The Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin is supposedly the burial cloth of the man Jesus Christ who was crucified by the Romans outside the walls of Jerusalem in approximately 30 AD. There are many reasons why this might be the actual cloth which I'll go into below, however, all speculation was stopped dead (except by a hardcore of believers) in 1988 when radio carbon dating showed that the cloth came from the medieval period sometime between 1260 and 1390.

The shroud depicts the faint outline (front and back) of a man who had been wrapped in it. In fact, it was only when a photograph was taken that the negative showed much more clearly the detail. And indeed the detail turns out to be fascinating. Examined by many experts over the years (medical and others), it can be positively stated that the portrayal is of a man who had been crucified, bore the marks of a heavy item across his back, spots of blood around the head indicating a crown of sharp spiked objects (such as a crown of thorns), the marks on the body of a severe lashing with a very nasty whip and last but not least, the clear mark of a wound created by a lance like object. Reading the gospel accounts this could only be the shroud of the man called Jesus or a forgery to try and fool others to believe this was the shroud of this man. And of course forgeries were a booming business in medieval times.

So, if it is a forgery, who could have done it and would he have the technical ability and knowledge during the middle ages to pull it off?

First of all, we haven’t a clue who might have forged it. Some say Leonardo da Vinci, but as he was born in 1452 and we know there are definite historical records of the shroud during the 14th century, he couldn’t have been involved.

Second, the knowledge is unlikely to have been available in the middle ages to portray the figure as it is. The shroud shows the nails were through the wrists and not the palms as depicted in many paintings through the centuries. While we know little or nothing about the Roman method of crucifixion, other than that it was a horrendous and cruel death (from reports by 1st century writers such as Philo and Josephus) twentieth century experiments show that a body could not have been supported if the nails had been placed on the palms. There are two blood flow directions from the wrists which indicate that the crucified man had to keep pushing himself upward to relieve the incredible pain of his arms and wrists only to allow himself to fall back down due to the pain in his feet. This and other incredibly precise detail would hardly have been known to a medieval forger.

Furthermore, how did the medieval forger actually carry out his work? There is no trace of pigment on the cloth itself, so it couldn’t have been painted. Some have suggested a very early form of photography was employed, but these techniques were quite unknown in the middle ages. Further, the forger would have to have known something about negatives as much of the detail only comes out in this format, so he would have been trying to create an effect which could only be seen hundreds of years after he forged it. An unlikely scenario I would imagine.

Before moving on to the radio carbon dating results, I should mention something which was discovered on the shroud some years before. During the 1970’s some sticky tape was applied to the surface of the shroud and taken away for analysis. To much surprise one of the many items discovered on these tapes was pollen. But more interestingly, some of this pollen originated from the Middle East. This particular band of pollen does not grow anywhere in Europe.


This radio carbon dating test was finally allowed to take place in 1988. One of the reasons it took so long for permission was because in order to carry it out, a section of cloth would have to be cut from the shroud and destroyed during the analysis. The section chosen was from the top left corner and a three inch by half inch piece was cut off. This was subsequently divided and a section was given to each of the three laboratories which were to carry out the testing, one in Arizona, one in Zurich and the last in Oxford. When at last the disappointing results came back, the cloth was dated between 1260 and 1390 as noted above.

So, the Shroud of Turin was a medieval forgery. Everybody could go home. End of story, or was it?

Of course, there are always those who refuse to accept the evidence and maybe that’s a good thing. While most people turned to other things, some refused to accept that this was the end for the Shroud of Turin.

One theory is that the cloth used for the radio carbon dating was taken from a section which was invisibly sowed onto it in order to tidy up burn marks from fire. We know that in 1532 a major fire broke out in the Sainte Chapelle in Chambery, France where the shroud was badly damaged. Molten silver from the casket where the shroud was housed seared through one corner of the folded cloth. Fortunately the main image on the shroud was hardly touched. In order to repair this damage, two years later Poor Clare nuns carried out some repairs stitching a strong backing cloth onto it and sewing patches over the worst of the burn marks. However, this scenario has been refuted fairly forcibly by textile experts who say that the section of shroud taken for analysis was of the same composition as the rest of it. This was backed up by Dr Flury-Lemberg who performed a major conservation job on the shroud in 2002 and who is one of the people who have the most hands-on experience of the shroud alive today.

However, there is now a lot of controversy over the radio carbon dating analysis itself. For example could the shroud have become contaminated sufficiently to make a 1st century item appear to be from the 14th century. Some scientists say that it would take something like 60% contamination for this to occur. Over the centuries the shroud was exhibited on numerous occasions and often with a lot of incense burning as it was reverently shown to the public. Besides this, there was a fire as mentioned above where smoke particles surely got mixed into the material of the cloth. And on top of all this, the shroud was handled by many bishops and clerics who typically showed it by holding it in their hands by the edges, particularly the corner from where the sample for radio carbon analysis was taken.

Another problem for the radio carbon testing was that the three laboratories chosen all used the same technique. It would have been better (as advised at the time) to have at least one other laboratory which used a different technique. The laboratories have also been accused of inadequate preparation of the samples (in order to minimise the effect of contamination).

Assuming new radio carbon dating shows the cloth to date from the first century, there are still a lot of questions to answer. For example, our first known records of the shroud being shown to the public come from 1355. Where was the shroud kept before that? Surely such a sacred relic could hardly have remained hidden for over a century? One intriguing answer to this is provided by the writer Ian Wilson who puts forward a somewhat convoluted argument that it is the same object as the Image of Edessa, a cloth with the likeness of Christ on it whose records do date from the 1st century but was lost around 1204.

Of course, I have to mention that for every positive theory mentioned above there are other scientists and experts who say entirely the opposite. For example, some say the anatomical aspects of the body are wrong, the nose is too long and the head is too big for the body. Also some say there is paint pigment on the cloth. Also John’s gospel points out that the shroud was not one piece, but included a part which was separately wrapped around the head (John 20:7). So what chance does the layman have when the so called experts refute each other. Whoever may be right I’m sure the truth will out one day. But is the truth not already staring us in the face after the radio carbon test? Well, that’s one big question which has raised it’s head once again.

And now with the Shroud available to view this month and next (April and May 2010) in Turin, maybe the time is ripe for another shot at radio carbon dating but this time with much more control in place than previously.

Even if the test does show that the shroud comes from the 1st century, it does not show that Jesus was the son of God or actually arose from the dead. It probably shows that it was the shroud of a man called Jesus Christ who was scourged, nailed to the cross, a crown of thorns rammed into his head and a lance thrust into his side. After that anything else has to be based on faith.