The John Dominic Crossan Paradox on Shroud of Turin
For many reasons, people find it hard to believe that the Shroud is authentic. Among these:
1) History: It is hard to imagine that a relic of Jesus survived for nearly can 2000 years. Furthermore, we are conditioned by the lessons of history to believe that a relic with a footprint in medieval Europe must be fake.
2) Carbon 14: Tests conducted in 1988, on samples cut from the Shroud, suggest that the linen fibers of the cloth were produced between the middle of the 13th century and the end of the 14th. Our trust in such science is implicit, and rightly so.
3) Incredulity: We assume, dichotomously, if the Shroud is not fake then the images we see on the cloth must have been miraculously produced as a byproduct of a resurrection event. This overwhelms modern sensibilities. Sensational theories in polemic writings—theories such as dematerialization or radiation coming from the body of Jesus—only magnifies our incredulity.
4) Alternatives: We may be persuaded by alternate presentations: Walter McCrone attempted to show that it was a painting. Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in the 14th century and discovered that an artist had confessed to painting the Shroud? Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud's image (in his own image) despite the fact that he was born a century after its documented appearance in Lirey, France in 1356.
5) Convictions: Firm religious beliefs or our view of history persuades us that the Shroud cannot be real. Biblical literalism, which does not account for the Shroud, is an example. John Dominic Crossan's argument that Jesus was not buried and that his body likely left on the cross to be devoured by crows and dogs or thrown into a charnel pit is also an example.
Crossan, a significant historian and Jesus Seminar Fellow, whose understanding of the 1st century is formidable and useful, wrote of the Shroud:
My best understanding is that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval relic-forgery. I wonder whether it was done from a crucified dead body or from a crucified living body. That is the rather horrible question once you accept it as a forgery.
Crossan, who is meticulous and organized in his analysis, introduces an interesting paradox. As his comments imply, he is certainly aware of the most undisputed observations about the Shroud.
The bloodstains are from real human blood. Different scientists working independently conducted immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens that prove it beyond any doubt. And several experts in forensic medicine and blood chemistry conclude that the stains were formed by real human bleeding from real wounds on a real human body that came into direct contact with the cloth. Many of the stains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of the clot and a clear yellowish halo of serum.
There is wide agreement that the bloodstains are from a man laying on his back with his feet at one end of the 14-foot linen cloth. The cloth was brought up over the man’s head to cover his face and the entire length of his body down to his feet. Bloodstains on one part of the cloth indicate a serious wound to the chest. The patterns of these stains show that blood likely flowed from the chest area, down the side of a prone body and pooled near the lower back. Mingled with the large bloodstains in this area are stains from what pathologists believe are clear bodily fluid, perhaps pericardial fluid or fluid from the pleural sac or pleural cavity. All of these findings suggest that the man received a postmortem stabbing wound in the vicinity of the heart.
The strange images pick up where the bloodstains leave off by revealing more pathological detail. They reveal details of piercing wounds, lacerations, bruises, contusions, and abrasions, all of which are medically accurate to the trained eye of forensic pathologists. The wounds, these experts tell us, are accurate representations of the sort of wounds expected from a vicious scourging and crucifixion by nailing. From the appearance of certain wounds we can surmise that the man of the Shroud was savagely flogged. Whatever was used, it is consistent with a Roman flagrum, a whip of short leather thongs tipped with bits of lead, bronze or bone which tore into flesh and muscle. There are dozens upon dozens of dumbbell shaped welts and contusions, the very type of wound that the flagellum would have caused. There is blood from the flagellation and even a bit of tissue thought by medical experts to be a torn-out bit of muscle. From the angles of attack—the way the marks fall on the man’s back, buttocks, and legs—it seems that man was whipped by two men, one taller than the other, who stood on either side of him.
On the man’s chest, between the fifth and sixth ribs that we see what looks like an elliptical gash from which the blood and clear fluid may have flowed to under the man’s lower back.
At some time, the man may have been forced to wear a crown of thorns. That seems to be a possible explanation for the numerous puncture wounds about the top of his head. But from the pattern of wounds and drops of blood, it seems to have been more like a rough bunch of thorns, or a cap of thorns, and not like the wreath-shaped crown of thorns so common in artistic depictions. There are details in the Shroud images that suggest both a beating and falling: a severally bruised left kneecap, a dislocated or possibly broken nasal cartilage, a large swelling around the right eye socket and cheekbone. There is also the puzzling observation that there seems to have been significant abrasions on both shoulders, where the apparent scourging marks appear abraded as though rubbed over. Might this be from carrying something heavy across both shoulders, perhaps the patibulum, the crossbeam of the cross?
In the hand wounds we see that the nails were through the wrists and not the palms. This is evidenced by both the images and the bloodstains. That was contrary to all known artistic depictions of the crucifixion since the earliest carvings of the crucifixion on 5th century coffins. It was certainly the norm during the Middle Ages to depict Jesus as nailed through his palms. The wrists, however, are more archeologically and medically plausible. It was not before the first part of the 20th century, that medical experts first realized that nails driven through a man’s palms would not support his weight, even if his feet were nailed or supported. The nails would tear out. That the Romans did, in fact, crucify victims by driving large nails through the wrist area of the forearm was confirmed by the 1968 archeological discovery of a crucifixion victim, named Johanan ben Ha-galgol, found near Jerusalem at Giv’at ha-Mivtar.
And unlike any medieval art, the body of Jesus that we see on the Shroud was completely naked. Why would a medieval crafter of fake relics risk rejection by so completely defying cultural expectations?
Crossan, who depends on plausibility, constructed on sound knowledge of historical circumstance, to argue that Jesus was not buried, abandons such methodical reasoning when it comes to the Shroud. Is it not a stretch to imply that a crafter of fake relics used a newly crucified man to achieve medically accurate realism? In an age and place as undemanding as medieval Europe, why would he do so? Is there any of evidence, any record, any indication, that people were crucified in the Middle Ages to make relics? Would they have known how to do it? Was there some craft in that era that could have been employed to accomplish this feat?
Home Page & Introduction: The Shroud of Turin Story - A Guide to the Facts 2005
© 2004 Daniel R. Porter, Bronxville, New York
