The Shroud of Turin has again been in the news. The linen cloth, bearing the image of a man who was tortured and crucified, has been a source of controversy for hundreds of years. Many claim it is a medieval forgery, while others point to innumerable striking details that seem to confirm it truly is the burial cloth of Christ.
The image on the cloth, very faint when viewed in person, raises many questions. Was this image created by a human being, as with a painting or relief, or is it an actual, “photographic” image of the Crucified Christ, perhaps created via some unknown process at the very moment of the Resurrection?
It is important to note that the Church has taken no official stance on the matter. Practicing Catholics are free to believe that the Shroud is authentic or a fake. Scientific analysis only deepens the enigma. A carbon dating test in 1988 seemed to buttress the arguments of the skeptics, indicating that the linen in the shroud dated from 1260–1390 AD. Several studies in scientific journals questioned this result, however – and just last month, scientists using a different dating method said that the cloth was 2,000 years old.
It is perhaps the most studied artifact in history, yet in many ways it remains a mystery. In this, the Shroud seems to echo the question that Jesus asked his disciples: Who do you say that I am?
A true image of Jesus?
One of the strangest things about the image on the Shroud of Turin is that it has the characteristics of a photographic negative. This was discovered in 1898 by Secondo Pia, a lawyer and amateur photographer, who while developing a photo he had taken of the Shroud, realized that his negative plate showed a “positive” image of the face (Ed. – See above.)
The result was so shocking that many refused to believe it was not an error or a fake. Later photographs confirmed the result, however. Could it be that this was the “true” image of Christ’s face? Does the Shroud of Turn show us what Jesus really looked like?
If our desire in gazing at the Shroud is to identify Jesus’ actual appearance, however, then even an enhanced photograph of the Shroud can leave us frustrated. The image shows a face that has been beaten, bruised, and bloodied, but the exact features of the man remain tantalizingly elusive.
Using AI to “improve” the Shroud image
This has led to attempts to “improve” the image, originally by having artists interpret the image to make a more photorealistic image of Jesus that fits our expectations. Most recently, and to great fanfare, the Daily Star newspaper released an AI generated image that it claims finally reveals the true likeness of Jesus.
As detailed in a May article, I recently had ChatGPT create visualizations of eyewitness descriptions of Fatima’s “Miracle of the Sun.” The article described how AI images are generated – an important factor to consider when judging whether an AI image can be trusted or not. I also linked to a fascinating article by Mark Burchick and Diana Pasulka that is a must-read if you are interested in how AI might help us visualize miraculous phenomena, along with some potential pitfalls.
What does a photograph really tell us?
The main appeal of the Daily Star’s Jesus image is that it looks like a photorealistic image of Jesus. Finally, we have a definitive image of the real Jesus. The sense of authenticity relies on our assumption that a photograph gives us the most truthful understanding not only of a person’s appearance but of who they truly are. But is that assumption accurate?
We’ve all had the experience of entering a friend or neighbor’s house for the first time and seeing photos of their relatives, friends, etc. on a side table or mantle. If you have never met the person shown in such a photo, the experience can be disconcerting. “Who is that?” we immediately wonder. In fact, looking at the photograph of a stranger, we never think, “Ah, ha! Now I know this person!” Photographs tells us surprisingly little about people and generally only raise more questions in our minds.
Think of the last time you read a nonfiction book about an event in recent history. It probably contained photographs of the people mentioned in the story. If you are like me, you may have glanced at these photos, but you didn’t spend a lot of time staring at them in order to better understand the people pictured. You knew instinctively that the key to understanding those people was mostly contained in the text rather than in their photos. Outward appearances tell us something about people, of course, but the key to truly understanding them lies elsewhere – in their words, deeds, and the testimony of others.
The real question
If, as many believe, the Shroud of Turin is an authentic image of the Crucified Christ, then it also makes sense to accept that it is a miraculous icon created by God. That raises a final question: If God has given us an image of his Son, why should anyone seek to “improve” it? In doing so, we might easily overlook what God is trying to tell us and instead impose our own message, distorting the face of Jesus rather than enhancing it.
For this reason, I believe that all attempts to use the Shroud to create a “true” image of Jesus are misguided. The mistake is similar to one that some biblical scholars make when they take apart the Gospels in an attempt to give us a “true” image of the historical Jesus. In the end, the search for the historical Jesus has given us many different Jesuses, as varied in character as the scholars who write about him. Pope Benedict addressed this problem in his preface to Jesus of Nazareth:
Those who read a certain number of these reconstructions one after another will immediately notice that these are much more the snapshots of the authors and their ideals than they are the unveiling of an icon that has become confused. In the meantime, distrust has grown toward these images of Jesus, and in any case the figure of Jesus has withdrawn from us even more.
Similarly, attempts to create a true, photorealistic image of Jesus based on the Shroud of Turin will result in a variety of Jesus images that vary according to the preconceptions and tastes of the artist, or — perhaps worse — the programming of the AI used.
A testimony of love
Ultimately, such attempts to reveal the “true” face of Jesus fail to appreciate the witness of the Shroud of Turin, just as biblical scholars often misunderstand the witness of the Gospels.
The primary objective of the Gospel writers was not to create a history or a biography of Jesus. Instead, by recounting certain words and events witnessed by those who encountered him, they bore witness to God’s saving work which transcended history and became a story for every person in every time. The were spreading Good News, not writing bad history.
In the same way, the Shroud of Turin is not a “bad photo” of Jesus that we need to enhance with our artistic skills or technology. It is instead a testament of God’s extraordinary love for us. This mysterious, bloody, and tactile image bears witness to a man who endured the most horrendous torture for our sake, the Son of God whose love for you and me is beyond all human comprehension. To accept and believe this message is to know the true face of Jesus.
Writer’s note: If you wish to learn more about the Shroud of Turin, I highly recommend purchasing a copy of the booklet from the Who is the Man of the Shroud? exhibit that was presented at the National Eucharistic Congress this past summer.
And today we celebrate...