|
Shroud Resources
|
Promises of
Christ --
- I will grant them contrition so
perfect that their very sins shall be
changed in My sight into jewels of precious
gold.
- None of these persons shall ever be
separated from Me.
- In offering My Face to My Father,
they will appease His anger and they will
purchase as with celestial coin, pardon for
poor sinners.
- I will open My mouth to plead with My
Father to grant all the petitions that they
will present to Me.
- I will illuminate them with My light,
I will consume them with My love and I will
render them fruitful of good works.
- They will, as the pious Veronica,
wipe My adorable Face outraged by sin, and I
will imprint My divine Features in their
souls.
- At their death, I will renew in them
the image of God effaced by sin.
- By resemblance to My Face, they will
shine more than many others in eternal life
and the brilliancy of My Face will fill them
with joy.
|
|
|
|
THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH - WORTHY OF BELIEF
Many of the faithful sincerely believe that the
Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Without declaring its authenticity, Pope John Paul II has clearly attested
to the value of the Shroud. For instance, in 1980, the Holy Father stated,
"The Holy Shroud, the most splendid relic of the passion and the
resurrection." Almost ten years later, in April 1989, he was asked by
reporters during an in-flight press conference on the way to Madagascar
about the Shroud, and he responded, "It certainly is a relic." Again, almost
ten years later, when asked if the Shroud was genuine, the Pope said, I
think it is." (as reported in Columbia, 1998). The Holy Father has visited
the Shroud both in 1978 and most recently this past June 1998.
His predecessors have also viewed the Shroud favorably. Pope Pius XII
stated, A precious treasure, the Holy Shroud, which displays, both to move
and comfort us, the image of the lifeless body and tortured face of Christ."
And Pope John XXIII declared, "Digits Dei est hic" ("The finger of God is
here.")
However, to believe that the Shroud is the actual burial cloth of the Lord
is not a matter of faith. No Catholic is bound to believe it is. As Cardinal
Saldarini of Turin stated, "It’s not Christ, but something that brings us
back to him. Salvation is not in the Shroud, even if it truly wrapped the
martyred body of Jesus, even if it was mysteriously given by God to His
Church. Salvation is that which is given to us by Christ." (Columbia, June
1998).
Nevertheless, the Church has been the official guardian of the
Shroud for the House of Savoy, the former ruling family of
Italy. In 1983, the Savoy family willed the Shroud to the Holy
Father with the Archbishop of Turin serving as the Pontifical
Guardian for the Conservation and Veneration of the Holy Shroud
Part of
the uncertainty as to the
authenticity of the Shroud arises
from its historical record. Of
course, the Shroud is believed to be
the burial cloth used by Joseph of
Arimathaea to wrap the body of Jesus
for burial. Documentation shows that
the Shroud indeed was displayed in
the cities of Jerusalem, Edessa
(500) and Constantinople (1092).
King Louis VII of France venerated
the shroud in Constantinople in
1147. In August 1203, Robert de
Clari, a French crusader, reported
seeing the Shroud in Constantinople.
Although some gaps appear in its
historical whereabouts, the Shroud
has maintained a consistent
presence.
After Robert de Clari's testimony,
the next historical citing places
the Shroud in France, having passed
to the possession of the De Charny
family of Lirey. Probably the Shroud
was obtained during the Crusades and
brought to Europe. The first public
exhibition of the Shroud, held full
length, occurred in 1357, sponsored
by the Canons of the Cathedral of
Lirey.
In March 1453, Margaret de Charny gave the
Shroud to the House of Savoy, and it
was kept at the Chapel of Chambery
Castle (June 11, 1502). The Shroud
survived fire on Dec. 4, 1532, but
was burned at its folded corners
when its silver reliquary began to
melt. (To date, one can see the
patches applied to the Shroud
because of the burn marks.) Finally,
the Shroud was moved to the
Cathedral of Turin on Sept. 14,
1578, where it has since remained in
the Royal Chapel. |
|
MORE
INFORMATION ON THE SHROUD
During the medieval period, other
supposed shrouds were reported and
displayed, such as in Chambery,
France; Lierre, Belgium; and
Acireale, Sicily. However, each of
these was clearly a copy, produced
by the artist’s hand.
The real scientific investigation
into the Shroud began in May 1898,
when Secundo Pia photographed the
Shroud. When he was developing the
film plate, he discovered that the
negative image is actually the
positive, and vice versa: basically,
when one looks at the Shroud with
the naked eye, he sees a light
yellow-brownish figure of a man; but
when one looks at a photographic
black and white negative, he can see
the image in greater detail.
Pia's discovery sparked great
interest in the Shroud. In more
recent times, extensive research has
been performed on the Shroud,
beginning with the STURP (Shroud of
Turin Research Project) team in
1978. |
 |
Here is a brief overview of the
major scientific findings: the
Shroud is a long, linen sheet about
4.36 meters long by 1.1 meters wide.
Jesus would have been laid down on
top of the Shroud, and then it would
have been folded over Him.
Interestingly, the frontal image is
a little short, and the cloth covers
only part of the right foot.
The Shroud is made of linen. Linen
making has been known for the last
nine thousand years with Galilee
being an important manufacturing
center of the cloth. This cloth is
also very durable: Egyptian linen
wrappings on mummies at least 4,000
years old survive to this day, which
means the Shroud could have been
produced at the time of Christ.
The weave is a herringbone pattern
with the twist of the yarn being a
"z" twist (meaning the spindle was
rotated clockwise). The cloth also
has a high thread count, which
produced a fine cloth. Although such
cloth was not common, it was not
unusual at the time of the Lord
especially in the Middle East area.
Moreover, cotton fibers particular
to the kind of cotton found in
Palestine are also present in the
linen cloth.
Pollen evidence also places the
origins of the Shroud in the Middle
East. Pollen, because of its outer
shell, the exine, can survive
literally tens of thousands of
years. Dr. Max Frei of the
University of Zurich and founder of
the Zurich Criminal Police's
Scientific Service found pollen,
spores, and molds common to the
habitats of the places where the
Shroud had been reported. He also
found pollen from halophytes, plants
typical of the desert regions around
the Jordan Valley and adapted to
live in the soils with the high salt
content found almost exclusively
around the Dead Sea area.
The Shroud depicts the image of a
man, slightly under six feet tall,
who suffered the brutal death of
crucifixion. The wound marks
evidenced by blood stains correspond
with the sufferings our Lord endured
as accounted for in the Gospel. Nail
wounds appear at the feet (with the
sole of the right foot having a full
and very bloody imprint since it was
placed beneath the top of the left
foot) and wrist (one hand covers the
wrist of the other hand). Note that
unlike most artist's depictions, the
victim of crucifixion was nailed in
the wrist between the radius and
ulna so that he could hang securely
on the cross; nailing through the
palm of the hand would not have
provided such support.
Interestingly, the nail at the wrist
would have penetrated a nerve and
caused the thumb to snap into the
palm. The thumbs of the man in the
Shroud are hidden due to this
nailing.
The Shroud does show a wound to the
side, as where the soldier's lance
would have pierced the heart of our
Lord. The spear passed through the
fifth and sixth ribs, and pierced
the pericardium and the right
auricle, causing the flow of blood
and pericardial fluid.
Blood stains around the forehead and
nape of the neck could be attributed
to the crown of thorns.
Blood stains also appear across the
back, alternating right and left
shoulders, and on the buttocks due
to scourging. The scourge wounds
fan-out, which makes sense since the
flagellum used by the Romans had two
or three leather throngs with small
lead balls or hooks at the end to
gouge the flesh of the victim.
Clearly, the victim was whipped very
methodically, and over 120 wound
sites are present.
The blood is definitely human blood.
The STURP team determined that the
stains were human blood of the AB
group. This finding has been
corroborated by others: Professor
Pierluigi Baima Bollone, Professor
of Medicine at the University of
Turin, reported in 1978 that the
blood stains were indeed human blood
with traces of aloes and myrrh and
belonging to the group AB. French
geneticist Professor Jerome Lejeune
also concluded that the blood sample
he obtained was human hemoglobin.
Another intriguing point is that the
blood marks on the Shroud are clear
and red, not dark brown as typical
of dried blood. Also the blood
stains are complete without signs of
flaking off. Dr. Gilbert Lavoie
suggested that what appears on the
Shroud is more an exudate from
clotted wounds rather than whole
blood. Likewise, Dr. Alan Adler
explained that the torture,
scourging, and crucifixion suffered
by the man produced a hemolysis
(break-up of red blood corpuscles),
which would produce the lasting red
color of the exudate.
No pigments, paints, dyes, or stains
have been found in the fibrils.
X-ray flourescence and
microchemistry on the fibrils
eliminate the possibility of paint
being used as a method of creating
the image, and ultraviolet and
infrared evaluation have confirmed
these studies. If paint had been
used, it would have penetrated
through the top fibers onto the
lower fibers in the herringbone
weave; however, the image is only on
the top fibers with the lower fibers
being untouched. Also, the image was
resistant to bleaching and other
standard chemical agents that would
have reacted with paint or some
other medium.
Enhanced photography has also
produced exciting evidence. The
studies have included photographic
enlargements and computer analysis
of shapes, colors, and shadows.
Also, a microdensitometer was used
which measures very faint changes in
lightness and darkness. In 1979,
Father Francis L. Filas, S.J., of
the Loyola University of Chicago,
using the STURP research, observed
on the right eyelid of the man four
letters UCAI which formed a crown
around the crook of an augur's
staff. This image corresponds to the
symbol on a small coin struck in
A.D. 29 during the procuratorship of
Pontius Pilate (AD 26-36). The
ancient Jews used coins to hold down
the eyelids. Also, Father Filas
noted that later Byzantine coinage
was engraved with an image of Christ
Pantocrator which bore a striking
resemblance to the facial image of
the Shroud, which would attest to
the Shroud's presence in
Constantinople.
In 1978, Piero Ugolotti reported
that he had detected barely visible
traces of letters and words in
Greek, Latin, and Hebrew near the
face on the Shroud, which were
corroborated by philologist Aldo
Marastoni of the Catholic University
of Milan. In 1995, scientists with
the Paris Institut d'Optique also
reported finding letters and words
on the sides of the facial image on
the Shroud. An example would be In
Necem, an abbreviation of the Latin
death phrase, In Necem Ibis ("You
will go to death"), Nazarennus
("Nazarene"), and Pezo which means
"to accomplish" in archaic Greek but
in the sense of "celebrating a
sacrifice."
The image also has unique,
three-dimensional information
encoded in it. Using a VP-8 Image
Analyzer (which NASA has used to
produce pictures of planets from
light signals picked-up
electronically and transmitted to
earth), Dr. John Jackson of the
STURP team produced a
three-dimensional picture from the
Shroud. Note that a regular
two-dimensional image, such as that
of a painting or a photograph, will
only produce a badly contorted image
in the VP-8 screen. Only when actual
depth or remoteness is shown by less
light does the VP-8 produce a
three-dimensional picture. This
evidence again confirms that the
Shroud is not like a painting.
The photographs of the Shroud also
seem to be like X-rays with the
images of bones visible. Dr. Michael
Blunt, Challis Professor of Anatomy
at the University of Sydney, noted
that in the hands one can see
metacarpal bones and three phalange
bones of each finger. Professor Alan
Whanger of Duke University noted
that the skull is visible.
Dr. Gilbert Lavoie in his recent
work, Unlocking the Secrets of the
Shroud, presented another intriguing
discovery. The negative image of the
Shroud as compared with the negative
images of photography reveals that
the man in question had either white
or light blond hair. He noted
another peculiarity: the shadows of
the face and the fall of the hair
indicate that the man was upright
and suspended when the image was
made, while the blood marks indicate
the man was in the supine position
on top of the cloth with the rest
folded over him. Dr. Lavoie
concluded that this upright image
was made after the blood had stained
the cloth: "This finding is
intellectually exciting to anyone
who contemplates the possibility
that this image reflects the moment
of the resurrection" (p. 182).
The STURP team provided the
following summary of its findings,
worth noting after a review of all
of this evidence: We can conclude
for now that the Shroud image is
that of a real human form of a
scourged, crucified man. It is not
the product of an artist. The blood
stains are composed of hemoglobin
and also give a positive test for
serum albumin. The image is an
ongoing mystery and until further
chemical studies are made, perhaps
by this group of scientists, or
perhaps by some scientist in the
future, the problem remains
unsolved." Although the STURP team
did not declare the Shroud to be the
actual burial cloth of Christ, the
evidence presented at least supports
a person’s private belief that it is
Given the scientific evidence, we
can summarize that the Shroud
evidences a crucified man, who was
crowned with thorns and scourged,
and who lived in the area of
Palestine near Jerusalem at the time
of Pontius Pilate. However,
significant controversy remains
about the Shroud.
The first point of controversy
surrounds the burial rites of the
Jews. Normally, the Jews followed a
funerary practice of taharah,
whereby the corpse was scrupulously
washed from head to foot, and then
dressed in tachrichim, a set of
burial garments including a head
covering, shirt, breeches, surplice
and girdle. The person was then
wrapped in a sovev, a long cloth
which wrapped around the entire
body.
At first glance, the naked, bloody
man wrapped in the Shroud
contradicts these regulations and
therefore would make it unlikely
that he was Jesus, a Jew. However,
further research has shown that when
a person suffered a violent death,
such as crucifixion, there would be
no taharah, since all bodily parts,
even blood, had to be preserved for
the future resurrection of the body.
Also is such a case, the person
would only be buried with the
clothes they were wearing with no
tachrichim; since the man of the
Shroud was naked, which was normal
for crucifixion, he was buried only
in the sovev.
Second, what is to say that the
Shroud is not some clever medieval
artist’s forgery? (The medieval
period is pinpointed because of the
carbon dating, as discussed later.)
As stated previously, no pigments,
paints, dyes, or stains have been
found in the fibrils; the image is
only on the top fibrils with no
penetration to the lower ones, as
would have been caused by paint or
some other medium; and the image was
resistant to bleaching and other
standard chemical agents that would
have reacted with paint or some
other medium.
Moreover, Isabel Piczek, noted
painter and art historian, concluded
that no painter at the time could
have produced the Shroud, just from
the aspect of skill and knowledge.
First, no medieval artist knew the
details of crucifixion since it had
been outlawed since the year 400;
for instance, only a few Baroque
artists, painting much later,
captured the detail of the nail
wounds at the wrists, such as Van
Dyck's paintings of the crucifixion.
Medieval artists also did not have a
thorough knowledge of anatomy since
the dissection of human bodies was
virtually outlawed by the Church at
that time. Also, for an artist to
purposely paint the Shroud with the
front side being short, not covering
the right foot seems totally
improbable. Interestingly too, that
where the blood stains appear, there
is no image underneath on the
fibrils, suggesting that the image
had been made last after the blood
stains; obviously, an artist would
have worked in reverse, painting the
image and then applying the blood
stains. Finally, no medieval artist
had the skill to paint a negative
image or the perfection of the image
with such subtle coloration.
How then was the image made if it
was not painted? (This subject was
discussed by members of the STURP
team, but they did not arrive at a
conclusion.) The color of the Shroud
image is "yellow or straw yellow" as
classified by the STURP team. The
image is a surface image, affecting
the topmost fibers only without any
apparent penetration to any depth
(again disproving the "painting"
theory). The image seems almost like
a big scorch mark, like the scorch
marks left from an iron. Also, the
fibers on the image appear older and
degraded when compared with the
fibers outside the image, as though
something were taken away from them
rather than added, like paint. Yet,
the fibers of the image are
different from scorch fibers:
ultraviolet fluorescence photography
revealed that the body image does
not fluoresce red when irradiated
with ultraviolet light, whereas the
scorched areas caused by the fire of
1532 do. Some of the scientists,
therefore, posited that a type a
thermo-nuclear reaction occurred
which caused the image on the
Shroud. Actually, when one thinks of
Jesus rising body and soul from the
dead in a radically transformed
existence, such a scientific theory
is enticing.
The most critical controversy
surrounds the carbon dating testing
done in 1988. On April 21, 1988,
Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero of
Turin supervised Italian
microanalyst Dr. Giovanni Riggi
cutting a 2 inch by 3 inch strip
from the linen Shroud away from the
central image or scorched areas, but
from a corner site. The sample was
then divided into three samples and
given to the carbon dating
laboratories at Zurich, Oxford, and
the University of Arizona at Tucson,
with each performing three radio
carbon measurements.
Simply, radio carbon dating measures
the amount of an isotope called
carbon 14, which is present in all
organic substances, including flax
plants from which linen is made.
Carbon 14 decays over time in dead
material at a fixed rate; therefore,
the amount of residual carbon 14 can
reveal the measurement of
something’s age.
In October, the results were
announced at a press conference. On
a blackboard was written "A.D. 1260
- 1390," the time span of years for
when the Shroud was produced
according to the carbon dating
results. Dr. Henry Gove, a nuclear
physicist, said the odds were "about
one in a thousand trillion" against
the Shroud having been woven in the
time of Jesus, and called those who
believe in the genuineness of the
Shroud "flat-earthers."
However, several scientists objected
to the "infallible" pronouncements
made by the laboratories. For
instance, Dr. Rosalie David of the
Manchester Museum has performed
autopsies on Egyptians mummies, and
has used carbon dating to
corroborate the age of them;
however, sometimes carbon dating
indicates a date a thousand years
younger than the actual date of the
mummy known through other
archeological evidence. Such a
discrepancy would be caused by some
source of contamination.
Contamination to the Shroud could
alter the accuracy of the carbon
dating. Exposure to years of candle
soot in the cathedral and Turin
pollution, the drenching with water
during the fire, and the
accumulation of minuscule fragments
of deteriorating ceiling frescos
would give the Shroud a coating
which could in turn skew the carbon
dating results. Moreover, a corner
sample which over the years had been
handled by many individuals would
probably be contaminated. Such items
enrich the carbon content and would
make the Shroud appear substantially
younger than its true age when
carbon dated.
Dr. Leoncio Garza-Valdes of the
University of Texas , working with
microbiologist Dr. Stephen Mattingly
of the University of Texas Health
Science Center at San Antonio,
provided another argument against
the carbon dating results. They
argued that the Shroud could have a
bioplastic varnish or coating caused
by bacteria and fungi. Dr.
Garza-Valdes discovered such
coatings in research with Mayan
artifacts, which he knew belonged to
a certain age, but when carbon dated
were declared much younger and
thereby fakes. This bioplastic
coating is almost like plaque on
teeth, and would have grown
especially at the corner of the
Shroud where it was handled so much.
Receiving a small sample of threads,
Garza-Valdes determined the presence
of a bioplastic coating on the
Shroud, which has "coccal-shapped
bacteria and filiamentous mold-like
organisms," sometimes increasing the
diameter of the fibers as much as 60
percent. Such a bioplastic coating
could skew the carbon dating 1300
years. Also such a coating cannot be
removed by the conventional cleaning
methods of most carbon dating labs.
If Dr. Garza-Valdes is correct, the
Shroud easily would be placed at the
time of our Lord.
Another defender of the Shroud is
Dr. Thomas J. Phillips of Harvard
University High Energy Physics
Laboratory, who published in Nature
(Feb. 16, 1989): "If the Shroud of
Turin is in fact the burial-cloth of
Christ ... then according to the
Bible it was present at a unique
physical event: the resurrection of
a dead body. Unfortunately, this
event is not accessible to direct
scientific scrutiny, but ... the
body ... may have radiated neutrons,
which would have irradiated the
Shroud and changed some of the
nuclei to different isotopes by
neutron capture. In particular some
carbon 14 would have been generated
from carbon 13. If we assume that
the Shroud is 1950 years old and
that the neutrons were emitted
thermally, ... enough carbon 13
[would have been converted] to
carbon 14 to give an apparent
carbon-dated age of 670 years [i.e.
fourteenth century]."
In all, the preponderance of
evidence appears to support the
authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
as the burial cloth of our Lord. |
|
|
|