The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in
Archaeological Epistemology : Part 1

By William Meacham - Archaeologist

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY - Vol. 24 - N¡ 3 - (June 1983)

Published by the University of Chicago Press

Copyright 1983 by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research


OF ALL RELIGIOUS RELICS, the reputed burial cloth of Christ
held since 1578 in Turin has generated the greatest
controversy. Centuries before science cast the issue in a
totally new perspective, disputes over the authenticity of
the Shroud involved eminent prelates and provoked a minor
ecclesiastical power struggle. From its first recorded
exhibition in France in 1351, this cloth has been the object
of mass veneration, on the one hand, and scorn from a number
of learned clerics and freethinkers, on the other. Appearing
as it did in an age of unparalleled relic-mongering and
forgery and, if genuine, lacking documentation of its
whereabouts for 1,300 years, the Shroud would certainly have
long ago been consigned to the ranks of spurious relics
(along with several other shrouds with similar claims) were
it not for the extraordinary image it bears.

Sepia-yellow in color, the apparent frontal and dorsal
imprints of a man's body may be discerned on this 4.3 X
1.1-m linen cloth. Stains of a slightly darker carmine or
rust color, with the appearance of blood, are seen in areas
consistent with the biblical account of the scourging and
crucifixion of Christ. The image lacks the sharp outline and
vivid color of a painting and is described as "melting away"
as the viewer approaches the cloth. Yet the consensus of
skeptical opinion up to the 1930s (with a few surviving
remnants today) was that the image was indeed a medieval
painting of Jesus which had through time taken on the
appearance of a truly ancient relic.

Modern technology served as a catalyst to renewed
controversy when the Shroud was first photographed, during a
rare exhibition in 1898. Black-and-white photography had the
fortuitous effect of considerably heightening the contrast
of the image, thus bringing out details not readily
discernible to the naked eye. Remarkably, its negative image
was found to be an altogether more lifelike portrait of the
body and, especially, of the face. From the rather grotesque
and murky facial imprint visible on the cloth, reversal of
light and dark revealed a harmonious and properly
proportioned visage. This discovery of course created a
sensation in the media, with claims of miraculous
intervention and accusations of darkroom hoax.

Photography made another and far more important contribution
in making available copies and enlargements of the Shroud
image for detailed study by anatomists and art historians.
By the time of its next exhibition in 1931, the Shroud had
attracted a considerable following among scholars; it was
inspected at that time by experts in various fields, and a
vastly superior set of photographs was taken (see figs. 1
and 2). The scientific inquiry into this object, whether
medieval fraud or "the holiest icon upon the holiest relic"
(Stacpoole 1978), had begun, culminating by 1980 in what
must be the most intensive and varied scrutiny by scientific
means of any archaeological or art object in history.

In a statement which may not be as hyperbolic as it seems,
Walsh (1963:8) observed: "The Shroud of Turin is either the
most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in
existence... or it is one of the most ingenious, most
unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on
record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground."
However, as in almost every complex issue, there is indeed a
middle ground (albeit rather weak) in this case, but it has
not to my knowledge been investigated in other writings on
the Shroud. Clearly, every remote possibility of forgery,
hoax, accident, or combination thereof must be examined
before a firm archaeological/historical judgement on this
artifact can be proffered.

Of the three interrelated areas of interest in this relic -
authenticity, mechanism of image formation, and religious
significance - we shall be concerned here mainly with the
first. While high technology and theology contend
respectively with the other aspects of the relic,
determination of its origin and place in history is an
archaeological issue. The cloth is an unprovenanced artifact
purporting to be associated with events in recorded history
and encoded with considerable information about its past.
Direct study and testing of the relic since 1900 have
yielded a wealth of data, and in this paper I attempt to
review and summarize the major empirical data and other
relevant research. Further, and unlike the authors of the
most recent broad reviews on Shroud studies (e.g. Wilson
1978, Sox 1981, Schwalbe and Rogers 1982), I address the
question of authenticity in historical/archaeological terms.

Authentication of the Shroud differs from that of
manuscripts, sculptures, and other materials only in the
wide range of data from many disciplines - anatomy,
scientific analyses, history, archaeology, art history,
exegesis - which has a bearing on the issue. The fact that
it is a religious relic associated with supernatural claims
is of no consequence here; certainly there is no
justification for employing different or stricter criteria
than for any other important artifact, except perhaps in
according greater consideration to the possibility of
forgery. Considerations of the Shroud have frequently been
marred by an intense desire to believe and an imprecise use
of data among the overzealous and by an insistence on
impossible standards of proof among the skeptics. Clearly,
authenticity should be judged on criteria no more and no
less stringent than those applied in the usual
identification of ancient city sites, royal tombs,
manuscripts, etc.


THE BODY IMPRINT


Scientific scrutiny of the Shroud image began in 1900 at the
Sorbonne. Under the direction of Yves Delage, professor of
comparative anatomy, a study was undertaken of the
physiology and pathology of the apparent body imprint and of
the possible manner of its formation. The image was found to
be anatomically flawless down to minor details: the
characteristic features of rigor mortis, wounds, and blood
flows provided conclusive evidence to the anatomists that
the image was formed by direct or indirect contact with a
corpse, not painted onto the cloth or scorched thereon by a
hot statue (two of the current theories). On this point all
medical opinion since the time of Delage has been unanimous
(notably Hynek 1936; Vignon 1939; Moedder 1949; Caselli
1950; La Cava 1953; Sava 1957; Judica-Cordiglia 1961; Barbet
1963 ; Bucklin 1970; Willis, in Wilson 1978; Cameron 1978;
Zugibe, in Murphy 1981). This line of evidence is of great
importance in the question of authenticity and is briefly
reviewed below.

The body was that of an adult male, nude, with beard,
mustache, and long hair falling to the shoulders and drawn
at the back into a pigtail. Height is estimated at between 5
ft. 9 in. and 5 ft. 11 in. (175-180 cm), weight at 165-180
lb. (75-81 kg), and age at 30 to 45 years. Carleton Coon
(quoted in Wilcox 1977:133) describes the man as "of a
physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and
noble Arabs." Curto (quoted in Sox 1981:70, 131), however,
describes the physiognomy as more Iranian than Semitic. The
body is well proportioned and muscular, with no observable
defects.

Death had occurred several hours before the deposition of
the corpse, which was laid out on half of the Shroud, the
other half then being drawn over the head to cover the body.
It is clear that the cloth was in contact with the body for
at least a few hours, but not more than two to three days,
assuming that decomposition was progressing at the normal
rate. Both frontal and dorsal images have the marks of many
small drops of a postmortem serous fluid exuded from the
pores. There is, however, no evidence of initial
decomposition of the body, no issue of fluids from the
orifices, and no decline of rigor mortis leading to
flattening of the back and blurred or double imprints.

Rigor mortis is seen in the stiffness of the extremities,
the retraction of the thumbs (discussed below), and the
distention of the feet. It has frozen an attitude of death
while hanging by the arms; the rib cage is abnormally
expanded, the large pectoral muscles are in an attitude of
extreme inspiration (enlarged and drawn up toward the
collarbone and arms), the lower abdomen is distended, and
the epigastric hollow is drawn in sharply. The protrusion of
the femoral quadriceps and hip muscles is consistent with
slow death by hanging, during which the victim must raise
his body by exertion of the legs in order to exhale.

The evidence of death in a position of suspension by the
arms coupled with the characteristic wounds and blood flows
indicate that the individual had been crucified. The rigor
mortis position of outstretched arms would have had to be
broken in order to cross the hands at the pelvis for burial,
and a probable result is seen in the slight dislocation of
the right elbow and shoulder. The feet indicate something of
their original positioning on the cross, the left being
placed on the instep of the right with a single nail
impaling both. Apparently there was some flexion of the left
knee to achieve this position, leaving the left foot
somewhat higher than the right. Two theories, each supported
by experimental or wartime observations, contend as regards
cause of death: asphyxiation due to muscular spasm,
progressive rigidity, and inability to exhale (Barbet,
Hynek, Bucklin) or circulatory failure from lowering of
blood pressure and pooling of blood in the lower extremities
(Moedder, Willis).

Of greatest interest and importance are the wounds. As with
the general anatomy of the image, the wounds, blood flows,
and the stains themselves appear to forensic pathologists
flawless and unfakeable. "Each of the different wounds acted
in a characteristic fashion. Each bled in a manner which
corresponded to the nature of the injury. The blood followed
gravity in every instance" (Bucklin 1961:5). The bloodstains
are perfect, bordered pictures of blood clots, with a
concentration of red corpuscles around the edge of the clot
and a tiny area of serum inside. Also discernible are a
number of facial wounds, listed by Willis (cited in Wilson
1978:23) as swelling of both eyebrows, torn right eyelid,
large swelling below right eye, swollen nose, bruise on
right cheek, swelling in left cheek and left side of chin.

The body is peppered with marks of a severe flogging
estimated at between 60 and 120 lashes of a whip with two or
three studs at the thong end. Each contusion is about 3.7 cm
long, and these are found on both sides of the body from the
shoulders to the calves, with only the arms spared.
Superimposed on the marks of flogging on the right shoulder
and left scapular region are two broad excoriated areas,
generally considered to have resulted from friction or
pressure from a flat surface, as from carrying the crossbar
or writhing on the cross. There are also contusions on both
knees and cuts on the left kneecap, as from repeated falls.

The wounds of the crucifixion itself are seen in the blood
flows from the wrists and feet. One of the most interesting
features of the Shroud is that the nail wounds are in the
wrists, not in the palm as traditionally depicted in art.
Experimenting with cadavers and amputated arms, Barbet
(1953:102-20) demonstrated that nailing at the point
indicated on the Shroud image, the so-called space of Destot
between the bones of the wrist, allowed the body weight to
be supported, where-as the palm would tear away from the
nail under a fraction of the body weight. Sava (1957:440)
holds that the wristbones and tendons would be severely
damaged by nailing and that the Shroud figure was nailed
through the wrist end of the forearm, but most medical
opinion concurs in siting the nailing at the wrist. Barbet
also observed that the median nerve was invariably injured
by the nail, causing the thumb to retract into the palm.
Neither thumb is visible on the Shroud, their position in
the palm presumably being retained by rigor mortis.

The blood flow from the wrists trails down the forearms at
two angles, roughly 55¡ and 65¡ from the axis of the arm,
thus allowing the crucifixion position of the arms to be
reconstructed. It is generally agreed that the separate
flows from the left wrist and the interrupted streams along
the length of the arm are due to slightly different
positions assumed by the body on the cross. This seesaw
motion is interpreted as necessary simply in order to
breathe or as an attempt to relieve the pain in the wrists
(the median nerve is also sensory and pain from injuries to
it excruciating). A postmortem blood flow with separation of
serum is seen around the left wrist and more copiously at
the feet, presumably from the removal of the nails.

The pathology described thus far may well have characterized
any number of crucifixion victims, since beating, scourging,
carrying the crossbar, and nailing were common traits of a
Roman execution. The lacerations about the upper bead and
the wound in the side are unusual and thus crucial in the
identification of the Shroud figure. The exact nature of
these wounds, especially whether they were inflicted on a
living body and whether they could have been faked, is
highly significant. Around the upper scalp and extending to
its vertex are at least 30 blood flows from spike punctures.
These wounds exhibit the same realism as those of the hand
and feet: the bleeding is highly characteristic of scalp
wounds with the retraction of torn vessels, the blood meets
obstructions as it flows and pools on the forehead and hair,
and there appears to be swelling around the points of
laceration (though Bucklin [personal communication, 1982]
doubts that swelling can be discerned). Several clots have
the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial
blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of
coagulation (Rodante 1982). One writer (Freeland, cited in
Sox 1981) questions the highly visible nature of the wounds
and clots, as if the Shroud man had been bald or the stains
painted over the body image.

Between the fifth and sixth ribs on the right side is an
oval puncture about 4.4 X 1.1 cm. Blood has flowed down from
this wound and also onto the lower back, indicating a second
outflow when the body was moved to a horizontal position.
All authorities agree that this wound was inflicted after
death, judging from the small quantity of blood issued, the
separation of clot and serum, the lack of swelling, and the
deeper color and more viscous consistency of the blood.
Stains of a body fluid are intermingled with the blood, and
numerous theories have been offered as to its origin:
pericardial fluid (Judica, Barbet), fluid from the pleural
sac (Moedder), or serous fluid from settled blood in the
pleural cavity (Saval, Bucklin).

So convincing was the realism of these wounds and their
association with the biblical accounts that Delage, an
agnostic, declared them "a bundle of imposing probabilities"
and concluded that the Shroud figure was indeed Christ. His
assistant, Vignon (1937), declared the Shroud's
identification to be "as sure as a photograph or set of
fingerprints." Ironically, the most vehement opposition was
to come from two of Europe's most learned clerics.

THE HISTORY OF THE SHROUD

While medical studies of the body image were providing
strong evidence for genuineness, inquiries into the Shroud's
history showed its case to be extremely weak. In 1900, the
distinguished scholar Canon Ulisse Chevalier published a
series of historical documents shedding light on the early
years of the Shroud in France and casting seemingly
insurmountable doubts on its authenticity. An English
Jesuit, Herbert Thurston, condemned the relic in a
persuasive and powerful style "that muted and almost stifled
the controversy in the English-speaking world" (Walsh
1963:69).

With rivals at Besanon, Cadouin, Champiegne, and elsewhere,
this purported "Shroud of Christ" appeared in 1353 in Lirey,
France, under mysterious circumstances and with no
documentation whatever. It immediately began to draw large
numbers of pilgrims to a modest wooden church founded by the
Shroud's owner and tended by six clergy but in financial
difficulties. Its exhibition was condemned by the resident
bishop, Henri de Poitiers. His successor, Pierre d'Arcis,
compiled a memorandum in 1389 urging the pope to prohibit
further exhibitions of the relic because its fraudulent
nature had been discovered by de Poitiers and an unnamed
artist had confessed to painting the image. To d'Arcis, the
absence of historical reference was equally damning; he
considered it "quite unlikely that the Holy Evangelists
would have omitted to record an imprint on Christ's burial
linens, or that the fact should have remained hidden until
the present time" (quoted in Thurston 1903). In all the
recorded veneration of countless relics down to the 13th
century, there had been no mention of Christ's shroud's
bearing an imprint of his body. This silence of history
together with the suspicious circumstances of the Shroud's
appearance and the confession of the artist seemed
sufficient to settle the matter. Thurston concluded
confidently, "The case is here so strong that. . . . the
probability of an error in the verdict of history must be
accounted, it seems to me, as almost infinitesimal."
However, this historical argumentum ex silencio must be
considered as an open verdict, as we shall see.

In 1203, a French soldier with the Crusaders camped in
Constantinople (who were responsible for the sack of the
city the following year) noted that a church there exhibited
every Friday the cloth in which Christ was buried, and "his
figure could be plainly seen there" (de Clari 1936:112). It
is likely that this cloth and the Turin Shroud are the same,
especially in view of the pollen evidence (discussed below)
and the fact that these are the only known "Shrouds of
Christ" with a body imprint. It now seems virtually certain
that the Turin Shroud was among the spoils of the Crusades,
along with many other relics looted from churches and
monasteries in the East and brought back to Europe. Another
shroud, now at Cadouin, was found by the Crusaders at
Antioch in 1098, brought back to France, and venerated down
to the present. (Unfortunately for its cult, the Cadouin
Shroud was discovered to have ornamental bands in Kufic
carrying 11th-century Moslem prayers [Francez 1935:7).)
Wilson (1978:200-215) argues that the Turin Shroud was held
and secretly worshipped by the Knights Templars between 1204
and 1314, passing later into history in the possession of a
knight with the same name as the earlier Templar master of
Normandy (Geoffrey de Charny). Others (e.g., Rinaldi
1972:18) identify the Turin Shroud with the "Burial Sheet of
the Redeemer" brought to Besanon from Constantinople,
according to unsubstantiated tradition, by a Crusader
captain in 1207.

The enigma of the Shroud's history prior to the Crusades
will probably never be resolved, but certain points of
departure for hypothesis can be established. Pollen samples
taken from it reveal that it has been in Turkey and
Palestine, and the medical evidence seems to place it in the
era of crucifixion. These data strongly suggest that the
Shroud is a relic from the early church period. Whether
forgery, accident, or genuine, however, the cloth has
escaped the gaze of history through a long period in which a
relic purporting to be Christ's burial linen and actually
bearing his image would have attracted enormous attention
and pilgrimage. Whereas other important relics acquired by
the Byzantine capital were received with much fanfare and
ample recording, there is no mention of when or from what
quarter this shroud was obtained. It first appears in the
lists of relics held at Constantinople in 1093 as "the
linens found in the tomb after the resurrection."

Of the many relics which "came to light" during the first
great cult of relics in the 4th century, there is no mention
of a shroud. However, history is not totally silent on the
possible preservation of Christ's burial cloth. In a
pilgrim's account dated ca. 570 there occurs a reference to
"the cloth which was over the head of Jesus" kept in a cave
convent on the Jordan River. In 670, another pilgrim
described having seen the 8-ft.-long shroud of Christ
exhibited in a church in Jerusalem (cited in Green 1969).
Earlier references to the preservation of the burial linens
are more legendary. A passage in the apocryphal 2d-century
"Gospel of the Hebrews" relating that Jesus gave his shroud
to the servant of the priest and a statement by St. Nino of
the 4th century that the burial linen was held first by
Pilate's wife and then by Luke the evangelist, "who put it
in a place known only to himself."

It is of course impossible to establish whether any of these
early references actually describe the Turin Shroud, and we
may conclude only that it was possibly lost or kept in
relative obscurity during the early centuries, eventually
being taken to Constantinople. If genuine, the most
difficult time for which to construct a plausible scenario
is the earliest period. How might such an important relic of
Christ's burial have been preserved by persons and in
circumstances unknown to the early church at large? And,
whether genuine or forged, what is to account for the 700 to
1,000 years during which the image on the cloth is not
mentioned?

The actual shroud of Christ may well have been kept in
obscurity by 1st-century Christians, perhaps for political
reasons and/or out of aversion to an "unclean" object of the
dead. By A.D. 66 the Judaeo-Christians had migrated east of
the Jordan, and thereafter little is known of them apart
from their increasing isolation from the early church and
their heretical tendencies. If the Shroud had been taken
from Jerusalem by this group, its obscurity in the early
centuries would be understandable. Justin Martyr, writing in
mid-2d century, observed that Christians who still kept the
practices of orthodox Judaism were a rarity regarded with
much suspicion.

Other factors which may have played a role in the Shroud's
early history and absence of documentation are (1) a very
gradual emergence of a visible image on the cloth, (2)
folding or wrapping of the cloth so that none or only a
portion of the image was visible, and (3) storage, oblivion,
and re-discovery of the relic. In times of prosperity as in
turmoil and persecution, valued relics were customarily
placed in various parts of church structures, homes, and
catacombs; it often happened that these objects were
forgotten, only coming to light in later construction or
warfare. The looting of Edessa (Urfa, Turkey) by
12th-century Turkish Moslems, for example, yielded "many
treasures hidden in secret places, foundations, roofs from
the earliest times of the fathers and elders. . . . of which
the citizens knew nothing" (Segal 1970:253). Similarly, it
was not uncommon for manuscripts, works of art, and relics
kept in monasteries gradually to drift out of the collective
memory; the most notable example is the Codex Sinaiticus,
which reposed in a Sinai monastery for over 1,000 years, its
importance totally unknown to its keepers.

Wilson (1978:109-93) has offered an elaborate and ingenious
identification of the Shroud, folded four times to show only
the face, with the Mandylion, a cloth said to have received
the miraculous imprint of Christ's face and to have been
taken to Edessa in ca. A.D. 40 by the disciple Thaddeus.
This semilegendary account of the "Image of Edessa"
describes it as having been hidden in a wall during a
persecution in A.D. 57 and forgotten until its discovery
during a siege of the city ca. 525. The history of the
Mandylion is well documented thereafter; it was held at
Edessa until 944 and then at Constantinople until its
disappearance in 1204. There are, however, numerous problems
with a Shroud/Mandylion link (Cameron 1980), notably the
difference in size, separate mention on relic lists, and the
silence on its eventual "revelation" as a burial cloth.

The tradition of the miraculous imprint of Christ's face
developed first in the Byzantine empire. Gibbon (1776-78:
chap. 49) records that "before the end of the sixth century,
these images made without hands were propagated in the camps
and cities of the Eastern empire." In the 7th and 8th
centuries in the West arises a similar tradition, that of
Veronica, who wiped the brow of Christ with her veil and
found a facial imprint remaining. It is quite possible that
these traditions have an ultimate basis in the Shroud and
its figure, transformed into an image of the living Christ
to accord with early Byzantine iconographic conventions. On
the other hand, the flourishing of these traditions
represents a most likely impetus and context for a forged
burial cloth with body imprint.

In sum, although the Shroud's history prior to 1353 is a
matter of much rich conjecture and little firm evidence,
there are numerous possible avenues by which the Shroud
could have come down to us from the Jerusalem of A.D. 30.
Genuine or forged, the absence of references to it in the
1st millennium is equally enigmatic. It must be admitted,
however, that even if the Shroud's history could be extended
back to the early Byzantine era, the case for its
authenticity would not be significantly improved.

THE SHROUD AND THE BIBLICAL RECORD

The fact that the Shroud is not easily harmonized with the
Gospel accounts has been taken as evidence both for and
against authenticity. A number of biblical scholars
(discussed in Bulst 1957 and O'Rahilley 1941) have rejected
the Shroud because of a perceived conflict on two points:
the washing of the body and the type of linen cloths used in
wrapping it. Robinson (1978:69), on the other hand, suggests
that "no forger starting, as he inevitably would, from the
Gospel narratives, and especially that of the fourth, would
have created the Shroud we have." The Shroud could of course
be genuine and not necessarily agree in every detail with
the biblical account: it could also have been forged by
persons who were close to the early burial traditions and
therefore based their work on a better understanding of the
Johannine Gospel account than is possible today.

The wounds seen in the Shroud image correspond perfectly
with those of Christ recorded in the Gospel accounts:
beating with fists and blow to the face with a club,
flogging, "crown of thorns," nailing in hands (Aramaic yad,
including wrists and base of forearm) and feet, lance thrust
to the side (the right side, according to tradition) after
death, issue of "blood and water" from the side wound, legs
unbroken, McNair (1978:23) contends that such an exact
concordance could hardly be coincidental: "it seems to me
otiose, if not ridiculous, to spend time arguing . . . about
the identity of the man represented in the Turin Shroud.
Whether genuine or fake, the representation is obviously
Jesus Christ."

The apparent bloodstains on the Shroud conflict with the
long-established tradition in biblical exegesis that
Christ's body was washed before burial, which was carried
out "following the Jewish burial custom" (John 19:40). The
phrase, however, refers directly to the deposition of the
body in a linen cloth together with spices. All of the
Gospels convey the information that Christ's burial was
hasty and incomplete because of the approaching Sabbath. In
the earlier accounts of Mark and Luke, the women are said to
be returning on Sunday morning to anoint the body with
ointments prepared over the Sabbath, when washing a body for
burial was effectively forbidden by the ritual proscription
of moving or lifting a corpse.

Greater difficulties are encountered in John's descriptions
of the burial linens. The synoptic Gospels record that the
body was wrapped or folded in a fine linen sindon or sheet.
Although the traditional idea is that this sheet was wound
around the body, there is no difficulty in reconciling it
with the Shroud. John (20:5-8) describes the body as "bound"
with othonia, a word of uncertain meaning generally taken as
"cloth" or "cloths." In the empty tomb he relates seeing
"the othonia lying there, but the napkin (soudarion) which
had been over the head not lying with the othonia but folded
[or rolled up] in a place by itself." To elucidate this
passage, almost as many theories as there are possibilities
have been put forward. One which would exclude the Shroud is
that the linen sheet was cut up into bands to wrap around
the corpse, but most exegetes reject this notion. The fact
that Luke describes the body as wrapped in a sindon and then
relates that the othonia were seen in the empty tomb is
taken by some as an equation of the two, by others as a
distinction. Most commentators identify the Shroud with the
sindon and offer one of the following interpretations: (1)
The othonia is the Shroud, the soudarion is a chin band tied
around the head to hold up the lower jaw, and the hands and
feet were bound with linen strips. In the account of
Lazarus, a soudarion is mentioned "around his face," and his
hands and feet are bound with keiriai (twisted rushes).
Three-dimensional projections of the Shroud face have
indicated a retraction of beard and hair where a chin band
would have been tied. The Greek soudarion is clearly a
kerchief or napkin. (2) The soudarion is the Shroud, and the
othonia are bands used to tie up the body. In the vernacular
Aramaic, soudara included larger cloths, and the phrases
"over his head" and "rolled up in a place by itself" suggest
an item more substantial than a mere kerchief.

Clearly, the Shroud as a "fifth gospel" is difficult to
harmonize with the others. Although it can be worked into
the biblical accounts of the burial linen, no evidence for
its authenticity can be gleaned therefrom. On the other
hand, the exact correspondence of the wounds of Christ with
those of the Shroud man is of supreme importance; if
genuine, the Shroud would provide a most extraordinary
archaeological reflection of the crucifixion accounts
rendered by the evangelists. But upon this ultimate
question, the verdict of history and exegesis must be
recorded as open.

[ Next Page ] Go To Part Two . . .

Divider

[ Go Back Up ] [ Back To Article Group ] [ Directory ]

[ Welcome Page ] [ Messageboard ] [ Guestbook ]

[ Study Tools ] [ Search Engine ] [ Recommend ]

Divider