The Shroud of Turin Again


We were debating the authenticity of the Shroud and carbon dating. One poster says that only 5% of scientific experts believe the Shroud is genuine, a part of a fringe group. I provided a new YouTube documentary as well as two other articles. The other poster provided “proof” that 95% of experts believe the Shroud is a forgery by posting three outdated papers and apparently thinks “scholars” find Wikipedia a reliable source.

Who believes the Shroud is real and why?

Do we know what Jesus actually looks like?

Are you going to use faulty logic on this one and move the goal post by shouting, “It’s outdated” or are you actually going to validly argue? If not, I am not going to waste my time here. Maybe you should actually read the papers I sent you. In fact, here’s another one from 2010.

Go back and look at all the papers I sent you, including this one, examine the claims, and compare them to your fringe documentary film. I think you’ll see that the proof for the shroud not being authentic heavily outweighs the possibility of it being authentic.

Also, why are you taking the estimate so literally? I thought you understood it was a way of me saying that the vast majority of scholars believe the shroud dates from around the 13th or 14th century.

Good day and God bless.


Here’s a article from 08 refuting a theory that posited the original dating could have been wrong.

Oh, or is that too out dated for you?


Anyone can make a shroud in their garage.


I have always been very interested in the shroud, and I’ve read all of the research on it. It is basically a negative image (there was no such thing back then), made with no pigments or paints. Scientists who have devoted their lives to researching the shroud believe that the image was made with light/radiation. Billions of watts directed in such a way that cannot be duplicated with our present technology. It has also been shown that when the image was made, it was draped over a 3D person, it wasn’t lying flat. I personally believe it is genuine. A miracle left so that Jesus’s followers could be left with no doubt that He had actually ascended to Heaven.


The CSICOP article is short and disappointingly low on anything factual. Is that just an abstract of an article, or what?

The amusing bit is that one of their reasons for disbelieving in the Shroud is that it doesn’t show any signs of myrrh or aloes having been used to anoint the body, and there are no signs that there were many layers of burial linen used.

Anybody who has ever read the Gospels knows that the women didn’t have time to wash, anoint, and wrap the body on Friday night before sundown, when it was right before Passover and the Sabbath, and the shops weren’t open. The Gospels say they didn’t even have spices until Sunday morning!

So however you consider the Shroud of Turin, the lack of spices and complicated burial linens are corroborative details, not counter-arguments.


Also from 2008

It seems very unscientific to say the C14 test outweighs all of the other scientific evidence that points to it being much older.


I like this summation by one of the scientists who studied the Shroud in person.


On other threads where this question has been debated, the commenters who believe that the shroud is authentic base their assertion, as far as I can see, on the balance of probabilities. I don’t recall anyone claiming to have certain, verifiable knowledge of it. They all concede, I think, that the authenticity is not established beyond reasonable doubt.


In that study, they used the same sample as the 1988 study. They basically say “the people who took the sample said it was from the main body of the Shroud. And we believe them.” See below. Not scientific or convincing. They didn’t even get a new statement about the sample! They used the original one from the original statement, which is in doubt! That is not proof.

From the “Discussion” section of the research paper:

The sampling of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 is stated by those present (e.g. D J Donahue, personal communication, 2010) to have been taken “from the main part of the shroud.” Those removing the samples at the time were aware of repair material. We conclude from our observations and the history of our sample, that our sample was taken from the main part of the shroud. There is no evidence to the contrary.

(I hope this works. It isn’t letting me post it because I accidentally posted it on the other thread. It is too similar to what I posted there. Just writing this part to change it a little. )


There is so much controversy around the carbon dating, that I simply find it to be irrelevant. In 20 years time, another carbon dating will dismiss previous claims, and on and on we go.

But the fact of HOW it was produced is the real curiosity. If it’s a medieval forgery like some claim, let me know if when someone can replicate it based on the scientific facts that we know.

Regardless, it’s kind of ironic don’t you think? That what could potentially be the most fascinating artifact in human history, involves Christ and the resurrection.


I like this response. From:

“The event horizon of the Medieval Milieu has been badly crossed with this theory; a corpse hanging in the sun for several days at about a 15 feet distance from an optical quality quartz crystal inserted into the pinhole of a giant Camera Obscura, while inside the Camera, again at a fifteen feet distance, a 14 feet long cloth hangs evenly covered with silver nitrate. Later on, to fix the image, the cloth is washed in a 5% diluted solution of ammonia or urine. Bingo. The first photo, a giant one at that, has been made, after the corpse has been turned upside down for a repeated performance for another seven days or so, the first position matching the second one perfectly.

Again, we hear the magic words; I quote “using materials that were available in the 13th century.” Never mind that an analytical and scientific thinking was not developed yet in the 13th century capable of bringing together the following process: a camera obscura not in use in the 13th century, the classics not yet translated, chemistry not yet invented, yet knowing the exact chemical properties of silver nitrate, knowing its light sensitive properties, without any knowledge of optics or the properties of light employing a bi-convex, finely ground quartz lens, knowing the properties of UV radiation before electromagnetism was known at all, knowing how to stabilize the image by ammonia or knowing the chemical properties of urine. Knowing that some day, from the negative through photography a positive image will be achieved. But how come, that not knowing the most evident fact, that corpses do not maintain rigor mortis or that they cannot hang for 14 days in the sun, or else you would not care to see what the camera obscura would bring in onto your canvas.”


That only refutes certain theories that the carbon dating could have been wrong due to carbon monoxide contamination, or other forms of contamination.

It says nothing about the samples being taken from the repaired areas of the Shroud, or any of the more plausible arguments against the carbon dating results.


“The carbon dating tests of 1988 are now considered by many to be a complete debacle. The carbon labs violated the sampling protocol established for the tests in 1985. Three different samples were to be cut; instead only one sample was used. Ignoring caution from archaeologists, they cut the sample from the most handled area of the cloth, the outside corner edge exactly where it had been grabbed and held by Church authorities for numerous public exhibitions. It was an area that had the most potential for contamination, damage and repair.“


There have been many to claim verifiable evidence. The following article sums it up. In particular, check out the section on blood analysis.


Not the way the Shroud of Turin is. Read up on it.


I love the Shroud of Turin precisely because of the verifiable scientific evidence.

I first encountered it as an article of science (I had heard of it as an article of faith and sentimentality) in the book A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon by Pierre Barbet. At the time I was doing research on crucifixion in the first century Roman Empire. So I knew a good deal about Crucifixion, and I could not believe how accurate the Shroud was! Worth a look if you are really seeking answers. (The book itself made some anatomically disputable claims, but you can still learn a lot about crucifixion from it.)

I told my professor of Medieval Art History that this image of Christ was dated back to the 1300’s—I showed her the positive image of the Shroud. She took one look and said, “That is a forgery. They were not as anatomically accurate as that in the 1300’s. It’s a fake.” She said it had to have been in the last couple of centuries. She thought I was trying to prove it was from the 1300’s! If it can’t have been a product of an artist of the 1300s, and the carbon dating puts it there, then the carbon dating evidence is suspect.

[This next part is wrong, as someone pointed out further down the thread. I am leaving it here for humility’s sake. But don’t listen to it. The details of the sample-taking are documented all over the place!]

One more thing: why did the researchers who took the sample not document exactly where they took it from on the Shroud? Why did they not, when called into question, point to exactly where they took the sample from? It would be simple to verify if they did, in fact, take it from that location. If it was in the main body of the Shroud, they could easily put to rest these theories. But if they do not, and if they remain vague as to where the samples
were taken, there is a problem: That is not science.

[And THAT was not a good argument!]


I prefer to go with the experts who’ve dedicated their time, effort and lives in studying the Shroud. If you’d watch that video you just might change your mind.



How do you know it’s “fringe documentary film”?


Your 95% of experts in this article don’t seem to be very sure that it’s not the burial cloth of Christ.

You never answered my question in proving that the vast majority of experts still believe in the carbon dating as being accurate, especially considering that many experts are on the STURP team working tirelessly on this.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit