looks very lifelike, and has the characteristics of a photographic negative. The pigment may have worn off the cloth over the centuries since it was first “discovered” in 1355 leaving behind the ghostly picture that remains today. Carbon dating tests during the 1990s placed the shroud’s origin in the Middle Ages. The shroud measures more than 14 feet long and 3 feet, 7 inches wide.

The Vatican does not have an official position on the authenticity of the shroud. However the late pope John Paul II insisted lessons could be learned from the relic even if it is not genuine. "The imprint left by the tortured body of the crucified one, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age," he said in an address at Turin Cathedral, the home of the shroud.

The real Shroud of Turin is due to go on display to the public in April and May of 2010.

(The photographs from Wikipedia show the full length of the shroud as well as a positive and enhanced negative of the face on the shroud.)

To read the entire article click on this link to CNN.

COMMENT: The Shroud of Turin has been the object of much discussion and debate over the years, and I don’t believe this scientist’s recreation automatically disqualifies it as authentic. Many reasons have been given for its authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus. First, the image of the crucified man looks like that of a photographic negative, but if the shroud dates from the Middle Ages, it would still have been centuries before the advent of the first photograph. It has been asserted that this negative image may have been made from a heavenly light at the moment of the resurrection.

Also, it is claimed that the cloth contains pollen which has been traced to the Holy Land, that it was designed with cubits in mind, that it consists basically of linen with traces of cotton but no wool (which was in line with Jewish law at the time of the crucifixion), and that it shows a man with Jewish and not European features. At least these are the claims.

Finally, I found the location of the nail marks to be very interesting. Although most medieval paintings of the crucifixion have shown the nails driven through the middle of Jesus’ palms, the nail marks on the shroud are located in the wrists. This makes more scientific sense because the palms of the hands could not have supported the weight of the body, but the wrist bones could have. (This would not contradict Scripture because the Greek word for “hand” can include the wrist and forearm.)

The carbon dating tests are probably the strongest scientific evidence for a Middle Ages origin of the shroud. Yet the results of these tests have been challenged because the fire in 1532 could have added considerable carbon to the cloth causing it to appear much younger than it really is. Maybe more important, St. John appears to put the authenticity of the shroud into serious question when he speaks of “strips of linen” (John 19:40) instead of a single cloth.

The remarks of Pope John Paul II are also very interesting. He apparently felt the main lesson from the shroud, even if it is not genuine, is man’s inhumanity to his fellow man. Instead, shouldn’t the main lesson be a focus on the reason for the suffering and death of Jesus, namely the giving up of His life to pay for our sins? This is the central doctrine of Scripture, and crucifixion paintings, videos, and even possibly fake shrouds can remind us of this. While the shroud will continue to be an object of interest, our faith should not rest in it or any other relic, even one tiny bit. The proof for the death and resurrection of Jesus comes from the Holy Bible. That’s all we really need.

Click to visit a Shroud of Turin Web site that provides results of research.

*********************************************

Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].

*********************************************

QUESTION OF THE DAY

Which national park in the U.S. was once called Mukuntuweap?

Zion National Park in Utah (picture from Wikimedia Commons). The area once was called Mukuntuweap, but because of the difficulty in pronouncing the name, soon after it became a national park it was given the name Zion, which was what the Mormon settlers called it.

Source: USA Weekend (September 18-20, 2009)