The Shroud of Turin. Is it real?

I went down a huge rabbit hole over the weekend. You may have heard, but in the last couple of weeks, some new evidence has been brought out into the public eye (they've actually had the new evidence for a while now, but for some reason, no one was talking about it) that overturns what a lot of people assumed (that the shroud was a medieval forgery).  

It might be the most convincing, and astounding, collection of evidence for an artifact I've ever seen.

I was literally watching an interview with a scholar reporting on this evidence with my jaw dropped half-way to the floor.

For those of you who don't know, the "Shroud of Turin" is what's believed to be the burial cloth of Christ. It's said to have been laid over his body in the tomb and left a remarkable, and unexplainable, image of his body in the negative, presumably at the moment Jesus rose from the dead.

It's such an astounding claim that it has big-time "too good to be true" vibes. I mean, I have to confess my bias, I want it to be true.

But most of the researchers examining the shroud through the years have the exact opposite bias. In fact, one famous atheist researcher (David Rolfe) who set out to make a documentary debunking the shroud famously declared that if someone gave him five minutes with the shroud, he'd prove it a forgery. Ironically, he became convinced of its authenticity, denounced his atheism, and became a Christian.

There are several more examples of scientists, nuclear engineers, and others who examined the shroud without bias and ended up confirming it's likely authenticity.

A lot of protestants are biased against it, dismissing it as a "Catholic Relic," so of course it must be fake, right? John Calvin in the era of the Reformation explicitly referred to the shroud as a forgery. Of course, Calvin made that claim based on his bias, too, against Rome. But we shouldn't resort to that kind of "Romophobic" bias... we should resist that "anti-Catholic" sentiment when it clouds our judgment over important questions.

First, it should be noted that many people believed the shroud was Jesus' burial cloth until 1988 when three labs did carbon dating on a portion of the shroud and concluded it dated back to the medieval period.

However, what isn't said, is that these three labs had radically different results, and the report was an average. The reason? The portion of the shroud they examined was from the upper left-hand corner, which had apparently been repaired by nuns (evidenced by cotton threads woven into the linen, following a practice for repairing garments that was expensive but also recorded as a procedure done in Europe during the Renaissance). What that means, the way carbon-dating works, is the average of the numbers sampled from the piece of the shroud ended up setting the date around 1200-1300 A.D.

For decades, then, people assumed the shroud was disproven. They dismissed it entirely as a result of this study. Today, though, those findings have been totally disproven by several academic publications, indicating a faulty sample and oddities in the findings that should have led researchers to investigate further why their dating was giving them inconsistent results. Interestingly enough, the dating by these same researchers, showed an average date that was older the closer to the interior of the actual shroud they got on the sample they were working with. This is consistent with the repair method at the time.

A newer method, that uses x-ray and a lot of stuff I don't totally understand (I'm a theologian, not a scientist) has been used on the shroud recently that actually confirmed that the shroud shows approximately 2,000 years of degradation. In other words, it was dated to the time of Christ.

Goosebumps, yet? Let's keep going.

Here is just a quick summary (in simple terms) of things they've proven. There's way more than this, and you can look it all up yourself..

• They've found old pollen spores that have survived that correspond with a plant that is known to blossom in Jerusalem in March-May, exactly the time/place when Jesus is supposed to have been Crucified.

• They've found dirt on the shroud around the area of the feet, the hands, and the nose (presumably because Jesus fell on his face as he carried the cross) that one researcher said is as definitive as a "fingerprint" indicating origins in the area of Jerusalem where we believe the crucifixion occurred.

• There are no pigments, paints, or anything else on the shroud that would indicate it had been manufactured as a forgery. Instead, the image seems to have been produced by such an intense blast of sudden energy (that only affected the most superficial fibers of the threads of the linen) and scientists have been unable to reproduce it, even with modern lasers and other technologies. The idea that someone in the medieval period could do it, researchers believe, is impossible.

• The image is in "negative," which is a phenomenon that people didn't even realize was a "thing" until the advent of photography in the late 1800s. In fact, it was a photographer who took a picture of the shroud in the late 1800s who discovered when developing his film that the "negative" in the shroud actually showed up in the positive on his negatives. There's no way someone in the medieval period would have even thought to create a negative image, because they weren't familiar with the phenomenon.

• There is a lot of blood on the shroud. It tests AB- which is the rarest blood type in the world. It is most common among Jewish/Palestinian males in the Mediterranean region.

• The blood was clearly soaked into the shroud before the image of the face/body. In fact, beneath the blood stains there is no imaging, suggesting the blood actually blocked whatever energy caused the face/body to appear in negative image. Think about this. If you were creating an extremely anatomically correct image of a person as an artist, would you create the body/shape first, or add the blood first? It would be virtually impossible to place the blood in the proper locations without placing the body first. However, the blood soaked into the shroud beforehand.

• The blood/wounds on the body are consistent with what we know from the Gospels (and even a prophecy from Isaiah) about the wounds Christ suffered. There are wounds over the head (more that 50 punctures) indicating a crown of thorns (there's no evidence of anyone other than Jesus having been crucified with such a crown in any records), wounds in the wrists, and one in the feet. The man's bones were not broken, and there is a puncture wound between the rips that corresponds with the size/shape of a Roman lance, which we know from the Gospels happened when they confirmed his death. Furthermore, while much of the blood on the shroud was tested to have been shed while the victim was still alive, the blood around the wound in his side is all post-mortem blood.  

• It appears the man on the shroud's shoulders were dislocated, and he has abrasion marks on his back, likely from carrying the cross-beam of the cross. There are wounds all over the body consistent with a Roman scourging as well.

• The shroud itself is in a rare herring-bone weave, which has been found as used in Jewish burials for wealthy individuals during the first century. Given what we know about Joseph of Arimathea who donated his own expensive tomb, and likely burial materials, to Jesus, this tracks with what we know about the Gospels.

• Analysis of the image displays a body with a bent knee and a head raised above the slab he was laying on (consistent with a head that had drooped down while hanging on the cross) which indicates the body was in rigor mortis. Typically, rigor mortis subsides after about 36 hours and never more than 72 hours. That means, the image couldn't be an impression that set in over a long period of time, but was set into the cloth precisely within the window of time we know from the Gospels when Jesus was laid in the tomb, and when he resurrected on early Sunday morning.

• Typically, blood stains turn brown over time, but these stains have retained a red pigment. This is consistent with individuals who endure intense pain or torture, due to the release of a hormone in the blood that preserves the red coloring. This is what would be expected for an individual tortured the way the man depicted on the shroud was tortured.

 

What's the best evidence against the shroud's authenticity? Well, the already proven-faulty carbon dating from 1988, and the general idea that the facts seem to line up too perfectly to what the Gospels report... which leads some skeptics (who don't trust the Gospels) to revert to the too-good-to-be-true hypothesis.

The "history" of the shroud itself is inconclusive. While we can place it in France in the 1300s, the history before that is a bit more difficult to trace. Apparently, it was kept in secret for large swaths of time, due to Ottoman threats, risk of theft, and worries about its preservation. However, there is artwork going back to very early in Christendom that has been analyzed showing the face of Christ with features that seem to be based on the shroud's image. Since people back then didn't know how a "negative" worked, in fact, some of the artwork seems to have some distortions that correspond with what one might think (e.g. the shape of the eyes) based on the negative without the ability to translate it into a "positive" image.

There is a statement in the writings of Athanasius (early 300s) that indicate an "image of Jesus" that was sent to the king of Edessa. While we can't conclude for sure that this is the shroud, it fits (since the shroud was known as the Edessa Icon prior to it being brought to Turin, Italy, in the 16th Century).

Here's the thing. If the Shroud of Turin is real it's the oldest photograph (the first selfie ever) recorded. It was produced with an energy that ancient people couldn't have possibly manufactured. In fact, we don't have the technology to produce it today (people have tried). It records an event that happens to be the most important event in history, affirming God's plan for the redemption of the entire world. It's the literal and figurative crux of our Christian faith... because everything hinges on the truth of the resurrection.

Obviously, we can't absolutely prove that the image on the shroud is the image of Jesus Christ created at the moment of his resurrection. But short of absolute proof, given the preponderance of evidence, it's my opinion that it's as close to being as indisputable proof the resurrection as we're likely to find. All the evidence, including the fact that it was passed along historically with this being the claim, suggests the claim is right.

The implications are nothing short of profound.

The resurrection seems to be the only viable theory about how the image was produced. It also seems to not only correspond with the accuracy of the Gospels... but the two sources seem to be mutually verifying. The shroud gives us better confidence in the accuracy of the Gospels (if it's true in the details of the crucifixion, the gospels are probably true in their other details) even as the Gospels help verify the authenticity of the shroud.

If the shroud was a forgery, it would be the most elaborate hoax in history. What forger could possibly get both living and post-mortem blood from the same person and use it in the shroud? Would they literally get pollens from Jerusalem to put onto the shroud, or dirt from Jerusalem? In the medieval period, why would anyone bother, since no one could analyze pollens or soil samples?

Until last weekend, like most of you (I imagine) I didn't give the shroud much thought. I assumed (ignorantly) that the carbon dating had already proved it a forgery. I'm now convinced I was totally wrong, and that the shroud is authentic.

I mean, I've often wondered, how amazing would it be if someone were able to take a camera back to the time of Jesus to capture the real history? How amazing would that be? Would an actual photograph of Jesus, if we knew it was true, strengthen your faith? Would it help others come to Christ? Maybe your faith isn't affected either way, and I certainly had plenty of faith before I dug into this evidence, but it's also exciting. And it can't be a coincidence that this moment, the most important millisecond in history, was preserved as a photograph, on a material we can't create photographs by normal technology, so that like the Apostle John, who looked into the tomb and saw the cloths... then believed... we, too, might believe with absolute certainty that Jesus Christ is risen, indeed.

To me, seeing all this evidence, is incredibly moving, motivating, and faith-affirming. I feel moved, even more than before, to tell the world the truth: His is Risen! I can imagine, then, how the actual appearance of Christ moved the first apostles, who went from timid and afraid in a locked room, to the world's boldest men in history, who risked life and limb to testify to their witness of Jesus' resurrection. In a way, given the preponderance of evidence and the inability to duplicate it, the shroud allows us to make the same claim. We are eyewitnesses to the resurrection...

And what does it mean that only today given our development, the research on the shroud has become as close to conclusive as possible, that never before have we had more definitive evidence of Jesus' resurrection than we have now, bolstered by technology that old "forgers" never could have possibly predicted might be able to analyze the shroud? It all adds up.

Again, don't take my word for it. The evidence is there, the research is solid, scientific, and jaw-droppingly astounding.

I've said this before. The heart of our faith is the resurrection of Jesus. It's not a "good idea" that we're sent to share, it's an event we're commissioned to proclaim. This evidence, even if you don't need it to believe, can be incredibly powerful... in fact, in a life-stream where a "shroud studies" scholar detailed everything a few months ago, there were viewers literally converting while the stream was going on. It's a powerful thing, because it's a testimony (the resurrection!) that literally impacts everything... it impacts how we view life, and death, and life-after-death, and where we came from, and what really matters, and, and, and...

It's life-changing, with eternal consequences. So do some digging, look up some of these interviews posted recently with scholars who specialize in this. This research (what I posted here) is just what I've discovered with a weekend's worth of discovery. There are scholars who know all the facts, the numbers, the research, and can go into much more detail than I can.

I think God made this, created it, and saw that it could be passed along and preserved through history for this very time, and for this reason... that we might testify as witnesses, that we might confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and He is risen from the dead.

 

In Jesus name,

Judah

 

P.S. I was so excited about this as I dove into the facts this weekend that I made a fun shirt for my website... it's apropos given that we're coming up on Holy Week, Good Friday, and Easter. I honestly make these shirts for me, and don't mark them up much (this one is more pricy because of the print on the sleeves) even though I realize they're more than you'd usually want to pay for a t-shirt. I don't mass-produce them, but they're printed on demand by Printify. I'm not selling these for profit (I only make a few bucks each shirt) but I make them for myself, then post them because I figure other people might appreciate them. I wear these shirts in order to initiate conversations with people in the community. You'd be surprised how often people ask me about them! :)