The Shroud of Turin depicts a man with similar wounds to Jesus as described in the Bible (and it’s extremely fortunate for public display that he happens to be modestly covering his wee-wee).
But does the Shroud as a burial cloth really match the description given in the Bible?
(John 20:6-7 NRSV) Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen *wrappings* lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.
The Shroud of Turin is one linen that depicts a whole man, back and front sides, head to toes, but this Bible verse sounds a bit like Jesus had multiple burial wrappings including a separate cloth covering his head?
The Shroud of Turin is just one of forty different reputed burial cloths of Jesus, although it’s the only one to depict his whole body.
Contrary to assertions that the image on the Shroud could not have been created by people in medieval times, there have been different methods developed from experiments that produce images that look very similar to the Shroud using substances and techniques that would have been available to a medieval forgerer.
The weave of the cloth has also been determined to be a middle age weave.
In 1988 three teams of scientists received samples cut from an extreme corner of the Shroud linen for Radio Carbon-14 dating and all three gave a range of dates that placed the Shroud’s composition at the time it historically first appeared in the 14th century. As controls they dated various mummy wrappings from around the time of Jesus with known dates.
Immediately the criticisms of the carbon dating started. Some claimed that the area dated was contaminated by a fire that caused damage to the Shroud, but this was disputed by a member of the carbon dating team.
Later it was claimed that the Shroud was contaminated by bacterial growth that caused the dating to be thrown off by 1000 years, but it’s been determined that the amount of contamination needed to throw the dating off by that amount would take twice the debris by weight as the linen itself.
Also Ray Rogers, a member of the STURP team who rigorously examined the Shroud in the 70s disputes that there was any significant bacterial accumulation on the Shroud:
“We tested for surface contaminants with UV, IR, and visible reflectance spectroscopy; direct microscopy; soft-x-ray transmission photography; x-ray fluorescence; photography by UV, visible, and transmitted illumination; and direct superficial sampling with specially-prepared, pure-hydrocarbon tape”
Recently, after restoring the Shroud because of a fire in 1997, it’s been suggested that the 1988 cabon dating teams were accidently given a repair patch instead of genuine Shroud linen thus supposedly invaliding the middle age date found by the teams. This is almost certainly incorrect (I dealt with this in detail in Part I). Again, all requests for samples from the “real linen” have been rejected so far.
In summary, the Shroud of Turin was almost certainly a middle age forgery. The linen was a middle age weave which was carbon 14 dated to the time it first appears in the 14th century. The Shroud is one of some forty different burial cloths over the ages purported to be that of Jesus. Most likely it was created shortly before the time it first appears in the middle ages, a time when fake relics were rampant in Europe.
There is (at least) one important point that is not addressed in the article. Suppose the shroud is really from the first century (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary). What would that prove? The answer is nothing. It would not prove that the shroud belonged to Jesus. It would not prove that Jesus existed, or anything about him if he did exist.
As the article shows, the evidence points pretty clearly at a forgery from the middle ages, but even if the shroud is older, so what?
Good point about if it dated back to the first century not proving anything.
As far as religion being about faith instead of proof, that’s a good point also. I guess it would depend on one’s veiwpoint as to whether that’s a good thing or not. I personally think that accurate data gathering and emotional-less reasoning are infinitely more reliable than faith.
Artists typically make the mistake of drawing the eyes of a face higher than they are. The eyes of the Shroud of Turin are anatomically incorrect. Even someone educated in Anatomy might miss that point because we tend to focus on a person’s eyes, but they are indeed anatomically incorrect.
The shroud of turin is one of many cloths claimed to be the shroud of Jesus. It was discovered by a crusader who never explained how he acquired it during a time in European history when the selling of fake relics was rampant. It was carbon dated to the time period in which it historicaly appeared. It is a false statement to say that no one has been able to reproduce the image using the technology available during that time period. It has been reproduced using the technology that was available during that time period. There are many facts that discredit the shroud but I just don’t feel like listing them.
There are many things that discredit the shroud from what I gather. It is by no means my chosen specialist subject but I am very sceptical to say the least.