ROME – A Vatican researcher has rekindled the age-old debate over the Shroud of Turin, saying that faint writing on the linen proves it was the burial cloth of Jesus.
Experts say the historian may be reading too much into the markings, and they stand by carbon-dating that points to the shroud being a medieval forgery.
Barbara Frale, a researcher at the Vatican archives, says in a new book that she used computer-enhanced images of the shroud to decipher faintly written words in Greek, Latin and Aramaic scattered across the cloth.
She asserts that the words include the name “(J)esu(s) Nazarene” – or Jesus of Nazareth – in Greek. That, she said, proves the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have mentioned Jesus without referring to his divinity. Failing to do so would risk being branded a heretic.
“Even someone intent on forging a relic would have had all the reasons to place the signs of divinity on this object,” Frale said Friday. “Had we found ‘Christ’ or the ‘Son of God’ we could have considered it a hoax, or a devotional inscription.”
The shroud bears the figure of a crucified man, complete with blood seeping from his hands and feet, and believers say Christ’s image was recorded on the linen’s fibers at the time of his resurrection.
The fragile artifact, owned by the Vatican, is kept locked in a protective chamber in a Turin cathedral and is rarely shown. Measuring 13 feet (four meters) long and three feet (one meter) wide, the shroud has suffered severe damage through the centuries, including from fire.
The Catholic Church makes no claims about the cloth’s authenticity, but says it is a powerful symbol of Christ’s suffering.
There has been strong debate about it in the scientific community.
Skeptics point out that radiocarbon dating conducted on the cloth in 1988 determined it was made in the 13th or 14th century.
But Raymond Rogers of Los Alamos National Laboratory said in 2005 that the tested threads came from patches used to repair the shroud after a fire. Rogers, who died shortly after publishing his findings, calculated it is 1,300 to 3,000 years old and could easily date from Jesus’ era.
Another study, by the Hebrew University, concluded that pollen and plant images on the shroud showed it originated in the area around Jerusalem sometime before the eighth century.
While faint letters scattered around the face on the shroud were seen decades ago, serious researchers dismissed them, due to the results of the radiocarbon dating test, Frale told The Associated Press.
But when she cut out the words from enhanced photos of the shroud and showed them to experts, they concurred the writing style was typical of the Middle East in the first century – Jesus’ time.
She believes the text was written on a document by a clerk and glued to the shroud over the face so the body could be identified by relatives and buried properly. Metals in the ink used at the time may have allowed the writing to transfer to the linen, Frale said.
She said she counted at least 11 words in her study of enhanced images produced by French scientists in a 1994 study. The words are fragmented and scattered on and around the image’s head, crisscrossing the cloth vertically and horizontally. One short sequence of Aramaic letters has not been fully translated. Another fragment in Greek – “iber” – may refer to Emperor Tiberius, who reigned at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, Frale said.
She said the text also partially confirms the Gospels’ account of Jesus’ final moments. A fragment in Greek that can be read as “removed at the ninth hour” may refer to Christ’s time of death reported in the holy texts, she said.
In her book “The Shroud of Jesus Nazarene,” published in Italian, Frale reconstructs from the lettering on the shroud what she believes Jesus’ death certificate said: “Jesus Nazarene. Found (guilty of inciting the people to revolt). Put to death in the year 16 of Tiberius. Taken down at the ninth hour.”
She said the text then stipulates the body will returned to relatives after a year.
Frale said her research was done without the support of the Vatican.
“I tried to be objective and leave religious issues aside,” Frale told the AP. “What I studied was an ancient document that certifies the execution of a man, in a specific time and place.”
Frale’s work usually focuses on medieval documents. She is noted for research on the order of the Knights Templar and her discovery of unpublished documents on the group in the Vatican’s archives.
Earlier this year, she published a study saying the Templars once had the shroud in their possession. That raised eyebrows because the order was abolished in the early 14th century and the shroud is first recorded in history around 1360 in the hands of a French knight.
Her latest book on the shroud raised even more doubts among some experts.
On one hand, it is true that a medieval forger would label the object with Christ’s name, as were all relics produced at the time, said Antonio Lombatti, a church historian who has written about the shroud. The problem is that there are no inscriptions to be seen in the first place.
“People work on grainy photos and think they see things,” Lombatti told the AP. “It’s all the result of imagination and computer software. … If you look at a photo of the shroud, there’s a lot of contrast between light and dark, but there are no letters.”
Further criticizing Frale’s work, Lombatti said that artifacts bearing Greek and Aramaic texts were found in Jewish burials from the first century, but the use of Latin is unheard of.
He also rejected the idea that authorities would officially return the body of a crucified man to relatives after filling out some paperwork. Victims of that form of execution used by the Romans would usually be left on the cross or were disposed of in a dump to add to its deterrent.
Lombatti said “the message was that you won’t even have a tomb to cry over.”
Another shroud expert, Gian Marco Rinaldi, said that even scientists who believe in the relic’s authenticity have dismissed as unreliable the images on which Frale’s study was based.
“These computer enhancements increase contrast in an unrealistic way to bring out these signs,” he said. “You can find them all over the shroud, not just near the head, and then with a bit of imagination, you see letters.”
Unusual sightings in the shroud are common and are often proved false, said Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia. He recently led a team of experts that reproduced the shroud using materials and methods available in the 14th century – proof, they said, that it could have been made by a human hand in the Middle Ages.
Decades ago, entire studies were published on coins purportedly seen on Jesus’ closed eyes, but when high-definition images were taken during a 2002 restoration, the artifacts were nowhere to be seen and the theory was dropped, Garlaschelli said.
He said any theory about ink and metals would have to be checked by analysis of the shroud itself.
The last public display of the shroud was in 2000, when more than 1 million people turned up to see it. The next is scheduled for 2010, and Pope Benedict XVI has been asked to visit it.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted November 20, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Sure…the name of JC is on the cloth. It hasn’t been totally proven that the cloth is anything but an old shroud…with the image of a man on it. Beards were very common in those days, so not necessarily anyone important.
posted November 20, 2009 at 11:15 pm
A lot of people see what they want to see, and if there’s a big-selling book in seeing the right letters, voila! There they are!
posted November 21, 2009 at 10:01 am
I thought the writing would sa, “Leonardo was here”.
posted November 21, 2009 at 11:13 am
The Shroud is way to early for Leonardo. If there is any writing it probably says, “Guiseppe Baccala of Florence made this.”
posted November 22, 2009 at 12:26 am
Haters everywhere
posted November 22, 2009 at 12:38 am
Yes, cknuck, we feel sorry for you a little.
posted November 22, 2009 at 9:43 am
In breaking news, the Aramaic portion has been translated:
“Wash in (coo)l water with (li)ke colors
Tum(ble) dry low
(Remov)e prom(ptly)”
posted November 22, 2009 at 2:46 pm
“If you can read this you are standing too close”
posted November 22, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Good ones, YN & jestrfyl!
posted November 23, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“Removal of this tag is punishable by Law”
or
“Made in Cathay”
posted November 23, 2009 at 1:50 pm
pagan quote, “Good ones, YN & jestrfyl!”
jest you get a lot of atta boys when you put down things Christian, yeah you’re a real good Christian that’s what Jesus was shooting for.
posted November 23, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Poking fun at the Shroud of Turin is no more putting down Christianity than is saying that a particular church has an ugly facade or “The Passion of the Christ” is an awful movie. It seems to me that real Christians would not care if the Shroud is genuine or fake. If you really believe that Jesus rose from the dead, what does it matter?
posted November 23, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Some Christians seem to need a lot of reassurance. And that’s reasonable, because the religion they support makes really extravagant claims, the kind that would require tons of proof. And unfortunately for them that proof is just not there.
posted November 23, 2009 at 5:29 pm
hmmm “poking fun” I know I have friends that poke fun at me and I enjoy it but if someone who is bent on hurting me poke fun at me then it feels different, it’s just another form of trying to hurt. That’s pretty elementary.
posted November 23, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Protestants needing Roman Catholic relics to justify their faith — live and learn.
posted November 23, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Interestingly, the Gospel of John says that there was two pieces to Jesus’ burial shroud: linen cloths and a separate “napkin” that covered His head.
“Then Simon Peter came; following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying and the napkin which had been on his head not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.”
John 20:6-7
If the Shroud is true, Holy Scripture is wrong.
I wonder what’s Greek for “cognitive dissonance?”
posted November 23, 2009 at 7:05 pm
“Dry Clean only”
posted November 23, 2009 at 7:11 pm
cknuck: “but if someone who is bent on hurting me poke fun at me then it feels different, it’s just another form of trying to hurt”
cknuck the world, even just Beliefnet, does not revolve around you.
YN, very interesting.
posted November 23, 2009 at 7:24 pm
nnmns once again you have missed the mark, you could never hurt me but it does hurt me to think once again the soldiers at the cross who dressed Him in purple and mocked Him are at it again, here. pagan, jest, nnmns, YN these are the names.
posted November 23, 2009 at 8:11 pm
If I remember correctly (and I do), the soldiers at the foot of the cross were among the first Gentile to proclaim Jesus the “son of God.”
See Matthew 27:54.
cknuck: You really need to read your Bible before you post.
posted November 23, 2009 at 8:12 pm
HE, cknuck, was a human being who paid the price for ticking off the authorites…over 2000 years ago. I admire him as I feel he was a wise and gentle teacher,(along with many other religious leaders) but human….and when he died, that was it…dead, gone, out of here. Just because someone found an old covering used for the dead(one of many such things, I’m sure) that has an image of a man on it, someone in the RCC decided it was JC. The RCC has relics of saints etc., so why not make this cloth special? No one is being hurt. It is a cloth…old and probably a lot moldy. No proof it is anything else. If some folks want to venerate it…why not? Makes them feel good…or something.
Mock what? a cloth? Really don’t think the cloth is alive. It is CLOTH!
posted November 23, 2009 at 9:38 pm
cknuck: “it does hurt me to think once again the soldiers at the cross who dressed Him in purple and mocked Him are at it again, here. pagan, jest, nnmns, YN these are the names.”
cknuck, don’t you remember, this is supposed to be a god. Why would you pretend to be hurt because some mere humans mock a god we have (according to your fantasies) no power to affect. Heck you say we can’t hurt even you so how could we hurt your god?
Your religion is such a jumble it reflects badly on your head, the home of your god.
posted November 23, 2009 at 10:45 pm
nnmns wrote: “Why would you pretend to be hurt because some mere humans mock a god we have (according to your fantasies) no power to affect.”
Well, this thread is getting rather off topic, but what the heck. Yes, we Christians believe Jesus is God, but also that he emptied himself and became man. So yes, humankind had the ability to hurt him, and we did.
“Your religion is such a jumble…”
Not jumbled, but convoluted, in a good way, a God-instigated convolution of Himself with humankind to bridge the gap between us, which I find rather intricate and beautiful.
posted November 23, 2009 at 10:46 pm
pagan quote, “one of many such things, I’m sure”
So you are sure? You were there? Have you actually seen the “old covering”? You know more information than the RCC about the subject? You have no respect for those who do believe nor do you care? For you position to have any validity the answer to all of these questions and more would have to be yes. Pretty proud of that?
posted November 23, 2009 at 11:25 pm
WT, I’m sorry you helped; I was curious to see how cknuck would handle that. Now let me bring up the “light at the end of the tunnel” point. According to your Bible, and things I read here, J knew he was your god’s son. So he knew he’d have a happy ending. So while he might, according to the fable, feel pain, even bad pain, he knew it would be over and he’d walk the streets of gold; heck he’d own the streets of gold.
And now, of course, he’s supposed to be up there judging us. So I don’t believe we are capable of hurting such a fabled being and I don’t think he’d have suffered nearly as much as a lot of people do every day here and now.
posted November 24, 2009 at 12:25 am
nnmns you are such an idiot about the bible there is no help needed out of your contempt and lack of respect there is no reasoning with you. The only reason I say anything at all to you is because you spout misinformation as if you are an authority. You can’t conceieve God’s heart being broken because of the person you are, after all if you had absolute power things would be different, right.
posted November 24, 2009 at 9:04 am
What point would there be in me thinking about having absolute power? None. So I don’t. But I’d probably screw it up about as much as the next person.
But why would you think about me having absolute power? You really don’t have much to do I guess.
posted November 24, 2009 at 4:24 pm
If I told you what I am doing right this moment it would seem to you like I am bragging but I am only doing my reasonable duty for mankind
posted November 24, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Lets see, question by question, cknuck. Was I there ? No, were you? Have I seen it? No, have you? Do I know more than the RCC? I don’t worship pieces of cloth. what does that say about the RCC? Hasn’t been proven that JC had anything to do with the shroud. Do I know more than the RCC? Depends…what do they know?
) Seriously, Jews did and still do have a particular way of handling a body for burial. So all that to say…finding that kind of cloth doesn’t mean it is JC’s. Many, if not all Jews (and JC was a Jew as everyone knows…)would have been buried wrapped in a shroud. A few probably survived.
Back in JC’s time it wasn’t common to remove the criminals from the crosses. They were left to rot and be eaten by whatever flew by, as one way to scare those who would think of breaking the rules. Anyhow according to the book, JC was taken down and put in the tomb. He would have been wrapped in a cloth (linen apparently) before entombment. As to his escaping from the tomb? The man wasn’t dead, drugs were used to make it seem so, and he took off to marry, have kids and live life as a carpenter. Just my theory.
The RCC is known for revering the bones, hair and maybe even other body parts… of “saints”,so with that they have a large piece of cloth to. Do I respect a piece of cloth and body parts of dead people? No. No skin off my nose if people want to do so. That makes them happy. I probably believe things that some folks would consider unusual. That’s fine. It is fortunate that all people are different…this world would be really boring if everyone believed the same thing.
So if you think that the shroud is special…good for you. I don’t happen to…simple.