The Shroud

Cloths

“…And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:7)

At Christmas, the manger is central. The manger represents the humility with which Jesus, the Son of God, came down to us humans. There was no room for Him in the inn. What else do we know about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth?

 

Due to the census decree of Emperor Augustus, Joseph had to travel approximately 100 miles with his pregnant Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. To make matters worse, the destination was extremely crowded. The inn was packed. Consequently, there was no crib or bed for Him, and no shelter for His parents. Only  a manger. Humanly speaking, His arrival was inconvenient. However, due to the circumstances surrounding his birth, Jesus was born in the exact place that the Prophet Micah had foretold 700 years earlier.

A nativity scene often has a nostalgic roof, but Eastern nativity scenes are usually nothing more than stone-fenced plots of land. Jesus was born under the starry sky. That is why the cloths were important, to keep him warm in the low night temperatures.

Historically, cloths were also used to keep bread fresh. Jesus is the bread of life. After feeding the 5,000, he said this:

“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst… I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:35)

Jesus is the bread that gives eternal life. In Bethlehem, this bread of life was wrapped in cloths. “Bethlehem” means “house of bread.” Bethlehem was the place where the living bread came down from heaven and from where it went out to give life to everyone who believes, who “eats” the living bread.

 

After feeding 5000 with bread, Jesus said:
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in Him. As the living Father has sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats Me will live because of Me." (John 6:53)

Jesus contrasts the daily bread with the bread of life:
"Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness and died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.’ (John 6:49)

Jesus also shows what ‘eating’ the bread of life entails:
‘For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.’ (John 6:40)

The heart of the message is: believe in Jesus and you will be raised from the dead by Jesus on the ‘last day’. That is the ‘last day’ of the age that began with His humble coming to earth. It is the day of the ‘last trumpet’, when all who have believed in Him will rise and, together with the believers living at that time, be caught up in clouds to meat the Lord in the air. It is the last day of the time that began with His descent into this world and ends with the gathering from this world of all who have believed in Him.

The linen cloths not only played an important role at His birth. They were also present at His burial. After Jesus was crucified and died, Joseph of Arimathea bought a piece of linen cloth, took Jesus' body down from the cross, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in his own, newly hewn tomb in the rock.  (Mark 15:46). The bread of life came and went "wrapped in cloths." The bread of life is still available, for everyone. It is almost time. Then the last trumpet will blow. Then the last day will dawn. Then the dead in Christ will experience what He promised:

 

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" (John 11:25)

 

Grave Cloths

Jesus' grave cloths are given a prominent place in the Gospels. All evangelists mention the linen that Joseph of Arimathea bought for Jesus' burial.

Joseph took Jesus' body down from the cross, wrapped it in the linen, and laid it in a new tomb he had carved for himself in a rock. He sealed the tomb by rolling a stone over the entrance. What was the impact of these grave cloths, and where have they gone since the events of Easter?

On the morning of the Resurrection, the grave cloths are mentioned again. Alerted by Mary Magdalene about the rolled-away stone and the missing body, Peter and John rush to the tomb together. John is the first to see the linens lying there. Then Peter follows, even entering the tomb. John describes the situation as follows in HIS RECORDING OF THE GOSPEL:

“And bending down, he saw the linen cloths lying there; but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. And he saw the handkerchief that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up by itself in a place.” (John 20:5-7)

Here are at least three different cloths: the handkerchief that had been on his head, rolled up by itself in a place, and “the linen cloths” (plural, at least two) where it was not lying.

The text of John’s Gospel then states:

“Then the other disciple, who had come to the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not know the Scripture that he must rise from the dead.”

John had more difficulty entering the tomb than Peter. This may have something to do with Jewish law, which states that touching a dead person makes a person unclean for seven days (Numbers 19:11).

When he finally went inside, he encountered something that formed the basis for his nascent belief in the resurrection. It was believing by sight. John indicates that at that moment, it was inevitable for him because they didn't yet know Scripture. For the millions who came after him, faith came by hearing, hearing Scripture. But John was the first to believe in Jesus' resurrection, and it was because of what he saw at that moment in the tomb: the linen cloths.

As he saw the linen cloths lying there, the only possibility suddenly flashed through John's mind. And perhaps he expressed it at that moment with great joy in his surprised voice: "Peter, He lives!... It can't be otherwise. He lives!"

For wouldn't someone who stole the body steal it, linen cloths and all? Why would a thief of a body unwrap it to be confronted with the signs of severe torture? And wasn't a body wrapped in linen much easier to carry than a naked one? The empty wrappings left John with only one possibility: the Lord had risen, and new hope flowed through his soul: "Peter, He lives!"

Later, Peter went again to the tomb when the women reported seeing angels who told him Jesus had risen (Luke 24:12). We read that the disciples didn't believe them, and then:

"But Peter got up and ran to the tomb, and when he bent over, he saw only the linen cloths lying there. And he went away, wondering at what had happened."

The linen cloths, which lay there in the tomb, without the body of Jesus, are given a significant place in the Gospels, and how they were there. For John, they were the first glimpse of faith; for Peter, a source of wonder. And there is much more to say about these grave cloths.

 

Painted

Some remarks in Paul's letters indicate that Paul took his audience to Golgotha ​​in his gospel preaching and gave a detailed account of the Lord Jesus' terrible suffering on the cross.

We find such an indication in his letter to the Galatians:

"O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you so that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been portrayed as crucified among you?" (Galatians 3:1)

His teaching was so vivid that it seemed as if his listeners had been present at the crucifixion themselves. How would Paul have done this? Did he perhaps have something to make Jesus' suffering visible?

The preaching of the cross occupies a very important place in Paul's mind. Later, he writes in his first letter to the Corinthians:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor.1:18)

Paul then calls this "word of the cross" a "proclamation" (Greek: kērygma, translated as "preaching"). This word "proclamation" is mentioned only eight times in the New Testament, twice by Jesus, referring back to the preaching of Jonah, and six times by Paul. Jonah's proclamation of impending judgment to the people of Nineveh may have been so effective because he bore in his body the marks of his adventure with "the fish," which was most likely a great white shark.

In the first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor.1:18), Paul contrasts the proclamation of the cross with the wisdom of the world:

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Cor.1:21)

Paul first came to Corinth after preaching in Athens. In Athens, he had preached on the Areopagus and sought connection with the wisdom of the Greeks, starting from an altar he had encountered in the city, dedicated to an “unknown god.” (Acts 17:23) Few in Athens valued his message. From his letter to the Corinthians, it appears that Paul, during his walk to Corinth, had resolved to approach his preaching there differently:

“And when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with excellence of speech or wisdom, declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling, and my speech and my ‘proclamation’ were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power…” (1 Cor.2:1-3)

Jesus, the crucified One, was central to Paul’s preaching, and the various aspects of Jesus’ suffering were part of it. One might wonder whether he used the visible witnesses of Jesus’ suffering, the grave cloths.

We may find a reference to this material in the last letter we have of Paul, which he wrote to his traveling companion Timothy.

"When you come, bring the cloak I left with Carpus at Troas, and the books, especially the parchments." (2 Tim 4:13)

This term "cloak" is usually understood to mean a traveling cloak. The Greek word "phelónēs" appears only once in the New Testament, and its meaning is therefore entirely dependent on this verse. The word derives from PHAINŌ. This word has a meaning unrelated to clothing or cloaks. It means "to bring into the light," "to appear," or "to shine." A "cloak" does not fit this.

Because of the approaching winter, which Paul mentions in his letter to Timothy, many expositors have decided to translate it to a traveling cloak. These expositors themselves find this interpretation strange because Paul would have traveled all that time without a traveling cloak. Moreover, a traveling cloak does not fit the context. The context is solely concerned with defending the faith.

Judai-Christian expositors see a connection with the Tallit Gadol. This is an official Jewish garment for prayer. It was the "tent" in which the faithful Jew sent up his prayer to God and which, according to Jewish interpretation, was made by Paul himself, as a tentmaker (Acts18:3). But it remains strange that Paul did not always carry this important garment with him.

The term "cloak" could refer to the material Paul used to demonstrate the core of his message: Jesus Christ and him crucified. It could then refer to the grave cloths, which played a role in the proclamation. This would tie in with what Paul also asks for: the books, and especially the parchments, important writings he wants to use in his work as an apostle, evangelist, and teacher.

Paul mentions the "cloak" as the first and most important thing Timothy should take with him, even before the book.

 

The term "cloak" could refer to the material Paul used to demonstrate the core of his message: Jesus Christ and him crucified. It could then refer to the grave clothes, which played a role in the proclamation. This would tie in with what Paul is asking for: the books and especially the parchments, important writings he wants to use in his work as an apostle, evangelist, and teacher.

Paul mentions the "cloak" as the first and most important thing Timothy is to take with him, even before the books and parchments. Wouldn't it then be more about Jesus' grave clothes than a cloak? To witness one last time, just before his execution, the signs of Christ's suffering on the cross, which formed the core of his message to the Galatians, the Corinthians, and all the churches, and which were his great example:

"...to know Him and the power of his suffering...to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to His death..." (Phil.3:10-11)

 

The Shroud of Turin

"Then Simon Peter came and followed him, and entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. He saw the sweat cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had come to the tomb first, also went in; and he saw and believed."  (John 20:6-8)

There are three grave cloths in the world that are almost certainly the original grave cloths in which Jesus Christ was buried and rose again. They are:

(1) The Shroud of Turin (Italy)

(2) The Holy Face of Manoppello (Italy)

(3) The Sweat Cloth of Oviedo (Spain)

 

The most famous grave cloth is the Shroud of Turin. Key dates related to this shroud are as follows:

1353 – The first official historical mention of the shroud in Lirey, France

1532 – The shroud sustained severe damage due to a fire in the chapel where it was kept

1578 – The shroud was transported to Turin, where it has been since then

1898 – A photograph taken by Secondo Pia reveals that the image on the cloth is a negative. The negative of the photograph of the shrouds appeared to depict the normal image of a face.

1978 – The shroud was subjected to a large-scale examination over five days of 24-hour periods by a team of three scientists and thirty experts from various fields (STURP – Shroud of Turin Research Project).

1988 – A carbon-14 dating test suggests the cloth dates to somewhere between 1260 and 1390.

2005 – Ray Rogers, chemist and member of the STURP team, writes his very last article, in which he states that the carbon-14 dating test performed in 1988 is invalid because the cloth sample is not representative of the cloth as a whole. The sample was taken from one of the corners and turned out to be partly dyed cotton, while it is actually linen. The dyed cotton is a repair carried out in the Middle Ages.

 

Documentaries about the Shroud of Turin.

A good first documentary, which summarizes a lot of information about the shroud, is this one:

The Shroud of Turin: Proof of Authenticity Beyond Reasonable Doubt (1 of 2)

We provide a summary in Dutch below:

First, a brief historical overview of the Shroud of Turin (the shroud) is given, with the 1988 carbon-14 dating definitively ending the shroud as a serious candidate for the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The video then presents numerous arguments why the carbon-14 dating should be rejected as incorrect and the high probability that this is indeed Jesus' burial cloth.

(1) A well-known archaeologist indicates that carbon-14 dating is unreliable due to various, often unknown, factors that can significantly influence the dating.

(2) It is a cloth of very dense, hand-woven linen, consistent with the biblical data, while this quality of linen was very scarce in the Middle Ages. Traces of earlier restoration work on the cloth appear to originate from the Middle East, as cotton was also rare in medieval Europe. Its dimensions correspond precisely to 8 x 2 Syrian cubits, the standard size in biblical times.

(3) The Hungarian prayer codex from the twelfth century shows an image very similar to the shroud, too large to be coincidental: (a) the crossed hands without visible thumbs, (b) the characteristic weave pattern, and (c) the characteristic holes, which together form an "L." This indicates that this cloth already existed in the twelfth century, a hundred years before it "first" appeared in France.

(4) An alternative dating by Ray Rogers in 2005, based on the percentage of vanilla in the lignin of the plants from which the linen is made, dated the cloth to around 700 or earlier.

(5) The Oviedo sweat cloth shows traces of blood that, according to forensic analysts, correspond with traces of blood on the shroud. The Oviedo cloth arrived in Spain in 631. Therefore, the shroud must be at least as old. Furthermore, (a) in both cases, blood type AB is present (occurring in only 3% of the world's population and is mainly found in the Middle East); (b) there are X and Y chromosomes, indicating the blood was male; and (c) there is a high concentration of bilirubin in the blood, indicating severe torture.

(6) A sixth-century document recounts how a group of priests traveled around present-day Syria and Turkey wearing a linen cloth bearing an image of Jesus. Since then, the way Christ was depicted in icons has changed, from a young Roman man without a beard to a man who looks exactly like the image on the shroud.

(7) The anatomical accuracy of all wounds on the shroud is confirmed by knowledge which only emerged after the discovery of the shroud, regarding the method of crucifixion, such as the scourging, the nails through the wrists and ankles, not through the hands and feet, the stab wounds from a crown of thorns, and the size of the wound in the side compared to a Roman spear.

(8) Pollen on the shroud came partly from France, Constantinople, and the Jerusalem area.

A crusader, Robert de Clari, testified to a cloth displayed in a church in Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) on Fridays, depicting the entire body of Jesus. Constantinople was captured and pillaged by the crusaders in 1204. This is likely why the cloth surfaced a century and a half later in the land of the crusaders, France. Pollen from Constantinople can thus be easily explained.

(9) Photographic study of the cloth has revealed images of flowers and plants, the combined composition of which only occurs in a small area below Jerusalem. Moreover, these flowers only appear in March and April, the season of Christ's crucifixion.

(10) Photographic study of the cloth led to the discovery of imprints of coins, the Lepton, minted between 29 and 36 AD by Pontius Pilate. Furthermore, the abbreviation for the emperor was misspelled, UCAI instead of UKAI, a fact that appears to have occurred, based on other coins found.

(11) Soil found on the shroud, near the imprint of the nose, knees, and heels, turned out to be a very specific type of clay, which corresponds exactly to the soil type at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem.

(12) The image of the body on the cloth is like a photograph. After three years and 150,000 man-hours of expert study by the STURP team, using photographs and X-rays, it was determined that the image did not originate from paint, pigment, or artificial dyes. The image is extremely superficial and is formed by discoloration of the top one or two fibers of the linen threads, something impossible with any dye or coloring technique. To this day, no scientific explanation has been found for the image on the shroud, and no one has been able to recreate it exactly. The image is a negative. The image contains 3D information, as demonstrated by modern NASA equipment. The most likely explanation is an unprecedented burst of radiation, which provides unequivocal historical proof of the resurrection.

 

It is strange that, after their investigation, the entire STURP team was convinced of the historicity of the shroud, while the church remains skeptical and refuses to acknowledge its historicity.

The only fact that contradicts the historicity of the cloth is the C-14 dating from 1988. This remains the basis for the assumption in the official media that it is a medieval forgery. In 2005, it was demonstrated that the cloth sample, taken from one of the corners and used for the C-14 dating test in 1988, had been part of a restoration in 1532, after the cloth had been severely damaged by fire. This medieval restoration likely involved the use of a technique known as "French weaving," in which new fabric (cotton) is dyed and interwoven with the old fabric (linen) so that nothing remains visible. This could explain the discrepant and therefore unreliable C-14 dating.

 

The Misleading 1988 Dating

Below is a Dutch translation of this video about the 1988 dating of the Shroud of Turin.

A sequel to the previous video provides more information about all the errors made in the carbon-14 dating method, which some consider one of the greatest scientific errors in history.

The Shroud of Turin 1988 Carbon Dating: Triumph or Travesty? (2 of 2)

The combined arguments from the previous video, based on various lines of evidence, make a compelling case for the Shroud of Turin as the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. However, all this evidence was overshadowed in 1988 by the carbon-14 dating test, which received more publicity than all other lines of evidence combined and concluded that the cloth originated between 1260 and 1390 AD. The team suggested that profit was the motive for the medieval forgery.

Doubts soon arose in scientific circles about the accuracy of the test results. The test failed to meet accepted scientific standards in virtually every aspect of the process: planning, sample transport, the C-14 test itself, and the analysis and reporting. One historian judged that the C-14 test on the Shroud of Turin will likely prove to be one of the largest failures in the history of science.

A brief explanation of how a C-14 test works: Every living organism on Earth contains C-12 and C-14 molecules in a certain ratio. Over time, however, the number of C-14 molecules decreases, while the number of C-12 molecules remains stable. By measuring the ratio between the two, the age of something that was originally living material (linen, made from phlox flowers) can be determined.

Performing the C-14 test to determine the age of the Shroud had already been proposed four years earlier, in 1984, by the STURP team, which had also examined the Shroud in 1978. They requested that the Pope submit the Shroud to another 26 tests, including the C-14 test. The request was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope. The tests were scheduled in the years that followed. They agreed on the following protocol:

1. Seven laboratories would conduct the tests

2. using two different dating methods, one old and one new

3. Supervised by Michael Tight of the British Museum

4. Samples would be taken from three different locations on the cloth

5. The samples would be selected and cut by the STURP team

6. Each lab would test the Shroud fragments and two control samples

7. The supervisor would know the age of the control samples and could therefore verify the accuracy of the test results

8. The test would be blinded, so the labs would not know which samples were from the Shroud and which were control samples

9. No one would know the test results except those authorized by the supervisor

10. The labs would conduct the tests independently and would not share information

11. The test results would be statistically analyzed by three institutions: the British Museum, the Turin Meteorological Institute, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

12. The three aforementioned institutes would consult with the labs before approving the final results.

 

These are excellent starting points. However, the group that decided on these starting points was anything but harmonious.

The C-14 team considered all previous results irrelevant, and others suspected this team of being only interested in publicity and money.

The C-14 scientists viewed the STURP team as a bunch of religious fanatics, because they had based their previous research on the authenticity of the cloth. They felt that the entire STURP team should be excluded from the study because "this team could be too tempted to influence the research results."

Ultimately, the C-14 scientists got their way, and the Roman Catholic Church decided to exclude the entire STURP team from the study and, moreover, to limit the study to only the C-14 dating method (even though the STURP team had recommended this test, along with 25 other tests, all of which were scrapped). It was decided to base the test on just one sample of the cloth. Instead of seven, only three laboratories would perform the test. Instead of two methods, they used just one, the newer method.

The single sample chosen was the worst possible: one of the corners of the cloth, which had been frequently touched and by which the cloth was always held during public exhibitions. Moreover, this corner also turned out to have been damaged in a fire in 1532.

The corner piece was divided into three for the three laboratories. The control samples came from a cloth woven completely differently, so the labs could clearly see which samples came from the shroud and which were the control samples. Therefore, there was no blind test.

The Cardinal, his scientific advisor, and test supervisor, Michael Tight of the British Museum, placed the samples in three cylinders, but this part of the protocol was not allowed to be filmed—even though it had previously been agreed that the entire procedure would be filmed. Furthermore, Tight had a third set of samples tested simultaneously, ad hoc. Because there were no cylinders available—it hadn't been anticipated—they were placed in envelopes. The sample in question was a thirteenth-century garment, coincidentally from the same period as the shroud's test results.

The absence of cameras made it easy to mix up the samples. This meant, at the very least, that another element of the initially agreed-upon protocol was ignored. When submitting all the samples to the three labs, the ages of the control samples were disclosed, completely undermining the validity of the entire procedure. Before testing, the samples were weighed, and two of the weights did not match the original weighing in Turin. These weight discrepancies are understandable if the samples had indeed been mixed up.

Also, the protocol for communicating the results was completely violated. The Arizona lab barred a Vatican representative, but a scientist who had previously been dismissed from the research team was allowed to attend. Because he had made a bet with his assistant, he called her the results immediately after they were announced. The Zurich lab allowed a full BBC camera crew to attend the test. The Oxford lab only began testing in July. In August, headlines in English newspapers began declaring the Shroud of Turin a forgery, even before the results had been communicated to the Church.

Two weeks before the results were published, a book, "The Shroud Unmasked," was published, concluding that the cloth was a fake. The professor in charge of the Oxford lab expressed no shame but stated that it was impossible to shield the results from the general public. Despite protocol, the tests were not conducted simultaneously. Ultimately, it must be concluded that of all 12 pre-agreed protocol requirements, only one was met: supervision by the British Museum. Mr. Tight of that Museum, given his continued violation of protocols and the statistical analysis below, played a very pernicious role in this, so that this point, too, essentially proved to be a sham.

 

So far, it can be concluded that only highly unprofessional conduct by scientists and laboratories occurred. However, if a statistical analysis is applied to the results, it can only be concluded that there was a deliberate push towards one specific conclusion: the canvas had to become widely known as a medieval forgery.

Ultimately, the statistical analysis was conducted exclusively by the British Museum, and the scientific council in Turin was excluded – again in violation of protocol. The test results were not released until a year after the worldwide publication and dissemination of the conclusions. This showed that – unlike the control samples and the samples added at the last minute – the three samples from the shroud showed enormous differences, so much so that the frequency distributions barely overlapped. This would only be possible if the samples had been taken from different cloths.

However, there did appear to be a correlation between the estimated ages and the position of each sample in the cut corner of the cloth. The further to the right, the older the cloth.

This makes the entire test so unreliable (the reliability reached only 5%) that it was almost impossible to draw any conclusions about the cloth's age. Five percent is borderline. When recalculating the reliability, it turned out that the 5% was also an incorrect rounding up. In fact, the reliability was below the minimum allowable limit, at 4.176%, or 4%. No conclusion should have been drawn. Every mediocre university of applied sciences student knows this. A student who had achieved this in their graduation project would have received a severe failing grade. And to think that 21 so-called scientists signed the final test report.

Even that 4.176% was still too high because there was an error in the Arizona lab's calculations. It turned out to have a much denser frequency distribution than ultimately reported, so that the small amount of overlap between the paintings was completely lost, and the reliability decreased.

After rejecting numerous requests for access to the test data, a Belgian chemist was finally granted access to the Arizona test results in 1997. He discovered that the Arizona lab had performed not four, but eight tests. Scientists had asked the lab to combine test results to arrive at a desired outcome. After adjusting for the actual eight test results, the reliability was 1.359%, far below 5% and therefore completely unsuitable for drawing conclusions.

After rejecting numerous more requests for test data, a FOIA request was granted by a judge in 2017, and the British Museum was forced to release everything. This revealed that not only the Arizona lab, but all three laboratories had performed more tests than stated.

The British Museum had thus (1) failed to fully publish the test results, (2) stretched the Arizona lab's frequency distribution, and (3) incorrectly rounded the resulting reliability. Only in this way did the scientists just manage to produce a "successful" test result – and 21 scientists agreed. Science, it turns out, is a money-driven business where truth is of no value. The Oxford lab alone received £100,000 from ITV and £1,000,000 from a consortium of businessmen. And Tight, from the British Museum, was allowed to take the position of Professor Hall, who retired shortly after the publication. The entire 1988 dating is riddled with conflicts of interest and personal gain.

 

A key question is why the three samples of the Shroud, all taken from the same corner of the cloth, gave such divergent test results after each was tested for age by a different lab. The fact that the control samples were very close in date excludes the possibility that this was due to the inaccuracy of the testing equipment used by the different laboratories.

Is it possible that the cloth in that corner was contaminated, leading to such divergent test results? Various theories have emerged over the years. The most plausible explanation was put forward by an American couple after studying photographs of the 1978 cloth. The specific herringbone weave was missing from the corner where the dating samples came from. Their suggestion was that this was the result of a sixteenth-century repair following fire damage to the cloth. The first-century linen would then have been mixed with sixteenth-century cotton, which had been dyed to conceal the repair. Because the repair line ran diagonally across the corner from which the three samples were taken, this explains the shift in the estimated age in one direction. The photographs of the corner of the shroud were sent to three textile experts, without mentioning that it was the Shroud of Turin, and all three concluded that it was a repair with new fabric.

When the couple published their findings in an article, it was dismissed by the scientific community as the speculation of enthusiastic amateurs. Ray Rogers, a member of the 1978 STURP team, was particularly outraged by the publication. Because he had access to the samples, he decided to disprove the couple's theory. Instead, he found the samples were full of cotton. Furthermore, dyes were also found in the samples, while the cloth had been found dye-free in 1978 when the bloodstains were examined. Ray Rogers was subsequently convinced that a deliberately unreliable sample had been taken in 1988. They had access to all the ultraviolet photographs from the 1978 STURP study, which clearly showed that the corner was not representative of the entire cloth. It was clearly the worst possible region from which to take samples for dating.

In 2005, Rogers published his findings in a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal in the field of chemical sciences. However, these findings did not receive nearly the enormous publicity given to the completely incorrect dating of 1988. Like all other evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, it remains obscured, and the public continues to be misled. It's not the Shroud of Turin that is the forgery, but the 1988 date, which was deliberately manipulated to mislead the entire world.

 

Epilogue

Big money controls not only science but also the media. People worldwide live in a sham world created by the bankers of this world. These bankers and industrialists are instruments of Satan, who, through the powerful of this earth, tries to keep the entire world's population from salvation in Christ Jesus. The results of the 1978 STURP team, which established the authenticity of the Shroud, along with singers like Keith Green, were busy sparking a massive spiritual revival in the US. Keith Green was murdered in a plane crash in 1982. (These murders are all 'whitewashed' by disinformation. Suddenly the pilot was said to have been incompetent and the weight (12 people on board a 7-seater) was said to have caused the accident. However, of the 12, 8 were children, 1 of two, 2 of three, 2 of four, 2 of seven and one of twelve and if you look up the weights of the children and add up all the weights, you get: 1x13 + 2x15 + 2x17 + 2x22 + 1x42 + 4x80 = 483 kg; maximum weight: 7x80 = 560 kg. So there was no question of excessive weight in the plane, although this is widely claimed. The pilot had extensive experience as an aviator in the American 'US Marine Corps', but because the weight in the army is monitored by someone else, he did not pay enough attention to it (12 people in a plane for 7 people) - but there was no question of Overweight. However, no one makes a simple calculation like the one above. Such reporting is called a "cover-up." A "cover-up," especially when a lot of publicity and effort is put into it, is further evidence for murder.

In 1988, the Shroud's popularity was "killed" by corrupted C-14 dating.

"Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."

 

Shroud of Turin In about 100 minutes

Below is the Dutch translation of a video that clearly explains how accurately the Shroud of Turin aligns with the information in the Gospels. Moreover, much evidence for the cloth's authenticity is presented.

Shroud of Turin In about 100 minutes

0:00 Who is "William Guy," the presenter of the video footage?

1:40 Guy notes that there is an attack on the Christian faith in the US, especially among younger generations. It would be immoral to believe that Jesus is the only Way to God. However, the Bible leaves no room for other religions. The Bible states: "From Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things." All things are restored solely and exclusively through the work of Jesus on the cross. Jesus proved that he was God by all the miracles he performed and by his resurrection from the grave. The message of Jesus spread through time, immediately after the events, while the eyewitnesses were still alive and could confirm or deny the stories. What miracle do we have that shows us that Jesus is the Son of God? The miracle that has survived 2,000 years is the Shroud of Turin. It isn't conclusive proof, but the cloth is so miraculous that it can only be explained by the resurrection of Jesus.

 

10:00 The Shroud of Turin is the most studied historical object of all objects in history. Thousands of hours, for hundreds of thousands of euros. An important question to ask is what a potential forger would have known and mastered to be able to construct the Shroud. First of all, the figure on the cloth is not visible up close. You have to stand approximately 10 feet (3 meters) away from the cloth to see a figure. Moreover, the image is in negative. The person depicted on the shroud measured between 5'11 1/2" and 6'2", which is between 1.80 and 1.88 cm.

The earliest suspicion of the Shroud of Turin as a forgery dates back to 1389, from a French bishop who claimed that his predecessor had spoken with the artist who had created the forgery. The artist's name is not mentioned. The paper on which this was written was never sent to the Pope. Perhaps the bishop felt slighted because the then-owner of the cloth had directly requested a public exhibition of the cloth from the Pope.

Before 1898, there was no interest in the Shroud of Turin outside the Catholic Church. Many relics were in circulation, most of which were fakes. Techniques for testing historical objects were lacking. In 1898, the first photograph of the Shroud was taken by Secondo Pia. The negative proved to be much more recognizable than the cloth itself. He concluded that the cloth itself was a negative, and that the negative of the negative therefore produced a positive. A forger should therefore have been able to generate a negative, hundreds of years before photography was invented.

 

6:00 PM Here begins the section on the anatomical study of the Shroud, which recounts the terrible suffering endured by the Lord. It begins in the Garden of Gethsemane, where the Lord prays: "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me." The Shroud shows the physical side of the "cup" over which the Lord prayed.

7:00 PM Here, the presentation briefly addresses the legal process. Before the Sanhedrin, where they found no valid charge against Him, the judge, Caiaphas, himself interrogated Jesus under a spell, to which He was then forced to answer. He declared that He was indeed the Christ. The verdict was then pronounced. Due to a lack of evidence, the evidence had to be gathered on the spot. Jesus was then beaten by the officers and the "staff."

The next morning, there was a short show trial in the temple (the chamber of the hewn stones), where the question was whether Jesus was the Son of God. If Jesus also answered affirmatively to that question (the "evidence" was again generated during the trial), He was led to Pilate because, since the installation of a governor, the Jews were no longer permitted to put anyone to death themselves. (This, incidentally, was a sign that "Shiloh," the Messiah, was among them, as seen in Genesis 49:10.)

Pilate has no desire to risk his life with the popular Rabbi, so he sends the accusers and Jesus to Herod's jurisdiction (because Jesus was originally from Galilee). Herod believes he is dealing with John the Baptist, whom he had beheaded. And he hopes Jesus will perform miracles. However, Jesus remains silent, and Herod sends Him back to Pilate.

Pilate declares he finds no fault in Jesus and proposes to flog Him and then release Him. Although the trial immediately continues with the Jews' cries for Jesus' crucifixion, the presenter first addresses the meaning of "flogging." This was already a terrible punishment. It was carried out at a stake by two lictors. The scourge used in the case of a person sentenced to death by crucifixion was a whip with lead balls on the end. The Romans made extensive use of this type of torture instrument. There were three levels at which the "flagrum" could be used: (1) fustagatio (beating), (2) flagellatio (flogging), and (3) verberatio (severe flogging). There are two types of flogging: with lead balls and with sharp pieces of bone or shards. The film "The Passion" depicts the latter. However, that would have resulted in immediate death. Therefore, it has been concluded that this must have been a flogging with lead balls at the ends.

Looking at the back of the man in the Shroud, he received 90 to 120 blows with a flogging made of two or three cords, each with two lead balls at the end. Flogging was standard procedure in cases of crucifixion. Cicero called crucifixion the most extreme punishment for slaves. Josephus called it the most pitiful death. Lictors were instructed beforehand to either severely chastise or to beat until death. For this reason, they alternated between whips, with or without lead balls, so that parts of the body with more superficial veins would not suffer too much blood loss. These two types of whip are visible on the Shroud of Turin. The flogging caused 372 blood spots on the body of the crucified man: 159 on the front and 213 on the back.

 

26:30 The blood analysis revealed a high concentration of bilirubin, consistent with the intense torture also evident in the Shroud. Normally, blood contains very little bilirubin. Under severe flogging, hemoglobin is released from the blood, which is broken down into bilirubin. The blood type is AB, which is rare worldwide but common in the Middle East. A medieval forger would have had to consider all these medical aspects of the cloth—while in the Middle Ages, people knew nothing about blood types and bilirubin. Furthermore, careful examination revealed that there was no image of the "man of the Shroud" beneath the bloodstains. This would mean that the bloodstains were first applied to the cloth. A medieval forger would therefore have to have applied the bloodstains first and then created the image—highly illogical.

29:55 For years, there was disagreement about whether the body had been washed beforehand. People thought not, because there was still so much blood on the cloth and there was little time to wash the body. The presenter assumes it was washed. After cardiac arrest, it takes another 150 minutes for the blood to completely clot. When Jesus was taken down from the cross, he was covered in blood, so that the individual wounds were not visible. So they washed him and placed him in linen, after which the bleeding continued for a short time, so that the marks from the flogging became individually visible.

 

32:00 After the flogging, the soldiers took turns hitting Jesus in the face and head. He had already been hit in the face by the officers and the temple servants. The Romans had a game called "Bazelinda," where the blindfolded person had to guess who hit him. Only when he guessed did the flogging stop. The face on the Shroud shows a swollen, possibly broken nose, a swollen left cheek, swelling above both eyebrows, a torn left eyelid, a large swelling under the right eye, a bruise on the right cheek, a swollen right chin, and a partially pulled out beard (due to asymmetry).

33:20 He had been beaten because He was King. The lictors wanted to know what the sentence was. The seriousness of the crimes compensated for any guilt that might have been evoked by the flogging. "King of the Jews" was a new kind of sentence. The crown of thorns fit this sentence well. This crown was much more of a "hood" than a round circle. That's how the Bible describes it. Many Jews were crucified at that time. This crown was unique to the crucifixion of Jesus. Therefore, it is either a forgery or actually the cloth of Jesus. Finally, Pilate let the people choose between Jesus and Barabbas. Due to the enormous pressure of the Jewish elite, the people chose Barabbas, and Pilate washed his hands of him.

37:20 Then Jesus had to carry the cross along the via dolorosa—not very long, but very steep—using only the patibulum, the horizontal crossbeam, which could weigh about 50 kilograms (100 pounds). This was impossible for someone with so much blood loss. John says that Jesus himself carried his cross, while the other evangelists say that Simon of Cyrene carried it. Jesus began to carry it himself, but after falling several times, Simon was forced to take over. This is consistent with the bloodstains on the shoulder blades, which merge much more into a single "raw mass of flesh," the result of carrying the beam and scraping against the cross during the crucifixion. The knees also show damage consistent with repeated falls on the Via Dolorosa.

 

39:07 In art, the crucifixion of Jesus is always depicted with the nails through the palms. Film versions also showed the nails going through the palms. But on the Shroud, it is very clear that the nails went through the wrists. This has never been replicated in art history. It was apparently not understood. A certain Pierre Barbet, a chief surgeon at St. Joseph's Hospital in Paris in the 1930s, wanted to investigate whether it was possible to crucify someone on the palms of the hands. He had access to all the unclaimed corpses, and he hung them on the wall. He discovered that it was impossible to crucify someone on the palms. They hold less than 50 kilos. There is no bone in the hand that prevents tearing.

He also discovered that when he drove the nails through the wrists, the nerves that cause the thumbs to contract were activated, causing them to disappear into the palm. This is also clearly visible on the Shroud: the thumbs are missing.

A certain Fred Zugibe, the head of the medical staff in New York, disagreed with Barbet and knew of a woman who had been stabbed in the palm of her hand with a knife, which emerged on the other side at the back of her wrist. In other words: You can nail someone to a cross in the palms as long as you exit at the wrists. We see an "exit wound" on the back of the man's hand on the Shroud, where the nail exited, always at the wrist. For this reason, the Shroud is anatomically completely accurate, given all the knowledge acquired later from the Shroud. But how could a medieval forger have known all this?

 

44:30 The nail in the foot probably passed between the second and third metatarsal bones.

44:50 How does one end a crucifixion? One possibility is breaking the legs. This is evident from the biblical data. Anatomically, one cannot exhale while hanging from a cross. To do so, one must push up on the nails through the feet or pull up on the nails through the wrists. When you can no longer do push-ups on your feet (because your legs are broken), you die of suffocation: you can no longer exhale. This also corresponds to the blood flow from the wound on your wrist. It flows at two different angles, 55 degrees and 65 degrees, the two positions you had to adopt on the cross when inhaling and exhaling. How could a forger ever have included all of that in his forgery? A second and third reason for breaking the legs: it led to a fat embolism, resulting in death, and: the crucified man could no longer escape, even if he managed to come down from the cross.

48:00 However, the legs of the man on the Shroud are not broken, just as Jesus's are described in the Gospels. In 1968, the osuary (bone box) of a certain Yehohanan, dating from the first century AD, was discovered, and it showed the nails through his wrists and the nail through his heel bone. The legs were broken (at the end of the crucifixion). That was the custom. Like the crown of thorns, the fact that the legs were not broken also indicates that this is the Shroud of Jesus. But even more important is what the soldiers did instead of breaking the legs. They plunged a spear into Jesus' side, causing water and blood to flow. The Shroud shows a huge wound in its side, exactly the size of a Roman lancea. Romans had four types of spears. The Hasta and the Hasta Velatarus were "disposable" spears that could not be used twice, so the enemy could not use them against their own Roman army. The sharp ends broke when they struck the enemy or the ground. The Lancea was a spear that was not thrown but held in the hand, like a sword. This is the type that fits the wound in the Shroud perfectly. This is also the word John uses in his Gospel.

 

52:10 The Gospel of John is also very accurate anatomically because, in cases of severe violence to the ribs (flagging), without an open wound, blood accumulates between the lung and the rib cage, the "pleural cavity." After some time, this fluid divides into two substances: the thicker blood at the bottom and the lighter serous liquid above.

After Christ was taken down from the cross and placed in the shroud, blood gushed from the side wound for some time, pooling in a stream across the small of his back. This is clearly visible in the image of the back of the man in the Shroud. It is highly unlikely that a forger could have taken all of this into account.

55:00 Another detail in the Shroud: the lower abdominal muscle is swollen. This corresponds exactly with the phenomenon that gas accumulates in the abdomen in the first few days after death, due to the influence of bacteria, causing it to swell considerably.

56:00 From here, the focus shifts to the cloth itself. Is the cloth consistent with a first-century burial cloth? The cloth has an image side (with the man's imprint) and a blank side, without an image. The image penetrates the cloth only nanometers. Nothing is visible on the other side. It is the blank side, which lay on the ground in the tomb. This side contains unexplained contaminants in the form of calcium crystals, with strontium and iron bands. A Dr. Joseph Kohlbeck in Utah examined the contaminants. His conclusion was that the composition of the contaminants indicated it was travertine aragonite limestone. Only 23% of all limestone in the world is aragonite and was formed from shells. A Dr. Eugenia Nitowski examined 54 of the 60 known tombs in Israel from the first century. A comparison was made between the contaminants on the white side of the Shroud and samples from the tombs in Israel, and they proved to be a strong match, particularly those from Jerusalem.

 

This comparison was further subtly replicated by a Dr. Ricardo Levi Setty of the University of Chicago, who used ion microprobe analysis to compare the "fingerprints" of the contaminants on the back of the Shroud with the limestone samples from Jerusalem, and there was a "match." Both samples contained small amounts of iron and strontium, but no lead, and the patterns were very similar. The slight difference was caused by flecks of linen (phlox) that could not be removed from the Shroud sample. There was no match with samples from other tombs in Israel, only with those in Jerusalem.

 

Manoppello

The Holy Face (Volto Santo) of Manoppello is a second important burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

The cloth is slightly less well-known than the Shroud of Turin, but it is equally intriguing. The cloth measures only 17 x 24 centimeters, but in earlier times it was very likely larger, namely 31 x 34 centimeters.

The first reports of the existence of a cloth depicting Christ's face date back to 574 AD, on the occasion of its transfer from the small town of Kamuliana, Edessa, to Constantinople. Legend has it that the cloth was one of the burial cloths and that the image of the face originated at the resurrection of Christ. Initially, the cloth was kept by Mary, the mother of Jesus. The cloth has been known by various names, including the Kamuliana Shroud, the Edessa Print, Acheiropoietos (not made by human hands), and the Cloth of Veronica. The latter name derives from "Vera Icon," meaning true image.

A note from the papal registers, dating from 753, states that in that year the Pope carried an image of Christ, not made by human hands, in a procession. From 1208 onward, a procession with the cloth of "Veronica" became an annual phenomenon. The writer Dante also refers to this cloth several times in his "Divine Comedy," emphasizing that it is an imprint of the face of God. The fourteenth-century monk Francesco Petrarch also mentions the cloth in his poems. St. Bridget of Sweden also writes about the face on the cloth because she participated in the procession in 1350. In 1506, a vault was built in the main pillar of the new St. Peter's Basilica, intended for storing the cloth of Veronica. This pillar is still called "the Veronica of Jerusalem." The Latin inscription reads: "In honor of the majesty of the Savior's face, imprinted on the canvas of Veronica, Pope Urban VIII built and adorned this place in the Jubilee Year 1525."

The canvas depicting Christ's face was lost for several years. There are several theories about its theft. The most plausible is that the canvas was stolen around 1608 during a restoration of St. Peter's Basilica. The Basilica's treasury contains an empty frame with two broken crystal panels between them, between which the canvas fits perfectly. The story of the canvas's reappearance in Manoppello dates back to 1645. After a few detours, the canvas finally ended up in the church of Manoppello.

The canvas depicting Manoppello's Volto Santo is made of byssus. This is a delicate fabric made from the anchor threads of rare, large shells. The thread shines golden, and there is currently only one woman in the entire world, in Italy, who masters the technique of spinning these threads. Byssus is priceless. The coarse silk structure of Byssus makes it impossible to apply pigment, paint, or anything similar to it. Therefore, the face of Manoppello is a miracle—not made by hands.

The cloth bears strong similarities to the Shroud of Turin. It seems that the images on both cloths originated in a way inexplicable to science and human understanding during the resurrection of Christ, releasing unimaginable energy and light, such that images were created on material that is not itself light-sensitive.

 

The fact that both cloths are congruent and fit perfectly over each other is beautifully illustrated with several videos.

This short video (in Polish) is particularly beautiful (and impossible to find online).

And here's another one of just the face. Manoppello
The Holy Face (Volto Santo) of Manoppello is a second important burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

The cloth is slightly less well-known than the Shroud of Turin, but it is equally intriguing. The cloth measures only 17 x 24 centimeters, but in earlier times it was very likely larger, namely 31 x 34 centimeters.

The first reports of the existence of a cloth depicting Christ's face date back to 574 AD, on the occasion of its transfer from a small town, Kamuliana, Edessa, to Constantinople. Legend has it that the cloth was one of the burial cloths and that the image of the face originated at the resurrection of Christ. Initially, the cloth was kept by Mary, the mother of Jesus. The cloth has been known by various names, including the Kamuliana Shroud, Edessa Print, Acheiropoietos (not made by human hands), and the Cloth of Veronica. The latter name derives from "Vera Icon," meaning true image.

A note from the papal registers, dating from 753, states that the Pope carried an image of Christ, not made by human hands, in a procession that year. From 1208 onward, a procession of the cloth of "Veronica" was an annual phenomenon. The writer Dante also refers to this cloth several times in his "Divine Comedy," emphasizing that it is an imprint of the face of God. The fourteenth-century monk Francesco Petrarch also mentions the cloth in his poems. St. Bridget of Sweden also writes about the face on the cloth because she participated in the procession in 1350. In 1506, a vault was built in the main pillar of the new St. Peter's Basilica, intended for storing the cloth of Veronica. This pillar is still called "the Veronica of Jerusalem." The Latin inscription reads: "In honor of the majesty of the Savior's face, imprinted on the cloth of Veronica, Pope Urban VIII built and adorned this place in the Jubilee Year 1525."

The cloth depicting Christ's face was lost for several years. There are several theories about the theft of the canvas. The most plausible is that the canvas was stolen around 1608 during a restoration of St. Peter's Basilica. The Basilica's treasure contains an empty frame with two broken crystal panels between them, between which the canvas fits perfectly. The story of the canvas's reappearance in Manoppello dates back to 1645. After a few detours, the canvas finally ended up in the church of Manoppello.

The canvas depicting Manoppello's Volto Santo is made of byssus. This is a gossamer-fine fabric made from the anchor threads of rare, large shells. The thread has a golden sheen, and currently only one woman in the entire world, in Italy, masters the technique of spinning this thread. Byssus is priceless. The coarse, silky texture of byssus makes it impossible to apply pigment, paint, or anything similar to it. Therefore, the face of Manoppello is a marvel—not made by hands.

Next - You

Previous - Future

The cloth bears a striking resemblance to the Shroud of Turin. It seems that the images on both cloths were created in a way inexplicable to science and human understanding during the resurrection of Christ, releasing unimaginable energy and light, such that images were created on material that is not inherently light-sensitive.

The fact that both cloths are congruent and fit perfectly over each other is beautifully illustrated with several videos.

This short video (in Polish) is particularly beautiful (and impossible to find online).

And here's another one of just the face.