By William Baker author of Proving God Proving Jesus available at Amazon.com.
We cannot prove with absolute certainty that the Shroud is genuine, but it helps to look at the arguments that have been raised against it to make up your mind regarding its authenticity. After years of studying the Shroud a group of scientists under a project named the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) issued in 1981 A Summary of STURP’s Conclusions (shroud.com) and is included in part below:
“No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultraviolet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood.”
“We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.”
In their own words the Shroud image is a “mystery.”
So the findings appear to confirm that a real crucified man is shown on the Shroud and it is not due to painting or any natural occurrence. Everything appeared to point to the Shroud being genuine until the 1988 carbon dating concluded it was a product of the Middle Ages (1260 – 1390).
The following points are intended to provide a summary of some of the arguments that have been raised against the Shroud.
- Carbon dating showing the Shroud is not ancient is now being questioned for several reasons. Carbon dating is considered by some to have at best a 70% rate of accuracy and the medieval date conflicted with all the archeological data. Typically, when this happens the carbon date is not accepted as accurate. Contamination has been offered as one explanation for the anomaly. Alternative dating methods show it can be dated to the 1st century. Also, if the Shroud’s radiation source includes neutron radiation it could have created C14 atoms that would make the Shroud appear younger than its age but new testing would need to be performed to validate this. In his book Test the Shroud Mark Antonacci discusses the potential of neutron radiation having an impact on the Shroud carbon dating.
- Some say the Shroud is inconsistent with scripture because it is a single piece of linen while scripture refers to linens and therefore, it must be a fake. Those raising this issue misunderstand the cloth. There is a strip of cloth that extends the full length of the linen that was torn off and then later sown back on. Some experts believe the strip was used to keep the linen in place around the body. After Jesus resurrection it was sown back on with a rare stitch similar to that found on a cloth at Masada dating to the first century. Also, the Jews used strips of linen around the head (to keep the jaw shut) and to bind the hands and feet. If they were used for Jesus burial they have been lost.
- Another reason given for charges of inconsistency with scripture is the Shroud conflicts with the wrappings of a mummy. In the case of Lazarus burial John 11:44 ESV states “…his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth.” Some interpret this as indicating Lazarus was wrapped like a mummy and therefore, the Shroud is inconsistent with Jewish burial customs used for Lazarus. This is an incorrect understanding of Jewish burial practices. Jews were not wrapped like mummies as evidenced by Jewish burials found at Qumran complete with hands covering the pelvic area and elbows extending outward from the body. See P. 46-49 of Verdict on the Shroud by Habermas and Stevenson for a more in-depth discussion.
- One more charge of inconsistency with scripture is because John 19:39-40 indicates a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing a hundred pounds was used and there is no evidence of it found on the Shroud. This is incorrect. Aloes and myrrh were found in the greatest concentration in the area of bloodstains and decreases in other areas. The lack of these substances in image areas has caused some to speculate that they may have been connected with the image formation process. See Shroud Spectrum International No. 13 Part 3
- All attempts at recreating the Shroud with paint or by some type of natural process have failed. Those trying to reproduce the Shroud always focus on a single element and all their efforts have failed in duplicating the multiple characteristics of the Shroud.
- The strongest argument for the genuineness of the Shroud is the totality of the evidence. A forger would have to have faked all the evidence for both the Shroud and the Sudarium since experts believe both clothes covered the same corpse. That is impossible!
- Some say we do not need to know how the Shroud was made because medieval people were very clever. This is a copout. Saying medieval artists could produce the Shroud while modern scientists with all our technology cannot is not believable and shows their bias.
- The lack of documented history and Biblical references to the Shroud has been stated as a cause for concern. Secrecy was required for the Shroud because throughout history the Shroud would many times have been destroyed if it had been found. There is also reason to believe Galatians 3:1 (“…before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified…”) may be a reference to the Shroud.
- Some believe that Christian relics are all fakes to deceive the gullible. It is true that most are fakes. What distinguishes the Shroud and Sudarium is the modern scientific analysis that they have been subjected to which shows they may truly be genuine.
- The Shroud should not be considered as suspect due to its control by the Catholic Church. Control was not passed to the Pope until 1983 when the last King of Italy Umberto II bequeathed it to the Papacy. The group of scientists (STURP) that examined the Shroud in 1978 were from many prestigious organizations in the United States.
- How do we know the man on the Shroud is Jesus? The man on the Shroud matches scripture perfectly and Jesus is the only crucifixion ever documented with the victim wearing a crown of thorns.
The Shroud is so obviously intended to be Jesus that no one really can question who it is intended to show. That means there are only two possibilities connected with the Shroud. It is either a forgery or genuine. Those that say it is not genuine must prove it as it relates to the totality of evidence connected with the Shroud and the Sudarium. If it is genuine than it was done by God with the intention to give proof to those lacking faith – like was the case with me. I had a right to know the evidence and make my own decision. Given that it may be Jesus on the Shroud the Church has a responsibility to share it and does not need to express an opinion. Let each of us decide for ourselves.