I just finished reading Ross Douthat’s 2025 bestseller, Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious. Douthat, a conservative columnist and public intellectual, is known for writing at the intersection of politics, culture, and his Catholic faith, often in The New York Times. The book is a wide-ranging, intellectually grounded defense of faith in an age of doubt. Douthat offers arguments from science, consciousness, history, and moral intuition to suggest that religious belief is not only defensible—it may be necessary. But as I read, I found myself pausing over what wasn’t there. There is no mention of the Shroud of Turin.
I don’t think that’s an oversight. I think it’s intentional—and telling.
Any consideration of the Shroud’s authenticity ought to begin with Scripture. The Gospels state that Jesus was crucified, that his body was buried in a tomb, and that the tomb was found open and empty. John alone describes burial cloths in detail, noting that Peter saw linen wrappings and a separate cloth that had been on Jesus’ head (John 20:6–7 NRSV). But there is no suggestion in any Gospel of a miraculously imprinted cloth. The burial linens are never mentioned again. If such a thing existed—especially one bearing an image of the crucified Christ—wouldn’t someone have said something? Paul, whose letters are among the earliest Christian writings and had every reason to be persuasive, never mentions such a cloth. His arguments for the resurrection rely on appearances and transformed lives, not relics. And the Gospels and Acts, written decades later—forty, fifty, even seventy years after the events—draw on strong verbal traditions, shaped by worship and memory. Wouldn’t a cloth bearing an image have been remembered, cherished, and written down? Wouldn’t it have surfaced somewhere in these texts, if not as proof, then at least as an object of wonder or testimony?
Yes, one can speculate as to why it isn’t mentioned—that it was hidden, lost, suppressed, or overlooked. But such speculations quickly lean toward conspiracy or strained inference. In the end, it just makes sense at the “duh” level: they didn’t mention it because it wasn’t there.
That, as I’ve written elsewhere, is the basic “duh” of Shroud skepticism—not a scholarly argument from silence but a common-sense reaction from anyone with only passing awareness of the Shroud. For most people, the carbon-14 dating suggesting a medieval origin is more than enough to prompt doubt. Add to that the simple fact that the Gospels say nothing about any burial cloth bearing a full-body image of the crucified Jesus—and that Paul, who was always eager to persuade, never mentions it either—and the case looks shaky. Yes, ancient sources are incomplete. Yes, silence alone doesn’t prove something didn’t exist. But when something as visually and theologically extraordinary as a miraculous image-bearing burial cloth goes totally unmentioned across all canonical and early post-canonical writings, the silence becomes functional. It resonates with ordinary believers. No need for fringe theories about collimated radiation or encoded iconography. If the Shroud were an authentic, known relic from the first century, it seems someone—somewhere—would have said something.
And here’s the deeper problem for authenticity claims: the Catholic Church itself remains officially noncommittal. Despite centuries of devotion and recent scientific reexaminations, Rome has never declared the Shroud authentic. That silence, too, speaks volumes—because if the Church that preserves it won’t affirm it, why should a casual observer?
Douthat’s omission of the Shroud fits his larger project. He is not building his case on relics or forensic claims. He wants to persuade skeptics and secular readers that belief in God, and specifically in the Christian tradition, is intellectually coherent and spiritually vital. The Shroud, for all its mystery, is scientifically contested and theologically unnecessary. Including it might have made the book feel like an apologetics grab bag, or worse, a concession to pseudo-science.
Moreover, Douthat consistently avoids tactics that might alienate thoughtful readers. The Shroud, with its long history of dubious claims and disputed tests, is easy to dismiss—and hard to verify. To invoke it in an argument for belief would be, ironically, to weaken the argument. It risks making faith seem desperate for proof, when Douthat’s whole point is that belief can stand on firmer ground.
In the end, Douthat doesn’t mention the Shroud because he doesn’t need to. His book is about reason, meaning, and trust. It’s about belief as a response to a world that, for all its order and beauty, still leaves us with yearning. In that framework, the absence of the Shroud is not a problem. It’s a reminder: Faith doesn’t rest on evidence. It rests on the living memory of a person, a story, and a resurrection that changed the world—even if it left no image behind.
Dan.
The burial linens are never mentioned again. If such a thing existed—especially one bearing an image of the crucified Christ—wouldn’t someone have said something?
Arguments from silence are WORTHLESS. There are numerous examples showing that.
The New Testament never mentions the Essenes, one of the three primary Jewish sects at the time. The New Testament never mentions how the ceremonies of baptism and the Eucharist were actually being performed. The first detailed description come from Justin Martyr circa 150 AD.
Neither of the three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) mentions reconciliation between Jesus and Peter after the latter’s denial in Getsemane! It is described only in John 21:15-19.
Tacitus (Annals III,48) describes the career of Quirinus. But he doesn’t mention that Quirinus was a governer of Syria (what we know from Josephus and other sources): https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D48
Cicero (murdered 43 BC) in his numerous letters never mentions the Ceasar’s comet that appeared in the sky in July 44 BC.
And so on. Ancient historical sources are COMMONLY incomplete. Simply because their authors never wrote nor mentioned everything, every detail. And they always need to be harmonised to obtain the full story.
Paul, whose letters are among the earliest Christian writings and had every reason to be persuasive, never mentions such a cloth.
Paul never mentions many things. He never mentions burial cloth, or even doesn’t mention directly that the tomb was empty. He mentions the Twelve (Apostles) only once (1 Cor 15:5) and in his letters never explains who they are. He mentions he was in Damascus at the time of his conversion (Gal 1:17), but doesn’t explain what he was doing there. And many other things. Because Paul’s letters were addressed to those who knew the details.
I once compiled a list of every passages where in his letters (and speaches in the Act of Apostles) Paul mentions the episodes and details from the Christ’ earthly life. There are several such passages, taken out of the broader context. They cover quite a lot, but not everything. See:
https://www.apologetyka.info/_a/inne-tematy/harmonie-biblijne/ewangelia-wedug-swietego-pawa,1382.htm
And the Gospels and Acts, written decades later—forty, fifty, even seventy years after the events—draw on strong verbal traditions, shaped by worship and memory.
In my opinion the chronology is such:
* Gospel of Matthew: circa 40 AD
* Gospel of Mark: circa 45 AD
* Gospel of Luke: circa 56 (based on the probable mention of Luke and his Gospel in 2 Cor 18-19)
* Acts of the Apostles: circa 62 AD (it is clear that the trial of the Apostle Paul is still underway at the ending of the Acts)
* Revelation: circa 96 AD (end of the rule of Domitian, Ireneaus: Adversus Haereses V,30,3)
* Gospel and Epistles of John: circa 100 AD (ancient testimonies say the Gospel was written after the Revelation)
And this dating is based on the research of ancient historical sources I performed and wrote biographies of all the 4 Evangelists:
Matthew: https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-5-mateusz-ewangelista-biografia,1424.htm
Mark: https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-6-marek-ewangelista-biografia,1425.htm
Luke: https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-7-ukasz-ewangelista-biografia,1426.htm
John: https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/autorstwo-czterech-ewangelii-cz-8-jan-ewangelista-biografia,1427.htm
Several of those ancient testimonies (most but not all) you can find on the Ben C. Smith website we rescued from oblivion:
https://web.archive.org/web/20241120184644/http://websimconnect.com/www.textexcavation.com/fourgospels.html
they didn’t mention it because it wasn’t there.
This is nonsense. Most of the ancient world history is never mentioned. Because of the scarcity of surviving records. There were maybe 1500 poleis, city-states in ancient Greece. But of the history of the overwhelming majority of them (except major centers like Athens or Sparta) we know almost nothing. Because their histories, even if they were written down, they did not survive up to our time. There were likely less than 100 ancient historians whose work survived up to our times.
We know that on the island of Patmos, where John wrote down the Revelation, there was later an early-Byzantine sanctuary dedicated to him. But, except a single inscription, we know almost nothing about the history of this sanctuary. It was destroyed by Muslim raids between 7th and 9th century, and resettled only since 1088: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patmos
And so on. So it is not surprising we have almost no secure information about the Shroud history prior to the 14th century (though we have several likely theories). This is commonplace.
Thanks, O.K., for the thoughtful and detailed response. It’s always good to have someone press the argument with counterpoints and examples, and you’ve done so skillfully. Still, I think there’s more to be said, especially regarding the nature of the silence in question.
You rightly point out that arguments from silence are weak when used broadly—ancient texts omit a lot, and we shouldn’t expect full records. No argument there. But not all silences are created equal.
In this case, we’re not just wondering why we don’t hear about minor events or obscure figures. We’re asking why no early Christian writing—not Paul, not the Gospels, not Acts, not the Apostolic Fathers—mentions a burial cloth bearing a miraculous image of Jesus. If such a cloth had existed and been known to early believers, especially if it bore a full-body image formed under mysterious or divine circumstances, it would have been utterly unique in Christian experience—and a powerful symbol or proof to bolster the claims of the Resurrection. It is not unreasonable to expect someone to mention it. The silence is not just absence of detail—it is absence where one would expect noise.
Your comparison to the Essenes, Quirinius, or Cicero’s letters is informative, but those are different categories. The Essenes were never central to the Gospel proclamation. The image-bearing cloth of Jesus—if real—would have been. We’re not asking why Paul didn’t mention Peter’s mother-in-law. We’re asking why he didn’t mention a miraculous artifact that allegedly bore the crucified Christ’s likeness.
As for dating the Gospels early (Matthew at 40 AD, Mark at 45, Luke at 56), that’s a minority position not supported by most critical scholarship. Even evangelical scholars tend to date Mark to the late 60s, Matthew and Luke to the 70s or 80s, and John to the 90s or later. That matters, because the longer the time between event and writing, the more selective (and theologically shaped) the tradition becomes—and the more glaring the absence of mention becomes for something allegedly present from day one.
To be clear, the argument is not “because the Gospels don’t mention the Shroud, it didn’t exist.” Rather, it’s this: The complete silence across all early Christian sources—even those written with evangelistic urgency—raises serious questions about claims that such a cloth, bearing an image, was known or venerated in apostolic times.
And yes, the lack of record in the first 13 centuries of Christianity is not surprising in many cases—but in this one, it’s not just the lack of records. It’s that a major, visible, tangible, image-bearing relic supposedly existed, yet not even later medieval sources can offer a continuous backstory. The cloth only appears (so far as records go) in the 1350s, and then with controversy.
To summarize: arguments from silence must be used cautiously—but they are not always “worthless.” In some cases, like this one, the silence is meaningful.
(All the Biblical quotations from NIV):
Dan
NEVER underestimate the vastness of incompleteness of ancient sources. For example we do not that Mary Mother of God was entrusted to John:
John 19:25-27:
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[b] here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
But we don’t have any direct source that describes her ultimate fate until the late 4th century (which is the source of ongoing controversy between Catholics and Protestants regarding the Assumption of Mary)! Not even the slightest mention (though the archetype of Transitus apocrypha describing the story of Assumption was likely composed in the 2nd century, the preserved versions come from the 5th and later)!
We’re asking why no early Christian writing—not Paul, not the Gospels, not Acts, not the Apostolic Fathers—mentions a burial cloth bearing a miraculous image of Jesus. If such a cloth had existed and been known to early believers, especially if it bore a full-body image formed under mysterious or divine circumstances, it would have been utterly unique in Christian experience—and a powerful symbol or proof to bolster the claims of the Resurrection. It is not unreasonable to expect someone to mention it. The silence is not just absence of detail—it is absence where one would expect noise.
We should not expect noise. Rather silence is what one should more likely expect. Actually, neither Paul nor Matthew nor Mark even directly mention finding the empty cloth in the empty tomb! Only Luke and John do so! And they do not explain the details -only the surprise of the Apostles:
Luke 24:12 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.
John 20: 3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)
The image on the cloth was never of such importance -relative to the direct appearances of resurrected Jesus to the disciples. The fact, that the burial cloth likely contained marvelous image was a detail of secondary importance. Which was maybe known to a few, but rarely mentioned in public. Especially if the cloth was hidden somewhere for its security.
As for dating the Gospels early (Matthew at 40 AD, Mark at 45, Luke at 56), that’s a minority position not supported by most critical scholarship. Even evangelical scholars tend to date Mark to the late 60s, Matthew and Luke to the 70s or 80s, and John to the 90s or later.
The commonly presented dating is based on absurd proposition, that the prediction of destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 21;1f; Mk 13:1f; Lk 19:41-44,21:5f) was put in the mouth of Jesus after the event (or in the case of Mark, a short time before in late 60s). Actually this was the very core of Jesus teaching, well known both to the disciples and enemies of Jesus -and written down in the Gospels BEFORE the event, not afterwards (as fabricated prophecy). The account of martyrdom of St. Stephen (circa 36 AD0 says, he was accused of teaching that Jesus will destroy the Temple (Acts 6:8-14):
8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen. 10 But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke.
11 Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”
12 So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. 13 They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14 For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
Jesus Himself was accused the same during His trial:
Matthew 26:59-61:
59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
Mark 14:55-59:
55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.
57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
Also, for further arguments you can read John A.T. Robinson book, „Redating the New Testament”, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon 2000 (especially the chapter 2: “The significance of 70” pp. 13-30)
And “the most critical scholarship” is a fallacious argument. In fact the majority of those so-called critical scholars simply uncritically repeats what the majority says -without checking themselves. But I checked myself. And the more I study the topic, the more convinced I am that the so called “liberal” or “critical” biblical scholarship, “historical critical” method is actually a trash. A bunch of illogical absurdities and anti-Christian conspiracy theories which are nowadays commonly being taught at the universities as sacred truths. While the more you get acquainted with primary ancient Christian sources (in unbiased way, throwing away all the nonsense of critical scholarship, analyzing the sources directly) the more reliable traditional Christian history is. I checked the biographical data on the Apostles and Evangelist, build their coherent story form all the blocks available. And I am quite confident that the Synoptic gospels predate 70 AD. And their traditional authorship is indisputable.
And yes, the lack of record in the first 13 centuries of Christianity is not surprising in many cases—but in this one, it’s not just the lack of records. It’s that a major, visible, tangible, image-bearing relic supposedly existed, yet not even later medieval sources can offer a continuous backstory. The cloth only appears (so far as records go) in the 1350s, and then with controversy.
You know. We are almost certain the Shroud was in the Constantinople till 1204 (Robert de Clari testimony, iconographic evidence and so on). And it was transferred to the West and reappeared in 1350s. Actually, most of the ancient history we know today is based on greek Byzantine manuscripts that were transferred to the West in 1300s and 1400s. The medieval Western Europe knew only latin works, which were usually inferior to the greek sources. And the same happened with the Shroud. It was transferred from the east to the West in 1300s. It was not surpising but common occurence.
And what was before? The Shroud was likely hidden. You have the Edessa theory and so on. We don’t know for certain what did happen.
To summarize: arguments from silence must be used cautiously—but they are not always “worthless.” In some cases, like this one, the silence is meaningful.
You want the easy way, that the image on the Shroud had been directly mentioned in the Gospels and the Shroud was continuously preserved in Constantinople since at least Empress Helena times and so on. But not all ways are easy, very often they are challenging.
There are records of an image not made by hands in the mid first millennium. And all faith is based on evidence. I wouldn’t fly in a plane if the track record of safety didn’t exist. Jesus provided tons of evidence and implored all to believe on Him based on the mountain of evidence. There are no excuses as Romans 1 says.
Galatians 3:1.
It’s a blatant statement of Paul having displayed the Shroud to that church. It had to be protected from almost everyone explaining why it’s not mentioned for hundreds of years in Edessa. God protected it for the modern wicked and adulterous generation.
My son had a massive dose of radioactive material to kill his thyroid cancer. He was miserable and came home and wrapped himself in a sheet. When I washed the sheet where the sheet touched his neck and face was a faint outline if his neck, ear, cheek and upper back. I discussed this with with Barrie Schmitz.
Hello Susan!
Interesting story. I hope your son is fine.
Who is Barrie Schmitz? Did you mean Barrie Schwortz?
Do you have a record what was imaged on the sheet?
The book of John says that when the Apostle John entered the tomb, He saw and believed.
What exactly did he see that made him believe?
Mere absence of the body or was it something else?
He saw the shroud collapsed with the sudarium which was tied around His face to close His mouth still rolled up between the front and back of shroud fold like an oval donut sticking up in its own place. I.e. everything was exactly as it was when he witnessed Joseph and Nicodemus leaving the tomb. But only the body was missing. Jackson’s collapse model proves this.
Warning: You are drifting off topic and getting preachy. This not a throw spaghetti on the wall forum or open mic proselytizing at Reddit.
Hi, Dan
I do not understand how you have come to the position of certainty that the Shroud of Turin is a fake and not the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. I have arrived at exactly the opposite position. Let’s review what we know.
The Shroud of Turin shows the full figure of a man, front and back, in a faint outline with blood stains corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus as described in the New Testament. This image could conceivably have been contrived by a medieval artist. But the photographic negative made by Secondo Pia in 1898 completely changed the question. Now we need a faked artistic creation that somehow had all of the photographic info in negative form that would have been available if a camera had been used. As we know, photography did not exist in the Middle Ages and the concept of negative/positive images was completely unknown. It is impossible that a medieval artist could have accidentally created the negative image of Christ crucified with the detail and clarity of the Shroud of Turin and preposterous to suggest that if such an artist had that ability that he would have chosen to leave it hidden until photography was invented centuries later. No one, not Colin Berry nor Hugh Farey nor anyone else with all our technical prowess, can duplicate the Shroud of Turin today by creating a positive image that appears to be the negative but reveals the actual positive image as the negative. If anyone challenges this statement, I say “prove it.” But proof requires the same degree of detail as exists in the Shroud of Turin and on the same scale.
When you review the vast literature now existing in the debate about Shroud authenticity, there is only one piece of evidence that seems to prove it cannot be a genuine relic: the Carbon-14 dating of 1988. To my mind, the Shroud of Turin mystery is entirely the question of why that dating was incorrect. It absolutely was not correct because it couldn’t have been unless some alien from another planet came to earth in the Middle Ages and left the fake relic. I think we can rule this out. From the get go we know the dating was defective without considering all of the technical challenges and rebuttals because it established the earliest date of 1260 whereas the Hungarian Pray Codex proves that the Shroud existed at least as early as 1192-1195. The history of the Image of Edessa [see Ian Wilson’s excellent book, “The Shroud: Fresh Light on the 2,000 Year Old Mystery” (2010)] fills in the location gap for the Shroud before it appears in medieval accounts.
In your latest challenge, you claim that if the Shroud and its image had existed immediately after Jesus’ resurrection, it would have been mentioned as an important relic proving Christian claims. But the earliest Christians had much more powerful stories to tell of Jesus’ appearance in the flesh on numerous occasions. Further, Jewish law and custom at the time regarded such burial cloths with blood stains as ritually unclean. It would have been seen as particularly distasteful to be showing this bloody cloth around as proof of Jesus’ resurrection. Rather than be convincing (you are not convinced and you know what the actual image is), it would have been seen as another sign that the new Christian cult was just bonkers and incompatible with God’s guidance to his chosen people through Moses. In comparison to eye witness reports of Jesus himself and his teachings, it would have seemed like something a magician might use. Magicians in that time were distrusted and even feared. The fact that the Gospels tell us that the cloth was there and rolled up separately is proof of its importance not lack of it because it wasn’t used later to make Christian converts. That recognition has value now because it does buttress the claim for authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.
Jim
Hi Jim. Thank you for your thoughtful and sincere comment. I appreciate your clarity, your deep engagement with the literature, and your willingness to wrestle with the Shroud’s mysteries rather than simply dismiss them. We probably agree on more than you think—especially on the seriousness with which this topic deserves to be treated.
That said, I’d like to push back gently but firmly on several points in your argument, not to dismiss your position, but to explain more clearly why I—and many others—remain unconvinced of the Shroud’s authenticity.
* The “Photographic Negative” Argument
Yes, the Pia negatives in 1898 were dramatic. But the idea that a medieval artisan couldn’t possibly have created something with “negative-like” properties assumes too much. The Shroud is not a photographic negative in the technical sense—it’s a superficial image on the surface of cloth, with varying intensities that happen to render more clearly in photographic reversal. That doesn’t require knowledge of photography. Artists for centuries have experimented with tone reversal (see: bas-reliefs, rubbings, acid etching). Even the idea of hiding something in plain sight was not foreign to medieval religious artistry—especially in objects meant for mystical contemplation.
Colin Berry, Hugh Farey, and others have indeed demonstrated partial analogues using techniques like dry scorching, dust transfer, and powdered bas-relief. They are not perfect reproductions—but no one expects them to be. The Shroud’s uniqueness doesn’t mean it must be divine; it just means it’s hard to replicate precisely, which is true for many artifacts whose provenance is still debated. In fact, the more unique something is, the more carefully we should examine whether our reverence is projecting meaning onto mystery.
* “Prove It” Is a Two-Way Street
You ask critics to “prove it”—to recreate the Shroud at full scale with all its details. But no one knows how the Shroud was made, and that’s the point: extraordinary claims (that this is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus) require extraordinary evidence. Skeptics are not claiming to have a detailed recipe; we’re simply pointing out that nothing about the image proves it couldn’t have been created through natural or artistic processes—especially in a medieval context where relic creation was widespread and deeply incentivized.
Also, let’s flip the burden: If the Shroud is genuine, why does no one mention it for over a millennium? Why does the Church still not declare it authentic? Why does its chain of custody vanish into speculation and legendary reconstruction?
* The C-14 Dating
You dismiss the 1988 carbon dating far too easily. You say it “couldn’t have been correct,” but that’s not how science works. The testing, conducted independently at three labs, yielded a consistent date range of 1260–1390. That doesn’t “prove” the cloth is a fake, but it does strongly suggest it’s medieval in origin.
Yes, there are arguments about sample contamination or repairs, but these remain speculative and, so far, unproven. The Pray Codex doesn’t “prove” the Shroud existed in 1192—its images are vague and open to interpretation (many scholars see no direct correspondence). Ian Wilson’s Edessa theory is intriguing but depends heavily on imaginative reconstructions and ambiguous texts.
* The Argument from Silence
This may be where we most clearly diverge. You say the Shroud was ritually unclean and would have been seen as distasteful, which might explain its absence from early Christian texts. But I don’t buy it.
The early Church was not squeamish about scandal. They preached a crucified Messiah, after all—a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23). They remembered nails, scourging, and blood in vivid detail. If a full-body image of Jesus had existed—if such a relic had captured, in visible detail, the suffering and resurrection miracle—it would have meant something. Someone would have referenced it—not necessarily as “proof,” but at least as a sign, a curiosity, an object of veneration. The complete silence, across all early texts and liturgies, is not dispositive—but it is deeply suggestive.
And to your point: I’m not saying the image had to be used to convert skeptics. I’m saying it likely didn’t exist, because if it had, it wouldn’t have disappeared for over a thousand years, only to reappear in France during a time when relic fraud was booming and church finances were strained.
* The Church’s Own Silence
Let’s not overlook this: The Catholic Church has never declared the Shroud authentic. It permits veneration but stops short of endorsement. That cautious neutrality—despite centuries of theological and scientific investigation—should give anyone pause. If Rome, with all its interest in relics and tradition, still holds back, why should the average Christian lean in?
In the end, I respect your position and your faith. But for me—and for many—the Shroud is an enigma that leans more toward legend than evidence. I don’t need to debunk it to preserve my belief in the Resurrection. And I don’t need to believe it to trust that something real and transformative happened on that first Easter morning.
But no one knows how the Shroud was made, and that’s the point: extraordinary claims (that this is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus) require extraordinary evidence.
Depends on what one considers extraordinary, Dan. You think the claim, that this particular object (the Shroud of Turin) is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, is extraordinary. I would rather think the other way round. That the Shroud of Turin would be anything else but the original Shroud of Jesus in His tomb, this would be extraordinary.
I don’t have any problem with accepting that the Shroud of Turin is the original, authentic burial Shroud of Jesus. Since I believe in the Gospel story, I believe there was a particular physical, material object, a shroud covering Jesus body in the tomb. And this particular cloth had some its own history. Something did happen to it -it could be discarded, burned, it could rot somewhere, it could be buried in desert sands (and still awaits discovery). Or it could survive up to our times -as a single particular object known as the Shroud of Turin. A priori it is not impossible.
And conversely, if the Shroud of Turin isn’t that particular shroud that covered Jesus body, than it is something else. But, with all the current knowledge we have, it would be really extraordinary if it was anything else. Simply, because all the alternatives do not make any sense. C-14 measurements were just a mishap -it happens from time to time. It had to happen at one point, that something would have gone wrong, that there would have been a faulty research apparently contradicting Shroud’s authenticity (to the satisfaction of the skeptics). Which I think, was quite rationally exposed by Rogers in 2005.
Skeptics are not claiming to have a detailed recipe; we’re simply pointing out that nothing about the image proves it couldn’t have been created through natural or artistic processes—especially in a medieval context where relic creation was widespread and deeply incentivized.
I think rather there is a lot of data that makes it extremely unlikely. And your perception of Middle Ages is highly stereotyped. The fakes were and still are produced in every period (and Medieval people were not naive idiots any more than we are today). The Shroud is not a typical medieval (and not only medieval) “fake” relic -some faked bones of a saint or something fairly common, like clothes. The Shroud looks very “natural” in a sense that this isn’t a typical human artisan creation -which would be quite schematic. The Shroud, contrary is aschematic. It is difficult to describe all of its aspects in fairly simple terms. Yes, there are some commonly pointed aspects -it is a negative, its tones depends on the body-cloth distance, it does not have contours etc. But they are all just approximations, simplified models. We do not have the exact understanding, what this really is.
Colin Berry, Hugh Farey, and others have indeed demonstrated partial analogues using techniques like dry scorching, dust transfer, and powdered bas-relief. They are not perfect reproductions—but no one expects them to be.
Contrary, we expect a “perfect” reproduction. “Perfect” not in a sense that it should be an exact clone of the original. But it should convincingly reproduce its basic characteristics. We need to see, feel that it is the same, a superficial, 3D negative image with a realistic blood outflows with serum halos and other aspects (like dirt present on nose and feet). But no one succeeded, even closely. All the purported “reproductions” are very crude and primitive. It is immediately obvious they are different from the original. They can sometimes reproduce a particular aspect or maybe at most two or three. But always at the expense of other important characteristics. And the reproducers have all the modern technology at hand to help -photographs, computers, microscopes, UV light and so on. And incredibly more vast literature and foundation of scientific concepts than any medieval scholar or craftsman. The claim that medieval genius purposely created an image with the knowledge of scientific concepts 600 years ahead of its time is a nonsense. The claim that he accidentally succeeded in creating so sophisticated art -is even more nonsense.
Also, let’s flip the burden: If the Shroud is genuine, why does no one mention it for over a millennium?
Because it is a material object. Which can be easily hidden out of sight, if the owner (for example the Roman soldier who found it in an empty tomb after the Apostles Peter and John departed, or Pilate’s wife or Byzantine emperor) wishes so. That’s why we do not have direct records of the Shroud existence for nearly 1200 years (till Robert de Clari in 1204). Only legends.
I think it is completely rational to believe the Shroud of Turin with its “miraculous” image is a genuine shroud of Jesus. I don’t claim that the skeptics are irrational -but in my mind their propositions are much more far-fetched.
* The Church’s Own Silence
Let’s not overlook this: The Catholic Church has never declared the Shroud authentic. It permits veneration but stops short of endorsement. That cautious neutrality—despite centuries of theological and scientific investigation—should give anyone pause. If Rome, with all its interest in relics and tradition, still holds back, why should the average Christian lean in?
The fact is that no belief in any relic is a dogma of Catholic Church. Simply because it is not the point. The relics are not the teachings of the Church on which it is founded. On the testimony of Apostles, on the Scripture and oral tradition passed through generations in the continuous line of succession. Relics are just material objects, that were considered worthy to be preserved (just like museum artifacts), memoirs of people and events. They may serve as additional testimony and evidence, objects of veneration (altars were built upon relics of saints), but the Church doctrine is not based on them.
Why does the Catholic Church not officially declare the Shroud authentic? Simply, there is no purpose for that. No matter how good (or bad) the evidence for authenticity is. And there is no continuity. The Shroud popped up in the Western, Catholic Europe only in 1350s. There is no secure continuous chain of custody since the Shroud was first found in the empty tomb by Peter. Thus there is no guarantee it is authentic, scientific considerations aside. Science is fallible and thus its verdicts can always change. But you cannot change undisputed facts which are Tradition and dogmas of the Church. That there was empty tomb with empty grave cloths (and the Shroud of Turin could be one of them, but there is no absolute certainty), that Christ rose from the dead, that he appeared to the Apostles in His resurrected body and so on.
I think the Church in its wisdom knows well, that even if multiple repeated C-14 measurements would turn out the 1st century dates, this will never convince committed non-believers. I read multiple times on various forums declarations of avowed atheists that they will not believe even them (usually claiming that there were so many crucified people in the 1st century).
O.K., you wrote: “You think the claim, that this particular object (the Shroud of Turin) is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, is extraordinary. I would rather think the other way round. That the Shroud of Turin would be anything else but the original Shroud of Jesus in His tomb, this would be extraordinary.”
I think we’re talking past each other a bit here. Let me clarify: I’m not saying that belief in a burial cloth per se is extraordinary—I believe Jesus was buried, and I accept that a shroud probably existed. The extraordinary claim is that a cloth exists today that (1) bears a full-body image of the crucified Christ formed under unknown means, (2) somehow escaped notice, documentation, or veneration for over 1,200 years, and (3) reappears just as medieval Europe is producing a flood of relics and needs fresh devotional artifacts. That is not a “default” assumption. That’s a bold and far-reaching historical and theological claim—and one that, if true, would demand extraordinary documentation, not just visual mystery.
You say, “it could survive up to our times.” Sure—it could. But so could thousands of hypothetical relics. The question is whether there is compelling reason to believe this one did.
On the “inexplicability” of the image:
The claim that modern scientists “cannot reproduce” the Shroud is often repeated, but it’s a bit of a strawman. No one claims to have replicated every aspect perfectly. But that’s not the standard of proof. What skeptics do show is that plausible natural mechanisms (e.g., contact, heat, chemicals, or combinations thereof) can account for many of the Shroud’s features—superficiality, 3D information, lack of contour lines, and so on. It’s precisely because we have access to photography, spectrometry, microscopy, and advanced image processing that we notice these features now. A medieval observer wouldn’t have even known what to look for.
You say the Shroud doesn’t look like other relics—and that’s true. But that cuts both ways. Its uniqueness is not evidence of authenticity; it’s evidence that it was unlike other relics—perhaps made for a different kind of effect. Many great fakes are compelling precisely because they don’t look like typical fakes.
On the “burden of proof”:
You argue that we should expect a “perfect reproduction” from modern skeptics. But why? We don’t demand perfect reconstructions of the pyramids to believe they were made by human hands. The inability to fully replicate something doesn’t make it miraculous—only currently unexplained. And as we both know, gaps in explanation are not proofs of divine origin.
Meanwhile, your own explanation—that the cloth somehow vanished into secrecy for 1,200 years and only reemerged just when relic-hungry Europe needed it—is precisely the sort of narrative that would never be accepted for any other object making extraordinary claims.
On the Church’s silence:
You’re right that the Church doesn’t declare relics to be dogma. But your defense of the Church’s neutrality seems to concede my point. If the Shroud is what some claim—literally the burial cloth of Christ with his image miraculously embedded on it—why wouldn’t the Church affirm that? The very fact that it refrains from doing so—after centuries of analysis—suggests something important: even Rome doesn’t see the evidence as conclusive.
On the “rationality” of belief:
You say it’s rational to believe the Shroud is authentic. I’d say it’s not irrational—but it’s not the best-supported conclusion. You’re welcome to find meaning in the Shroud, and many do. But let’s be clear: much of the apologetic energy around the Shroud doesn’t arise from evidence—it arises from desire. The desire for a tangible relic. A visual confirmation. A bridge between faith and science. I understand that impulse. But I don’t think it delivers what it promises.
In the end, my faith in the Resurrection doesn’t depend on linen fibers or photographic negatives. It depends on witness, memory, tradition, and grace. If the Shroud helps others connect more deeply to that truth, so be it. But let’s not mistake a mystery for a miracle—or silence for proof.
The Shroud is authentic and is a record of the entire Gospel. If you believe the Gospel and the chances it’s not Jesus are almost zero then you’re playing the devils advocate to illicit thoughtful comments. I love it. Thanks for resurrecting the blog.
Hi Jim,
How pleasant to read a comment which sets out its author’s ideas so clearly. Most people get very muddled in their ideas, so that it’s difficult even to make sense of them, let alone discuss their merits.
The crux of your argument, if I understand it correctly, is the astonishing ‘negative’ image, which was surely not apparent to anybody until Pio’s photograph revealed it. And it is astonishing. I demonstrate it in my lectures, and people previously unaware of it gasp with amazement. However it happens, it’s a wonderful, and to many people spiritual experience.
But the Shroud image itself is not a photograph, nor even the negative of a photograph, and the negative image is not the negative of a photograph, not the positive of a negative. Consequently whatever caused it did not require any kind of knowledge of photography. If it did, then I would agree that it would be preposterous to imagine that the process would be kept hidden.
It is commonly supposed that the negative of a photo of the Shroud represents a positive photograph of Jesus – in other words it looks as he looked lying in the tomb, within the colour constraints of monochrome photography. If this were the case, then we must suppose that Jesus’s hair was much lighter than his face – not impossible – but also that the bruises caused by being beaten about the face and by the cross on his shoulders were also much lighter than the surrounding skin, and the welts left by the scourging were also much lighter than the surrounding skin. We must suppose that the nose was much lighter than the cheeks, and the skin of the man’s back was much lighter than the skin of his chest, and the skin of his calves lighter than the skin of his hips. Although at first sight it appears to be a photograph, it clearly isn’t. If it were a photograph, it would be caused by light either being reflected off, or emitted from within, but neither of these is demonstrated. If reflected, then where is the light source? If from within, then why are there ‘shadows’ above the crossed arms, or on either side of the stomach and the face, or below the pectoral muscles.
No, the illusion that we are looking at a photograph is caused by a different phenomenon, namely the idea that areas closer to a putative plane are brighter than areas further away. Exactly where this plane was, and whether it was flat, curved, or closely conforming to a ‘body’ is much disputed even by authenticists who have studied it in detail. It looks as if the plane was completely horizontal, but there are some who argue for different configurations. But it is supposed that the nose and beard, for example, appear bright because they are more prominent, not because they were actually brighter in colour, and the bruises and welts are lighter than the surrounding skin because they bulge out, not because they were lighter in colour.
So we can forget photography, and look for a medieval craftsman familiar with some sort of process whereby prominent features are represented by prominent marks, and recessive features represented by less prominent marks or no marks at all, and immediately find such process in the wood-block print, whose European dawn was at just that time, the late Middle Ages, when the Shroud, I think, was made.
A little later in your comment you become a touch over-dogmatic, if I may say so. Announcing that this or that is impossible is always risky. It is certainly true that no one has exactly reproduced the image on the Shroud, as experimenting with exactly the correct depth and contours of the required bas relief, the exact specifications of the cloth, and the exact recipe of the chromophore is far too expensive and time-consuming, but as ‘proof of concept,’ then an image derived from a relief that exhibits these ‘3-D’ and pseudo-negative qualities has been achieved many times using many different techniques.
Similarly, the radiocarbon date only confirms what was already anticipated based on the textile, the literary references and the theological and liturgical development of the Middle Ages, and to many of us, none of the alleged pre-medieval references hold water. We certainly don’t “know” that the radiocarbon dating was defective, and we certainly don’t think that the Pray Codex is related to the Shroud at all, let alone “proves” anything. I appreciate that opinions differ, but that is precisely why general assertions that “we know” one thing or another are inadvisable.
Your last paragraph seems contradictory. Having established at length that the cloth was ritually unclean and pedagogically worthless, you then suggest that it was carefully looked after in secret for years. It’s a point of view, but not one that’s likely to persuade a ‘medievalist.’
So after all that, I think I can say that I understand why you have come to the opposite conclusion from Dan, but I’m not certain that you do.
Best wishes,
Hugh
All Readers: Because of some good and effective criticism by O.K., I have revised one paragraph (above) and added an additional paragraph after it. Here is that content:
“That, as I’ve written elsewhere, is the basic “duh” of Shroud skepticism—not a scholarly argument from silence but a common-sense reaction from anyone with only passing awareness of the Shroud. For most people, the carbon-14 dating suggesting a medieval origin is more than enough to prompt doubt. Add to that the simple fact that the Gospels say nothing about any burial cloth bearing a full-body image of the crucified Jesus—and that Paul, who was always eager to persuade, never mentions it either—and the case looks shaky. Yes, ancient sources are incomplete. Yes, silence alone doesn’t prove something didn’t exist. But when something as visually and theologically extraordinary as a miraculous image-bearing burial cloth goes totally unmentioned across all canonical and early post-canonical writings, the silence becomes functional. It resonates with ordinary believers. No need for fringe theories about collimated radiation or encoded iconography. If the Shroud were an authentic, known relic from the first century, it seems someone—somewhere—would have said something.
“And here’s the deeper problem for authenticity claims: the Catholic Church itself remains officially noncommittal. Despite centuries of devotion and recent scientific reexaminations, Rome has never declared the Shroud authentic. That silence, too, speaks volumes—because if the Church that preserves it won’t affirm it, why should a casual observer?”
Is this the only ancient Shroud in existence? I’m assuming, that modern technology cannot determine how the image was created, over a thousand or more years ago. Leaves me no choice but to believe. If someone other than “God” created this item, who and how did they do it?? If we can’t prove or dis-approve, then we really are not as intelligent as we think we are!!
Hi Stephen,
My opinion is that your assumptions are wrong. Modern technology could easily determine how the image was created 700 years ago. Even the technology of 1978 could probably have determined how the image was made had it been used under the direction of art historians or forensic chemists rather than USAF officers and specialists in nuclear weapons. You do have a choice, and it is no discredit to you that you choose to believe – but try to believe on the basis of what you do know, rather than what you don’t.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Dan
You say, “it could survive up to our times.” Sure—it could. But so could thousands of hypothetical relics. The question is whether there is compelling reason to believe this one did.
And there are thousands of surviving relics around up to this day. Some are undisputed (the relics of St. Ambrose), some are likely (based also on scientific research, for example the relics of St. Luke the Evangelist). Some are perhaps forgeries, because there was (and still is) a demand for them. And most in fact, are not cataloged neither investigated scientifically. But it does not preclude the authenticity of some of them -even if their documentation is late and poor.
The extraordinary claim is that a cloth exists today that (1) bears a full-body image of the crucified Christ formed under unknown means, (2) somehow escaped notice, documentation, or veneration for over 1,200 years, and (3) reappears just as medieval Europe is producing a flood of relics and needs fresh devotional artifacts. That is not a “default” assumption. That’s a bold and far-reaching historical and theological claim—and one that, if true, would demand extraordinary documentation, not just visual mystery.
(1) First a quote from John 21:25 (NIV):
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
So the silence of the Gospel account does not preclude there has been a full-body image Christ on His burial Shroud. Simply no New Testament author mentioned it. Just like many other things not mentioned in the New Testament. Nowhere in the New Testament there is mentioned reaction of Pilate to the empty tomb of Jesus. The earliest mention is in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter from late 1st-2nd century, where Pilate orders his soldiers to keep silence. Later we have claims of Justin Martyr (around 150 AD) and Tertullian (around 200 AD about the Pilate’s report to the emperor Tiberius. Which produced many fantastic legends about it.
(2) This is not so striking as it seems. The Shroud could have easily escaped notice for even longer period, 2000 years or so. Buried in a castle wall, hidden in some mysterious chest not opened for hundreds years (like many other relics) or left in a jar in Qumran caves. This is an artifact. Until it is publicly revealed, and reported in some writing record (and the record itself must survive for posterity as well!) it can very easily escape notice. Especially if considered a kind sacred mystery, unavailable to be displayed to lay public only to privileged ones, which was common in the East. The Wilson’s Mandylion theory explains it neatly: the Shroud as Mandylion was brought to Constantinople in 944, but its real nature was not openly revealed in order not to discredit the old legend.
The history of the Shroud is on one hand extraordinary, indeed, just like history of many surviving ancient artifacts is extraordinary, a chain of extraordinary events that allowed their preservation (contrary to many others). But on the other hand it is quite typical, as mentioned before. It is quite typical for relics and other ancient artifacts, that surviving records is scare, attestation is late, and often not much reliable.
(3) The claim of medieval Europe flooded with fake (and original as well, looted and transferred from the East) relics is irrelevant and just demagogic. It is a prejudice, not any meaningful argument regarding the Shroud authenticity.
You argue that we should expect a “perfect reproduction” from modern skeptics. But why? We don’t demand perfect reconstructions of the pyramids to believe they were made by human hands. The inability to fully replicate something doesn’t make it miraculous—only currently unexplained.
It is certain that the pyramids are artificial objects. A pile of stones put one on another. We don’t know the exact way how they had them constructed, yes. It is much more difficult to exactly re-engineer, replicate an artifact than build it from scratch -yes. But the Shroud, and its imprint and image is something different. It doesn’t seem to be artificial creation. Rather it seems to be natural. In a sense I mentioned it is not schematic. Artificial constructions are always schematic in a sense, one can deduce a scheme upon which it is built on. Some primary design, primary characteristics: “how it was built”. But the Shroud is different. It is not a “construction” placing all the elements together by force. It is just like it was allowed for nature to work for itself to create such incredible effect.
No one claims to have replicated every aspect perfectly. But that’s not the standard of proof. What skeptics do show is that plausible natural mechanisms (e.g., contact, heat, chemicals, or combinations thereof) can account for many of the Shroud’s features—superficiality, 3D information, lack of contour lines, and so on.
Can account only for individual features, sometimes two or three. But as I said -always at expense of something else which is also important. The object is not a sum of its all individual characteristics or predicates. It is something different. It is hard to explain it in plain terms -but there is some “essence” of being a particular “being”. Rather than a simple list of all the characteristics. I find that the taoist term De “inherent character; integrity” is the best one here.
I have never seen a good replica of the Shroud of Turin. No one even closes to the characteristics of the original. They always have some particular features that disqualify them immediately, showing they are something entirely different than the original Shroud. Either 3D is bad, or directionality fails, or superficiality fails, or there pigments, hot spots, or whatever.
The problem of replicating the Shroud is not the kind of replicating the pyramids, I think. I think the more proper analogy is with creation of life. We can artificially synthesize organic molecules, amino acids and so on. But no one succeeded in creating life in laboratory form non-living matter. It is not so simple as it seems. And in a similar way, we can quite easily replicate some of the Shroud of Turin properties. No problem with some inventive approach. But no one, even with the aid of modern science and technology (unavailable in the middle ages) is able to build a full replica with all the features of this allegedly fake artifact.
You say it’s rational to believe the Shroud is authentic. I’d say it’s not irrational—but it’s not the best-supported conclusion.
I would say exactly opposite -it is the best-supported conclusion, based on rational analysis, counterarguments (like the faulty -since Rogers we know it was faulty- C-14 datings and lack of perfect historical record) included. Of course I don’t claim it is as well-supported conclusion as it could be (if every scientific investigation went smooth and we had an access to better source than we actually have). We still don’t have all the elements that would clearly link the Shroud to Jesus (like for example reliable dating to the 1st century, and a geographical link to Jerusalem). But maybe one day we will have. Any opposite conclusion (that it is anything else but the Jesus’ shroud) is much less tenable. I find them (alternative theories) extremely unlikely, rather based on conspiracy theory-like pleading. Assuming highly improbable chain of events conspiring to create a false impression of the real shroud for a man who suffered exactly like Jesus.
But let’s be clear: much of the apologetic energy around the Shroud doesn’t arise from evidence—it arises from desire. The desire for a tangible relic. A visual confirmation. A bridge between faith and science. I understand that impulse. But I don’t think it delivers what it promises.
IMHO I find there is much more desire by skeptics to reject the authenticity of the Shroud, than by authenticists to authenticate it. I consider it authentic, and it is fine. It is not a problem for me, as a believer, though my faith is not based on the Shroud. But there are many, for whom accepting the authenticity is a problem for various reasons.
Hi OK,
Some interesting comments, but still, as so many comments are, not just yours, somewhat narrow-minded, as if seen from a single point of view. When you say, “It is certain that the pyramids are man made objects,” for example, you deny outright the claims of a small but determined minority who think they were built by aliens. I might say, “It is certain that the earth is round,” which is what I think, but to do so is to deny the claims of those who think it is flat. Certainty about anything is no basis for a discussion with those who disagree, and your comments on Dan’s original post suggest that you are engaging in a discussion. As it happens, I could have started this reply with, “It is certain that the Shroud is medieval,” which is what I think, but that’s no basis for a discussion with those who think differently.
A little earlier you admitted that there was no mention of an imaged Shroud in the gospels or by the early church fathers, but insisted that arguments from silence are worthless. It’s a common trope, but as a generalisation it’s nonsense. Certainly, a man who sees no fox in a wood has no right to claim that there are no foxes in the wood, but a man who sees no horse in a stable may justifiably claim that there is no horse in the stable. It’s a question of degree, and to many people, the lack of mention in early church literature is as clear as not seeing a horse in a stable. Of course you disagree, and you’ve every right to, but you’ve no right to claim that you must be correct.
You went on to explain lots of reasons why the Shroud is not mentioned in early literature, which seem good to you, but these are not based on any evidence – they are arguments from silence, which you yourself have rejected.
Another ‘certainty’ you claim is that the Shroud has an extraordinary history, but I don’t think that’s true at all. It only has an extraordinary history if it has a history at all, and I don’t think it has.
Finally, who are all these skeptics you have found with a greater desire to reject authenticity than the desire of the authenticists to substantiate it? I don’t know any at all. On the other hand, watch anything by Robert Spitzer, Jeremiah Johnson, Ken Stevenson, Brian Donley Worrell or Tom Dallis, to name just a few of the most recent, and you’ll observe such a passionate desire to promote authenticity that any regard for factual accuracy is abandoned.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Dan and Hugh,
Thanks for your responses. And, Hugh, thanks for the copy of your May 8, 2025 essay, “Laughter, disgust and hilarity.” The problem with these squabbles among Shroud proponents and skeptics over technical claims is that our knowledge base (and interest level) is inadequate to assess the respective charges, countercharges and insults. For my purposes, OK (above) said it perfectly well:
“I have never seen a good replica of the Shroud of Turin. No one even closes [I think he meant ‘nothing even close’] to the characteristics of the original. They always have some particular features that disqualify them immediately, showing they are something entirely different than the original Shroud. Either 3D is bad, or directionality fails, or superficiality fails, or there [‘there are’] pigments, hot spots, or whatever.”
I’m tired of Shroud debunkers, like yourself, producing little pieces of imagery that appear to mimic the Shroud image in some way. Like OK, I have yet to see one that would make a reasonable person think that perhaps there is a way to replicate the startling clarity of the Shroud image. So, I say, put up or shut up. Reproduce the Shroud image on a similar textile cloth with similar dimensions and image characteristics. As you claim in your reply to Stephen above:
“Modern technology could easily determine how the image was created 700 years ago. Even the technology of 1978 could probably have determined how the image was made had it been used under the direction of art historians or forensic chemists rather than USAF officers and specialists in nuclear weapons.”
Funny that “modern technology” hasn’t done so during decades of heated debate over authenticity. There are plenty of very rich people who could and would fund this project if anyone could make a plausible case for its success. But, apparently they can’t.
I am sorry to say, Dan, that absolutely the weakest argument I have heard to challenge the Shroud’s authenticity is the one you seem to find the most convincing. If you are a believing Christian, as I am, we have to read the Gospels with the knowledge that these are a critical part of God’s plan to get mankind to understand His salvation history and Christ’s teachings necessary for mankind’s redemption. The Gospels are written with two audiences in mind at all times: contemporaries of Jesus, including his apostles and other disciples, and everyone else who would read them in the centuries and millennia to come. We also should take note that the Gospels are bare bones narratives. There is almost no descriptive literature describing scenes, clothing, weather, feelings, personal features and other characteristics of modern biographical writing unless necessary to understand the narrative. So when an incidental detail like John’s mention of the burial cloth rolled up and put in a separate place in the tomb is included, it certainly has some significance. Shroud authenticists would say that significance lies in the power of seeing physical evidence of Christ’s crucifixion and, by virtue of the inexplicability of the image on Christ’s burial cloth, evidence also of his resurrection. This evidence has particular power in our current age after the time when photography could reveal the full depth of the image. This is also a time of vast and rapid technological advancements when such aids to faith might be particularly helpful.
But at the actual time of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, what value would this cloth have had? It is simply a blood-stained cloth with the faint image of the person crucified. But the fact of Christ’s crucifixion was not an issue. No one claimed he wasn’t crucified. The issue was whether he stayed dead. As has been noted in your blog occasionally, the Shroud image says nothing about resurrection. It is only the circumstances of how we have this image 2,000 years later that it can be claimed as evidence of God’s action in raising Jesus from the dead. The image also is a powerful assertion of the reality of Christian claims about the historical Jesus. Not only would the cloth have been completely irrelevant to the startling claims of the early Christian community that Jesus had arisen as he said he would, the fact that such bloodstained cloths were considered ritually unclean would more likely have produce an “Ewww” than a “Wow.” It’s doubtful that any of the people considering the claims of Christianity would ever have seen post-interment burial cloths. They might well have concluded that blood stains from crucifixion wounds routinely appeared on the shrouds used to wrap the bodies. Of course, very few, if any, crucifixion victims received the kind of burial treatment that Jesus did.
But as time passed and people outside Israel began to hear the story and claims of Christianity for the first time, mention of the remarkable cloth found in the tomb would have begun to resonate more as evidence of Jesus the miracle worker and Son of God. Kind of offering a “photo” or a physical artifact to support a story. And as time went on, the image on the Shroud would have been increasingly seen as a powerful relic and link to Jesus as God. Ian Wilson’s tracing of the probable portions and confirmed history of the Image of Edessa fits this narrative perfectly and logically flows right into the history of the Shroud when we pick it up after the Crusaders (Knights Templar) returned from Constantinople. Shroud skeptics like Hugh attack this historical link as being too incomplete but, as he notes himself, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. We have enough history and science to support a comprehensive view of the Shroud as the genuine burial garment of Jesus.
As a final note: Hugh says this about the Hungarian Pray Codex: “we certainly don’t think that the Pray Codex is related to the Shroud at all.” Really? The Pray Codex from the period 1192-1195 shows Jesus in exactly the same position as in the Shroud with arms crossed over his lower pelvic area and a shroud with a textile pattern very similar to the Shroud’s being pointed out by an angel to three weeping women–presumably the women who went to the tomb on Easter morning. This shroud has 5 burn holes in exactly the same position as on the Shroud of Turin. As you are fond of saying, Hugh: you are entitled to your opinion. But only royals can use “we” to mean more than named individuals.
Jim
Hi Jim,
I’m sorry if I find your response a bit confusing. “Put up or shut up”? That’s a bit peremptory, if I may say so. As I have mentioned before, I’m not working to fulfil any authenticist demand, nor to play at “exact reproduction,” but to try to find out how the image was created. For my satisfaction, not for yours. I believe my efforts, based on those of others, are getting closer with every trial.
You say it is funny that modern technology has not been used on the Shroud because, “apparently” no-one can “make a plausible case for its success.” That’s not apparent to me. There are many possible reasons why no art historical forensic investigation has been carried out, one of which may be exactly the opposite of your claim – that a plausible case for success has indeed been made, but rejected.
Your story of the ritually unclean Shroud having nevertheless been preserved is no less contradictory than when you suggested it earlier, and the succession of suppositions which follow are only that: suppositions. That’s not to say that they can’t be true, but plausibility is not the same as evidence. And I did not note above, that absence of proof is not proof of absence, I said that it often was.
The Shroud link to the image of Edessa has been comprehensively rejected by several authenticists as well as almost every Byzantine historian to have explored it, and the knights Templars were not at the sack of Constantinople.
And the royal we? Not at all. I was referring to the fairly small group of researchers who have studied the Pray Codex and rejected it, such as myself, Marco Corvaglia, David Montero, Andrea Nicolotti, and Gary Vikan.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh
We’ve pretty much reached the end of our dialogue, I think. But a few comments just for the record:
“Put up or shut up” is a common expression meaning to either prove a point or stop claiming one can do it. No offense was intended by me for the rough language.
My point about a plausible case for success not being made to recreate the Shroud of Turin using modern technology is simply that: to my knowledge, no one has explained how it could be done nor attempted to do so. I do not refer to small scale samples of different materials as you have presented but, rather, full scale on a linen cloth with images that conceal the full detail within a photographic negative produced by photographing the reproduction.
My comments about the ritual impurity and irrelevance of the shroud to Jews immediately after the resurrection are not contradictory in any way. Please explain precisely why you think they are. Why would the apostles and other Christian disciples use the burial cloth of Jesus to prove his resurrection? It proves only his crucifixion which was not contested at all. Do you think that Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries would have been more convinced by this ritually unclean burial cloth with blood stains than the witness testimony and miracles being offered by the apostles and other disciples of Jesus? Or do you think it would have been simply a distraction offering the Jewish elders an opportunity to attack the new Church on grounds of (1) failure to follow the law and (2) offering “proof” of Christ’s resurrection that, in fact, proved no such thing?
This is not the place to engage in a full-blown debate about the history of the Shroud and the Image of Edessa. We definitely do not agree on this point. I think Ian Wilson did a great job of showing that history and linking the two stories. Also, I did not say the Knights Templar participated in the sack of Constantinople but they were there at some point in the 12th and 13th centuries. See, for example, https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/knights-secretly-protected-shroud-turin.
Jim
Hi Jim,
You’re probably right. All the most serious researchers of the Shroud know that in the end their conclusions are based on personal interpretations of the observations made and that perfectly rational people, such as you, me and Dan, can come to opposite decisions regarding the authenticity of the Shroud.
My point both in these comments and in most of my blogposts is often not to insist that I must be right, but that it is wrong for anybody of the opposite view to insist that they must be. I don’t think you fall into that category; or at least I hope not.
You ask for an explanation for why I think the idea that a ritually unclean object might resurface later is contradictory. It implies that at least someone decided to preserve it in the first place, and, it being so big and hidden for so long, that other people also knew and concurred. Although that’s not wholly impossible, your own description implies a dichotomy between early opinion – that the shroud was literally disgusting – and later opinion, that its image overrode its impurity. If the first, then it should have been abandoned, burnt or otherwise discarded, and the fact that, according to you, it wasn’t, means that at least some followers of Christ firmly believed that its witness to the Resurrection was more important. As such, I think it must have been ‘shared’ among believers, even if not among the general public, and that some of the early Church fathers would have known about and mentioned it in their writings. But they don’t, and in this case, I agree with Dan that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
I am not saying that anyone would have found it “disgusting.” It was the burial cloth of a man asserted to be the Son of God so I am certain no degree of revulsion was ever present among Jesus’ early followers. My point is that it would not have been a useful assist in the efforts to evangelize the Jews to become Christians. I hope I’ve covered the reasons for that decision enough already. When inquiries came later from elsewhere and non-Jewish sources as Christianity began to be more established, the ritual impurity problem would have passed or never existed in that particular society.
The early Church fathers were busy developing the theology and structure of the new Christian religion and evangelizing on the basis of Christ’s teachings and miracles performed. Martyrdom was a constant threat and achieving some security within the Roman Empire to practice the religion a significant focus. Scientific claims within this culture were nothing like we have in the modern world. An image of the crucified Christ would have been seen as something to venerate but not something that had to be of supernatural origin and therefore be proof of Christian claims. Also, according to Ian Wilson’s research, the Shroud had left Israel and was being held in secret in Turkey (as I recall). Thus it was not even available for the early Church Fathers to examine and promote. They had their hands already full with disagreements within the early church about the nature of Christ and the relationship between God and man (e.g., Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Arianism, Pelagianism, etc.), not to mention disputes over the nature of the Trinity, of Jesus’ combined nature, the Eucharist and institutional authority. So silence from the church fathers is not evidence of anything.
Jim