The Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin - I'm using this because of all of the mysterious subjects that I have read about lately, this one seems to be the closest to being solved - as long as the world will open their minds beyond their veiled (or shrouded) faith - and at least consider what is in front of them.

So what can I say about this very interesting artifact. Or, I should say item. First, I am not a religious person of any sort - not Christian, Jewish, Buddist - or any major religion. I suppose I am a spiritualist - if you have to give it some sort of title. I do not believe in any specific organized religion. So I have no ulterior motive for the validity of the shroud as the cloth that laid over the body of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion. I watched a LOT of videos today, most of which did have some sort of agenda. There was only one that seemed to really answer all of the questions and have a logical explanation for its existance. The problem? Even this explanation seems somewhat far fetched. But it is, at least, within some sort of understanding - a much better explanation than simple divination.

I hope to put in this blog entry the various problems with the shroud, and see if this explanation can logically and scientifically answer all of the questions that have been brougt forward. If you find any new questions or problems, please let me know so that we can address them.

What is the shroud:

For the few people that haven't heard of it, the shroud of Turin is a piece of linen cloth, about 14 feet in length (this my estimate, I don't know the exact length), that has traditionally been accepted as the cloth that was wrapped around the body of Jesus of Nazareth for three days following his death from crucifixion in Jerusalem. The shroud is considered to be a divine object because his image was mysterious imprinted on the fabric - showing his face, body and injuries sustained during the "Passion" - the last hours of his life. No matter what, it cannot be denied that it is a beautiful object of great historical significance - regardless of wether or not it is legitimate.

From what I understand, Jewish tradition of the time would have involved such a cloth either wrapping the body or covering over it and, being such an important figure to his followers, the shroud would have been an important artifact to keep. But there is no record of the shroud or where it was kept for over a thousand years. In the early medieval period it began to show up in various parts of Europe, but these "shrouds" were just cloth - with no image of Jesus present. The only exception is the "Shroud of Edessa" which depicted a head, but not the body.

The shroud as we know it today first "reappeared" in Lirey, France in 1357 - when it was displayed by the wife of the French knight Geoffroi de Charny to whom it had supposedly been passed down from his Knight Templar ancestor Geoffroy de Charney, who in turn had acquired through the Knights Templar, who had taken from the city of Constantinople. None of this history has been verified of course. The only thing we know for sure is that a shroud was put on display by this woman in Lirey in 1357. But the descriptions of the shroud don't seem to match! This shroud, known as the "Lirey Winding Sheet" was immediatly said to be a painting by various witnesses including the Bishop of Troyes. The Bishop even protested to Pope Clement VII, testifying that the shroud was a fake, and that he had even met the man who had painted it. The Pope did not oppose the shroud to be shown in the future, only as long as the priest declared to the viewers that it was a "representation" of the original shroud, and not the shroud itself. There is no doubt what-so-ever that the "Lirey Winding Sheet" was a fake.

In 1418, during the civil wars, the "Lirey Winding Sheet" was entrusted to Humbert, Count de La Roche, Lord of Lirey. His widow, Margaret de La Roche, never returned it but instead sold it to the Duke of Savoy in 1452 who later presented the "Lirey Winding Sheet" as the "Shroud of Turin" - the sheet that is now believed to be the original cloth that wrapped around the body of Jesus.

Problems with the shroud as authentic from the 1st century:

1. Carbon 14 dating shows that the cloth was made between 1260 and 1390. A lot of Christian historians have denounced these findings and have asked for additional testing from another part of the sheet, but the Vatican has refused.

2. The "back" image is about two inches taller than the "front" image. If the sheet was cut in half, and the two halves but side by side, you will see that the "back" image is about two inches taller than the "front" image. This suggests that the two halves were not made from the same subject.

3. The head is too small and set low in proportion to the body. It is disproportionate by average standards of anatomy.

4. There is no record of a shroud that fits this description prior to 1357. There have been many shrouds mentioned over the centuries, but most were described as square and rarely with any sort of image, let alone a full body image.

5. There is no known way in which a body can cast its image on a cloth. This is simply a scientific fact as far as I know. If anyone is aware of way in which a body can cast its image onto a cloth in three days, please let me know.

6. The face is depicted 2 dimentionally rather than 3 as it should be. This is basic geometry. If you take a cloth and shape it around a head with paint on it, you will see a very disfigured representation of the face on the cloth - because you are changing the image from three dimensions to two. The Shroud of Turin shows a 2 dimensional image, which cannot be created from a piece of cloth wrapped around a head.

Pros consistant with the shroud being authentic from the 1st century.

1. Bits of plants were found on the shroud that are indigenous of Jerusalem. These fibers are not found in Europe. This tells us that the cloth was most likely from Jerusalem, or traveled, or someone from there held the cloth. Somehow, at some point, the cloth has had some sort of contact with that area of the world. Some have tried to state that this proves it is from the 1st century, but that is not correct. It only shows geographic location.

2. The location of the "nails" through the hands are anatomically correct for crucifixion. If the shroud was wrapped around a crucified body, the nails wounds are shown in the correct location - which is not typical of other representation of the crucifixion in the medieval and renaissance period. If it was made during the time, the creator would have had to have an extensive knowledge of anatomy.

3. The weaving pattern in the cloth is consistent with techniques of 1st century Jerusalem. This comes from Mechthild Flury-Lemburg who was hired by the Vatican to restore the Shroud in 2002. She has stated that she has only seen the sewing pattern of the cloth in one other example - in textile samples found in the ruins of Masada, also from the 1st century. However, this only tells us that this style has been seen as early as the 1st century, and does not mean that it did not continue to exist in Jerusalem as late as the 14th century. However... in her expert opinion, she is not aware that it existed later and she believes that the shroud is authentic. There is no doubt that Ms. Flury-Lemburg is a highly respected and skilled textile historian and her opinions should be highly concidered.

I'll be honest at this point. Weighing the pros and cons - it seems that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic. But now the big mystery is - who made it and how? We know through exhaustive testing that the image was not painted or dyed. Some have suggested burning but there is no luminesence. By all accounts the creation of the image seems to have been divine! And by 15th century standards it might as well have been.

There is one explanation that seems to answer all of the pros and cons listed above. That the shroud was created through an early photographic process. The technology and materials were available and it explains and it supported by all of the scientific data available. It is actually a simple process. And who might have done it? It could have been any number of scholars from the time but the most probable is Leonardo di Vinci - which to some may sound far fetched. But he was very closly connected to the Savoy family that first presented the shroud in Turin, he was familiar with anatomy and would have known where the nails would best be placed for crucifixtion, he was well aware of the technology needed for the photographic process as seen in his notebooks and he was very closly connected to textile trade centers were he would have been able to pick up old cloth retrieved from the crusades.

There is so much information here that perhaps I have opened a can of worms about this subject. Well, the can of worms was opened a long long time ago, but I hadn't planned at examining the can. I know I will be adding a lot more to this in the future, but there are other subject that I want to get on to. If you have any ideas or problems with this theory, please bring them up and we can try to work them out together.