Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin is purported to be the literal burial shroud of Jesus Christ, and its authenticity has thus aroused intense debate and sometimes hostile rhetoric between those who believe that the Shroud is authentic (or at least believe that it is the actual burial shroud of a crucified man who may or may not have been Jesus), and those who do not. Many attempts have been made by skeptics to challenge its authenticity on various grounds, as well as to develop alternative theories to explain how the images on the Shroud could have been faked or generated by a variety of mechanisms. The Shroud of Turin is therefore the most highly studied relic in the history of the world.

The history of religious artifacts is filled with fraudulent attempts to make money at the expense of naïve worshippers, and many fake shrouds have been produced. In 1902 François de Mely claimed that there were forty-two medieval shrouds of Christ around Europe, and he even named the towns whose inventories mentioned them (these were either simply pieces of cloth or artistic copies, and a number of these “shrouds” still exist).1 Even though many of these fake shrouds were not done with the intent to deceive (i.e., they were meant simply as artistic representations of Christ, and as an aid to worship, rather than as a means of raising money), nevertheless, it is very appropriate that the Shroud of Turin be approached with an attitude of skepticism.

However, the evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity is so comprehensive and compelling that if it were an object with no religious overtones, there would be little serious doubt as to its veracity. But being the purported burial cloth of Jesus Christ and a possible witness to his resurrection, and hence to the alleged truth of Christianity, the Shroud raises powerful passions. Accepting or rejecting the authenticity of the Shroud is to many thus an issue of religious or anti-religious conviction. However, those who seriously seek to study the Shroud should approach it with an open mind and lay aside their religious persuasions as they examine the evidence, both pro and con.

Because challenges to the Shroud have been made and refuted in many forums, an interested reader must search in a number of places to find the desired information. The purpose of this paper is not to present any new theories or evidence, but rather to gather all of the known challenges to the Shroud’s authenticity along with answers to each challenge. These will be stated in summary form, and in (hopefully) clear English for a non-technical audience. References are also provided so that such a reader can easily investigate each issue in more detail. However, it should be noted that web pages may be taken down or relocated by the web masters of the associated sites, creating a dead link. That eventuality is beyond the control of any author.

This is an excerpt. Read the entire report in PDF format. Windows users need Adobe Acrobat Reader, Mac users can read the file in their Safari browser or in Preview.

The shroud that suddenly turned up in the middle ages....

If you count the "middle ages" as being from 544 AD to 1202 AD, you might be right, since we have documentary evidence, including descriptions of the Shroud, of its being in Eddessa and Constantinople at various dates during those years. Certainly the writers of those documents thought they were in possession of the Burial Shroud of Jesus Christ which showed a faint image of the entire body of the Crucified Christ. It certainly was known and reported in history prior to the 1352 "first" exposition in Lirey, France. The break in the chain of custody between the sacking of Constantinople by the members of the 4th Crusade in 1204 and the Shroud's appearance in the possession of a descendent of one of the leaders of the 4th Crusade in (c)1348-1351 is the problem. Read the article... it gives a synopsis of the evidence.

This is sort of like saying that the Americas didn't exist before Columbus discovered them in 1492... ignoring all the subsequently found evidence of trade across the Atlantic and Pacific prior to Columbus. . .

...Then there's the trade in holy relics which became big business during the middle ages, again when the shroud most definitively turns up.

Yet despite the considerable hemming and hawing regarding Carbon-14 dating and contemporaneous textile manufacture, my mind remains open.

I've reserved a couple of volumes from the LA Public Library. Perhaps we can take this up again.

Best, and God's grace to You and Yours.

...Then there's the trade in holy relics which became big business during the middle ages, again when the shroud most definitively turns up.

I will grant you that. However, with the lack of incredulity rampant in the era, a bedsheet with some blood dripped over it would have been sufficient to bring in large amounts of donations from pilgrims... and painted copies of the Shroud did so. A sublime representation of Jesus' burial cloth was not required to extract sous from French peasants and nobles alike.

The earliest C14 test date was 13th Century - 1260 AD (rounded down to the nearest decade) - yet a medallion of known provenance from the 11th Century (c. 1060)shows a depiction of the Shroud (sans burn marks) that shows it was being displayed at least 200 years before the earliest possible C14 date. The Hungarian Pray Codex, created in 1192-1195 depicts the Shroud including distinctive poker burn marks that are found on the Shroud... 90 years before the earliest possible date as determined by the C14 tests.

The peer-reviewed work of Ray N. Rogers has absolutely shown that the material tested in the 1988 C14 tests was NOT exemplar of the Shroud... and chemical tests, physical differences, and photomicrographs show that better than 40% - 60% of the test material was a patch interwoven into original threads by a known technique called French Invisible Reweaving which was used in the 16th - 18th Century to invisibly repair damaged cloths. This later material, when combined with original shroud 1st Century material, would test to the 1260-1390 range reported by the three labs who tested the supposed shroud material. In fact, the 130 year range of lowest to highest results from supposedly homogenously aged material that was supposed to have had only a plus or minus 20-25 year degree of confidence, should have raised a big red flag for scientists. It has been shown that the proportion of the newer material to older material accounts completely for the discrepency with the later dated sample having about 60% new material and the older dated sample having about 40%.

The findings have been duplicated by other scientists using other methods. The C14 tests are invalid.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.