Shroud of Turin

Various relics ascribed to have been in physical contact with Jesus have been evaluated for the presence of blood, including the Tunic of Argenteuil, the Sudarium of Oviedo, and most famously, the Shroud of Turin. Congruence was reported for certain bloodstain patterns that overlap between relics, suggesting that they may have been associated with the same person. Interestingly, in all cases the blood type was found to be AB, which has also been described for certain Eucharistic miracles. Here, we discuss the theological and scientific significance of shared blood type and comment on the scientific validity of these findings.

In 1988, the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated to 1260-1390 AD. This paper summarizes why this date should be rejected: 1) it would have been impossible to form such an image on cloth during the Middle Ages, and 2) a proper statistical analysis of the data from the carbon dating indicates that an unexpected factor had probably altered the Shroud samples. Also discussed are reasons why the Shroud could date to the first century based on traditions, historical evidence especially the Pray manuscript, and the many other date indicators for the Shroud.

This is the PowerPoint slides to a presentation at the St. Louis Conference on the Shroud of Turin in October of 2014.  The title of the presentation was "MCNP Analysis of Neutrons Released from Jesus' Body in the Resurrection."  Many evidences indicate that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and several dating methodologies are consistent with a first century date for the Shroud, but the C-14 dating method dated the Shroud to the middle ages (1260 to 1390 AD).  To determine whether neutron absorption in the Shroud could explain this C-14 dating to the middle ages, the MCNP (Monte Carlo n-Particle) nuclear analysis computer code was used to model Jesus' body wrapped in a burial shroud laying in a tomb.  It was then assumed that neutrons were homogeneously emitted from within the body while it was wrapped in the Shroud.  MCNP calculations were used to prove that if 3.0 x 10^18 neutrons were homogeneously emitted from within the body, then three mysteries related to C-14 dating would be explained:  1) why the three samples cut from the bottom corner of the Shroud in 1988 gave an average C-14 date of 1260 to 1390 AD,  2) why the three laboratories were in such poor agreement with each other indicating a slope or gradient in the data of about 40 years per cm so that if the sample point were moved only one inch the date would change by 100 years, and  3) why the Sudarium of Oviedo (believed to be the face cloth of Jesus) was C-14 dated to 700 AD.  In offering solutions to these three mysteries by use of one assumption, this approach appears to be very promising, but more research is necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

A second faint image of the face of the Turin Shroud has been discovered in 2004 and many scientists in the world confirmed the discovery, but a recent paper has questioned in a debatable way its presence. With a perhaps too high degree of certainty it explained those patterns with pareidolia and Gestalt effects of the human perception, supporting its conclusion on the basis of illusory images perhaps built on purposes and on numerical results also derived from spatial crosscorrelation used in a not proper way. This paper both discusses these results showing why the image processing used in that paper seems not proper to sustain its thesis and presents additional image processing for pattern recognition.

The Shroud of Turin, Christianity's most precious relic is firmly linked to its foundational doctrine: Jesus's miraculous resurrection from the dead. This well defended connection limits Shroud research to the investigation of the mechanics of image formation, the underlying cause (the cause of the cause), being a foregone, non-debatable conclusion; it was a miracle. The miracle status limits the investigation because otherwise it would infringe on foundational doctrine. Advances in science, scholarship, observation and experience since the Gospels were written reveal a natural explanation for what actually took place on the first Easter Sunday and, thus, the cause underlying the cause of image formation. Arriving at this conclusion requires outside the box thinking: looking beyond the Bible into other religious expressions for answers, engaging in non-literal interpretation of the Bible, invoking principles of quantum science and inserting the role of human consciousness into the investigation platform.

After being photographed by Secondo Pia in May 1898, the Shroud of Turin proved to be more than a mere medieval relic: it becomes a true source of archaeological imagery, providing a wealth of information about a capital punishment widely used in the Roman world, but that there was not much scientific information available: crucifixion. Thus, following an interdisciplinary line, this article seeks to rescue, through the imagery question, not only the burial rites belonging to the ancient peoples, but also anatomical aspects revealed by the possible mortuary sheet of Jesus, pointed out by the first scientists who decided to study it.

From my experience there will be the strongest resistance from the labs to reopen this case. The dating of the Shroud of Turin did not take place in an inert context. I believe that, for some of the key scientists involved, it was-and remains-a pivotal point in a struggle many centuries old.

According to the Gospels, Jesus suffered the flagellation before his crucifixion. The texts do not clarify the form and materials of the scourge that was utilized. Since the beginnings of the modern era, several commentators have speculated about the scourge's form, on the basis of the Greek-Roman literary evidence and with reference to flagellation relics. In the last few centuries, scholars have provided new indications that are exemplified in great dictionaries and encyclopedic works of Greek-Roman archaeology and antiquities, as well as in the consultation works available to biblical scholars. However, a close re-examination of the whole evidence compels us to dismiss nearly all data and to conclude that we know almost nothing about the materials and form of the scourge used at Jesus' time.

This is the third of three recent papers related to the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin.  The first in this sequence, paper 24, is titled “Understanding the 1988 Carbon Dating of the Shroud.”  It contains 37 pages including two examples of how measurement errors can affect measurement results.  The second in this sequence, paper 28, is a shortened version, i.e. an abstract, of the first.  It contains 12 pages and is titled “The Carbon Dating of the Shroud is Explained by Neutron Absorption.”  The third in this sequence, which is this paper, is only two pages.  It was written to explain why the carbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390 should be rejected, and to do so in as brief and simple a manner as possible.  This is accomplished by use of an analogy with an hourglass.  Adding sand to the top of the hourglass would produce an apparent time younger than the true time since the hourglass was turned over.  This is similar to carbon dating of the Shroud, in that neutron absorption would produce new C-14 in the cloth which would shift the measured age to be younger than the true age.

British art historian Thomas de Wesselow, trained at Courtauld, claims that it was the image on the Turin Shroud that prompted Jesus' disciples to believe in the Resurrection. While appreciating the author's study of the relic, the review points out why exactly his point of view is wrong.

Anyone familiar with the Shroud of Turin will likely recognize the name of Raymond N. Rogers.  He was the  Director of Chemical Research for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), which studied the cloth for five days around the clock and concluded that the image was not the product of an artist.  If one listens only to Shroud skeptics, one would get the impression that STURP was just a bunch of pseudo-scientific religious zealots out to prove that the Shroud was authentic.  In fact, most of them were scientists who worked in the U.S.’ space and nuclear programs; only a few of the group were devout Christians.  Their main objective was to determine how the image on the cloth was formed.  In that, they basically failed, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t do noteworthy work on the Shroud.  They planned their testing for about one and one-half years and after the testing, spent about three years analyzing the data, spending probably at least 250,000 person hours.  They are still the only group to have performed a full-scale in-depth full scientific testing of the Shroud, which revealed much valuable information.  They did make some mistakes for sure:  the team did not have sufficient textile expertise, they were somewhat deficient in public relations and experienced significant squabbles over the actions of team members or associates.  But it was the group’s work that forms the foundation of peer-reviewed science that still serves as the basis for most of the studies that continues to this day.  Despite this, skeptics continue to criticize the group’s and individuals’ work; many of the STURP individuals are now deceased.  I believe it’s somewhat unfair for 21st century skeptics to criticize the work of deceased individuals from forty years ago—after all, science and technology have advanced quite a bit since then.  One skeptic described Rogers on a blog as a “second-rate scientist.”  See his full resume below and you will see that notion is nonsense.  He was a meticulous scientist who did not use the word “prove” lightly.  He was very critical of a “I think I see”-only approach to science.
    This article will feature the significant contributions of the late chemist Raymond N. Rogers.  According to his resume:

Raymond N. Rogers was born 21 July 1927 in Albuquerque, NM. He was group leader of an explosives research-and-development group at the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, was elected Laboratory Fellow in 1981, and retired in 1988. He was appointed Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978, applying thermal methods to the study of the relic. He served on the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board from 1987 until 1992 with the equivalent rank of Lt. General. Major research interests were explosives safety, super-energy explosives, low-intensity conflict (non-violent war), energy resources, applications of chemical methods (primarily thermal) to the study of archaeological samples, and application of chemical science to intelligence operations.

To see his complete impressive resume, go to:  https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogersresume.pdf.  Another impressive characteristic about Rogers was his ability to change his mind, something that scientists are supposed to do as they get more data, but something they often don’t do, basically because they don’t want to admit they were wrong.  One of the times he changed his mind dealt with an image characteristic.  He first believed that the discolored fibers that cause the image to be perceived were due to the dehydration and oxidation of the cellulose.  He later believed it to be a surface phenomena, possibly caused (at least in part) by something known as a “Maillard Reaction.”
    Rogers was diagnosed with cancer about the time he got back into Shroud research and was actually only given about eighteen months to live, but he greatly outlived the doctor’s expectations.  Despite having cancer, he produced numerous papers and articles, countless emails to Shroud groups and individuals, a book, and conducted numerous phone calls with Shroud researchers.  I have been truly awed by the output of this man.
    I never met Rogers in person, but my late wife Sue Benford and I eventually corresponded with him a lot via email after a rocky start. After the 1988 C-14 dating that determined that the Shroud supposedly dated to AD 1260-1390, Rogers accepted the results and temporarily dropped out of Shroud research.  Two events in 2000 brought Rogers back into the field.  One was the book The Resurrection of the Shroud:  New Scientific, Medical and Archeological Evidence by Mark Antonacci.  Rogers was critical of some of the data presented and wrote a review that was published on shroud.com.  The second was a paper that Sue and I had presented at a conference in Italy, in which we hypothesized that the C-14 dating had been in error because the sample tested had been repaired in the 16th century.  As related in the documentary “Unwrapping the Shroud:  New Evidence,” Rogers chastised fellow team member Barrie Schwortz for publishing the paper on his website shroud.com.  Rogers actually told one reporter that Sue and I were part of “the lunatic fringe.”  Rogers still had in his possession some samples from the main part of the Shroud from the 1978 study, and he also had some threads from the “Raes sample,” named after the Belgian textile expert Dr. Gilbert Raes, who was given in 1973 some threads to examine.  The 1988 C-14 sample was taken right next to the Raes sample.  Rogers reasoned that since the C-14 sample was right next to the Raes sample, if he could show that the Raes sample matched the samples from the main part of the Shroud, that would disprove the hypothesis that the C-14 sample had been repaired.  He was literally the only person in the world who had samples of both areas.  To his shock, he discovered that the two areas were chemically different and told Schwortz he thought we were right.  He continued his work on it for five years until he died from cancer in 2005; a peer-reviewed paper was published in a high-end chemical journal two months before his death, in which he concluded,

Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

I believe his desire to find out the truth about the Shroud extended his life.
    The article will consist of two parts.  Part I will consist of Ray’s own work of papers, articles, and a book.  Part II will consist of material about Ray by others.  The article will be updated as needed.

The following is a consolidation of important historical references of the Shroud through the early centuries found in multiple sources. I have gathered the most significant references here in one document. Together, they form a compelling argument for a historical trail that traces back a thousand years earlier than the 14 th century as promulgated by the carbon dating tests of 1988. These important references indicate the cloth was in Constantinople before it was stolen in 1204 and later revealed in Lirey, France in 1356. However, due to the silence of the "missing years," (1204-1356) critics allege there is no historical evidence of its existence prior to its emergence in France, a claim that is now seriously challenged by these documented references.

The Shroud of Turin contains good-resolution full-size images, without pigment, of the front and back of a naked crucified man. This paper proposes a multi-step process for formation of these images. By following the evidence on the Shroud where it leads, without a presupposition of naturalism, a hypothesis for image formation can be developed that is consistent with the macroscopic and microscopic evidence on the Shroud. How the image was formed on the Shroud is similar in some respects to how the image of a person is formed on photographic paper. To form the image on the Shroud requires that the mechanism that discolored the fibers to discolor only the right fibers and the right length of fibers. To accomplish this, the discoloration mechanism must be controlled by information. This information must be that which defines the appearance of a naked crucified man, because that is what the image is, and this information must be deposited on the cloth to control the discoloration mechanism. This information must come from the body, because it is only inherent to the body. It was not inherent to the air or limestone in the tomb. This information can only be transported or communicated from the body to the cloth in a focused manner by radiation such as charged particles or infrared, visible, or ultraviolet light. Thus, the proposed hypothesis for image formation involves radiation emitted from the body that carries the information to the cloth that is required to control the discoloration mechanism. We can see the image because this information has been encoded into the pattern of discolored fibers that make the image. The radiation is believed to primarily be charged particles that caused a static discharge from the top portions of the fibers facing the body. This static discharge would cause heating due to electron flow, and possibly ozone production, that could discolor fibers consistent with the microscopic properties of the discoloration on the fibers in the image. This process also naturally results in a negative image that contains 3D or topographical information, and threads with a mottled appearance.

La Sindone è emblema della fede.
La fede è storia, e, in virtù di ciò, richiede che nei suoi confronti ci si rivolga con un approccio critico-scientifico.
Tuttavia la stessa fede rivela come tale appressamento risulti insufficiente e limitato, ovvero da compensare e corroborare, in quanto questa è considerazione del Signore Gesù Cristo a partire dalla sua comunione col Padre e con lo Spirito.

*Shroud of Turin Research Project   

    In 1978, the Shroud of Turin Research Project, known as “STURP,” a group of mainly American scientists and most of whom worked in the U.S.’ nuclear and space programs, were given permission to study the Shroud for five days around the clock.  Their mission was to determine how the image got onto the cloth, no more, no less.  They were unable to come up with an answer, and actually concluded the image was not the product of the artist.  Some skeptics, especially those who were anti-religion, were not pleased with their findings, and STURP was subsequently often accused of being a group of religious zealots who were out to prove the Resurrection of Jesus.  They were not.  Although most were Christian, only a few could be considered devout; the team included Jews and agnostics as well.  As men who built bombs and help send crafts into space, they were mainly interested in the Shroud from a purely scientific perspective.  Sadly, about half of the team members are now deceased.
    Barrie Schwortz, the team’s documenting photographer and one of the Jewish members, has already published the teams’ peer-reviewed scientific papers from 1979-1982 as well as some additional articles by STURP members.  This bibliography expands on this and includes, subsequent to 1982, peer-reviewed papers, articles, including from conference presentations, as well as online articles, and books.  It will be divided into four parts.  Part I will consist of papers/presentations/articles.  Part II will consist of books.  Part III will consist of planning/testing documents submitted by STURP to Church authorities.  The last part is an appendix consisting of articles that are interviews of STURP members.  This article will be updated as needed.
    The entries in each part will be listed alphabetically by the primary author’s last name and then in chronological order by publication date.  Papers in peer-reviewed journals will be noted as “Peer-Reviewed.”  For articles that have multiple authors that include non-STURP authors, STURP members’ names will be highlighted in green.  (A paper or article with multiple authors with no name in green signifies that all of the authors are STURP members.)  Each unique combination of authors is considered as a separate alphabetical entity.  A big thanks goes to Barrie Schwortz for supplying via his web site most of the accessible links found in this bibliography.  It should be noted that among all the entries, only Joseph Accetta is fairly certain that the image is a forgery.

Il volume è il frutto di una serie di conferenze multidisciplinari tenutesi nel corso dell’anno 2018–2019 presso la Pontificia Facoltà Teologica dell’Italia Meridionale, Sezione San Tommaso d’Aquino e incentrate sul tema “Il volto di Gesù rivelatore del Padre”. Il mistero cristiano dell’incarnazione offre l’opportunità di poter contemplare in qualche modo direttamente Dio: una possibilità “rivoluzionaria” che sbaraglia i tentativi intellettuali, mistici e misterici di entrare in contatto con il divino che hanno caratterizzato tutte le religioni. Gli studi che rendono ricco e interessante il volume ben rappresentano la poliedricità di accostamenti possibili al mistero di Gesù.

The volume is the result of a series of multidisciplinary conferences held during the year 2018-2019 at the Pontifical Theological Faculty of Southern Italy, St. Thomas Aquinas Section, and focused on the theme "The face of Jesus reveals the Father". The Christian mystery of the Incarnation offers the opportunity to contemplate in some way God directly: a "revolutionary" possibility that defeats the intellectual, mystical and mysteric attempts to get in touch with the divine that have characterized all religions. The studies that make the volume rich and interesting well represent the versatility of possible approaches to the mystery of Jesus.

L’elaborato in questione parte da un’idea alquanto ardita: porre a raffronto, mantenendo sempre come fondale l’osservazione della Sindone, le risurrezioni presenti nel Nuovo Testamento, con la Risurrezione per antonomasia, ovvero quella di Gesù.

In a topic as controversial as the Turin Shroud, it is always surprising to note that there remains a large area of consensus among scholars who hold opposite opinions on the origin of this piece of fabric. According to the consensus view, neither science nor history can prove that the Turin Shroud shows signs of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. However, the reasons provided for this important claim are not convincing, especially in light of recent developments in historiography and analytic philosophy.

To explain the characteristics of the image on the Shroud of Turin, along with the 1988 carbon dating and the characteristics of the blood on the Shroud, it is hypothesized that an extremely brief intense burst of vertically collimated radiation was emitted within the body of the crucified man that was wrapped within the Shroud. This radiation, probably consisting primarily of charged particles, caused a static discharge from the top fibers facing the body, which caused heating in a very thin surface layer on the fibers, which caused molecular damage to the cellulose in this thin layer. With the passage of time and possibly ultraviolet exposure, this thin damaged cellulose layer on the fibers gradually became discolored to form the image of a man that was crucified exactly as Jesus was crucified. By this process, the radiation controlled the location of the discoloration, thus encoding into the image the information that defines the appearance of a crucified man, so that the image could have this appearance. The evidence for this hypothesis is its ability to explain the characteristics of the image, carbon date, and blood on the Shroud.

Dopo aver trasferito la propria capitale da Chambéry a Torino nell’anno 1563, «Era mente del duca di Savoia Emanuele Filiberto, ricuperati suoi stati […], di avere presso di sè la Sindone […] che ordinariamente lo teneva in Ciamberì». A Chambéry, infatti, «non pareva molto sicuro [il sacro Sindone] per li continui tumulti delli Hugonotti ne paesi vicini della Francia, et Delfinato».

The Shroud of Turin is believed by many people to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.  Others believe that it is a forged object meant to look like the burial cloth of Jesus.  Since no one has been able to explain (contrary to multiple claims) how the image got on the cloth, science has maintained an interest in the Shroud.  Some people analyze the Shroud of Turin from a purely scientific point of view.  Others analyze it from a purely religious point of view.
    Christianity has a history, inextricably linked with its faith, of almost two-thousand years of mysticism, defined as “belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.”  Naturally, each reader will need to decide how much weight the information in the entries holds.
    This article will list material from authors who see a mystical connection with the Shroud.  The entries will be in alphabetical order by author’s last name, will list some highlights, and in some cases, some comments will be added.  This article will be updated as needed.

In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered.

The Mandylion or image of Edessa, first mentioned in the 6th century, was a depiction of Christ's face, described by some texts as a painting and by others as a miraculous imprint on a cloth. It is reasonable to believe that this mysterious cloth was the Shroud which is today kept in Turin, folded in such a way as to show only the face.
The protagonist of the events related to the Edessan image is Thaddeus-Addai, who is at times defined as “apostle” and at other times simply as disciple. The identification of Thaddeus-Addai with the apostle Judas Thaddeus or one of the 70 (or 72) disciples remains an issue which deserves further studies; however, considering the research already conducted, a possible relation between the numerous literary witnesses and the figure of Judas Thaddeus is not to be ruled out.

The Turin Shroud bears an image of an apparent crucified man, chemically the result of some dehydrative, oxidative, and subsequent carbonyl conjugative process of cellulose [3] In the here described experiment the (lower) calyx side (bottom) part of an apple is imaged on a linen cloth with a special corona discharge mechanism. The calyx part of an apple can be compared in size and profile to approximately one eye on the Turin Shroud. The corona mechanism of this experiment is capable of approximately produce an image of objects that are between 0 and 10mm away from the object while maintaining sharpness. Corona imaging experiments had been previously done in 2014 by Giulio Fanti et al. [1] This experiment distinguishes itself from this previous experiment in that the setup and mechanism is substantially different. Energy considerations from this mechanism lead to the conclusion that the image on the shroud could have been formed with one single average lightning-bolt following the here described technique.

Eyewitnesses reported that the dead body of Jesus’ of Nazareth disappeared while wrapped in a cloth.  Today the only credible physical evidence of this amazing event is the Shroud of Turin, which many people believe was Jesus’ actual burial cloth.  This cloth contains front and back full length body images that many researchers agree are of a real man.  This report is a theoretical study of how the image on the Shroud of Turin might have been created.  Our present knowledge of science does not explain disappearance of a dead body, so this discussion accepts its disappearance as fact.  Once past this conundrum, a Free Electron Model of Image Formation is proposed to explain how an image of a man might have been created on linen cloth, assuming only that a body disappeared while wrapped in it.  This model proposes that an interface opened between our world and a higher dimensionality to swallow the body, while leaving behind void populated by electrons and photons that created an image on cloth.  This study concludes that the body’s disappearance is consistent with transfer to a higher dimensionality.

This article is a response to W. Meacham's comment on the coin-on--eye/coin-in-skull burial custom as published in R. Hachlili and A.E. Killebrew 1983 "Was the Coin-on-Eye Custom a Jewish Burial Practice in the Second Temple Period?" that appeared in Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983).

Au cours de la première moitié du XVIe siècle apparut à Besançon un suaire qui reportait l’image du Christ mort. Selon une tradition qui se répandit aux environs de 1750, le chevalier Othon de la Roche avait pris possession en 1204, au cours de  la quatrième croisade de Constantinople, de ce suaire qui fut amené en Bourgogne. La légende devint tellement notoire qu’elle supplanta celles qui avaient été inventées lors des deux siècles précédents. Pendant la Révolution, on vit dans le suaire de Besançon une simple peinture et il fut détruit. Au XXe siècle, sa légende fut reprise à propos d’un autre suaire, celui qui se trouve de nos jours à Turin, donnant naissance à une histoire tout à fait rocambolesque : le suaire qui se trouve aujourd’hui à Turin ne serait en fait que celui de Besançon qui aurait été remplacé frauduleusement par une copie lors de l’incendie de la cathédrale de la ville en 1350.
Ce livre raconte la véritable histoire du suaire de Besançon et la création des fausses légendes médiévales le concernant. Il apparaît que l’entreprise d’Othon de la Roche fut inventée, sur la base de documents falsifiés, par l’auteur d’un écrit anonyme contenu dans le manuscrit 826 de la Bibliothèque d'étude et de conservation de Besançon ; ce manuscrit contient aussi un autre écrit, tout autant anonyme, qui, lui, nie l’authenticité de la relique. Le lecteur trouvera ici la transcription intégrale du manuscrit, accompagnée d’un commentaire historique, et découvrira l’identité des deux auteurs jusqu’ici inconnus.

According to ancient tradition, the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.  To determine whether this could be true, more historical and scientific research has been done on the Shroud of Turin than on any other ancient artifact.  The purpose of this paper is to summarize the results of the scientific research on the Shroud of Turin.  This summary is based on the opinions of most Shroud researchers and on research by the author.  Research on the Shroud is summarized using nine summary statements.  A multi-step argument is given that the image on the Shroud is that of Jesus of Nazareth.  Two objections to these conclusions are considered – that they violate the laws of science and that the authenticity of the Shroud is disproven by the 1988 C14 dating of the Shroud, which concluded that the Shroud dates to 1260 to 1390 AD with a 95% probability.  Four reasons are discussed which indicate that this conclusion is not justified by the evidence.  This includes consideration of 14 indicators of the Shroud’s date and 6 indications that the 1988 statistical analysis of the C14 dating results was inadequate.  The neutron absorption hypothesis is used to explain the apparent C14 date to 1260 to 1390 AD.

According to legend, the Mandylion was an image of Christ’s face imprinted on a towel, kept in Edessa. This acheiopoieton image (“not made by human hands”) disappeared in the eighteenth century. The first records of another acheiropoieton relic appeared in mid-fourteenth century France: a long linen bearing the image of Jesus’ corpse, known nowadays as the Holy Shroud of Turin. Some believe the Mandylion and the Shroud to be the same object, first kept in Edessa, later translated to Constantinople, France and Italy. Andrea Nicolotti traces back the legend of the Edessean image in history and art, focusing especially on elements that could prove its identity with the Shroud, concluding that the Mandylion and the Shroud are two distinct objects.

More research has been done on the Shroud of Turin than any other ancient artifact. Many dedicated individuals and groups in many countries are doing this research, yet many controversies remain due to the small size of most samples and lack of access to the Shroud. This paper summarizes five areas related to this research. Regarding philosophy, research on the Shroud should be done by following the evidence where it leads, which is forensic science, while rejecting the requirements of naturalism so that the researcher can have a neutral mindset in the research. There is a continuous history of the Shroud back to about 1356, but there is convincing evidence that it was in Constantinople prior to 1204 AD, with copies of it in art and coins back to the 6 th and 7 th centuries. There is good evidence that the image was caused by radiation that altered the structure of the organic compounds in the linen fibers, perhaps by means of a static discharge from the fibers. This radiation must have been emitted from within the body to carry the information from the body to the cloth that was required to control the mechanism that discolored the fibers. The best explanation for the carbon dating of the Shroud to 1260 to 1390 AD is that neutrons were included in this radiation. These neutrons formed new C 14 in the fibers which could have shifted the C 14 date forward by up to thousands of years, depending on the location on the Shroud. The most reasonable conclusion is that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, and that the image resulted from a unique event involving Jesus' body as it was wrapped within the Shroud.

One of the reasons that many Christians get excited about the Shroud of Turin, believed by numerous people to be the actual burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, is that they believe that the Shroud provides physical evidence – some might even go so far as to say “proof” -- that the Resurrection of Jesus, the linchpin to the establishment of Christianity.  Of course, there are myriad hurdles that have to be navigated before getting to that point.  First of all, not everyone even accepts the notion that the Resurrection of Jesus happened.  In fact, some people deny that Jesus even existed.  And for people who accept that he existed, not all believe he actually died the way history records.  But most people, including most mainline historians, accept that:
*Jesus of Nazareth existed from c. 7 B.C. to c. 30 or 33 A.D.
*That he died by crucifixion
*That his apostles and disciples believe they saw him after his crucifixion
*That many of his followers died for their beliefs
    Of course, the link is not absolute.  There are some people who believe the Shroud is authentic but don’t necessarily believe that Jesus even rose from the dead.  But a majority of people probably, either consciously or unconsciously, probably feel there is a connection of some kind between the two.
    John Lennon was, no doubt, wrong when he said of the Beatles during the “we’re more popular than Jesus” flap in 1966 that Christianity would shrink and die.  The idea that he is wrong is due, in large part, due to the fact, that billions of Christians throughout history actually have believed that Jesus actually rose from the dead.  Shroud researcher Russ Breault says that people often ask him vis-à-vis the effort put into studying the Shroud, “What if the Shroud is not authentic?”  He says that people are asking the wrong question.  He poses the question:  “What if the Shroud is authentic, and we did nothing with it?”
    It’s a big “if,” of course.  But even for Christians that accept the four aforementioned bullet points and that the Shroud is authentic, the elephant in the room is the question of what role the Shroud should play in supporting or proving the Resurrection.  Some Christians will cite the passage from The Book of Hebrews (11:1) that "Now faith is the giving substance to what is hoped for, the testing of things not seen" to counter the idea that the Shroud could be used to bolster faith, but Christianity is an historical religion, based on events in a particular place and time.  Archaeology is used all the time to confirm events described in the Bible and the Shroud could be considered an archaeological object.  If the Shroud is authentic and God intentionally did leave it for the “Doubting Thomases,” one could also cite Jesus from The Gospel of John saying (14:11), “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me--or at least believe on account of the works themselves.”
    Despite the efforts of skeptics who try to convince others that Jesus never existed or if he was crucified he didn’t die, or if he died he wasn’t buried in a cloth like the Shroud, or that they have duplicated the Shroud using only 14th-century technology (I’m tempted to use an emoji here but I will refrain), the Shroud, like Christianity, will never go away.  The reason for that is, despite the improbability that the cloth that wrapped Jesus has survived to our own day, there is enough historical and scientific evidence that suggests that it did.  And this is despite the fact that the Shroud’s history is not clear before the 1350s, that it historically surfaced during a time of numerous fake relics, and that it was carbon-dated in 1988 to the very period in which its documented history begins.  But appearances can be deceiving.