The Shroud of Many Myths

The Shroud of Many Myths

Shortly after Rogers published his finding, in Thermochimica Acta, Philip Ball wrote an opinion piece for Nature, the same journal that had published the carbon dating results in 1989. Ball wrote:

The scientific study of the Turin Shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God. It does more to inflame any debate than settle it . . . . And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artifact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made. (4)

Ball’s assertion that it is not known how the image was made echoes what so many repeatedly say over and over. It isn’t just those who try to prove the shroud is fake by creating look-a-like images. Scientists who think the shroud might be real—or not—don’t know how the images were made. They are not even close. There is no best explanation; not yet. There is no theory. Though there are some guesses, some hypotheses, none seem to qualify in terms of chemistry and physical characteristics.  The images remain inexplicable, baffling, downright weird. Forget about how some medieval forger might have made the images. Even with the best of modern technology no one has been able to replicate them. That doesn’t mean they won’t. It may just be a matter of time and new ideas. It is a challenge. The mysterious qualities found in the images are among the most intriguing aspects of the shroud.