Shroud of Turin Archives - Dr. Rich Swier

Anyone who thought that the Christian relic known as the Shroud of Turin was dead and buried would have been surprised last week by a sudden burst of headlines around the world suggesting the burial cloth, said to carry an image of Jesus in death, was not a fake after all.

The headlines included: “Turin Shroud may actually be Jesus’s burial cloth, new study suggests” (TheIndependent); “Controversial new Shroud of Turin evidence said to offer proof of Christ’s crucifixion” (the New York Post), and “Was Jesus buried in Shroud of Turin? Latest research reveals shocking details” (The Times of India)!

Reports also appeared in London’s Sun, Mirror, and Daily Mail, Al Jazeera, The Tablet, Fox News, and the Hindustan Times.

What the heck?

Close inspection reveals not one story, but two feeding off each other.

One was based on a recent dating test of a Shroud sample to the first century. Most people know a carbon-dating test in 1988 concluded that the Shroud was a medieval forgery. But the latest tests, recently published in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Heritage, contradict the carbon dating, and say that the Shroud is likely to be 2000 years old.

The tests were carried out by a team of five scientists, led by a member of Italy’s National Research Council, Dr Liberato De Caro. They were based on a new dating technique – wide-angle, X-ray scattering (WAXS), which measures the natural ageing of flax cellulose, from which the Shroud is made.

Dr de Caro insists WAXS is more reliable than carbon dating. He points out it is not affected by carbon-14 contamination, widely believed to be responsible for the misleading results from the 1988 carbon dating. He explains that it is difficult to know whether the radiocarbon tests measured the carbon 14 on the original fabric or additional carbon-14 that was added later.

The other story behind the headlines was about a former atheist, British filmmaker David Rolfe, who set out to “prove Shroud of Turin was fake”, realised it had to be “the cloth Jesus was buried in”, and became a Christian. Rolfe’s award-winning film, The Silent Witness, showed cinemagoers all over the world how compelling the evidence for the Shroud was at the time.

Many people would have wondered last week how the Shroud could suddenly be authentic. But the truth is that evidence has been growing relentlessly for decades. And most people don’t know the 1988 carbon dating is now widely believed by Shroud researchers to be flawed.

I am very aware of all this because I set out to write a book about the Shroud a few years ago explaining why it was a fake and ended up publishing a book titled: Riddles of the Shroud: Questions science can’t answer. The message, summed up in the sub-title, was that science has indeed failed to answer many questions raised by the Shroud since it first attracted the attention of scientists 126 years ago.

In 1898, when the first photo of the Shroud was taken, the world was amazed to hear that the image on the linen cloth was a negative “photographic” image that had existed for centuries before photography was thought of.

Sceptics claimed at the time – with impressive faith – that science would work it out. But over the past century, as the Shroud became the most researched artefact in history, science has only succeeded in discovering more unanswerable questions about it.

My list of questions in Riddles of the Shroud stopped at 99. The list has grown longer since then.

So why do so many people think the Shroud is some kind of miracle? Well, apart from the image’s photo-negative features, the Shroud has no traces of any artistic medium – no paint, pigment, ink or dye, but is inexplicably made from a microscopic layer of discoloured linen microfibres, found only on the microscopic surface of the cloth. (This means the image could not have been caused by a fluid or even gas, both of which would have penetrated much deeper into the cloth.) Many scientists have concluded it is an image that could only have been produced by a burst of radiation from the body.

Several tests have also confirmed that the image is three-dimensional, unlike all known photographs. Then there are the wounds and blood flows on the body image. They are forensically perfect. And the blood chemistry shows it came from someone who was tortured.

As well, microscopic traces of soil and flower pollen from the area around Jerusalem were uncovered. Other pollens point to a journey from Jerusalem, through Eastern Europe to France and Italy, all confirmed by historical writings and images on icons and coins matching the face on the Shroud.

The list goes on.

But it is not just this evidence that casts doubt on the 1988 carbon dating, but the raw data from the carbon dating as well. This was only recently made public after being locked away for almost three decades. Many requests for the data over the years were denied, but it was finally released by a legal request under Britain’s freedom of information laws.

Suspicion about the carbon dating goes right back to a press conference carbon daters held in 1989 to publicise their findings. The three men who conducted the conference in London (seen l-r) were Professor Edward “Teddy” Hall (deceased), from the Oxford University carbon-dating lab, Dr Michael Tite (retired) from the British Museum which coordinated the dating, and Professor Robert Hedges (retired), from Oxford University.

The carbon daters claimed the Shroud was “faked up” by a forger from a “multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century”. But physicists and statisticians have now published papers in peer-reviewed academic journals challenging the carbon dating. They say the statistics are not “homogenous” – that they are “heterogeneous”. Most people would have no idea what these words mean, but the experts who do know say the findings are dramatic – they argue the dating was invalid and new dating tests are needed.

The other recent headlines, about former atheist filmmaker David Rolfe, followed the release of Rolfe’s latest film: Who Can He Be? It is one of several documentaries he has made on the Shroud, including Shroud of Turin Material Evidence, and A Grave Injustice, about the carbon dating.

The filmmaker is so convinced the Shroud is authentic, he has bet the British Museum a million dollars that it can’t replicate the Shroud. He explained: “They said it was knocked up by a mediaeval conman, and I say: ‘Well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. And if you can, there’s a one-million-dollar donation for your funds.’”

The museum has not taken up the challenge. So, on a visit to the United States, Rolfe extended the bet to that country. Again, no one has come forward to claim the million dollars.

There are two prominent theories about the high concentrations of carbon 14 on the Shroud. One is that it was caused by a massive burst of radiation, believed to be responsible for the photo-like image on the cloth – a theory supported by many physicists.

The other theory involves traces of cotton found on the linen cloth, suggesting it was repaired in the Middle Ages using a method known as French invisible weaving.

If you are one of those who were surprised by last week’s headlines, be warned there is more to come. Next year the Catholic Church will celebrate a Jubilee year and as part of that Pope Francis is to make a pilgrimage to the Shroud on May 4, which will be shared online. A Shroud educational display will be set up in Turin to educate people “about the Cloth, its history and its meaning”.

There will be many other exhibits around the world of full-size photographic copies of the Shroud, as well as statues based on the 3D features on the Shroud.

At least two international Shroud conferences are being organized – one in the United States and one in Australia – both to be addressed by Shroud experts from around the world.

I can also confirm that, after digging more deeply into the carbon-dating of the Shroud, I will soon publish the results in a second book. In 50 years of journalism, I have never come across anything like the hidden story behind the carbon dating. The bottom line is that the carbon daters got it wrong, and the story of how it happened is one of the most fascinating I’ve come across.

The main conclusion from all of this is that reports that the Shroud’s death have been grossly exaggerated. Those who still believe that the burial cloth of Jesus expired almost 40 years ago will have to come to terms with its resurrection.

Carbon daters who have passed away since 1988 must be rolling in their graves.

Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? What do you think?

AUTHOR

William West

Journalist and editor William West has worked on national and international news publications for half a century. After years of research, he has written an introduction for ordinary people to what he believes is ‘the most profound puzzle of all time’. His book ‘Riddles of the Shroud’ is available on Amazon.

Even though it failed a carbon-dating test 40 years ago, new findings suggest that the scientists were wrong.

In April 2022 new tests on the Shroud of Turin — believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ — dated it to the first century. This dating contradicted a 1980s carbon dating that suggested the Shroud was from the Middle Ages. Some people would have been surprised, but not anyone who had been following the build-up of evidence indicating the Shroud is authentic.

A total of four tests have now dated the Shroud to the first century. In addition, an immense body of other evidence suggests the cloth, which appears to carry an image of Jesus’s crucified body, is genuine.

Experiment

Debate about the Shroud has been going on for centuries, provoking heated exchanges, revealing a tortuous trail of evidence full of unexpected twists and turns, and prompting more unanswerable questions than any other artefact in history.

Only days before the new dating results were announced, one of the main players in the drama, British filmmaker David Rolfe, issued a million-dollar challenge to the British Museum to replicate the Shroud.

The Museum oversaw the carbon tests on the Shroud and Rolfe explained: “They said it was knocked up by a medieval conman, and I say: ‘Well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. And if you can, there’s a one-million-dollar donation for your funds.’”

Rolfe’s challenge might have seemed like a stunt, but it was serious. He said if the museum accepted the challenge, he would place a million dollars in a legal holding account pending the outcome.

You would think if anyone could copy the Shroud, the British Museum could. It certainly has the resources: around a thousand employees, including research scientists, links to major universities — and I’m sure the museum would not refuse outside help.

So, was Rolfe’s bet risky?

Those familiar with the evidence would say no. Given all we now know about the Shroud of Turin, and the fact that no one has ever been able to copy it or even explain how it was made, Rolfe’s million dollars appears safe. The reason he and so many others are convinced the burial cloth is genuine is that there is a mountain of evidence supporting that conclusion.

One reason most people don’t share this view is that they seem to know as little about the Shroud as they do about carbon dating. They are not aware that, contrary to the popular idea that the Shroud is a fake, it has become, in the words of a number of researchers, “the single most studied artefact in human history”.

Solid science

The most recent verification of its authenticity came in April this year. A member of Italy’s National Research Council, Dr Liberato de Caro, used a new X-ray technique designed specifically for dating linen.

He used a method known as wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS), which he says is more reliable than carbon dating. He said this was because carbon dating can be dramatically wrong due to contamination of the thing being dated.

If you are one of those who know little about the Shroud, here are some basic details: It is a long strip of linen, covered in blood and carrying a faint image of the front and back of a dead man, apparently beaten and scourged, bleeding copiously from the scalp, and showing all the signs of Jesus’s crucifixion, including a lance wound to the heart. It first appeared publicly in western Europe in 1355 when it was put on display in France. The owners refused to say where they got it — understandable, given that it was probably stolen.

The Shroud’s sudden appearance set off the fiery debate that continues to this day. You may know that many books and articles have already been written. Over the years, I have read many of them, but none offered what I was looking for — an up-to-date introduction to the subject that was accessible to non-academics.

I couldn’t find one, so I decided to write it myself.

Overwhelming data

Soon, I felt like this was a mistake. They say the worst thing you can do to journalists is to provide them with too much information, and the information on the Shroud is very close to being too much. To get an idea of how much information is involved, search for “Shroud of Turin” on Google Scholar. You will get around 12,000 links.

Even a search on academia.edu turns up about 4,000 academic papers begging to be read. The oldest Shroud website, shroud.com, has among its extensive resources, one comforting list of a mere 400 “essential” scientific papers and articles. But even this is a lot if you are already struggling to get through books, videos and papers from academic conferences, podcasts and documentaries going back decades.

Most people, including myself (until recently), closed their minds to the Shroud when the 1988 carbon dating results were released. Those tests suggested the relatively high levels of carbon 14 on the cloth meant it came from around 1325 — give or take 65 years.

That sounds precise, but what most of us weren’t told was that carbon dating had been wrong many times, sometimes by as much as a thousand or more years, due to contamination of the article being dated. In the case of the Shroud, there is a long list of reasons it could be contaminated, including the fact that it has been handled by countless people, exposed to fire, water, repairs, and other materials capable of causing contamination.

Most interesting of all, as indicated by a growing body of evidence, its carbon levels could have been raised by the radiation that appears to be the most likely cause of the image it carries.

So, even though many people still assume the carbon date was the end of the story, it may be just the beginning. If, like me, you take the time to review the evidence, it wears you down. These days, if anyone asks me if I really think “that Shroud thing” could be Jesus’ burial cloth with his image on it, all I can say is: given the evidence, I can’t think what else it could be. I am open to being talked out of this view, but so far nobody has managed to do it.

Whatever your own view, following the trail of evidence is possibly the most fascinating and rewarding journey you will ever undertake. This is partly because the case for the Shroud does not hinge on a single fact — certainly not on the radiocarbon date. It involves many interlocking facts — a big picture painted by intriguing details. My experience is that the Shroud asks more unanswerable questions than anything on the planet.

Excerpted from Riddles of the Shroud with permission.

AUTHOR

William West

William West is a Sydney journalist. More by William West

Tag Archive for: Shroud of Turin

William West

Experiment

Solid science

Overwhelming data

William West