Do you recognize this man? This of course is the image on the famous Shroud of Turin, perhaps at this juncture the most famous Christian relic of all. But is it Jesus? Medical experts have examined the Shroud in detail and shown how the wounds, the trajectory of blood flow and the like are anatomically correct and reflect a person badly abused and crucified. There are many particulars about this Shroud which make unlikely the claim that it is a mere clever forgery.
Of course it is true that this Shroud went through a fire in the Middle Ages, and so not surprisingly, when a small portion of the edge of the scorched cloth was Carbon 14 testing, it dated from the Middle Ages. It may never be possible to get an accurate Carbon dating on the Shroud, unless a non-scorched part of the Shroud could be tested, but that would probably involve some of the image not the border, and that would never be allowed.
What is most interesting about the image of the Shroud is that it is a photographic negative, and in itself appears to be the result of a scorch on the cloth from some high intensity light and heat. That it was a negative was only discovered at the beginning of the age of photography by an Italian camera man allowed to shoot old style pictures the Shroud. Imagine his surprise when he saw the negatives in the dark room, and they were positives. We can say with some confidence now that the image on the Shroud is not painted nor stained on the Shroud (the depth of the image is so shallow that these suggestions do not work). In other words, the suggestion of mere human artifice does not seem to work in this case.
The Shroud of Turin is not like so many of these Christian relics which can be shown to be phony with very little scholarly effort at all. But the image on the Shroud is a mystery. How did it get on the cloth, and where did the Shroud originally come from, and for that matter what is its relationship to the bloody facial cloth housed in a church in Spain, that seems to have the very same image on it, when the two images are electronically super-imposed, only the facial cloth has much more blood on it. And about that blood. What do we really know about the person in question in terms of DNA and blood type? There are so many unanswered questions, not the least of which is— does it really matter to Christian faith?
On the one hand, as the NT makes clear, the NT writers were not interested in, nor do they ever describe what Jesus looked like. Not once, not anywhere. This of course is hard for us to imagine in an age where ‘image is everything’. But what counted in Jesus’ world was the content of one’s character not the color or form of one’s skin or facial features. The Gospels help us know the real Jesus, but they do not satisfy our curiosity about what he looked like.
And yet for almost two thousand years we have had visual representations of Jesus. Frederick Buechner wrote a fabulous and beautiful book about this called The Faces of Jesus. In it he says the following:
“Whoever he was or was not, whoever he thought he was, whoever he has
become in the memories of men since and will go on becoming for as long
as men remember him — exalted, sentimentalized, debunked, made and
remade to the measure of each generation’s desire, dread, indifference — he was a man once, whatever else he may have been, and had a man’s face, a human face….Take it or leave it, if nothing else it is at least a face we
would know anywhere — a face that belongs to us somehow, our age, our
culture; a face we somehow belong to. Like the faces of people we love,
it has become so familiar that unless we take pains we hardly see it at
all. Take pains. See it for what it is and, to see it whole, see it too
for what it is just possible that it will become: the face of Jesus is the face of
our own secret and innermost destiny. The face of Jesus as our face.”There is surely no person who has been more the subject of scrutiny, artistic representation and misrepresentation, and speculation than Jesus of Nazareth. Does the Shroud help us understand the man? If it is the burial shroud of Jesus, and of course that is debatable, a few things can be said. Firstly, it can show us what he went through on the cross, for our sake. It gives us a visual representation of the effects, the cost of crucifixion. Unlike the little gold jewelry we are apt to wear around our necks today, the real crosses, and their effects were something hideous, something people hid their eyes from. And if Jesus merely died on a cross, and that was the end of his saga, the cross should never have crossed over into the realm of jewelry. Something that hideous could never have become something beautiful. But let us suppose for a moment that the Gospel story is true— and Jesus rose from the dead, proving that at least one dead man did tell tales thereafter, at least one dead man was seen walking, after his execution.
Suppose in a blaze of light and glory Jesus emerged from the tomb, leaving a scorched negative image on the his burial shroud. Suppose Joseph of Arimathea who owned the tomb or some other disciple preserved this remarkable portrait of a man once crucified and it was passed down in the Christian community from one generation to the next. Suppose that all the scientific scrutiny which has been applied to the Shroud is not an exercise in futility but rather an exercise in fertility. How did the images of so many Middle Eastern flowers get on that Shroud? How is that the weave of the cloth comports with what we know of other ancient Jewish burial shrouds? How is it that the wounds on the Shroud are shown as correctly going through the wrist rather than the palms, as in most of Christian art? How is it that the brow of the browbeaten man shows signs of being pierced and scratched by a crown of thorns, and not just any thorns but from the Jerusalem sabre plant?
Perhaps in the 21rst century we may be forgiven, all these centuries later for demanding, as the Bard once put it (and as Thomas once insisted on), “show me the ocular proof”. In the age of computer screens, and film, and video games, and Iphone apps, perhaps we may be forgiven for asking— what did he look like, and did he rise from the dead? If these are our questions, then perhaps the man shrouded in mystery on the Turin shroud can help us count the cost of crucifixion, and see our redemption face to face. Whether this is so or not, while we see through a glass dimly and darkly now, one day we will see him face to face.
The question then will be— ‘can you face him?’ Do you know that Christ’s history is the believer’s destiny? Do you understand that Easter is not about an historical anomaly, but about the beginning of the End of life as we know it? If the Shroud of Turin is genuine, it is a miracle worth discussing. But at most it points to a much greater miracle, the message of which is this—- God’s Yes to life, is a thousand times louder than death’s No! Death does not have the last word about us, God does.
posted April 1, 2010 at 5:06 am
I’m glad for the attention this brings to the Lord Jesus Christ. May more people come to a saving knowlege of Him through repentance as a result. He is so wonderful. Just think: God loved us so much, He bacame a man, suffered and died in our place! Wow. Now that’s love. He doesn’t want anyone to perish but He wants all to come to repentance. Thank God I did in 1972 and am keeping my heart right before Him now (which is also critical to making heaven). The Chrsitian life is the most wonderful life. In Him is life and nowhere else. Won’t you let Him in so He can flood your life with His love?
posted April 1, 2010 at 7:11 am
Ben,
Thank you for this article on the Shroud. I’ve done a lot of reading about it, and every time I get a little more excited. While we may eventually get to perform further, conclusive tests as to when the shroud was made, we will never be able to use it to convince non-believers of the truth of the resurrection. If it’s real, or if it’s not, I believe Christ rose from the dead. But I can only believe that because the Holy Spirit has allowed me to do so. For those who do not believe, no evidence is sufficient. For those who believe, no evidence is necessary.
David
posted April 1, 2010 at 8:16 am
This is not all about the shroud we’re talking- what need to know is, we have to believe and understand that Jesus is real. As we all know, nobody was sure and certain about the legitimacy of this relic. It’s all based upon theory and assumptions, there was no clear evidence about the exact date of his death and resurrection nor the exact location of his burial site. The most intriguing story we all need to find out is, what happened to his relatives? We know for a fact that he had brothers and sisters a long time ago based on the holy scriptures. And by the way, those who do not believed in the Bible.. Here’s what i have to say and it’s Purely Common Sense- Why is it there’s a country named Israel, Persia, Egypt and so forth? History would pretty much tell what had happened in the past, let say for example World war 2 & 3, they were documented and written as we all know. Bottomline is, There’s a purpose.. The universe is not made of Cellular organism that would just popped-up in an instant, of course there was a “Creator, Our Almighty God”.
posted April 1, 2010 at 8:44 am
Nice posting for April 1!
Thanks for all the thoughtful posts you make through the year(s).
posted April 1, 2010 at 9:49 am
Cool article! Thanks.
Does it really matter to my faith? No. I concur with David Harris above; I believe Jesus rose from the dead regardless of what is discovered about this artifact.
posted April 1, 2010 at 10:03 am
In 2000 N.D. Wilson proposed the shadow theory as a possible technology by which a medieval artist could have produced both a photographic negative and a three-dimensional image. These two factors were the issues that had challenged my natural skepticism about the shroud for many years. Wilson doesn’t demonstrate with any certainty that this is in fact the technology that was used, but he does provide a basis for continuing skepticism.
Wilson’s article is available here:
http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2005/marapr/3.22.html
He also briefly addresses questions of anatomical and historical accuracy.
I also observe that even if the shroud is genuine, we need not posit that it was created miraculously; there may have been natural processes that generated the image.
posted April 1, 2010 at 7:52 pm
how true – for those that believe no evidence is necessary -
posted April 1, 2010 at 9:16 pm
I have no idea who posted the last inane comment, but clearly he knows nothing about historical religions like Judaism and Christianity. Evidence is indeed necessary to make historical claims about a historical religion and both Judaism and Christianity have such evidence.
BW3
posted April 3, 2010 at 1:47 am
I remain a big skeptic about the Shroud, but I appreciate Ben bringing his perspective to the discussion. Much appreciated.
posted April 3, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Ben,
Paul speaks rather clearly that we “live by faith, not by sight.” While I agree that historical religions benefit by historical evidence, I do not believe that faith requires it – else it would no longer be faith, but sight. If something is certain, or requires evidence, faith is no longer required. I, with Paul, look forward to the day when I will see “face to face,” when my faith becomes sight. For now, I am happy to believe, having not seen. I think this is all the responder was trying to say, and it certainly deserved a better response than “inane.”
posted April 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Hi:
You seem to have misunderstood faith. Faith is not blind believing without evidence. It is believing in the evidence. It is also believing in a whole series of things based on the evidence. For example belief in the resurrection of Jesus depends on the credibility of the testimony to the resurrection by Paul, the Gospel writers and others. Of course it is true that historical evidence always falls short of scientific proof of the chemical experiment sort. But that is because the wrong standard of measurement is being applied.
Happy Easter
Ben
posted April 4, 2010 at 11:01 pm
So, Ben…how much of the Bible do you believe? Only the parts we have evidence for? Or do we use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard? If more evidence confirms the Bible than refutes it, we say it’s all true?
I understand what you mean, I think….evidence helps us feel more secure in what we believe. But I think there’s entirely too much looking around for Noah’s Ark or the True Cross, and not enough looking inside. It’s like some Christians believe that if only we found that one irrefutable bit of evidence of something miraculous from the Bible, all the non-believers would suddenly go “Wait a minute – now I get it!” If that’s what God wanted, don’t you think he would have made himself a little more obvious before now?
Belief in God is not a matter of historical evidence. It’s a matter of the Holy Spirit moving inside you and confirming that what you’re reading in the Bible is the word of God. Unless and until that work of the Spirit occurs, we remain incapable of understanding it or believing it. We’re spiritually dead until the Spirit quickens us. I’m as fascinated as the next guy (probably a lot more so) by the Shroud of Turin and James’ ossuary and all that stuff. I think it’s neat, and I appreciate any new insight that these items can bring to our understanding of God. But in the end, I always go back to the Word, and how the Spirit helps me interpret it.
If the religion that I was raised in had taught about disappearing golden tablets and magic underwear (to take a completely random potshot at Mormons), then I would be very skeptical. If it taught about aliens and thetans (to take a completely deserved potshot at Scientology), I’d laugh in its face. But there are plenty of things in the Bible that are difficult to believe without faith. Start with the resurrection. Creation. The Flood. Jonah. It all sounds crazy to those who don’t believe, and they mock us for believing it. If we found an ark resting on the top of a Turkish mountain with petrified dinosaur poop in one of the stalls, there would be a hundred alternate explanations. So I’m going to stick with my assertion.
posted April 4, 2010 at 11:45 pm
If we take the incarnation seriously then we have to take history seriously, for the incarnation means that God fully entered into time and space: became a very concrete and particular person, during a particular time in a particular place. On the other hand, though many at the time of Jesus were eyewitnesses to his life and ministry, not all of them believed in him. As Jesus said to Peter, after Peter made his confession that Jesus is the Messiah, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” This seems to imply that genuine faith requires both an affirmation of historical realities, as well as affirmation of the Spirit’s work by which a believer is enabled to see more than what is presented to the bare senses.
posted April 5, 2010 at 2:16 am
After seeing “The ‘Real Face’ of Jesus” pop up on the INTERNET, I did a search for the words “REAL FACE” within the KJV Bible Net Testament, and here is how it appeared in screen. The red line is the location of the vertical letters, R E A L F A C E. The ELS is -2313. The font chosen is Webdings.
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/image/realface.gif
I see two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and a left ear.
posted April 5, 2010 at 5:56 am
Everyone knows that history tells everything.. and we believed that all of us knows that. Bible would pretty much tell about what had happened in chronological events, the patriarchs, prophets and the christian era, same thing that occured in the past i.e. from medieval era up to now. It’s purely common sense that a 10 years old kid can fully understand these without elaborating or explaining these word word. Of course Faith is of the most important thing and without this it wouldn’t work at all.. Believing is vital for you to have a strong faith. All of us has its own past that we have to lived for us long as we stay in this world, Bottomline is- it’s the same thing as believing in the bible, if you read the bible from cover to cover, you’d know and could be able to tell what had happened in the past, there’s a lot of evidence out there in clear sight i.e. the universe the planets etc.. Even scientist believed that there’s unfathomable mind or should i say intelligent being that created these whole thing! It’s hard to say this, but these scientist are even smarter than many of us and they believed huh? try to recall your own history and compare it with the bible and you would learn from it.
posted April 6, 2010 at 8:41 pm
hi ben are there any good dvd’s on the shroud out there?
mickey
posted April 10, 2010 at 9:33 pm
thanks for your article. On this Sunday when we proclaim the Thomas story in John’s Gospel, I’ve posted this blog post on the shroud http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/shroud-turin/2944
posted July 23, 2010 at 6:26 pm
This excellent phrase is necessary just by the way
posted August 15, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Hello, me and my friends – we all received similiar messages on facebook about one girl who we all know.
She is rumored to be a slut but no one have ever seen anything – just rumors. Now – yesterday I’ve received that message. My friends said that that link contains awful pictures of her doing… something… naked…
Now – I would like to see if that is true but I cannot open that page…
How to download pictures from that site?
Oh and the site ist this http://lnkgt.com/9
Best regards, Ashley
posted October 29, 2011 at 11:31 am
316677 beers on the wall. sck was here
posted November 24, 2011 at 8:11 pm
You have writtent an amazing post about The Real Face of Jesus— Shrouded in Mystery – The Bible and Culture. I will link to your post. Thanks.