Shroud of Turin

{{bronze}}[[File:Shroudofturin1.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Kinda creepy looking, actually.]]
{{christianity}}
{{cquote|The two attributes central to the shroud’s alleged religious significance — that it wrapped the body of Jesus, and is of supernatural origin — are precisely those [[Falsifiability|neither science nor history can ever prove]].|||Philip Ball, ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (May 2008)}}
The '''Shroud of Turin''', also known as the '''Holy Shroud''', is a length of linen cloth claimed by some members of the [[Christian]] community to have been [[Jesus]]' [[death]] shroud.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin Shroud of Turin] Encyclopaedia ''Britannica''.</ref> 

The first certain mention of it comes from the 14<sup>th</sup> century when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to [[antipope]] Clement VII in which he stated that the shroud was a fraud and that the forger had confessed.<ref name=memorandum>Poulle, Emmanuel (December 2009). "Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin. Revue critique". ''Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique''. 104 (3–4): 747–782. [https://doi.org/10.1484%2FJ.RHE.3.215 doi:10.1484/J.RHE.3.215.]</ref><ref>Joe Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings, ''Prometheus Books'', 1998, {{Isbn|9781573922722}}</ref> [[Radiometric dating]] established that the shroud dates from 1260–1390<ref name=dating>Damon, P. E.; Donahue, D. J.; Gore, B. H.; Hatheway, A. L.; Jull, A. J. T.; Linick, T. W.; Sercel, P. J.; Toolin, L. J.; Bronk, C. R.; Hall, E. T.; Hedges, R. E. M.; Housley, R.; Law, I. A.; Perry, C.; Bonani, G.; Trumbore, S.; Woelfli, W.; Ambers, J. C.; Bowman, S. G. E.; Leese, M. N.; Tite, M. S. (16 February 1989). [https://escholarship.org/content/qt6x77r7m1/qt6x77r7m1.pdf?t=nus03r "Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin" (PDF)]. ''Nature''. 337 (6208): 611–615. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.337..611D Bibcode:1989Natur.337..611D]. [https://doi.org/10.1038%2F337611a0 doi:10.1038/337611a0]. [https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27686437 S2CID 27686437]. </ref>, which coincides with the date of the memorandum. Even if the shroud was authentically proven to come from 1<sup>st</sup> century Judea, this would only show that someone was crucified, and [[crucifixion]] as a common punishment at the time has never been disputed<ref>„Despite our modern connotations dominated by Christianity, crucifixion was a common form of punishment that had a very long run in the ancient world. Tens of thousands of people were crucified throughout history by various regimes and rulers over a period that spanned a thousand years.”, [https://historyofyesterday.com/a-concise-and-shocking-history-of-crucifixion-e21b7f624222 A Concise and Shocking History of Crucifixion], Grant Piper, ''History of yesterday''.</ref> (at least by sane people who know what they're talking about). There would be no reason to presume it was Jesus in particular.

The [[Catholic Church]], which currently owns it, neither endorses nor rejects it. Why own something that might be bullshit? Oh, that's right, the tourism dollar$. [[Pope Francis]] referred to the shroud as an "icon of a man scourged and crucified".<ref>[https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/pope-francis-and-shroud-turin "Pope Francis and the Shroud of Turin"]. ''National Catholic Reporter''. 1 April 2013.</ref> [[Benedict XVI]] was much more confident in claiming that it is authentic.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0503/Pope-Benedict-says-Shroud-of-Turin-authentic-burial-robe-of-Jesus Christian Science Monitor: Pope Benedict says Shroud of Turin authentic burial robe of Jesus]. ''The Christian Science Monitor''. 3 May 2010.</ref> This papal declaration would appear to be "[[Argument from authority|authoritative]] but non-[[Papal infallibility|infallible]]".<ref>{{wpa|Magisterium#Levels}}</ref>

'''Sindonology''' is the study (if you can call it that) of the Shroud of Turin. Although in principle it is meant to be [[science|scientific]], it instead often promotes [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] hypotheses and already debunked claims (imagine that!).<ref>Just look at their <strike>blog</strike> [http://www.sindonology.org/ page].</ref>

==Appearance==
[[File:Secundo Pia Turinske platno 1898.jpg|thumb|left|165px|The 1898 image]]
===General information===
The Shroud is rectangular, measuring some 4.4 by 1.1 meters (14'5" × 3'7").<ref group=note>Its exact dimensions may vary between measurements as the shroud shrinks and stretches depending on various factors such as temperature.</ref> The cloth (specifically linen) is woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. It shows faint but distinctive sepia images of the front and back of a [[naked]] man with his hands folded across his groin. The body image is muscular and 1.70 to 1.88 meters, or about 5'7" to 6'2", tall, with wound points as though they could have been caused by the process of crucifixion, but there is no generally accepted theory to explain how the image was ''actually impressed'' onto the cloth in the first place.<ref>Adler, Alan D. (2002). ''The orphaned manuscript: a gathering of publications on the Shroud of Turin''. p. 103. ISBN 978-88-7402-003-4.</ref><ref>Ball, P. (2008). "Material witness: Shrouded in mystery". ''Nature Materials''. 7 (5): 349. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008NatMa...7..349B Bibcode:2008NatMa...7..349B]. [https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnmat2170 doi:10.1038/nmat2170]. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18432204 PMID 18432204].</ref>

The shroud contains lots of holes and burnt edges as it's been through at least two fires, the last one in 1997.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/12/world/shroud-of-turin-saved-from-fire-in-cathedral.html Shroud of Turin Saved From Fire in Cathedral], ''The New York Times'', April 12, 1997.</ref> The holes are the strange triangles. They are actually just one hole caused by a drop of molten silver from the reliquary onto the folded shroud, which is what makes them so symmetrical.

The image itself is much clearer in black and white negative (because it then looks like a positive with the dark theme turned on), which was first observed in 1898.<ref>[http://www.museonazionaledelcinema.org/en/index.php Turin cinema museum]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070518180616/http://www.museonazionaledelcinema.org/en/index.php Archived] 18 May 2007. </ref> While one might infer from this that the surge of divine power involved in Jesus' resurrection burned a negative image onto the cloth, it should be noted that this relies on the notion of the quality of an object or person being "Holy" actually having the added side effect of emitting an abundance of photons, a trope which in actuality probably just originated as a means of visually ''representing'' holiness in artwork (barring the occasional out-and-out sun god of course).

===Anatomy===
The image of the man has drawn lots of controversy about its anatomical accuracy. [[Joe Nickell]] and Gregory S. Paul have separately stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative.<ref>[[Joe Nickell]], Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings, ''Prometheus Books'', 1998, ISBN 9781573922722</ref><ref>Paul, Gregory S. (6 May 2010). [https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/the-shroud-of-turin-the-great-gothic-art-fraud-because-if-its-real-the-brain-of-jesus-was-the-size-of-a-protohumans-815.html "The Shroud of Turin: The Great Gothic Art Fraud"]. ''Secular Web Kiosk''. Internet Infidels.</ref>

Furthermore, all the archaeological evidence of crucified people we have found, and there are only a few,<ref group=note>The latest one [https://www.livescience.com/crucified-roman-era-man-found-uk has been found in December 2021 in England].</ref> shows that the heel wounds are consistent with each other, but are not consistent with the wounds depicted on the shroud.<ref>Nickell, Joe (2018). [https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2019/03/SI-SO-18.pdf "Crucifixion Evidence Debunks Turin 'Shroud'"]. ''[Skeptical Inquirer]''. 42 (5): 7.</ref>

In 2018 a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The study showed that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. Similar abnormalities have been found between the front of the image and the lumbar area which might even suppose that there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times.<ref>A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin; by Matteo Borrini Ph.D. and Luigi Garlaschelli M.Sc. Journal of Forensic Sciences; Volume 64, Issue 1; January 2019; pp. 137–143; https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13867; view at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.13867</ref> Yet another study determined that the blood patterns on the shroud were not consistent with a crucified person being wrapped up in the sheet.<ref>[https://phys.org/news/2018-07-shroud-turin-fake-retracted.html New study suggests Shroud of Turin a fake, supporting study retracted], ''Phys.org'', July 24, 2018.</ref> God has clearly done it to [[deceit|trick]] us!

==History==
Little reliable information is known of the shroud before the 15<sup>th</sup> century, beyond it being present in [[France]] in the 14<sup>th</sup> century.<ref>William Meacham, [http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm The Authentication of the Turin Shroud], An Issue in Archeological Epistemogy, ''Current Anthropology'', 24, 3, 1983.</ref> In 1453 Margaret de Charny deeded it to the House of Savoy. In 1532 the shroud suffered damage from a fire, several people attempted repairing it.<ref>''Architecture for the shroud: relic and ritual in Turin'' by John Beldon Scott 2003 ISBN 0-226-74316-0 p. 26.</ref><ref>''Holy Shroud of Turin'' by Arthur Stapylton Barnes 2003 ISBN 0-7661-3425-3 p. 62.</ref> In 1578 the then-Duke transferred it to Turin where it remained into modern times as a property of the House of Savoy.<ref>The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Q–Z by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 1995 ISBN 0-8028-3784-0 p. 495.</ref> In 1983, the Savoy heirs gave it to the [[Vatican|Holy See]], who had it restored in 2002 which has been criticized as causing damage to the shroud.<ref>William Meacham, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud", 2005, ISBN 1-4116-5769-1.</ref>

===Pre 14<sup>th</sup> century===
The radiometric dating established that the shroud dates from 1260–1390.<ref name=dating /> That doesn't stop many people from associating the shroud with some other shrouds and hence making very dubious stories about it. There are, of course, many reports of Jesus' burial shroud, images of his face etc., being venerated before the 14<sup>th</sup> century, but there is no evidence to presume that any of these reports referred to the Shroud of Turin.<ref>Humber, Thomas: ''The Sacred Shroud''. New York: Pocket Books, 1980. ISBN 0-671-41889-0.</ref> 

There are numerous mentions of some shroud in the [[bible]] and other [[apocrypha]] texts. {{bible|Luke|24|12}} states: 
{{quotebox|Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, '''he saw the strips of linen''' lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened. (NIV)}}
{{bible|John|20|4|7}} mentions two clothes, which some people take as evidence against the authenticity of the shroud:
{{quotebox|Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the '''strips of linen lying there''' but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the '''strips of linen lying there''', as well as '''the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head'''. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. (NIV)}}

Other mentions can be found in {{bible|Matthew|27|59}}, {{bible|Mark|15|46}} and {{bible|Luke|23|53}}. They all use the singular greek word σινδόνι meaning "linen cloth". {{bible|Luke|24|12}} and John, however, use the greek plural word ὀθόνια which means "linen clothes".<ref>[https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/20/4-7/t_conc_1017005 John 20], ''Blue Letter Bible''.</ref> The {{wpl|Gospel of Hebrews}}, a 2<sup>nd</sup> century apocryphic text also mentions a burial linen cloth.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html Gospel of the Hebrews], ''Early Christian Writings'', translation by M.R. James.</ref>

It shouldn't be surprising that various people throughout the ages have claimed to possess the shroud. In fact, the practice of faking [[holy]] [[relic]]s was widespread during the [[Middle Ages]].<ref>Geary, Patrick J. Furta Sacra: ''Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages'.' Princeton University Press. c.1978.</ref> The first undisputed mention of the Shroud is a very [[skeptical]] 1390 report from French Bishop Pierre d'Arcis to then [[Antipope]] Clement VII denouncing the Shroud as a fraud and indeed reporting that he had found the Shroud's maker to prove it.<ref name=memorandum /><ref group=note>[[Irony]] alert! A medieval [[Catholicism|Catholic]] Bishop was ''more'' skeptical than current Christians (including [[Protestants]]) who have the benefit of [[scientific]] studies to actually back up d'Arcis' commendable lack of [[credulity]]…</ref>

One of the many [[images of Jesus]] known as the {{wpl|Image of Edessa}} whose existence is reported since the sixth century is sometimes claimed to be the Shroud of Turin.<ref>Wilson, Ian (1991), [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780385261050 ''Holy Faces, Secret Places''], Garden City: Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-26105-5</ref> However, nothing suggests that it contained the image of a beaten and bloody Jesus; it was said to be an image transferred by Jesus to the cloth in life, and it is generally described as depicting only his face, not the entire body.<ref>Guscin, Mark (2016-02-08). [https://books.google.com/books?id=wSX5DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA137 ''The Tradition of the Image of Edessa'']. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 137. ISBN 9781443888752.</ref><ref>Averil Cameron, ''The Sceptic and the Shroud London'': King's College Inaugural Lecture monograph (1980).</ref>

The {{wpl|Pray Codex}}, a manuscript written in Hungary between 1192 and 1195, includes an illustration of what appears to some to be the Shroud of Turin.<ref>Wilson, Ian.(1986)The Mysterious Shroud, Garden city, New York; Doubleday & Company. p. 115.</ref> The picture supposedly includes a burial cloth in the post-resurrection scene and according to proponents of this hypothesis, the holes on the cloth form an "L" shape which can also be spotted on the actual Shroud of Turin.<ref>[http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html The Shroud of Turin - Evidence it is authentic], ''newgeology.us''. </ref> On the other hand, Italian Shroud researcher Gian Marco Rinaldi and other skeptics interpret the item that is sometimes identified as the Shroud as a probable rectangular tombstone as seen on other sacred images. The alleged holes might just be decorative elements, as are also seen on the angel's wing and clothes. Rinaldi also points out that the alleged shroud in the Pray Codex does not contain any image.<ref>G.M.Rinaldi, [http://sindone.weebly.com/pray.html "Il Codice Pray"].</ref>

In the beginning of the 13<sup>th</sup> century, a knight who participated in the Fourth [[Crusade]] claimed that <strike>a</strike> the burial cloth of Jesus was in Constantinople and that every Friday it raised itself up. The claim of levitation of the cloth is, however, probably a mistranslation.<ref>Robert de Clari, ''The History Of Them That Took Constantinople'', chapter 92, in Edward N. Stone, Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades (University of Washington Publications in the Social Sciences, volume 10; 1939).</ref> However, the knight might have actually seen the handkerchief of Saint Veronica (which also purportedly contained the image of Jesus), and confused it with the grave cloth.<ref>Madden, Thomas, and Donald Queller. The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. Second edition. p. 139.</ref>

Overall, there is no credible and reliable evidence that the Shroud of Turin existed before the date that has been established by [[radiocarbon dating]]. Although there were many alleged cloths of Jesus before that, there is no reason to connect the actual Shroud with any of them.

===14<sup>th</sup> and 15<sup>th</sup> centuries===
The first certain mention of it comes from the 14<sup>th</sup> century. The first mention of the shroud, a memorandum of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, states that it was a forgery and that the forger had confessed. The bishop that his predecessor Henri de Poitiers was concerned that no such image was mentioned in scripture already denounced the shroud. d'Arcis wrote: 
{{quotebox|Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered 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.<ref>English translation of Memorandum contained in Ian Wilson, The Turin Shroud, pp. 230–235 (Victor Gollancz Ltd; 1978 ISBN 0-575-02483-6).</ref><ref>Joe Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings, Prometheus Books, 1998, ISBN 978-1-57392-272-2.</ref>}}

The letter provides an accurate description of the cloth: "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 Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore." The antipope didn't revoke the permission to display the shroud.<ref>Emmanuel Poulle, "Le linceul de Turin victime d'Ulysse Chevalier The Turin shroud victim of Ulysse Chevalier", ''Revue d'Histoire de l'Eglise de France'', t. 92, 2006, 343–358.</ref> He however instructed that the Shroud should not be treated as a relic and that "it can't be presented to the public as the actual shroud of Christ, but as an image or representation of it".<ref>Cf. U. Chevalier (1903), Autour des origines du suaire de Lirey. Avec documents inédits (Bibliothèque liturgique, vol. 5) (Paris: Picard), p. 35 (letter J): "...nec alias solempnitates faciant que fieri solent in reliquiis ostendendis..." This stipulation was maintained in the final version of the letter (Reg. Avign. n° 261, folio 259), as cited in Pierre de Riedmatten (2008), Ulysse Chevalier pris en flagrant délit... (Retrieved from http://suaire-turin.fr/?page_id=176 [https://web.archive.org/web/20160506094114/http://suaire-turin.fr/?page_id=176 Archived].</ref><ref>Cf. U. Chevalier (1903), Autour des origines du suaire de Lirey. Avec documents inédits (Bibliothèque liturgique, vol. 5) (Paris: Picard), p. 37 (letter K): "...quod figuram seu representationem predictam non ostendunt ut verum sudarium ... sed tanquam figuram seu representationem dicti sudarii". Also cited in Pierre de Riedmatten (2008), Ulysse Chevalier pris en flagrant délit...</ref> However, he prescribed so many [[indulgence]]s to the pilgrims who wanted to venerate it (even as a representation) that the veneration continued, and obviously continues to this day.<ref>"Cum ... ad ecclesiam ... causa devocionis eciam representacionis hujusmodi confluat non modica populi multitudo..." (U. Chevalier (1903), Autour des origines du suaire de Lirey. Avec documents inédits (Bibliothèque liturgique, vol. 5) (Paris: Picard), p. 38 (letter K)).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20060108065417/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_25/ai_77757762 "Skeptical Inquirer: Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud'"]. January 8, 2006.</ref>

In 1418 the Shroud was moved to a castle at Montfort by Humbert of Villersexel, a Lord of Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs. Later it was moved to Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs. After he died, canons of Lirey fought through the courts to get the Shroud returned, but it was given to Humbert's wife who travelled with it to various places like Geneva and Liège. The widow sold the Shroud to Anne of Cyprus, Duchess of Savoy. It was a property of the House of Savoy until 1983. 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.

===Later times===
The history of the shroud from the 16<sup>th</sup> century is well documented. There is evidence that the Shroud which we have today is the same as the one which was in Turin in the 16<sup>th</sup> century. Many minature copies have been made since then.<ref>Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/The_Holy_Shroud_(of_Turin) "The Holy Shroud (of Turin)"] . ''Catholic Encyclopedia''. New York: Robert Appleton Company.</ref>

====1532 Fire====
In 1532 a fire broke out, which caused the silver reliquary containing the shroud to start melting. The heated silver that dripped onto the material led to the formation of a hole. Due to the fact that the shroud was folded, when it was unfolded, many more holes were visible instead of one. Since then, many people have attempted to repair it, Poor Clare Nuns being the first to do so.<ref>[https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/ROA-Times/issues/1997/rt9704/970413/04140068.htm Shroud of Turin Survives 2nd fire, its home chapel severely damaged!], 1997, Roanoke Times.</ref>

====Calvin's remarks====
[[John Calvin]], in his ''Treatise on Relics'', wrote of the Shroud:
{{quotebox|How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ’s death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?}}
He also argued that in the John's gospel, there is a seperate cloth covering Jesus' head and that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".<ref>John Calvin, 1543, Treatise on Relics, trans. by Count Valerian Krasinski, 1854; 2nd ed. Edinburgh: John Stone, Hunter, and Company, 1870; reprinted with an introduction by Joe Nickell, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2009.</ref> However, it might also be the case that [[goddidit|God just magically merged the two clothes to test our faith]].

====Modern times====
The Shroud remained the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was given to the [[Holy See]]. In 1988, the Shroud was radiocarbon dated by three independent laboratories at Oxford, Zürich, and Tucson. Each laboratory was also given two control samples which dates were known from independent sources. All laboratories dated the control samples correctly and established that the Shroud dates from 1260–1390.<ref name=gove>Gove, H E (1990). [https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0033822200039990 "Dating the Turin Shroud – An Assessment"]. ''Radiocarbon''. 32: 87–92. doi:10.1017/S0033822200039990</ref>

On 11 April 1997 there was another fire, but the Shroud was quickly removed from its case. In 2002, the Holy See had the shroud restored. The cloth backing and thirty patches were removed which allowed the reverse side to be photographed for the first time in history.<ref>[https://www.shroud.com/restored.htm ''Restored''], ''shroud.com'', Retrieved 27 December 2021.</ref> The shroud has been publicly exhibited many times and will likely continue to be. Many copies of it are stored in different places in the world.

==Dating of the shroud==
The shroud was made available for proper scientific research, first in 1969 and 1973 by a commission appointed by Cardinal Michele Pellegrino, and then again in 1978 by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).<ref>''La S. Sindone- Ricerche e studi della Commissione di Esperti nominata dall' Arcivescovo di Torino, Cardinal Michele Pellegrino, nel 1969'' Supplemento Rivista Diocesana Torinese (1976).</ref><ref> ''The orphaned manuscript: a gathering of publications on the Shroud of Turin'', Alan D. Adler 2002 ISBN 88-7402-003-1 pp. 93–94.</ref> Even during the first examinations it was possible to use radiocarbon dating, but as much as 500 cm<sup>2</sup> of material would have had to be taken, which would have caused unacceptable damage. In the 1970s, however, accelerator mass spectrometry was invented, which allowed a far smaller portion of the shroud (just a few square centimetres) to be taken for the dating.<ref> Muller, R. A. (1977). "Radioisotope Dating with a Cyclotron". ''Science''. 196 (4289): 489–494. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Sci...196..489M Bibcode:1977Sci...196..489M]. [https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.196.4289.489 doi:10.1126/science.196.4289.489]. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17837065 PMID 17837065].</ref><ref>Harbottle, Garman; Heino, Walden (1989). [https://archive.org/details/archaeologicalch0000unse/page/312/ "Carbon Dating the Shroud of Turin"]. ''Archaeological Chemistry IV''. Advances in Chemistry. 220. pp. 313–20. [https://doi.org/10.1021%2Fba-1988-0220.ch016 doi:10.1021/ba-1988-0220.ch016]. ISBN 0-8412-1449-2.</ref>
===1988 radiocarbon dating===
[[File:1 MV accelerator mass spectrometer.jpg|thumb|An example of an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, the thing that [[Kent Hovind]] really doesn't like.<ref>[https://mistero.tripod.com/abbygcms.html Math, Science, and Philosophy for the Folks in the Pews: Chapter One. The Mass Spectrometer and the Age of the Earth] by Warren F. O'Rourke</ref>]]
Arguably the best known study of the shroud was radiocarbon dating, which was carried out in 1988 by three independent laboratories at Oxford, Zurich and Arizona.<ref name=dating /> Before the study was conducted an appropriate protocol had to be written. The original protocol<ref>Jennings, P. – Art Historian Not Convinced the Shroud is a Fake – Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 23, 1988, p. 24.</ref><ref>Jennings, P. "Shroud of Turin to Undergo Radiocarbon Testing" ''Our Sunday Visitor'', Feb. 14, 1988, p. 3.</ref><ref group=note>The so-called "Turin protocol".</ref> stated that the carbon dating would be the only test performed<ref>Meachum, W. (1986). "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties". Shroud Spectrum International. 19.</ref>; [[Double blind|control samples would be indistinguishable from the original shroud]]; the test would be performed by seven laboratories under the joint supervision of the Pontifical Academy of Science, the archbishop of Turin, and the British Museum; the sample offered to each laboratory would weight 28 mg, in total equivalent to 9 cm<sup>2</sup> of cloth; the British Museum would manage the distribution of the samples, and that the laboratories would not communicate with each other.<ref>Prestipino, C.A. "Il carbonio-14 e la S. Sindone" Didattica delle Scienze, No. 147, Aprile 1990, pp. 16–28.</ref><ref>Prestipino, C.A. "Replica – Sulla datazione del carbonio-14" Didattica delle Scienze, No. 149, Ottobre 1990, pp. 60–62.</ref>

However, the Church was pissed off at some of those points (that were intended to make the research more reliable mostly the point about more laboratories examining the shroud), so they decided to change them <strike>a bit</strike>.<ref>Anderson, I. "Vatican undermines tests on Turin shroud" ''New Scientist'', January 21, 1988, p. 22.</ref> They decided that only three laboratories would do the testing and that everything would be supervised by the British Museum alone, headed by Michael Tite.<ref>Van Oosterwyck-Gastuche, M.-C. "Age medieval du Linceul de Turin: Les étapes d'un bluff technologique" ''Science et Foi- Les Nouvelles du CESHE (Cercle Scientifique et Historique, Tournai, Belgique)'', No. 19, 1eme trimestre 1991, pp. 11–29.</ref> Their actions were heavily criticized.<ref>Raloff, J. "Controversy Builds as Shroud Tests Near" ''Science News'', April 16, 1988, p. 245.</ref>

The blind trials were abandoned because of technical issues (the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls).<ref name=dating /> This has, of course, caused lots of controversy.<ref>Gove, H. E. (1988). "Radiocarbon-dating the shroud". ''Nature''. 333 (6169): 110. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..110G Bibcode:1988Natur.333..110G]. [https://doi.org/10.1038%2F333110c0 doi:10.1038/333110c0].</ref> However abandoning it was justified<ref name=dating /> and the "lack of blindness in the measurements is a rather insubstantial reason for disbelieving the result."<ref name=gove />

Eventually, the 'final' protocol, with minor changes (like the weight of the samples given to each laboratory changed from 28 mg to 40 mg) was submitted.<ref>Tite, M. S. (1988). "Turin Shroud". ''Nature''. 332 (6164): 482. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.332..482T Bibcode:1988Natur.332..482T]. [https://doi.org/10.1038%2F332482c0 doi:10.1038/332482c0]. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3357508 PMID 3357508].</ref> The only major change was that all the samples would be sampled from a single portion of weave, which has also caused much controversy and ignited a debate.<ref>Marino, J.G., and Benford, M.S. (2000). "Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs".</ref><ref>Marino, J. "The Shroud of Turin and the Carbon 14 Controversy" ''Fidelity'', Feb. 1989, pp. 36–45.</ref>

The four samples were<ref name=dating />:
* (Sample I): A sample from the Shroud of Turin.
* (Sample II): A linen from a tomb excavated at Qasr Ibrîm in Nubia by Professor J. M. Plumley for the Egypt Exploration Society in 1964. On the basis of the [[Islam]]ic embroidered pattern and Christian ink inscription, this linen could be dated to the eleventh to twelfth centuries CE.
* (Sample III): A linen from the collection of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, associated with an early second century CE mummy of Cleopatra from Thebes. This linen was dated in the British Museum Research Laboratory using liquid scintillation counting, giving a radiocarbon age of 2,010 ± 80 yr before present. 
* (Sample IV): threads removed from the cope of St Louis d'Anjou which is held in a chapel in the Basilica of Saint-Maximin, Var, France. On the basis of the stylistic details and the historical evidence the cope could be dated at 1290–1310 CE (reign of King Phillipe IV).

The mean radiocarbon dates were<ref name=dating /><ref>[https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin], ''shroud.com''.</ref>:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Dating !! Sample I (Shroud) !! Sample II !! Sample III !! Sample IV
|-
! Previous independent findings 
| 
| 11<sup>th</sup>–12<sup>th</sup> centuries CE 
| 60 ± 80 BCE (2010 ± 80 BP)<ref group=note>BP stands for ''Before Present''. The year 1950 CE was chosen to be the 'Present' for many reasons.</ref> 
| 1290–1310 CE (reign of King Phillipe IV)
|-
! Arizona 
| 1304 ± 31 CE (646 ± 31 BP) 
| 1023 ± 32 CE (927 ± 32 BP) 
| 45 ± 46 BCE (1995 ± 46 BP) 
| 1228 ± 43 CE (722 ± 43 BP)
|-
! Oxford 
| 1200 ± 30 CE (750 ± 30 BP) 
| 1010 ± 30 CE (940 ± 30 BP) 
| 30 ± 35 BCE (1980 ± 35 BP) 
| 1195 ± 30 CE (755 ± 30 BP)
|-
! Zurich 
| 1274 ± 24 CE (676 ± 24 BP) 
| 1009 ± 23 CE (941 ± 30 BP) 
| 10 ± 30 CE (1940 ± 30 BP) 
| 1265 ± 34 CE (685 ± 34 BP)
|-
! Unweighted mean 
| 1259 ± 31 CE (691 ± 31 BP) 
| 1014 ± 5 (936 ± 5 BP) 
| 22 ± 16 BCE (1972 ± 16 BP) 
| 1229 ± 20 CE (721 ± 20 BP)
|-
! Weighted mean 
| 1261 ± 16 CE (689 ± 16 BP) 
| 1013 ± 16 CE (937 ± 16 BP) 
| 14 ± 20 BCE (1964 ± 20 BP) 
| 1226 ± 20 CE (724 ± 20 BP)
|}

As reported in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', Anthos Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."<ref name=dating />

====The medieval repair hypothesis====
Various people who did not accept the results of the 1988 radiometric dating speculated that the sample that was dated came from some of the material that had been restored in the Middle Ages.<ref>[https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/ New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ], ''USA TODAY''. </ref>

A group of researchers from the University of Arizona, where one of the samples from the shroud was dated, performed an analysis of a part of the remaining material from the 1988 dating which originally weighed 12.39 mg and measured approximately 0.5 × 1 cm.<ref name=freerwaters>Freer-Waters, R., & Timothy Jull, A. (2010). "Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin". ''Radiocarbon'', 52(4), 1521-1527. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200056277 doi:10.1017/S0033822200056277].</ref> The weave structure of this particular fragment was consistent with the rest of the Shroud of Turin.<ref>Tyrer J. 1981. Looking at the Turin Shroud as a textile. ''Textile Horizons''. December, 1981. p 20–3.</ref> At low magnification (~30×) no coatings were visible, only usual types of surface debris one would expect. They have also confirmed that the sample was undoubtoubly linen: "The fiber content is linen, a bast fiber from the cultivated plant ''Linum usitatissimum''<ref>Florian ME. 1990. Plant anatomy: an illustrated aid to identification. In: Florian ME, Kronkright DP, Norton RE, editors. ''The Conservation of Artifacts Made from Plant Materials''. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. p 1–27</ref> [...]. The diameters of ultimate fibers are consistent with surveys of Linum fiber widths<ref>Catling D, Grayson J. 1982. ''Identification of Vegetable Fibers''. New York: Chapman and Hall.</ref><ref>Garside P, Wyeth P. 2006. Identification of cellulosic fibers by FTIR spectroscopy: differentiation of flax and hemp by polarized ATR FTIR. ''Studies in Conservation'', 51(3):205–11.</ref>. Most of the fibers sampled have a diameter at the narrower end of the spectrum, at ~11 µm [...]. The reason for the narrow fiber diameter might be simply related to the initial harvesting and processing of linen fiber, or the age of the fibers. The fiber content of the textile from which this fragment was taken is undoubtedly linen." High magnification (320×) showed some expected debris as well. They also found that: "Under UV fluorescence, the fibers fluoresce uniformly and do not show any indication of an overall coating." They emphasise that all this debris would have been removed by "the various pretreatments used by Damon ''et al.''<ref name=dating /> which included standard acid-base-acid treatments, and ultrasonic cleaning in water or detergents for different fractions" and that it was absolutely expected as the shroud was not kept in strict storage conditions like it is today. They also explain why the presence of some cotton fibers was not unusual. Finally, they state that: "the linen fibers observed in this study have only low levels of contamination by a few cotton fibers, consistent with the original observations on the shroud<ref>Raes G. 1976. Rapport d’Analise. ''La S. Sindone'', supplement to ''Rivista Diocesana Torinese''. p 79–83.</ref> that there are a few cotton fibers on (or in) the shroud".<ref name=freerwaters /> They see no reason to doubt the representativeness of the 1988 sample.

====Raymond Rogers====
Others, including chemist Raymond Rogers,<ref name=ray>Rogers RN. 2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin. ''Thermochimica Acta'' 425: 189–94. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2004.09.029 doi:10.1016/j.tca.2004.09.029]</ref> who was also a member of the STURP team, have claimed that the sample which was dated showed signs of coating and dyeing (he claims this to be a result of medieval repairs). He told ''BBC News'' that “The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic.”<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4210369.stm Turin shroud 'older than thought'], ''BBC News'', 31 January, 2005.</ref> However, the team of scientists from Arizona have also concluded that:<ref name=freerwaters />
{{quotebox|In addition, we find no evidence for any coatings or dyeing of the linen. Rogers (2005) suggested that the fibers in his study, which came from the Raes fragments (e.g. Heimberger 2009<ref>Heimberger Th. 2009. [http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibaultr7part1.pdf Cotton in Raes/radiocarbon threads: the example of Raes #7].  Accessed 27 January 2022.</ref>), were coated with a Madder root dye (e.g. alizarin) and mordant. Linen does not readily accept dye, and any surface “coating” would be loosely adhered. We viewed a textile fragment dyed using traditional methods under UV light, and observed absolutely no similarity in UV fluorescence consistent with such a dye.}}

Additionally, both the cotton and the madder that were supposed to be present only around the dated sample have been found elsewhere on the shroud. Both were specifically reported by Walter McCrone, a member of the STURP team, chemist and leading expert in microscopy.<ref>McCrone, Walter. 1996. ''Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud''. Chicago: Microscope Publications., p. 85, ISBN 1573926795.</ref> Furthermore, others including French textile expert Gabriel Vial and major pro-shroud author Ian Wilson<ref>Wilson, Ian. 1998. ''The Blood and the Shroud''. New York: The Free Press. p. 71, 92. ISBN 9780297841494.</ref> believe the cotton may be entirely incidental. They point out it could have come from the cotton gloves or clothing of the Turin’s cloth’s handlers or a similarly mundane source.

Rogers admits that the claim that the radiocarbon dated sample came from a medieval restoration is "as unlikely as it seems."<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1289491.htm Turin shroud older than thought], ''News in science'', Rossella Lorenzi, 26 January 2005.</ref> Indeed, textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams.<ref name=dating />

==Technical problems==
No examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, [[Jewish]] burial practice utilized — and the [[Gospel of John]] specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings wrapped tightly around the body with a separate cloth over the face: 

{{cquote|Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself…|||{{bible|John|20|6}}}}

This is particularly curious because the Christian [[relic]] industry has been so proficient at producing multiple [[Holy Foreskin]]s and multiple complete sets of Jesus' baby teeth. It must be a '[[miracle]]' that there is only one shroud!

Additionally, none of the [[gospels]] make any mention of any miraculous burial cloth after Jesus's [[Resurrection of Jesus|resurrection]]. Curious that the most holy relic in all of Christendom doesn't even get so much as a word in its [[Holy book|holy texts]], isn't it?

There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but [[Hebrew]] law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping, and bodies don't bleed after death. [[Chemist]] Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint." However only fibrils lifted from the shroud on sticky tape were tested for blood (this was done in order to avoid damaging the cloth). It should be pointed out though that the color observed was still an unfaded red, which would not be expected of real blood, which browns with age.

Also of note is the lack of wrap-around distortion. For a shroud that was supposedly wrapped around the body of Christ, the lack of wrap-around distortion across the torso, thighs and legs is striking. If the cloth were genuine, the face and body should be hardly recognizable as such, and should look something more like [http://spie.org/Images/Graphics/Newsroom/Imported/303/303_fig4.jpg this]. The figure does not satisfy the geometric conditions of contact formation.

==Theories==
===Leonardo da Vinci===
One proposed hypothesis is that Leonardo da Vinci was commissioned to replace an earlier version of the Shroud of Turin that was exposed as a poor fake, which had been bought by the Savoy family in 1453 only to disappear for 50 years.<ref>Prince, Clive & Picknett, Lynn. ''Turin Shroud: How Leonardo Da Vinci Fooled History'', New York: Time Warner, 2006.</ref> Leonardo created a "new" Shroud of Turin using a ''camera obscura'' technique involving a mirror and lens, on cloth impregnated with silver sulphate in a darkened room. The techniques required to create primitive photographs had been available since the 11<sup>th</sup> century in the ''Book of Optics'', by Ibn al-Haytham, or Alhazen as he was known in the west. The silver sulphate acted as a negative which propagated an image onto the cloth when exposed by light through the lens. Silver sulphate and the ''camera obscura'' technique were known in the 15<sup>th</sup> century. In January 2009, visual [[art]]s consultant Lillian Schwartz at the School of Visual Arts in [[New York]] compared the face on the Shroud of Turin with that of a portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, and found that they matched.<ref> [http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/turin-shroud-may-have-been-faked-by-da-vinci-1799357.html Turin Shroud may have been faked by [Leonardo<nowiki>]</nowiki>]</ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5706640/Turin-Shroud-is-face-of-Leonardo-da-Vinci.html</ref>

===Jacques de Molay===
Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas in a 1997 book, ''The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry'', argue that the image on the Shroud is of Jaques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the [[Knights Templar]]. De Molay was tortured and burned at the stake in Paris on March 11, 1314 by orders of the French [[Monarch|King]] Philip IV, Le Bel, when the king succeeded in having the Templar order disbanded by Pope Clement V, and attempted to seize all of the Templar assets. Using the radiocarbon evidence, flax from which the Shroud was made grew sometime between 1260 and 1390.<ref>http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm</ref> The Shroud is known to have been in France during the 14<sup>th</sup> century, lining up with de Molay's death in 1314. Knight and Lomas contend that the image which allegedly resembles that of de Molay was created between the time de Molay was [[torture]]d and [[Inquisition|burned at the stake]], at the direction of the Chief Inquisitor of France, William Imbert. They speculate that his torture consisted of his arms and legs being nailed in a manner similar to crucifixion, possibly to a large wooden door. Then de Molay was laid on a length of linen cloth on a soft bed. The cloth was then pulled over his head and body and de Molay was left to recover from his wounds, before his later slow death by fire. Never mind the aforementioned problems with wraparound and body proportions; why let such minor inconveniences get in the way of a pet idea?

The authors based their image of de Molay on a 19<sup>th</sup>-century lithograph by French artist Chevauchet.

==Gallery==
<gallery>
File:NO SINDONE graffiti in Turin.jpg|[[Anarchist]] anti-Sindonology graffiti in Turin
File:Sindone in piazza San Carlo.jpg|Shroud [[advertising]] in Turin
File:Un chrétien devant le saint suaire.jpg|A sucker [[Prayer|praying]] before the fake cloth
</gallery>

==See also==
{{div col|2}}
*[[Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ]]
*[[Images of Jesus]]
*[[Relic]]
*[[Religious pareidolia]]
*[[Stigmata]]
*[[Holy Grail]]
*[[Holy Lance]]
*[[Holy Foreskin]]
*[[True Cross]]
{{div col end}}

==External links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988184-1,00.html ''Time'' Magazine] article on the science
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8415377.stm 'Jesus-era' burial shroud found] - The weave is quite different from the Turin shroud.
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8291948.stm Scientist reproduces Turin shroud]
*[http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html An extremely long and detailed essay from Sillybeliefs.com on the matter]
*[https://shroudstory.com/introduction/ Sindonolical "research" website]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Christian mythology]]
[[Category:Jesus-related hoaxes]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Categories: Christian mythology, Jesus-related hoaxes, Pseudoscience