This new, brief article by John C. Klotz in Open Salon is one of the most interesting, well argued papers on the Shroud of Turin.
Now let’s turn to the Shroud of Turin. What circumstances lead me to believe that the case is closed and the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth and quite probably proof of his resurrection. In this case, there are not two circumstances to draw a straight line, but hundreds.
Of course, you are going to need to read “The Shroud of Turin, Resurrection and Joe Kennedy” to understand what John means by not two circumstances. Do read it.
This is truly an interesting article. It deal with 2 important issues : The authenticity of the Shroud (is it the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth ?) and the possible proof of the resurrection (did the image offer some proof of the resurrection ?).
Taking the first question, I think the answer given by Willam Meacham in his 1983 article “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud : An Issue in Archeological Epistemology” is still valid today… with some caution. You can find this very good paper on the shroud.com website here : http://shroud.com/meacham2.htm
In this paper (one of the best I ever read about the Shroud), Meacham state this : “The question of authenticity may be readily divided into two stages : (1) the Shroud as a genuine burial cloth recovered from a grave or removed from a corpse and (2) the Shroud as the gravecloth of Christ.” After that, Meacham wrote this : “Current opinion on the Shroud’s authenticity range generally from “probable” to “proven” for Stage 1 and from “possible” to “probable” for Stage 2.”
Meacham show in his article that there’s many similarities between the image on the Shroud and the Gospel accounts and, as an archaeologist, this is enough for him to get to the conclusion that it is the authentic burial shroud of Christ. But, I want to point out the fact that, in the same article, Meacham talk about 3 other possibilities :
1-The Shroud is a fraud made by a forger who tortured someone in the same way than what is reported for Christ in the Gospels, in order to produce a relic of the Passion. In this case, the Shroud would be a human creation of a so-called gravecloth of Christ, made to fool people. The body image would have been created with some unknown method.
2-The Shroud is a genuine shroud of an unknown man who died from crucifixion, in the same way than what is reported for Christ in the Gospels. And here, there’s 2 possibilities : A) It is the shroud of a criminal who suffered the same capital punishment than Jesus and, in this case, it would be a purely accidental resemblance with Christ with the presence of an unexpected body image created by some natural process unknown to this day. B) It is the shroud of a martyred man who was tortured like Christ by some enemies of the Christian faith (Muslims maybe ?), who used the Gospels accounts to do their torture. And, in this case, it would be a deliberate resemblance with Christ in the way they tortured him, but without the purpose to create a relic because the body image would have been unexpected and surely created by some natural process unknown to this day.
Even with that in mind, Meacham came to the conclusion that “…the present evidence allows a firm archaeological judgement for authenticity.” I know these 3 possibilities don’t stand high in a probabilistic scale, as Meacham demonstrate in his article, but, to stay within the room of science, we cannot completely rule them out.
And don’t forget that Meacham wrote this article BEFORE the carbon dating test of 1988. Even if there are great doubts now about the 1260-1390 date range (thanks to Rogers, Adler and others work, Robert de Clari report and the Pray manuscript), I think it’s fair to say that we have to be prudent regarding the true age of the Shroud. We cannot rule out the possibility that the Shroud isn’t from the first century. Even if the medieval date is wrong, there’s still a possibility for the Shroud to have been manufactured AFTER the first century. If this is true, then we have to think that one of the three possibilities that I mentioned before is correct, as incredible as it seem ! To stay scientifically credible, I think we’ll have to wait for another carbon dating (done properly this time) to know if the Shroud is really the authentic burial cloth of Christ or not.
So, my personal conclusion is : With all the facts we know now, the possibility that the Shroud is a real shroud of someone who died from crucifixion is almost proven (I would say 99.9 %). And the possibility that the Shroud is the real gravecloth of Jesus-Christ is also very high, but, scientifically, we can’t say that it is an absolutely proven fact because of the 3 other possibilities mentioned in the Meacham article and because we don’t know for sure what his true age really is.
But, in the end, one thing’s for sure in my mind : after all the facts we know now about the Shroud, the possibility of a pure artistic fake is close to the absolute zero ! That’s it for the first question. We just have to hope for another carbon test !!!
Now, for the second question, I think we have to be really prudent. It’s not because science cannot duplicate the Shroud, even today, that the image on it is necessarily due to a miracle event. And it’s not because, today, we’re not completely sure of the exact nature of the image and we still don’t know the image formation mechanism, that science will not find some answers to these questions in the future. Carl Sagan said : “Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.” I totally agree !
On this particular question of the Shroud being a possible proof of the resurrection of Christ, I particularly suggest the reading of the wonderful book written by Ray Rogers “A chemist’s perspective on the Shroud of Turin”. It’s one of the most (if not the most) complete book on the science of the Shroud… You can buy it here (hardcover and PDF version available) : http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/a-chemists-perspective-on-the-shroud-of-turin/3278016
In his book, M. Rogers state that the whole body of data that we possess now about the Shroud suggest to him that no miracle is needed to explain the image. I know this is a personal opinion, but we have to keep in mind that it come from one true chemist expert who spend more time to analysed this object than almost anyone in the world. It’s not a claim just made by anybody on a street corner !
As I often say, with the eyes of faith, someone like me CAN see a sign of the resurrection on the Shroud but I will never claim that this is an absolute proof of this event ! And I would add this : Before seeing a sign of the resurrection on the Shroud, one must believe in the resurrection first ! I don’t think the Shroud, as mysterious as it is, ever succeed to convert masses of sceptics and atheists… Also, we have to keep in mind that science today isn’t able to fully authenticate the Shroud (for the reasons I mentioned earlier in this text). So we really need faith to see a sign of the resurrection on it !
Again, Meacham, in his article, gave us the best conclusion on this important topic : “Clearly, the data can be taken no farther than to indicate a separation of body and cloth before the onset of decomposition and the prevalence of rare conditions in the tomb which resulted in the image.”
I think this last statement says it all !!! Science cannot go farther than this, at least for the moment… It was true in 1983 when Meacham wrote it. It is true in 2011. And I don’t think I’ll make a big mistake in saying that it will be true for a long time beyond now !!!
Conclusion : Does the Shroud show a proof of the resurrection ? I think we have to absolutely say “NO”. Now, does the Shroud show a sign of the resurrection ? With the eyes of faith, we can say a clear “YES” or just a prudent “COULD BE” ! This last answer is mine for the moment…
Although I agree with the conclusion of the article it still bothers me that people keep using the nails thru the wrists, not the palms as a big piece to the puzzle or as evidence, when undoubtably it has been proven that the nails could have been nailed thru the palms on an angle where they would come out at the back wrist area.One should read the findings by Dr Zugibe for the explaination of this.So in saying this; the Shroud DOES NOT depict a contrary method to earlier paintings or depictions of nails thru the palms.
Thank you.
R
I think we could talk a long time about that ! I don’t think we can consider Zugibe’s HYPOTHESIS of nailing the wrist a “proven” fact ! And personally, I prefer by far Pierre Barbet’s conclusions on this particular topic (even if nobody can say it’s a proven fact either). In reality, there’s 2 things that bugs me about Zugibe’s HYPOTHESIS :
1- Pierre Barbet did real nailing experiments with fresh amputated limbs and he said in his book (A doctor at Calvary) that, when he nailed the wrist, each time the nail found a way through Destot’s space after being deflected by the small bones from the wrist, no matter where he put the nail on the wrist before nailing it. What that mean is that Destot’s space is a NATURAL path for a nail through the wrist and a nail who pass through this space always came out at the same exact spot that is shown on the Shroud. So, the experiments done by Barbet cannot be rejected. Nobody can claim that this is not a possible way of nailing the wrist ! I don’t pretend that Zugibe way to nail the hands is not compatible with what we see on the Shroud (I’m not a doctor !), but the biggest question we have to ask ourselves is : What is the most easy and logical way to nailed the wrists ? Barbet’s way through the wrist or Zugibe’s way through the bottom of the palm with some angulation to be sure it come out in the wrist area ? Using our logic, I think it’s fair to say that Barbet’s way if the most simple way to nail someone through the wrists. I think it’s the most “natural” way to nail someone through the wrists. It’s hard for me to believe that the Roman soldiers would scratch their head and try to calculate the right angle to drove the nails through the bottom of the palm to make sure he come out in the wrist area…
2- Zugube’s experiments and calculations gave the conclusion that the palms of the hand would hold on if the nail was driven through them. It is surely true if the nail is driven the way he describe with an exit point in the wrist area but I have some doubts about a nail driven through the middle of the palm with an exit point in the middle of the hand (and not the wrist) !!! Barbet too did some experiments about that question and came to the opposite conclusion. Who can we trust ? I think Zugibe forget to consider an important factor in his calculations : the movements a crucified man could make while on the cross ! If someone don’t move at all, then I can think the nails through the palm could hold on. But with someone fighting for his life (and for his breath), we cannot rule out the possibility that this person couldn’t make some movement with his hands (like pulling on his hands). To me, if someone can pull on his hand while he is on the cross, he have some chances to tear up the flesh of his hands. It seems logical to me… I really don’t think Zugibe’s calculations consider this factor. One other important thing to consider : We have to put ourselves in the shoes (sandals would be more accurate !) of a roman soldier. They didn’t want the victim on the cross to have any chance to get out alive, so the most logic way to lock-up the hands was surely to pass the nails through the wrists…
This is my reflection on the subject. Using the good old logic, we have to think Barbet’s conclusions on this particular point have more chances to be true. That’s what I believe… Again, to make your choice between Barbet and Zugibe, never forget to put yourself in the sandals of a Roman soldier. What is the most easy and natural way to drive a nail in such manner than the exit spot will be in the wrist area ? I really think it is through the wrist using Destot’s space…
Thank you for your reply to my long message !!!
Okay maybe I shouldn’t have used the word ‘undoubtably’ and I am no doctor myself, but I have studied it pretty thoroughly and with the help of my Personal Doctor, whom happens to be a surgeon and also a Shroudy figures Zugibe has it right…Common sense tells me (putting myself in the sandals of a Roman Centurian) that 1. Romans were very maticulous in everything they did from building roads to the technology of thier weapons.2.Now these Romans were crucifying people for centuries and in Christ’s time by the dozens or more each day.Point is they would know exactly how to hammer a nail and at what angle to get it right.Plus it is known they would use wood washers between the nail head and the body, this would make it practically impossible for any substantial movement to occur of the hands or feet.Anyways has you said we could go on for hours in this so let’s just say we agree to disagree on this particular topic ;-)
You said it right. It’s a topic where there are 2 camps : One for Zugibe and one for Barbet (who was also a surgeon by the way. Like your doctor !). I can add to my defense that doctor Robert Bucklin (who was the medecin guy for STURP), like many other doctors, agree with Barbet on this particular point…
But, can we agree on one thing : The nai on the Shroud show an exit wound in the wrist area and not in the palm like it was always depicted in sacred art way after the Middle Ages ! So, if the Shroud is a forgery, then our forger would have been a very bizarre guy. If his goal was to produce a relic of the passion of Christ, why showing the exit wound elsewhere than across the palm ??? That does ring true to me…
And I think we can agree also on the fact that, with Barbet’s or with Zugibe’s method of nailing, the arms were held in position much more firmly than what would happened if the nail was driven across the palm !
And Barbet and Zugibe agreed on the most important thing : The image on the Shroud is the image of a real human body who spend no more than 48 hours there because there’s no sign of putrefaction on the cloth. That’s the most important conclusion from a medical point of view…
Thanks for your nice post…
Yannick :-)
I do not agree with your second and third paragraph, in the sense that the Shroud shows only the ‘back’ of the wrist not the front (We can not see the entry point and no assumptions should be made).All artist depictions in history have always shown only the ‘front’ or palm view and with the nails driven thru the hands or palms.Artists were never very worried about accuracy as is easily discernable by any eye.ALSO, (This is not an argument for or against the ‘forgery’ hypothesis, this is an argument for the distinction of the nail entry point in historical paintings).This distinction though of the nails driven thru the ‘palms’, not the middle of the ‘hands’ may be accurate going by Zugibe’s hypothesis.As it has been ‘proven’ by Zugibe that the nail could have followed this path.Also if you have read Zugibe’s paper he gives good evidence as to why this method would be a stronger ‘holding’ point, comparing ‘exactly’ where the wound exits are showing on the Shroud, i.e pinky side vs index finger side of the wrist…this point is VERY telling.So going by what his theory states, the earlier understanding of the nails being thru the ‘palms’, not hands may very well be accurate in it’s depiction, even if it was not understood by the artists at the time, that the nail exits were from the wrists.As they were going by scripture and not by their own forensic knowledge.
I just believe you are misinterpreting my view in this matter or I may not be explaining it properly…The exit wounds on the wrists is very good evidence that the shroud is authentic but only because ‘today’ forensically we understand that it is accurate.but it is not precise to use that point against early artist impressions/depictions.
So I stand by my original statement.
Ron.