Open Letter to John Dominic Crossan

For More Information See: Shroud of Turin Story
 

Why we may think the Shroud is medieval

One would have thought that any interest in the Shroud of Turin would have quickly abated following the carbon 14 testing in 1988. According to the test results, it was not, as so many believed, the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus. It was medieval. Nature, the prestigious international weekly journal of science, published an article about the test coauthored by twenty-one scientists from the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich, Columbia University, and the British Museum. The conclusion in Nature was clear:

Nature: The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr).  These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

A headline in the New York Times read: “Test Shows Shroud of Turin to be Fraud.” Other newspapers around the world reported similar conclusions. One of the radiocarbon dating scientists from Oxford stated on public television: “We have shown the Shroud to be a fake.  Anyone who disagrees with us ought to belong to the Flat Earth Society.”

But, to many people, the carbon 14 test results only made the Shroud all the more puzzling and all the more fascinating. There was, as had been discovered, a preponderance of other scientific and historical evidence that argued that the Shroud was really much older. Some of the evidence suggested that it had been in Constantinople at one time, in the ancient Christian community of Edessa before that, and in the environs of Jerusalem. Science and history seem to agree on this.

But it isn’t just the carbon 14 results that point toward a medieval origin. The Shroud does have a definite footprint in medieval Europe. To some people this is evidence in itself. Its first known appearance in Western European history was in 1356, a time of unbridled superstition in demons, witches, magic, and miracle-working relics. It was a time of frequent famine and the Black Death plague. It was a time of extreme economic and political turbulence and of war. The same year that the Shroud was first displayed publicly in the small French village of Lirey, nearby, at the battle of Poitiers, England’s Black Prince defeated the French and captured King John II of France. Adding to the political turmoil, the pope was in Avignon, not Rome — some even believed that the plague was God’s retribution on the whole world because the pope was not in the eternal city. In this climate of superstition, naiveté and disorder a lucrative market in false relics flourished. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 acknowledged the problem with false relics but church authorities did little to curb the market in them – and it did indeed flourish. Our knowledge of this history rightly conditions us to be suspicious of any medieval relic that might first appear in Europe at this time.

In 1389, a memorandum written by Pierre d’Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes, France, openly challenged the authenticity of the Shroud. In the memorandum, addressed to the Avignon Pope Clement VII, Pierre claimed that an artist had admitted that he had ‘cunningly painted’ the Shroud.

In 1978, a decade before the carbon 14 tests, a large team of scientists had examined the Shroud in Turin. As part of that work, particle samples were collected from the Shroud’s surface by pressing sticky tape onto the surface. Walter McCrone, a well-recognized expert in microanalysis and painting authentication, was provided with some of the samples. He found minute traces of hematite (iron oxide) used for red ochre commonly referred to as Jeweler’s Rouge and a concentration of mercuric sulphide, a constituent of vermilion paint. Both red ochre and vermillion were common paint pigments used during the Middle Ages.

For most people, this seems to be enough evidence to conclude that the Shroud is medieval. That would be true were it not for the fact that all this evidence has been severely questioned. The carbon 14 tests, conducted by three of the most reputable radiocarbon dating laboratories in the world, have been credibly challenged, sufficiently so that they can no longer be deemed definitive. The laboratories did the tests properly. There is little doubt about that. But there is now serious evidence that the samples cut from the Shroud and provided to the laboratories were contaminated. We cannot blame the labs. They had no way of knowing.

It may have been the fault of the Poor Clare nuns who mended the cloth in the 16^th century, or of some master weaver in their employ who wove new thread into the cloth during repairs. We know from repaired tapestries how skilled medieval weavers were at the art of “French Weaving,” what is now commonly called invisible weaving. Warp and weft threads were even spun by hand and dyed to match the original thread of a tapestry.

Enough newer thread has been identified by numerous textile experts to allow Beta Analytic, the world’s largest and probably most prestigious radiocarbon dating firm, to estimate that the true date of the cloth’s origin is much older – within a statistically acceptable margin of error to make the first century possible. Beta Analytic estimates that a mixture of 60% of material, from the 16th century, with 40% of material from the 1st century would yield the medieval date that was determined for the Shroud. Chemist Raymond Rogers has found a rubbery vegetable substance, probably gum arabic, on threads adjacent to where the carbon 14 samples were taken. It was common practice to use gum arabic to hold threads during weaving repairs. It is significant to note that Rogers found dyes extracted from the Madder root used with the gum arabic. According to Rogers, “They were colored for a purpose using technology that was not used in Italy before the 13th Century or in France before the 16th Century, about the time the time the Shroud was moved to Turin from France.” Rogers has also found a spliced thread, likely of old and new material, among sample threads.

It is interesting to note that an article in Textile Horizons by P. H. Smith, entitled “Rogue Fibers Found in Shroud,” was published in 1988 that speaks of the discovery of “a fine dark yellow strand [of cotton] possibly of Egyptian origin, and quite old . . . it may have been used for repairs at some time in the past, or simply bound in when the linen fabric was woven.” This cotton was found by Smith while examining samples on behalf of the Oxford laboratory. This is important information.

In a new and very decisive paper on the subject, “Scientific Method Applied To The Shroud Of Turin: A Review,”  Raymond N. Rogers, a Laboratory Fellow at the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan write:

Rogers and Arnoldi: The combined evidence from chemistry, cotton content, technology, photography, and residual lignin proves that the material of the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main part of the cloth. A rigorous application of Scientific Method would demand a confirmation of the date with a better selection of samples.

The newer thread or gum arabic, or some combination of the two, may be enough to skew the date by enough centuries to make the Shroud a first century cloth. There is no way to calculate a revised age from the test records. Because carbon 14 testing destroys the samples, there is also no way to redo the tests. It is also unlikely – and reasonable – to doubt that the Vatican would allow new carbon 14 tests unless a clear, failsafe, and non-controversial testing protocol can be established. That is unlikely in the foreseeable future. But the clear evidence of substantial contamination is enough to call the carbon 14 results into question. They can no longer be thought of as definitive.

It has been well established that neither the images nor the bloodstain were painted. Thus McCrone’s hypothesis and the d’Arcis Memorandum are irrelevant. There is little doubt that McCrone found iron oxide and mercury. But nowhere on the Shroud are there sufficient quantities of these chemical components of paint pigments to form a visible image. Iron oxide, for one thing, is a component of blood. It is expected. It would also be a byproduct of retting flax in iron rich water in the production of linen. As miniscule particles of rust (iron oxide) is often found in dust, so too might mercuric sulphide be present in dust, particularly in churches and cathedrals with frescoed walls and ceilings and old paintings. There is another possibility that might well explain the presence of paint particles on the Shroud. Many painted copies of the Shroud were produced. It was, after all, a revered relic. We know from history of a practice whereby artists would touch or lay their paintings on the Shroud for sanctification.

What are we to make of the d’Arcis Memorandum claiming that an artist painted it? Knowing, as we do, that this was a time notorious for its unscrupulous market in fake relics, the bishop’s report seems to have a whiff of truthfulness to it. But the relic marketplace may also be the basis for doubting the veracity of the memorandum. Pilgrims were a source of revenue and people were flocking to Lirey rather than nearby Troyes. Pierre, interestingly, states that his intent was not competitive. Why? Did he realize that others were voicing suspicions about his motives? They were. Pierre claims that his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in which a painter had confessed to painting the Shroud. Pierre doesn’t have first hand knowledge of this artist. The artist is unnamed. There is no evidence of such an inquest in contemporaneous documents. Pierre states that Henri had the Shroud removed from the church because it was a fake, yet other documents dispute this. It was, according to other documents, removed from the church for safekeeping because of the war raging about the area.  The memorandum must be understood and assessed in the light of several documents of the same period and in the context of the political situation in the region. At least eight documents challenge the veracity of the d’Arcis Memorandum.

There are other problems as well. All existing copies of the memorandum are unsigned and undated drafts. The copy at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris includes a heading stating that it is a letter that Pierre intends to write. It is definitely a draft with Latin annotations in the margins. It is unlikely that it was ever sent to Clement as no properly signed or sealed copies of the document can be found in the Vatican or Avignon archives. No document of Clement refers to it, suggesting it was never received. Numerous classicist and historians find the document questionable.

One cannot say that any of this proves that the Shroud is not medieval. It can only be said, that it has not been reliably shown to be medieval. Radiocarbon dating scientists knows that mistakes are made, that anomalous results are possible. No responsible archeologist, scientist or historian will accept a single point measurement – the samples used by the laboratories were snippets from a single cutting – in the absence of any corroborating evidence to declare the results infallible. In fact, in searching for other evidence, one finds significant evidence to dispute the findings and nothing to support them.

And so, to understand this relic, to try and ascertain its authenticity, we must look at other evidence; evidence that may shed some light on the Shroud’s provenance; evidence that seemingly contradicts your hypothesis, Dom; evidence that contradicts a medieval origin. For as a medieval fake relic, it doesn’t make sense.