Frequently Asked Questions

• Wasn't it Carbon Dated to the Middle Ages?
• Many so-called relics are questionable. Why is the Shroud any different?
• You say the Shroud is consistent with the Gospel account, but weren't there two cloths in the tomb and wasn't the body wound like a mummy?
• Doesn't the Shroud belong to the Catholic Church?
• Can it be seen today?
• Why is it so controversial?
• Is the Shroud image due to the resurrection of Jesus?
• Would God use evidence?
• Is there any evidence of DNA on the Shroud?
• What about the claims of Walter McCrone saying it was an art work?
• Where did the Shroud come from?
• How tall is the man on the Shroud?
• I planned on doing a research project for school on the Shroud of Turin, but I am having second thoughts because the shroud seems to be very, very controversial.
• I saw somewhere that often carbon dating of antiquities is thrown off by surface fungal contaminants. Is there any information available on this?
• As a scientifically oriented person I accept the conclusion of the scientists that examined it and concluded that the shroud is not authentic.
• Could an artist produce a 3-D drawing by putting a cloth over someone's head and drawing on the cloth?
• Could the Shroud be a work of art?
• Is the Shroud mentioned in the bible?

Q:Wasn't it Carbon Dated to the Middle Ages?
This has become a proverbial can of worms. The answer is yes, but few are satisfied with the results. The reason is that the original protocol to be used in 1988 was so badly breached that the results are highly questionable. The most disturbing error was to only cut one small sample from one of the worst sites possible, the outside edge where it had been handled for centuries and may have also been repaired at some point.

The protocol required multiple samples from different locations to be cut for comparison. Since only one sample was taken there is no way to conduct comparative analysis to know if there was a problem.

Many have speculated that perhaps the area cut for dating was somehow part of a medieval reweave since other parts have been obviously repaired such as the patches that were applied after the fire of 1532. It is also known that "invisible mending" was a skill performed by many to repair expensive tapestries and articles of clothing.

Now it appears that the sample was in fact a bad sample and does not represent the fabric of the Shroud. A paper published in January, 2005 in a respected scientific journal now proves that the area cut for carbon dating is physically and chemically different than the Shroud itself. This once again proves the old science maxim that your data is only as good as your sample. They took a huge risk in 1988 by cutting from only one questionable site on the Shroud and now it appears that the risk was a poor one.

Because so much evidence relating to the Shroud would indicate that the image is that of a real human who died from the wounds of crucifixion and other evidence suggesting the Shroud originated in the middle east, many theories have been proposed to understand how carbon dating might have been wrong. Some have theorized the fire in 1532 could have altered the carbon date.

Some have theorized that a bacterial coating on the threads could have altered the carbon date. This has now been discredited, showing that the film seen on the threads thought to be a bacterial coating is in fact a thin layer of carbohydrate that occurred naturally after the cloth was retted (soaked) in soapweed during the initial manufacture of the linen.

Lastly, a split second burst of neutron radiation can alter the carbon date by over a thousand years. Some have theorized that resurrection energy threw off the carbon date. This too has been discredited because the fibers in the image areas show no additional degradation than the non image areas. Radiation would cause visible damage to the fibers (when viewed microscopically) and this is not evident

The best rule of science when trying to ascertain a solution to a problem is called "Occum's Razor" which means the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. In this case, Occum's Razor applies because the simplest explanation for an incorrect carbon date is that the sample cut in 1988 was somehow younger than the Shroud itself. A medieval repair performed by skilled menders would explain how this might have occured.

Carbon dating, believed by many scientists to be the litmus test that would prove or disprove the Shroud, only compounded the mystery because it is nearly impossible to comprehend how the Shroud originated from the hand of medieval artist at least 100 years before Leonardo daVinci came on the scene. If the Shroud was some obvious work of art, there would be no argument. The exact opposite is true. It is not the work of an artist and the blood is human blood from actual wounds. Roman coins over the eyes from 29-33 AD, pollen and plant images from Israel, and so many other convincing evidences point towards authenticity. If it is a work of art and not an authentic burial shroud, who was the artist in the early 1300s who could have produced an anatomically perfect, superficial, negative, 3D image without the use of known art substances or techniques?

Now we know the carbon dating sample was bad, but it doesn't prove the Shroud to be authentic nor does it prove it to be first century. However, the case for authenticity becomes much stronger. Perhaps now the Catholic church will have the scientific justification to allow new dating tests that can put this to rest once and for all.

Q:Many so-called relics are questionable. Why is the Shroud any different?
It may or may not be a relic of Jesus, but unlike a bone of some saint or an alleged piece of the cross, the Shroud is unique in its ability to be analyzed. No other known relic has a blood stained image on it corresponding exactly with Jesus' painful ordeal. We may never prove absolutely that the Shroud of Turin is the one used to wrap Christ in the tomb, but if we could, it would be as significant as discovering Noah's Ark. The Shroud is potentially far more than just another relic. Some have called it a photograph of the resurrection. It just may be the archaeological find of the century hidden in plain sight.

Q: You say the Shroud is consistent with the Gospel account, but weren't there two cloths in the tomb and wasn't the body wound like a mummy?
Students new to the study of the Shroud are sometimes confused by apparent inconsistencies in the description of Jesus' burial cloth or cloths. In truth, the Bible - when read in Greek - uses a variety of terms to describe them. The Synoptic Gospels use the word sindon in the singular to designate the Shroud (Matt. 27:59; Mk. 15:46 (twice); Lk. 23:53). Sindon appears only six times in all of the New Testament.

In John. 19:40, the word "othonia" is used [Gk.] (plural) to describe the linen cloths used in the Burial. Othonia, a word of uncertain meaning, is probably best translated as a generic plural for grave clothes. The same word is used by Luke in Lk.24:12 for what had previously been described as the sindon in Lk. 23:53. Note: vs. l2 (But Peter rose and ran to the tomb, stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths (plural) by themselves; and he went home wondering what happened.) does not appear in the most ancient manuscripts, but is added by later ancient authorities. Next we discover (keirias) [Gk.], translated by the RSV as bandages in Jn. 11:44's description of the raising of Lazarus. In actuality, linen strips were used to bind the wrists and ankles and were probably also used around the outside of the Shroud at the neck, waist and ankles to secure the Shroud to the body.

Finally, we come to the word sudarion [Gk.], which is found in the canonical texts solely in John (11:44; 20:7) and Luke (l9:20; Acts l9:12). It is translated by the RSV as "the napkin which had been on his head" (Jn. 20:7) and earlier in 11:44 as the cloth with which Lazarus' face was wrapped. Scholars regard it as a chin band going around the face/head for the purpose of keeping the corpse's jaw closed.

John says that he was buried according to Jewish tradition. Excavations in the Middle East have unearthed bodies of Jews wrapped lengthwise in a single burial shroud just as we see with the Turin Shroud.

Q:Doesn't the Shroud belong to the Catholic Church?
Yes, it does today, but that was not always true. In fact, the Church has owned it only since 1983. For the previous 600 years it had been in private possession with the Church sometimes acting as custodian. It was kept in Italy and France for those years and they are both predominantly Catholic countries. The Byzantine Church kept it nearly a thousand years before that in Constantinople and Edessa.

Q:Can it be seen today?
No. It can be seen only during special exhibitions such as the ones held in 1998 and 2000. It will not be on display again until 2025. It's usually brought out for commemorative occasions. The 1998 exhibition celebrated 100 years from the first time it was photographed. This was when the negative image was discovered. The exhibition in 2000 was in celebration of the millennium and the Christian Jubilee.

Q:Why is it so controversial?
Jesus was controversial…he still is! If it was believed to be the image of some unknown murder victim, who would care? But because many believe the cloth bears the markings of Christ's crucifixion and maybe even his resurrection…it will always be controversial no matter what new evidence is found.

Q: Is the Shroud image due to the resurrection of Jesus?

In the final preparation of the material (flax), it was retted (soaked) in a soapweed solution, which acts as a detergent, bleach and fungicide.  It would then be laid out in the sun to dry.  As the soapweed dried it left a thin carbohydrate layer, less than the thickness of 1/100 of a human hair on the surface of the threads.  Something caused the dehydration of this carbohydrate layer, which is why the image appears on the surface of the threads.  One theory is that the ammonia-based gases released as the body was beginning to decay interacted with this carbohydrate layer. This is called a maillard reaction and has scientific validity.  It is believed that it may be responsible for the image coloration, but the photo-like qualities of the image indicate that something else may be involved as well.  That is where resurrection may come in, although that is not something science can test for. 

What we do know is that the man in the Shroud was dead.  However, he he did not remain in the Shroud for long because there are no stains of decomposition from the body to be found on the cloth.  Wwe know the body wasn't stolen because that is what the Romans were trying to prevent.  So whether the image itself is the result of a miracle or just natural chemical reactions, the Shroud may be a document of the greatest and most important miracle of all, the triumph of Jesus over the power of death.  

Q:Would God use evidence?
Why not? If the Shroud is authentic, then it must have a purpose. From a Biblical standpoint, there are only two things that make sense.

So how can we say what God will or will not use to carry out his plan to reach all of humanity with the knowledge of his Son? Is the Shroud another "convincing proof?" Is it another piece of "evidence" for a skeptical and cynical age?

Q: Is there any evidence of DNA on the Shroud?
The DNA from the blood has been tested and shows that it is from a human being but is too badly degraded to determine more than that. The blood type is also AB Positive but most blood that is that old all tends to be type AB+. All we can really say is that the blood is human blood. The Vatican has banned all future DNA testing for fear that some wacko from a renegade laboratory would try to clone Jesus. You probably won't hear much on the DNA front until the Vatican changes its position. Microbiologist Leo Garza-Valdez had access to some samples and was able to do some preliminary DNA tests showing that the blood is from a human male.

Q: What about the claims of Walter McCrone saying it was an art work?

Regarding Walter McCrone, most all of his work on the Shroud has been discredited. In 1980 he was given a few microscope slides with some shroud fibers. On one of 28 slides he found a single speck of vermillion paint. This one paint particle caused him to claim the shroud was a painted forgery. His evidence did not line up with any of the other research conducted. In fact, it is known that over 50 painted copies of the Shroud were touched to the cloth over the centuries to "sanctify" the copies. There is little doubt that particles from these painted copies dislodged and found their way onto the shroud. One single sample of vermillion does not in any way prove the shroud to be a forgery.

McCrone also found microscopic particles of iron oxide that he claims was suspended in a thin binder to create red ochre paint. Not so-the iron oxide is from the blood-it is much too fine to be that used by a medieval artist. Frequent folding and unfolding of the cloth caused the iron oxide from the blood stains to be randomly distributed over the cloth. There is no evidence of any binding solution on the cloth either. And there is no greater concentration of iron oxide in the image areas versus non-image areas. The iron oxide particles have nothing to do with the image.

McCrone got what he wanted-fame. He makes the news by being the lone detractor. It is curious to note that the Viking Vinland Map, for which he became famous by claiming it too was a fake has now been proven by Yale University and the Smithsonian Institute to be authentic after all. McCrone is not infallable as the Vinland Map clearly demonstrates.

Q: Where did the Shroud come from?
Joseph of Arimathea, as recorded in the Bible, was a rich man and a follower of Jesus. He owned the tomb in which Jesus was laid for the three days he occupied it. The Bible also records that he purchased the linen cloth in which he was wrapped. The use of linen shrouds was a common Middle East custom and is still used today. Interestingly, the Shroud of Turin measures exactly 2X8 Syrian Cubits (21.6 inches), an ancient form of measurement. It is covered with pollen from plants grown only in the Middle East and the manufacture of the cloth conforms to first century descriptions as recorded by Pliny the Elder.

Q: How tall is the man on the Shroud?

The man whose image is on the Shroud appears to be between 5' 8" and 5'10" tall. It is not exact since the image on the cloth could have stretched over the years. Also, there is the apparent foreshortening of the image, meaning that the image as it appears on the cloth is of a man whose knees are drawn up and whose shoulders are drawn up somewhat as well. The head also seems to be elevated too. All this means is that he was not lying down flat as on a bed but was probably bound in this position with strips of linen wrapped around the outside of the shroud while the body was in a state of rigor mortis.

Q: I planned on doing a research project for school on the Shroud of Turin, but I am having second thoughts because the Shroud seems to be very, very controversial.
Well, you are right about it being controversial! But that's what makes it so fascinating. Think about it...almost everything we know about the cloth suggests a first century, Middle East origin. It is not the work of an artist and the notion of it being a deliberate medieval murder emulating Jesus' crucifixion is even more bizarre.

So what is it? Time Magazine called it "The Riddle of the Ages." National Geographic called it "One of the most perplexing enigmas of modern times". It will always be one incredible mystery.

As far as doing a project on the subject, provided you represent both pro and con, I don't see any reason why you should avoid it. Most people find it fascinating and I think you will too as you conduct your research.

Q: I saw somewhere that often carbon dating of antiquities is thrown off by surface fungal contaminants. Is there any information available on this?
There may be some evidence of bacterial coating on ancient artifacts and there is no doubt bacteria on the Shroud. But the bacteria is not the cause of an abberrant carbon date. As discussed above, the most obvious and now proven answer is that they dated a medieval repair rather than the Shroud itself. What was thought to be a "bio-plastic" coating has now been determined to be a carbohydrate layer that naturally occurs during the retting (soaking) of the cloth in soapweed during the manufacture of the linen.

Q: As a scientifically oriented person I accept the conclusion of the scientists that examined it and concluded that the shroud is not authentic.
I guess the question is what science do we go with? The dilemma with the Shroud is that there is much evidence to support authenticity and other evidence, primarily carbon dating, that disproves it. Since archaeology is your specialty, you should be very familiar with the pitfalls of carbon dating especially on something as porous as linen and exposed to handling and contamination as the Shroud has been. There is good science and bad science. When conclusions are drawn from a questionable sample with full knowledge that it violated the agreed sampling protocol, that is bad science. Bad science yields bad data.

The real irony of the Shroud is that something produced in the middle ages should have been easily analyzed and proven one way or the other with all the scientific tools at our disposal. But this is not the case. Even with all the analysis it still remains a mystery. And the riddle just gets more complex with Israeli botanists now confirming pollen and flower images indigenous to Israel and the Middle East.

So now we're back to the question of what science are we to believe? Perhaps a closer look at all the evidence is order.

Q: Could an artist produce a 3-D drawing by putting a cloth over someone's head and drawing on the cloth?
There are many theories offered to explain the 3-D phenomenon of the Shroud image. Joe Nickel, magician and professional Shroud antagonist claims it can be done using an iron oxide rubbing over a bas relief of the shroud image. Yet Walter McCrone, microscopist and another Shroud antagonist strongly disagrees with Nickel's theory. McCrone doesn't offer any theories of his own except that the image is made of red ochre paint, iron oxide suspended in a thin binder solution. McCrone hired different artists to try to create the Shroud image in such a manner and all their attemps failed to satisfy even the basic criteria required to emulate the Shroud image. The most glaring is the fact that in all of McCrone's hired copies the liquid soaks through the cloth. This is not the case with the Shroud image, as it penetrates only the top two microfibers. Both McCrone and Nickel offer woefully insufficient alternatives to the authenticity of the Shroud. If it really is an artwork, why can't anyone reproduce it?

Q: Could the Shroud be a work of art?

The possibility of the shroud being an artwork is often discussed with numerous modern attempts to replicate the image by various means. They all come up short of capturing all the specific details of the image. Images that appear shroud-like can be created but fall apart upon close examination such as superficiality, negativity, or three dimensional data. If one claims the Shroud is a medieval art work, there should be some burden to show how it was done and who the artist may have been. No one has yet come up with a plausible explanation as to how it was done, or by whom.

Q: Is the Shroud mentioned in the bible?

The Shroud is mentioned several times in the scripture, but the most significant verse is John 20:1-9. Here we see that Mary Magdalene was the first to the tomb on Sunday morning and discovered it was empty. She saw the cloth lying there but did not go inside. She ran to find Peter and John and tell them the news. Her report was that someone had stolen the body. Peter and John rushed to the tomb and they both went inside. The first thing they noticed was the cloth lying there and they believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Why the difference? Why did Mary think the body was stolen but John and Peter think he had risen. Whatever the cause for their sudden belief, it had to do with the burial shroud. Did they see images? Or perhaps it was the way it was still laid out flat on the stone sepulcher as if Captain Kirk had just beamed Jesus up leaving the cloth intact. Either way, their initial belief in the resurrection was directly related to the burial shroud.

Click here for more Q&A: http://www.shroud.com/faq.htm