What is the Shroud of Turin? Is it connected with the Sudarium of Oviedo?
The Turin Shroud is a burial cloth of a man that has possibly been crucified in the first century and his image can still be seen on it.
It remains mysterious – is it Jesus’ burial cloth, or of someone else more recently, or is it a fake?
Recent scientific work on the Turin Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo (a burial face covering) has discovered some interesting facts and I have an open mind, I am not convinced either way…
Table of Contents:
1. What is the Turin Shroud?
Historical references to ‘divine images’ of Christ on burial sheets go back 15 centuries, but we do not know whether these refer to the Turin Shroud.
But we can be sure that from 1353:
a French knight, Geoffroi de Charny, acquired the shroud and deposited it at a monastery in Lirey, France, 130 miles east of Paris.
‘Why Shroud of Turin’s Secrets Continue to Elude Science’ By Frank Vivano National Geographic 1
By the early 16th century, it had been moved to the city of Chambéry, where it was damaged by a fire in 1532, leaving scorch marks and water stains that are still visible on the fabric.
Its owner by then was the aristocratic House of Savoy.”
It has been kept in Turin, Italy since 1578 and was housed in a purpose-built chapel connected to Turin’s cathedral.
For centuries it has been surrounded by controversy, many believe that it was the cloth that was wrapped around the body of Jesus of Nazareth after he had been crucified, while others disagree.
One big problem is that there was a lot of money made from Christian relics sold throughout the Medieval period. This led to fake relics being sold.
The first photograph of the Shroud was made during its public display in 1898 by the amateur photographer Secondo Pia.
When he examined the reverse negative of his photographic plate in the darkroom, he discovered a bearded man with visible wounds on his body.
But because the Shroud was photographed with its protective glass the end result was not definite evidence due to the reflections on the glass.
Then, when the Shroud was displayed publically again in 1931 in honor of the wedding of Umberto II to the Belgian princess Maria José, a new set of photographs was commissioned.
A professional photographer named Giuseppe Enri made twelve negatives of the shroud in May of 1931 with its faint markings. 2
The result was an amazing image of a man who had been wrapped in a burial cloth.
From that moment on there has been intense interest in the shroud and many scientists have tried to provide answers to the image.
But the problem is that the owners of the shroud, the Roman Catholic Church, now try to protect it from damage caused by light and taking samples from the shroud is limited.
Here below are some of the main tests that have been carried out on the Turin shroud:
1978 the formation of the ‘Shroud of Turin Research Project’.
In 1969 scientists were allowed limited access to the shroud which led to the formation in 1978 of the U.S. led ‘Shroud of Turin Research Project’ (STURP).
In 1978 a large team of American scientists traveled to Turin, Italy to conduct an in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud.
‘STURP’ Shroud of Turin. 4
In Turin they were joined by a number of international colleagues…
The STURP team spent over two years prior to embarking for Turin planning dozens of specific data gathering experiments, measurements and tests.
To support the effort they carried several tons of support equipment and scientific instruments…
For five (5) full days from October 8th through the 13th the STURP team studied the Shroud around the clock in a large room at the royal palace adjoining the Turin Cathedral.
Each 24-hour period was broken down into shifts that allowed the work to proceed uninterrupted while some STURP staff slept and others conducted research.”
Their conclusions were:
- X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils prevent the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image.
- Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.
- Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it.
- There has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks and blood.
- However, it is incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.
The basic problem is some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are not by physics.
Also, certain physical explanations which may be plausible are unexplainable by the chemistry.
For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, it must be scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint.
At present, no solution is possible.
All experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin.
The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide [a biological polymer] structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself.
So what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.
Their conclusion for now is that the Shroud image is of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man.
It is not the product of an artist.
The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin [blood albumin]. 5
1978 physics and chemistry tests on the Shroud of Turin.
One aim was to assertain how the image of the man on the cloth was formed.
Several image formation hypotheses were studied, but no single theory adequately accounts for the end result.
It was concluded that the image was the result of some cellulose oxidation—dehydration reaction rather than an applied pigment.
The application or transfer mechanism of the image onto the cloth is still not known.
The areas of blood absorbed and splattered were considered and the results showed it to blood stains. 6
1988 carbon dating to find the age of the Turin Shroud.
In 1988, the British Museum coordinated a study among three internationally recognized radiocarbon laboratories (the University of Arizona in Tucson, the Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule in Zurich, and the University of Oxford) to date material taken from a sample cut from the lower left corner of the Shroud of Turin.
When a small bit of the edge was cut away to scientifically date it, the Radiocarbon Dates only came out between 1260 and 1390 which could have proved that it was not Jesus Christ’s burial cloth.
But the sample may not be from the original cloth, due to various repairs and also being contaminated by observers touching it when it was on display unprotected throughout its history.
1989 to 2019 verdicts on the 1988 carbon dating.
Following strict analytical protocol, we find the Shroud data to be heterogeneous [state of dissimilar or diverse elements], while data from three control samples show no heterogeneity.
‘An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin’ by Bryan Walsh, Larry Schwalbe, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7
We consider two potential sources for the Shroud data heterogeneity.
The first, an approximate linear dependence of the dates on the original sample locations suggests a variation in the carbon isotopic composition.
The second, differences in the cleaning protocols of the three laboratories may have given rise to differences in residual contamination.
We suggest experiments to test the two competing hypotheses.”
The conclusion was a significant shortcoming in the original report by Damon et al. (1989) 8 in the lack of adherence to the protocol that W-W define for combining the inter-laboratory data sets.
With this lack of adherence to protocol, the findings at the very least should have had a strong qualification with the reported final result.
Therefore they proposed using the remaining test materials to carry out a further test.
Also Adler (1996) 9 found threads adjacent to where the samples were taken had heavy contamination with metallic salts and the threads in that area were markedly different from other areas of the Shroud.
VanHaelst (1997) 10 and Walsh (2000) 11 thought that the result was consistent with a possible systematic error in the data.
In 2005 Dr Ray Rogers believed that the sample cut from the lower left corner, was an area of the cloth that was re-woven during the Middle Ages:
Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin.
2005 paper in the professional journal ‘ThermoChimica Acta’ Dr Ray Rogers 12
The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.”
Freer-Waters and Jull (2010) 13 examined a remnant from the original radiocarbon dating experiment under visible and ultra-violet light and found no significant contamination on the sample.
But most damning was this report:
Casabianca et al. (2019) 14 , based on information obtained after a legal filing with the British Museum, showed that some of the original Shroud date measurements reported by the three laboratories to the British Museum were modified from their original ‘raw’ laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an unstated methodology.
‘An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin’ By Bryan Walsh and Larry Schwalbe. 15
The various statistical analyses performed on the ‘raw’ measurements showed the data to be heterogeneous and, as a result, they concluded that a new radiocarbon dating should be conducted.”
2015 medical aspects of the dead man.
The scientists research looked into the body position displayed on the shroud.
Their results showed:
- Evident rigour mortis.
- A scourged man.
- A thorn-crowned man.
- One who had been crucified.
- Stabbed in the thoracic cage.
- The right humerus [upper arm] suffered an under-glenoidal dislocation [shoulder dislocation] from a violent non-penetrating trauma to the shoulder and to the neck from behind.
- The posture of the right hand with all four fingers extended shows a complete paralysis of the limb.
- The retraction of the right eye is a sign of injury to the cervical sympathetic nerves due to trauma to the face from beatings with swelling on the cheekbone.
- Radio-carpic [wrist] nailing produces a marginal lesion of the median nerve and a deviation of the flexor pollicis longus tendon which causes the thumb to retract – therefore the lack of the thumb imprint on the shroud.
But others argue that this would not be the case and the thumbs could simply be in a relaxed position because “A sharp nail, as used by Romans at that time for crucifixion, would perforate the flexor pollicis longus, rather than drag it.”
The counter-argument states the Roman nail for this job would have a rounded point and would have pushed the tendon aside causing retraction of the thumb. - Because the nailing was performed in the midcarpal joint it did not cause bone fractures. 16
From these findings we can obviously see similarities with the gospel accounts and Old Testament prophecy:
- “Then Jesus calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.” 17
- “Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him.” 18
- “And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe.” 19
- “So they took Jesus, and he went out bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others…” 20
- “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.” 21
- “Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him as they beat him. They also blindfolded him and kept asking him ‘Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?’ ” 22
- [Not specifically recorded].
- “And they all condemned him as deserving death. And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, ‘Prophesy!’ And the guards received him with blows.” 23
- “But he was pierced for our transgressions…” 24
- “He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.”25
2017 study on the anatomy.
A digital rendering of the hands’ area of the Turin Shroud enabled scientists to visualize anatomic details never seen before.
The unnatural position of the right hand’s thumb adjacent to the palm of the hand, positioned below it and, consequently, almost fully hidden except for its protruding end, seems to denote a stress, which could be due to being crucified. This adds to the authenticity of the relic since the absence of the thumbs has been important indirect proof that the Turin Shroud was wrapped around the body of a man who was crucified alive. 26
A military surgeon also makes a similar conclusion:
Back in the 1930s the military surgeon Pierre Barbet had noticed that all artistic depictions of Christ crucified, the nails were driven through the palms.
‘The Shroud of Turin’ by Die Grabtücher. 27
But on the shroud it could be seen that the nails were driven through the wrists of the hands.
In order to clarify the facts, Barbet drilled a nail through the hand of a corpse and attached some weight on it.
The anatomy of a human hand was not able to carry the weight – the weight ripped of.
Therefore, the man on the shroud had been nailed through the wrists.
But if you do so the median nerve will be injured, which led to a paralysis of the thumb.
That’s why you can only see 4 fingers on the shroud.”
2017 analysis of red stained threads.
In previous research in 1973 where red stained threads were analysed the conclusion was mixed but did not rule out that the stains were blood.
The threads have many reddish particles and some seem to correspond to “sub-micron particles” recognized by W. McCrone in the form of red ochre (iron oxide) and vermillion (mercury sulfide); while the others, as described by many researchers of the STuRP like A. Adler and J. Heller, seem typical of blood from wounds put in contact with the shroud.
After a detailed analysis using various types of microscopes and different spectral analyses like Raman and EDX, the conclusion was that it was human blood reinforced with pigments.
One assumption was that as the blood stained cloth faded with time it was enhanced by an artist – perhaps during the 17th century.
Another assumption is that the cloth was not embellished by an artist but the colour was produced by a not yet well identified source of energy acting at a distance. 28
2020 research on the age of the Turin Shroud.
Professor De Caro, an Italian scientist, tried a new technique of analysing the age of the Turin Shroud by using X-ray dating.
The team of researchers at Italy’s Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council in Bari used a “Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering” method to examine the natural ageing of cellulose.
The result showed that the Turin Shroud was much older than other research had shown.
The peer-reviewed research concluded that it was around 2,000 years old which would indeed make it old enough to be there at the time of Christ’s death and resurrection.
2020 Gold dust particles provide a ‘must be before’ date.
Dust vacuumed from the Tourin Shroud contained gold alloy micro-particles and were analysised using Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence analysis.
The results revealed a connection between the micro-particles and Byzantine coins that were first made in the 7th century.
The conclusion of these results is that the Shroud was in the Byzantine Empire in the period up to 1204 A.D
The research conducted by Fanti and Furlan concluded:
“The double (front and back) body image on the Shroud has been the subject of intense study, but even today, it is not reproducible and cannot be explained scientifically. Among the many hypotheses, that related to a phenomenon acting at a distance like a form of electromagnetic energy appears to be the most acceptable hypothesis currently.” 29
2. What is the Sudarium of Oviedo?
A piece of cloth 84 by 53 cm has been kept in the cathedral in Oviedo, northern Spain and is claimed to have been put upon the face of Jesus after his death. 30
It is a cloth that has been folded four times along one side and the blood has soaked through less and less on each layer.
The stains show that this person died in an upright position and that the cloth was put on at this time with his head touching his right shoulder.
The main stains come from the liquid in the lungs which shows that the cause of death was asphyxiation.
This liquid then dried on the cloth.
This points to death by crucifixion.
About an hour later when the body was taken down from the cross some of this liquid in the lungs escaped through the nose and onto the cloth, which again dried.
Then about three-quarters of an hour later a third stain was left on the cloth when the body was carried to the tomb.
There are spots of blood left from small sharp points. (Left by a crown of thorns that was placed upon Jesus′ head?)
The Jews would want the face of a disfigured, dead person to be covered with a cloth (a sudarium) and Jesus was certainly cruelly beaten before being crucified.
John’s gospel tells us that there was a shroud and a separate face cloth (sudarium):
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb.
John 20:6-7 ESV
He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.”
The history of the cloth has been well documented in history and one source was the 12th-century bishop of Oviedo, Pelayo.
According to this history, the Sudarium was in Palestine until shortly before the year 614, when Chosroes II, king of Persia, attacked and conquered Jerusalem.
‘Was the Sudarium of Oviedo really wrapped around Jesus’ head after his death?’ The Catholic Leader. 31
It was taken in a chest with other relics first to Alexandria, Egypt, by the presbyter Philip, and then across the north of Africa to Spain, where it was given to Leandro, bishop of Seville.
When St Isidore became bishop of Seville he entrusted the chest with the relics to St Ildefonso, who had been appointed bishop of Toledo.
The chest stayed in Toledo until the year 718, when it was taken further north to avoid capture by the Moors, who were advancing through the Iberian peninsula.
It was first kept in a cave, now called Monsacro, near Oviedo and then taken to a special chapel in the cathedral of Oviedo.
There it was opened on 14 March 1075 in the presence of King Alfonso VI.
A list was made of all the relics, including the Sudarium…”
The Sudarium is displayed in Oviedo three times each year:
- On Good Friday.
- On the Feast of the Triumph of the Cross on the 14th of September.
- On the octave of the feast on the 21st September.
Does the shroud and sudarium match?
The Sudarium of Oviedo is important supporting evidence for the Turin Shroud’s age because the latter’s history was unknown for centuries, whereas the sudarium has been in the possession of the Knights Templar, the Moors, El Cid, saints, bishops and has been in Spain since 631 A.D.
Before that it was, according to an account by Antoninus of Piacenza, hidden in a cave near the monastery of St. Mark, not far from Jerusalem. 32
So the sudarium has a well documented history making it extremely old.
Even if the account of Antoninus of Piacenza from c. 570 A.D. is not taken into account, that still makes the sudarium at least six centuries older than the dubious carbon dating of the Turin Shroud.
So if these two items were from the same body it would support the case for the Turin Shroud being older than 631 A.D. and potentially at Jesus’ death.
The Turin Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo do have interlocking evidence:
- The blood on both comes from the same AB blood group.
- When the Sudarium and the Shroud are put together, the stains around the beard on the face match. One researcher has identified 70 points of correlation on the front of the Sudarium and 50 on the back. Dr. Alan Whanger, professor emeritus from Duke University, used a Polarized Image Overlay Technique to demonstrate correlations between the two cloths.
- The fabric of the sudarium is coarse linen, perpendicular in warp and weft. The shroud is expensive linen probably from Syria with a herringbone weave and was (according to Luke 23:50) provided by Joseph of Arimathea, a rich and influential man.
- Pollen residues on both come from the same region of Palestine.
- The cloth is dirty, creased, torn and burnt in parts, stained and highly contaminated. It does not, however, show signs of fraudulent manipulation.
- At the bottom of the back of his head, there is a series of puncture wounds which had bled about an hour before the cloth was placed on top of them.
- Just about the entire head, shoulders and at least part of the back of the man were covered in blood before his death and before being covered by this cloth.
- The man suffered a pulmonary oedema [the lungs filling with fluid].
- In Roman crucifixions, the body was treated with contempt and would have been thrown into a trench. But in Jewish crucifixions, the Jews did not want to see a contorted face in pain, or see blood, so the face of the one being crucified needed to be covered, even when taken off the cross and lying on the ground.
- Information both for and against both cloths has been coldly and scientifically evaluated. Our conclusion from this is that in both cases it seems much more possible that the cloths are genuine than the opposite. This opinion is based on the joint consideration of all the information we have. We should also remember that the investigation is open. Not all the possible studies have been carried out on the Shroud. 33
3. Do we need these things to believe in Jesus?
Christians do not have to rely upon these things for their faith in Jesus Christ, but they are an emotional reminder of the price Jesus, the Son of God, had to pay to bring us back to God.
And then let’s remember that he was not left in the grave – he was raised back to life, he appeared to more than 500 people and then He returned to heaven:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8 NIV
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
There is non-Christian Evidence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure.
What is Judaism’s perspective of Jesus?
When was Jesus born, calculated by looking at key points: when the temple was built, Jesus’ baptism, etc.
See what happened from Jesus’ birth onwards, his childhood and to John the Baptist’s ministry.
Timeline from 600 B.C. to Jesus’ birth.
There is much planetary and star information, so can the Star of Bethlehem be proved?
References and credits – open in new tabs:
Crucifixion image: thanks to GSP 100,000 Clipart CD.
‘Why Shroud of Turin’s Secrets Continue to Elude Science’ By Frank Vivano National Geographic 17 April 2015. ↩
‘Detail of the Shroud of Turin’ By Giuseppe Enrie May 1931. The Metropolitan Museum of Art ↩
‘The Shroud of Turin’ by Die Grabtücher ↩
‘STURP’ Shroud of Turin. ↩
‘A Summary of STURP’s Conclusions’ by John Heller. Shroud.com October 1981 ↩
L.A. Schwalbe, R.N. Rogers, ‘Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: A summary of the 1978 investigation’ The Shroud of Turin Research Project, P.O. Box 7, Amston, CT 06231, U.S.A., Analytica Chimica Acta,
Volume 135, Issue 1, 1982, Pages 3-49, ISSN 0003-2670, Science Direct ↩Bryan Walsh, Larry Schwalbe, ‘An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 29, 2020, 102015, ISSN 2352-409X, Science Direct. ↩
Jan 20, 2005 paper in the professional journal ThermoChimica Acta by Dr Ray Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and lead chemist with the original science team STURP (the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project involving 33 scientists, 26 of them directly examining the Shroud for five days). ↩
Bryan Walsh, Larry Schwalbe,
‘An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin’.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 29, 2020, 102015, ISSN 2352-409X, Science Direct. ↩M. Bevilacqua, G. Fanti, M. D’Arienzo, R. De Caro, ‘Comments to the paper “Do we really need new medical information about the Turin Shroud?” ‘, Injury, Volume 46, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 2074-2078, ISSN 0020-1383, Science Direct. ↩
Luke 23:36 ESV ↩
John 19:1 ESV ↩
John 19:2 ESV ↩
John 19:17-18 ESV ↩
John 19:31-34 ESV ↩
Luke 22:63-64 ESV ↩
Mark 14:64-65 ESV ↩
Isaiah 53:5 ESV ↩
Psalm 34:20 ESV ↩
L.A. Schwalbe, R.N. Rogers, ‘Physics and chemistry of the shroud of turin: A summary of the 1978 investigation.’ The Shroud of Turin Research Project, P.O. Box 7, Amston, CT 06231, U.S.A., Analytica Chimica Acta, Volume 135, Issue 1, 1982, Pages 3-49, ISSN 0003-2670,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(01)85263-6. Science Direct. ↩‘The Shroud of Turin’ by Die Grabtücher. heiliges-antlitz.de ↩
Giulio Fanti, Giuseppe Zagotto, ‘Blood reinforced by pigments in the reddish stains of the Turin Shroud’ Journal of Cultural Heritage, Volume 25, 2017,
Pages 113-120, ISSN 1296-2074, Science Direct. ↩Giulio Fanti, Claudio Furlan, ‘Do gold particles from the Turin Shroud indicate its presence in the Middle East during the Byzantine Empire?’ Journal of Cultural Heritage, Volume 42, 2020, Pages 36-44,
ISSN 1296-2074, Science Direct. ↩‘The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin’ by Mark Guscin, B.A. M.Phil. ↩
‘Was the Sudarium of Oviedo really wrapped around Jesus’ head after his death?’ The Catholic Leader. 19 April 2021. ↩
‘The Sudarium of Oviedo: The “Other Shroud” of Jesus’ By Kathy Schiffer. The National Catholic Register. 18 April 2019. ↩
‘Comparative Study of The Sudarium of Oviedo and The Shroud of Turin’ By Guillermo Heras Moreno, Civil Engineer, Head of the Investigation Team of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (EDICES). José-Delfín Villalaín Blanco, DM, PhD. Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of Valencia, Spain. Vice-President of the Investigation. Spanish Centre for Sindonology (CES). Member of the Investigation Team of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (EDICES). Jorge-Manuel Rodríguez Almenar, Professor at the University of Valencia, Spain. Vice-President of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (CES). Vice coordinator of the Investigation Team of the Spanish Centre for Sindonology (EDICES) Shroud.com June 1998. ↩