The Shroud of Turin is a length of linen cloth bearing the imprint of the image of a man, and is believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus. Despite conclusive scientific evidence from three radiocarbon dating tests performed in 1988 which resulted in the shroud being dated to 1260–1390 AD correlating with its appearance in history, some researchers have challenged the dating based on various theories, including the provenance of the samples used for testing, biological or chemical contamination, incorrect assessment of carbon dating data, as well as other theories. However, the alternative theories challenging the radiocarbon dating have been disproved by mainstream scientists using actual shroud material, and are thus considered to be fringe theories.
The Holy See received custody of the shroud in 1983, and as with other religious relics, makes no claims about its authenticity. After the 1988 round of tests, no further dating tests have been allowed.
Overview
The Shroud of Turin is a large length of linen cloth (14 ft 5 in × 3 ft 7 in) bearing the negative image of a man who is alleged to be Jesus of Nazareth. The cloth itself is believed by some to be the burial shroud he was wrapped in when he was buried after his crucifixion. The origins of the shroud and its images are the subject of multiple fringe theories. Diverse arguments have been made in various publications claiming to prove that the cloth is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis.
In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a sample of the shroud as being from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390. Some shroud researchers have challenged this dating. However, the scientific hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted, e.g. the medieval repair hypothesis, the bio-contamination hypothesis and the carbon monoxide hypothesis. The highly respected journal Nature put it in 1989, when writing about the radiocarbon dating: "These tests provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is ." However, a 2019 article published in Archaeometry which studied the raw data concluded that "without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers 'conclusive evidence' that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth." They said there was a necessity for a new radiocarbon dating test to compute a new reliable interval, and that "this new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol". Nonetheless, the publication indicated every lab's measurement remained within the 13th and 14th centuries, meaning the statistical heterogeneity affected precision within the medieval period, rather than indicating an ancient origin. A study in 2020 stated the 1988 dating range needs to be adjusted by just 10 years to resolve the inhomogeneity, and a larger margin of 88 years in order to properly meet the full agreement of 95% confidence intervals.
Proponents for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin argue that empirical analysis and scientific methods are insufficient for understanding the methods used for image formation on the shroud, believing that the image was miraculously produced at the moment of resurrection. Some proponents have argued that the image on the shroud can be explained with scientific evidence that supports the Gospel narrative. John P. Jackson (a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)) proposed that the image was formed by radiation methods beyond the understanding of current science, in particular via the "collapsing cloth" onto a body that was radiating energy at the moment of resurrection. However, STURP member Alan Adler has stated that Jackson's theory is not generally accepted as scientific, given that it runs counter to the laws of physics, while agreeing that the darkening of the fabric could be produced by exposure to light (and all of the fabric will slowly become darker in the future). In 1989 physicist Thomas Phillips speculated that the Shroud image was formed by neutron radiation caused by a miraculous bodily resurrection. Studies have suggested that all radiation hypotheses regarding the formation of the Shroud’s body image should be rejected.
Speculations about early artworks and relics
The Image of Edessa was reported to contain the image of the face of Jesus, and its existence is reported since the sixth century. Some have suggested a connection between the Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa.Wilson, pp. 148–175 No legend connected with that image suggests that it contained the image of a beaten and bloody Jesus. It was said to be an image transferred by Jesus to the cloth in life. This image is generally described as depicting only the face of Jesus, not the entire body. Proponents of the theory that the Edessa image was actually the shroud, led by Ian Wilson, theorize that it was always folded in such a way as to show only the face, as recorded in the apocryphical Acts of Thaddeus from around that time, which say it was tradiplon – folded into four pieces.
Ian Wilson, under 'Reconstructed Chronology of the Turin Shroud'p287 Ian Wilson, 1978, The Turin Shroud, Penguin Books (1979) first published by Doubleday & Company Inc., (1978) Under the title The Shroud of Turin recounts that the 'Doctrine of Addai' mentions a 'mysterious portrait' in connection with the healing of Abgar V. A similar story is recorded in Eusebius' History of the Church bk 1, ch 13,Trans. G A Williamson, Ed Andrew Louth, Eusebius, The History of the Church, Penguin Books which does not mention the portrait.
Three principal pieces of evidence are cited in favor of the identification with the shroud. Saint John of Damascus mentions the image in his anti-iconoclastic work On Holy Images, describing the Edessa image as being a "strip", or oblong cloth, rather than a square, as other accounts of the Edessa cloth hold. However, in his description, St. John still speaks of the image of Jesus' face when he was alive.
In several articles, Daniel Scavone, professor emeritus of history at the University of Southern Indiana, puts forward a hypothesis which identifies the Shroud of Turin as the real object that inspires the romances of the Holy Grail.D. Scavone: "Joseph of Arimathea, the Holy Grail, and the Edessa Icon," Arthuriana vol. 9, no. 4, 3–31 (Winter 1999) (Article and abstract);Scavone, "British King Lucius, the Grail, and Joseph of Arimathea: The Question of Byzantine Origins.", Publications of the Medieval Association of the Midwest 10 (2003): 101–42, vol. 10, 101–142 (2003).
To the contrary, Averil Cameron, expert of late antique and Byzantine history at the University of Oxford, and historian Andrea Nicolotti of the University of Turin,Nicolotti, Andrea (2019). "The Creation of a Myth". The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World's Most Famous Relic. Baylor University Press. pp. 393–398. It is clear that there is no relationship between the Shroud and the Mandylion: the Shroud is a sepulchral linen almost 4.5 m long and slightly more than 1.1 m wide; it bears the double monochromatic image, front and back, of the whole body of a bloodied corpse; his eyes are closed, and he bears the marks of many wounds; this object is, from the middle of the fourteenth century, attested in Lirey, then in Chambéry, and then finally in Turin. The relic of Edessa, by contrast, is a small cloth, the size of a towel; on it is depicted the physiognomy of the face of Jesus alone, perhaps in color; Jesus is alive, his eyes are open, his face shows no wounds; there were many representations of the Mandylion, but the one considered most "authentic" remained in Constantinople from 944 to 1247, then in Paris until the end of the eighteenth century. [...] different descriptions of the relics of Constantinople speak of the Shroud and Mandylion as two different objects, present in the same city; and we can trace, for the two objects, two parallel but distinct paths leading to two distinct places. reject the possibility of the Turin shroud being identified with the Image of Edessa. Among the reasons are too big differences in the historical descriptions of the Image of Edessa compared to the later shroud.Averil Cameron, The Sceptic and the Shroud London: King's College Inaugural Lecture monograph (1980) The Image of Edessa according to Cameron, has its origin in the resistance to the Byzantine iconoclasm.Averil Cameron, The mandylion and Byzantine Iconoclasm. in H. Kessler, G. Wolf, eds, The holy face and the paradox of representation. Bologna, (1998), 33–54
André-Marie Dubarle argued that a 944 sermon by Gregory Referendarius, archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, given upon the arrival of the Image of Edessa, references a full-body image and a side wound on the cloth. To support a connection, proponents cite Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69, a 10th century Latin manuscript in Leiden. It reads: "Non tantum faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris" ("You can see not only the figure of a face, but [also] the figure of the whole body"). Although the sermon was rediscovered in the Vatican Archives and translated by Mark Guscin in 2004, Guscin rejects the claim that it describes the Shroud of Turin. He notes Gregory attributes the image to sweat shed in Gethsemane before the crucifixion, rather than to burial linens. The references to blood and water are theological metaphors rather than physical marks on a cloth.
The Codex Pray, an Illuminated manuscript written in Budapest, Hungary between 1192 and 1195, includes an illustration of what appears to some to be the Shroud of Turin. Currently in the Budapest National Library, it is the oldest surviving text of the Hungarian language, and it was created at least 65 years before the earliest carbon-14 date in the 1988 tests. One of its illustrations shows preparations for the burial of Christ. The picture supposedly includes a burial cloth in the post-resurrection scene. According to proponents, it has the same herringbone weave as the Shroud, plus four holes near one of the edges. The holes form an "L" shape. Proponents claim this odd pattern of holes is the same as the ones found on the Shroud of Turin. They are burn holes, perhaps from a hot poker or incense embers. On the other hand, Italian Shroud researcher Gian Marco Rinaldi interprets the item that is sometimes identified as the Shroud as a probable rectangular tombstone as seen on other sacred images. He sees the alleged holes as decorative elements, as are also seen on the angel's wing and clothes. Rinaldi also points out that the alleged shroud in the Pray codex does not contain any image. Furthermore, it would be most unlikely that anyone who had seen the Shroud would have shown Christ being buried without any sign of the wounds that are so graphically shown on the Shroud.