Is the Turin Shroud a genuine artifact or a fabrication?


For those who are scared off by 3 hour video…just watch 1st 15 minutes!
And Terry, you should advertise it a bit better :wink:

1 Like
  • Ha! You mean like this?

Attention “The Shroud of Turin” Nay-sayers!!! Time to find new reasons to call “The Shroud” a fake or stay uninformed.


The Shroud that wrapped Jesus: the latest discoveries

@Randy @St.Roymond
Don’t miss this fairly quick read.


Lol that’s better than “hey people! Go watch this 3h video interview!” :upside_down_face:

Now, to hopefully kick start some serious conversation…

Fr. Andrew makes some extraordinary claims:

  • the image on The Shroud is entirely superficial, which isn’t at all what you would expect if it was a “painting” or a “print” - dye or paint would certainly penetrate the fabric
  • talking of paints and dyes - apparently chemical analysis hasn’t detected any!
  • all attempts at creating a copy have failed - they only ever managed to create a lookalike, which isn’t the same thing
    (all these are explained by Fr. Andrew in the first 15 minutes)
  • LOL! you reduced 15 minutes to three sentences. Just imagine: 11 times 3 = 33. 33 more sentences and you might have summarized the whole 3-hr. video.
  • Technically, I didn’t recommend that “everybody” go watch the video: I just encouraged “Gary Habermas fans” to watch it. Folks who aren’t “Gary Habermas fans” are more likely to be “Gary Habermas detractors or skeptics”, and I really didn’t care what they think of the video until you called for better “advertising”. If I really cared, I’d change the title of the thread.
1 Like

Does this involve the new methods used on the Shroud that involve infrared scanning and fancy spectroscopy? I read about those last week and was amazed at the processes.


Can someone summarize the evidence? Cause Wiki says this:

“The earliest historical record of the shroud dates to 1354, when the object was exhibited in the church of Lirey, a small town in north-central France.”

When I see the earliest historical reference to the shroud shows up well over 1300 years after Jesus was crucified, I just stop reading there as it ends the discussion before it can even begin.

1 Like
  • I suppose that goes for Catholics who don’t trust Catholic priests too.
1 Like
  • I’m sorry, I don’t know yet; I’m still waiting for Wikipedia to tell me what’s new and what to think. :rofl:

Oh dear. So there’s no point in Catholics watching this either?

Out of curiosity are you a fan of Habernas or is this video supposed to be disagree with him? I’ve personally never heard of him. I probably won’t watch the video. It took me four sittings to finish Avatar way of water in my house lol. But I always try to add people to the list of podcasts I listen to. Even if he does not have one maybe he’s interviewed on a few. I’ll look up the names mentioned in the first few posts and maybe this video is uploaded somewhere as a podcast episode and if so I’ll be far more likely to listen to it while at work or driving.

1 Like
  • Yes, I am a fan of Habermas.
    • He affirms Jesus’ crucifixion, death on the cross, entombment, and resurrection.
    • As “useful information” in support his 1st, 2nd, and 3rd claims, he includes the suggestion that The Shroud is not a “fake”, but is evidence of someone’s crucifixion, … probably that of Jesus.
    • If you think the Shroud is a fake or is not useful information in support of his 3 claims, there’s a good chance that you’re not going to think much of his opinion about the Shroud.
    • In other words, you’re not going to think the Youtube interview with Father Dalton is worth watching.
    • So, don’t waste any time watching the Youtube video.
    • On the other hand, if you like Habermas’, then I hope you’ll find the video worth watching, unless of course you know all about the Shroud anyway.
  • Since you don’t know anything about Habermas, allow me to suggest this Youtube: 5 Facts for the Resurrection by 36 AD - Dr. Gary Habermas

If that wiki comment is directed at me, feel free to present even the slightest shred of historical evidence the shroud is genuine. I am disinclined to blindly believe legends that arise 1300 years after an event happens and I am not apologetic about it. In fact, I would be militantly against believing something is “historical” because of a reference 1300 years after the fact. It might be but anything logically possible might be as well.

Eyewitnesses have enough trouble getting their facts straight let alone accepting something appearing in the record 500 generations later. How many relic forgeries and misattributions have their actually been throughout history? How credulous and naive some Christians are.


1 Like

That depends on what you consider a historical reference. Some scholars point out that it first appeared in western Europe after the Fourth Crusade and note that the family who donated it to a church had a member who’d gone on that Crusade and brought back items from sacking Constantinople, and link that to a shroud-like object that vanished from Constantinople at the same time. The descriptions of the object from Constantinople match the Shroud if mounted for viewing, and mention of that run back to 944 when the object came to Constantinople having been rescued in the face of advancing Muslim invaders. There is also strong evidence that it was known in the sixth century, including the fact that very rapidly depictions of Jesus stopped looking like a young Roman man and started looking like the face on the Shroud – a change that would have needed some highly significant reason behind it.

Where it was before the sixth century is unknown, but there are numerous references to the continued existence of the burial shroud of Christ including one I can’t track down since my library is 90% in storage that stated that the image was nothing any artist could have made (though unfortunately there’s no further explanation of why that observation was made).

But even if it had been totally hidden till such a late century that’s no reason to dismiss it; there are archaeological discoveries with gaps at least as big.


Hi St.Roymond!
Thanks for all that info about The Shroud before 1300s, I never heard of any of this before.

The YT video, long as it is, goes into details about this particular aspect, as well as many others to do with The Shroud. Good news is, it does have time stamps :slightly_smiling_face:


Finally watched it – quite appropriate for Resurrection Day!

Definitely worth the time if you’re at all interested in the Shroud.

  • I’m personally pleased to read that you think so.
  • You don’t read French do you?
  • Your question shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did. After all, I’m the one who titled this thread: “To Gary Habermas Fans”. I only did that because I know already from previous responses, "The Shroud of Turin is not "of burning interest to Biologos folk. In fact, if anything, it’s viewed with negative suspicion ranging from “restrained skepticism” to “rabid rejection” bordering on, IMO, hilarious rejection. The funniest assessment came from a senior forum member who asserted that “The Shroud” was a product of “the second oldest profession”: “relic” production among Christians.
  • So I knew, coming out of the starting gate, that anything positive or informative I wanted to say about it would evoke more negative comments than positive, or even just curious comments.
  • So the challenge was to introduce a substantially lengthy interview between two Catholics–one a priest and the other not–about a subject that interests me but is not necessary to salvation. Given a choice between waking a horde of nay-sayers and potentially inspiring mild curiosity among a few, I chose the latter route.
  • Little did I realize how off-topic responses could become. Too late now, but at least I got the actual subject matter out on the stage, didn’t I?
  • “Epistemic humility” constrains my laughter, but your question and the 'trash Habernas and inerrancy" Rational Wiki article that you linked to demand a comment; so here’s my response:
    • Newsflash! “Biblical inerrancy” is not a Christian invention. It started with the Jews: and I, for one, am not surprised that there are a good number of them who still affirm it. Good luck trying to persuade them to give it up.

I am sorry… I did not do that well. I took it down. Thanks. . I apologize