The Shroud of Turin:

Evidence against the Shroud’s Authenticity

Be sure to read The Shroud of Turin: A Brief Introduction; Shroud of Turin: Historical Documentation; Shroud of Turin: Facts that Compel Belief; and Shroud of Turin: Proving the Supernatural.

Evidence against the Shroud’s authenticity

The list of reasons why the Shroud should be considered genuine is long. Surely there must be compelling evidence on the other side. Let’s briefly examine the ones cited.

1988 carbon dating to 1260-1390

In 1988 a sample was cut from the Shroud and submitted to three laboratories (University of Oxford, ETH Zurich, and University of Arizona) for carbon dating. They concluded with 95% certainty that the Shroud dates between 1260 and 1390. Science had spoken and that should be the end of it. Edward Hall (now dead) was the head of the Oxford radiocarbon laboratory and in announcing the 1260-1390 range of dates said, “There was a multi-million pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it!” “The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses” (Critical Summary, page 94). Spoken like a true impartial scientist.

As it turned out, however, the carbon dating process was severely flawed, and it has been conclusively shown (except for the most ardent skeptics) that the 1988 carbon dating must be incorrect. The sample tested was taken from the corner of the cloth which over the years had been repaired, soiled and contaminated, and handled uncounted times. Additionally, and most damaging to the 1350 date, was the work and exhaustive research conducted by non-scientists Sue Benford and Joe Marino. They devoted untold hours of research and conclude that the part of the Shroud that was carbon dated had been repaired sometime in the Middle Ages by an invisible weaving technique called “French Weave” whereby new cotton threads are interwoven with the original threads.

In 2005 their work was confirmed. A peer reviewed scientific paper by Raymond N. Rogers, retired Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was published in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194. The paper is titled “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin.” The abstract summarizes the paper:

“Abstract

“In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.

“Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.”

When the idea of a French weave had first been proposed to Mr. Rogers, he had immediately thought this was the newest lunatic fringe theory to discredit the 1988 carbon dates. His analysis and research proved otherwise.

Then in 2013 Giulio Fanti of Padua University conducted a dating test using infra-red light and spectroscopy technology to measure the radiation intensity through wavelengths. From these measurements a date can be calculated. Fanti’s method dated fibers from the Shroud to 300 B.C. to A.D. 400. See Turin Shroud: the latest evidence will challenge the sceptics.

The 1988 carbon dating is no longer considered reliable. See Critical Summary, pages 91-98, for a detailed examination of the improper radiocarbon dating protocol. The Critical Summary authors are not sure about the validity of the French Weave argument and advance their own reasons as to why the 1260 – 1390 date must be wrong. What we do know with absolute certainty from the 1192 Hungarian Pray Manuscript (see Shroud of Turin: Historical Documentation – “Pre -1355 Historical Timeline”) and the Shroud’s features is that the carbon date, for whatever reason, is dead wrong.

No documented history prior to 1355

The facts don’t support this conclusion. We have the 1192 Hungarian Pray Manuscript image as well as the number of documented indirect references to the Shroud prior to 1350. See Shroud of Turin: Historical Documentation – “Pre-1355 historical timeline.” In view of the early persecution of Christians and iconoclasm for hundreds of years thereafter it’s not all that surprising there is no universally agreed early documentation.

1389 Bishop d’Arcis letter

In 1389 Bishop Pierre d’Arcis wrote to Pope Clement VII at Avignon that his predecessor Bishop Henri of Poiters had maintained that an artist confessed to having painted the cloth. This is irrefutable contemporary evidence that the shroud is a fake.

Here’s what the skeptics don’t tell you:

1.  Nobody is sure that D’Arcis sent this letter. It is an unsigned draft.

2.  D’Arcis gives no evidence of either an investigation or the alleged confession supposedly given to his predecessor 30 years earlier. The name of the forger is never disclosed.

3.  On its face, the D’Arcis letter clearly misstates the facts. It says that the shroud was ‘painted,’ but we know that is not the case. The image was transferred to the cloth through a means that no one can identify.

4.  D’Arci’s successor believed the Shroud to be genuine and permitted its open veneration. Bishop d’Arcis may well have been writing about a “cunningly painted” copy of the real relic.

5.  But here’s probably the real reason for d’Arci’s letter: The de Charney family owned the Shroud and were successfully challenging D’Arcis’ authority in the diocese. D’Arcis motivation may have been simply to undercut the authority of the de Charney’s. We will never know, but we do know that he was locked in a bitter feud and was ultimately censored by Clement VII.

The image improperly presents Christ

Critics improbably try to argue that the Shroud can’t possibly be the burial cloth of Jesus because the physical characteristics are inconsistent with what a real person who was entombed would look like. The arms are too long; the fingers are too long; the hair doesn’t lie properly; he’s too tall for a first century Jew, etc. etc. In other words, the representation on the shroud just doesn’t match the way it should be. Moreover, the resurrection as depicted on the cloth couldn’t possibly be correct.

What incredible arrogance! God doesn’t need to conform to our selective expectations. Just ask Adam and Eve – it doesn’t work that way. We can’t substitute our judgment of right and wrong for his, and it is the height of foolishness and arrogance for the creature to tell the Creator how he should present himself to us, and his proper physical characteristics and the resurrection protocol.

Concluding thoughts

As unlikely as it first appears, it is certain the radiocarbon testing results are incorrect. Almost certainly the sample (there was only one which was subsequently cut into three testing specimen) was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. Skeptics fixate onto the announced carbon testing results and refuse to give any credence to the possibility that it could be wrong and that all the other scientific evidence pointing to a much earlier date with a Mid-East origin. To do so would open up the real possibility that the Shroud of Turin is indeed a photograph of Jesus taken at the instant of his resurrection. To do so would inevitably lead to the uncomfortable conclusion (uncomfortable for them) that the resurrected Jesus is in fact the resurrected Son of God, and that they are relegated to the status of mere creatures.

As written earlier, Edward Hall was the head of the Oxford radiocarbon laboratory and with an apparent sense of real self-satisfaction annoounced the 1260-1390 range of dates by commenting, “There was a multi-million pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it!” Mr. Hall is now dead and I wonder if he is having second thoughts.

Some websites and references

Last modified July 25, 2019