Shroud of Turin

A negative rendering of the face portion of the shroud.

The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth dating from at least the fourteenth century bearing the image of a man, presently kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. The man has the appearance of having been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. Some believe it is the cloth that covered Jesus when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was somehow recorded on its fibres. Sceptics contend it is a medieval hoax or forgery. Scientists, believers, historians and writers continue to debate where, when and how the shroud and image were created.

General observations

The shroud is rectangular, measuring approximately 4.4 x 1.1 m. The cloth is woven in a herringbone twill and is composed of flax fibrils entwined with cotton fibrils. It bears the image of a front and dorsal view of a naked man with his hands folded across his groin. The two views are aligned along the midplain of the body and pointing in opposite directions. The front and back views of the head nearly meet at the middle of the cloth. The views are consistent with an orthographic projection of a human body.

The "Man of the Shroud" has a beard, moustache, and shoulder-length hair parted in the middle. He was properly-proportioned and muscular, and quite tall (1.75 m) for a man of the first century (the time of Jesus' death) or for the Middle Ages (the time of the first reliable report of its existence, and date of possible forgery). Dark red stains, presumed to be blood are found on the cloth, showing various wounds:

at least one wrist bears a large round wound, apparently from piercing (The second wrist is hidden by the folding of the hands.)
in the side, again apparently from piercing
small wounds around the forehead
scores of linear wounds on the torso and legs, apparently from scourging

On May 28, 1898, an amateur Italian photographer, Secondo Pia, noted that the undeveloped negative image had the appearance of a positive image, which would imply that the shroud image (which is primarily brownish-yellow on white) is itself a negative of some sort. The detail and sense of three dimensionality appear to be greatly enhanced by Pia's negative image.

History

Early history

There are no reports of the artifact before the fourteenth century that can be connected with certainty to the current cloth held in the Turin cathedral. Nonetheless, there are several reports of Jesus' burial shroud being venerated in various locations (though there is no report of these up to 43 different "true shrouds" containing an image) or an image of his head of unknown origin. (See Humbert, 1978.)

One such image was the "Image of Edessa", which is reported reliably since the late sixth century. According to reports, that image included only the face of Jesus, with no mention of it being disfigured by torture (the "Man of the Shroud" appears to show considerable trauma to the face, including a broken nose). 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.

The Image of Edessa was kept in the city of Edessa since at least the middle of the sixth century. It had been found concealed behind some stones above one of the city gates at that time. The people of Edessa claimed that the cloth was originally presented to Abgarus V Ouchama, King of Edessa from AD 13 to 50 by the apostle Thaddeus (Addai), who had been sent by the apostle Thomas. This gift is reported by Eusebius ca. AD 325 and in the Doctrina Addai of the second half of the fourth century. The Edessan legend holds that the king was miraculously healed of an infirmity upon seeing the image of Jesus' face. These sources do not indicate a wounded image, nor an image of the entire body. Further evidence of the existence of the image comes from Evagrius Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical History (late sixth century), which mentions that Edessa was protected by a "portrait not made by human hands" (acheiropoeitos) sent by Jesus to Abgarus. John Damascene mentions the image in his anti-iconoclastic work On Holy Images [1], quoting a tradition that Abgarus had requested an image of Jesus and Jesus himself put a cloth to his face to produce the image. The cloth is described as being a "strip" or oblong cloth, rather than a square, as other accounts of the Edessa cloth hold.

There is no record explaining why or when the image was hidden inside of a city wall. Some have suggested that this was to extend the protection provided by the cloth to the whole city, or to hide it from persecutors of the Chrstian faith. (Persecutions are recorded in this area from the late first century until the time of Constantine the Great.) If the image was really brought to Edessa in the first century, it might have been hidden during the reign of Abgarus' son Ma'nu VI, who is thought to have reverted to paganism.

On August 15, 944, the cloth of Edessa was forcibly removed from Edessa to Constantinople. On the occasion of the transfer of the cloth, Gregory Referendarius, archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople held a sermon about the artefact. This sermon had been lost, but was rediscovered in the Vatican Archives and translated by Mark Guscin [2] in 2004. This sermon says that this Edessa Cloth contained not only the face, but a full-length image, which was believed to be of Jesus. The sermon also mentions bloodstains from a wound in the side. Other documents have since been found in the Vatican library and the University of Leiden, Netherlands, confirming this impression. "Faciei figuram sed totius corporis figuram cernere poteris" (You can see the figure of a face, but [also] the figure of the whole body). (Cf. Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69 and Vatican Library Codex 5696, p. 35.)

14th century

The known provenance of the cloth now stored in Turin dates to 1357, when the widow of the French knight Geoffroy de Charny had it displayed in a church at Lirey, France (diocese of Troyes). In the Museum Cluny in Paris, the coats of arms of this knight and his widow can be seen on a pilgrim medallion, which also shows an image of the Shroud of Turin.

During the fourteenth century, the shroud was often publicly exposed, though not continuously, since the bishop of Troyes had prohibited veneration of the image. 32 years after this pronouncement, the image was displayed again, and King Charles VI of France ordered its removal to Troyes, citing the impropriety of the image. The sheriffs were unable to carry out the order.

In 1389 the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis, who informed the Avignon pope of testimony from an artist who allegedly had painted the cloth (for reasons of profit), "upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore".

While the bishop never saw the image himself, he wrote of a predecessor who did investigate it directly: "Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."

If this testimony is correct, it would be consistent with the radiocarbon dating of the shroud (see below). From the point of view of many skeptics, it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the shroud is a forgery.

However Antipope Clement VII (first antipope of the Western Schism) prescribed indulgences for pilgrimages to the shroud, so that veneration continued despite the bishop's warning, though the shroud was not permitted to be styled the "True Shroud". [3]

15th century

In 1418, Humbert of Villersexel, Count de la Roche, Lord of Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs, moved the shroud to his castle at Montfort, France to provide protection against criminal bands, after he married Charny's granddaughter. It was later moved to Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs. After Humbert's death, canons of Lirey fought through the courts to force the widow to return the cloth, but the parliament of Dole and the Court of Besançon left it to the widow, who travelled with the shroud to various expositions, notably in Liege and Geneva.

The widow sold the image in exchange for a castle in Varambon, France in 1453. Louis of Savoy, the new owner, stored it in his capital at Cambery in the newly-built Saint-Chapelle, which Pope Paul II shortly thereafter raised to the diginity of a collegiate church. In 1464, the duke agreed to pay an annual fee to the Lirey canons in exchange for their dropping claims of ownership of the cloth. Beginning in 1471, the shroud was moved between many cities of Europe, being housed briefly in Vercelli, Turin, Ivrea, Susa, Chambery, Avigliano, Rivoli and Pinerolo. A description of the cloth by two sacristans of the Sainte-Chapelle from around this time noted that it was stored in a reliquary: "enveloped in a red silk drape, and kept in a case covered with crimson velours, decorated with silver-gilt nails, and locked with a golden key".

16th century to present

In 1532 the shroud suffered damage from a fire in the chapel where it was stored. A drop of molten silver from the reliquary produced a symmetrically-placed mark through the layers of the folded cloth. Poor Clare Nuns attempted to repair this damage. Some have suggested that there was also water damage from the exstinguishing of the fire.

In 1578 the shroud arrived to its current location in Turin. It was the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was given to the Holy See.

In 1988 the Holy See agreed to a Carbon 14 dating of the relic, for which a corner of the shroud was removed and sent to laboratories. (More on the testing is seen below.)

Another fire, possibly caused by arson, threatened the shroud in 1997, but Fireman Mario Trematore was able to remove it from its display case and prevent further damage.

In 2002 the Holy See had the shroud restored. The cloth backing and thirty patches were removed. This made it possible to photograph and scan the reverse side of the cloth, which had been hidden from view.

The controversy

The authenticity of the relic is hotly disputed. Proponents of its authenticity have coined the term sindonology to describe its study (from Greek σινδων—sindon, the word used in the Gospel of Mark to describe the cloth that Joseph of Arimathea bought to use as Jesus' burial cloth). The term is generally not used by skeptics of the authenticity of the relic.

It may be impossible to ever fully resolve the controversy over the cloth because believers are willing to accept supernatural explanations for the creation of the image which cannot be definitively disproven, while most skeptics deny any supernatural explanation at all.

Theories of image formation

The image on the cloth is entirely superficial, not penetrating into the cloth fibers under the surface, so that the flax and cotton fibers are not colored. Thus the cloth is not simply dyed, though many other explanations, natural and otherwise, have been suggested for the image formation.

Miraculous formation

Many believers consider the image to be a side effect of the Resurrection of Jesus, perhaps proposing semi-natural effects that might have been part of the process. Naturally, none of these theories is verifiable, and skeptics reject them out of hand. Some have suggested that the shroud collapsed through the glorified body of Jesus. Supporters of this theory point to certain x-ray-like impressions of the teeth and the finger bones. Others suggest that radiation caused by the miraculous event may have burned the image into the cloth.

Carbohydrate layer

A science-based theory that still allows for the authenticity of the shroud involves the gases that escape from the decomposing body in the early phases of decomposition. The cellulose fibers making up the shroud's cloths are coated with a thin carbohydrate layer of starch fractions, various sugars and other impurities. This layer is very thin (180 - 600 nm) and was discovered by applying phase contrast microscopy. The layer is thinnest where the image is. It appears that the carbohydrate layer carries the color, while the underlying cloth is uncolored. Naturally, such a layer would be essentially colorless, but in some places it has undergone a chemical change, producing a straw yellow color. The reaction involved is similar to that that takes place when sugar is heated to produce caramel.

In a peer-reviewed paper entitled "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation", R. N. Rogers and A. Arnoldi suggest that the Maillard reactions of amines from a human body with the carbohydrate layer would occur within a reasonable time after death, before liquid decomposition products stain or damage the cloth. Within a few hours after death, in a closed enviroment like a tomb, a body begins to produce heavier amines such as putrescine and cadaverine. These would naturally discolor the carbohydrate layer. For the explanation to be accepted, the body would have had to be removed from the cloth within three to four days of death, as the liquids produced during decomposition would have destroyed the image that was created.

Photographic image production

Skeptics have proposed many means for producing the image in the Middle Ages. Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince (1994) proposed that the shroud is perhaps the first ever example of photography, showing the portrait of its maker, Leonardo da Vinci. According to this theory, the image was made with the aid of a Laterna Magica, a simple projecting device, and light-sensitive silver compounds applied to the cloth. However, Leonardo was born a century after the first documented appearence of the cloth. Supporters of this theory thus propose that the original cloth was a poor fake, for which Leonardo's superior hoax was substituted. No contemporaneous reports indicate a sudden change in the quality of the image.

Painting

Another possibility is that the image was simply painted. The microscopic analysis of the fibers seems to indicate that the image is strictly limited to the carbohydrate layer, with no additional layer of pigment visible. Proponents say that no known technique for hand-application of painting is known that could apply a pigment on such a nano-scale fibrillar surface plane.

Nonetheless, Dr. Walter McCrone, using polarised light microscopy, concluded in 1979, concluded that the image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles. His study involved analysis of fibers removed by applying adhesive-backed tape to 32 different sections of the image. He concludes that the pigments used were a combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. The Electron Optics Group of McCrone Associates published the results of these studies in five articles in peer-reviewed journals: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83. As of 2004, no other scientists had confirmed his results with independant experiments.

Second Image on back of cloth

As mentioned above, during restoration in 2002, the back side of the cloth was photographed and scanned for the first time. The journal of the Institute of Physics in London published a peer-reviewed article on this subject on April 14, 2004. Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo of the University of Padua, Italy are the authors. They describe an image on the reverse side, much fainter than that on the other side, consisting primarily of the face and hands. Like the front image, it is entirely superficial, with coloration limited to the carbohydrate layer. The images correspond to, and are in registration with, those on the other side of the cloth. No image is detectable in the dorsal view section of the shroud.

Supporters of the Maillard reaction theory point out that the gases would have been less likely to penetrate the entire cloth on the dorsal side, since the body would have been laid on a stone shelf.

At the same time, the second image makes the photographic theory somewhat less probable.

Analysis of the Shroud

Radiocarbon dating

In 1988, the Holy See permitted three research centers to independently perform radiocarbon dating on a swatch taken from the corner of the shroud. All three, Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology agreed with a dating in the 13th to 14th centuries (1260-1390). The scientific community had asked the Holy See to authorize more than three samples, but this request was refused. The Holy See also refused to provide samples from the image-bearing part of the shroud. If the image is genuine, the destruction of parts of it for purposes of dating could be considered sacrilege, which accounts for the reluctance to release more samples in 1988 and when more samples have been requested afterwards.

Bacterial residue

Shroud proponents have generally not accepted these results as conclusive. Several phenomena have been cited that might account for erroneous dating. Those supporting image formation by miraculous radiation point out that this event would skew a radiocarbon test by increasing the proportion of Carbon 14 in the cloth. More naturalistic explanations for the discrepency include smoke particles from the fire of 1532 or bacterial residue that was not removed by the testing methods.

The argument involving bacterial residue is perhaps the strongest of these, since there are many examples of ancient textiles that were gravely misdated by radiocarbon testing. Most notable of these was mummy 1770 of the British Museum, whose bones were dated some 800–1000 years earlier than its cloth wrappings. Proponents also point out that the corner used for the dating would have been handled more often than other parts of the shroud, increasing the probabilitiy that it would be contaminated by bacteria and bacterial residue, which being carbon carriers, would tend to skew the results.

The nuclear physicist Harry Gove of the University of Rochester, who designed the particular radiocarbon test used, stated, "There is a bioplastic coating on some threads, maybe most." According to Gove, if this coating is thick enough, it "would make the fabric sample seem younger than it should be". Skeptics have countered that an error of 13 centuries would have required a bacterial layer weighing twice the sample weight.

Chemical properties of the sample site

Another argument against the results of the radiocarbon tests was made in a study by Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond Rogers, retired Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory. By ultraviolet photography and spectral analysis, they deterimined that the site chosen for the test samples of the cloth is chemically different from the rest of the cloth. They cite the presence of Madder root dye and aluminum oxide mordent (a dye-fixing agent) specifically in that corner of the shroud and conclude that that part of the cloth was mended at some point in its history.

Microchemical tests also find traces of vanillin in the same area, unlike the rest of the cloth. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer and constituent of flax. This chemical is routinely found in medieval materials, but not in older cloths, as it diminishes with time. The wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls, for instance, do not test positive for vanillin.

This controversy can likely only be settled by more radiocarbon tests, which as noted, the Holy See does not presently allow, citing fear of damage to the cloth.

Material historical analysis

Much recent research has centered on the burn holes and water marks. The burns certainly date from the 1532 fire, and it was assumed that the water marks were also from this event. However, in 2002, Aldo Guerreschi and Michele Salcito presented a paper [4] at the IV Symposium Scientifique International in Paris stating that many of these marks stem from a much earlier time because the symmetries correspond more to the folding that would have been necessary to store the cloth in a clay jar (like cloth samples at Qumran) than to that necessary to store it in the reliquary that housed it in 1532.

According to master textile restorer Mechthild Flury-Lemberg of Hamburg, a seam in the cloth corresponds only to a fabric found at the fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea, which dated to the first century. The weaving pattern, a 3:1 twill, is consistent with first century Syrian design, according to the appraisal of Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium. Flury-Lemberg stated, "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality product of the textile workers of the first century."

Biological and medical forensics

Details of crucifixion technique

The piercing of the wrists rather than the palms goes against traditional Christian iconography, especially in the Middle Ages. While many modern scholars suggest that crucifixion victims were generally nailed through the wrists, and a skeleton discovered in the Holy Land shows that at least some were nailed between the radius and ulna, this was not common knowledge in the Middle Ages, so that a forger would be unlikely to deviate from the common depiction.

Blood stains

There are several reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood. Chemist Walter McCrone (see above) identifies these as simple pigment materials and says that no forensic tests of the samples he used indicated the presence of blood. Other researchers have identified the reddish stains as type AB blood. In order to avoid damaging the cloth, the only fibrils that were made available to testing of the "blood stains" were those that remained affixed to adhesive-backed tape applied to the shroud.

The particular shade of red of the supposed blood stains is also problematic. Normally, whole blood stains discolor relatively rapidly, turning to a black-brown color, while these stains in fact range from a true red to the more normal brown color. Supporters of the shroud counter that the stains were not from bleeding wounds, but from the liquid exuded by blood clots. In the case of severe trauma, as evidenced by the Man of the Shroud, this liquid would include a mixture of bilirubin and oxidized hemoglobin, which could remain red indefinitely. Alan Adler and John Heller [5] detected bilirubin and the protein albumin in the stains. However, it is uncertain whether the blood stains were produced at the same time as the image, which Adler and Heller attribute to premature aging of the linen. (See Heller and Adler, 1980.)

Pollen grains

Researchers of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported the presence of pollen grains in the cloth samples, showing species appropriate to the spring in Palestine. However, these researchers, Avinoam Danin and Uri Baruch were working with samples provided by Max Frei, a Swiss police criminologist who had previously been censured for faking evidence. Independent review of the strands showed that one strand out of the 26 provided contained significantly more pollen than the others, perhaps pointing to deliberate contamination.

The Israeli researchers also detected the outlines of various flowering plants on the cloth, which they say would point to March or April and the environs of Jerusalem, based on the species identified. In the forehead area, corresponding to the crown of thorns if the image is genuine, they found traces of Gundelia tournefortii, which is limited to this period of the year in the Jerusalem area. This analysis depends on interpretation of various patterns on the shroud as representing particular plants. However, skeptics point out that the available images cannot be seen as unequivocal support of any particular plant species due to the amount of indistinctness.

Sudarium of Oviedo

In the northern Spanish city of Oviedo, there is a small bloodstained piece of linen that is also revered as one of the burial cloths mentioned in the Gospel of John. John refers to a "sudarium" (σουδαριον) that covered the head and the "linen cloth" or "bandages" (οθονιον—othonion) that covered the body. The sudarium of Oviedo is traditionally held to be this cloth that covered the head of Jesus.

The sudarium's existence and presence in Orviedo is well attested since the eighth century and in Spain since the seventh century. Before these dates the location of the sudarium is less certain, but some scholars trace it to Jerusalem in the first century.

Forensic analysis of the bloodstains on the shroud and the sudarium suggest that both cloths may have covered the same head at nearly the same time. Based on the bloodstain patterns, the Sudarium would have been placed on the man's head while he was in a vertical position, presumably while still hanging on the cross. This cloth was then presumably removed before the shroud was applied.

A 1999 study [6] by Mark Guscin, member of the multidisciplinary investigation team of the Spanish Center for Sindonology, investigated the relationship between the two cloths. Based on history, forensic pathology, blood chemistry (the Sudarium also has type AB blood stains), and stain patterns, he concluded that the two cloths covered the same head at two distinct, but close moments of time. Avinoam Danin (see above) concurred with this analysis, adding that the pollen grains in the sudarium match those of the shroud.

Skeptics say that this argument is spurious. Since they deny the blood stains on the shroud, the blood stains on this cloth are irrelevant. Further, the argument about the pollen types is greatly weakened by the debunking of Danin's work on the shroud due to the possibly tampered-with sample he worked from. Pollen from Jerusalem could have followed any number of paths to find its way to the sudarium, and only indicates location, not the dating of the cloth. [7]

Digital image processing

Using techniques of digital image processing, several additional details have been reported by scholars.

NASA researchers Jackson, Jumper and Stephenson report detecting the impressions of coins placed on both eyes after a digital study in 1978. The coin on the right eye was reported to correspond to a Roman copper coin produced in AD 29 and 30 in Jerusalem, while that on the left resembles a lituus coin from the reign of Tiberius. These claims are strongly rejected by skeptics, in part because there is no Jewish tradition recorded of putting coins over the eyes of the dead, in part because of spelling errors even in the reported text. (Cf. Antonio Lombatti [8])

Piero Ugolotti reported (1979) Greek and Latin letters written near the face. These were further studied by André Marion and his student Anne Laure Courage of the Institut d'Optique Théorique et Aplliquée d'Orsay (1997). On the right side they cite the letters ΨΣ ΚΙΑ. They interpret this as ΟΨ—ops "face" + ΣΚΙΑ—skia "shadow", though the inital letter is missing. This interpretation has the problem that it is grammatically incorrect in Greek, as "face" would have to appear in the Genitive case. On the left side they report the Latin letters IN NECE, which they suggest is the beginning of IN NECEM IBIS, "you will go to death", and ΝΝΑΖΑΡΕΝΝΟ&Sigma—NNAZARENNOS (a grossly misspelled "the Nazarene" in Greek). Several other "inscriptions" were detected by the scientists, but Mark Guscin [9] (himself a shroud proponent) reports that only one is at all probable in Greek or Latin: ΗΣΟΥ This is the genitive of "Jesus", but missing the first letter. Guscin concurs with the skeptics who hold that these details are based on highly subjective impressions, much like the results of a Rorschach test.

Textual criticism

Some Christians cite the Gospel of John as evidence that the shroud is a hoax. As mentioned before, this Gospel mentions two cloths, one covering the head (sudarium) and one covering the body (othonion). "Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes [othonia] lie, and the napkin [sudarium], that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself" (Jn 20:6-7, KJV). Shroud proponents hold that the "linen clothes" refers to the Shroud of Turin, while the "napkin" refers to the Sudarium of Orviedo.

The Gospels also indicate that the body was anointed with aromatic herbs and spices, but there is no trace of these on the cloth. Dr. Frederick Zugibe [10] reports that the body of the man wrapped in the shroud appears to have been washed before the wrapping, though it would seem odd for this to occur after the anointing. Some proponents have suggested that the shroud was a preliminary cloth that was then replaced before the anointing, that there was not time for the anointing because of the Sabbath. However, there is no empirical evidence to support these theories. Some supporters suggest that the plant bloom images detected by Danin are actually from the herbs that were simply strewn over the body due to the lack of preparation time mentioned in the Bible, thus necessitating the visit of the women on Sunday to complete the anointing of the body.

Analysis of artistic style

Many viewers of the cloth are struck by the anatomically correct depiction of the Man of the Shroud, which is often described to have a three-dimensional feel. Since the presentation of perspective in two dimensional artwork was a relatively late development, some conclude that it could not have been a medieval forgery. Skeptics cite the great improvement brought about in early Renaissance masters.

The depiction of Jesus corresponds to that found throughout the history of Christian iconography. For instance, the Pantocrator icon at Daphne in Athens is strikingly similar. Skeptics attribute this to the icons made while the Image of Edessa was available, with this "look" for Jesus being copied in later artwork, and in particular, in the Shroud. However, it is to be noted that the location of the piercing wounds on the hands does not correspond to artistic renditions of the crucifixion before close to the present time.

The Shroud in the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church, owners of the shroud, has made no pronouncements about the authenticity of the shroud. The matter has been left to the personal decision of the faithful. Pope John Paul II has shown himself to be deeply moved by the image of the shroud, and arranged for public showings in 1997 and 2000.

As the image itself is a cause for prayer and meditation for many believers, even a definitive proof that the image does not date from the first century would likely not stem devotion to the object, which would then become something of an icon of the crucifixion.

Conclusions

The carbon 14 dating, which was intended to settle the issue conclusively, and did so for many scientists, have not quelled speculation about the authenticity of the shroud. Some scientists call for more radiocarbon tests of areas of the cloth containing the image, which the Holy See to date has refused. Given their concerns about the destructive nature of current testing methods, it is unlikely that this resistance will change in the near future. Skeptics hold that the Vatican simply wants to avoid definitive proof of the forgery.

Devotion to the image of the Man of the Shroud has made argument about this issue particularly heated. Because of the deeply held beliefs touched by this piece of cloth, complete resolution of the issue may never be reached to the satisfaction of all parties.

References

Guscin, Mark. "The 'Inscriptions' on the Shroud" British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, November 1999.
Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler. "Blood on the Shroud of Turin" Applied Optics 19:2742-4 (1980).
Humber, Thomas. The Sacred Shroud. New York: Pocket Books, 1980. ISBN 0671418890
John Damascene. On Holy Images [11]
Lombatti, Antonio. "Doubts Concerning the Coins over the Eyes" British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, Issue 45, 1997.
Nickell, Joe. "Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud'" Skeptical Inquirer, Sept. 2001. [12]
Picknett, Lynn, and Clive Prince. The Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?, Harper-Collins, 1994 ISBN 0552147826
Rogers, R.N, and A. Arnoldi. "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation". Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Zugibe, Fredereick. "The Man of the Shroud was Washed" Sindon N. S. Quad. 1, June 1989.

External links

Photos of the Shroud (text is in Italian) Discovery of image on reverse side of shroud (The Guardian)

Pro-authenticity

The Shroud of Turin Website An unofficial home website for the shroud.
Speech by Pope John Paul about the shroud
The Shroud of Turin Story — A Guide to the Facts
The Shroud of Turin: Proof of the Resurrection A collection of essays and articles.
"Shroud of Christ?" (A "Secrets of the Dead" episode on PBS)
"The Shroud of Turin's 'Blood' Images: Blood, or Paint? A History of Science Inquiry"

Pro-hoax

The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website Includes list of links (some now dead) for both viewpoints
Skeptic's Dictionary: Shroud of Turin An encyclopedia-style article.
McCrone Research Institute presentation of its findings Assertion that the shroud is a painting.
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal A summary of skeptical claims.