Summary: The Sudarium of Oviedo holds evidence showing that it may well be the cloth referred to in John’s Gospel that was placed upon Jesus’ head following his crucifixion.
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. – John 20:6-7 (ESV)
Jesus’ Burial Shroud
You have probably heard of the Shroud of Turin. It’s quite famous—the most-studied object on earth. Millions believe it is the actual burial shroud used to cover the body of Jesus of Nazareth on the day he was crucified. The Shroud bears the faint image of a crucified man, front and back. It is stained with actual human blood. You can read all about the Shroud’s amazing history.
There is another cloth you may not know about. It’s much smaller than the Shroud of Turin, only 33 by 21 inches. Many believe this cloth is the one referred to in John 20: 6-7. It is known as the Sudarium of Oviedo, or simply the Oviedo Cloth. If it is genuine, it is the cloth that was placed over Jesus’ head while his body was still on the cross that Good Friday.
The Sudarium of Oviedo is a problem for any who insist that the account of Jesus’ crucifixion isn’t true, like skeptics of the Bible in general, and (for example) Muslims whose religion insists that Jesus did not die on the cross and therefore did not rise from the dead. It’s a problem for all such persons for several reasons. The same can be said of the Shroud itself.
Important Terms
Terms appearing in the Gospels and discussions of Jesus’ burial include:
Othonia – This is a Greek plural form for linens. Othonia are linen cloths. These are what Peter and the Beloved Disciple found in the tomb. They would likely have been the burial shroud and ties wrapped around it. The term can also mean bandage.
Sudarium – From the Greek sudarion, sudarium is a cloth the size of a small towel. The two disciples in John 20 find the sudarium, which had been on Jesus’ head, in some way separate from the othonia.
Sindon – This is the Greek term for a linen cloth, the word used for Jesus’ burial cloth in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Sudarium Tradition
The tradition about the Sudarium says it was kept in a cave near Jerusalem, then removed from Palestine in 614 AD, due to the invasion by the Sassanid Persian King Khosrau II. It was then taken to Alexandria by the presbyter Philip and carried through northern Africa to Spain in 616. From Cartagena the Sudarium went to Seville, then to Toledo, and at last to Oviedo where it may be seen today when it is shown three times each year. The presence of the present-day Sudarium of Oviedo is documented from at least 1075. In 1988, the Spanish Center for Sindonology was formed in Spain to study the Sudarium scientifically and thoroughly.
That same year, one sample cut from the edge of the Shroud of Turin was divided into five segments. Three of these were sent to separate, respected laboratories for radiocarbon dating. The results from the laboratories were similar. The Shroud of Turin was dated to a window of time between 1260 and 1390 A.D. Therefore, it could not possibly be the actual shroud that enveloped the body of Jesus and had to be the work of a medieval forger, so said the scientists who conducted the carbon dating.
A Painting and Carbon-14 Results
Since 1988, a lot has happened, in the ongoing investigations of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium. Microscope expert Raymond Rogers confirmed that the material taken from the edge of the Shroud for testing had not been linen after all, like the material of the Shroud. The material the laboratories had tested was actually cotton, repair material woven into the edge of the Shroud where it had frayed over the centuries.
This was a cogent explanation for how the Shroud could test to a medieval age, yet actually be much older. There was much more to come since 1988, like the discovery of a manuscript with a painting of the Shroud complete with its distinctive burn holes, the “poker holes.” The Shroud painting dates from a time before the earliest possible date for the Shroud, according to the 1988 carbon-14 results.
A growing awareness of the Sudarium of Oviedo followed the 1988 carbon-14 verdict, and subsequent discussions. The First International Congress on the Sudarium was held in Oviedo in 1994. In 1996, the results of that congress were published.
Here are just a few of the facts: The Sudarium holds real blood, type AB, just as the Shroud does. Botanical traces in both cloths demand that they were once present in Jerusalem and Constantinople. Those who would debunk the Shroud cannot explain how either cloth could have such traces within them if they were created in Europe. From 1260-1390 on, when it was supposedly forged, the Shroud is known to have been in Europe only. How then does one explain this evidence from pollen and flowers in the Shroud?
The Sudarium has not left Spain since it arrived in Oviedo no later than 1075. Did some forger prior to that go to Jerusalem and Constantinople just to bring back pollen, and secretly implant it in the Sudarium, centuries before there were microscopes to see it, let alone understand it?
More Problems for Skeptics
The extensive work to unravel the mysteries of the Sudarium yielded still more problems for the skeptics. The emerging forensic evidence strongly suggested that the Shroud and the Sudarium covered the same face at the same time.
Dr. Jose Delvin Villalain Blanco used a specially made human head model in order to reconstruct the stain formation on the Sudarium. This head model was complete with internal passages to the nose and mouth as in a human being. Fluids simulating blood and edema could be pumped through these passages to exit the nose and mouth using a squeeze bottle.
A vertical crease on the Sudarium shows where it was folded before being placed over the face it covered. The blood which covered the face soaked through so that the stain on the outside was similar in shape to the stain on the inside layer, but smaller. These form a mirror image pair when the cloth is laid out flat. The blood stains already correspond generally to the blood stains on the face area of the Shroud.
Dr. Alan Whanger used polarized image overlay photographs to study in greater detail the congruence of the blood stains between the cloths. The findings: seventy points of congruence on the face side, and fifty more made when the cloth was unfolded to reach around the back of the head on the cross, pinned at the base of the neck, and knotted to form a cap.
This number of correspondences is far greater than the number of correspondences necessary to match fingerprints, greater by a factor of more than ten. This alone is overwhelming evidence that the two cloths covered the same face at the same time, receiving these bloodstains together on a single day in history.
Even More Discoveries
There were more discoveries. The research of Dr. Villalain Blanco for EDICES (Equipo de Investigacion del Centro Espanol de Sindonolgia) determined that the blood stains on the Sudarium were made at three separate times. This conclusion is based on drying time necessary for an older stain to be covered by a newer stain without altering the former.
Multiple trials— 6000 of them— were necessary in the laboratory to produce stain patterns identical to those on the Sudarium. From that work Dr. Blanco concluded that the deceased victim’s head was tilted seventy degrees forward and twenty degrees to the right, resting against the right arm at this time the cloth was placed over the face.
Jolting of the body caused accumulated blood and edema in the lungs to exit through the nose. This accounts for the lower portions of the two main stains on the cloth, called the principle stains. That jolting would likely have happened during the removal of the body from the cross. A trapezoidal-shaped stain surrounds the nose area of the face, and one can see outlines of the fingers of a left hand that attempted to press the cloth against the nose to stop the flow of blood.
The next stain set formed with the body resting on the ground face down. This stain pattern forms the upper portions of the principal stains on the cloth. For an estimated forty-five minutes to an hour, the body rested there in that position. Preparations were under way to transfer the body to the tomb very soon, before sunset in order to keep the commandment.
And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance. – Deuteronomy 21:22-23
According to the laboratory reconstruction of the stains, a third and final set was formed as the body was carried face-up for a short interval of time, perhaps ten minutes. This would logically correspond to the transportation of the body to a nearby tomb. Another set of fingers can be discerned, this time from above the face, attempting to stop the gushing blood exiting through the nose and mouth as the body was carried.
Visiting the Tomb
What did the two disciples in John 20:1-10 see when they looked inside the tomb? The answer is not as simple as one might think. Here are some of the proposals for how John 20:1-10 is to be understood.
1) The shroud and its tying strips were scattered on the floor of the tomb as though someone had taken the body from them. The face cloth was lying somewhere nearby. Most scholars disagree with this proposal, mainly due to the Greek verb keimai, which suggests that the shroud was resting as though undisturbed.
2) The burial shroud was resting in its place as though undisturbed since the burial of the body, but it was empty—flattened.
A. The face cloth was still in its conical hood configuration from when it was placed over Jesus’ head and lying somewhere apart from the shroud in a designated place for such items.
B. The face cloth was folded and resting nearby in a designated place.
C. The face cloth was rolled up and resting nearby in a designated place.
D. The face cloth was separate from view, because it was folded or rolled up inside the shroud, as though it had been reused for a chin band to hold the mouth closed; there was no separate place in Jewish tombs designed for items like a sudarium.
All of these proposals have particular reasoning behind them, such as: the grammar of the Greek language, John’s special vocabulary, the Lazarus account in chapter 11, and the appearance of the risen Jesus behind locked doors soon following the discovery of the empty tomb.
What matters most in all of this is not that we know exactly what the interior of the tomb looked like, but that the resurrection of Jesus had in fact happened, and that the “disciple Jesus loved” perceived this, based on what he saw.
Conclusion
The correspondences between the two cloths are quite amazing. For some, there will never be proof enough that Jesus rose from the dead. For others, there is no need for proof. For still others, evidence of this kind can be encouraging or something to be considered in the real world where we all live.
Should anyone really think it impossible that forensic evidence from the first Good Friday and Easter might have survived to our time? The Sudarium is certainly not the only reason to believe the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection; there are more. But the Sudarium brings us significant empirical evidence that is in line with biblical Christian belief. Keep thinking!
Dr. Frederick Baltz is Pastor Emeritus of St. Matthew Lutheran Church in Galena, Illinois. He is the author of numerous books including Exodus Found, A Faith to Suit You Well, When the Bible Meets the Sky, and now Preach with All You’ve Got.
TOP PHOTO: Full-length photograph of the Shroud of Turin which is said to have been the cloth placed on Jesus at the time of his burial. (credit: Rotated version of File:Shroudofturin.jpg., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)
NOTE: Not every view expressed by scholars contributing Thinker articles necessarily reflects the views of Patterns of Evidence. We include perspectives from various sides of debates on biblical matters so that readers can become familiar with the different arguments involved. – Keep Thinking!
