New evidence from the Shroud of Turin?

The Zenit website recently had a report about further research into the image on the cloth and suggesting that the front teeth of the lower jaw are visible in a way consistent with the effect of a burst of energy.

The main argument from that is that what is depicted on the cloth are indeed the effects of a release of radiant energy at the moment of Resurrection.

The article can be seen at Discovery in Turin's Shroud confirms burst of radiant energy at Resurrection

A medieval sceptic about the Shroud of Turin

Medievalists.net recently had an article about the doubts expressed by Nicholas Oresme in the years between 1370 and 1382 about the authenticity of what is now known as the Shroud of Turin

The piece, with a link to the academic article on which it is based, can be viewed at Medieval Scholar Called Out the Shroud of Turin as a Fake, Study Finds

It does not prove that the Shroud is not genuine, but it does show that a distinguished bishop was quite prepared to voice his doubts about its validity in the later fourteenth century using what might seem to some quite modern arguments.

Wikipedia has a biography of Oresene and an introduction to his wide-ranging academic writings at Nicole Oresme

A few years later the Bishop of Troyes within whose diocese the shroud was being exposed for veneration at Lirey also did not hesitate to describe as a forgery. That is one of the earliest specific references to the relic now in Turin and quoted by Ian Wilson in his ground breaking book on the Holy Shroud. The medieval church was on its guard against false relics, and certainly so if the purported relic was claimed to as as significant as the original Shroud.

I have written before that I think the sum total of historical and physical evidence is in favour of the Holy Shroud being what it is claimed to be. Cautious fourteenth century bishops are closer in date to us than they were to the first century.

A contrary view on the Shroud of Turin

I have recently posted about new research into the Shroud of Turin and the significant evidence that suggest that it is indeed a first piece of first century linen that has been in the Holy Land.

In order to demonstrate my impartiality when it comes to assessing the scientific evidence I will now draw attention to an article in the Daily Telegraph which reports on research and an interpretation that puts forward a counter- argument as to how the image on the Shroud could or could not have come about, and indeed when that event might have happened.

The article can be seen at The 3D graphics that ‘prove’ the Shroud of Turin is a fake

I am not a scientist and claim no expertise at all in the technologies that have been implied by researchers into the history and nature of the Holy Shroud.

However, I would make two points against what appears to be the argument in the article.

Firstly, if I have understood the argument aright, it seems to be returning to a an explanation that is predicated on the cloth coming into contact with either a corpse or a living body, or a carved or moulded model that is somehow covered by an ungeant that would leave the marks on the burial cloth. Previous experiments on these lines produced similar distortions to the figure as opposed to those on the relic itself. That idea has, I believe, been ruled out in favour of a so-far unexplained burst of energy, so this seems to be a return to a discredited type of explanation for the markings on the fabric.

Secondly, the suggestion that this is somehow a forgery or, indeed, a piece of “Christian art” produced in the middle ages, requires the creators to have obtained an authentic piece of first century cloth from the Holy Land and furthermore to have used techniques that are completely unknown and unrecorded by contemporaries or indeed by anybody since.

We come back, it seems to me, to the case that on the basis of probability as other arguments are nullified that, however impossible it may appear. that it seems the “impossible” may have to be accepted.

The Shroud of Turin and AI

The recent publicity about the recent research into the date of the Shroud of Turin, about which I have posted several times recently, has now yielded another article. This is in the Daily Express who have produced an AI reconstruction of the Man in the Shroud. I have seen at least one artist’s impression of the face which looks very credible, but this new image has greater impact on the modern eye, accustomed as we are to photographs. Like all such facial reconstructions it carries all the strengths and limitations of a developing technology with it, but it seems to be a very impressive result. As with all things to do with the Holy Shroud it is at the interface of science and faith. 

The article, and the facial reconstruction can be seen at 'Face of Jesus' unveiled by AI using Shroud of Turin after astonishing discovery

The new dating work on the Shroud of Turin

The Daily Telegraph has an article about the most recent work to try to establish a secure scientific date for the Shroud of Turin. I wrote about this recently in The science of the Shroud of Turin and in More on the Holy Shroud

This new article looks at the X-ray method involved and talks to the scientists who conducted the investigation. This assigns a clear first century date, compatible with other, archaeological, finds from the Holy Land. As the scientists involved say they have proved its age. That does not “prove” the Gospel accounts, but it goes a significant way, a very significant way, towards making them believable to a sceptical modern world. As I wrote in my recent posts on this matter absolute certainty can never be obtained, but the judicial burdens of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt” or of “with reasonable certainty” can be applied when we are seeking an answer. The article can be seen at We proved how old the Shroud of Turin really is – the rest is a matter of faith

I have posted previously about the Shroud in earlier years as in 2012 in The Shroud of Turin and in 2021 in The Shroud of Turin

More on the Holy Shroud

Last week’s edition of the Catholic Herald had a useful and informative article about the recent research into the date of the Holy Shroud of Turin. This covers more than the study I linked to in my recent post The science of the Shroud of Turin

The Catholic Herald article can be seen at Shroud of Turin dates from time of Christ, scientists reveal

I think it ties in well with what I wrote the other week, that is, that when the apparently overwhelming evidence favours a conclusion, however seemingly implausible or unlikely to modern sensibilities, then it really should be given due weight and consideration. If that is done then the case for the Shroud really being what it is believed to be attains the level of the highly or very probable. It does not prove the historic claim, as nothing can ultimately prove that, but it can establish the case for probability that edges towards scientifically acceptable certitude. Of course that does depend, in many cases, on individuals - never mind the  ‘group think’ - being willing or prepared to think outside their established frame of reference. We can but hope.