Replies

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of authenticity.

Huh?

The fact that a natural process hasn’t been identified doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it was a miraclous process. We don’t know is the right answer.

The carbon dating is inacurate for a number of reasons. OK, but that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it’s older. The only thing about its age we can say is a fact is that it is at least as old as its first documented appearance (around 1200). There is no evidence indicating it is older (there’s no evidence it isn’t either.) The answer again is: we don’t know how old it is.

It contains plant matter that is only found in the middle east. OK, but the only thing that tells you is that sometime during its existance it was in the middle east. That’s it. It doesn’t say when. It could have been at the time of Christ’s burial, or 300 years later (or 300 years earlier for that matter.)

It bears an image. Even if we assume the image is of someone, who is it? There’s no evidence that it was specificly Jesus. Crucifixtion was a common practice for the Romans (as was physically abusing/beating them.) The fact that the image shows signs of physical abuse and crucifixtion does not indicate it was Jesus. Crucifixtion was too common a practice to assume that. Again, the answer is “we don’t know” when it comes to who the image is.

If you want to believe the shroud is authentic, fine. I don’t think it makes much difference one way or the other. But the bulk of the evidence doesn’t favor authenticity, it favors an unkown conclusion. In other words: we don’t know.

The only thing about its age we can say is a fact is that it is at least as old as its first documented appearance (around 1200). There is no evidence indicating it is older (there’s no evidence it isn’t either.) The answer again is: we don’t know how old it is.

The Hungarian Pray Manuscript artist seems to be familiar with the shroud, and this is around 1192-1195.

Also, historians have speculated, and I think correctly, that what is now known as the Shroud of Turin was known to the Byzantines as the Holy Mandylion of Edessa that has a historical trail back to the 6th century but which disappeared (coincidentally) at the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Though the Mandylion is often thought of as an image of the face alone, there are certain oddities in the accounts that suggest it was a much larger cloth folded in fours until only the face was visible--and one commentator I think in the 900s even said that the whole BODY of the dead Christ was imprinted on it.