I’ll just go ahead and say it. I believe that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus. Further, I believe that the resurrection is the best explanation for the image left on the Shroud.
For those who may be unfamiliar with the Shroud of Turin, it is a large linen cloth that measures over 14’ long and almost 4’ wide. It bears the faint front and back image of a man, standing between 5’7” and 6’ tall, who shows the marks of being bound and severely tortured.
Three hundred sixty scourge marks can be found all over the body showing evidence of a tremendous whipping. There is a great deal of blood on the Shroud coming from numerous wounds on the body including puncture wounds on both hands and both feet along with a large wound in the chest. Researchers in 2017 identified substances like creatinine and ferritin in the blood, which are typically present in victims of severe trauma. Additionally, there are many small puncture wounds covering the head of the man.
Studying the Shroud of Turin
Because of its unique and provocative characteristics, the Shroud has become the most studied archaeological object in the history of the world. It has been the subject of countless books, documentaries, and over 170 peer-reviewed academic papers just since the 1980s. There is even an academic discipline, sindonology, which is solely dedicated to the scientific investigation of the Shroud.
Despite all this study, opinions on the Shroud remain stubbornly mixed even among academics. There are some who are convinced it is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, while the majority of academics have held the position that the Shroud is an admittedly mysterious medieval forgery. The Roman Catholic Church, for its part, does not have an official position on the authenticity of the Shroud. It is presently regarded as a sacred icon of the Church, but not a holy relic.
“Despite all this study, opinions on the Shroud remain stubbornly mixed even among academics.”
Reason for Skepticism #1: The Provenance of the Shroud of Turin
There are two stated reasons and one (mostly) unstated reason why many people doubt whether the Shroud is authentic. The first reason is the questionable provenance of the Shroud. Many have claimed that the Shroud of Turin seems to have popped into existence in the middle of the Fourteenth Century in France.
If true, this is a good reason to be skeptical, but many have challenged this assertion. For instance, Jean-Christian Petitfils, who has studied the Shroud for over 40 years, claims that the history of the Shroud can be traced as far back as the Fourth Century in the Mesopotamian city of Edessa.
Additionally, another ancient, blood-soaked cloth might help to establish an earlier date for the Shroud. The Sudarium is a much smaller cloth that can be confidently traced back to at least the Sixth Century, with some arguing for an even earlier date. It is thought that this was the head covering of Jesus, a cloth mentioned in John 20:6-7. The Sudarium does not contain an image, but it is covered in blood—the same type of blood found on the Shroud. It also contains some of the same pollen that is found on the Shroud which is unique to Palestine. Now, it would be a mistake to base an argument for the authenticity of the Shroud on another ancient cloth with its own questions about authenticity; however, the provenance of the Sudarium at least opens up the enticing possibility that we can trace a deeper history for the Shroud than the Middle Ages.
“The provenance of the Sudarium at least opens up the enticing possibility that we can trace a deeper history for the Shroud than the Middle Ages.”
Reason for Skepticism #2: Carbon-14 Testing of the Shroud of Turin
The main reason why many people question the authenticity of the Shroud is carbon-14 testing conducted in 1988. This testing on a small part of a corner of the Shroud found that the fabric dated back to a time between 1260 and 1390. Understandably, these results led many people to conclude the Shroud was nothing more than the ingenious creation of some medieval artisan. Case closed.
In recent years, however, the results of this carbon-14 testing have been called into question. Scholars have recently argued that the corner the sample was taken from was not a representative sample of the Shroud and likely contained contaminants that would render carbon-14 dating unreliable. Four recent research papers have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals agreeing the carbon dating was flawed and calling for a new carbon dating to be carried out.
Research published just a few years ago has provided even more reason to doubt the carbon-14 dating. In 2019, Italy’s Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council began research using advanced X-ray technology. This technology allows researchers to carefully measure the degradation of flax cellulose over time. Using this technique, the Shroud looks remarkably like other linen samples we can confidently date to the mid-First Century. Conversely, the Shroud’s degradation looks nothing like other linen samples from the Thirteenth Century.
Given these new findings, the age of the Shroud can no longer be considered well-established. The case is not closed after all.
“Given these new findings, the age of the Shroud can no longer be considered well-established.”
Reasons to Question the Forgery Hypothesis
There are plenty of other reasons to be suspicious of the conclusion that the Shroud is a medieval forgery:
1. The image’s mysterious origin
We still have no idea how the image was made. It is a photo-negative image that we know wasn’t painted or scorched. The image itself is very superficial, only 200-500 nanometers thick. This is about 1/16 the width of a human hair. Amazingly, researchers in the 1970s found the image is a three-dimensional representation of a man. In other words, the image was not made while the Shroud was flat on a table. It was made while draped over a man. It seems as if the image was made from a massive discharge of energy that radiated out from the body underneath.
Researcher Paolo Di Lazzaro has said, “We have shown that the most advanced technology available today is unable to replicate all the characteristics of the Shroud image.” If we can’t reproduce the image today, why would we assume that medieval artisans would possess the knowledge and technology to create this image? Regardless of whether you believe it is the burial shroud of Jesus; it is a mysterious artifact that some of our greatest scientific minds have had difficulty explaining.
2. Postmortem timing of the image
Studies have shown that the blood flow on the Shroud is postmortem leading to the conclusion that this was almost certainly the burial shroud of someone even if it wasn’t Jesus. The blood was also on the Shroud before the image. Wherever there is blood on the Shroud, there is no image underneath it. You would think that a forger would produce the image before adding blood to the image, but this is not what we find on the Shroud.
“You would think that a forger would produce the image before adding blood to the image, but this is not what we find on the Shroud.”
3. Unexpected details of the image
There are some details on the Shroud that you wouldn’t expect from a forgery. For instance, most artistic renderings of the crown of thorns look like a band of thorns, but the Shroud includes thorn puncture marks all over the top of the head indicating that the victim wore a helmet of thorns, not a band of thorns. As another example, artistic renderings usually show Jesus’ hands pierced through the palm. The man on the Shroud was pierced just under each wrist. Would a medieval forger have created an image that didn’t conform to the artistic renderings of Jesus’s crucifixion in his own day?
4. Geographical peculiarities on the Shroud
Researchers in the 1970s found pollen grains and floral patterns on the Shroud that call into question a European origin. Half of these pollen grains and floral patterns come from plants that are only found in the Middle East, but none come from plants that are exclusive to Europe. The same group of researchers analyzed particles of limestone adhering to the Shroud around the soles of the feet of the man. These particles have a chemical signature like limestone samples from ancient Jerusalem tombs. Does it make sense that a medieval forger from Europe would travel to Jerusalem to collect plant and soil samples? What would lead such a person to even consider that level of authenticity?
“Does it make sense that a medieval forger from Europe would travel to Jerusalem to collect plant and soil samples?”
Questioning Our Bias
I recognize that I haven’t answered conclusively that the Shroud is, in fact, the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, but I have hopefully shown that the typical reasons for skepticism are not quite as certain as many people assume. The debate will (and should) continue. I do want to address one more reason for skepticism that often remains unstated.
There is a kind of anti-Catholic bias among many Protestants that fuels a lot of skepticism regarding the Shroud. Catholic spirituality feels like alien territory to many of us Protestants with its relics and icons and its statues and saints. To many of us, it feels uncomfortably close to superstition at best and idolatry at worst. It’s easy to be cynical and put the Shroud of Turin into the same category as other con jobs aimed at the religiously gullible. I agree that some level of skepticism is justified, however, that skepticism shouldn’t keep us from honestly considering the evidence.
A Suggested Posture
I believe the proper Christian posture toward the Shroud is open-mindedness. We already affirm the miraculous truth of the physical resurrection of Jesus. Why would people who believe in the resurrection become cynically dismissive about the existence of a tangible remnant left over from that day?
Jesus rose from the dead at a certain time and at a certain place, and the empty tomb—along with his burial garments (John 20:6-7)—was witnessed by several of his followers. If you were Peter or John or one of the women standing at the opening of the empty tomb, and you saw Jesus’ bloodstained burial garments lying in the place where his body once was, what would you have done? Would you have sadly shook your head and left those garments behind as rubbish, or would you have carefully gathered those garments to take with you?
It is strange to me that John would have mentioned the garments if they had been left behind as an afterthought. It’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that his burial shroud was collected and kept.
“It is strange to me that John would have mentioned the garments if they had been left behind as an afterthought.”
Let me add one last thing. When I talk about the Shroud with students, one of the most common responses that I get is that our faith shouldn’t depend on the authenticity of the Shroud. Amen to that! My belief in the resurrection of Jesus, in His lordship, and in the preeminence of His kingdom is not grounded in the Shroud of Turin.
However, I also want to avoid a creeping fideism that I hear in that response. Fideism is the idea that faith and reason are fundamentally opposed. Strict fideism is opposed to any attempt to make rational defenses or arguments for faith. It is opposed to providing evidence as justification for faith. It holds that faith is about belief without evidence. I reject this understanding of faith. God created us as rational creatures and is honored by our use of reason. God created the physical world and ultimately took on flesh within that world in order to save it. And the resurrection is not an idea to be affirmed; it is a historical event to be acknowledged.
Because of this, evidence—whether it is scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator or the Shroud of Turin as potential evidence for the resurrection—should not be regarded as antagonistic to faith but as an encouragement in faith.
Are you convinced? I would love for you to let me know.
