Is this the face of Jesus? (Shroud of Turin)

The Shroud of Turin is the most studied object in the world – and for good reason. If authentic, this linen cloth would constitute physical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

Not so fast comes the gut reaction from many Christians, concerned that such a theory skirts dangerously close to venerating a spurious relic. Besides, hasn’t the science concluded this is simply a medieval forgery?

But the truth is, there is little consensus on the Shroud’s authenticity. After thousands of hours of research, study and tests, opinion is still divided among both scholars and enthusiasts.

And so the intriguing possibility remains open that as God raised Jesus from the dead, some form of energy – whether atomic, radioactive or other – was released from his body, leaving a miraculous imprint on this, his burial cloth.

In the late 1970s, the Shroud of Turin Research Project brought together a group of American and European scientists who were granted unprecedented access to the Shroud. Their report in 1981 concluded the image was of a scourged, crucified man and that the blood stains were “not the product of an artist”. Yet, seven years later, another group of scientists declared it to be a medieval fake, having dated part of the shroud to between 1260 and 1390. In subsequent years, their carbon dating methods have been heavily questioned. The mystery remains.

Joe Marino has been studying the Shroud for 47 years. Although raised Catholic, he was agnostic by the time he reached adulthood. Describing himself as “wide open” to exploring the meaning of life, he stumbled across a book that claimed the Shroud was akin to “the fifth Gospel”; he was intrigued enough to buy it, and read it one sitting. That moment marked the beginning of his journey back to Christian belief.

Fast forward to the present day, and Marino now has one of the biggest personal collections of Shroud material in the world. He’s written a door-stopping 800-page book purely on the question of carbon dating and spoken at major conferences around the world. Now retired, he scours the web every day, searching for yet more information – a process he describes with no hint of irony as “living the dream”.

It is, admittedly, not your average dream. But when it comes to discussing the authenticity of Shroud of Turin, you’d do well to find anyone better informed than Joe Marino.

Researching the Shroud hasn’t just been an academic exercise. It helped bring you back to your faith, didn’t it?

Yes, the Shroud was really an impetus for me to come back to my Christian roots, as I started reading the Bible again and I actually joined a monastery for a period of time.

The Shroud made my faith in the gospel more real. The Bible is full of stories of miracles and signs that Jesus worked. And he says: “Even though you do not believe me, believe the works” [John 10:38, ESV]. And I think the Shroud is a sign, if not a miracle.

Christianity is an historical religion. We believe that Jesus lived in a physical place and time in history that we can investigate. The Bible says the apostles saw Jesus after his death [Acts 1]. That’s strange as, let’s face it, dead people don’t rise from the dead! The only reasonable explanation, in my opinion, is that they did see Jesus after his death, because why would they subject themselves to torture and death if they really didn’t believe that?

I think the Shroud is empirical evidence for Jesus. It has all the markings that correspond to what the four Gospels say. You can look at that face on the Shroud and see the man was beaten horribly, but there’s a serenity and a peace that somehow transcends that.

Rarely put on public display, visitors were last able to view the Shroud at Turin Cathedral in 2015

Why are you so sure the Shroud is real?

One of the biggest reasons is that modern science is still unable to explain how the image got onto the Shroud. There’s just so many strange characteristics.

You can’t really prove it 100 per cent, but I think the evidence shows that, more likely than not, it is authentic, based on a lot of different factors, including scientific, historical and religious. But ultimately people have to make up their own mind.

If we assume the Shroud is authentic, why do you think God allowed it to exist and be preserved?

I think God used the resurrection to validate Jesus’ mission. And I think he left the Shroud as a gift to [humankind]. Maybe for the doubting Thomases of the 20th and 21st centuries. Thomas didn’t believe that the apostles saw Jesus [John 20]. He wanted more evidence. And I think the Shroud gives you a little more evidence.

Sometimes people will say: “Well, I don’t need the Shroud for my faith.” And the implication is: “and you shouldn’t either”, but we can’t limit how God chooses to reach people. If God wants all [people] to be saved, he will probably use various means to do that. I think the Shroud is a very effective means. Jesus said: “You will know them by their fruit” [Matthew 7:20, CEB] and you can see that the fruits of the Shroud are openness and, in many cases, conversion to Christianity.

Those who are sceptical will argue that the image on the Shroud wasn’t really the face of Jesus, but some kind of forgery, perhaps. Has anyone been able to replicate the image using other means?

No. I mean, you will find people who say they know how it was done or they’ve duplicated the image but, in order to replicate the Shroud, you have to replicate every single characteristic. And no one has done that. There is absolutely no one in the world that has figured out how it was done.

Most sceptics will say that it’s an unknown artistic technique, that it was caused by some unknown natural technique that we’re unaware of, but we might find out in the future.

5 reasons to believe

1 When they first examined it in the 1970s and 80s, the Shroud of Turin Research Project team of scientists stated the markings on the cloth were consistent with a crucified body and that the stains were real human blood.

2 The linen is 2,000 years old, according to Italian scientist Julio Fanti, who used an X-ray scattering method to date it.

3 The image on the cloth is an ‘impossible’ image – one that cannot be replicated by any modern scientific methods. And the clearest image was hidden within the Shroud for centuries, only visible once photography was invented.

4 The bloodstains appear to match the wounds suffered by Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Gospels.

5 Pollen found on the Shroud originates from plants that only grow in Judea.

The fact we can’t recreate this image today with the benefit of modern science surely makes it extremely unlikely that a medieval forger could have created it?

Absolutely. And this is negative, it’s got three-dimensional information, it’s superficial, it’s best viewed from between six and ten feet. If you get too close to the image, you can’t see it. So did an artist have a six-foot brush? The evidence doesn’t fit the idea of a forger doing it and there’s no artistic technique that anybody can come up with to explain how it was done. The forger would have needed to have been an expert in biblical exegesis, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physics. The theory just does not make sense to me at all.

Assuming it’s real, how did the image end up on the cloth? Some have suggested that, at the point of resurrection, Jesus’ body emitted radiation, or there was an electromagnetic burst of light. Is that plausible?

A lot of scientists believe that whatever formed the image came from the body itself and not from an external source. And so a lot of them posit that it was controlled radiation, or even a nuclear reaction of some kind. I don’t have any problem with saying it’s a controlled radiation event. There might have been several types of radiation, because there seem to be some X-ray effects. Some people claim to see finger bones and teeth; a lot of that’s debated. But the bottom line is: nobody can explain that image.

Given all the study over decades, why hasn’t science been able to come to an agreed conclusion?

This item fits so well into both the scientific and the religious camps. And there’s some tension there. You have scientists who are afraid to speak their mind about what they believe about the Shroud because they’re worried about their reputation. You have religious people who are worried that people will think they’re worshipping an idol.

By the way, I don’t think anyone has ever really worshipped the Shroud, so it’s a mistaken concern. But I have noticed, in the last five to ten years, an increase in Catholic priests and Protestant ministers showing more interest in the Shroud. I think that’s mainly because of the hard scientific evidence, even though there isn’t consensus on many aspects of it.

5 reasons to doubt

1 In 1988, an international team of scientific experts performed radiocarbon dating on snippets of the Shroud and concluded it was manufactured between 1260 and 1390. They said the Shroud was nothing more than a medieval hoax.

2 The Roman Catholic Church considers the Shroud to be an icon, not a holy relic.

3 The conclusion of a 2018 study in blood pattern analysis was not supportive of the claimed authenticity of the Shroud. The study said the apparent blood splatters could only have been produced by someone moving to adopt different poses, rather than lying still.

4 The Turin Commission concluded in 1979 that stains on the garment are likely pigments, not blood.

5 John’s Gospel records “strips of linen” (John 20:5) being used to wrap the body of Jesus, not a single burial sheet. (Although other versions translate this as linen ‘clothes’, ‘wrappings’ or ‘cloths’.)

The image on the cloth is a negative: dark where it should be bright

How useful is the Shroud of Turin as a tool for evangelism?

I think it’s very useful. For a lot of sceptics, the Shroud scares them to death, quite frankly.

A lot of Protestants are sceptical from the get-go because they think it’s a Catholic relic, and they’re suspicious of all relics. But you’ve got to do some nuanced thinking. Just because there’s a lot of fake relics in the 14th century doesn’t automatically mean that the Shroud is one of those. You have to examine each item on its own merits.

The Shroud has been a bridge. Protestant and Catholic relations are always kind of tense, but many of my Shroud friends are Protestants. A lot of those people were sceptical to begin with. Once you start studying and looking at the evidence, it’s different.

But I don’t think evidence is as powerful as it used to be. People are apt to make their own reality and ignore evidence – not only in Shroud stuff, but politics. I grew up in a time where evidence meant something. And I think the evidence is compelling – when you look at all the different aspects and the amount of hours that people have spent on it, and the fact that it hasn’t been duplicated.

I’ve literally read all the major things in English, over 47 years, and with the help of Google, I’ve read a lot of foreign works as well. I believe, based on the preponderance of the evidence, it’s real. And I think a lot of people that take the time to actually study it find that as well.

I am engaged with someone who claims that one Ramsey discredited the Shroud's authenticity:

Carbon dating is possible.
The likely contamination will not alter the results.
Here is the proof test that have been performed.
In 2008 Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, undertook test to analyze if
carbon-14 found on the weave may have been significantly affected by the weather, the conservation methods employed throughout the centuries, as well as the volatile carbon generated by the fire that damaged the shroud while in Savoy custody at Chambéry. As well as other similar theories including that candle smoke (rich in carbon dioxide) and the volatile carbon molecules produced during the two fires may have altered the carbon content of the cloth.
These tests show no significant reaction – even though the sensitivity of the measurements is sufficient to detect contamination that would offset the age by less than a single year.
Professor Ramsey noted that carbon monoxide does not undergo significant reactions with linen which could result in an incorporation of a significant number of CO molecules into the cellulose structure. He also added that there is as yet no direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.
Now fair enough that you do not agree with the carbon dating, but please provide some factual evidence to support your claim.
Saying the smoke altered the results is just a bit of hot air.
Furthermore you do realize that the pollen from Palestine theory has been widely discredited. Other studies and examinations have not been able to identify the pollen species with certainty.
One major study that examined the cloth has also concluded that the shroud's body image had been painted with a dilute pigment of red iron oxide. So yes there are paint pigment on the shroud.
It is an interesting historically significant object, but sadly it is not the shroud of Jesus. But that doesn't matter as a fake cloth should in no way diminish the message of Jesus or the believe in Christianity for people.
There have been successful attempts to reproduce it.

You can see the entire discussion here: Quora

carbon-14 found on the weave may have been significantly affected by the weather, the conservation methods employed throughout the centuries, as well as the volatile carbon generated by the fire that damaged the shroud while in Savoy custody at Chambéry. As well as other similar theories including that candle smoke (rich in carbon dioxide) and the volatile carbon molecules produced during the two fires may have altered the carbon content of the cloth.

None of the researchers alleged that C14 testing was not viable in testing the Shroud. However, if a radiation event caused the creation of the image, it is possible the C14 level of the Carbon in the Shroud could be affected. That is an unknown.
This claim is a red herring falsification of the actual proof the 1988 carbon 14 testing was disproved. Those who have falsified the 1988 C14 testing scientifically never challenged it on those grounds. What was alleged and proven by THREE different modalities in Peer-reviewed and duplicated papers was that the SAMPLE taken from the Shroud broke protocols by ignoring the agreed protocols—which requirement eight sample taken from eight different areas of the Shroud—which at the last moment took ONE sample from the one area of the Shroud that the original STURP scientists all agreed should be avoided for any C14 testing because it reacted both chemically and physically different than all other portions of the Shroud. Error 1.
What WAS alleged and PROVED was that poorly considered Shroud Sample was a rewoven combination of more modern 16th Century dyed COTTON and original possible first Century pure FLAX LINEN fibers, which varied in mixture between the five subsamples of between ~40% Flax Linen to ~60% dyed Cotton to between ~60% Flax Linen to 40% dyed Cotton, depending on how close the subsample was to the selvage edge that particular subsample originally was located on the body of the Shroud before it was cut from the Sample and before the Sample was cut from the Shroud.
Dr. Harry Gove, the inventor of the C14 method used to date small samples as used in the Shroud tests, when presented with these percentages of the known approxmately patching date when the cotton was applied in the French Invisible Reweaving Technique, was asked the potential date for what the date would be for the unknown Flax Linen carbon source would have to be to skew to the dates returned for the various mixes as the known diagonal border seen on the retained fifth subsample. Dr. Gove put those criteria into his calculator and he came to the conclusion that the original non-Cotton material had to have been dated to first century, plus or minus 100 years. He explained the amount of C14 in the newer contaminating material was skewing the date farther forward in time. Error 2
Statistically, not one of those subsample’s error ranges overlapped any other subsample’s error range. The sample’s within the main sample failed the Tau Squared test applied to ALL C-14 tests and should have raised a HUGE RED BANNER to any C14 tester, but they ignored it. This test is a test that shows if what is being testing is homogenous to what is intended to be tested. Yet, every single subsample was SO FAR OUT OF PASSING THE TAU SQUARE TEST they could NOT be said to be at all the same thing as the subsample that was right next to each other. That alone falsified the entire C14 test. Statisticians were crying foul within months based on that alone once they saw the raw data. The labs kept that data hidden for years and it required a law suit under Freedom of Information to get it released. That implies the people involved, including Ramsey knew they had a huge problem with their testing. Error 3
This was material that had been ADDED to the body of this portion of the shroud intentionally, and not environmentally added such as Carbon Monoxide, dust, insect dung (from insects eating some of the Flax which actually would have shared the same Carbon dating from when the Flax was grown and made little difference in dating), or other environmental contamination. The fact is that to skew the date enough into the 14th Century as the test seemed to show, the amount of contamination required would be approximately 50% to 60% to remaining original first century material… and that would be obvious under a light microscopic examination, and that was not seen, much less observed under the electron microscopic examination and electron spectrographic work done by STURP in 1978. Ergo, that much contamination could simply not be there. But Ramsey set himself up with a red herring, strawman in 2005 to deny the findings of very QUALIFIED scientists who were not alleging those things at all in their actual falsifications of the C14 test of 1988. He shot down things NOT alleged and claimed victory to protect his 1988 work. Error 4
Three different scientists (working from memory here) Pyrology Chemist Ray N. Rogers setting out to prove the fiber Reweaving theory wrong, found to his surprise working with sample threads taken from the extant fifth subsample, that that theory was correct when he found dyed cotton threads rewoven into the flax linen, and chemically tested the cotton, finding it was retted, alizarin dyed to match the naturally aged Linen, and cotton threads skillfully re-twisted into the extant threads of the Flax Linen. Every test showed there was an admixture of older and newer material, showing completely differing qualities which accounted for why the STURP scientists recommended avoiding that corner for further testing. Brown et al working with other threads taken from the same area had similar results when a thread bifurcated into two different threads, one, a Linen thread had a Z twist, and the other a Cotton thread, identified as a alizarin dyed, retted French Cotton, had an S twist and had been inter-wisted into the Linen thread. Microphotographs of the Main sample, taken by the Arizona Lab before it was destroyed in testing shows a distinct bifurcation line where the two different threads intermix. Error 5
” These tests show no significant reaction – even though the sensitivity of the measurements is sufficient to detect contamination that would offset the age by less than a single year.”
This is factually untrue. If we were to take the results of each of the subsamples tests by them selves, the results span a time period from 1140AD to 1390AD with not a single one of those subsample’s error bars overlapping any of the other subsample’s error bars. That is an impossibility (the Tau squared test) for an item that is supposed to be homogenous. To claim it would not skew the date by even one year is a complete lie, because the sampling data skews itself until the Oxford Lab, Ramsey, averaged the results. That is an impermissible thing to do with these data. Error 6
” Furthermore you do realize that the pollen from Palestine theory has been widely discredited. Other studies and examinations have not been able to identify the pollen species with certainty.”
Here we have another false claim. The identification of the pollen was done by one of the world’s top experts on Panynology… and done at the Source in Israel, Dr. Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany, Department of Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The claim it was discredited comes from non-Palynologists who have no expertise, mostly by a guy with a degree in Geology. I’ll go with the scientific publish papers over the popular press stories written by a dilettante skeptic. Error 7
” One major study that examined the cloth has also concluded that the shroud's body image had been painted with a dilute pigment of red iron oxide. So yes there are paint pigment on the shroud.”
Walter C. McCrone, a visible light microscopist is notorious for his claims back in 1979 for that claim. McCrone never examined the cloth. He had some microscopic slides and sticky tapes borrowed from STURP which he had to be sued to retrieve as he claimed they were “now his” in violation of his agreement. He refused to allow his work to be peer-reviewed and published his findings in his own publication, “The Microscopist,” of which he was publisher and editor. He also believed that everything could be done with a light microscope and even refused to allow his OWN in house electron microscopists to check his conclusions.
However, his claim is the ONLY one who made that unsupported and unduplicated claim that was not supported by numerous other claims that found NO pigments on the shroud that rose to the level of visibility, and NO red ocher (the red iron Oxide), vermillion, and no egg albumin that McCrone claimed to have found in his 300 power microscope. At one point, McCrone claimed he had identified that the grind used in the Red Ochre was a specific type, but that fine grind had only been developed in the early 19th Century. McCrone ignored the work of ELECTRON Microscopists and Electron-microspectroscopy which is so accurate it could analyze the components of the vinyl baggies samples were placed in to the point the analysts could determine the specific manufacturers of those baggies. Those tests found NO pigments, no red ocher, no vermillion, egg albumin (McCrone claimed he could tell the exact dilution of the paint used!), and McCrone has been thoroughly debunked in all of the research applied to the Shroud in the past 55 years since he made his claims. McCrone was a laughing stock among Shroud researchers because he allowed his atheistic viewpoint to blind his scientific conclusions.
We now know WHAT the image is composed of, and it is not any kind of paint, dye, or other applied pigment made by man. It is not a photograph. The image exists in a layer of the starch 100 times thinner than a human hair on top of the surface only of the Linen fibers and does not penetrate into the body of the linen fibers at all. It is made up of aged starch fractions that has apparently aged more than the linen around it. Why? We have no idea. There are no DUSTINGS, no red ocher dusts, no dyes, no photo fixings, no chemical residues different from any other linen fibers… just the starch is aged more. Error 8
To see what REAL science about the Shroud looks like, take a look at this overview is like from Shroud.com, a site run by a practicing Jew.
An overview of current research on the Shroud as of 2004, by Ray N. Rogers

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.