Shroud of Turin: Could Ancient Earthquake Explain Face of Jesus?

"Shroud of Turin: Could Ancient Earthquake Explain Face of Jesus?," Megan Gannon, LiveScience, February 11, 2014. ... My comments are in bold. This LiveScience article has the earliest date

Above: "Full-length negative photograph of the Shroud of Turin": LiveScience]

and so appears to be the original source. See also (in alphabetic order): Daily Mail, The Independent, The Telegraph, USA Today, etc.

The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has been in question for centuries and scientific investigations over the last few decades have only seemed to muddle the debate. Is the revered cloth a miracle or an elaborate hoax? This makes an important point. After the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud which claimed it was "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" it seemed all over for the Shroud's authenticity. The then Director of the Oxford radiocarbon laboratory, the late Prof. Edward Hall, likened those who continued arguing for the authenticity of the Shroud to "the Flat Earth Society":

"Some people may continue to fight for the authenticity of the shroud, like the Flat Earth Society, but this settles it all as far as we are concerned." ("Obituary: Professor Edward Hall," Robert Hedges and Michael Tite, The Independent, 16 August 2001),

But ever since then (as this article indicates) that 13th/14th century radiocarbon date of the Shroud has steadily unravelled. Shroud pro-authenticists kept finding evidence which undermined (to put it mildly) that 1325 +/- 65 years date of the Shroud. To give only one example, the Hungarian Pray Codex

[Right (click to enlarge): "Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 13 January 2014]

(1192-95) is dated 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud, yet it shows a number of unique features on the Shroud (see my "The Pray Manuscript") which can only mean the 12th century artist who painted (or inked) the Pray Codex had the Shroud as his model.

So the boot is now well and truly on the other foot. These days the Flat Earth Society's counterparts are those who, in the face of an ever increasing mountain of evidence, continue to argue that the Shroud is not the burial sheet of Jesus Christ!

Now, a study claims neutron emissions from an ancient earthquake that rocked Jerusalem could have created the iconic image, as well as messed up the radiocarbon levels that later suggested the shroud was a medieval forgery. But other scientists say this newly proposed premise leaves some major questions unanswered. This is presumably based on a 2012 paper where yet another (see my previous post) group of of Philosophical Naturalist (`nature is all there is-there is no supernatural') scientists who think they are theologians (or rather anti-theologians), seek to debunk the Bible, in this instance, "the earthquake reported in the Gospel of Matthew" as "a type of allegory": "An early first-century earthquake in the Dead Sea," Jefferson B. Williams, Markus J. Schwab & A. Brauer, International Geology Review, Vol. 54, No. 10, 2012, pp.1219-1228:

Abstract: This article examines a report in the 27th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament that an earthquake was felt in Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. We have tabulated a varved chronology from a core from Ein Gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea between deformed sediments due to a widespread earthquake in 31 BC and deformed sediments due to an early first-century earthquake. The early first-century seismic event has been tentatively assigned a date of 31 AD with an accuracy of ±5 years. Plausible candidates include the earthquake reported in the Gospel of Matthew, an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 AD that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments at Ein Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record. If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory.

Mt 27:50-54 mentions an "earthquake" which split rocks and opened some tombs around Jerusalem, immediately after Jesus died on the cross:

50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. 51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

But that this was not a major earthquake is evident in that it is only called an "earthquake" [Greek seismon], compared to the angel rolling away the stone of Jesus' tomb which Mt 28:20 describes as a "great earthquake" [seismon megas]. And the parallel passages in Mk 15:38 and Lk 23:45 mention only the tearing of the temple curtain in two, not the earthquake. Also during this earthquake the people are still standing around watching (Mt 27:55; Mk 15:40; Lk 23:49) and, there is no mention of buildings being damaged.

The Shroud of Turin, which bears a faint image of a man's face and torso, is said to be the fabric that covered Jesus' body after his crucifixion in A.D. 33. Though the Catholic Church doesn't have an official position on the cloth, the relic is visited by tens of thousands of worshippers at the Turin Cathedral in Italy each year. I repeat my criticism that "the Catholic Church doesn't have an official position on the cloth" is duplicitous (i.e. two-faced), in that the Church, to its credit, clearly believes the Shroud is authentic, and has spent the equivalent of millions of dollars in safekeeping the Shroud and exhibiting it. I am not anti-Catholic in this - I am pro-truth.

Carbon and quakes. Radiocarbon dating tests conducted at three different labs in the 1980s indicated the cloth was less than 800 years old, produced in the Middle Ages, between approximately A.D. 1260 and 1390. The first records of the shroud begin to appear in medieval sources around the same time, which skeptics don't think is a coincidence. See above on the Pray Manuscript alone being proof beyond reasonable doubt that the "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date is wrong. And I too "don't think [it] is a coincidence." That the Shroud is first century (as the overwhelming weight of evidence points to) but the radiocarbon dates' midpoint, 1325 +/- 65, `just happens' to be 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in the undisputed historical record in Lirey, France in 1355, is simply too good to be true. Indeed, the co-inventor of the AMS method used to radiocarbon date the Shroud, Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), stated that the probability that the Shroud is actually first century but its radiocarbon date was 12th-13th century, would be "about one in a thousand trillion":

"The other question that has been asked is: if the statistical probability that the shroud dates between 1260 and 1390 is 95%, what is the probability that it could date to the first century? The answer is about one in a thousand trillion, i.e. vanishingly small." (Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," p.303).

So given that the Shroud is 1st century, the 13th/14th radiocarbon date of the Shroud is evidence of at least low-level scientific fraud, "making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are, or selecting just the `best' data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit," by the radiocarbon dating laboratories:

"The term `scientific fraud' is often assumed to mean the wholesale invention of data. But this is almost certainly the rarest kind of fabrication. Those who falsify scientific data probably start and succeed with the much lesser crime of improving upon existing results. Minor and seemingly trivial instances of data manipulation-such as making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are, or selecting just the `best' data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit the case-are probably far from unusual in science. But there is only a difference in degree between `cooking' the data and inventing a whole experiment out of thin air." (Broad, W.A. & Wade, N.J., 1982, "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science," p.20)

For this reason, agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow, who accepts the Shroud is authentic, but doesn't accept that Jesus rose from the dead, considers that scientific fraud in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to be a real possibility:

"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated, that genuine Shroud samples were deliberately swapped with cloth of a later date. ... Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible. Some, like Ian Wilson, refuse to contemplate such `unworthy' accusations. However, scientific fraud is by no means unknown, as the editors of science journals are well aware. ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve." (de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," p.170. My emphasis).

Those results were published in the journal Nature in 1989. But critics in favor of a much older date for the cloth have alleged that those researchers took a sample of fabric that was used to patch up the burial shroud in the medieval period, or that the fabric had been subjected to fires, contamination and other damaged that skewed the results. Again, I agree with de Wesselow that it is not the pro-authenticists', but the anti-authenticists' problem to determine what went wrong with the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud:

"Contamination, reweaving or fraud: three potential sources of error, any one of which could have caused the incorrect carbon dating of the Shroud. But can we legitimately reject the carbon-dating result without determining exactly what went wrong? Of course we can. Archaeologists routinely dismiss 'rogue' radiocarbon dates out of hand. The success of a carbon-dating result should never be declared unilaterally; it is always measured against other evidence. The 1988 test may therefore be declared null and void, even though, without further direct study of the Shroud, it is unlikely we will ever be able to say definitively what went wrong." (de Wesselow, 2012, p.171. My emphasis).

Except that my position is that since the Shroud is first century, and the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date of the Shroud is too good to be true, even if there was contamination and/or the laboratories dated a re-woven patch, there will inevitably have been an element of scientific fraud in at the very least, "selecting just the `best' data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit".

The new theory hinges on neutrons released by a devastating earthquake that hit Old Jerusalem around the same time that Jesus is believed to have died. While a neutron flux, converting nitrogen 14 and carbon 13 into carbon 14, as a byproduct of Jesus' resurrection, is a possible (even probable) contributory cause to the Shroud's linen having a younger radiocarbon age than its first century chronological age, there was NO "devastating earthquake that hit Old Jerusalem around the same time that Jesus is believed to have died." (see above).

All living things have the same ratio of stable carbon to radioactive carbon-14, but after death, the radioactive carbon decays in a predictable pattern over time. That's why scientists can look at the carbon-14 concentration in organic archaeological materials like fabrics, bones and wood to estimate age. Carbon-14 is typically created when neutrons from cosmic rays collide with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere (though it can be unleashed by manmade nuclear reactions, too).

The group of scientists, led by Alberto Carpinteri of the Politecnico di Torino in Italy, suspect high-frequency pressure waves generated in the Earth's crust during this earthquake could have produced significant neutron emissions. (They simulated this by crushing very brittle rock specimens under a press machine.) It was only a minor earthquake in Mt 27:50-54 (see above). And Joseph of Arimathea's new cave tomb in which Jesus was laid (Mt 27:59-60; Jn 19:41-42) would have been made of limestone, like the other cave tombs around Jerusalem (see "The Tomb of Christ from Archaeological Sources" by archaeologist Eugenia Nitowski), not "very brittle rock".

[Above: "The Garden Tomb," Jerusalem: Wikipedia, 24 January 2014].

These neutron emissions could have interacted directly with nitrogen atoms in the linen fibers, inducing chemical reactions that created the distinctive face image on the shroud, the scientists say. There are no nitrogen atoms in linen fibre. Linen is cellulose and cellulose's chemical formula is C₆H₁₀O₅. That's carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, only. The reactions also could have led to "a wrong radiocarbon dating," which would explain the results of the 1989 [sic] experiments, Carpinteri said in a statement. While these scientists no doubt mean well, in trying to find a reason for what went wrong with the 1988 (not "1989") radiocarbon dating tests (not experiments), they haven't done their Biblical homework.

Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical engineering at Padua University, published a book last year "Il Mistero della Sindone," translated as "The Mystery of the Shroud," (Rizzoli, 2013), arguing that his own analysis proves the shroud dates to Jesus' lifetime. In an email, Fanti said he is not sure if a neutron emission is the only possible source responsible for creating the body image. (His own theories include a corona discharge.) However, he wrote that he is "confident" the 1980s radiocarbon dating "furnished wrong results probably due to a neutron emission." This seems contradictory.

Shaky science? Even if it is theoretically possible for earthquake-generated neutrons to have caused this kind of reaction, the study doesn't address why this effect hasn't been seen elsewhere in the archaeological record, Gordon Cook, a professor of environmental geochemistry at the University of Glasgow, explained. "It would have to be a really local effect not to be measurable elsewhere," Cook told Live Science. "People have been measuring materials of that age for decades now and nobody has ever encountered this." I agree with Prof. Cook in this.

Christopher Ramsey, director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, had a similar issue with the findings. "One question that would need to be addressed is why the material here is affected, but other archaeological and geological material in the ground is not," Ramsey wrote in an email. "There are huge numbers of radiocarbon dates from the region for much older archaeological material, which certainly don't show this type of intense in-situ radiocarbon production (and they would be much more sensitive to any such effects)." Ramsey added that using radiocarbon dating to study objects from seismically active regions, such as regions like Japan, generally has not been problematic. And with Prof. Ramsey. It doesn't help the Shroud pro-authenticity cause to use such a weak explanation of the aberrant 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud that it has both the Bible and science against it.

It seems unlikely that the new study, published in the journal Meccanica, As with my previous post, who peer-reviews these Bible-science papers? Did they consult any Bible-believing theologians? will settle any of the long-standing disputes about how and when the cloth was made, which depend largely on faith. The boot is on the other foot. It is the Shroud anti-authenticist position which "which depend[s] largely on faith". The pro-authenticist position depends largely on evidence.

"If you want to believe in the Shroud of Turin, you believe in it," Cook said. Prof. Cook clearly knows nothing of the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity. Again, presumably under the influence of Naturalism (the belief that "nature is all there is-there is no supernatural"), which has so dominated science since the 19th century that scientists today are not even aware that they are believers in it: an unproven and unprovable philosophy. So Prof. Cook just assumes, wrongly, that the Shroud pro-authenticity position is mere belief!

Posted 14 February 2014. Updated 27 February 2025.

Off-topic: Archaeologists Carbon-Date Camel Bones, Discover Major Discrepancy In Bible Story?

Archaeologists Carbon-Date Camel Bones, Discover Major Discrepancy In Bible Story, The Huffington Post, February 8, 2014. My comments are in bold.

[Above: Approximately 4000 year-old (i.e. about the time of Abraham) rock art engraving of camels in Saudia Arabia:

"Among the hundreds of thousands of camel figures carved in rocks throughout the Arabian Peninsula, the ones at Jubbah are believed to be the oldest: At approximately 4000 years old, they date back to the beginning of the Bronze Age." (Peter Harrigan & Lars Bjurström, "Art rocks in Saudi Arabia," Past Horizons: Adventures in Archaeology, November 23, 2011. My emphasis).

Although the carving appears to depict hunting wild camels, rather than domesticating them, it would not be a major leap to domesticating camels. Indeed the article says:

"Professor Saad Abdul Aziz al-Rashid, Deputy Minister for Antiquities and Museums, calls it `a unique and very important find,' and points out that it can tell us much about the early domestication of animals."

and

"The abundant images of camels raise the intriguing possibility that the camel was first domesticated in northern Arabia, not southern, as is usually believed."]

Researchers Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef from Tel Aviv University have discovered what may be a discrepancy in the history laid out in the Bible. Using carbon-dating to determine the age of the oldest-known camel bones, the researchers determined that camels were first introduced to Israel around the 9th century BCE. This is fallacious. Just because the oldest camel bones that archaeologists have yet found in what today we call Israel (assuming the carbon-dating is correct) are 9th century BC, does not mean that camels were not in Israel before then. There could be camel bones before the 9th century BC in Israel that archaeologists have not yet found, or there could have been camel bones before the 9th century BC in Israel that have since been destroyed so archaeologists will never find them. Archaeology, like all historical sciences, can only work with what it finds, and it cannot legitimately pronounce as non-existent what it has not (yet) found. That is a version of the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance: "We haven't found it, therefore it did not exist"!

The Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament refers to camels as pack animals as early as the story of Abraham. Though there is no archaeological evidence of Abraham's life, many in the religious and scientific communities, including Chabad and the Associates For Biblical Research, cite the 20th century BCE as his time of birth. Abraham was a nomad who lived in tents (Gn 13:5,12,18; 18:6), so it would not be surprising if there is no direct archaeological evidence of his life. How many other nomadic 2000BC individuals has archaeology found? Probably none. That is a limitation of archaeology, not a limitation of the Bible. If the new evidence is correct, however, this suggests discrepancies between the Bible and human history as explained by science. This is not a real discrepancy between archaeology and the Bible, just an apparent discrepancy, based on a fallacious argument from ignorance.

And indeed it is a dishonest argument because it fails to mention rock art evidence in nearby Saudi Arabia (see map below), of camels in Abraham's time (see above).

[Above: Jubbah, Saudia Arabia: indicated by the red "A": Google maps.]

The researchers scoured ancient copper production sites in the Aravah Valley, where camel bones were only present in sites active in the last third of the 10 century and the 9th century BCE. Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef write in their report:

"[The camel bones] demonstrate a sudden appearance of camels at the site, following a major change in the organization of production in the entire region."

This suggests that camels were introduced to the region abruptly, perhaps by Egyptians along Mediterranean trade routes. Bible-believing scholars place Abraham in the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1550 BC), e.g. Hill, A.E. & Walton, J.H., 2000, "A Survey of the Old Testament," p.149. If the king Amraphel in Gn 14:1 is Hammurabi of Babylon (c. 1728-1686 BC), then Abraham was his contemporary (Finegan, J., 1964, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology," p.193).

Also, the Bible records that Abraham spent time in Egypt and specifically mentions that he brought camels out of Egypt (Gn 12:10-13:1). The Bible also indicates that after the time of the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob, camels fell out of use by the Israelites, presumably because they were not suited to Palestine's hilly terrain, and were ceremonially unclean:

"Abraham and Jacob had camels (Gen. 12:16; 30:43), and so had later nomads in the s. of Palestine (I Sam. 27:9; II Chron. 14:15). The Ishmaelites who bought Joseph also had camels (Gen. 37:25). The camel was not, however, so much at home in Palestine, which is a hilly country, as in the Arabian and the African deserts (Ex. 9:3; Judg. 6:5; I Kings 10:2; I Chron. 5:18-21). But it is still bred abundantly on the plains of Moab and in the s. of Judea. The milk was used (cf. Gen. 32:15), but the animal was ceremonially unclean (Lev. 11:4). From its hair a coarse cloth was woven, which was sometimes made into clothing (Matt. 3:4) and used for tents. The burden was borne on the hump (Isa. 30:6). When the camel is ridden, a saddle is commonly used, and sometimes a palanquin (cf. Gen. 31:34). The Arabs commonly deck their camels' necks with ornaments (cf. Judg. 8:21, 26)." (Gehman, H.S. & Davis, J.D., 1944, "The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible," p.86).

So there is no real contradiction between camels having been used in Israel in 2000-1500 BC, fell out of use, and were later reintroduced about "the last third of the 10th century BCE" (Sapir-Hen, L. & Ben-Yosef, E., "The Introduction of Domestic Camels to the Southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley," Tel Aviv, Vol. 40, 2013, pp.277–285), i.e. from ~970 BC, about the time of King David.

Dr. Robert Harris, an Associate Professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, says this shouldn't come as a shock to the theological community. “While these findings may have been published recently, those of us on the inside have known the essential facts for a generation now," Harris conveyed to HuffPost Religion through associates at JTS. "This is just one of many anachronisms in the Bible, but these do not detract from its sanctity, because it is a spiritual source, not a historical one.” This might be the modern Jewish position but it is not a consistent Christian position. The Christian New Testament states the entire Bible, Old and New Testament, was "breathed out by God":

2Tim 3:16: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

Jesus, who was God in human flesh (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20), taught that the Bible was God's word and therefore "cannot be broken" and is "truth" (Jn 10:35; 17:17). He castigated the Sadducees, the Jewish theological liberals of His day, as "...wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." (Mt 22:29; Mk 12:24). Jesus based arguments on single words in the Old Testament (Mt 22:32; Mk 12:26-27).

Biblical archaeology is understandably an imperfect science. Archaeologist William Dever explained in an interview with PBS several years ago:

"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean." This is false. The Bible writers (especially Luke who wrote the first history of Christianity, "The Acts of the Apostles") do purport to be writing objective history, giving names and dates (e.g. Lk 1:1-5; 2:1-2). The real problem is that Naturalism, the philosophy that "nature is all there is-there is no supernatural", so dominates the academic world that group-think:

"Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences." ("Groupthink," Wikipedia, 29 January 2014)

prevents the Christian, Biblical position from being heard in the secular schools and universities.

A prime example is the Shroud of Turin. The evidence is

[Above: The Face on the Shroud of Turin: Shroud Scope Enrie Negative Vertical.

"Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?; Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?" (Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," p.189).

Yes it is!]

overwhelming that the Shroud is the very burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of his crowned with thorns, crucified, speared in the side, dead, buried and resurrected, body! But the secular world, dominated by Naturalism, rejects it out of hand.

But far from being a problem for Christianity, this is a fulfillment of it. As I pointed out in a 2008 post, "Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline," on my now inactive, CreationEvolutionDesign blog, it is a prediction of both Jesus and the Apostle Paul that before Jesus returns to terminate history (Mt 16:27; 24:30; Acts 1:11; 1Th 1:10; 4:16; 2Th 1:10; Heb 9:28; Rev 1:7), Christianity will decline in a Great Apostasy:

Mt 24:10-12: "At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold ..."

Lk 18:8: "... However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

2Th 2:3: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [Jesus' Second Coming] shall not come, except there come a falling away [Gk. apostasia] first ...

So this attack on the Bible is part of that Great Apostasy, and is evidence that Jesus' Second Coming is very near! So far from being discouraged, we Bible-believing Christians should heed our Master's encouragement to:

"Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” (Lk 21:18)!

Posted: 9 February 2014. Updated: 21 December 2021.

The Shroud of Turin: 3.7. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were buried (1)

This belatedly is part 25, "3.7. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were buried (1)" of my series, "The Shroud of Turin." My previous post was part 24, "3.6. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were crucified." See part 1, the "Contents" page, for more information about this series.

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
3. THE BIBLE AND THE SHROUD
3.7 THE MAN ON THE SHROUD AND JESUS WERE BURIED (1)
© Stephen E. Jones

Introduction Both the man on the Shroud and Jesus were buried, individually, hastily, and in fine linen[1].

Both the man on the Shroud and Jesus were taken down from their cross Jesus died on the cross shortly after "the ninth

[Above: "The Deposition" [of Christ] Pray Manuscript, fol. 27v, National Széchényi Library of Budapest, Hungary[2]. The dark stain near the foot of the ladder is on the original)]

hour" (Mt 27:46,50; Mk 15:34,37; Lk 23:45-46), i.e. 3pm[3]. Only after the Roman soldier had found Jesus already dead and pierced His side with a spear did Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish ruling council[4], go to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate to request permission to take down Jesus' body from the cross and bury it (Jn 19:31-34,38)[5]. Pilate sent for the centurion in charge of the crucifixion and only when he arrived and confirmed to Pilate that Jesus was indeed dead did Pilate grant release of Jesus' body to Joseph (Mk 15:43-45)[6]. Joseph then purchased a linen shroud for Jesus' burial (Mk 15:46; Mt 27:59; Lk 23:53)[7]. Therefore the body of Jesus must have been hanging dead on the cross for at least two hours before it was taken down by Joseph of Arimathea[8] assisted by Nicodemus[9], another member of the Jewish ruling council[10] (Mt 27:57-59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:50-53; Jn 19:38-39)[11]. Having died a violent death and exposed in the hot sun, Jesus' body would have stiffened under rigor mortis[12] and have become fixed in the last position Jesus' body had been on the cross just before His death[13].

The body of the man on the Shroud is also in a state of rigor mortis[14]. His whole body is extremely rigid[15]. The rigor of the arms had been

[Right: Depiction of the the man on the Shroud's body, fixed by rigor mortis, as he was taken down from his cross[16].]

forcibly broken to cross them over his body[17]. His legs are fixed in the position they were when nailed to the cross, with his left foot (apparently right but actually left because the Shroud image is laterally inverted) crossed over the right , causing a bend in his left knee, which remained bent upward when his body was covered by the Shroud[18]. No medieval art has such realistic details[19].

The Shroud man's body is fixed in a slight forward lean which was only detected by three-dimensional computer analysis[20]. That there was no decline in the rigor mortis is evident by there being no flattening of the back and blurred or double imprints[21]. And since rigor mortis usually wears off between thirty and forty hours after death, this is evidence that the Shroud covered the man's body only between those times[22], as did Jesus' burial shroud cover His body for at most 36 hours[23].

As mentioned above, the man on the Shroud's left leg is bent, due to his left foot having been nailed over his right and it then remained fixed by rigor mortis in that crucifixion position[24].

[Left: The man on the Shroud's left leg appears to be shorter than his right[25].]

This presumably is the source of the 11th century Byzantine legend that Jesus actually had one leg shorter than the other and therefore was lame[26]. And also the source of the strange design of the Russian orthodox cross, which has a footrest angled with the left side higher than the right which fits Christ's perceived shorter left leg on the Shroud[27].

[Above: "The Adoration of the Cross," Second half of the 12th century, The Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia, Cat No. 14245[28]. Since this icon is dated from the "second half of the 12th century", i.e. 1150-1200, and if its strange inclined cross footrest is based on the Shroud, then this is further evidence that the "medieval ... AD 1260-1390"[29] radiocarbon date of the Shroud is wrong!]

As this form of the cross is universal among the Russians[30] it must date from the beginning of the national conversion to Christianity, when missionaries in 988 came from Constantinople[31]. But then the Shroud would have been in Constantinople in the tenth century[32]. Which agrees with Ian Wilson's Mandylion/Shroud theory that the Shroud arrived in Constantinople in 944[33] folded eight times[34] in the form of the Mandylion portrait[35].

Closely related to this is what is known as the "Byzantine curve" in

[Above: "Byzantine Crucifix of Pisa," ca. 1230[36]. Note that Christ's right leg (corresponding to the Shroud's left leg) is shorter than the other leg and His body is curved (the "Byzantine curve") to compensate.]

Christian iconography[37]. After the year 1000, a striking change occurred in the Byzantine painted depictions of Christ on the Cross[38]. Christ's two feet were nailed separately at the same level but his right leg is shorter than his left (based presumably on the Shroud but not realising the Shroud's image is laterally inverted) which meant that His body needed to curve to compensate[39]. This "Byzantine curve" became the established form of Eastern depictions of Christ at the beginning of the eleventh century and made its way also into the West and became the recognized form in Italy in the early mediaeval period[40]. As with the strange design of the Russian cross, so this strange belief that Jesus had to have a curved body on the Shroud because one foot was shorter than the other and the Romans would have crucified Jesus' feet at the same level[41], has its most likely common origin in the Shroud[42]. But then again that means the Shroud was known in the Byzantine world (the centre of which was Constantinople), in the year 1000, nearly three centuries before 1260, the earliest possible radiocarbon date of the Shroud[43]!

Problems for the forgery theory Since no medieval art depicts rigor mortis in Christ's dead body, this is yet another problem for the forgery theory to explain[§34]. It is most unlikely (to put it mildly) that a medieval forger could have encoded into the intensity levels of his composition information which accurately depicted the forward lean of a crucified body, fixed by rigor mortis, which could only be detected by three-dimensional computer analysis more than 600 years into the future![44, §35]. The forgery theory needs to have a better explanation of the Russian cross' strange inclined footrest, and the equally strange "Byzantine curve," both of which match the apparent shorter left leg of the man on the Shroud; or else explain how a forger created the Shroud at least three centuries before the earliest radiocarbon date of 1260[§36].

Conclusion Jesus' body, having died a violent death and then hung dead on the cross for at least two hours, would have been in state of rigor mortis when He was taken down from the cross and enfolded in his burial shroud. And the man on the Shroud was in state of rigor mortis when he was enfolded in his burial shroud, the Shroud of Turin:

"The scientific team [STURP] pathologist and other medical doctors determined that the man was crucified and was dead, with his body in a state of rigor mortis. The more the wounds were studied, the more it became obvious that this man's injuries were the same as the gospel reports of Jesus' crucifixion"[45].

This further adds to the mountain of evidence that the man on the Shroud is Jesus!

NOTES
1. Habermas, 1984, "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.158. [return]
2. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Horn, Z., transl., West, A., rev., Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, plate II. [return]
3. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.78. [return]
4. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.75. [return]
5. Bulst, 1957, p.79. [return]
6. Ibid. [return]
7. Bulst, 1957, p.79. [return]
8. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.46. [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.56. [return]
10. Antonacci, M., 2000, "The Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.119. [return]
11. Robinson, J.A.T., 1977, " The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.24. [return]
12. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.168. [return]
13. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, pp.112-113. [return]
14. Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.112. [return]
15. Hynek, R.W., 1951, "The True Likeness," Sheed & Ward: London, p.31. [return]
16. Ricci, G., 1978, "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1982, p.61. [return]
17. Bucklin, R., 1970, "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and the Law, January. [return]
18. Wuenschel, 1954, p.47. [return]
19. Ibid. [return]
20. Jackson, J.P., Jumper, E.J., Mottern, R.W. & Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "The Three Dimensional Image On Jesus' Burial Cloth," in Stevenson, 1977, p.92. [return]
21. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June. [return]
22. Hynek, 1951, p.31. [return]
23. Wuenschel, 1954, p.49. [return]
24. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.196. [return]
25. Latendresse, M., nd., "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical". [return]
26. Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.111. [return]
27. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.65. [return]
28. "Christian Art: Icons, Murals, Mosaics," The Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia, 19 January 2014. [return]
29. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615. [return]
30. Barnes, 1934, p.65. [return]
31. Barnes, 1934, pp.65-66. [return]
32. Barnes, 1934, p.65. [return]
33. Wilson, 1979, p.116. [return]
34. That is "doubled in four" [Greek tetradiplon]. "Doubled then doubled twice again (thus making 4 X 2 folds)" (Wilson, I., 1974, "The Shroud in history," The Tablet, 13th April, p.12. [return]
35. Wilson, 1979, p.120. [return]
36. "Byzantine Master of the Crucifix of Pisa," Wikipedia, 5 May 2013. [return]
37. Barnes, 1934, p.66. [return]
38. Barnes, 1934, pp.66-67. [return]
39. Barnes, 1934, p.67. [return]
40. Barnes, 1934, pp.67-68. [return]
41. Barnes, 1934, p.68. [return]
42. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.195. [return]
43. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.141. [return]
44. Jackson, et al, 1977, p.92. [return]
45. Habermas, 1984, p.158. [return]
§34, §35, §36. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]

---

Continued in part 26, "3.7. The man on the Shroud and Jesus were buried (2)"

Posted 5 February 2014. Updated 15 February 2026.

The case for fraud in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud #1: Introduction

Note. I have now realised that this topic is going to require a lot of research, which will distract me further from my series " The Shroud of Turin." So I am putting it on the backburner until I get to the topic in that series of the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, in "6. Science and the Shroud," which will be after I have covered "4. History of the Shroud" and "5. Art and the Shroud." That will enable me to then refer back to what Prof. Christopher Ramsey, Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit admitted was the "lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow":

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information. Christopher Ramsey (March 2008)" ("The Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Version 143 Issued 31/10/2013).

PS: Further to the above, see my series, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?": part 1, part 2, part 3, "Summary" and "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey."

---

Introduction This is part 1 of a planned 7 part series of posts (see below), setting out the case for fraud in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud, which claimed that:

"The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 ..."[1].

[Above: Prof. Edward Hall, Dr. Michael Tite and Dr. Robert Hedges, at a press conference on 13 October 1988 announcing that the Shroud of Turin had been radiocarbon dated to "1260-1390!"[2]

I had for a long time been thinking of posting on this topic, and was prompted to do so by reading recently what the agnostic Shroud pro-authenticist, art historian Thomas de Wesselow, wrote:

"The third possibility [why "the 1988 result ... conflicts with all the evidence that points to the Shroud having been in existence long before 1260"] is that a fraud was perpetrated ... Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible. ... However, scientific fraud is by no means unknown, as the editors of science journals are well aware ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years'[3] is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve" (my emphasis)[4].

Indeed it is the flip side of Oxford physicist Robert Hedges' `killer' argument, that "it beggars scientific credulity" for the Shroud to be actually first century but its radiocarbon date be "within 100 years of

[Above: A pilgrim's medallion made of lead, found in the mud of Paris' Seine River in 1855[5], and today held in Paris' Cluny Museum[6]. The medallion has front and back images, head to head, of the Shroud, being held by two clergymen, as well as the coats of arms of the first recorded owners of the Shroud, the 14th century French Knight Geoffrey I de Charny (left) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (right)[7]. It had probably been worn by a pilgrim to an exhibition of the Shroud at Geoffrey's church in Lirey, France in 1355, since he was killed in battle in 1356[8] and according to a memorandum by Bishop d'Arcis of nearby Troyes, Geoffrey was exhibiting the Shroud at Lirey, "thirty-four years or thereabouts" before 1389[9], in the time of his predecessor, Bishop Henri of Poitiers, who only arrived at Troyes in 1354[10].]

the first recorded history of the shroud" (in 1355-see above) as that would be "an amazing coincidence" requiring the neutron flux dose to have "been `fine-tuned' to better than one part in a hundred million":

"The processes suggested by Phillips were considered by the participating laboratories. However, for the reasons given below, the likelihood that they influenced the date in the way proposed is in my view so exceedingly remote that it beggars scientific credulity. ... Assuming a ... neutron flux, it is an amazing coincidence that the neutron dose should be so exactly appropriate to give the most likely date on historical grounds. ... To produce a date within 100 years of the first recorded history of the shroud implies that the dose has been `fine-tuned' to better than one part in a hundred million" (my emphasis)[11].

Or, as Professor Harry Gove, the co-inventor of the AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) radiocarbon dating method used to date the Shroud put it, the odd are "about one in a thousand trillion" against the Shroud having a radiocarbon date of "between 1260 and 1390" and "it dating back to the time of Jesus":

"According to Professor Harry Gove, prime inventor of the state-of-the-art accelerator mass spectrometry method that was used to carbon date the Shroud, the very same scientific criteria that provide a ninety-five per cent degree of probability in favour of the Shroud's manufacture between 1260 and 1390 also provide odds of 'about one in a thousand trillion' [12] against it dating back to the time of Jesus" (my emphasis)[13].

That is, if the Shroud is authentic, as the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence indicates that it is[14], then its linen must date from the first century, or earlier. But then for the Shroud's radiocarbon date to be AD 1260-1390, which `just happens' to be "within 100 years of the first recorded history of the shroud" would "beggar... scientific credulity" as it would be "an amazing coincidence" with odds of 'about one in a thousand trillion' against it"! But then it would then be far more likely (to put it mildly) that scientific fraud has occurred in the radiocarbon dating, to produce a date range, the midpoint of which, 1325 ± 65 years, `just happens' to be 30 years before "the first recorded history of the shroud" in 1355.

What do I mean by "fraud"? By "fraud" in this context I mean at least the definition of Broad and Wade (right), of "making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are, or selecting just the `best' data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit the case":

"The term `scientific fraud' is often assumed to mean the wholesale invention of data. But this is almost certainly the rarest kind of fabrication. Those who falsify scientific data probably start and succeed with the much lesser crime of improving upon existing results. Minor and seemingly trivial instances of data manipulation-such as making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are, or selecting just the `best' data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit the case-are probably far from unusual in science. But there is only a difference in degree between `cooking' the data and inventing a whole experiment out of thin air" (my emphasis)[15].

And the standard of scientific honesty that I expect of all scientists, including those involved in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, is that set by the late physics professor Richard P. Feynman (left):

"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, And how they worked-to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can-if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it ... the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another ... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist." (my emphasis)[16].

However, I cannot prove that there was scientific fraud in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, although I firmly believe that to be only viable explanation. All that I can do is to set out the evidence for: 1) what went wrong in that dating; 2) the anti-Christian bias and/or dishonesty of some of those involved in the dating; and 3) suggest various ways that scientific fraud could have occurred in that dating. And then leave it to the `men and women of the jury', my readers, to make up their own minds, based on that evidence.

My planned series of 7 posts on the topic, "The case for fraud in the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud," are: #1: "Introduction" (this post); #2: "Difficulties of radiocarbon dating"; #3: "Conflicts of the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud with other evidence"; #4: "What went wrong in the dating of the Shroud"; #5. "Bias and/or dishonesty of some involved in that dating"; #6: "Possible fraud scenarios in the dating of the Shroud"; and #7: "Conclusion" [return].

NOTES
1. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.7, pl.3b. [return]
3. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin,", p.1. [return]
4. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.168, 170. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.18-19. [return]
6. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.221. [return]
8. Wilson, 2010, p.222. [return]
9. Ibid. [return]
10. Wilson, 2010, p.220. [return]
11. Hedges, R.E.M., 1989, "Shroud Irradiated With Neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, p.594. [return]
12. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," p.303. [return]
13. Wilson, 1998, p.179. [return]
14. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.173. [return]
15. Broad, W.A. & Wade, N.J., 1982, "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science," Simon and Schuster: New York NY, p.20. [return]
16. Feynman, R.P., 1985, "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!," Unwin Paperbacks: London, Reprinted, 1990, pp.340-343. [return]

Posted: 9 January 2014. Updated: 21 August 2026.

2013 Favs: New Tests Date the Shroud from the Time of Christ

A Happy New Year to my readers!

2013 Favs: New Tests Date the Shroud from the Time of Christ, Patheos, December 30, 2013, Rebecca Hamilton. This blog post by Oklahoma State Representative Rebecca Hamilton (right) is about her favourite item of Shroud news in 2013, being the "tests [which] indicate that the Shroud of Turin was created somewhere between 300 BC and 400 AD." Ms Hamilton's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

She is evidently referring to the tests by University of Padua researchers led by Prof. Giulio Fanti, which paraphrasing the words of the 1989 Nature paper "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," provided conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is NOT mediaeval, but is dated "33 BC ±250 years":

The new tests carried out in the University of Padua labs were carried out by a number of university professors from various Italian universities and agree that the Shroud dates back to the period when Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem. Final results show that the Shroud fibres examined produced the following dates, all of which are 95% certain and centuries away from the medieval dating obtained with Carbon-14 testing in 1988: the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years. The book’s authors observed that the uncertainty of this date is less than the single uncertainties and the date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross, which historians claim occurred in 30 AD." ("New experiments on Shroud show it’s not medieval," Vatican Insider, 26 March, 2013, Andrea Tornielli)

See my posts, "New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval" and "New tests by Prof. Giulio Fanti show the Shroud of Turin could date from the time of Christ."

This started me thinking of posting my own Shroud highlights of 2013, but I decided that I could do no better than comment on Rep. Hamilton's post.

[Above (enlarge): The Face on the Shroud: Shroud University (no longer online). "Res ipsa loquitur" (L. "it speaks for itself")!]

Recent tests indicate that the Shroud of Turin was created somewhere between 300 BC and 400 AD. No. "300 BC ±400" is 700 BC-100 AD, "200 BC ±500" is 700 BC-300 AD and "400 AD ±400" is 0 BC-800 AD (I realise that there was no year 0 BC). That is a range of 700 BC - 800 AD.

This places its origin within the time of Christ. Indeed, the death of Christ between 30 and 33 AD is well within that range.

That does not mean that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ. The evidence already was overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial sheet of Jesus. The only remaining evidence against the authenticity of the Shroud was the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud which claimed that:

"The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval. ... AD 1260-1390" (Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615)

But that claim had been increasingly doubted, even by Professor Christopher Ramsey, Director of Oxford's radiocarbon dating laboratory, who was a signatory to that 1989 Nature radiocarbon dating paper, but who had since admitted:

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information." (Ramsey, C.B., "Shroud of Turin Version 77," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 23 March, 2008)

These three different scientific tests, added to the late Ray Rogers' tests in 2005 which found the Shroud doesn't have enough vanillin for a medieval linen cloth, are four nails in the coffin of the 1988-89 "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date:

"The most recent scientific study of the Turin shroud will not surprise anyone with even a passing interest in this mysterious bit of cloth. Retired chemist Raymond Rogers claims that the sample used for radiocarbon-dating studies in 1988 - which suggested that the shroud was a medieval forgery - is quite different from the rest of the relic. Rogers, who worked on explosives at the US Los Alamos National Laboratory, presents chemical arguments for the shroud being much older than those datings implied. It is, he says, between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. Let's call it somewhere around the middle of that range, which puts the age at about 2,000 years. Which can mean only one thing... But it would be unfair to imply that Rogers has steered his study towards a preconceived conclusion. He has a history of respectable work on the shroud dating back to 1978, when he became director of chemical research for the international Shroud of Turin Research Project." (Ball, P., 2005, "To know a veil," Nature news, 28 January).

Here is what Rogers wrote in Thermochimica Acta in 2004, which was published in 2005, about the Shroud being "between 1300- and 3000-years old" based on its vanillin content [see 01Dec07, 12Feb08, 27Mar13 & 02Apr13]:

"The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years." (Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Nos 1-2, 20 January, pp.189-194, 192)

If the Shroud was 1300 years old in 2004, its linen would date from ~AD 704. If it was 3000 years old in 2004, its linen would date from ~996BC. That is a range of ~996BC to ~AD 704, or ~146BC ± 850 years. Jesus' crucifixion was in AD 30, which was ~176 years after ~146BC, and the Shroud's flax would have been harvested and its linen woven before AD30.

Rogers claimed that the Shroud had been patched with younger cloth which had been dyed to make it look old:

"Rogers has pursued another objection. ... the suggestion that the carbon-dated fragment was taken from a patch repaired in the sixteenth century did not look promising. The shroud was indeed damaged by fire and patched up in 1532, but those patches, called the Holland cloth, are obvious. Rogers thought that he would be able to `disprove [the] theory in five minutes'. But he now says that there is something in it. Luigi Gonella, the Archbishop of Turin's scientific adviser, provided Rogers with a few threads from the piece cut for dating, which he compared with the samples he collected during the Shroud of Turin Research Project. The radiocarbon sample, but not other parts of the shroud, seems to have been dyed with madder, a colorant not widely used in Europe until after the Crusades, Rogers writes in Thermochimica Acta [Vol. 425, 2005, pp.189-194]. This suggested that the fabric could have been inserted during repair, after being dyed to match the original, older cloth. Well, maybe. Perhaps more compelling is that most of the shroud lacks vanillin, a breakdown product of the lignin in cotton fibres. There is vanillin in the Holland cloth, and in other medieval linen. Because it decomposes over time, this suggests that the main body of the cloth is considerably older than these patches. By calculating the rate of decay, Rogers arrives at his revised estimate of the shroud's age." (Ball, 2005.)

So we are back to the situation before the radiocarbon dating of 1988, when, as Classics Professor Robert Drews (who did not then, and presumably does not now, think the Shroud was authentic), wrote in 1984:

"In short, it is quite improbable that anyone, whether in the Middle Ages or in antiquity, whether a Christian or an opponent of Christianity, created the Shroud's image in order to simulate the image of Jesus' crucified body. Nor is there any statistical probability at all that the Shroud bears a nonintentional, or `natural,' image of a body other than Jesus' body. We must therefore conclude that, if the Shroud is indeed ancient, as it seems to be, it is very likely that the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus' body. Should a carbon test [or any other scientific dating test, let alone four-my interpolation] indicate that the Shroud itself dates from around the time of Jesus, the probability will be overwhelming that what we have on the Shroud is the vera imago of Jesus." (Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin," p.30).

But it does mean that it could be. I would put is a lot stronger than that: It is almost certain (as certain as any historical fact can be) that the Shroud of Turin is the very burial sheet of Jesus!

I am not a scientist, so I can’t evaluate the tests which have given us these dates. Rep. Hamilton sells herself short. I am not a working scientist but I do have a Bachelor of Science degree and am a relief high school teacher who teaches Science amongst other subjects, and I can assure her that an intelligent layperson, as she undoubtedly is, can evaluate what the scientists who did these tests, because: (a) it is not quantum physics; and b) they wrote their papers to be read by layperson and by other scientists who are not specialists in those respective fields, and hence are effectively laypersons.

I can’t read the original documents written by the scientists who performed the tests because they are in Italian. The report of Prof. Fanti's ENEA (National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development) group's tests can be translated into English using by Google Translate. See the instructions at "Translating the whole ENEA report into English with Google." I have done that, but it is not necessary since the Vatican Insider article mentioned above faithfully summarises in English the main points of Prof. Fanti's group's Italian ENEA report.

What I can do is tell you that I have read that the tests were performed on the same strands taken from the Shroud for the 1988 carbon dating tests that concluded the Shroud originated in the Middle Ages. Yes, Fanti et al.'s tests were done on linen strands which were part of the `reserve sample' kept back by Prof. Giovanni Riggi, who cut the sample from the Shroud which was then subdivided between the three radiocarbon dating laboratories, Oxford, Tucson and Zurich.

Scientists who performed the more recent tests which yielded the dates of origin for the Shroud that place it in the time of Christ say that the original samples were contaminated and that this is why they gave inaccurate results. The agnostic art historian Thomas de Wesselow (right), who believes the Shroud was Jesus' but does not believe in Jesus' resurrection, considers this to be a possibility:

"So, what could have gone wrong? ... Essentially, though, there are three possibilities. The first is that the Shroud sample given to the laboratories was contaminated in some way or chemically altered, so that the C-14 levels they detected were greater than they should have been. In the vast majority of cases, when carbon-dating tests yield suspect results, it is because some natural process has interfered with the regular ticking of the radiocarbon clock. The most obvious explanation for the dubious carbon-dating result is that some form of contamination was present or that the level of C-14 in the material was otherwise enhanced. As noted above, the measurement errors caused by such processes can be spectacular - in the range of thousands of years. There is evidence that tests on linen are particularly prone to distortion. In the late 1970s Dr Rosalie David of the Manchester Museum had samples from an Egyptian mummy carbon-dated at the British Museum, only [169] to find that the bandages were dated 800 to 1,000 years younger than the body. [Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," p.193] She didn't believe the mummy could have been re-wrapped, and she had received other anomalous results as well. In 1997 David coauthored an article (along with Harry Gove and others) in which new experiments conducted on ancient Egyptian ibis mummies were reported. It was found that 'there was a very significant discrepancy, an average of 550 years, between the dating of the mummy's linen wrappings and the mummy itself'. [Wilson, 1998, p.229] Two reasons have been suggested for the anomalous linen results: either that the porosity of the fibres makes them particularly susceptible to contamination, or that, because crop plants have a short life span, they reflect short-term fluctuations in the C-14 levels. The samples used in the 1988 test were cleaned using standard methods, but, as Gove remarks, 'One of the problems with small samples is that one never knew when the cleaning procedure was sufficient.' And he also makes the following point: 'All of the labs used the same cleaning technique, and if there's some kind of contaminant that was not taken care of, it would give the same answer to all three labs, and all three would be wrong.' [Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," pp.160, 291] Various suggestions have been made regarding potential sources of contamination. An early suggestion was that some form of C-14 enrichment took place in 1532, when the Shroud was scorched and burnt. [Kouznetsov, D., et al. 1996; but see Jull, A., et al., 1996] An alternative argument, popular in some quarters, is that the Resurrection was a radioactive event which converted some of the C-12 in the cloth into C- 14. [Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud," 2000, pp.159-64] Another theory is that developed by Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdes, a Texan microbiologist, who believes that the Shroud sample was covered with a `bioplastic coating', i.e. a transparent, natural varnish produced by bacteria and fungi. [(Garza-Valdes, L.A., 1998, "The DNA of God?," pp.2-3] Some of these theories are more plausible than others, but none has gained widespread acceptance, let alone been proven. Without access to the Shroud, it is difficult to see how any further progress can be made in this type of investigation." (de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," pp.168-169).

De Wesselow considers it to be also a possibility that the corner of the Shroud from which the radiocarbon sample was cut, had been invisibly repaired with younger cloth:

"The second possibility is that the cloth cut from the Shroud was not actually part of its original fabric but was a careful repair made during the late Middle Ages or Renaissance. This idea has been vigorously promoted by two amateur researchers, Sue Benford and Joe Marino. [Benford, S. & Marino, J., 2002, "Historical Support of a 16th Century Restoration in the Shroud C-14 Sample Area."; Benford, S. & Marino, J., 2005, "New Historical Evidence Explaining the `Invisible Patch' in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud."] The basic claim is that the relevant corner of the Shroud was repaired 'invisibly' using a technique known as 'French weaving', which even textile experts cannot necessarily detect by eye. ... the repair hypothesis has recently received a shot in the arm from Ray Rogers, whose meticulous investigation of various Shroud samples, published in Thermochimica Acta shortly before he died in 2005, lends it a measure of support. Studying threads obtained from both the Raes sample and the adjacent carbon- dating sample, Rogers found that they were coated in a gum containing alizarin and red lakes - in other words, a dye. None of the threads he examined from the main body of the Shroud shared this dye. `The presence of alizarin dye and red lakes in the Raes and radiocarbon samples indicates that the color has been manipulated,' he wrote. 'Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating implies that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material.' [Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, 425, p.192]. At the very least, Rogers's observations constitute evidence that the carbon-dating sample was taken from a suspect corner of the Shroud." (de Wesselow, 2012, pp.169-170).

De Wesselow even considers it a possibility (as I do) that the "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" date was the result of scientific fraud, especially since "AD 1260-1390" is 1325 +/- 65 years, which by "a remarkable coincidence ... tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut":

"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated, that genuine Shroud samples were deliberately swapped with cloth of a later date. Arguments to this effect have come from quarters as diverse as members of an ultra-conservative Catholic Counter-Reformation group, who think there was a Masonic plot to discredit the Shroud, and the 'heretical' German writers Holger Kersten and Elmar Gruber, who believe that the Catholic Church rigged the result, fearful that the Shroud might prove Jesus did not die on the cross. [Kersten, H. & Gruber, E.R., 1994, "The Jesus Conspiracy: The Turin Shroud and the Truth About the Resurrection"] Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible. Some, like Ian Wilson, refuse to contemplate such `unworthy' accusations. [Wilson, 1998, pp.8, 11, 186, 219] However, scientific fraud is by no means unknown, as the editors of science journals are well aware. ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' [McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin,", p.1] is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve." (de Wesselow, 2012, p.170).

Because as an art historian, de Wesselow points out that the claim the Shroud was made in the 14th century, is the equivalent of a claim that "the Shroud was deposited in medieval France by aliens"!:

"Given credence, the carbon-dating result effectively raises the Shroud to the status of a miracle, an object that defies, if not a law of nature, a law of culture. ... As far as I am aware, no one has yet argued that the Shroud was deposited in medieval France by aliens ... [but] ... There is no better explanation, though, for a fourteenth-century Shroud." (de Wesselow, 2012, pp.167-168).

They also say that the technology employed in these new tests yields more accurate results than that used in 1988. It wasn't that the AMS (Accelerator mass spectrometry) method used to radiocarbon date the Shroud is not accurate per se. The problem is that, as archaeologist William Meacham pointed out, two years before the 1988 tests, that "radiocarbon dating rests upon a number of assumptions which cannot be subjected to laboratory proof":

"Listening to the tapes of the recent symposium at Elizabethtown, I was struck again by nearly all the speakers' repeated references to the eventual C14 date as `scientific proof of the Shroud's age' or `proof of the disauthenticity of the Shroud if it is not First Century', etc. These statements are seriously in error. We must bear in mind that C14 will not prove or disprove the Shroud's authenticity or its true age, because radiocarbon dating rests upon a number of assumptions which cannot be subjected to laboratory proof-the most important assumption in this instance being that the carbon now present in the sample is indeed the carbon present at the time the sample died (i.e., the harvest of the flax used in making the linen). As a method of dating, C14 is usually accurate, but there are exceptions." (Meacham, W., 1986, "On Carbon Dating the Shroud," BSTS Newsletter, No. 14, September. Emphasis original).

Linen has been found to be particularly difficult to carbon-date because its underlying flax fibrils have an enormous total surface area and are porous, which means that younger carbon can over time become an integral part of the linen which no pretreatment can remove:

"In sum, it should be obvious to the non-specialist, as it is to most archaeologists and radiocarbon scientists, that possible contamination always represents an element of uncertainty which no amount of laboratory pretreatment or measurement can totally efface. ... The fact that significant discrepancies do often result from contamination in best sample materials from optimum archaeological conditions has major implications for C14 measurement of the Shroud. ... The main contamination possibility is that of carbon from organic materials deposited in the porous cellulose structure long after the Shroud was manufactured. One source would be mold, mildew or other fungal growths which are encouraged in linen by high humidity environments. Hydrocarbons could be deposited in the pore spaces and cell walls, gradually displacing the original cellulose of the linen as it degraded. With frequent handling, stretching, creasing, etc. the Shroud may have been more subject to hydrocarbon entrapment than would a buried specimen undergoing natural decay. Bacterial or insect residues and fine particles of carbonates could similarly become locked in the cellulose structure. Substances introduced by man over possibly 2000 years constitute another category of contaminants, and some of these may have interacted with the cellulose. Penetration of the pore spaces may have occurred and a water-soluble, carbon-bearing solute deposited therein. The bound water of hydration may have been penetrated by other substances; lipids and proteins may have been deposited among the fibrils; smoke may have left free carbon deposits within the pores...Whereas all radiocarbon laboratories advise against placing a paper label in contact with the sample for the few weeks in transit from field to lab, the Shroud has had a backing cloth for 450 years!" (Meacham, 1986).

After carefully evaluating the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, de Wesselow concludes (and I agree) that it "will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science" and "In the meantime, we can safely ignore it":

"The carbon dating of the Shroud will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science. It would make an excellent case study for any sociologist interested in exploring the ways in which science is affected by professional biases, prejudices and ambitions, not to mention religious (and irreligious) beliefs. And it should certainly serve as a warning to practitioners of any discipline tempted to - see their work as more important and 'fundamental' than any other. ... Carbon dating may still make a valuable contribution to sindonology, if the Catholic Church ever allows further tests, and if those tests are integrated into a full, interdisciplinary research programme, as Professor Ramsey recommends. In the meantime, we can safely ignore it and concentrate on more productive avenues of research." (de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," p.172)

If all this is true - and it has been published widely on various media - then it leaves us with the proposition that the Shroud is either genuine, or it is an extraordinary fake. Which is what I call, "The central dilemma of the Shroud", based on Walsh (1963):

"Only this much is certain: The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground." (Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," pp.xi-xii).

Which means that those who deny the Shroud is Jesus’ burial sheet, are (whether they realise it or not) committed to a version of the forgery theory. So as I proceed through my series, "The Shroud of Turin" I am collecting as I go along all the problems of the forgery theory, which I will post in section "9.Problems of the forgery theory." It will then be seen that the problems of the Shroud authenticity theory are nothing compared to the problems of the forgery theory.

The questions that come to mind are how someone of this era could have managed to fake something like the Shroud and why, since Christianity was a persecuted sect during much of the latter half of this time, would they do it? I don't follow the first part of Hamilton's question. Christianity was not "a persecuted sect" in the fourteenth century, and indeed had ceased to be persecuted from AD 313, when the Roman Emperor Constantine issued his Edict of Milan. But the last part of her question, "why would they do it"? has no satisfactory answer. Prof. Drews considers and rejects the theory that an opponent of Christianity would create the Shroud to mock Christianity:

"Could, then, the image have been created in late antiquity by a pagan, hostile to Christianity and not above desecrating Jesus' passion by making a grotesque facsimile of his burial shroud? This is a possibility (a graffito has survived that satirizes the crucifixion), although one remote enough that we need not long consider it. What purpose such an anti-Christian might have had is not easy to imagine. A reasonably perceptive pagan should have had the sense to foresee that the image would serve only to verify, for Christians, the entire tradition of Jesus' passion, burial, and resurrection." (Drews, 1984, pp.29-30)

Is the Shroud the burial cloth of Christ? Was the image on it created by the Resurrection? I don’t know and I don’t think anyone now living does. Rep. Hamilton asks two different questions but gives only one answer. To her first question, "Is the Shroud the burial cloth of Christ?" the evidence is so overwhelming that it is, that even agnostics like Prof. Yves Delage (1854-1920), Rodney Hoare (1927-1997) and Thomas de Wesselow found they had no alternative but to accept that it is.

To her second question, "Was the image on it created by the Resurrection?" I am persuaded by the evidence that that is the best explanation which fits all the facts (see my post, "John P. Jackson, `An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image' (1991)"). But there is disagreement among those who answered "yes" to the first question, about whether the answer is "yes" to the second question. Although probably the vast silent majority who believe the Shroud to be authentic believe that, as Wilson put it, the imprint of the man on the Shroud is "a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection" of Jesus:

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerializes, dissolved perhaps by the flash, while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection." (Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin,", p.251).

But as for whether anyone "knows" the answer to those two questions depends on Rep. Hamilton's definition of "know". Do we "know" (in an absolute sense) anything? Yet our Western legal systems have sent to prison (up to and including for the rest of their lives) and even executed, countless millions of accused individuals, on far less evidence than there is for the Shroud being authentic. I have been a member of a jury which found an accused person not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but none of us knew, in an absolute sense, whether or not he committed the crime for which he was charged. And we could have found him guilty if the evidence against him was stronger, but then we still would not have known, in an absolute sense, that he was guilty.

However, the Shroud definitely is a powerful witness to the ugliness and suffering of the Crucifixion. Agreed. But even Mel

[Above (enlarge): Jesus on the cross scene from "The Passion of the Christ"]

Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" only scratched the surface of Jesus' incredible suffering for our sins:

2Cor 5:21. "For He [God the Father] made Him [Jesus, God the Son] who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

as revealed on the Shroud.

Whether it received the imprint of the body of Our Lord at the moment of His resurrection, or it is just an incredible and utterly unique piece of art that was created by unknown means, the testimony it gives is still a compelling witness to Passion and death of Our Lord. Agreed in one sense. But as I wrote in my post, "Shroud of Turin News, October 2013:

"But if the Shroud is a deliberate fraud, then it would almost certainly be a work of Satan, and no Church that calls itself Christian should be promoting a deliberate fraud (much less a work of Satan)!"

So I for one do not believe that the Risen Lord Jesus, who sits at the Father's right hand and controls everything (Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62; Lk 22:69; Acts 2:33, 5:31;7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 10:12; 12:2; 1Pet 3:22) would allow such a convincing fake as the Shroud would then be, to exist.

So 2013 was a great year for the Shroud. I look forward to what the Lord has in store for us Shroud pro-authenticists in 2014?

Posted 2 January 2014. Updated 24 March 2026.