Shrouded in Mystery No More —

The Shroud of Turin is real. I’m convinced of it. To think such is not a testimony of my faith either, nor is it intellectually grounded in any merit of my own. The scientific evidence is so staggering, and corresponds to history and Scripture so well, that it is much harder to accept it’s a forgery than it is to accept its authenticity. News agencies have all but exploded with exposés on the Shroud as of late, so I see no need to hash it all out, here. But, highlighting the key evidence is crucial to let the weight of this historical fact sink in: We have an ancient photograph of Jesus Christ—the visible image of the invisible God. A fact that, if true, has incredible theological implications for iconoclastic Protestants.

Scientific Evidence of Jesus’ Death

In 1978, a team of leading experts and scientists were assembled and given permission to throughly examine the Shroud, known as the Shroud of Turin Research Project (or STURP for short). Among them were NASA image specialists, electrical engineers, physicists, chemists, a forensic pathologist, and other highly decorated academics. In 1981, the study group concluded that “the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The bloodstains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.”[1] They continued to state that the image is an “ongoing mystery” and will require further study to prove its authenticity. The mystery: How did the image get on the Shroud in the first place?

Seven years later, the Vatican permitted tiny samples from the corner of the Shroud to be carbon-14 tested by three independent labs in the United States, Britain, and Switzerland. All three labs drew a controversial conclusion: The rate of decay of radioactive isotope dated the Shroud to the Middle Ages, sometime between 1260 to 1390 AD, a whopping twelve-hundred years after Christ’s death and resurrection. It completely contradicted the earlier results, and has been the primary reason many reject or distrust the Shroud’s authenticity; this, plus the fact that there were a lot of fraudulent medieval relics and artistic productions disguised as artifacts throughout Christendom’s history (such when dozens of medieval churches claimed to possess the Holy Prepuce of Jesus Christ… yes, the very same foreskin removed during His circumcision on the eighth day after birth. Don’t ask). Needless to say, its authentic public image was not unjustly put into question and shrouded in doubt. Even though the radiocarbon dating was the prime, if not, sole evidence that suggested a later date. Now, I cannot vouch for the other relics floating around, of course, but what is worth bookmarking in your brain is that the radiocarbon dating conducted 35 years ago was not entirely wrong—well, sort of.

The original 1988 carbon-14 test took the top corner of the Shroud, which was contaminated by traces of fungus and calcium carbonate, potentially effecting the chemical composition of the fibres, and more significantly, went under numerous restoration efforts over the centuries, such as a 15th century weaving technique used to repair holes, tears, and burns called ‘invisible reweaving’. It is historically known to have suffered damage from a fire that broke out in a chapel in Chambéry, France in 1532, which left scorch marks and water stains still visible on the fabric today. Poor Clare Nuns patched the damage the best they could, but it is a distinct weave from the original cloth of the Shroud, which is made from a ‘herringbone twill weave’, known to have been used in the Near East during the first century (while not unique to that period, it is far more consistent with textiles from the region at that time than with medieval European fabrics). This helps verify the accuracy for tracing its history. Anyway, many researchers and scholars, including one of the original researchers in the 1988 study who advocated for a medieval date, have raised concerns about the methodology used in the original test, particularly regarding the sample’s selection and the potential for contamination, but to be honest, that is neither here nor there.[2] The radiocarbon dating was relatively accurate. It just so happened to study the wrong section of the cloth. What does this mean? The original argument and conclusion for a medieval date is unreliable and disproven. Due to severe contamination and damage over time, it means that different parts of the cloth will yield different carbon-14 dates; the top edge will yield a different date than the bottom edge. And that is precisely what the most recent dating methods took into account.

It is no news that technology has improved over the past 35 years, for better or for worse. Given that carbon-14 dating is not a reliable way to achieve an accurate date for the Shroud, that is without tearing it a part bit-by-bit, many more studies have taken place.

For starters, the Institute of Crystallography employed a cutting-edge dating technique called Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) to measure the natural aging and decay of cellulose (or sugar molecules) in the linen fibres, assuming the Shroud’s environmental conditions was under moderate humidity (55–75%) and cool temperatures (20–22.5°C or 68–72.5°F) for seven centuries. Specifically, when renowned knight, Geoffroi de Charnay, acquired the holy icon, presumably during a military crusade, and brought it to Lirey, France in 1354.[3] WAXS is reportedly a far more reliable and less intrusive dating method. The result?

First century AD.

WAXS method shows that the Shroud’s cellulose breakdown aligns with other linens found in Israel from 55-74 AD. The stable environmental conditions of France and Italy for seven centuries would slow down the aging process significantly. If the Shroud was stored in a different environment with variable conditions, the sugar molecules in the cellulose would have degraded at a difference pace, resulting in a different age. These assumptions are necessary to obtain a two-thousand-year-old date, by the way—and how important they are—for if the Shroud was, in fact, a 700-year-old medieval forgery, as proponents of the radiocarbon dating result advocate, then it would have to have been stored in the hottest region on Earth (with an average temperature of 27.8°C or 82°F) to obtain a medieval date. The WAXS dating does not contradict history but aligns with its known historical whereabouts as well as the known historical climate of Europe.

The evidence does not stop there.

A chemical decay test of vanillin, a chemical compound in the flax fibres of the cloth, was conducted. If the fibres retained a third of the vanillin compound, then it would be a medieval forgery.

No vanillin was present. The chemical tests, therefore, preclude a medieval date.

Fabric also contains fragments of limestone (calcium carbonate) of a rare travertine aragonite variety unique to Israel, shows effusion of blood and water where his side was pierced and lung was punctured, and has ancient remains of plant matter consistent with the region of Jerusalem and Hebron. Hundreds of flowers covered His corpse. The presence of plant matter is very significant.

Historians typically affirm Jesus died during Passover in the Spring. The flowers present on the cloth bloom in March and April. Of the 36 species of pollen stems found on the Shroud, 20 are known to grow in Jerusalem and 8 are native to the Judaean Hills and Dead Sea region. Strikingly, of the 36 stem plants found, botanists discovered one of them was Cardusand Gundelia tournefortii—a thorny plant found in Israel, specifically in the Sinai Peninsula and Jordan, which blooms in March and April. Yes, it was the plant used for His crown of thorns. Thirty thorns pierced His head. This is huge. Thousands of men were tortured and crucified by Rome historically, but only one man had a crown of thorns.

All this together, in my view, carries far more reliable weight than the radiocarbon dating method ever could.

But, all this evidence so far only corroborates Jesus’ death.

What about His resurrection?