Why The Shroud of Turin Still Cannot Possibly Belong to Jesus

photonegatives comparing the Shroud to a recreation

The Shroud of Turing came back into the news recently, after a scientific study used a new method to examine the fibers, and concluded the fabric of the shroud was consistent with fabric from the 1st century.  And then someone asked a generative AI to recreate the face of the subject of the Shroud, and the generative AI generated something, and now that makes people excited, too.

Over a decade ago, I wrote a blog post about how it is impossible for the Shroud of Turin to be the actual burial Shroud of Jesus.  I know this because, the eyewitness testimony from the Apostles recorded in the Bible describe Jesus as being wrapped up in numerous bandage-like cloths, including a separate cloth for his face.  This was the consistent Jewish custom at this time, too.  Whereas the Shroud of Turin is just a big long blanket that was laid over back-to-front on its subject.  I'll leave the analysis there as basically complete.

But I'll say part of it again.  Science could prove that the Shroud of Turin absolutely originates not only from the 1st century, but from the exact town of Arimathea in the exact year AD 33, and from no other possible time or place.  Science could not only fail to reproduce the Shroud's image, but in fact prove that the Shroud could only be produced by a continual miracle.  It would just mean that the Shroud of Turin is a miraculous image of some random person who is not Jesus.

We would have to still conclude it doesn't belong to Jesus, because we still know that Jesus was buried in a way inconsistent with the Shroud of Turin.

However, it isn't the case that science has shown beyond all doubt that the Shroud is authentic or irreproducible.

The recent scientific study showed the Shroud could be consistent with the 1st century, but in a window inconsistent with the death of Jesus.

As for previous evidence.  There is no record of the Shroud of Turin anywhere, until the 14th century, when the Shroud suddenly appears.  The man who made it was soon apprehended by church authorities, and confessed to the crime.  The radiocarbon dating of the Shroud puts it in exactly this same century of its first appearance.  The method of creating the Shroud has been reproduced, and requires draping a blanket over either a human subject or a bas-relief sculpture, then applying with a brush either an acid treatment or a strain.  This reproduces the most striking properties of the Shroud's image: its photo-negative effect, and its three-dimensional information, and leaves an image similar in appearance to the original.  For the case of the Shroud, a sculpture and not a human subject was used.  We can infer this, because the anatomy of the Shroud's subject is disproportioned.  As an example, the arms which are crossed over the genitals for modesty; they are too long, and one is longer than the other.  Also, the two sides of the Shroud do not match in measurements, as they must if a human subject were used.  The sculpture used for the Shroud was much more elaborate than that used in modern recreations, but in terms of technique it is fully reproducible with rudimentary technology.

It's worth pointing out, because I think people read too much into modern analysis: the person who first forged the Shroud had no interest in creating an image that would be a photonegative, or contain 3D information.  He certainly had no interest in recreating the exact depth of the markings on the fiber cells.  No one knew the Shroud had these properties for at least the first 700 years of its existence.  The forger's only interest was in creating the primary image (the one visible to the eye), that looks like it might resemble how Jesus looked in popular gothic piety at the time.  So when it comes to explaining how the forger did it, from the forger's point of view any method producing the primary image without leaving paint residue would be acceptable.  Therefore, any explanation that can account for the primary image is sufficient.

There are many methods of creating the primary image, without using obviously-detectable paints or dyes.

As it happens, we know of several ways of creating the primary image, which also recreate the photonegative effect and capture the 3D information.

Let's take a minute to think about why so many people claim the Shroud cannot be explained or reproduced with modern science and instead must be both authentic and a miracle.

The argument I am often given for why the Shroud of Turin must be legitimate, is that it has so many miraculous properties that it could only be explained by being in contact with the corpse of Jesus during the moment of Resurrection.  Because it requires a miracle to make it, we know it must be the burial shroud of Jesus.

The Shroud is then used as a proof of Jesus' bodily Resurrection.  The Resurrection must have happened, because look at this miraculous impact it had on Jesus' burial cloth.

But how are we so sure this is Jesus' burial cloth, again?  We're using the miraculousness of the Resurrection to prove this is Jesus' burial cloth, but then the idea that this is Jesus' burial cloth to prove the Resurrection.

The Shroud might very well be miraculous.  It's not, but we can grant it might be.  Being merely miraculous doesn't require that it has any connection to Jesus.

If we had some other reason to suspect the Shroud of Turin to belong to Jesus, then the argument would work better.  But we don't have any such reason.  The Shroud's history begins in the late medieval period, where it suddenly appears and its forger soon arrested after a confession.  The groups claiming the Shroud is authentic, are the same groups who purport far more laughable alleged images to be authentic.  Such as the Holy Face of Genoa or the Veil of Veronica, which look exactly like medieval fakes, and look that way because they are medieval fakes, and yet are displayed and revered as though authentic acheiropoieta.  

The Face of Genoa.  People have believed this was made "without human hands," and the artist wasn't even trying.  

The Shroud of Turin is in this same line.  Its primary image looks like a medieval forgery, and it looks that way because it is.

But once again, the situation could change.  Science could prove that all of the modern recreations actually used miracles too (and didn't tell anyone), and that part of the miracle of the Shroud of Turin is its preservation from all history until the late medieval period, and having miraculously more carbon-14 in its fibers than it should have.  It's still not authentic, because it contradicts what the Bible says, and contradicts what the Apostles said, and contradicts what the eyewitness records of the events recorded.

Christians: think more critically about this kind of thing.  Especially regarding an area like medieval relics, which is so rife with obvious fraud.  We can do better than this.