Why the Shroud Surely Is the Burial Cloth of Jesus
The following summarizes the most fundamental facts. That along with other evidence elaborated in various referenced sections of this compendium is very suggestive evidence:
-
There are traditional claims that since the first century Jesus’ burial cloth was preserved, revered, and safeguarded, which it surely would have been. A long-standing tradition for many centuries is that the Shroud of Turin is that burial cloth. However, skeptical minds (like mine) demand evidence beyond just tradition.
-
There is ample historical documentation and artwork that strongly advocates that claim historically. [Antonacci 2000, chapter 7] See §History. See §Artwork
-
In 1978, STURP, a team of scientists and photographers, was allowed five days of access to scientifically research, photograph, and document the Shroud’s cloth, its blood, and the pair of life-size images on it. STURP analyzed the microscopic details of the pollen, dust, linen, and blood stains. STURP determined that the enigmatic frontal and dorsal images do not comprise pigments, dye, or scorches. Rather, the image is composed of flax fibers, which are simply dehydrated, oxidized, and discolored in places in proportion to their proximity to the body. This characteristic enables 3-D reconstruction of the crucifixion victim. [Schwortz 2021, The 1978 Scientific Examination] See §History. See §Images.
-
Unlike a photograph or painting, the Shroud’s images uniquely encode three-dimensional geometric information. That and the images’ excellent resolution is sufficient to have enabled computer-aided reconstruction of a 3-D image of the crucified man. [Downing 2021; Jackson 2021] See §Images.
-
Numerous physiological details indicate that only a crucified, dead male could have occupied the Shroud. The man was bloodied in ways exactly as Jesus was reportedly wounded: scourging lacerations, a cap of sharp objects on his head, crucifixion, and a large wound below the heart. To our knowledge no other crucified man wore a cap of thorns. So, either the cloth truly enshrouded Jesus, or another person was intentionally scourged, crucified, and further wounded in additional ways to fraudulently mimic Jesus’ gory death. How believable is the latter--especially in conjunction with much other microscopic evidence, of which a hoaxer would have been unaware eight centuries ago? [Aaronson 1998; Antonacci 2000, 17-29; Antonacci 2015] See §Blood.
-
Microscopic details were discovered in 1978, which corroborate the existence of the linen cloth in Jerusalem and its known locations thereafter. Those microscopic details include distinctive pollen and limestone dust unique to Jerusalem. Such details would have been unknown to any putative forger in the 13th century or before. [Antonacci 2015, 76-81] See §Whereabouts.
-
The Roman Catholic Church is sensitive to further examination of the Shroud. If the blood is that of Jesus, many would consider it too holy for scrutiny. Further, the Church was stung by the 1988 radiocarbon testing report, which dated the cloth to the 13th century, and which implied that the Shroud was a bogus relic. [Antonacci 2000, 158] However, alternative scientific tests have corroborated a 1st Century age of the linen. [Fanti 2015] See §Age.
-
The radiocarbon date, which by itself, suggests a forged relic, still leaves unexplained a plethora of other known physical details—in particular, how a dead man’s frontal and dorsal images could have been formed either by a hoaxer or by some natural means in the 13th century or even now by modern technology. Further, the images are correctly registered with the blood stains. Because the images do not appear underneath the blood, the blood contacted the linen before the images formed (more difficult for a hoaxer). To-date attempts to explain or reproduce the images consistent with the known image details have been unsuccessful. [Antonacci 2015, 41-51] See §Images.
-
Since the 1988 radiocarbon testing, several alterative scientific dating methods yield dates for the Shroud consistent with the death of Jesus Christ in the 1st century. [Fanti 2015, ch 6] See §Age.
-
Furthermore, the 13th century date computed from the 1988 radiocarbon data has been found to be statistically problematic. However, a hypothesis discussed in a subsequent section suggests why the raw radiocarbon measurements are accurate—counter-intuitively—but that several further specific tests (if ever allowed) would convincingly show that a paranormal radiation event occurred in AD 33, which shifted the apparent dating to later centuries. [Rucker 2020a] That hypothesis would explain the 1988 radiocarbon measurements and would explain the image formation. Note that this hypothesis can be verified or disproven by any of several high-tech tests on existing samples already removed from the Shroud. [Antonacci 2015] See §Radiation
-
Ancient extant artwork and coins reproduce many of the 15 distinctive geometrical details, which Paul Vignon (1970) noted as distinctive identifying characteristics of the Shroud’s facial image. Some of this artwork and the coins date to well before the reported radiocarbon date—even as early as the 5th century. [Fanti 2015, ch 2 & 3; Antonacci 2000, 126-133] See §Artwork.