Summary
The page “Shroud of Turin” on thebibleanswers.net presents a 60/40 view of the Shroud of Turin, arguing that it is less likely the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ but rather a fantastically good medieval forgery with potential pagan influences. Here’s a brief summary:
- Description and Claims: The Shroud is a linen cloth with an image of a crucified man, believed by some to be Jesus, marked by bloodstains and wounds consistent with crucifixion. It’s housed in Turin, Italy, and venerated by many as a relic.
- Biblical Silence: The page asserts that the New Testament does not mention the Shroud or any miraculous image on Jesus’ burial cloths (John 20:5-7), emphasizing that the gospel writers focused on the resurrection, not relics.
- Historical Doubts: It notes the Shroud’s first documented appearance in the 1350s in France, with no clear record before then. A 1389 report from the Bishop of Troyes labeled it a painted forgery, and 1988 carbon dating placed its origin between 1260-1390 AD, suggesting it’s medieval, not from Jesus’ time.
- Scientific Critique: While acknowledging modern studies (e.g., blood type AB, pollen from Jerusalem), it argues these don’t conclusively prove authenticity and could align with a clever forgery. It disputes claims of the image being unexplainable by science as exaggerated.
- Theological Stance: The page concludes that faith in Christ’s resurrection doesn’t require the Shroud, viewing it as a distraction from biblical truth, potentially even a tool of deception.
In summary, the page leans against the Shroud of Turin as a genuine relic, framing it as a possible medieval fabrication with no scriptural support and possible pagan roots, urging reliance on the Bible over physical artifacts.
The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that shows the faint image of a man with wounds consistent with crucifixion. Some believe it’s the burial cloth of Jesus, while others argue it’s a medieval artifact or even a deliberate hoax. My personal view is I do not know. At this time I put it as less likely than more likely to be authentic. However, this is like guessing at who will win the Super Bowl. I could be way off.
Here’s the likelihood from a few angles:
- Historical Context: The shroud’s documented history begins in the 1350s in France, when it surfaced in the possession of a knight named Geoffroi de Charny. There’s no clear record of it before then, which raises questions since Jesus’ crucifixion is dated to around 30-33 CE. That’s a 1,300-year gap. Early Christian texts and artifacts don’t mention it, though some argue it could’ve been hidden to avoid destruction. Absence of evidence isn’t conclusive, but it leans against authenticity.
- Scientific Analysis: Radiocarbon dating in 1988 tested samples from the shroud and dated it to between 1260 and 1390 CE, suggesting it’s medieval. Critics of the dating argue the tested portion might’ve been a repair patch, not the original cloth, or that contamination skewed the results. Other studies—like pollen analysis showing traces from the Middle East or UV imaging suggesting the image isn’t paint—hint at something unusual. Still, no definitive method explains how the image was made, whether by natural processes, forgery, or something else. Science hasn’t ruled it out but hasn’t confirmed it either.
- Image Characteristics: The shroud’s image is a negative—only fully clear when reversed photographically, a concept unknown until the 19th century. It’s also remarkably detailed, with anatomical accuracy (e.g., nail wounds in the wrists, not palms, matching Roman crucifixion practices). Some say this points to an extraordinary origin, possibly supernatural; skeptics suggest a skilled artist could’ve made it using techniques like a proto-photographic process or heat-based imprinting. No consensus exists on the “how.”
- Probability Lens: If we’re talking raw likelihood, it hinges on priors. If you believe Jesus’ resurrection involved unique physical phenomena (e.g., a burst of energy imprinting the cloth), the shroud could fit that narrative—though that’s untestable. If you see it as a historical object, the medieval dating and lack of early provenance make it less likely to be Jesus’ shroud specifically, given the millions of crucifixions in Roman times and the rarity of such preservation.
So, what’s the likelihood? Without faith-based assumptions, the evidence tilts toward it being a medieval creation—maybe 60-70% chance it’s not Jesus’ shroud, based on dating and historical gaps. But the unresolved mysteries (image formation, pollen, etc.) leave a solid 30-40% window for doubt or alternative explanations, including authenticity. As a Christian I put it at a 60/40 split. It’s not a settled question—science keeps poking at it, and belief fills the gaps. Either way, it does not affect my faith in Christ.
What do you think about it? Any angle you’re leaning toward?