The Shroud of Turin confirms the resurrection

The Shroud of Turin is a 14-foot linen cloth bearing the faint image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma consistent with crucifixion. For centuries, believers have claimed it is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ and that the image was created by the energy released during his resurrection.¹ Some apologists argue that the Shroud's properties are scientifically inexplicable and therefore constitute physical evidence of a miracle.² However, scientific examination of the Shroud has consistently contradicted these claims. Radiocarbon dating places the cloth's origin in the medieval period, nearly 1,300 years after the crucifixion.³ Historical records trace the Shroud's documented history only to fourteenth-century France, where it was identified by contemporary observers as a painted forgery.⁴ Chemical and microscopic analysis has found that the image was likely produced by ordinary artistic methods available in medieval Europe.⁵

The 1988 radiocarbon dating

In 1988, the Vatican authorized radiocarbon dating of the Shroud under rigorous scientific protocols. Three independent laboratories—at the University of Arizona, the University of Oxford, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich—each received cloth samples from the Shroud along with control samples of known age.³ The laboratories were among the most experienced radiocarbon dating facilities in the world and used accelerator mass spectrometry, the most accurate dating method available.³ The samples were coded so that the laboratories did not know which samples were from the Shroud and which were controls, ensuring the study was blind.³

All three laboratories independently reached the same conclusion. The flax from which the Shroud was woven was harvested between 1260 and 1390 CE with 95% confidence.³ The results were published in the journal Nature in February 1989, with the authors stating: "The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval."³ The mean date across all three laboratories was 1325 CE, plus or minus 33 years.³ This places the Shroud's creation approximately 1,300 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, which most scholars date to around 30-33 CE.⁶

Radiocarbon dating results from three independent laboratories³

Defenders of the Shroud's authenticity have proposed various objections to the radiocarbon dating. Some suggest that the sample was contaminated by medieval repairs, bacteria, fungi, or smoke from fires.⁷ However, the laboratories took extraordinary precautions to clean the samples before testing, using standard chemical treatments that remove all but the most stubborn contaminants.³ For contamination to shift a first-century date to the fourteenth century would require that the contaminating material constitute more than 60% of the sample by weight—an impossibility given the rigorous cleaning procedures.³ The control samples, which included first-century linen, were dated correctly, demonstrating that the laboratories' methods were reliable.³

Another objection claims that the sample was taken from a rewoven patch rather than the original fabric.⁸ This hypothesis, proposed by textile researcher M. Sue Benford and chemist Joseph Marino, has been rejected by both the original investigators and independent textile experts who have examined the Shroud.⁸ The sample site was carefully chosen from the main body of the cloth, not from any edge or obviously repaired area.³ Photomicrographs taken before sampling show the area to be continuous with the rest of the Shroud's fabric, with no evidence of reweaving.⁸ In 2019, the journal Archaeometry published a reanalysis confirming that the dated sample was representative of the whole cloth.⁹

The medieval historical record

The Shroud's documented history begins not in first-century Jerusalem but in fourteenth-century France. The earliest reliable historical reference to the Shroud dates to around 1355, when French knight Geoffroi de Charny displayed it in a church he had built in Lirey.⁴ No records explain how de Charny acquired the cloth, and attempts to trace its provenance further back are speculative and contradicted by historical evidence.⁴

In 1389, Pierre d'Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes, wrote a memorandum to Pope Clement VII condemning the Shroud as a fraud.⁴ D'Arcis reported that his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers, had investigated the cloth thirty-four years earlier and "discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it."⁴ D'Arcis complained that the canons of Lirey were claiming the cloth was the true burial shroud of Christ and that pilgrims were being deceived into venerating what was in fact "a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."⁴

The memorandum provides crucial contemporary testimony. Bishop d'Arcis was writing during the Shroud's earliest documented appearance, and he had access to firsthand accounts and investigations that modern scholars do not.⁴ His report that the artist had confessed is particularly significant; while the artist's identity is not recorded, the fact that a confession was obtained suggests the matter was thoroughly investigated.⁴ Despite this evidence, Pope Clement VII allowed the cloth to be displayed as a "representation" or "copy" of Christ's shroud, not as the authentic article, and ordered the canons to state publicly that it was a representation and not the true shroud whenever it was exhibited.⁴

Proponents of authenticity often cite claimed earlier appearances of the Shroud, most notably identifying it with the Image of Edessa (also called the Mandylion), a cloth bearing Christ's face venerated in the Byzantine Empire.¹⁰ However, historical sources describing the Image of Edessa consistently portray it as showing only Christ's face, not a full-body image, and describe it as having been created when Jesus pressed his wet face to a cloth.¹⁰ The Image of Edessa disappeared during the sack of Constantinople in 1204, and no reliable evidence connects it to the Shroud that appeared in France 150 years later.¹⁰ The gap in provenance between 1204 and 1355 remains unexplained by any contemporary documentation.⁴

Image formation and composition

One of the primary arguments for the Shroud's authenticity has been the claim that the image's formation is scientifically inexplicable. In 1978, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), a team of American scientists, conducted an extensive examination of the cloth using infrared spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence, ultraviolet photography, and other techniques.¹¹ STURP's official conclusion, published in 1981, stated: "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist."¹¹

However, STURP's conclusion has been challenged by subsequent research and by critical examination of STURP's own methodology and biases. Many STURP members were themselves believers in the Shroud's authenticity before the investigation began.¹² Team leader John Jackson had previously co-authored papers assuming the Shroud was authentic, and several team members later joined organizations dedicated to promoting belief in the Shroud.¹² Microanalyst Walter McCrone, initially part of STURP, resigned after his examination of fiber samples revealed the presence of iron oxide and tempera paint; his findings were rejected by the rest of the team.⁵

McCrone's analysis, published in peer-reviewed journals in 1980-1981, found that the image areas of the Shroud contained red ochre (iron oxide, Fe₂O₃) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide, HgS), both common medieval pigments, bound in a collagen tempera medium.⁵ The concentration of these particles was significantly higher in the image areas than in non-image areas of the cloth.⁵ McCrone examined more than 30 sticky-tape samples from the Shroud using optical microscopy and confirmed the presence of paint by multiple independent tests.⁵ He concluded: "The Shroud of Turin is a beautiful painting of a scourged and crucified man; it is not a miraculous photographic likeness of Jesus of Nazareth."⁵

STURP disputed McCrone's findings, arguing that the iron oxide particles were trace contaminants or products of retting (a process used to separate flax fibers from the plant stalk) rather than deliberately applied pigments.¹¹ They claimed that the image was formed by some kind of oxidation or dehydration of the cellulose fibers in the linen, though they could not explain what would have caused such a process.¹¹ However, independent analysis has continued to support McCrone's conclusions. In 2018, Italian researchers using modern analytical techniques confirmed the presence of creatinine and ferritin bound to small particles of red ochre, consistent with a tempera paint containing pigments and whole blood or blood serum as a binding medium.¹³

Pigment concentrations in image vs. non-image areas⁵

Average particle count of iron oxide per microscopy field

The blood stains

In addition to the body image, the Shroud displays reddish-brown marks that proponents claim are bloodstains from Jesus's wounds. STURP reported positive results from chemical tests for blood proteins and announced that the stains were real blood.¹¹ However, these findings have been questioned by forensic and chemical experts who note significant anomalies in the supposed bloodstains.¹⁴

Real blood on ancient linen appears black or dark brown, not the bright red color seen on the Shroud.¹⁴ When blood dries on fabric, it becomes a crust that flakes away; it does not produce the precise, well-defined images seen on the Shroud.¹⁴ In 2018, forensic anthropologist Matteo Borrini and chemist Luigi Garlaschelli conducted an experimental study using a mannequin to test whether the blood flows on the Shroud matched the patterns that would result from a crucified body in the position shown.¹⁵ They found that several of the most prominent "blood" flows were inconsistent with the laws of physics and human anatomy.¹⁵ For example, the rivulets of blood supposedly flowing from the hands show streams running at incompatible angles, suggesting they came from different body positions or were painted rather than formed by actual bleeding.¹⁵

The study also examined the "belt of blood" around the waist area, which Shroud proponents claim resulted from a lance wound to the side. Borrini and Garlaschelli tested this by making an incision in a mannequin at the anatomical location and using real blood.¹⁵ The pattern produced did not match the Shroud image; real blood from such a wound would flow downward by gravity and pool rather than spread in the neat horizontal pattern shown on the cloth.¹⁵ They concluded that "the bloodstains are extremely unlikely to have originated from a body" and that the evidence points to artistic representation rather than direct contact with a corpse.¹⁵

Furthermore, immunological tests for blood have produced inconsistent results. While some tests by STURP members reported detecting blood proteins, other researchers using more specific tests have failed to confirm the presence of human blood.^{5, 14} The positive tests for blood proteins could potentially be explained by the presence of tempera paint made with an animal collagen binder mixed with blood serum, a technique known to medieval artists.¹³

Image characteristics and photography claims

Proponents of authenticity often claim that the Shroud image has properties that could not have been produced by medieval technology, most notably that it encodes three-dimensional information and that it appears as a photographic negative.² In 1898, photographer Secondo Pia discovered that when photographed, the Shroud image appeared more lifelike in the negative, leading to speculation that it was created by some kind of proto-photographic process unknown in the first century.¹⁶

However, the negative image property is not particularly remarkable and can be easily explained by the image being lighter than the background cloth. Any image formed by a darkening or discoloration process on light fabric will naturally appear "reversed" in tonality compared to a photograph of a person.¹⁷ Art historian Nicholas Allen has demonstrated that a photographic image matching the Shroud's characteristics could have been created using a camera obscura and light-sensitive chemicals available in medieval times, though there is no evidence that this particular technique was used.¹⁸

The claim that the image contains three-dimensional information stems from the observation that the image intensity varies somewhat with the presumed distance between the cloth and the body surface.¹⁹ However, this property is also consistent with artistic production. A painter creating an image of a body would naturally make areas that should be closer (like the nose and forehead) darker and areas farther away (like the sides of the face) lighter, producing exactly this effect.¹⁷ Computer scientist Henry Farid analyzed the Shroud's three-dimensional properties in 2020 and concluded that the image showed anomalies inconsistent with a draped cloth but consistent with artistic representation.²⁰

Joe Nickell, a professional magician and paranormal investigator, has successfully reproduced Shroud-like images using techniques available to medieval artists.²¹ In 1983, Nickell created a full-scale replica by first making a bas-relief sculpture, laying cloth over it, and applying a mixture of myrrh and aloes (mentioned in John 19:39-40 as burial spices) to create a contact rubbing.²¹ After heating the cloth to darken the image, he produced a full-body negative image strikingly similar to the Shroud, demonstrating that medieval technology was fully capable of producing such an artifact.²¹ Italian scientist Luigi Garlaschelli later created another replica using similar medieval methods, which also successfully reproduced the Shroud's major features including the sepia color, the negative image, and the lack of obvious brushstrokes.²²

Pollen and geographical claims

Some Shroud researchers have argued that pollen grains found on the cloth prove it originated in the Middle East. Swiss criminologist Max Frei collected sticky-tape samples from the Shroud in 1973 and claimed to have identified pollen from plants endemic to Palestine.²³ However, Frei's work has been widely criticized for methodological flaws and lack of scientific rigor.²³ Frei never published his results in peer-reviewed journals, and after his death, examination of his reference collection revealed significant errors in pollen identification, including pollen supposedly from ancient samples that actually came from modern plants.²³

Botanist Avinoam Danin later claimed to identify images of flowers on the Shroud and argued they were species native to Jerusalem.²⁴ However, other researchers examining the same photographs could not see clear flower images, and the purported floral patterns appear to be examples of pareidolia—the tendency to perceive meaningful patterns in random or ambiguous visual data.¹⁷ The claimed flower images are not visible to the naked eye on the Shroud itself but only in enhanced photographs where they may represent dust, water stains, or artifacts of the photographic process.¹⁷

Even if authenticated Middle Eastern pollen were present on the cloth, this would not prove the Shroud originated in Palestine. The cloth has been displayed in numerous locations, handled by countless pilgrims, and exposed to various environments over its documented history.⁴ It has survived at least one fire and has been the subject of multiple investigations involving physical samples and sticky-tape sampling.^{3, 11} Pollen contamination from any of these sources could explain the presence of species from various geographical regions without requiring that the cloth itself traveled to those places in antiquity.²³

The resurrection energy hypothesis

In the absence of a conventional explanation they find satisfying, some Shroud proponents have proposed that the image was created by a burst of radiation emitted during Jesus's resurrection.² This hypothesis, while popular in apologetic circles, has no scientific basis and makes no testable predictions.²⁵

The radiation hypothesis faces numerous problems. First, no known physical process associated with biological death or resurrection would emit radiation capable of creating an image on linen.²⁵ Second, radiation sufficient to discolor linen would have had to be extraordinarily intense and would have left other detectable effects on the cloth's molecular structure that are not observed.²⁵ Third, the hypothesis is unfalsifiable; because resurrection is not a repeatable phenomenon available for scientific study, there is no way to test whether such an event would or could produce an image on cloth.²⁵

Some researchers have attempted to support the radiation hypothesis by showing that certain types of radiation can discolor linen in controlled laboratory conditions.²⁶ However, these experiments typically use modern equipment like excimer lasers or proton beams that bear no relationship to any natural process.²⁶ Demonstrating that modern technology can create an image on linen does nothing to support the claim that a resurrection would produce the same effect, and it certainly does not constitute evidence that the Shroud was actually created by such a process.²⁵ The radiation hypothesis functions not as a scientific explanation but as an appeal to the miraculous—an assertion that because the image formation is (supposedly) unexplained, it must be supernatural.²⁵

The scientific consensus

The scientific community's assessment of the Shroud has been remarkably consistent. Every major scientific investigation has concluded that the cloth is medieval in origin and that the image was produced by ordinary, if skillful, human artistry.^{3, 5} The radiocarbon dating, performed by three independent laboratories using blind protocols, remains the most rigorous and reliable evidence, and no credible scientific challenge to it has emerged.³

In 2005, Nature published a review of Shroud research noting that "the evidence for a medieval origin is now overwhelming."²⁷ The review observed that while a small number of researchers continue to defend the Shroud's authenticity, their arguments rely on rejecting well-established scientific findings and invoking speculative mechanisms for which there is no evidence.²⁷ Mainstream scientific journals no longer consider the question of the Shroud's age to be open; the radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 CE is accepted as definitive unless and until new evidence of comparable rigor emerges.²⁷

It is worth noting that the Catholic Church itself does not require belief in the Shroud's authenticity. While the Church permits veneration of the Shroud as an icon that inspires meditation on Christ's suffering, it has never officially declared it to be Jesus's authentic burial cloth.²⁸ In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI referred to the Shroud as an "icon" rather than a relic, carefully avoiding any definitive statement about its authenticity.²⁸ This reflects an acknowledgment within the Church that the scientific evidence does not support the extraordinary claims made about the artifact.²⁸

Conclusion

The claim that the Shroud of Turin confirms Jesus's resurrection is unsupported by scientific evidence and contradicted by multiple lines of inquiry. The cloth has been radiocarbon dated to the medieval period by three independent laboratories using rigorous protocols.³ Its earliest documented appearance is in fourteenth-century France, where contemporary church officials identified it as a forgery and recorded that the artist had confessed.⁴ Chemical analysis has identified paint pigments in the image areas.⁵ Forensic analysis has shown that the blood patterns are inconsistent with flows from a real body.¹⁵ Researchers have successfully created Shroud-like images using techniques available to medieval artists.^{21, 22}

None of this evidence is individually dispositive, but the cumulative weight is overwhelming. The Shroud is most parsimoniously explained as a medieval devotional image, skillfully created to inspire religious meditation but not miraculous in origin. Claims that it provides scientific evidence of the resurrection represent a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of both the evidence and the nature of scientific inquiry. Science can determine the age of an artifact, analyze its composition, and test claims about its properties. It has done so with the Shroud, and the results decisively contradict the claim that it is a first-century burial cloth, much less evidence of a resurrection.^{3, 5, 27}