The Shroud of Turin and the Facts

Here are some of the basic points shroud doubters have to answer.

Source: Dianelos Georgoudis, CC BY-SA 3.0
Source: Dianelos Georgoudis, CC BY-SA 3.0 (photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Some time ago a mainstream media outlet reported on the Shroud of Turin and said, “Pope Francis prayed Sunday before the Shroud of Turin, a strip of cloth that some believe was used for the burial of Jesus Christ. The shroud appears to bear the image of a man who resembles paintings of Christ.”

“A strip of cloth…”?

It’s that last line, “The shroud appears to bear the image of a man who resembles paintings of Christ.” Not only is it badly written but it reveals that the writer knows next to nothing about the shroud itself—which is one of the most extensively researched relics of Christianity.

I’ve written here about the shroud.

Here are some of the basic points shroud doubters have to answer:

 The image of the man on the cloth. The image is not a stain. It is not painted on the shroud. It is not burned on in a conventional manner. Instead it is an image seared on to the cloth with some technology that has yet to be explained. Not only can they not reproduce the image using medieval technologies, they can’t reproduce it with modern technology.




The historical accuracy to crucifixion. The wounds are all consistent not only with Roman crucifixion, but the details of Jesus’ particular crucifixion like the crown of thorns, no broken bones the scourging and the wound in the side.

Geographical accuracy. Pollen from the shroud is not only from the Jerusalem area, but from Turkey and the other places the shroud is supposed to have resided, dust from the area on the shroud by the knees and feet is from the area of Jerusalem

The accuracy to Jewish burial customs. The shroud shows details perfectly consistent with first century Jewish burial customs. There are even microscopic traces of the flower that would have been used in the burial flowers that grew locally and were known to be used for burial.

The blood and the image. The blood was on the shroud first. The image happened later. If it was painted (there is not evidence of paint anywhere) the two would be part of the same faked image

The type of cloth. The cloth is consistent with fabrics from first century Israel, but not with medieval Europe. A forger would have had to not only forge the image in some as yet undiscovered way, but would have had to have detailed knowledge of linen weaves of the first century and then not only reproduce it, but age it convincingly.

The age of the cloth. The 1987 carbon-14 tests are now believed to have been taken from an area of the cloth that was not simply patched in the middle ages but patched with a difficult to detect interweaving and the carbon-14 tests were therefore compromised. The latest technology and testing suggests a date for the shroud between 200 BC and AD 200. Go here for news of Professor Fanti’s test in 2013.

The only piece of evidence from the shroud which doesn’t match up is the 1987 carbon-14 testing. When considering evidence and you have nine items which fit with the known facts and fit with each other, but you have one piece of evidence which does not fit, it is common sense to challenge that one piece of evidence and reject it or try again to see why it doesn’t fit. This is what Fanti’s research has done and proven that the 1987 tests were faulty.

Atheists often ask for evidence for the existence of God. I think the Shroud of Turin is the most convincing evidence available if they want scientific, archeological, historical, physical proof.

Why? Because an atheist must insist on the natural world being a closed system. Miracles are not allowed. Not even one miracle is allowed.

Because if there is a miracle, then there is an intelligent being outside and beyond the closed natural system.

So if it can be shown that one miracle has occurred, then God must exist, and the most astounding miracle would be the resurrection of a dead person and the only person that happened to was Jesus Christ, and the evidence from the shroud is increasingly intriguing and points to exactly that.

Of course doubters exist and the debate continues. That’s all healthy, well and good, but the more closely you look at the shroud the more difficult it becomes to question its authenticity.


India Needs Our Help
