Key questions

• The Shroud of Caiaphas  An amazing forensic science mystery. 

  Second Face Image  What does an announcement by the Institute of Physics in London mean?

    Mozarabic Rite What does a 6th century rite from the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain have to do with the Shroud of Turin?

  

  FACTS GALLERY

  Chemistry  What do we know about the chemical nature of the images?

  Carbon 14 Tests They conclude for a medieval provenance. Are they wrong? It seems so. According to National Geographic News (April 9, 2004) there is now definitive chemical evidence that the test samples were cut from a medieval repair patch.
  

  FAQ  Facts and dubious claims.

what's the scoop on

• The Sudarium of Oviedo
• The Hungarian Pray Manuscript
• Pictures of Jesus and the Shroud
• Pixels, Negativity and 3D
• Coins Over the Eyes
• John A. T. Robinson & the Shroud
• Lignin & Vanillin
• Travertine Aragonite on the Shroud
• Pollen and Floral Images
• Three Hard Facts

Addenda

• John Shelby Spong on the burial of Jesus
• Bruce Chilton on the Burial of Jesus
• N. T. Wright on the Resurrection

Google

• 
  
  this site . . .
  
  shroud.com website . . .
  
  news websites . . .
  

•  

   

updated 2005

• Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and Evangelical Christians (conservative and liberal alike) are beginning to realize that there is something not easily understood about the Shroud.

  The arguments on both sides of the authenticity debate are being updated with puzzling information coming out of new discoveries in 2004.

  The Shroud of Turin is poignantly contrary to the expectations of believers and skeptics alike. But at the same time it is auspiciously not too fantastic for modern sensibilities.

    SEE HOME PAGE

  strong case

• Together, a conspectus of its history and valid scientific evidence make a strong case that the Shroud is a genuine burial cloth of a Roman-style crucifixion victim.

     JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN
  PARADOX

  Valid is emphasized because much that is reported in polemic books and websites—by zealous believers and skeptics alike—is junk science.

  If it is a burial cloth, then historical records are sufficient to  infer that the Shroud's enigmatic images of a naked, much wounded man are of Jesus of Nazareth.

  It is certainly much older than the now discredited radiocarbon date of ca 1260-ca 1390. This is supported by chemical evidence.

  It is quite possible that the unusual images were formed by some perfectly natural  chemical process. The superficial conjugated carbon bonds—the microscopic chromophores of the images—possibly result from a Maillard reaction between reactive body amines and residual starch fractions and saccharides in natural soap. We need only turn to Pliny the Elder to see how ancient linen was made and to find supporting evidence.

  Science cannot rule out a miracle but it can and does rule out fakery. 

  If genuine, then the Shroud is unquestionably the oldest historical document pertaining to the life and death of Jesus. If genuine, it is pictorial and forensic evidence that gives credence to the the passion story.

  And if genuine, this piece of ancient linen offers new insights in the quest for the historical Jesus and new ways to scrutinize contemporary biblical exegesis.

  Is the Shroud evidence of the resurrection? Possibly, but perhaps only indirectly. Clearly, if it is a burial cloth, the body it wrapped was separated from it soon after burial—before decomposition products could have ravaged the cloth. Forensic science, applied to the Shroud, argues against the polemics of swoon theory or a stolen body.

  Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, a chemist who has scientifically examined the Shroud—in Turin—and studied the object for more than 27 years, wrote:

  with some legitimacy, we might put up a strong case for a First Century shroud with an image best explained as being that of a crucified man. Isn't that enough? Remember that there weren't any Christians or Christian fanatics (e.g., Templars) in the First Century. There wasn't anyone around so warped that they would crucify a person to create a relic, and the technology did not exist to produce an adequate fake.

  Perspective: My name is Dan Porter. I am the author of this website.

  Biblical scholar and Anglican bishop, John A. T. Robinson wrote in Honest to God: "All I can do is try to be honest, honest to God and about God and to follow the argument wherever it leads." I have tried to make this my guiding principle in exploring the Shroud.

    JOHN A. T. ROBINSON
  SURPRISE »

  I am a lifelong Episcopalian with one foot firmly planted in liberal  theological views and the principles of Progressive Christianity and one foot planted in conservative thought and traditional orthodoxy. I am a member of Trinity Church Wall Street (Episcopal) in New York City.

  While I personally believe in the Resurrection of Christ, I claim no opinion about its physical or spiritual nature. I don't interpret the Gospels as literal or linear accounts of the life of Jesus. I believe the Gospels were written to elicit faith and as such are truer than they could be as mere historical narratives. But the accounts, starting with Jesus' arrest and ending with the discovery of the empty tomb, seems very historical.

  If the Shroud is real, as I have come to believe it is, it confirms the Passion story and lavishes new verisimilitude upon the Resurrection. It could be that we have a picture of Jesus.