R.I.P. Barrie Schwortz

In 2019, as part of the Post-Graduate Certificate in Shroud Studies, I listed the founding of shroud.com as the first of my three “most important events in Sindonology since 1981,” and the death of its founder, Barrie Schwortz, on 21 June, has plunged its future, and the future of Shroud Studies in general, into serious jeopardy.

Since before the birth of Google, as Barrie was proud to proclaim, shroud.com has epitomised not only a well-nigh perfect example of how a comprehensive on-line library on any subject should be organised and maintained, but it also characterised its founder and administrator, in terms of his dedication to research on every aspect, and his generosity in helping others to further their own studies, even if they diametrically contradicted his own beliefs.

I first met Barrie in 2015, when we were both invited to the Jalsa Salana, or annual gathering, of the world-wide Ahmadiyya Muslim community, in Hampshire, UK. Through the good offices of Arif Khan and Amer Safir, of the ‘Review of Religions’ publication, a remarkable collection of disparate opinions on the Shroud were gathered in friendly disagreement under Barrie’s benevolent aegis. The Ahmadiyya Muslims thought the Shroud was genuine but showed a living man, David Rolfe and Pam Moon, Christian, thought it showed a dead man and was evidence of the resurrection, Barrie, Jewish, thought it showed a dead man who stayed dead, and I thought it was medieval.

Facing the camera, left to right: David Rolfe, Arif Khan, Barrie Schwortz, Amer Safir, Hugh Farey
and Simon Brown, with Pam Moon in red, behind, in the Hospitality Tent of the Jalsa Salana.

It was one of Barrie’s greatest boasts that he was invited, by his Holiness Caliph Mirza Masroor Ahmad, to address the entire congress on the subject that year, where he summed up the spirit of ‘Love for all, Hatred for none’ by delighting that a Jew should be invited to speak at a Muslim conference about a Christian relic. His speech, treading delicate ground amongst the sincerity of the different beliefs he represented, was such a model of humble diplomacy that it deserves to be reproduced in full:

“Your Holiness, my brothers and sisters of the Ahmadiyya community, and distinguished guests, I’m greatly privileged to be here. I have spent the last twenty years travelling the world, lecturing about the Shroud of Turin. I have travelled to, and spoken to, every Christian denomination, to secular audiences, to scientific audiences, but never have I ever been to a Muslim organisation. This is my first time.

In the United States, of course, the Ahmadiyya community is not well known, and I must admit that when I was invited I was a little bit apprehensive. I normally don’t get nervous but I was a little concerned. My role was to come here and to share with you my knowledge of the Shroud of Turin, but I have to admit, in the three days that I’ve been here, I’ve learned far more from you than you will ever learn from me. As I stand here, and I look at your motto, ‘Love for all, Hatred for none,’ I can only look at myself as a shining example of your creed that the Muslim community, the Ahmadiyya community, would invite a Jewish man to discuss a Christian relic at a Muslim organisation.

And so I’m very grateful for that. I’m also very grateful that the other day Your Holiness took the time to come to our exhibition of the Shroud, and give us a few minutes of his very valuable time, and discuss it with us so that we could share the information.

And so I am simply here to say thank you very much from the bottom of my heart. I will go back to America, and I will start to speak about the Ahmadiyya community, because we don’t know about you, and we should. We never hear the good news; we only hear the bad news. And you are the Good News. Thank you very much.”

It must have been the shortest speech Barrie ever made – he often used to begin lectures by saying that it was easy to get him to speak but very difficult to get him to stop – but surely one of the most powerful and most influential.

For all his being the most recognised figure in Shroud studies today, Barrie was deeply suspicious of the media and most of the publicity given to the Shroud over the years. He founded shroud.com to make primary sources, especially the STuRP scientific papers, freely available, so that common mistakes could be avoided, and lent his own expertise to discussions and TV documentaries, almost always coming away disappointed, not necessary in the conclusions they came to, but in their debonaire attitude to the facts. He rarely entered online or email discussions, and when he did, it was invariably only to ‘put the record straight,’ and never to impose his own views. Another of his often-repeated quotes refers to the man who said, “Mr Schwortz, you’ll never convince me the Shroud is authentic,” to which he replied, “What makes you think I want to convince you; I only want to give you the information. What you decide is between you and God.”

This is not to say that Barrie didn’t have opinions, only that he didn’t want to impose them. As a technical photographer he very much tended towards the scientific approach to the Shroud (although he never described himself as a scientist), and did not accept hypotheses that involved the supernatural, however well reasoned. Barrie’s sindonological champions were the chemists John Heller and Alan Adler, and especially Ray Rogers, and he supported the latter’s attempts to describe a naturalistic cause for the image via a Maillard reaction. He had met, and personally disliked, Walter McCrone, and was scathing of the 1988 radiocarbon tests, specifically in the persons of Michael Tite and Edward Hall, but in general he was extremely tolerant of all sorts of people and all sorts of attitudes, authentic or medieval, supernatural or naturalistic.

To say that a friend or acquaintance will be sadly missed is a truism, and of course all Barrie’s friends and acquaintances will miss him personally in their own ways, but there are few people whose passing affects an entire academic discipline. Barrie’s death will rock the whole of sindonology to its core, and we can only pray that his legacy of honesty and generosity and the open door of shroud.com will continue to flourish in the years ahead.

Comments

  1. Barrie’s legacy in the Shroud community is firmly established and will undoubtedly endure, thanks to the qualities you highlighted so beautifully in your article. It is a heartfelt tribute.

    While I didn’t know Barrie back in 1915, I’ve known Joe Marino for nearly that long.

    It speaks volumes that Barrie, in his wisdom, trusted and chose Joe to carry on the work of shroud.com. We anticipate a smooth transition and are ready to support Joe should he need any assistance as he balances his new responsibilities with his existing commitments.

    Carol Gregorek

  2. Very nice piece about our dear friend Barrie, whom I knew for decades and spent innumerable hours on the phone with. I have several comments.

    First of all, I don’t think you met him in 1915–that would Hugh, that you are about 109 years old! [[Thanks, Joe, date corrected. HF]]

    You wrote: “He had met, and personally disliked, Walter McCrone, and was scathing of the 1988 radiocarbon tests, specifically in the persons of Michael Tite and Edward Hall, but in general he was extremely tolerant of all sorts of people and all sorts of attitudes, authentic or medieval, supernatural or naturalistic.” The remark about McCrone needs some fleshing out. Barrie told me that he believed from the very beginning that McCrone was lying about his findings. That was later borne out when an associate called Barrie out of the blue to discuss McCrone. There is no recording of the call, but if Barrie said it happened, you can take it to the bank, as we Americans like to say. The associate told Barrie that he had asked McCrone why he kept saying it was a painting when STURP proved there was no paint. According to the associate, McCrone’s reply was along the lines of “The press refers to them as ‘STURP’ but they refer to me by “McCrone.” In other words, McCrone was admitting to an associate that he was only concerned with his own reputation. Barrie and I both believed strongly that if STURP had announced they believe the Shroud was a fake, McCrone would have “discovered” the key evidence to prove it was authentic. Yes, Barrie was tolerant of all sort of attitudes, but being a man of the highest integrity, he did not like the games that McCrone was playing. Sad to say, but some Shroud researchers’ are not 100% searches for truth. Nobody’s motives are 100% pure, but clearly some people are in it for less than shining motives. Another anecdote: Barrie in the early 80s had put links on shroud.com to McCrone’s articles. McCrone believed that Barrie had not posted his article and complained to Barrie. Barrie sent him the link and copies of emails from Barrie to McCrone requesting information–emails that went unanswered. McCrone, to his credit, then sent an apology to Barrie. Barrie also did not like the fact that McCrone claimed to be an official member of STURP (he wasn’t–he was only given on loan by Ray Rogers sticky-tape samples to examine, which McCrone later referred to as “my tapes.”) At one point a skeptic asserted that Barrie left him unnamed on the STURP team member list because of Barrie’s dislike of him–not true–he wasn’t on the list because he wasn’t an official member. Barrie also didn’t like the fact that McCrone never made it clear to audiences that he had not examined the Shroud directly in Turin. Barrie once gave a talk in place of the ill Ray Rogers to a bunch of Ph.D. chemists. When Barrie told them McCrone had not studied the Shroud directly, they were amazed. Though not a chemist, Barrie was able to convince many of the chemists regarding the strength of the scientific evidence pointing toward authenticity.
    I agree fully with Barrie’s assessment of McCrone. Check out Barrie’s article about McCrone on shroud.com. I also have an article about McCrone on my academia page.
    As the new editor of shroud.com I can assure everyone I will continue Barrie’s pattern of being, as you say “open to tolerant of all sorts of people and all sorts of attitudes, authentic or medieval, supernatural or naturalistic.” In the course of my over 47 years of studying the Shroud, I have print newsletters and 2 different iterations of online bulletins, and have taken much flak from many mainstream “shroudies” for reproducing material that fell out of the prevalent traditional beliefs about the Shroud. I’ve always been a believer that everyone should be aware of the different opinions about the Shroud. There’s no reason to stop now.

  3. Hi, Hugh,

    That’s a really beautiful tribute to our Barrie who is, already, so dearly missed. I would like to, however, mention that I disagree very strongly that the future of shroud.com is in any type of jeopardy. Barrie had, long before his illness and subsequent death, the great wisdom to have our Joe Marino take the helm once Barrie would be unable to personally do so. Joe has been habitually updating people (often on a weekly basis –sometimes even more frequently) on just about anything happening around the world concerning the Shroud. So, Barrie found someone as devoted to updating the public on Shroud events as he was.

    Indeed, Barrie left big shoes to fill. However, Joe has big feet.

    Best regards,

    Teddi