The Shroud's Second Image
New evidence reopens debate about the controversial relic.
By Gordon Govier | posted 12/01/2004 12:00AM
The shroud of turin was widely dismissed as a medieval forgery after radiocarbon tests in 1988 dated it to the 13th or 14th century. Now a growing body of evidence is calling for reassessment of the shroud, which is kept in Turin, Italy.
The latest item comes from the London-based Journal of Optics, published by the Institute of Physics. Two scientists from the University of Padua, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, report in the journal's April edition the discovery of a heretofore-undetected reverse image on the shroud. They say the smaller, fainter image on the back of the cloth depicts just the face and hands. And it's a superficial image, adhering only to the outermost fibers, just like the image on the front. "It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features," Fanti writes.
'There is only one person it could've wrapped, even though science could never prove who it wrapped.' Barrie Schwortz
The fact that their study was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is significant and "a step in the right direction", says Barrie Schwortz, editor of Shroud.com. This is one of the most comprehensive of the many websites devoted to the phenomenon.
Schwortz, who is Jewish, was a shroud skeptic until he served as a photographer for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). The five-day project was the most intensive investigation in the history of the image. Besides providing the first public viewing of the media age, the project reinforced the shroud's cachet as a truly unique religious icon.
But then, 10 years later, came the much-heralded carbon-14 tests, confirmed by three laboratories, dating the cloth to the Middle Ages. "It was like dropping an h-bomb, and seeing how long it takes life to come back," says Gary Habermas, chair of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University, who has coauthored two books on the shroud.
Science vs. Science
While most people concluded the shroud had been discredited, some significant questions have been raised. One of the main questions was whether the samples chosen came from an area of the shroud that was repaired.
"What if we can prove that the carbon dating didn't sample the original shroud but a rewoven area?" Schwortz asks.
He is awaiting word from another scientific journal, which is currently reviewing a paper on a chemical analysis by a STURP colleague. That colleague, Raymond Rogers, a retired fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, claims the carbon-14 tests were done on a dyed piece of medieval-era linen and cotton. He theorizes the cloth came from an undocumented repair of the shroud. On April 9, 2004, National Geographic suggested that the test samples came from a patch repaired during the Middle Ages.
"It's a case of science vs. science, not faith vs. science," Habermas says. But until they're officially discredited, he says the carbon-14 tests are still the most powerful objection to the validity of the shroud.
Paul Maier, a professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University and an expert on early Christianity, says, "The paper trail doesn't go back far enough." The specific history of the shroud goes back only to the 14th century. "I tend to think something as important as this would've had more attestation [because] the early church was interested in hard objects [connected to the faith]."
Habermas still has doubts about the shroud. But he counters that there are a half-dozen images of Jesus on coins and paintings dating to around the sixth century that bear a remarkable congruency to the face on the shroud.
December 2004, Vol. 48, No. 12