The Shroud of Turin is an ancient and delicate linen cloth which is stored in an airtight, temperature and humidity-controlled case, filled with argon (99.5%) to minimise deterioration of the cloth.  kept behind bulletproof glass in the Chapel of the Holy Shroud, which is located at the back of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, and is only brought out to be displayed on very rare occasions.

The Shroud was last publicly exhibited in 2015 when it drew huge crowds from around the world.  It is only rarely brought out for public display and there are currently no plans to exhibit the Shroud in the near future.

It is only since 1983 that the Roman Catholic Church has been the legal owner of the Shroud.  It had previously been the property of the Savoy family who acquired it from Margaret de Charny in 1453.  They moved the Shroud to Turin in 1578 where it has remained ever since. The Savoy family eventually became the ruling family of Italy and ownership of the Shroud was passed down through successive generations to King Umberto II, who was exiled to Portugal when Italy became a republic following the end of World War II. 

On his death in 1983, King Umberto bequeathed the Shroud to the Holy See.  Although this makes the living Pope the officially owner, there is no reason to relocate to the Shroud to Rome from the Cathedral in Turin, which has been its home for over 400 years.

The Shroud is far more than just another Catholic relic.

Despite being kept in the Cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin since 1578, the Shroud has been in private ownership for much of its recent history.  The Savoy family owned the Shroud for over five hundred years, having acquired it from Margaret de Charny in 1453.

The Shroud only officially became the property of the Catholic Church in 1983, when its last owner, Umberto II of Savoy died. He bequeathed the Shroud to the Pope and his successors.

The Catholic Church has never officially endorsed or rejected the authenticity of the Shroud. It acknowledges it as a significant object of devotion, which represents the suffering and crucifixion of Christ. It has also permitted the Shroud to be scientifically tested in the hope that this will one day provide a conclusive answer. The Shroud attracts the curiosity of people of all faiths and none. The mysterious image of a crucified man, which cannot be replicated even with twenty-first-century technology, sets it apart from anything else in the world and has caused it to become arguably the most scientifically tested object of all time.

The Roman Catholic Church rarely endorses the authenticity of ancient relics.  This endorsement is only given when there is an indisputable record that traces the provenance of a relic, which can be obtained for items relating to recent saints such as Therèse of Lisieux or Padre Pio.

Despite this lack of official endorsement, some popes have made statements that suggest that they personally believe the Shroud to be authentic.  It is also interesting to note that in 2020, when thousands of people in Italy had already died following the outbreak of COVID, the Shroud was brought out to be ‘live-streamed’ so that people all around the world could view it online and pray for an end to the pandemic. 

The relevant passage from St John’s Gospel (John 20:6-7) in the King James Version states:

‘Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. ‘ (John 20:6-7 KJV)

Most scholars believe that ‘the napkin that was about his head’ refers to the cloth that we know today as the Sudarium of Oviedo.  However, in the above passage, St John describes also seeing ‘linen cloths’.  Other versions of the bible, such as the New International Version, refer to ‘strips of linen’, leading some to claim that Jesus was wrapped in a similar fashion to an Egyptian mummy, rather than in a large linen cloth such as the Shroud.  However this can be ruled out as John 19:40 also tells us that Jesus was buried ‘in accordance with the burial custom of the Jews’ and the Jews did not wrap corpses in narrow bands of cloth in the manner of Egyptian mummies.  This article by André Feuillet provides further details. 

Although today the Turin Shroud is a single piece of fabric, there is a narrow side strip that has clearly been removed in the past and then restitched into its original position.  We can be confident that this is the case because the banding produced by variations in the thickness of the yarn used in weaving the cloth are the identical in both the main body of the Shroud and the side strip. 

Scientist John Jackson who has studied the Shroud for many years has shown how the side strip would have been removed and then tied tightly around the covered body to keep the arms and legs in place (see photo below).  After the resurrection, the two linen cloths – the Shroud and the side strip –  would have remained together in the tomb.

As can be seen on the Radiocarbon Test page of this website, scientists who have re-examined the statistical analysis of the results have concluded that these measurements reveal that there is a high probability that the cutting removed from the Shroud for the dating test was affected by some form of contamination.  Various suggestions of possible causes of contamination have been made, two of which are widely considered to be particularly feasible.  

Crucifixion was used by ancient Rome both as a form of capital punishment and as severe warning to anyone tempted to engage in similar crimes.  It was intended to be a brutal, gruesome and humiliating punishment and so victims were rarely allowed the dignity of a burial.  The legs were also often broken to speed up the onset of death, as happened to the two thieves crucified alongside Jesus. 

The markings visible on the Shroud provide solid evidence that the it was the body of Jesus that had been wrapped in the Shroud:

• Although it is likely that other victims apart from Jesus may have suffered a violent scourging of the sort that is evident from the markings on the Shroud, the use of a Crown of Thorns to humiliate ‘The King of the Jews’ is a punishment that was unique to Jesus.  The bloodstains on the Shroud in the area corresponding to the crown of the head are entirely consistent with wounds produced by thorns penetrating the scalp. 
• According to the gospels, the soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus as he was already dead but instead pierced his side with a spear.  This is again consistent with the visible evidence found on the Shroud, as the legs are clearly unbroken and there is a bloodstain produced by large wound in the side. 
• Finally, we know from the gospels that unlike almost all other crucifixion victims, Jesus was buried with due reverence and dignity.  We are told that Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy man of influence, successfully petitioned Pontius Pilate to be allowed to take down and bury Jesus’ body, before buying a fine linen cloth in which the body was wrapped and placed in a tomb.  

The Shroud therefore contains evidence of a unique set of circumstances for a Roman crucifixion, with markings that demonstrate that the body had been tortured, crucified and buried in a manner that perfectly matches the gospel description of the passion and crucifixion of Jesus.   

Many people have an unshakeable faith in the life, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and whether or not the Shroud is authentic makes no difference to the strength of their faith.   However there are many others whose faith isn’t that strong, or who are agnostic or even atheist and the evidence revealed by those who have researched the Shroud can make a huge difference to their beliefs.  Indeed many of the leading Shroud researchers and scholars were themselves either atheist or agnostic before becoming aware of the Shroud.

Even if your faith will be unaffected by reading the contents of this website, you may come across people who are not yet convinced about the life and teachings of Jesus.  Their faith may well be helped by browsing through the evidence revealed on this website and so it is a useful link to be able to pass on to them.

It is true that the results of the 1988 radiocarbon dating test showed that that the fabric of the Shroud dated to the period 1260 to 1390 and was declared by those who conducted the test to be proof that the Shroud had a medieval origin.  However, there have been many concerns raised about all aspects of this test, from the poor choice of site chosen from which to remove the cutting used for this test, through to the statistical analysis of the measurements made by the three laboratories involved in dating the fabric from the Shroud. 

As can be seen on the Radiocarbon Test page of this website, scientists who have re-examined the statistical analysis of the results have concluded that these measurements reveal that there is a high probability that the cutting removed from the Shroud for the dating test was affected by some form of contamination.  Various suggestions of possible causes of contamination have been made, two of which are widely considered to be particularly feasible.  

Yes, there have been several scientific tests since 1988 that challenge the Carbon dating result.

For example, in 2013, a scientific team at the University of Padua led by Professor Giulio Fanti, published the results of three separate non-destructive dating tests conducted on material removed from the Shroud of Turin. These new tests were carried out by representatives from several Italian universities:

• Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FITR) identifies chemical bonds in a molecule by producing an infrared absorption spectrum.  This produces a distinctive molecular fingerprint that can be used to identify its components. After comparing the Shroud ‘fingerprint’ with 8 FITR test samples where the age was known, the results gave an age for the Shroud fibres as 300 BC + 400 years.
• Raman Spectroscopy uses the light scattered off a sample and is considered a very sensitive method of identifying specific chemicals. After comparing Shroud fibres with 11 Raman results on test sample fabrics where the age was known, the Raman result produced an age for the Shroud fibres as 200 BC + 500 years.
• Mechanical tensile strength measures the strength of the fibres which become looser over time.  The Shroud sample was compared with 12 test samples where the age was known and suggested an age of 400 AD +400 years.

The mean result obtained by combining these three measurements was ’33 BC ±250 years’. Their report concluded that “All the dates have a 95% certainty.  The average date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death and is far older than the medieval dates obtained with the flawed Carbon-14 sample in 1988.”

Also, in 2022, a new dating technique using Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering concluded that the material of the Shroud dated to the first century,

A draft memorandum written by Pierre d’Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes to Pope Clement VII in 1389 has led some sceptics to claim that the church knew that the Shroud was a forgery in the late Middle Ages.

In the letter, Bishop d’Arcis accused the Dean of Lirey of deceitfully procuring a “cunningly painted” cloth to make money by pretending that it is the burial Shroud of Christ. Furthermore, the Bishop claimed that his predecessor had located the artist who painted the Shroud and that it is “a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.”

Bishop d’Arcis had good reason to be upset that the Pope had permission for the Shroud to be publicly displayed in the neighbouring town of Lirey. The construction of the new cathedral at Troyes required the donations of faithful pilgrims, and the crowds preferred to travel to Lirey and spend their money there instead.

There is no evidence that the memorandum was actually sent to the Pope. Significantly, the Bishop declined to name the artist who he claimed had cunningly painted the image on the Shroud. This is hardly surprising, given that subsequent scientific analysis of the image has shown that it is not painted, and therefore not the work of an artist.

We know that the image on the Shroud was not produced by contact with the body.  This would indeed have resulted in major distortions in the image produced, unlike the anatomically accurate representation of a body that is visible on the Shroud.   In addition, the Shroud image exists in places where the fabric would not have been in contact with the body, for example in the space between the nose and the cheeks. 

The image markings have many unusual characteristics which continue to mystify scientists who have searched for an explanation of how the image could have been formed.  Detailed examinations of the Shroud by the STURP team in 1978 have clearly shown that it is not the product of an artist, effectively ruling out the possibility that it was a fake produced by a medieval craftsman. However they could not work out how to create an image which had the same photographic negative, 3D and microscopic properties as the image formed on the Shroud. 

The decades since the STURP examination have also failed to produce a plausible, convincing explanation for how the image was formed.  However, the most promising proposals of a possible mechanism for replicating the Shroud image involve some form of radiation and indeed certain types of radiation have reproduced some of the microscopic properties observed on the Shroud.

This revered cloth is known to us as the Shroud of Turin because that has been its home since 1578, but one of the difficulties involved in tracing the history of the Shroud is knowing what it would have been called in ancient times.  There have also been long periods during its history in which it has been hidden to avoid theft or destruction, for example during the persecution of followers of Jesus in the years that followed his death and resurrection.

However, as can be seen on the Pre-1350 History page of this website, research by dedicated historians has revealed several ancient manuscripts and texts which refer to a cloth that appears to match the description of the Shroud.  This was kept for several centuries in the Anatolian region of present-day Turkey, before being taken to Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) to become part of the Byzantine Emperor’s imperial collection of sacred relics.  This history is endorsed by evidence found on some Byzantine coins minted during this period, as well as pollen found in surface dust extracted from the Shroud which came from plants which are not found in Europe but which are native to Anatolia and Judea.

There has been a DNA analysis of dusts extracted from the surface of the cloth near the body image.  However, this is a cloth that has been handled by many people throughout its history, both during the production process by those who spun the yarn and wove the fabric, as well as thousands who have handled and touched the Shroud since it was removed from the tomb.  It is therefore unsurprising that the human DNA that was found in the dust from the Shroud was discovered to have come from numerous individuals, corresponding to different geographies and ethnicities. 

You can find more details about this in the research paper Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud.

It should be noted that the image has been described by many medical and professionals who have studied it as being ‘anatomically flawless’

“As with the general anatomy of the image, the wounds, blood flows, and the stains themselves appear to forensic pathologists flawless and unfakeable” (archaeologist Bill Meachem)

“Anatomically flawless down to minor details (Richard B. Sorensen).

“The high resolution, geometric correctness and anatomical accuracy of the corresponding image”. (Serge N Mouravive)

“The markings on this image are so clear and so medically accurate that the pathological facts which they reflect concerning the suffering and death of the man depicted here are in my opinion beyond dispute.” (Pathologist Robert Bucklin)

So if the image is anatomically flawless, why does the right arm appear longer? Isabel Pickzek produced a portrayal shown below of the actual position of the man in the Shroud based upon the image details on the cloth.

This shows the position of the body in a state of rigor mortis. The head and knees are slightly bent which results in the Shroud image being affected by what is known as ‘foreshortening’. The arms would have been pulled down from the outstretched crucifixion to the hands crossed position and it has also been noted by several Shroud Scholars that the right shoulder had been dislocated, causing the arm to appear longer.

‘Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.‘ (John20:6)

A regular observation cited by people to deny the authenticity of the Shroud is this ‘other’ cloth mentioned in the gospel. The facecloth, napkin or the Latin ‘Sudarium’ is known to be still in existence and is kept to this day in the Cathedral in Oviedo, Spain. It has a much older known provenance than the Shroud and took a very much different route to its current destination.

The first document recorded by Archbishop Pelayo of Oviedo in the early 12th century recounts how the wooden ark in which it was kept had been ‘made in Jerusalem by the disciples of the apostles’ but because of the devastation caused by Chosroes’ (Persian) ’…a wise decision was taken and the ark (containing the Sudarium) was moved first to Africa by Philip, presbyter of Jerusalem and companion of presbyter Jerome. It was then taken to Toledo by Fulgentius, the bishop of the African church of Rusp….The ark remained there from the time of the most excellent king Sisebutus, through various royal successions of Spain, up to the death of king Rodrigo, when it was taken to Oviedo.’

The historian and Shroud scholar Dr. Marc Guscin says ‘It is clear, that if the two cloths kept in Turin and Oviedo are indeed the cloths from Christ’s tomb, they were taken out of the tomb by his followers and kept…’  Two eastern traditions state that the Sudarium was taken and kept at first by Peter. This was affirmed by the author of the life of St Nino of Georgia and by Ishodad of Merv in his commentaries on the gospels (see Recent investigations on the Sudarium of Oviedo). Guscin goes on to say that Pelayo’s history stands up to scrutiny.

The Sudarium which has no image on it is made of linen, but is of a much inferior quality to the Shroud. The bloodstains consist of one part life blood and five parts post mortem pleural oedema and some of the bloodstain patterns have been shown to match the those on the Shroud.

It has been demonstrated that the cloth was placed over the head of the crucified man whilst still on the cross. These stains dried and more staining occurred when the body was taken down and laid on the floor. Even fingerprints have been found on the cloth where it was nipped over the nose and mouth. The Sudarium would then have been removed and placed aside in the tomb when the Shroud was used to wrap the body.  As it says in the gospel “the cloth was still lying in its place separate from the linen”.

This objection is usually prompted by 1 Corinthians 11:14 which states: “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.” However, there are no references in the New Testament to men having short hair.

According to Shroud scholar, Rev.Albert R Dreisbach: “When it comes to the passage from I Cor. 11:14-15, one must remember that it was written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus. Closer study will reveal that it is simply Paul’s personal opinion and certainly not a regulation which would have applied to Jesus during his lifetime… The objection to this style is relatively modern and is probably based on a bias to its making the wearer appear too feminine.”

Another Shroud researcher, Joe Marino, has also noted that: “Paul was a Roman citizen, trying to convert people in the Greco-Roman world. People in the Greco-Roman world would not have had the same hair styles as the Jews. The Jew in Jesus’ day still followed the rules in what Christians call the Old Testament. Lev 19:27 states (New American Bible) “You shall not round off the hairline of your heads, nor trim the edges of your beard”.

Rebecca Jackson, who was raised as an Orthodox Jew, wrote in a conference presentation that: “The hairstyle of the [Shroud] dorsal image seems to be typical of what many scholars consider to have been a fashionable trend for Jewish men at the time of Christ. Fr. Bernard Lee in his book ‘The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus‘ brings up the fact that, while the Galilee was not the most militant center of Jewish revolutionary activity against Rome, it was very Jewish, proud, and patriotic. The hair of the Man of the Shroud, which appears to be tied in the back, could have represented a popular style for Jewish men that served, at that time, as a protest to the clean cut, clean shaven look that was the essence of Imperial Rome. Fr. Lee refers to the fact that Jesus Christ could have been very much a quite, low profile supporter of the Jewish patriotic sentiments with which he grew up in Nazareth’.

Based on the tradition of long hair of Jewish men back to the Old Testament period and the findings of recent scholars pertaining to the New Testament period, it is likely that Jesus had long hair.

The second of the Ten Commandments is: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” A graven image is usually defined as a carved idol or representation of a god (or anything else) used as an object of worship; something that is man made.

This question has been comprehensively answered in the past by Shroud scholar Barrie Schwortz, who was the official recording photographer on the 1978 STURP scientific study of the Shroud. His answer is reproduced below:

This is usually the first reason I am given as to why the Shroud is not credible in some people’s eyes. In my lectures, I always remind folks that being Jewish, I know a little bit about graven images. We had a Golden Calf that cost us 40 years in the desert! But what exactly is a graven image? By definition, it is a manmade object or artwork (such as a statue) that is worshipped as a god or in place of a god.

But science itself has PROVEN (and I don’t use that word lightly), that the Shroud is not an artwork of any kind. Our team went to Turin to answer a single question: How is the image on the Shroud formed? The conventional wisdom in 1978 was that it was either some form of painting, scorch or photograph, so our tests included experiments to explore all of those possibilities. Using very sensitive spectral and chemical analyses, along with microscopic and photographic examination, we searched for any traces of paints or pigments on the cloth. In fact, we had with us a complete catalog of the spectral characteristics of every paint and pigment used by man from medieval to modern times. In the end we determined that no paints or pigments were responsible for the image. Thus, we proved scientifically that the Shroud image is not a painting.

Another theory was that someone heated a metal statue, laid the Shroud over it and the hot metal scorched the image onto the cloth. This was an understandable possibility since the colour of the Shroud image is very similar to the colour of the lightly scorched areas on the cloth. The Shroud was heavily damaged by a fire in 1532, leaving it covered with burns and scorches, so there were plenty of documented reference scorches on the cloth for us to compare to. Scorched linen will fluoresce red under ultraviolet excitation, so we photographed the entire Shroud using ultraviolet fluorescence photography and sure enough, every known scorch fluoresced in the red, just as we expected. But the image itself did not fluoresce. In fact, it even quenched the pale yellow-green background fluorescence of the cloth itself, thus proving that the Shroud image is not the product of a high temperature event. In other words, we proved that the image is not a scorch.

The third theory was that the Shroud image was created in medieval times using a photographic process, even though the first documented photographic negative still exists and was created in 1826 by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce in France!

There is not one shred of evidence in the historical record that any photographic images were created before then. Since the primary light sensitive material used in the photographic process is silver, the STURP team looked for it using spectral and chemical analyses and not one trace was found. According to proponents of that theory, all the silver was removed during the fixing process. However, the chemicals used to fix the image and make it permanent only remove the UNUSED silver and there would be plenty of it remaining in all of the image areas. Also, such a light sensitive emulsion would have to be coated onto the entire Shroud in a semi-viscous liquid or gelatin form which would have penetrated deep into the fibers of the cloth and some silver would have remained there until this day. Yet not one trace was found. Again, we proved the Shroud image was not created by a photographic process. Of course, if one takes the time to thoroughly analyze the Shroud’s global image properties (and I am a professional photographer that has had 38 years to do so), one can easily see that, other than the negative-like light to dark reversal, the Shroud image is absolutely nothing like a photographic image. One cannot encode spatial or topographic 3-D information into an image using normal photography.

Here is an excerpt taken directly from the official summary of STURP’s 1981 final report:

“No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibil,lity of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography…”

“Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. 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. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.”

Science has proven the Shroud is not a manmade artwork, so there is no way it can be considered a graven image. Finally, in my 39 year involvement with the Shroud, I have never seen one person pray to the Shroud. People may kneel before it in prayer, but the Shroud simply serves as a focal point for their prayers and not the final destination. The Shroud of Turin is NOT a graven image.

Scientists have confirmed that the image on the Shroud of Turin has not been produced with pigment or dye, meaning that it cannot be the work of a human artist.

If artistic materials such as paints or charcoal had been applied to the linen to make the image, then they would have been detected by chemical analysis and close-up examination. Instead, no visible drag or application of paint can be observed, and the image is barely visible to the naked eye when viewed close up.  After carefully analysing the image during a detailed examination of the Shroud in 1978, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) concluded that it is “not the product of an artist”

The image is caused by a mild discolouration of the linen on the surface of the fibres. This faint discolouration isn’t caused by a darker substance laid on top or infused into the fibres, which would saturate them. It is also not caused by scortching. The fibres that make up the image have the same yellow colour of oxidised cellulose. Like a photograph in a newspaper made up of tiny dots, the greater the concentration of yellow fibres, the darker the image appears.    

Another point to consider is that the image is inconsistent with artistic styles and genres, and there is nothing comparable to the Shroud in the historical record.  

Medieval depictions of Christ show him with the nails in the palms of his hands and wearing a crown of thorns. By contrast, the Shroud depicts wounds on the wrists and blood stains on the head corresponding to a rough ‘helmet’ of thorns, rather than a neat crown. Furthermore, it has been noted that the image on the Shroud displays a degree of anatomical, medical and pathological knowledge that was simply not available to a medieval artist or forger of relics.

Click HERE for more details on the nature of the Shroud image markings and the findings revealed by scientific research.