Dating The Turin Shroud
I remember the Turin shroud being radio carbon dated in the late 1980s and showing that it was a mediæval fake. Yet the controversy has refused to go away, and it now seems as though there was good reason for this.
The two main strands of argument put forward against the results of radio-carbon dating were “if it was a mediæval fake, how was it made?” and “the bit they tested was from a mediæval repair, not the original”.
While the first question seems quite reasonable — given the technologies available at the time, how could it have been made? — the second always smacked to me of some kind of ’special pleading’. After all, what were the chances that a sample of the cloth would just happen to be from one of the small patches that was repaired in mediæval times?
Yet it now seems those making that claim were possibly right.
…chemical tests show the material used in the 1988 radiocarbon analysis was cut from a medieval patch woven into the shroud to repair fire damageBBC News [1]
There was also a program about it on BBC 2 the other night (which I missed, unfortunately), but the blurb seems to indicate that they are prepared to consider the Turin Shroud may have been older:
Two other Shrouds of Christ have existed at different times down the centuries. One is the Shroud of Constantinople, described as having an image of Christ and stolen by the Crusaders in 1204. The Turin Shroud appeared 150 years later in the family of one of those Crusaders. The other is the Shroud of Jerusalem that wrapped Jesus’ body. With the help of a team of international scholars Rageh explores new evidence that links the Turin Shroud to both locations and times. Could they be one and the same? But if they are, where does that leave the Carbon 14 test?
New information about the behaviour of C14 in the atmosphere exists which was unknown 20 years ago when the Shroud was dated. A new hypothesis has come forward that could explain how genuinely old linen could produce a much younger date in certain conditions.
There’s also other evidence, which, if we’re prepared to consider that the radio carbon dating of the Shroud may have produced an incorrect result, would suggest that we really ought to consider 1st Century Palestine as an option:
Professor Avinoam Danin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said an examination of pollen traces and floral imprints suggested that they could only have come from plants growing in a restricted area around Jerusalem and could date back to Jesus’s time.BBC News [2]
However, it might sound like a silly question, but even assuming that the Turin shroud is approximately 2000 years old, and even assuming that somehow an imprint of a crucified man was pressed into the cloth, what makes people so certain that this was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ?
I mean, if it’s 2000 years old, as opposed to 700 years old, it then becomes possible that it’s Jesus’s burial cloth, but surely more than one man with a beard was crucified around 30 AD … and even if this particular shroud which has been assumed to be Jesus’s burial cloth since AD 70 or something, what makes people sure that it’s either Jesus or a fake? It’s the burial cloth of Jesus, or of someone else, or it’s a fake.
Scientific tests have proved that there are blood stains around the marks consistent with a crown of thorns and a puncture from a lance to the side.BBC News [3]
Obviously, it’s of considerably more religious significance if it could be proved it was Jesus’s burial shroud. But even these marks don’t prove it was Big J: if it isn’t a fake then it’s either him or someone else with an apparent side wound, head wounds and scourge marks on his back. Fair enough, that sounds pretty much like the New Testament Jesus, but unless no-one else was ever treated in the same way, that doesn’t mean for sure it’s him.
What we have to remember in this is that there are two main groups interested in the Turin Shroud. The first group are primarily interested in establishing this as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ because this fits with their theistic world view, and therefore they look for evidence to support this. The second group are primarily interested in debunking the Turin Shroud because a genuine Shroud of Jesus Christ would challenge their atheistic world view.
Always ask yourself “who is telling me this?”. On the Skeptic’s Dictionary, you’ll find information no reference to the possibility that the carbon-dating may have tested a patch on the shroud, and you’ll find a theory about the shroud having been produced by someone covered in pigment — despite the fact that earlier in the same article they say the head is too large for the body and it doesn’t fit with being wrapped around someone. Well if that is the case, it can’t have been faked the way they suggest either… and besides which, they’re still using the ‘paint’ theory:
Beginning in October 1978, about forty American scientists intensely studied the Shroud before concluding that the body image was not some type of painting. On the basis of their extensive testing of fibers and particulate matter taken from the Shroud, biophysicist John Heller (d. 13 December 1995) and chemist Alan Adler (d. 11 June 2000) concluded that the body image consisted simply of prematurely-aged linen.The Shroud of Turin’s ‘Blood’ Images: Blood, or Paint? A History of Science Inquiry
…but equally you’ll find similar “pro-shroud” errors on other sites: the ‘pro-shroud’ sites will tend to tend to ignore or gloss over the possibility that there’s the possibility that the sticky-tapings of it used to collect the pollen grains, blood samples and the like may have been somehow contaminated. There’s also like I say, the assumption that if it isn’t a fake, it must be Jesus’s shroud.
If you’re reading this, chances are you won’t have changed your mind about whether it’s a fake or genuine. And that’s fine with me. All I’d ask you to do is ask who is providing the evidence. Don’t just seek out the evidence that supports your initial world view, whichever one it is.
Hello. I am 
My 2p worth:
As I remember it, the gospels were not written for several decades after any of the people involved had died - so how and why would this relic survive?
Even if it is from the ‘Big J’ it does not follow that he was the “son of God” described in the aforementioned set of documents.
I remember seeing an interesting book about how Jesus probably did exist, but the story of his life could equally (and more probably) be a freedom fighter and local hero whose story got embellished by the aural storytelling tradition before being recorded.
Sorry I’m going off topic, so I’ll stop there.
@Seb: that’s a very good point and pretty much sums up my belief in J.C. I have no problem whatsoever accepting him as a historical ‘teacher’ character. That seems quite reasonable. It’s when you add in the ‘Son of God’ and ‘miracles’ bits that I become quite the ‘Doubting Thomas’…
A burial shroud I could actually imagine being kept by someone close to him, though. Unlike the ‘Holy Foreskin’ relics (sounds like something Robin, the Boy Wonder would exclaim: “Holy Foreskin, Batman!”) which were common in the mediæval period.
First off, I should state that I’m not atheist, I’m agnostic and open to persuasion but I’ve always been a facts person so if I’m to be swayed either way I need proof. I’ve always rather pinned my hopes on the Shroud to provide that proof if I’m to become a believer.
I really could have done with you two here when the new local Vicar called round for a chat. The visit went on longer than expected due to my having informed him I thought the Bible was an overlong fairy story and that the ending wasn’t much cop.
Jack if you want to watch the program it’s on BBC iPlayer for the next 5 days.