The Shroud of Turin as a Bier Cloth: A Reconciliation of History, Science, and Faith
In my forthcoming book, the Oyster Man proposes a possible hypothesis: the Shroud of Turin as a Bier Cloth. Here is how the Oyster Man puts it (draft copy):
In the unlikely event that modern corrections to the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin were to reveal it as approximately 2,000 years old, then what we must consider an intriguing alternative to the traditional burial cloth narrative. It will almost certainly emerge as the preferred explanation for the cloth and its images. It does not require an apriori belief in a physical or spiritual resurrection, yet allows for it. As long as radiation dominates the discussion from pro-authenticists, the bier explanation will become the chosen narrative in social media, secular journalism, and historical narratives.
Picture the scene at Calvary: The disciples, with profound reverence, lowering Jesus’ body from the cross. They would have needed a temporary resting place for their Lord, and a length of linen cloth would have served to keep His body from direct contact with the ground. As they awaited permission for a proper burial, they likely draped this cloth over Him with gentle care, drawing it from His head to His feet.
The intense heat of the late afternoon sun would have accelerated natural processes. Blood and sweat would have dried into the fabric, and perhaps even more significantly, the conditions could have triggered a Maillard reaction—a chemical process between amino acids and sugars that some researchers suggest might explain the formation of the image seen on the Shroud today.
Later, when preparing Jesus for burial, the disciples would have encountered this cloth, now heavily soiled from its temporary use. Out of reverence, they may have set it aside, choosing fresh, clean linen for the actual burial wrappings. If this sequence of events occurred, the Shroud of Turin might not be Jesus’ burial cloth at all, but rather a bier cloth—a temporary linen used to carry His body from the cross to the tomb.”
That hypothesis is too compelling to ignore. It’s certainly more acceptable to the one in four American Christians who don’t believe in a physical Resurrection. [i] [ii] [iii]
That hypothesis also accounts for both the image and the bloodstains while presenting a historically plausible narrative that aligns with the Gospels.
The scientist in me sees it as a valid hypothesis. The wannabe lawyer in me sees it as an alternate theory that introduces reasonable doubt. As long as it remains plausible and cannot be definitively refuted by facts, it becomes impossible to prove that the Shroud of Turin was a burial shroud used in Jesus’ tomb.”
Exploratory Notes (Seeking Comment and Correction)
For centuries, the Shroud of Turin has captivated global attention as a linen cloth bearing the faint image of a man who many believe to be Jesus Christ. In this analysis, I propose a paradigm shift in how we view this enigmatic artifact: not as a permanent burial shroud that wrapped Jesus in the tomb, but as a temporary bier cloth used briefly during the transport of his body from the cross to the burial site. This perspective, I believe, offers a compelling reconciliation of the scientific, historical, and theological challenges that have surrounded the Shroud debate. By examining the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial, analyzing translation issues regarding burial cloths, comparing the explanatory power of the bier cloth hypothesis against the traditional burial shroud narrative, and addressing how this view engages with various theological positions, I hope to establish that the bier cloth hypothesis provides a more coherent framework for understanding the Shroud of Turin.
The Gospel Accounts and Translation Issues
The Gospel narratives provide our primary historical source for understanding Jesus’ burial practices, yet they contain subtle distinctions that are often overlooked in discussions about the Shroud. When examining the original Greek texts, I find several terms used to describe the cloths associated with Jesus’ burial:
- Sindon (σινδών): Used in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53) to describe the cloth Joseph of Arimathea purchased to wrap Jesus’ body.
- Othonia (ὀθόνια): Found in Luke 24:12 and John 19:40, 20:5-7, referring to “linen cloths” (plural) in which Jesus’ body was wrapped.
- Soudarion (σουδάριον): Mentioned in John 20:7, describing a cloth that had been around Jesus’ head, separate from the linen cloths.
Perhaps most significantly, I must emphasize what the Gospel accounts do not mention: there is no reference whatsoever to any burial cloths bearing bloodstains or an image of Jesus. This silence is striking if we assume the Shroud as we know it today—with its detailed bloodstains and full-body image—was present in the tomb. Wouldn’t such remarkable features have merited mention by the Gospel writers? When Peter and John entered the empty tomb and saw the burial cloths, there is no indication they observed anything unusual about them beyond their arrangement. This conspicuous silence in the texts strongly suggests that either no image existed at that time, or the cloth with the image was not among those observed in the tomb—lending further credence to the bier cloth hypothesis.
Of course, we can also explain this by reminding ourselves that the Gospels were written decades later.
These terminological distinctions suggest multiple cloths were involved in Jesus’ burial process. The Synoptic Gospels’ use of sindon (a single cloth) potentially aligns with my bier cloth hypothesis—a temporary wrap used to transport the body. Meanwhile, John’s account specifically mentions separate cloths for the body and head, with the head cloth “folded up by itself” (John 20:7).
When translators render these terms into English, important nuances are often lost. Many translations simply use “linen cloth” for sindon and “burial cloths” for othonia, obscuring the possibility of distinct functions for different cloths. I believe a more precise translation reveals that the Gospels describe at least two distinct cloth types: a temporary transport cloth (sindon) and more formal burial wrappings (othonia).
Crucially, the Gospel of John (19:40) specifically mentions Jewish burial customs: “They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in linen cloths with the spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews.” These customs typically involved washing the body, anointing it with oils and spices, and wrapping it in clean linen strips. This elaborate process would not have been possible immediately after Jesus’ removal from the cross, suggesting an interim solution was needed.
The Bier Cloth Hypothesis Defined
I propose that the Shroud of Turin was a temporary cloth (the sindon) used to transport Jesus’ body from the cross to the tomb, rather than his final burial wrapping. This hypothesis accounts for several key factors:
- Time constraints: Jesus died late on Friday afternoon, with the Sabbath beginning at sundown, leaving insufficient time for proper burial preparations.
- Transport necessities: A large cloth would have been needed to carry Jesus’ wounded body from the cross to the tomb.
- Two-phase burial: Jewish practices often allowed for an initial placement of the body followed by a proper burial after the Sabbath.
- Gospel consistency: This view reconciles the Synoptic mention of a single cloth with John’s description of multiple burial cloths.
Under this hypothesis, Jesus’ body would have been wrapped briefly in this transport cloth, which came into contact with his wounds and body fluids. The cloth would have been removed once the body reached the tomb and was placed either on a stone bench or in a rock-cut niche. Later, possibly after the Sabbath, the body would have been properly prepared with spices and wrapped in the formal othonia burial cloths.
The image formation on this bier cloth could have occurred through natural processes: blood and body fluids interacting with the linen, potentially accelerated by the unique conditions (heat, spices, limestone environment) of Jerusalem during Passover. This cloth, having served its temporary purpose, would have been set aside—preserved out of reverence but not considered part of the formal burial wrappings.
Scientific Evidence Supporting the Bier Cloth Hypothesis
The bier cloth hypothesis offers compelling explanations for several scientific findings regarding the Shroud:
- Dating discrepancies: The controversial carbon dating placing the Shroud in the 14th century (1260-1390 CE) conflicts with other methods such as WAXS (compatible with 55-74 AD), Mechanical & Opto-chemical (90 AD ± 200 years), and Monte Carlo Mechanical (279 AD ± 216 years). As a bier cloth temporarily in contact with Jesus’ body rather than his permanent burial shroud, the Shroud could be authentic even if contamination or later repairs affected the carbon dating.
- Image characteristics: The image on the Shroud is (perhaps) superficial, affecting only the outermost fibers of the linen threads. This limited penetration is consistent with brief contact followed by removal, rather than prolonged wrapping unless we resort to unscientific explanations such as radiation.
- Blood evidence: Forensic analysis indicates that bloodstains were present on the cloth before the image formation. This sequence aligns perfectly with the bier cloth scenario: blood transfer would occur during transport, while image formation might develop gradually afterward.
- Lack of decomposition evidence: The Shroud shows no signs of the bodily fluids associated with decomposition. Under my hypothesis, the cloth was removed before such processes began.
- 3D properties: The Shroud’s image contains encoded spatial information that some researchers interpret as three-dimensional data. This characteristic could result from brief, direct contact with the body during transport, rather than conforming tightly around a corpse for days.
I find particularly compelling the research showing that simulations of fabric draped over a low-relief representation produce patterns more compatible with the Shroud image than fabric draped over a full three-dimensional body. This aligns with the bier cloth hypothesis, where the cloth might have been placed over the body during transport rather than tightly wrapped around it.
V. Historical Context and the “Missing Years”
The Shroud’s documented history begins relatively late, in the 1350s in Lirey, France, under the possession of Geoffroi de Charny. This has been a significant challenge for those arguing for the Shroud’s authenticity. However, the bier cloth hypothesis provides a plausible narrative for these “missing years.”
As a cloth that was not considered the primary burial shroud but rather a transport cloth that had touched Jesus’ body, the bier cloth might not have received the same veneration or historical documentation as objects directly associated with the resurrection. It could have been preserved privately by early followers of Jesus, passed down through generations without the prominence that would have garnered historical records.
The Eastern Church has traditions of sacred objects being hidden during periods of persecution and iconoclasm. As a cloth bearing a faint image that only became clearly visible with the advent of photography in 1898 (through Secondo Pia’s groundbreaking photographs), the Shroud might not have been recognized for its full significance during much of its history.
This scenario is not a conspiracy theory requiring coordinated deception across centuries. Rather, it reflects the natural way artifacts of uncertain or secondary importance might be preserved without extensive documentation until their significance becomes more apparent.
Theological Implications and Compatibility with Diverse Perspectives
One of the most compelling aspects of the bier cloth hypothesis is its ability to accommodate diverse theological perspectives:
- Traditional Christian beliefs: For those who believe in a physical resurrection, the bier cloth scenario is entirely compatible. The cloth would have been left behind as Jesus’ body was prepared for proper burial, only to be abandoned when the resurrection occurred. The image could even be interpreted as having formed at the moment of resurrection.
- John Dominic Crossan’s view: Crossan, who taught at DePaul University (a Catholic institution), has argued that Jesus may not have received a proper burial at all, suggesting his body might have been disposed of in a common grave. Despite his position at a Catholic college, Crossan maintained this challenging perspective, which the bier cloth hypothesis doesn’t necessarily contradict. My hypothesis simply suggests that regardless of the final disposition of the body, a cloth was used during transport and preserved. This cloth could have been kept by followers even if Jesus’ body ultimately received a different treatment than described in the Gospels.
- Marcus Borg and spiritual resurrection: Borg, who taught at Oregon State University, interpreted the resurrection as spiritual rather than physical. For those who share this theological position (about 25% of all American Christians), the bier cloth hypothesis still has relevance. The cloth would represent a genuine historical artifact that touched Jesus’ body, while not requiring a physical resurrection to explain why the body was no longer wrapped in it. That respected scholars from diverse academic settings have maintained these views demonstrates that questioning traditional understandings of Jesus’ burial and resurrection has occurred within mainstream academic discourse.
I find (various surveys) that approximately one in three Catholics, one in three Mainline Protestants, and one in five Evangelical Christians in the U.S. do not believe the resurrection was physical. The bier cloth hypothesis offers these believers a way to view the Shroud as authentic without requiring a literal, physical resurrection.
What makes this hypothesis more compelling than alternative explanations is that it doesn’t require elaborate conspiracy theories involving medieval forgers creating an image through unknown techniques that scientists still cannot fully explain. Instead, it proposes a straightforward scenario: a cloth used temporarily during a historically documented event, preserved out of reverence, with an image formed through natural processes.
Addressing Common Objections
Several objections might be raised against the bier cloth hypothesis:
- “Why would a transport cloth be preserved?”: Objects associated with venerated figures are frequently preserved, regardless of their significance. The cloth that carried Jesus’ body, even temporarily, would likely have been treated with reverence. However, this raises another important question: if the cloth bore bloodstains and an image, why isn’t this mentioned in any early Christian writings? I suggest that the image might have been much fainter initially, developing and becoming more visible over time through natural aging processes. Alternatively, the cloth’s significance might have been primarily as a relic that had touched Jesus’ body, with the image being a secondary feature not immediately apparent or emphasized in early accounts.
- “The Shroud shows no signs of having been used for transport”: The bloodstains on the Shroud are consistent with wounds described in the Gospels. The pattern of stains aligns with what we would expect from a cloth used to transport a wounded body.
- “The image is too detailed for brief contact”: The mechanism of image formation remains unclear, but several natural processes could explain image development even after brief contact, especially if catalyzed by unique environmental conditions.
- “The Church has traditionally viewed it as a burial shroud”: The Catholic Church has maintained a remarkably measured position, neither officially endorsing nor rejecting the Shroud’s authenticity. This cautious approach allows for evolving interpretations like the bier cloth hypothesis.
I believe these objections, while reasonable, do not fundamentally challenge the bier cloth hypothesis and can be addressed within its framework.
Comparative Analysis: Bier Cloth vs. Primary Burial Cloth
Why is the bier cloth hypothesis superior to the traditional view of the Shroud as Jesus’ primary burial cloth? I offer several reasons:
- Gospel consistency: It better reconciles the different cloth descriptions across the Gospels.
- Image formation: It allows for natural processes to create the image during a brief period of contact, rather than requiring miraculous or unknown mechanisms.
- Theological flexibility: It accommodates diverse theological perspectives on the resurrection while maintaining the Shroud’s potential authenticity.
The primary burial cloth hypothesis, by contrast, faces significant challenges: explaining the lack of decomposition evidence, reconciling with John’s description of multiple cloths, and accounting for the superficiality of the image.
IX. Conclusion: The Bier Cloth as a Bridge Between Science and Faith
The Shroud of Turin remains an enduring enigma, but viewing it as a temporary bier cloth rather than a permanent burial shroud offers a fresh perspective that reconciles many seemingly contradictory aspects of this remarkable artifact. This hypothesis does not diminish the Shroud’s significance—indeed, a cloth that carried Jesus’ body from the cross would still be a relic of profound importance.
I believe this perspective allows us to appreciate the Shroud as an authentic historical artifact without requiring either blind faith or dismissive skepticism. It accommodates the scientific evidence while respecting diverse theological viewpoints. As research continues, the bier cloth hypothesis provides a framework for investigation that neither overstates nor understates the Shroud’s significance. It allows us to embrace the mystery while pursuing truth, recognizing that some questions may remain unanswered even as we gain deeper understanding of this remarkable cloth and the story it tells.
Table: Summary of Shroud of Turin Dating Methods and Results
| Method | Result/Date Range |
| Radiocarbon Dating (1988) | 1260-1390 CE |
| WAXS (2022) | Compatible with 55-74 AD |
| Mechanical & Opto-chemical (2015) | 90 AD ± 200 years |
| Monte Carlo Mechanical (2015) | 279 AD ± 216 years |
[i] Michael O. Emerson and David H. Sikkink, Portraits of American Life Study (PALS) (Rice University and University of Notre Dame, 2006), funded by the Lilly Endowment.
[ii] Pew Research Center, What Americans Believe About the Resurrection (Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, 2017).
[iii] Lifeway Research, The State of Theology: What Do Americans Believe About God, Jesus Christ, Sin, and Salvation? (Nashville, TN: Lifeway Research, 2022).
Hi, Dan,
I’m super-swamped with work, but, like a moth to the flame, I couldn’t help but take a quick peek at what you wrote. I only read through the part of “Oyster Man’s” comments. I’ll try to get to the rest later on. But, just some quick comments–although, perhaps, you have already answered this. But, I’ll go ahead and raise them anyway.
First, if the Shroud of Turin is a bier cloth, then why is there no evidence of blood pulled off from the clots due to the transfer of a material body from the bier cloth to the actual burial cloth?
Second, the precision of the bloodstains in the scourge wounds could only have gotten that way (per Zugibe and the other forensic pathologists that he asked to give their opinion on this) if (at minimum) the scourge wounds had been washed. Obviously, this would have happened after the body was transferred (with the hypothetical bier cloth) to the tomb where the burial preparations would have occurred (including, at minimum, the washing of the scourge wounds.)
Third, if the image came about from some sort of reaction (Maillard type or otherwise) from the body’s contact with the bier cloth, then how do we account for some of the areas that appear on the Shroud of Turin which would not have come about from contact if the cloth had just been laying on the body. Yes, yes, I can already hear in my head Hugh arguing . . . “someone just got a tamper and pushed down on the bier cloth (not just for Hugh’s own image formation hypothesis) where the cloth would not have naturally touched certain areas of the body enveloped in the bier cloth. Yeah, . . . no.
All the best,
Teddi
Thanks, Teddi. While what you say may be true, it is all opinion evidence (the first is absence of evidence, for instance). Nothing, so far, that I can see, decisively rules out the Oyster Man’s suggestion. His point is about alternate possibilities ruling out proof beyond a doubt. I think he is right. But I’m giving it some thought and I’m seeking input, which is why I posted. Thanks, again.
Hi, Dan,
With regard to my first comment (“First, if the Shroud of Turin is a bier cloth, then why is there no evidence of blood pulled off from the clots due to the transfer of a material body from the bier cloth to the actual burial cloth?”) you nodded at the “absence of evidence” fallacy (which, of course, continues with the classic “is not evidence of absence.”
Generally, I would agree with you about that–sorta. Leave it to me to make amendments to a classic rule about fallacious arguments, but . . . if I must, I must.🤣🤣🤣 I think that when we look at things in the real world, we never really have definitive proof of anything (besides our own consciousness by way of our capacity to think.)
So, in the real world, when we try to figure out what is True, we either want to go with a “balance of probabilities” or a “preponderance of the evidence” or a “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard–none of which are definitive, but are still useful in terms of helping us make prudent decisions.
So, Teddi’s tweak to the “absence of evidence” rule is that it is not DEFINITIVE evidence of absence. BUT, it is evidence of absence–just to a less firm standard.
But, CONTEXT is everything. So, for example, when people are attesting to what happened at an event, peoples’ perspectives differ and their interest in highlighting certain information differ and–depending upon who they are telling the account to–their audience can differ. So, there is a natural understanding that certain things which, in fact, occurred during some event which a person is recounting might be mentioned and certain things might be excluded. But, the excluded material does not, necessarily, mean that it did not occur.
But, I would like to distinguish the situation with the bloodstains–and the issue regarding separation of the bloodstains. If the Shroud of Turin was a bier cloth and not a burial cloth, then, necessarily, the body was separated from the cloth. And, unless it happened in a supernatural way, it is expected that there should be some evidence of separation/lifting of the blood from the clots on the cloth.
Now, again, CONTEXT. With the Resurrection, there is reason to think that this was a supernatural event. (I know that’s both a loaded and controversial statement–as I seem to recall you mentioning that you do not think that there was a supernatural resurrection–please correct me if I am mistaken here.) Nonetheless, the concept of a truly dead body’s coming back to life (I’m excluding situation that encompass the “Lazarus syndrome) does violate the laws of nature–then, this demands a supernatural cause. But, the mere wrapping of a dead body–even of God Incarnate’s–does not really indicate any known reason (theologically or otherwise) that would make sense, so it’s fair to think that the separation of Jesus’ body from the bier cloth occurred in a natural way.
So, if the Shroud of Turin were a bier cloth, it would be reasonable for us to see evidence of such separation–and, I would argue, evidence of a whole lot of smeared blood–especially since the carrying of the body from the Cross to the tomb would, likely, disturb some bloodstains (that may have dried) and smear bloodstains from areas where some new, postmortem blood would have been expected to come out (with the removal of the nails and I think there’s good evidence that the Crown of Thorns was still on Jesus when He died, so the removal of the Crown would likely cause some fresh blood to drip (and get smeared on the bier cloth.)
Also, I think, especially, regarding the scourge wounds, that (as Zugibe and other experts he consulted) suggested, those wounds had to be washed to give such detailed imprints.) As such, these detailed imprints wouldn’t be on the bier cloth used to transport Jesus prior to His body’s being, at least, partially washed.
That’s too bad that you won’t be at the upcoming conference. It would have been great fun to talk to you in-person.
All the best,
Teddi
Hello, Dan!
This is nothing new. As far as I recall, such hypotheses were postulated in the past, especially when there were more purported relics of burial linens than just the Turin Shroud (Shroud of Besançon for example). This was the way to reconcile the story and accept purported authenticity of both cloths. Whether or not are they tenable, I will leave aside. In my opinion rather not. But I am open minded.
Are you all coming to the upcoming Shroud conference in St. Louis? It would be a real pleasure to meet y’all in-person! I’m sure that the discussions in real-time would be very interesting!
Cheers,
Teddi
I’m not coming. I’ve sort of retired from the Shroud. I’m sure there will be plenty of interesting discussions. My book is not really about the Shroud. It’s more about a spiritual journey of a lifetime. The Shroud plays into it as the elephant in the room because … well, that is what it was. It is the sort of book one writes for there children and grand children at my age.
The Oyster Man is a very interesting character in this book and that is why I plan to share it.
I no longer believe the Shroud is authentic and it is very refreshing and strengthening to have it unattached to my faith.
Too bad because St. Louis is my old stomping ground.
I know you are open minded. And I know it is not new. Colin Berry, for one, suggested it not to long ago. Thanks for your comment.
Hi Dan ,
Who is the author of the forthcoming book ?
Kind regards
Patrick
I am. The book is a summary of a fifteen year discussion about God’s existence, is Jesus who he says he is, prayer, miracles and the Resurrection in particular. And, of course, the Shroud of Turin (the elephant in the room all those years). Here is a snippet from the Introduction.
Recently, when I mentioned my desire to write this book about our conversations, he said no. For him, the matter felt more private than it did for me. However, after some discussion, he agreed to let me proceed on the condition of anonymity.
“I can’t do that,” I had insisted.
“You can,” he said. “Treat me like the fictional Cleanthes in David Hume’s ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,’?” he suggested.
“What?” I almost screamed. “I have never encountered a living soul, including myself, who has ever read that, much less heard of it.”
“Then, can you instead suggest to the readers of your book that I am an imaginary friend, a figment of your imagination? Can you explain that the discussions in your book are only a literary device?”
“They might believe that. That won’t do at all.”
“That’s your problem. Haven’t we spent the last several years talking about believing?” Then he got cute, “O, ye of little faith, dearest reader of these words, dost thou think I am naught but a mere metaphor?”
“Okay. You shall be Oy,” I replied. “And I will be careful with your privacy.”
“Oy? As in oy-vey? Yiddish, slap my forehead, oy?”
“That, too,” I said. “But Oy will be short for Oyster Man.”
He laughed. “Can we make it Oyman? That has a ring to it.”
Thanks for your reply Mr.Porter.
Hi, again, Dan,
I wanted to add something else. When looking at “alternative possibilities”–and, sure, that’s not just “fair game” but important when making a legitimate inquiry about something–it’s important that we look at alternative possibilities that are REASONABLE–not just in an overall way, but given the CONTEXT of a particular situation.
So, if I leave a steak in my front yard, and it’s gone the next day, without more evidence, it’s unreasonable for me to think that a Martian came down from Mars and ate the steak. Instead, the context points, far more likely, to either a dog, coyote, deer, bobcat or raccoon or some other type of wildlife that tends to sometimes meander in my neighborhood having eaten the steak.
I find it interesting that you find you’re not believing in the Holy Shroud’s authenticity as being “refreshing” and “strengthening” to not have it attached to your faith. I really can’t comprehend this. You are looking so hard for all sorts of alternative possibilities to refute the Shroud’s authenticity (while shoving the obvious, most reasonable possibility to the side burner), but you are “refreshed” and “strengthened” by having “faith” in God without the most compelling evidence for God’s existence?
This seems to me to be a contradiction. Do you prefer evidence or not for your beliefs? Why would anyone prefer to have faith instead of evidence for something–especially when belief in something as important as religion is supposed to have a monumental effect on what we do (and do not do) in our lives.
Also, why would it be “refreshing” for you to not know the True face of God Incarnate? When I look at the Holy Face, I get a connection to Jesus that, otherwise, is not had. It’s like with a pen-pal. To never see the person’s face is to have a certain “something” lacking in the relationship. There is a sort of incompleteness to it. An uncomfortable wondering that stems from not fully knowing WHO you are communicating with.
Sure, with God the Father and the Godhead, yes, God has chosen to let this remain a mystery to us mere mortals. YET, God understands our need to see His Face, and so, He has done just that with the Holy Face on the Shroud of Turin! It is His glorious gift to us, but you are “refreshed” in thinking that you do not have this. I cannot wrap my head around this, and I believe that the reason why is because it seems like an overly convenient thing to say to make you feel good about your position–that you are proceeding just through “faith alone”–and not being like that “scallywag” Thomas. But, we did not ask for the Holy Face as proof–God has chosen to give this to us as a gift! And, Jesus performed miracles so that people would believe–Jesus did not just tell people “Hey, trust me, I’m Divine” without giving them evidence of this through His being able to perform miracles in front of them.
Anyhow, just more thoughts from the peanut gallery . . .
All the best,
Teddi
Mr. Porter,
Thanks for your interesting proposal that the Turin Shroud was actually a “bier cloth,” a temporary cloth used merely for transporting the body of Jesus from the cross to his tomb.
It was somewhat surprising to read that scenario, and coming from you, but in view of the enduring mysteries of the Turin Shroud, the scenario deserves some consideration. Also, the bier cloth speculation is related to the more general question of how the body was transported, a subject rarely ever touched on in the Shroud field. How would or could it have been done: hands only? leather straps? cloth straps? rope? a litter? a large cloth such as a bier cloth? some other means? was the patibulum cross-beam still attached to the hands? so many questions.
Of course, many people over the decades have suggested that the Turin Shroud was used not only as a burial shroud but also as such a transport cloth. But you now suggest that two separate cloths may have been involved, one for temporary transport, the other for permanent burial.
Here follow several questions or possible objections to your scenario, in chronological order according to your presentation, but stopping at your “Scientific Evidence” sub-heading. Otherwise this would get too long.
1) If the body were laid in the cloth already at the foot of the cross, and meant to be carried away, would it really have been laid so very neatly as it appears on the Turin Shroud? Would the hands have been crossed and joined as they are? Would the head be aligned straight forward, not sagging to one side?
2) Why is it necessary to envision a Maillard, chemical reaction (natural image formation) on a bier cloth but not on a burial shroud? The Maillard reaction hypothesis has long been proposed in the field for the Turin Shroud when considered only as a burial cloth.
3) In the minutes directly after the body was removed from the cross, some of the wounds would still have oozed blood in a fully liquid state. It would not yet have congealed into a semi-dry state, to a gel such as formed most of the bloodstains seen on the Turin Shroud. But such liquid blood would have transferred in a blotchy way onto any cloth at that early point in time, whereas the TS bloodstains do not appear blotchy. And the jostling movements involved in the transport would certainly also have caused some smearing of the still-moist blood as the body rocked side to side, however slightly.
4) The Turin Shroud is a fine piece of linen and was apparently quite valuable. Is it likely that such a cloth was merely a temporary transport cloth used for only a few minutes?
5) Why would a bier cloth hypothesis be “more acceptable” to those who (like me) don’t believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus’ body?
6) The (singular) sindon vs. (plural) othonia discrepancy seems a minor one. Both terms could easily refer to the same cloth. After all, today, one man’s gravestone is another man’s tombstone. So, too, with pants and trousers – and notice that both items are of one piece yet grammatical plurals. Also, the Gospel of John was apparently written some ten or twenty years after Luke, and in a different region of the Near East. Its style and vocabulary in general are different from the previous three gospels, so that could easily account for the different words used in the gospels, sindon and, in John, othonia. Consider too that the very long length of the Turin Shroud, forming a top sheet and a bottom sheet, could well account for its being briefly perceived in the tomb as more than one cloth, hence “othonia” or cloths. The use of the word othonia in Luke 24:12 (after an earlier mention of a shroud in chapter 23) seems a later borrowing from John 20, according to many New Testament scholars, not an independent usage.
7) That the gospels do not mention an image on the sindon/othonia seems easily explicable as due to the need for secrecy and safety, to protect the amazing shroud and its image from confiscation and possible destruction by the authorities (or even merely from appropriation/theft by an overeager early Christian).
8) Would a bier cloth for such very temporary use, just 3-4 minutes to reach the tomb, have needed to be long enough to cover the entire back and front of the body? Why not just the underside as necessary support for the body?
9) Actually, the Turin Shroud has no hand-grips on its sides for use in carrying a heavy male body in it. So, all the jostling movements during transport could easily have caused one or more of the pall-bearers to lose his grip on such a cloth, resulting in a fall.
10) If a solid surface such as a wooden board was under the body as a bier, one wonders why such a cloth would also be used or be necessary. And if a front/top sheet were added simply for decency and discretion, why would the underside need a bottom sheet too?
I’ve tried to step back in time to envision your scenario, but have found myself stumbling over these questions. Maybe you can answer at least some of them.
John L.
Mr. Porter,
Thanks for your interesting proposal that the Turin Shroud was actually a “bier cloth,” a temporary cloth used merely for transporting the body of Jesus from the cross to his tomb.
It was somewhat surprising to read the scenario, and coming from you, but in view of the enduring mysteries of the Turin Shroud, the scenario deserves some consideration. Also, the bier cloth speculation is related to the more general question of how the body was transported, a subject rarely ever touched on in the Shroud field. How would or could it have been done: hands only? leather straps? cloth straps? rope? a litter? a large cloth such as a bier cloth? some other means? was the patibulum cross-beam still attached to the hands? so many questions.
Of course, many people over the decades have suggested that the Turin Shroud was used not only as a burial shroud but also as such a transport cloth. But you now suggest that two separate cloths may have been involved, one for temporary transport, the other for permanent burial.
Here follow several questions or possible objections to your scenario, in chronological order according to your presentation, but stopping at your “Scientific Evidence” sub-heading. Otherwise this would get too long.
1) If the body were laid in the cloth already at the foot of the cross, and meant to be carried away, would it really have been laid so very neatly as it appears on the Turin Shroud? Would the hands have been crossed and joined as they are? Would the head be aligned straight forward, not sagging to one side?
2) Why is it necessary to envision a Maillard, chemical reaction (natural image formation) on a bier cloth but not on a burial shroud? The Maillard reaction hypothesis has long been proposed in the field for the Turin Shroud when considered only as a burial cloth.
3) In the minutes directly after the body was removed from the cross, some of the wounds would still have oozed blood in a fully liquid state. It would not yet have congealed into a semi-dry state, to a gel such as formed most of the bloodstains seen on the Turin Shroud. But such liquid blood would have transferred in a blotchy way onto any cloth at that early point in time, whereas the TS bloodstains do not appear blotchy. And the jostling movements involved in the transport would certainly also have caused some smearing of the still-moist blood as the body rocked side to side, however slightly.
4) The Turin Shroud is a fine piece of linen and was apparently quite valuable. Is it likely that such a cloth was merely a temporary transport cloth used for only a few minutes?
5) Why would a bier cloth hypothesis be “more acceptable” to those who (like me) don’t believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus’ body?
6) The (singular) sindon vs. (plural) othonia discrepancy seems a minor one. Both terms could easily refer to the same cloth. After all, today, one man’s gravestone is another man’s tombstone. So, too, with pants and trousers – and notice that both items are of one piece yet grammatical plurals. Also, the Gospel of John was apparently written some ten or twenty years after Luke, and in a different region of the Near East. Its style and vocabulary in general are different from the previous three gospels, so that could easily account for the different words used in the gospels, sindon and, in John, othonia. Consider too that the very long length of the Turin Shroud, forming a top sheet and a bottom sheet, could well account for its being briefly perceived in the tomb as more than one cloth, hence “othonia” or cloths. The use of the word othonia in Luke 24:12 (after an earlier mention of a shroud in chapter 23) seems a later borrowing from John 20, according to many New Testament scholars, not an independent usage.
7) That the gospels do not mention an image on the sindon/othonia seems easily explicable as due to the need for secrecy and safety, to protect the amazing shroud and its image from confiscation and possible destruction by the authorities (or even merely from appropriation/theft by an overeager early Christian).
8) Would a bier cloth for such very temporary use, just 3-4 minutes to reach the tomb, have needed to be long enough to cover the entire back and front of the body? Why not just the underside as necessary support for the body?
9) Actually, the Turin Shroud has no hand-grips on its sides for use in carrying a heavy male body in it. So, all the jostling movements during transport could easily have caused one or more of the pall-bearers to lose his grip on such a cloth, resulting in a fall.
10) If a solid surface such as a wooden board was under the body as a bier, one wonders why such a cloth would also be used or be necessary. And if a front/top sheet were added simply for decency and discretion, why would the underside need a bottom sheet too?
I’ve tried to step back in time to envision your scenario, but have found myself stumbling over these questions. Maybe you can answer some of them.
John L.