John Loken has been active in the Shroud field for two decades, and recently a reviewer of this blog, as a believer in the Shroud’s authenticity and in a natural, not supernatural, formation of the image on it. The world of sindonology is far more nuanced than a cursory review might suppose. Not all Christians believe the Shroud to be the burial cloth of the resurrected Christ, and supposing it to be medieval does not automatically make one an atheist. Although our ultimate conclusions regarding the provenance of the Shroud could not be more different, there are many aspects of the exploration in which John and I concur, and this contribution expounds one of them, so I am delighted to give him the opportunity to present his investigations on the subject in full.
A First-Century Touring Shroud of Turin Show?
John Loken
The Summer 2024 issue (No. 99) of the Shroud Newsletter of the British Society for the Turin Shroud carried an article of mine that was titled “Paul’s Galatians 3.1: An Allusion to the Turin Shroud – or Not?” I took a very skeptical view therein of some recent claims that the Apostle Paul was referring to the Shroud’s presence in Galatia (today central Turkey) with that one little verse in his New Testament epistle or letter to the Galatians, written circa A.D. 50. My skeptical view remains unchanged – or has actually deepened. See also Hugh Farey’s similarly skeptical thoughts on that Gal. 3.1 claim in his earlier, December 5, 2020 post titled “προεγράφη” on his medievalshroud.com blog.
That recent Galatians claim has mostly been made by two Turin Shroud researchers, one of them long well known in the field, the other rather less known. They have done so both in writing and in spoken form (podcasts) many times in recent years. So my nine-page article was only a small, but perhaps welcome and somewhat effective, counterweight to their views. Alas, even after the appearance of that article, which they both knew about and presumably read, they have continued to make their Galatians-Shroud claims, simply ignoring my dozens of objections.
To save space in the BSTS newsletter, a few pages had to be cut from the article, including a paragraph or two that strongly challenged three closely related claims made by just one of those two main promoters of the Gal. 3.1-Shroud identity. He is a retired American pastor and a relative newcomer to the Shroud field, who has asserted, as the first ever to do so and notably without support from his fellow Gal. 3.1-Shroud promoter, that the Shroud was very possibly also taken to Troas (Troy), to Corinth, and even to Rome, all likewise in the mid-first century, either by Paul or Peter or both. His New Testament sources include Paul’s letter 2 Timothy, verse 4.13, and 1 Corinthians 13.12. To these are added a couple of fourth-century words about the Apostle Peter in Bishop Eusebius’ Church History, Book 2, chapter 14. His combined audiences, via blogs, websites, and podcasts, now total thousands of people, some of whom could take his claims to thousands more. Such Internet platforms have proliferated in recent years, of course, increasing the opportunities for individual expression – and error. Moreover, the researcher in question is soon to publish a lengthy book on the same subject, apparently alleging these and similar ancient allusions to the Turin Shroud.
Although I’ve proposed several New Testament allusions to the Shroud myself (see The Shroud Was the Resurrection, 2006), and am open to there possibly being others, I find all three of the above claims very weak and unworthy of belief – a “Touring Shroud” scenario, we might call them collectively, or in other words, “I think I see … the Shroud everywhere.” The first major problem is that of geography: the vast distances, many months of transport, and great dangers to the Shroud that would have been involved. The second major problem is that of language: the acrobatic interpretations which the researcher performs on such words as “cloak,” “in a mirror dimly,” and “precious merchandise,” all supposed by him to refer very possibly to the Shroud of Turin. As we all know, sometimes in life Coincidence is King, and that is surely so in all these cases. They have nothing to do with the Shroud, in my view. Moreover, in recent years I have repeatedly cautioned that researcher about his claims, yet he persists. But it’s very important for Shroud authenticity believers not to overstate their case for the Shroud. I fear it, because I’m a believer in the Shroud’s authenticity as the true burial shroud of Jesus. And so, for anyone interested, here follow some of my concerns. There seems no need to mention the researcher’s name. An impersonal approach will be more objective.
1 Corinthians
To begin with, I find no validity in the researcher’s alleged possible Turin Shroud sighting in Paul’s famous 1 Corinthians verse 13.12 phrase “now we see through a glass, darkly” (King James Version; or “in a mirror, dimly” in more modern translations, ancient mirrors having often given poor reflections). Variations on that expression have been voiced in many different cultures around the world and already long before Paul, recognizing our feeble human perception of higher truths. Think of Plato’s allegory of the cave involving shadows mistaken for reality. The researcher mentions Paul’s concluding phrase in that same verse, “but then face to face,” by which, he believes, Paul may very well have meant the Shroud’s famous facial image of Jesus. But that expression, too, had been used in other cultures and long before Paul. Closer at hand there were the traditional Hebrew scriptures which Paul, as a pharisee, knew so well. See Exodus 33.11 for just one example among dozens that speak of the “face” of God. Moreover, Paul does not even refer to Jesus in his verse 13.12 – nor in all of his chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians. The researcher in question has unfortunately not mentioned such cautious considerations in his various presentations of the case.
Already Paul’s serious frictions with his fellow Jewish-Christians in Syrian Antioch, some of them perhaps originally from Palestine and, unlike Paul, once actual followers of Jesus in his lifetime, are strong reason to doubt that Paul would ever have been allowed by them to carry the sacred and vulnerable burial shroud of Jesus to distant Corinth on mainland Greece, some 900 miles away (1400 km.), or to and fro elsewhere around the eastern Mediterranean, showing it widely. Then, too, while out on his long missionary journeys, alone but for one or two companions, Paul definitely encountered many traditional, non-Christian Jews of the Diaspora. While he is generally known as the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul actually often preached in synagogues to fellow Jews, trying to convert them to the new version of Judaism with its focus on Jesus. See 2 Corinthians 11.23-27 for his frequently hostile reception by such Jews and others, involving beatings and stonings, hostility which he surely anticipated before even beginning his major journeys. Would Paul really have taken the very shroud of Jesus, with its astonishing and unique image of him on it, along on such risky journeys, showing it to the Corinthians and others? Surely not.
2 Timothy
Then there is verse 4.13 of Paul’s letter 2 Timothy, referring geographically to Troas (Troy, near Istanbul today), a city slightly less far-flung from Jerusalem than Corinth, at merely some 700 miles (1200 km) one-way as the crow flies (and still farther by sea or land, of course). Paul wrote to Timothy, “Bring the cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus….”
Here the researcher has claimed that Paul’s requesting “the cloak” instead of “my cloak” suggests that he is not really referring to a cloak at all, but instead alluding secretly to the Turin Shroud. However, Paul’s additional phrasing, “that I left at Troas with Carpus,” indicates his personal connection to it and makes any possessive “my” before “cloak” redundant. Why write, “my cloak that I left at Troas,” especially when he knows it is his cloak?
The researcher has also stated that Paul’s “cloak” (Greek φαιλóνηv here, failonen transliterated) probably carries the root meaning of “illumination,” which would imply, he seems to suggest but doesn’t actually say, the white shroud or the hazy image on it. But that word root claim is apparently mistaken. Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, a standard reference work accessible at Internet Archive, explains that φαιλóνης is a garbled form of φαινóλης, which itself is derived from Latin paenula meaning a “thick upper garment.” (They were shaped like a poncho with a hole for the head, and typically had a hood too; see Google Images). No illumination was involved.
The researcher has also suggested that Paul’s writing “the cloak” first in his sentence, in the Greek original, is secretly significant, with Paul really meaning the very important Shroud. But ancient Greek word order was quite flexible, not like Modern English, and grammatical objects often preceded their verbs, as here with “cloak.” Besides, the two other objects requested by Paul in that 4.13 sentence, “books” and “parchments,” are related to each other in kind, so Paul naturally listed one right after the other within his sentence. Paul also naturally ends the sentence with a certain closure or finality, “and especially the parchments.” Should he then have added, if the “cloak” was really a cloak, “Oh, and bring my cloak too”? The researcher seems to think so.
Moreover, in 2 Tim. 4.21, indeed only eight verses after verse 4.13, Paul urges Timothy to “Hasten to come before winter.” This is an obvious weather-related reason for Paul, writing from Rome circa A.D. 64, to be thinking of his warm cloak, which may also have been new and expensive, or simply a favorite old cloak. And why buy another cloak when that older one was available within just weeks? Paul, perhaps having left Troas in the warm spring or hot summer, may naturally have neglected to take it with him at that time. Paul’s winter worry was another possible reason for his writing “the cloak” first, even before the verb, perhaps giving it some emphasis. The researcher in question has, however, in his recent writings and talks that I know of, omitted to quote this crucial “winter” passage by Paul, instead merely alluding to it vaguely in a footnote and thus sweeping the inconvenient evidence largely under the rug.
It must also be asked why Paul would ever have left behind in Troas, and for some months, the actual burial shroud of Jesus, and with Carpus, a possibly minor Christian acquaintance there, whose name never again appears in the New Testament nor anywhere else in early Christian literature.
Eusebius
The researcher also claims to have potentially spotted the Turin Shroud in Bishop Eusebius’ account stating that Peter took the “precious merchandise” with him from the Levant to Rome. This Shroud reading would involve the farthest claimed mid-first-century transport of the Touring Shroud, a journey of well over a thousand miles one-way and double that distance for any round trip. With stops along the way, it would have taken at least several months. In judging the credibility of this claim, we should also ponder an even longer stretch of time, the nearly four centuries between Peter’s activities in the mid-first century and the early fourth-century period when Eusebius first wrote those words about Peter in his Church History, Book 2, chapter 14.
Peter, as leader of the original disciples, may have had more access to the Shroud at times in the decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, depending on where it was located in the mid-first century, which we still do not know and probably never will. But Peter was known already at that time as the Apostle to the Jews and was mainly focused on converting fellow Jews instead of many Gentiles. So, why would he carry around – on long, dangerous journeys – a very provocative human image on cloth that could easily be stolen, damaged, or destroyed by some of his non-image-worshipping Jewish brethren, who had never even met Jesus during his lifetime and therefore could not identify his image on the Shroud?
A Shroud-based exegesis or reading of “precious merchandise” also ignores the far more probable interpretation that Eusebius, with his metaphor, simply meant the gospel message or good news of Jesus, not any physical object. The word “precious” apparently occurs in some 203 verses of the Bible, referring either to valuable physical objects or, metaphorically, to dear intangibles like “faith” and “spirit” (see biblehub.com, an online Bible word search site). Of those 203 verses, thirty-six occur in the New Testament, and of those thirty-six, six are found in the letter 1 Peter alone (see verses 1.7, 1.19, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 3.4). Now, Eusebius, when writing his several sentences about Peter going to Rome, presumably took note of that famous letter and therefore saw its frequent use of the word “precious.” So he could have associated Peter closely with that word and thus used it when so writing about Peter. The actual Greek word Eusebius uses, πολυτίμητον, polytimeton, can mean “highly revered” as well as “very costly” (see the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon, again on Internet Archive).
As for the word “merchandise,” it is much less common in the Bible, apparently occurring only some forty-eight times including nine times in the New Testament. The word there typically means physical objects for sale or barter, sometimes in a negative sense. But the phrase used by Eusebius, precious or highly revered merchandise, can surely be considered a near-synonym for another word that does occur very often in the Bible, “treasure.” This one is found in some 262 verses and, while it frequently means physical treasures of monetary value (gold, silver, etc.), many other times its sense is purely metaphorical, e.g., “the good treasure of the heart,” “treasures in heaven,” and “all the treasures of wisdom” (Luke 6.45, Matthew 6.20, Colossians. 2.3, 2 Timothy 1.14, etc.) Actually, the original Greek word in Eusebius’ text is emporian, from emporia, a noun that can mean either merchandise, commerce, or business. It seems unclear exactly how Eusebius meant it here. Would “worthy business,” “revered trade” or “honored enterprise” be a better translation than “costly merchandise”? The same word is used in Matthew 22.5, and a majority of the dozens of translations given for it there (including the NIV) render it as “business” not “merchandise,” that is, as a general activity and not one specific object (see biblehub.com). That translation also seems to fit Eusebius’ text, because he continues by describing Peter’s emporia as “of the light of the understanding” (according to one standard translation). An activity would fit that phrase better than would a physical thing. Even the noun “cause” seems a possible translation here, close to a general activity and implying a social context involving idealism. Moreover, the full passage of Eusebius clearly equates the “precious merchandise” (or business or enterprise or cause) with the general Christian message: The “great and mighty Peter” “brought the costly merchandise of the spiritual light from the east to the dwellers in the west, preaching the Gospel of the light itself….” (See Eusebius’ Church History, Internet Archive translation).
Hebrews
Yet another questionable claim by that same researcher seems to me his related one that the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews may well allude secretly, in its verses 9.11-12, to first-century showings of, or at least a faraway knowledge of, the Turin Shroud. Now, no one knows who wrote Hebrews or where it was written or to whom. Paul was often reputed in the past to be the author, but scholars today have their various other theories. The researcher in question has stated his belief that the text was probably meant for Jewish Christians in Rome. This, despite the aforementioned enormous distance from the Levant to Rome.
In addition, if Hebrews was indeed written for a group or groups of Jewish Christians (its “To Hebrews” title was apparently added several decades later) with a traditional Jewish background including the strict commandments “Thou shalt not [make images or bow down before images]” (Exodus 20.4-5), at least some of them might have been highly suspicious of the Shroud and caused much controversy over it (see my comment above about Peter in Eusebius). Would it ever have survived the first century? With regard to the earliest non-Jewish Christian converts, they, too, now belonging to a Jewish sect, observed the Old Testament commandments against such images. Showing it so widely among them could also have been dangerous. Besides, they would barely have understood the letter’s arcane detail about the tabernacle, much less any hypothetical “Shroud sighting” in it.
The researcher also cites the words “not hand-made” in Hebrews 9.11, Greek οὐ χειροποιήτου, ou cheiropoietou, broadly meaning “not made by human hands,” thereby suggesting a connection, he thinks, to the Turin Shroud. However, those words in Hebrews refer to a divine tent or heavenly tabernacle: “Christ being come an high priest, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands … not of this creation.” See also Hebrews 8.2: “the true tabernacle, which the lord pitched, not man.” Such an abode, based on the original tent of worship and sacrifice during the Israelites’ famous “forty years in the wilderness,” could only conceivably parallel the mere linen cloth of Jesus’ burial shroud, not any image on it. The same words, “not hand-made,” found in several later ancient passages from the sixth century onward about the Image of Edessa or the Image of God Incarnate (both of them candidates for the Turin Shroud in early form) refer only to their images of Jesus, not to their mundane cloths. So, that alleged analogy fails. Those cloths were merely the insignificant background for their remarkable images of Jesus. No one ever wrote that the cloths themselves were supernatural, were “not hand-made.” Besides, “not hand-made” occurs three other times in the New Testament and in contexts not alluding to the burial shroud of Jesus or an image on it: in 2 Corinthians 5.1 as an “eternal house in heaven,” in Colossians 2.11 as a divine, not human, “circumcision,” and in the Gospel of Mark 14.58 as a supernatural “Temple.” The term’s range of application as a synonym for supernatural was therefore wide.
In his analysis of Hebrews, the researcher sees yet another possible Turin Shroud allusion in a “priestly robe” of Jesus. This, despite the fact that no such priestly robe appears in Hebrews. It is the researcher’s notion that the first-century readers of Hebrews, seeing only the word “high priest,” would naturally have thought of a priestly robe and then also of the Turin Shroud, making the serial extrapolation from “priest” to “robe” to “burial shroud of Jesus” to “shroud with his image on it.” That is far-fetched, in my view. No author of a mainstream scholarly book on Hebrews has ever suggested that it contains an allusion even to the mere burial shroud of Jesus. And none of the many literary experts within the Shroud field itself has ever proposed such a specifically Turin Shroud reading of Hebrews.
In his convoluted arguments, containing many a “perhaps” and numerous question marks (plenty of ecstatic exclamation marks too), arguments that would require the original readers of the Letter to the Hebrews to be master cryptologists or even mind-readers, the researcher adds other words that are not in its text and omits other evidence contrary to his case. His mountains of technically perfect bibliographical citations do not compensate for such failings.
And so, in my view at least, there seems no reason at all to believe that the Letter to the Hebrews alludes to the Turin Shroud. One might better read the inspiring original letter itself and then some clarifying mainstream scholarship about it.
Conclusion
The book version of such far-flung “magic carpet” and similar speculations about the Shroud will apparently soon be available. The wizard who has produced them has captivated his readers (and obviously a publisher) by virtue of his enchanting wand, that is, his knowledge of Greek, however flawed it really is. Such knowledge is a rarity in the Shroud field today, and few others can therefore argue with him who wields it.
Ironically, I’m half grateful to the researcher in question for his claims that the Turin Shroud was shown and seen here, there, and everywhere in the first century. Such boundless enthusiasm supports the view held by myself (and author Thomas de Wesselow) that it was the image of Jesus on his burial shroud, an image that formed naturally in his tomb, and an image of serenity and triumph, which actually inspired the belief in his resurrection. That would surely be the ultimate Shroud image allusion in the New Testament. The original believers deserve enormous sympathy, of course, considering their profound grief at the time and that mysterious sight of Jesus suddenly before them, seemingly a last trace of his risen form. Admittedly, this theory would involve quite a “leap” too. But only a mental leap (and common to the thought process of idol worship everywhere). Geographically speaking, the “resurrection sightings” were no great distance at all, merely steps from the tomb.
John Loken
The author of this hit piece, John Logan, has misrepresented the conclusions of the researcher he attacks. Logan titles his hit piece “A First-Century Touring Shroud of Turin Show?” and characterizes my views (the researcher he is attacking) as “a ‘Touring Shroud’ scenario, we might call them collectively, or in other words, “I think I see … “ To characterize my exegetical conclusions in such an grandiose manner is irresponsible. It is neither fair nor balanced reporting.
The very reasons I suggest secrecy and cryptic references to the Shroud within the Biblical text—as opposed to open statements about the image on the Shroud— is due to the desire and need to safeguard the priceless Shroud from potential harm, confiscation, or even destruction from enemies of the Faith during a period of persecution. This danger not only come from political officials, but there also was the real potential of danger to the Shroud from Jews who held to strong iconoclastic views. Jews commonly had strong opposition to images of men based on the Second Commandment of their Decalogue.
Jesus Himself had stated, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matt 7:6). And, I ask you dear reader, what would early Christians have regarded as more “holy” than the burial Cloth of their Lord, stained with His precious, sacrificial, and redemptive blood and imprinted with a miraculous image upon it, “God’s witness that He testified concerning His Son” (1 Jn 5:9-10; cf. Jn. 5:37)? So, the very idea of a traveling “touring Shroud of Turin Show” in the first century, as portrayed in this hit piece by Mr. Logan, is false reporting.
In one of my papers on Galatians 3:1 I wrote the following:
The Fourth Gospel relates two incidents, following the Resurrection, when Jesus appeared to His disciples “behind locked doors.” On the first occasion we are told that the door was shut “for fear of the Jews.” Surely Peter and John did not leave the burial Shroud within the tomb when they had discovered it earlier that same day. We are told that due to its appearance, or how it was “lying,” belief in the Resurrection came to fruition for John.
On the second occasion, one week later, we are told how Jesus, behind shut doors, openly displayed His wounds of crucifixion to doubting Thomas. Could these two post resurrection appearances be clues to how the image on the burial Cloth would later be shown to others?
Why were the doors “shut” or “locked”? Might it have been to safeguard the image, now in their possession, from the Jews who would have looked upon both the image and the blood-stained Cloth as something forbidden and unholy? Jesus invites Thomas to see the wounds on His body that just happens to be the exact wounds so visibly present on the Holy Shroud! Might this story be a clue as to how the Shroud in the early Church was “displayed openly” but, at the same time, “shown forth” discreetly— “placarded” or “posted up” but away from the prying eyes of enemies of the Faith, perhaps even usually shown indoors?
Discretion would be desired when displaying the Shroud. Therefore, if the thesis behind this paper is correct, then rendering the second verb—προγράφω (prographō)—as “graphically displayed” would be better than “publicly (or openly) displayed.” Again, the word “graphic” is from the Greek root of this verb. Both the verb and Paul’s assertion suggest a drawing, painting, or image of Christ crucified (in some sense) was seen by the recipients of Paul’s Letter. If that historical occasion involved the image on Christ’s burial Shroud, then “graphically displayed” would be a good translation.
If the occasion of showing Christ crucified had the potential of arousing hostility from antagonistic Jews, then we can suspect the setting behind the exhibition would likely have been discrete, perhaps a “posting up” of the Holy Shroud at a secluded or private showing at a personal residence—such as a gathering of church congregants in the atrium or peristylium of a Roman villa in the countryside.
[The above lengthy quote was taken from my exegetical paper, “Did the Galatians See the Image on the Holy Shroud?,” by Larry Stalley, Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/104480342/Did_the_Galatians_See_the_Image_on_the_Holy_Shroud.%5D
Dear reader, does that sound like a “A First-Century Touring Shroud of Turin Show?,” as portrayed in this hit piece by John Logan? Of course not! Far from it! Earlier in that paper I had referenced the Medieval showing of the Shroud in Turin on the Feast Day of the Shroud. I spoke of how such a display fits the way the verb Paul used in Galatians 3:1 (προγράφω (prographō) was commonly used in the culture, i.e., a “posting up” of a public notice. However, I asked and stated the following: “Might something similar, yet on a much smaller scale and discreetly, perhaps indoors, have taken place in Galatia?” I then followed those remarks with the paragraphs cited above regarding the “locked doors” in the Fourth Gospel’s Resurrection narrative.
Furthermore, Mr. Logan gave the impression that I have promoted Paul as being the person who displayed the Shroud to the Galatians. Yet in my paper on Galatians (cited above), I wrote:
The passive voice of the verb, “He (i.e., Jesus Christ) was publicly exhibited” (before your eyes as having been crucified), unfortunately does not inform us who exactly displayed the crucified image to the Galatians. The passive voice represents the subject as acted upon. That is, someone had displayed to them an image of Jesus Christ as having been crucified. Jesus had not displayed an image of his own crucifixion. Someone else had done that, but Paul does not inform us who had done so.
Perhaps a small delegation from Galatia had traveled to Jerusalem and, while there, had visibly seen the Shroud on their visit. In the opinion of this author, however, the plural pronoun “you” in the verse would seem to suggest a larger viewing. On that basis, it seems more likely someone had displayed the Shroud to the recipients of Paul’s letter, a larger gathering, while evangelizing in the region of Galatia. We already explained why it seems unlikely that Paul had been the one who displayed the Shroud. But, if not Paul, whom? It is important to note, that not knowing for certain who had displayed the Shroud to the Galatians in no way discredits or invalidates Paul’s assertion that “before your eyes the Crucified Christ was publicly depicted or posted up”!
Furthermore, it is quite possible that an awareness of the Shroud’s existence is all that is behind some of the Biblical texts I have suggested are, plausibly, cryptically associated with the Shroud … and not that the recipients of the Letter had visually seen the image on the Shroud. It is apparent that the author of Hebrews was familiar with the image on the Shroud. Had he personally seen it? Had the recipients of that canonical Letter visibly seen the image? Perhaps some of “the mature” who had advanced beyond “the elementary teachings of the Christ” had seen the image, but we simply cannot say with certainty. An awareness of the Shroud’s existence and its marvelous image might be the extent of their familiarity with the Cloth. Only Galatians 3:1 speaks of a visual seeing of the image by the recipients of that Letter. 1 Corinthians 13:12 might imply a visible sighting, but an awareness of the facial image on the Shroud might be all the verse entails—if the object “face” from the second clause is applicable for the verb “see” in the first clause which lacks an object.
So, I am thankful for the opportunity to comment on this hit piece as I wanted to set the record straight regarding my exegetical conclusions. Readers deserve a truthful and balanced perspective of my work. And I too deserve no less. Over the past several years, I have written more than a dozen exegetical papers on the subject of the Shroud with a focus on the Biblical text. If you are interested, my papers can be accessed from my website: http://www.theincredibleshroud.com. My book is scheduled for release in April-May of 2025. It will be 650 pages in length with numerous footnotes. A coupon for 30% off the purchase price can be found on my website. The title of the book will be Divine Testimony for the Resurrection: Hidden References to the Holy Shroud in the Bible.
God bless!
Larry Stalley
Do Veiled References to the Turin Shroud Exist in the Bible?
One argument raised against the authenticity of the Turin Shroud is the lack of statements regarding the image within the canonical record. Even John Calvin raised this objection when he rejected associating this image-bearing Cloth with the burial Shroud that once covered the crucified Jesus of the Four Gospels. But what if the Biblical writers had good reason to conceal the existence of the image from the uninitiated? Might they have had just cause not to write openly about the Shroud in their documents which would be copied and widely circulated?
Jesus had warned not to “give what is holy to dogs, and not to throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matt 7:6). What would early disciples have regarded as more holy than the burial Cloth that once wrapped their crucified-risen Savior, stained with His precious redeeming blood, and imprinted with a divinely engraved image? Furthermore, due to the second commandment of their Decalogue, Jews at the time were very much opposed to making or displaying images of men.
Therefore, to safeguard the precious, holy linen Shroud from potential harm at the hands of antagonistic enemies of the Faith, the canonical authors might have intentionally refrained from openly mentioning the incredible image in their circulating documents. Plausibly any reference to the Shroud and its image in these documents would be veiled or enigmatically hidden. Several excellent candidates do exist within the Biblical canon. No less than four canonical authors each make one or more puzzlingly statements that have baffled theologians for centuries. What’s more, a thorough exegetical analysis reveals how, in each case, the Shroud with its amazing image turns out to be a plausible and probable solution.
The simplest exegesis demonstrating the existence of the Turin Shroud during the early Church and revealing the truthfulness behind this paper’s thesis is found in the historical record provided by the Apostle Matthew. So, we will begin there.
I. Matthew’s Gospel
In the First Gospel we find a cryptic reference to the image on the Holy Shroud that is quite strong and not difficult to discern. When we get to the writings of Paul, we will see at least one puzzlingly statement revealing the existence of the Shroud at the time if the Turin Shroud is indeed authentic. The image on the Shroud is the simplest explanation with the least number of assumptions or problems. According to Occam’s razor, therefore, that conclusion should be favored, and the Shroud becomes the likely correct solution in resolving a puzzle concerning what Paul’s readers had seen with their own eyes.
However, with twin pericopes in the First Gospel, penned by the Apostle Matthew, we have solid evidence—for those who want to accept it—that links the image on the Turin Shroud with Christ Jesus of the canonical Gospels! Solving the exegetical puzzle in Matthew tells us that the Turin Shroud is authentic! From his twin pericopes we can logically conclude that the early Church was aware of the miraculous image existing at the time on the Jesus’ burial Shroud.
Professor Gary Habermas is an accomplished and respected New Testament scholar. He is a wonderful teacher and is widely regarded as one of the foremost scholars on the Resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, Habermas is one of the most knowledgeable protestant scholars regarding the Turin Shroud. Awhile back he was invited to participate in an internet discussion of the author’s work on the Shroud. The current author has written over a dozen academic papers on the Turin Shroud, and his book is scheduled for release in April-May of 2025: Divine Testimony for the Resurrection: Hidden References to the Holy Shroud in the Bible.
Habermas was unaware of my work on the Shroud with regards to the Biblical text but accepted the host’s invitation to participate in the podcast. However, he then looked at one of the four texts we were going to analyze, “the sign of Jonah” pericope in Matthew 12:38-45, and declined the invitation saying, “There is nothing there about a shroud.” He added that his expertise was not exegesis and that he wanted to spend the time working on his latest book. Fair enough!
Yet did Habermas think critically about the passage? Did he understand we were looking to resolve a “riddle” or puzzle? “What the sign means has long been a puzzle for New Testament exegetes. The sign of Jonah is one of the open questions and desiderates left open by modern exegetes…. Recent articles on the issue summarize the problems but do neither offer an own approach nor an appropriate solution…. The Sign of Jonah will remain an enigma in Matthew’s gospel.”
After performing two spectacular miracles, the hearts of Jesus’ opponents became more hardened than before. First, in the aftermath of healing a man with a withered hand, the Pharisees became upset because the healing had been performed on the Sabbath. “But the Pharisees went out and counseled together against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.”
Then, after freeing a man from demonic possession, “when the Pharisees heard of it, they said, ‘This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”
Next, after Jesus raked them over the coals for their unbelief, Matthew informs us: “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, ‘Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.’ But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.'”
Various explanations down through the centuries have been given for this one, good, enigmatic “sign.” Among those proposals, the metaphor has been associated with being:
• Jesus Himself
• The preaching of Jesus (But why then the future tenses?)
• The death of Jesus (Certainly this understanding is insufficient.)
• The resurrection of Jesus (the universal understanding of the Church Fathers)
• Jesus’ death-and-resurrection together (Textually, this solution seems to be on target!)
• As a prophesy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem
• Peter (who was known as bar Jona, son of Jonah)
• Peter’s confession
• John the Baptist
• The dove at the baptism of Jesus
“We are thus reduced to making educated guesses.” Chrysostom, one of the Church Fathers from the period of the early Church, commented: We have here a “dark saying.”
Professor Habermas read the passage afresh and commented: “There’s nothing there about a shroud!” Yes, the word “shroud” is not present in the passage. However, the Shroud is present cryptically. Although, the Shroud is absent in the proposed solutions listed above, the image on the burial Shroud best resolves the puzzle and is not difficult to discern … if the right questions are asked.
The best clue we have in solving the puzzling metaphor is the one Jesus offered with His typological explanation: “just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” So, the two simple question we need to ask is: “when” and “where” was Jesus when He was “in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights”?
Being “in the heart of the earth” is a metaphor for death. And the timeline comes straight from Jonah 2:1 (LXX). According to Matthew’s own narrative, Jesus did not stay in the tomb for three days and three nights. Technically speaking, He was only in the tomb for two nights. However, “Ancient Jews often counted parts of days as whole.”
Before we proceed, there is something astounding to ponder that science has discovered concerning “the man of the cloth.” Before putrefaction had begun or rigor mortis had subsided, somehow the body was removed from the Cloth without disturbing or smearing the bloodstains , , within forty hours. Signs of these two processes after death usually begin taking place after approximately forty hours. So, somehow the body was removed from the Cloth by unnatural or unconventional means. The Resurrection?
Now back to the twin questions of “when” and “where” was Jesus during the typological timeline He mentioned. Most people will answer: “He was in the tomb!” And while that answer is truthful, it is not the correct answer. Saying that Jesus was in the tomb is like saying “Jonah was in the ocean!” Yes, he was! But Jesus did not speak of the ocean, rather he mentioned “in the belly of the sea monster.” So, there are two compartments that we should be considering. One is small while the other large. Think of two concentric circles. For Jonah, he was in the belly of the sea monster while, at the same time, being within the larger ocean. The parallel to Jesus then becomes obvious: Jesus was within His burial Shroud during that timeline while, at the same time, being inside the tomb.
Realizing then that the burial Shroud was discovered in the tomb on Resurrection morning with an image now miraculously imprinted upon it—an image depicting Christ’s time of death—resolves the riddle! Both the academic paper and the chapter in author’s book dealing with this text go into much more depth of exegesis, but that extensive exegesis only strengthens and affirms the short explanation explained above.
The Greek word for “sign” (σημεῖον) (sēmeion) was commonly used for an “outward distinguishing mark.” Generally, there seems to be something that “strikes the eye.” In ancient Greece ships were known by their ensigns. The admiral’s ship was marked as such with its own “sign” (σημεῖον) (sēmeion) to set it apart from the other ships. Likewise, the warrior’s shield was adorned with his own “sign” (σημεῖον) (sēmeion) which stamped on it the individuality of its owner.
In the Septuagint σημεῖον (sēmeion) is used for “the mark of Cain,” for the “blood” on the Israelite houses, for “the rainbow” in the sky, guaranteeing God’s covenantal promise, and for the mark of “circumcision” as a “sign of the covenant” with Abraham.
A Biblically literate person can quickly think of other objects that functioned as signs, even if not explicitly spoken of as such: “the star of Bethlehem,” the presence of a “dove” at the baptism of Jesus, the Passover “lamb”, the “ram” caught in the thicket by its horns, the “burning bush” that signaled to Moses the presence of God, and many other such signs. Each of these involved a visible, physical object.
Etymologically, “sign” (σημεῖον) (sēmeion) is linguistically related to (and was developed from) the Greek noun for “mark,” σῆμα (sēma). In some nuance, “sign” (σημεῖον) (sēmeion) will retain the meaning of a “mark”.
The most prestigious, annual, custom car show in North America is called SEMA [Fig. 1]. Car builders bring their best, signature work to the show, wanting to leave their “mark” on the industry.
A “sign” served as a witness, testifying to something other than itself. It was intended to convey a clear message. For example, a rainbow is God’s mark in the sky testifying to His covenantal promise to never again destroy the world by means of a flood. It also serves as a reminder of the Flood that occurred in Noah’s time. Simply stated, σημεῖον (sēmeion) is “a visual sign by which someone or something is recognized.”
Occam’s razor points to the image on the burial Shroud being the simplest and best solution to “the sign of Jonah,” the solution with the least assumptions or problems. In the second reference to “the sign of Jonah” in Matthew’s Gospel, the “Pharisees and Sadducees came up and, testing Jesus, asked Him to show them a sign from heaven.”
That “sign from heaven” was delivered on Resurrection morning and discovered in the otherwise empty tomb. The image on Jesus’ burial Shroud had parallel affinities with the story of Jonah. The image was God’s own witness—His “signature mark” testifying to the death, burial, and Resurrection of His Son! And whereas the Resurrected Jesus only appeared after the Resurrection to His followers, this wonderful “sign” was intended not only for them but for His opponents as well—for that “evil and adulterous generation.”
Later, when we come to the Johannine corpus, we will see how this conclusion of equating the image on the Shroud with “a sign from heaven” and “the Father’s witness concerning His Son” is supported by the historical record left by that Apostle. But first let’s turn our attention to the writings of Paul….
For the rest of this freshly penned white paper, see “Do Veiled References to the Turin Shroud Exist in the Bible?,” posted on Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/126445002/Do_Veiled_References_to_the_Turin_Shroud_Exist_in_the_Bible.
Also, if you are interested in obtaining a copy of the author’s upcoming book, you can find a coupon on his website for 30% off: http://www.thecredibleshroud.com . The book is 650 pages in length and is scheduled for release in April-May of 2025. The title is Divine Testimony for the Resurrection: Hidden References to the Holy Shroud in the Bible.
God Bless!
Larry Stalley