Be Ye Doers. . . Of The Word!

Is it possible that the Shroud of Turin could simply be the work of a very clever artist living in the Middle Ages? We have already seen that the images on the Shroud look very much like those which would have been made by the body of Jesus had He actually been wrapped in this lenin cloth when He was buried in the borrowed tomb. We have discovered that the cloth had to have been in or around Jerusalem for a period of time in order to have collected the pollen from the plants in that area. We have seen that the image of the body on the cloth is a negative image and of minute detail and would have required extraordinary skill of a painter. We have seen that the knowledge required to make the images so realistic as to shape, size, location of wounds, etc. would have required a knowledge far superior to that of the typical artist of the Middle ages. But still, is it possible that the Shroud was actually painted by an artist?

During the 1978 testing of the Shroud by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) samples were examined by Dr. Walter McCrone of McCrone Associates in Chicago to determine if the image could have been made by an artist. Dr. McCrone specifically examined samples from the blood-image areas to see what the substance was. In his opinion, by testing the areas with a conventional light microscope, he determined that the images were made by iron oxide - ordinary rust. This substance has been used by artists since the dawn of time.

If iron oxide were used as a painting substance, it would have had to have been applied with some form of gluey binding agent. Dr. McCrone also tested for this type of a substance in the blood-image areas. He was satisfied with his tests that the lenin contained a substance which would have served as a binding agent for the iron oxide.

With these two determinations having been made, Dr. McCrone reported to the STURP team that the Shroud was painted by an artist. It should be noted that his findings were met with hostility by many on the STURP team and others sympathetic to the opinion that the Shroud is authentic. As a matter of fact, Dr. McCrone was in the minority and a very small minority at that. But nonetheless his findings, according to him, indicate that the Shroud was the product of an artist not that of the burial cloth of our Lord and Savior.

If this is so, then some of the other facts which we have previously discussed need to be reconciled to this point of view. Let's examine some of these facts to see if reconciliation is possible.

As we discussed in Part II of this series of articles, the Shroud appears to have come from the area of Jerusalem. With Dr. McCrone's theory, this posses no particular problem. Trade between the East and West was well developed during the Middle Ages. It is quite possible for the cloth to have been made in the Near East and traded to a European merchant which sold it to others. Even if the cloth was actually made about the time of Christ, it still could have ended up in Europe by way of the trade routes and eventually used by an artist.

The image on the Shroud has two very unique characteristics. First, it is a negative image. This is not normally the kind of an image which an artist would put on a canvas. Second, the image itself appears to disappear at close range. How would an artist achieve this characteristic. As Mr. Wilson states in his book, the artist would have to have a paint brush about twelve feet long in order to see what he was creating. Of course, this is absurd as no one could possibly have created such a delicate work of art under those conditions.

There have been several theories developed to answer this question. Many revolve around the artist sculpting a figure, wrapping the cloth around the figure and then somehow daubing or transferring the iron oxide to the cloth. No particular theory developed has been accepted with universal approval. It seems that modern science cannot account for the method of the artist if one indeed painted the image. Dr. McCrone however sees no need for a theory of how the artist accomplished his work. His opinion is simply that he used a lot of water (as in water colors) to paint the image.

Another major problem the artist theory must contend with is the fact that absolutely no Middle Ages artist developed any piece of art that would suggest that the skill was there to paint the Shroud. The answer to this charge is that perhaps the dating of the Shroud to the 1300's is the problem. It has been suggested that the Shroud that we know today may not be the same one that originally came to light by the de Charney family. It is conceivable that the Shroud (or at least one similar to it) was originally used by a church at that time as a stage prop in the very popular Easter dramas. These Easter dramas were put on by many churches at that time and the scene at the tomb was usually a part of the drama. It is possible that a shroud was painted to have the image of Christ on it as if it (the image) had been placed on the shroud by the blood of Jesus. Now keeping with this same theory, it is also possible that the cloth we know of as the Shroud of Turin was actually painted at a later time using one of these shrouds as the basis for the idea. Is there an artist which would have the skill necessary to do this some time after the 1300's but prior to 1532 which the Shroud of Turin is KNOWN to have existed. The answer is yes, in the person of Leonardo da Vinci. As Mr. Wilson states in his book, "If any artist may be said to be equal to the Shroud's apparent anatomical expertise, that artist must be Leonardo."

Leonardo is one of the few artists in history that would have taken the time and trouble to study the contact points of the body, calculate the effects of gravity on the flow of blood, working out the exact strokes of the scourging, experiment with materials and so forth in order to produce a work such as this. Again Mr. Wilson states, "Above all, more than that of any other artist, only Leonardo's work exhibits significant parallels to some of the Shroud's most enigmatic features, such as the absence of apparent brush marks and of obvious substance."

Well, that settles it then doesn't it? Not hardly. Dr. McCrone's theory that the substance which the image and blood stain images were made of was iron oxide has not won universal support. Dr. McCrone was working with extremely small samples of material which was taken from the Shroud by placing sticky tape on the image and peeling it off. Some of the substances used to "paint" the image was assumed to have come off on the tape. Dealing with such a small, minute amount of the material form the Shroud would hardly lend itself to a conclusive finding. If Dr. McCrone's findings were accurate, why has he not won universal or at least wide-spread support for his theory by those who have actually examined the Shroud under scientific conditions.

Even if the "substance" of the images on the Shroud are composed of iron oxide (or rust), why must we assume that the image was placed there by an artist. Is it not equally feasible that the image — with the iron oxide as the substance causing the image to be present — was somehow transferred to the Shroud when Christ was resurrected? I'm sure that all would agree that if this happened, it would be considered a miracle. Are not all miracles which we read about in the Scriptures dealing with KNOWN substances? Why would we expect that the miracle (if that is what it is) of the Shroud image to have been caused by something other than a KNOWN substance?

What conclusion can we draw from this discussion of the Shroud being the product of a cleaver artist? To me, the conclusion is this: It is possible that the Shroud was actually painted by an artist, possibly Leonardo da Vinci. But it is only a possibility. Thus far in our investigation of the mystery of the Shroud, no conclusive evidence has been given to prove that the Shroud was the actual burial cloth of Jesus, nor has it been proven that it was the product of an artist.

In our next article on this subject we shall look at the evidence to support the theory that the Shroud was NOT the work of an artist.

See: The Shroud of Turin - Part 1 and The Shroud of Turin - Part 2

Sources:
1. Wilson, Ian. The Mysterious Shroud Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1986.
2. Heller, John H. Report on The Shroud of Turin Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983.t

Home | Article Series - Be Ye Doers! | Poetry | Inspirational Stories | Search | Plan of Salvation | Links of Interest | Contact Us!
Stephen Kingery & Associates | Raye's Gift Shop | USA MegaMall