As a filmmaker working for large civil engineering companies, oil companies, etc., the job wasn’t satisfying enough for me, so I started to look for other subjects. I had recently graduated from the London Film School, so I advertised for ideas and was deluged with proposals. Most of these proposals were not interesting, but, having requested them, I felt morally obliged to sift through them all. One August evening I got to the last batch. I was by now completely disheartened when, from the very last envelope I opened, out slipped the image of a remarkable face which I came to know well as the face on the Shroud. I was intrigued by the fact that it was a negative image drawn from a medieval cloth.
My training had been in photography so I understood that here was the strangest old photograph in the world – and as such was worthy of investigation.
At that time I had no religious convictions at all so my assumption was that this was a fake, and that if resources were put to this film we would discover how it was done.
Did you have a hard time raising the funds necessary to produce the documentary on the mysterious veil?
There were two main problems. First, the concept of an independent producer in those days was a very new one. All the TV channels were monopolistic, ether run by the State or licensed by the State, so independent films had very limited budgets.
The second reason was that no one was interested in the subject of Christian relics.
In the meantime I had put some research together. The paper that was sent to me originally was by a historian called Ian Wilson. He had studied at Oxford, and had been intrigued by the way that the Shroud image bore very specific details found in the emerging images of Christ from the 6th century. These observations led him to link the Shroud with a mysterious cloth known as the Mandylion (image made without hands) that had come to light in the city of Edessa (now Urfa) in Southern Turkey. This cloth had a tradition that took it right back to the time of Christ.
Having resolved to try and make this film on the Shroud I still had to earn a living in the meantime and feed my family. I was making a film for a corporate client in Saudi Arabia, and got stuck in an airport for 8 hours with some Americans. There were four of us, and in order to pass the time they wanted to play bridge. I never played bridge before so they gave me a crash course; we rolled away the time and I got to know one American, called Forrest, very well. He was based in Texas, and I told him I was working on the Shroud, and that it was linked to Anatolia. About 3 months later he sent me a clipping from the Huston Post, about the work of the Swiss criminologist Max Frei, who had taken some samples from the cloth, and concluded that some of the pollens in it came from southern Turkey. So here was a strong correlation between historical theory and forensic evidence.
So the first thing I did was to introduce Ian Wilson to Max Frei, and I accompanied them on a research trip to Urfa in Anatolia, but I still had no success in raising the money for the film.
One day my request for funds landed on the desk of someone who was to become extremely dear to me; this was Fr. Peter Rinaldi, a Salesian who had emigrated to New York from Turin in his youth, and had founded the Holy Shroud Guild of America. Without hesitation Fr. Rinaldi invited me to New York.
Never in my whole life have I met anyone so incredibly popular in his community of Rochester, New York; he was clearly a holy man.
Fr. Rinaldi introduced me to a remarkable character called Harry G. John Jr, whose grandfather had founded the Miller Brewing Company, and left him five hundred million dollars. After a visit to Milwaukee, Harry John agreed to fund the film, ostensibly, with no strings attached. But I was later to discover otherwise.
At first it was hard to get access to the Cathedral in Turin where the Shroud is kept. However, the woman in charge of antiquities at the Cathedral was very devoted to Blessed Phillip Rinaldi, the uncle of my spiritual mentor, Fr. Rinaldi, and when she saw Fr. Rinaldi with me she said to him, “Do you know that I pray to your uncle every day! Whatever you want from me, just name it!” And so from that moment on the doors opened for us.
When the documentary was almost completed, you found yourself with an unfinished film, little interest from the media, and no money. How did you react to this situation?
When I went to show Harry John the fine cut of the film, there were two things that concerned him greatly. First was the fact that when we recreated the image of Christ’s position on the Cross on the basis of the forensic evidence, the image was naked. Every depiction of Christ has a loin cloth, but the crucifixion was intended to be as degrading and as humiliating as possible, as well as excruciatingly painful, so in actual fact the victims were naked, and we showed this in our film. This, however, was objectionable to my benefactor.
Secondly, we presented the facts objectively so that the audience could draw its own conclusions. He thought the film should be much more positive in its conclusion, and asserted that it had to act as an inspiration to make us go to church more regularly. When I refused to make these changes he decided to withhold the last sums for the documentary.
Now back in the 70s bank managers in Britain ran their own branches, and they lent money to people they personally believed in. I had always kept my bank manager informed about the film, about which he had always shown great interest, and when I asked him for funding, God bless him, he said, “I’ll lend you the money!” and he did this with no collateral, and no eventual buyer for the film either. I was living in a rented flat and had no collateral to offer, but he lent me the equivalent of €100,000, which was a lot of money in 1976.
However, no one was interested in buying even the completed film at a price which reflected its cost. So I rented a large auditorium for 6 weeks at the Piccadilly Hotel in central London, and turned it into a makeshift cinema. By a truly singular coincidence the film was due to premiere on Easter Monday. I had no money left to advertise it, but the Sunday Times newspaper had come to see the fine cut, and said that if I gave them an exclusive they would give me the cover story for Easter Sunday.
I was thrilled, what else could go wrong? The answer came in one word: strike. A printer’s strike was scheduled for Easter, meaning that no newspapers would be printed on that week, and at that point I thought I was finished.
Disheartened, on Easter Sunday I went for a walk, and to my amazement discovered that because the magazine was printed ahead and distributed freely with the newspaper, the only thing that one could read on that blessed Easter Sunday of 1977 was this magazine with a picture of the Shroud on the front cover!
On the following day, when the film premiered, the queue to see the film went a quarter of a mile down Piccadilly! The Silent Witness even managed to outgross Saturday Night Fever for a time in London.
What led you to make a second documentary last year, The Silent Witness II? Was there anything new in the studies on the Shroud?
I had formed close relationships with a lot of the people who appeared in that first film, and had remained in touch with them over the years.
Now despite the negative response from the Carbon-14 test, nobody had yet explained how that impressive 3D image had been produced on the cloth.
The American Dr. John Jackson, who had appeared in the first film, and who had discovered the 3D characteristics of the image, had gone to Turin to carry out further tests, and sometime in 2003 he came to see me and told me that he had not lost faith in the Shroud despite the Carbon-14 results, while many of his colleagues had fallen by the wayside.
He invited me to his laboratory in Colorado and I was very impressed with the degree of his research to unravel the mystery of the image. Dr. Jackson was also prepared to address head on the soundness of the Carbon 14 test. So I thought that the time was ripe for a follow up to the first film.
What was wrong with the Carbon-14 tests of 1988?
Professor Christopher Ramsey, who is now head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerating Unit, has agreed to engage with Dr Jackson. Dr. Ramsey was part of the original team which tested the Shroud in 1988, and said that he is quite willing to critique that test to see if a mistake had been made.
He recognises that we now know a lot more about Carbon-14 than in 1988. Carbon-14 is an isotope of Carbon-12 created by the impact of cosmic rays on the atmosphere. From there it eventually makes its way into organic material, like natural clothing. We now understand this process a lot better than in 1988, and many of the assumption underlying the 1988 test have now been proved wrong.
Moreover, during the 1988 test all of the protocols for scientific objectivity were abandoned. Instead of samples being taken from 7 separate areas of the Shroud, and the tests done blind, only one corner of the Shroud was sampled, and the test wasn’t blind.
Carbon-14 tests were carried out successfully on the linen wrapping of the Dead Sea scrolls, because those scrolls had been hermetically sealed in jars hidden in a cave for 2,000 years, so when analysed they yielded a true reflection of the ratio between Carbon-14 and Carbon-12. The Shroud, instead, was in Constantinople around the 12th century for all to see, where it was subjected to all sorts of rituals and exposed to atmospheric conditions; it even survived a fire in the 16th century. Now all these factors may have altered the normal ratio between Carbon-14 and Carbon-12, and could easily render the test unsuitable for determining the Shroud’s age.
What struck you most while filming last year’s documentary?
During the first film I never had the Shroud itself at the disposal of our camera. But the second time the religious and civic authorities were willing to take the Shroud out to be filmed in high definition for the first time. It was put out in front of us for two days.
One of the most mysterious things about the Shroud is a strip along the length of the Shroud which evidence suggests was part of the original cloth. At some point it was torn off, as it follows the natural reeve along a straight line. The strip was later re-sown on the Shroud very carefully. The stitching used to sew it back on was the same stitch that we know existed in those days because it was found in Masada in Palestine. This strip of torn off material was allegedly used to tie the Shroud around the body.
Now Dr. Jackson has shown that by wrapping a cloth of the same dimension of the Shroud around a body, and tying it with such a strip, everything about the image coincides with the place where the cloth touches the body.
Saint John’s Gospel is very telling. When the disciple sees not the Risen Jesus, but the Shroud, having previously seen it wrapped around the body, he sees it in such a way that, only then and at that moment, he chose to believe.
One of the things which the film shows is that by lying a similar cloth out in a first century tomb in Jerusalem, a New Testament scholar who was with us understood why the Shroud was able to produce such a powerful reaction.
After doing so much research on the Shroud, what personal conclusions have you come to? Do you believe that mysterious veil is the Shroud of Christ or a forgery?
The forger must have lived back in the Byzantine period. He would first of all have had to get his hands on a linen cloth which conformed to the very obscure but strict Jewish customs and laws of first century Palestine (which the Shroud does): a cloth which, when analysed in the 20th century, would show evidence of Palestinian plant life. The forger would have had to use a single monochromatic colour, and use it in such a way that it would not penetrate the linen, but sit on its surface. When scanned 2,000 years later, with technology unimaginable in at the time, the image would produce a perfect 3D representation. The forger also had to make sure that any wounds put on the cloth would conform not with how they understood the technicalities of crucifixion, but to how archaeologist have only now revealed them to be. At the same time, and this perhaps is the most significant thing, the forger would have to create the face of a man who had endured the most horrible suffering, and yet possess an expression which transcends everything he has endured. In short, there is compelling evidence that dates the Shroud much earlier than the Middle Ages, and the image on it remains beyond artistic, historical and forensic understanding. I am certain that it is not a medieval forgery.
Of course people will always say, “But how do you know that’s Christ? It could be anyone else.”
But one of the things we can say with absolute certainty about Christ is that he was crucified. And there were several unique aspects of that crucifixion. For example, the famous ‘Crown of Thorns’. The Gospel accounts tell us that this was inflicted spontaneously by the soldiers in an act of ironic cruelty to the ‘King of the Jews’. Artists have always depicted this as a neatly woven circlet of thorns. However, we now know that the Roman soldiers kept clumps of dried thorns to kindle their fires. The head wound on the Shroud depicts just such an infliction. This is typical of the way that every detail of a close examination of the Shroud only serves to underpin its claims for authenticity not only as a 2000 year old burial cloth, but the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazereth.
Over the years, have you ever found yourself praying?
When I made The Silent Witness I was not religious. I now consider myself a Christian and pray regularly, and it is the Shroud that has converted me. What convinced me, however, was not the strong case for its authenticity, but the contemplation of the sublime image on the Shroud which, in turn, led me to further studies.
In 1984 I made a TV series called Jesus: the Evidence, which charted the development of New Testament theology by mainly looking at the fruits of German scholars who had concluded that any possibility of understanding the historical Jesus from the Gospels was too difficult, and that we had to take a more existential view of Christ. To look for the historical Christ was a wild goose chase. The Churches had never really revealed these problems to the faithful. So the series I made in 1984 was very controversial because it revealed, for example, that many prominent bishops in the Church of England didn’t believe in the Virgin Birth, nor in the bodily resurrection. However, they were quick to point out that this didn’t affect their faith as Christians.
However, what I became certain about was that, despite all these problems of Biblical scholarship, Christ existed, was crucified, and shortly after his death forces for good sprang up which eventually created our civilization, and gave us universal suffrage, human rights, education and health care, and a moral climate that seeks to ensure that the strong protect the weak. The Kingdom may not yet be fulfilled, but we have made remarkable progress.
You often hear religious detractors argue that a Christian God, if he existed, would not allow tragedies to occur and therefore, ipso facto, there cannot be one. But think of the tragedies that are averted every day by our harnessing of the knowledge born of the education that our society now values. Think how many more such tragedies might be averted if peace ruled the earth and resources devoted to war and defence were available for medical research. But that will only happen when the Kingdom arrives. Science can prophesy with relative certainty that one day most of the West Coast of America will fall into the sea in a dreadful earthquake. There will be a terrible cry against God for allowing this to happen. But any victims of this event will have chosen to be there. This cannot be God’s fault now that we have the knowledge.
The same can be said of the flood plains of Bangladesh. We know that every few years thousands will be drowned. We could choose to relocate this population or spend on adequate defences. But we don’t. When we do, we will know that the Kingdom is at hand. It is up to us now, not God. He has given us the knowledge of good and evil and the power to make choices. I pray, along with all Christians, to hasten the day of the arrival of the Kingdom and hope that we may all do something to speed things up.
What image do you have of God?
On the one hand God is unfathomable, but on the other he is much easier to understand than the alternative… Science now says that in order to make sense of the universe and our place in it we have to posit eleven parallel universes! But they then accept that this is beyond comprehension and certainly beyond proof. It seems we have to choose between two unfathomable propositions.
I have made many documentaries on natural history, and in doing so have found the traces of design in our universe to be self-evident to anyone with an open mind about such things. While I was making these films – in the 90’s – in the very heart of the Natural History establishment at the BBC in Bristol, to be anything but a neo-Darwinist was to be shunned and excluded from significant office. So people like me with some doubts about purely mechanistic certainties had to be careful. But I know which of the two unfathomable propositions I find most likely and compelling. I think the image of God can be seen clearly in every aspect of creation. And also, somewhat more prosaically, in the image of a naked and battered man that transcends everything that has befallen him – the image that lies on the Shroud.
Have you ever had something that could be called a ‘mystical experience’?
Seeing that magazine in the shop window on that blessed Easter Sunday of 1977 was a very strange moment that gave me a hint of what it means to receive a blessing, because that’s what it was!
Another mystical experience for me is the Eucharist, and the continuity it gives to me with that event of 2,000 years ago.
What is your reaction to the news of the public exposition of the Shroud of Turin in 2010?
Despite the Carbon-14 test nobody has been able to dispatch the Shroud for good. This image of a naked battered man refuses to lay down and die despite very powerful forces that are trying to ‘kill’ him.
Professor Ramsey has called for a re-examination of the Shroud in the light of the new historical evidence. While defending the science of C14 he has acknowledged the conflict between historical evidence and the Carbon-14 test.
I hope than many people will avail themselves of the opportunity to visit Turin and see the Shroud for themselves. My own conversion was influenced by the Shroud, but was not dependant on it, and if tomorrow the forger’s signature were to be discovered on the corner of the cloth, it would make absolutely no difference to the Christian faith I now have.
I am endeavouring to make a new and comprehensive full-length film on the Shroud to mark the exposition. As a producer, my first goal is to raise the money, and in the current climate that will take a miracle! But I know, from my own experience, that such miracles can happen.
***************
BORN IN Southend, England, in 1951, David Rolfe received his honours diploma in Film Technique from The London International Film School in 1970. He went on to become a successful director/producer, with credits including Panorama (BBC1), Gorbachov’s 5th Anniversary Event (Newsnight), Fight Again (BBC2), and many programmes for blue chip companies.
Whilst with Screenpro films, he was consultant to BBC Worldwide setting up Drama Co-productions in Australia; BAFTA winner for Best Documentary Silent Witness – An Investigation into the Shroud of Turin (BBC1 & 2).
He also produced title sequences and commercials for several movies, including: The Great Gatsby, A Dolls House, That Funny Touch, The Last Tycoon, Triple Echo, Sutjeska, Rachel’s Man and Butterfly Ball.
As senior partner of the Performance Group, he established, produced and directed Performance Coaching programmes for The Woolwich, Barclays, NatWest, Motorola, Zeneca and others.
He was series producer of Wild Islands 26 for STV, H4C and RTE; produced Postcards from the Country for BBC Natural History Unit, and was Executive Producer on Fight Again, BBC2’s 3-part series on the History of the Labour Party. As senior producer/director for LWT/ITV, his credits include: Weekend World, Credo, 20th Century Box, The London Programme, The Walden Interviews, Jesus – The Evidence, 6 O’clock Show, Thatcher Years, ITV Telethon, and many others.
In 2008 he returned to the subject of the Shroud with the production Material Evidence for Performance Films Ltd., BBC and RAI. He is currently developing projects for Performance Films’ new studio and a full length film on the Shroud to mark the 2010 Exposition.
A download of his original BAFTA winning film on the Shroud, The Silent Witness, can be obtained from http://www.silentwitness2.com/html/store.html as well as details on how to obtain a DVD.
Updated on October 06 2016