The Shroud of Turin may show evidence of Christ's injuries
I was at a birthday party the other day for one of my daughter’s friends. Since we are at a seminary, everyone is either a priest, a theologian, or a seminarian (a student). While chatting with a seminarian and a priest, the subject of the Shroud of Turin came up (okay, I brought it up). I learned that some people felt the seminary should study it more although I’m not sure how productive that would be. It also turned out that I know a lot (almost an embarrassing amount) about the shroud, largely thanks to the research I did for my article last year:
We may be close to the truth about the Shroud of Turin
No new evidence has appeared in the subsequent 8 months although the idea that the shroud is a medieval forgery has become less popular I think. Increasingly, scholars discount the carbon dating done in 1988 that showed it to be made in the Middle Ages.
Other dating and locating methodologies such as X-ray backscattering have shown that it likely was from the eastern Mediterranean and was likely made in the centuries around the time of Christ. Some scholars explain the discrepancy by saying that the carbon-dated samples were either from a repaired portion of the shroud or that the samples were simply dirty with medieval dust. We simply don’t know.
Is this the true burial Shroud of Christ?
The biggest reason to doubt this is that the image of Christ on the Shroud is not what you would see if someone were buried in it and left an impression from being wrapped in it. It is rather more like you would see if the shroud were draped over a basrelief of a Christ or if the image were made like a photograph. Microscopic analysis shows the Shroud is not painted but scorched (or possibly etched) on in a very light and difficult-to-reproduce way.
Thus, the Shroud was either made through some, as yet unknown, artistic technique that we have trouble replicating today or it was made miraculously through no natural process we know of. (The latest research suggests the correct microscopic profile could be created by scorching but only if it were done by UV lasers since only the very outer layer of the flax fibers is scorched and almost all scorching and etching methods would scorch them all the way through.)
Some researchers have leaped from investigating the authenticity of the Shroud itself to forensic studies, attempting to use the shroud as one piece of evidence to learn something about how Christ died, why he died so quickly, and the other sufferings he experienced.
Even if the shroud was made for devotional purposes (or intentionally forged), given that it seems to be from near the time of Christ and near the place where he died, it may still tell us what people from that time and place believed about his death.
That Christ existed and that he was crucified are the two most attested facts about him that we have. Indeed, they are some of the best-documented facts we have about anyone in antiquity. Primary sources for how that was carried out are the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are some of the best preserved ancient documents we have.
We have far better examples of the Gospels (older and more complete) than virtually anything from that period. These were written at a time (AD 40-130) when crucifixion was still practiced throughout the Roman Empire and the process and effects were well within living memory.
Christians and Jews would continue to be martyred in their thousands using this barbaric practice for centuries. And at the time of Jesus it wasn’t unusual for hundreds of Jews deemed to be in rebellion against the Roman occupiers to be crucified every day. That this one man’s crucifixion was attested to and remembered is a testament to how special it was to those who witnessed it.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Infinite Universe to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.