Shroud Of Turin: Was It In The Grave With Christ?

Shroud Of Turin: Was It In The Grave With Christ?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, June 20, 2025 (Donate) 

[Test all things; hold fast what is good.  1 Thessalonians 5:21 NKJV]

An amazing cloth shroud, about 14.3 feet (~4 m) long and 3.7 feet (~1 m) wide, first appeared in AD 1357 in France and is now stored in Turin, Italy (hence the name Shroud of Turin). 

The cloth has a realistic imprint that looks like a man’s face (as well as a body) in a negative image style. Think of a negative image in photography or photo software. 

Shroud of Turin; Public Domain

According to tradition, the shroud’s image was miraculously formed upon the resurrection as it covered Jesus’s body in the tomb. Some people quote Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and Luke 23:53 to justify the possibility of this miracle. These verses seem to indicate that a single cloth was used to wrap Jesus when He was taken off the cross. But was this same cloth wrapped around Jesus’s body when it was placed in the tomb? There will be more on this in a moment. 

Claims, Controversy, And Caution 

Some have claimed the Shroud was actually in the possession of Thomas and Thaddeus Jude and was taken to Edessa (a town in the Middle East) soon after the Resurrection of Christ. How it arrived in France is a whole different question. 

In modern times, there have been a number of experiments performed on the shroud. One of the most controversial was a carbon-14 (C14) analysis. C14 can only give dates in the range of thousands of years and is very inaccurate due to the many assumptions involved.[1] 

By the way, it cannot give dates in the “millions of years” category, which is a common misconception (i.e., if the whole earth was C14, in one million years there would be none). People often use C14 on archeological things that were made of carbon (like nuts, cloth, etc.) 

With the Shroud being made of cloth, it was a C14 candidate. The results came out to be “medieval” (i.e., about 1,500 years ago), so many discounted the Shroud. But later results showed that the piece used for dating was a sample of cloth used to repair the Shroud, and hence “back to the drawing board”. At any rate, a number of experiments and peer-reviewed papers have been published looking at various aspects and such research should be commended by the way.[2]  

Before we get caught up in the details of “who says what” and “who concluded this” about this shroud found in France, we should go to the absolute source material to get a proper foundation: and so, we turn to the Bible. There have been a number of arguments for and against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.[3] 

Does The Bible Say The Shroud Of Turin Was In The Grave With Christ? 

First, the Shroud of Turin is not mentioned by name in the Bible. Nor would we expect it to be. But as pointed out before, many have appealed to a large linen cloth that was used to take Christ’s body from the Cross and was presumably buried with Him.[4] 

After the crucifixion, Jesus’s body would have been bloody from Pilate’s ordered whipping (Matthew 27:26), the crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29), and the nails driven into His hands and feet (Acts 2:23). More blood and water flowed from the spear wound in His side (John 19:34). Thus, this cloth would have absorbed a lot of blood and was likely used to help initially clean the body of Christ. Now did this cloth remain on Jesus’s body as it was carried to the grave? From a cursory look at the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, one might think so. 

John, however, reveals more details (John 19:38–40).[5] Joseph of Arimathea took the body prior to its placement in the grave. Later Nicodemus joined him, applying about 75 pounds of spices and wrapping the body in strips of linen. To apply the spices, the caretakers must have removed the bloody linen covering Christ at the Cross. We have no reason to assume that they reused this single dirty, bloody, cloth. Instead, we would expect them to have followed Jewish customs of cleanliness to clean the body and use fresh clean linens to wrap the body.  

Also, no Gospel author mentions a second single-cloth linen around Jesus’s body—only a small cloth wrapped (denoted as a handkerchief) around Jesus’ face and several other linen strips around the rest of his body (John 20:7). In fact, John indicates Lazarus was given the same kind of burial (John 11:43–44). 

At Jesus’s resurrection, both John and Luke mention the strips of linen and the cloth on His face (Luke 24:12; John 20:3–7). They mention nothing else. From a biblical perspective, we have no reason to assume any other cloths were present in the tomb. We need to be careful not to impose our previously existing ideas about the Shroud on the Bible, contrary to reasonable inferences, which is not the way to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). The Bible, when read carefully and in context, mentions no Shroud in the grave cloths. 

From here, let’s dive into these details and Scripture with more precision. 

Doesn’t The Bible Say There Was One Burial Shroud? 

People have placed the Shroud in the grave using Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46; or Luke 23:53. They sometimes claimed this was the shroud that may have helped cover Jesus along with linen strips.  Here are the verses (NKJV): 

Matthew 27:58–60

This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away. 

Mark 15:44–46

Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead.  And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.  Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 

Luke 23:50–54

Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no-one had yet been laid. It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. 

These verses indicate there was a single cloth (Strong’s Number: 4616, sindon), but was this the same cloth allegedly wrapping Jesus in the grave?  The cloth that Matthew, Mark, and Luke mention is a clean linen cloth that wrapped Jesus’ body when His body came off the Cross.  

At this point, Christ’s body was severely bloody/messy with the Scriptures revealing the nail marks in the hands and feet (Acts 2:23), the beating he took prior to being put on the Cross (Matthew 27:26), the shoving of a crown of thorns into his head (Matthew 27:29), and the flow blood and water from the spear (John 19:34). Therefore, this initial cloth, which was clean, wouldn’t be after taking Jesus’ body from the Cross. In essence, the linen was used for the first cleansing of the body. 

Therefore, the question becomes, did this linen cloth go directly from the Cross to the grave?  As mentioned before, from a glance at these passages, it would appear so.  

John offered clarity on this misconception as he gives more detail. So the passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke were merely giving the initial highlights. To go into more detail, John specifically says (NKJV): 

John 19:38–42

Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no-one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was near by, they laid Jesus there. 

John indicates that Joseph of Arimathea took the body away prior to entering the grave.  Then Nicodemus joined him with about 75 pounds of spices of myrrh and aloes, and wraps the body in strips of linen. By applying the spices to the body, the previous linen must have been removed and there is no biblical indication that this linen was reused. 

There is no reason to assume this “now dirty” linen was re-used to wrap the body of Christ. Also, there is no mention of another single-cloth linen used to wrap Christ’s body—only a small burial cloth used to wrap the face of Jesus (John 20:7). The linens and burial cloth around the head were the biblical burial customs.  Again, John records that Lazarus’ grave clothes were identical—strips of linen and a cloth around his face, but no extra linen shroud: 

John 11:43–44

When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go." 

Since Lazarus could walk, his legs were not constrained by a large wrapped cloth about his body. This is further confirmation that a shroud was not wrapping the whole body, but strips do make sense. Recall that both John and Luke record at Jesus’ resurrection that there were strips of linen and the burial cloth that wrapped the face.  They mention nothing else (NKJV).     

Luke 24:12

Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen (othonia in Greek) lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened. 

John 20:3–7

So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen (othonia in Greek) lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen (othonia in Greek) lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 

There is no cause to appeal to the strips of linens miraculously bonding together (which I did have one person appeal to in a letter). There is no reason to assume there were any other cloths present in the tomb. To do so would be to take ideas to the Bible and not derive deductions from the Bible. In other words, this would be taking man’s ideas as a greater authority than God (i.e., form of humanism).   

Stevenson and Habermas argue that ancient Jewish sources (Essene burial procedures and Code of Jewish Law) reveal that a large cloth was used in the burial. They further argue that othonia (usually translated as “strips of linen”) refers to all the grave clothes…as in Luke 24:12 including these other cloths (handkerchief around the face and the shroud.)[6] 

If othonia referred to all the grave clothes, then why didn’t John use this term the same way? Instead, John used this term but it excluded some grave clothes (e.g., the separate facial burial cloth that was not counted among the strips of linen). This is found in John 20:6-7, where the handkerchief was not lying with the strips of linen whereas Luke mentions that the linens (othonia) were together—which can indeed be the strips of linen, but cannot be all the grave clothes as argued by Stevenson and Habermas. It may be too much to assume that this word (othonia) was in reference to anything but the strips of linen. 

From a biblical viewpoint, there was virtually no possibility of a blood-ridden, dirty, unclean, shroud of linen to be re-used to bury the Son of God, especially in light of Jewish burial customs based on high levels of cleanliness. And the Scriptures do not mention any other such linen in the grave with Christ. 

Could The Shroud Of Turin Have Been The Initial Cloth Used To Take Christ From The Cross (Just Not Used As The Grave Clothes)? 

Since there are obvious problems with a biblical shroud being in the grave with Christ, one must turn to other options. What ever happened to the shroud that covered Jesus initially to clean him? The Bible doesn’t say. It belonged to Joseph of Arimathea but it is possible that Nicodemus took it. Did this cloth get into the hands of Thomas and Thaddeus Jude and finally make its way to Liray, France? We simply don’t know. 

Any grave clothes of Christ should have been laced heavily with burial spices, of which the Shroud of Turin has none. But if the Shroud of Turin was this initial cloth used to clean Christ, then we would expect it to be absent of spices, which were added later after this linen was removed. Was the Shroud of Turin used to clean Christ when His body was removed from the Cross? I would leave open the possibility but even so, we can never be certain. But it is intriguing and would present a much better, but still speculative, case. 

Conclusion 

The Bible reveals no large burial cloth when Christ was buried. Instead strips of linen and a head cloth are repeatedly mentioned. So, one should not be dogmatic about the Shroud of Turin being in the grave with Christ. 

Is it possible that the Shroud of Turin was the linen used to remove Christ from the Cross? It is possible, but again we cannot be sure (of course, this would refute the common claim that the image was made at the Resurrection in the grave). Is the Shroud of Turin an interesting item with some fascinating features? No doubt! Should it be studied? No doubt! 

Even then, there are more questions than answers. Many doubt the authenticity of the Shroud since its public awareness came at time in Medieval Europe when the forging of “sacred relics” became commonplace. Using oil paint on glass and using light to exposure it to linen can make an image very similar to that found on the Shroud.[7] 

And it is not the purpose of this article to look at all Shroud-related questions. But in all speculative things exercise caution and realize that the existence of God and the truthfulness of the Bible have little if anything to do with the Shroud of Turin. 

Originally here: https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/testing-the-shroud-of-turin/; Republished by permission. 

---

[1] Ken Ham, Gen. Ed., New Answers Book 1, Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 2006, pp. 77-87.

[2] Much of this information is common knowledge and found on numerous websites surrounding the Shroud of Turin such as www.shroud.com and http://shroudstory.wordpress.com/

[3] Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1999, pp 705-706.

[4] Some may argue that it would have been another shroud altogether, but then they lose Luke 23:50–54, Mark 15:44–46, and Matthew 27:58–60 as support for their argument. 

[5] See also, Mark Looy, “According to the Bible, It’s not Shrouded in Mystery at All!” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/02/14/shrouded-in-mystery.

[6] Kenneth Stevenson and Gary Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud, Servant Books, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981, pp. 48-49.  Much of this book discusses some fascinating aspects and research of the Shroud of Turin. 

[7] http://www.shadowshroud.com/ accessed 5/16/2012, specifically images and process explanation: http://www.shadowshroud.com/images.htm