C14 - Carbon-Dating of the Shroud of Turin (1988)
By Adrian Chan-Wyles (PhD)
‘But of cause this evidence collapses if the cloth is medieval.’
Prof. Willy Wolfli in Conversation with Holger Kersten (December 19th, 1988)
‘And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred-pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.’
Holy Bible: John 19:38-42 King James Version (KJV)
39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred-pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.’
Holy Bible: John 19:38-42 King James Version (KJV)
Author’s Note: Writing in June, 2020 (as the Covid19 crisis drags on in the UK), it is interesting to note that the broader (and popular) debate about the Shroud of Turin is being conducted over a battlefield of research that is hopelessly out of date. It is incredible to think that much of the ‘recent’ events of ground-breaking or important research happened in the previous two centuries at a time before the internet, personal computers and iphones existed! YouTube is full of videos that represent what I refer to as the ‘Turin Shroud Industry’ - a murky world of money-making, anti-intellectualism, falsehood, half-truths, fanatical faith, deceit and dishonesty. The internet exudes literally thousands of people who desperately ‘believe’ (quite literally) that the Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of one known trouble-maker and perpetuator of Judaic reform - Yeshua Ben Yoseph – who is believed to have lived in Palestine at some-point between 6 BCE – 30 CE. Not content to disrupt Judaic convention and ritualistic practice, this Jewish man (living within a world being changed by the influence of the Graeco-Roman culture), also ruffled the feathers of the Roman occupying Authorities – a ruthless regime which was renowned for its harsh treatment of all subjugated people - and the Jewish people in particular. Indeed, so pronounced was this Graeco-Roman influence that today most people in the world know this man by the Greek translation of his Hebrew name of ‘Yeshua Ben Yoseph’ (written today as ‘Joshua Ben Joseph’) as ‘Jesus Christ’ - which translates as something like ‘He Zeus’ or ‘Son of Zeus’, and ‘Chrestos’ or ‘Christus’, meaning ‘Messiah’ - or the ‘Anointed One’. The Greek name ‘Jesus Christ’ - a foreign non-Jewish sounding name in Palestine (at around 6 BCE) – suggests that this special person was the ‘Son of God’, because he was ‘Chosen’ (or ‘Anointed’). The real name of ‘Jesus’ was the significantly Jewish ‘Joshua’, as Joshua succeeded the Patriarch Moses as the leader of the Jewish people. Joshua carries the literal meaning of ‘God Saves’, or perhaps more properly ‘Saved by God.’ Even these established ‘facts’ are still questioned today within the academic field of objective religious scholarship, (if the individual Jesus Christ did not exist, then he wasn’t called anything, and the above is merely well-crafted pseudo-science). Of course, if Jesus Christ never existed, then it doesn’t really matter when the Shroud of Turin was designed, constructed, fabricated or produced? For all it matters, a Jew, Samaritan or even Roman citizen in ancient Palestine could have cunningly concocted a magnificent fraud, together with a corresponding and supporting mythology. Did this happen? I have no idea, but probably not in the manner I describe. Has such endeavour ever happened? According to the carbon-dating results of 1988, the answer is a resounding ‘yes’! I intend to present the ‘objective’ facts as far as can be ascertained at this time. This is not an attack on the Shroud of Turin, the Catholic or Protestant Church, and is not intended to discredit the ample ‘faith’ community in anyway. As I am not a Christian and possess no faith whatsoever, I am also not directing any vitriol at the scientific community. What I suggest for all concerned is a ‘pulling back’ from the conflicting frontline positions and give each faction ample room to ‘breathe’ and to ‘think’. Until the Catholic Church grants permission for the Shroud of Turin to be carbon-tested again – no one is going anywhere from a research position. Simply ‘arguing’ in circles over the old data is pointless regardless of how lucrative it might be for certain interested parties.
ACW (29.6.2020)
Religionists, that is those who possess a faith (or equivalent belief) in a religion or school of spiritual thought, do not, and should not be afraid of objective thought, the ‘no’ hypothesis of academia, or the collection of objective data. As modern scientists have no need for faith, (this method ‘works’ regardless of belief or disbelief in it), faith as a mode of interaction with the outer and inner world becomes a ‘private matter’ of individual choice that has no bearing upon the identification or gathering of objective evidence. Starting with the ‘scientific’ view, or at least the scientific view surrounding the C14 carbon dating results officially announced on October 13th, 1988 by Cardinal Ballestrero, Archbishop of Turin. This information is gathered from the book entitled ‘Relic, Icon or Hoax? Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud – by Harry E Gove, IoP, (1996) - which was written to counter the outburst of pseudo-science surrounding this issue in the years following 1988.
Shroud of Turin – Believed to be the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ – Probable Reliable dating
Earliest Reference: 1353, France, owned by Crusader-Knight Geoffroi I de Charny. This knight dies at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. He does not write any explanation of the Shroud’s origin, nor does he give any known speech about how he came by it. This date of ‘1353’ is considered speculative.
First Reliable Date: 1357 - De Charny was a highly literate man who wrote a very good book on Chivalry. Prior to his death in 1356, he had placed the Shroud in the local Church in Lirey, in France. It was exhibited in that Church in 1357, and it is this date that is considered the first reliable citing of the Shroud.
Vatican Gets Involved: 1359 - The Bishop of Troyes (Henri de Poitiers), however, had carried-out an investigation as to where this artefact had come from, and it is recorded that he had met the artist who ‘painted’ the image upon the cloth, but did not write down his name.
Next Exhibition: 1389 - The Shroud was not exhibited again until 1389 – 32 years later – but this time with no overt mention (or ‘denial’) that it was the burial Shroud of Jesus Christ. This situation stems from the fact that the then Bishop of Troyes – Pierre de Arcis - had written a letter to the Anti-Pope Clement VII, wanting to stop the exhibiting on the grounds of three errors of truth; the Shroud was being a) exhibited under ‘false’ pretences, which were b) it was being presented as the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ, and c) as such, was being dishonestly and greedily used to make profit. He relayed the origin story of the Shroud as discovered by his predecessor Bishop Henri de Poitiers – but Clement VII would not forbid the exhibition. Instead, the Anti-Pope imposed an order of perpetual silence upon the Bishop.
Next 60 Years: Between 1390 – 1450, reliable details about the Shroud are virtually non-existent. However, the Shroud was eventually inherited by Margaret – the daughter of Geoffroi II de Charny.
Transmission from Margaret: 1453 – a hundred years after its first tentative sighting within objective (or verifiable history) - the Shroud passes from Margaret to the House of Savoy.
New Home: 1502 – in this year the Shroud takes up residence in the Chapel of Chambery, still in France.
Fire damage: 1532 – the Shroud was treated with great respect by the House of Savoy and was kept in a ceremonial silver chest in the Chapel of Chambery. However, just thirty years after being placed in its new home, the chest was ‘heated’ by a fire in the Chapel, which led to the left side dripping molten silver into its interior and damaging one-side of the carefully folded Shroud.
Sacred repair: 1534 - The Nuns of Poor Clare carefully added the sixteen triangles as ‘patches’, to repair the ‘holes’ from the molten silver, which oddly enough, had not damaged the main torso-area of the body. At the same time as this repair was carried-out, the Nuns also added a backing cloth to strengthen the over-all structure of the Shroud.
Shroud of Turin: 1578 – seventy-six years later, the House of Savoy relocates to Turin, in Italy. Although not associated with any particular Church at this time, the Shroud was used by the House of Savoy within various ceremonies and rituals.
Photographic evidence: 1898 – In this year, an eight-day exposition took place, where the Italian amateur photographer – Seconda Pia – was permitted, with great difficulty and industrious engineering, to build a high scaffold to house his very large state of the art box camera. He took two excellent pictures despite the primitive technology and less than ideal working conditions, and discovered to the shock of the world that the image on the cloth appears to only be properly seen in ‘negative’ exposure, where a man (around 5’ 9” tall), lies on his back apparently ‘dead’. He has a rounded crown of thorns upon his head, and crucifixion marks on his ‘wrists’ and in his feet. The right arm appears slightly longer to the right shoulder being dislocated with both hands covering the genitalia. In the right side appears to be a wound from a stabbing spear, and on the front and back of the body can be seen ‘whip’ marks with patches of what looks like ‘blood’ around the injured areas. Critics have suggested that the image appears ‘Gothic’ or perhaps ‘Byzantine’ in origination.
First World War (1914-1918): The Shroud of Turin is moved out of Turin for safety before being returned (exact dates and locations unknown).
Second World War (1939-1945): The fascist government of Italy relocated the Shroud of Turin to the Benedictine monastery at Montevergine, where it safely remains for seven years before being finally returned to Turin in 1946. As the Pope was concerned that the local people were afraid that the Shroud might be removed from Turin and moved elsewhere (particularly as its ‘official’ owner – King Umberto II had been exiled to Portugal in 1946), the Pope reassured the populace by declaring the Archbishop of Turin to be the sole Custodian of the artefact with full power over its care and safety (even though the Vatican did not yet own the artefact).
Television exposure: 1973 – In this year, the Shroud of Turin was first shown on television in Italy. A forensic expert from Zurich - Max Frei – whilst using sticky-tape, ‘lifted’ what he said was ‘pollen’. Although not an expert in ‘pollen’, Max Frei declared that it was obvious to him that the pollen he had extracted had originated in Palestine. Professional Palynologists, however, are sceptical about this manner of collection, process of analysis and declaration of provenance. At the same time, Nuns cut two small strips from the edge of the Shroud, which were passed to Prof. Gilbert Raes of Ghent University. As the then director of the textile laboratory, his expert opinion was thought very important. When examined under an electron-microscope, Gilbert Raes stated that he saw traces of Egyptian cotton - concluding the Linen of the Shroud had been woven on a loom in the Near East that had been previously used to weave cotton.
STURP emerges: 1978 – The Shroud of Turin was subjected to a barrage of tests by a group of scientists who worked for the US government, US military and other US research establishments. The objective of this group was to scientifically prove that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Despite the declared ‘scientific’ status of this group, Harry Grove reports that they were comprised of individuals with strong religious beliefs, and approached the study of the Shroud from a bias position. Each member of STURP already believed the Shroud was ‘real’ and appeared to abandon the ‘no’ hypothesis of conventional science. Indeed, many of these researchers (and their younger converts) continue to fuel the anti-intellectual industry that surrounds the ‘denial’ of the Shroud’s carbon dating result. Due to this foundational bias, the otherwise ‘impressive’ edifice of alleged scientific data ‘proving’ the Shroud of Turin is doubted by academics who exercise a more thorough 'impartial’ approach to research. The fact that the carbon dating appears to prove STURP incorrect in its assumptions, supports the validity of this point of criticism. For STURP the only logical way out of the impasse is for a completely ‘new’ and more thorough DNA testing (together with the other latest testing methods suitable for cloth of this importance). This will produce a result of far-greater accuracy and either vindicate or invalidate the work of STURP.
STURP ‘secret’ C14 –1982. Harry Gove mentions that he was told of another (earlier) and 'secret' C14 test on a single strand of the Shroud carried-out in the US in 1982 - (this data was relayed by William Meacham of Hong Kong University). The two-halves of a single strand were tested separately, giving the two distinct dates of 200 CE and 1000 CE respectively. The C14 method was considered not quite perfected at that time for a sample so small. This was carried-out at the University of California Nuclear Accelerator Facility. The Vatican was informed about this 'theft' by a group of American amateurs, and this deception explains why the Pope wasn’t in favour of allowing Americans a pivotal role in the testing of 1988. Obviously, an eight-hundred-year variance appears far too high to indicate a ‘correct’ reading for just two halves of the same single strand. How could such a reading come about? Although in all likelihood this suggests a problem with the test method, the technology, or both, there are some people who take this oddity as a demonstration of the ‘miraculous nature’ of the Shroud of Turin. There is no logical mechanism that can explain how two halves of the same single strand could be ‘harvested’ at two separate times – 800 years apart!
Transmission to Vatican Ownership: 1983 – The last King of Itay (living in exile in Portugal since 1946), formally ‘Willed’ the Shroud of Turin to the care of the Vatican. This move was one of the last ‘decrees’ of King Umberto II.
C14 – Carbon Dating: -1988. Harry Gove – the Canadian academic and scientist - was the inspiration behind the C14 testing of the Shroud of Turin only to see the Vatican ‘exclude’ his laboratory from the testing procedure at the last minute. On the face of it, (no pun intended), this all seems rather odd and has served as the basis for the ongoing conspiracy theories that surround a) the testing itself, and b) the result of the testing. Originally, seven labs were chosen to DNA-test the Shroud using a variation of known and perfected methods. This was logically thought to be the best and most effective manner in which to secure the most clear and reliable dating. However, the Vatican Authorities – which always implies that the ‘Pope’ is behind all the decisions regardless of whether he is or not – arbitrarily decided to reduce the number of labs from ‘seven’ to just ‘three’ (Oxford, Zurich and Arizona) - with the British Museum acting as ‘overseer’ that all went according to plan - and in so doing, simultaneously reduced the testing to just a ‘single’ method. The exclusion of Harry Gove (and Rochester), appeared completely illogical as he was considered one of the best C14 experts in the world at the time. On the other hand, Harry Gove had previously insisted that STURP be excluded from the testing in any meaningful way – advice that the Vatican followed. All this procedural discontent has fed-in to a vibrant conspiracy theory industry that accuses absolutely everyone of fakery for virtually every reason available! Does any of this criticism hold water? The behaviour of the Vatican is unusual when viewed through modern eyes, but is the Pope and his fellow Custodians of the Catholic faith really acting in ways that have not been seen many times before, and which might be considered typically ’Catholic’? Furthermore, academics arguing amongst themselves whilst pursuing hidden agendas is nothing ‘new’ and may be taken as a manifestation of ‘business as usual’. Any new tests on the cloth will either ‘confirm’ the medieval date, or ‘refute’ it. The problem is that regardless of how good or thorough new tests might be, there will always be an element of the public that will never accept any result. Harry Gove – in his above-mentioned book – gives the results as they were properly intended. The results of the 1988 C14 were officially announced by Cardinal Ballestrero of Turin on the 13th of October, 1988. The flax from which the Shroud’s linen was woven was harvested in 1325 ± 33 AD. This means a variance of 33 years either way, giving a possible early date of ‘1292’ CE and a later date of ‘1358’ CE (out of respect for the Vatican the designation ‘AD’ was used for the end result). This result is significant as it coincides with the earliest ‘reliable’ dates pertaining to the first appearance of the Shroud in medieval France during the 1350s. This is the official result the Vatican announced and which the three testing universities provided. This is the ‘1 stigma uncertainty’, which suggests that there is a 66% probability the flax had been harvested between 1292 and 1358. For many reading this testing result, these numbers may seem a little unfamiliar, and this is because (for reasons unknown), the official academic publications following this testing result decided to unusually quote the ‘2 stigma uncertainty’, which states that there is a ‘95%’ probability that the flax was harvested between 1260 CE and 1390 CE. Taking 1260 CE as the probable earliest date, this meant that in 1988, C14 testing proved the Shroud of Turin was ‘728’ years old.
The Earlier Years of the Shroud from Christ to Turin – Unreliable and Speculative Dating
Until proven otherwise, this section of research may be viewed as the ‘mythical’ or ‘speculative’ history of the burial Shroud of Jesus Christ. As the C14 testing of 1982 and 1988 gave dates varying from 200 to 1358 years after the assumed birth of Jesus Christ, the data presented here, forms a layer of what might be termed theological story-telling, assumption, wishful thinking and faith-led research. As an interesting body of work generated by many human minds over the centuries, these facts do not invalidate its study. Of course, should a future C14 test (or something similar) suggest an early dating for the Shroud, then much of this ‘story-telling’ would be elevated into the status of ‘objective’ history, rather than mere hearsay. For this narrative I am accessing two very interesting books written by three very good academics in this field. The first is entitled ‘The Jesus Conspiracy – The Turin Shroud & the Truth About the Resurrection, by Holger Kersten & Elmer R Gruber, QPD, (1994). The second is entitled ‘The Lost Bible – Forgotten Scriptures Revealed – the Unknown Jesus – Visions of Apocalypse – Prophets and Patriarchs, by Prof. JR Porter, Duncan Baird, (2001). Holger Kersten and Elmer Gruber are well-known for their investigative scholarship into the influence of Buddhist philosophy upon the development of early Christian thought and practice, whilst Prof, JR Porter spent 20 years sat on the General Synod and was the Professor Emeritus of Theology at the University of Exeter (as well as being a former fellow of Oriel College, Oxford). An interesting fact about ‘speculative’ history is that it often fills an academic void where no real narrative or discourse currently exists. Speculation, if developed carefully and honestly can contain a logic of its own, and assist the development of ‘objective’ history as more evidence becomes available. For instance, if the man Jesus Christ was ‘real’, then logic dictates that he obviously ‘died’ at some point, and that his body was buried according to Jewish custom. This would have involved at least two cloths – one covering his head down to the shoulders, and another covering the entire body – front and back – in a single, long rectangular sheet of linen. None of this is an unreasonable speculation, and interestingly, two such burial sheets do exist in the world, (the head-cloth of Jesus is in Spain, whilst the body-cloth is in Turin), both are ascribed to Jesus Christ and each has its own unique history. As conventional academia is ‘unsure’ as to the existence of a historical Jesus Christ, ‘speculative’ history (ironically) seeks to ‘weave together’ disparate facts and figures from a diverse set of data in ways not normally permissible within mainstream academia. So far, so good. This entire enterprise may be viewed as a mental exercise in perception and lateral thinking, seeking-out possible ‘links’ between various phenomenon that would otherwise not be considered ‘connected’ in any obvious way. If it transpires that there was no historical Jesus Christ, or at least one that can be adequately proved, this need not affect the faith of those wedded to a ‘love of Christ’ or a ‘belief in God’, as each is a sublime manifestation of ‘art’ in its highest form, and even the most obscure and diffuse manifestations of art possess a history! There are scholars who assert that the Shroud of Turin contains Latin text pertaining to Christ, and that there are two coins – one laid over each eye – one dated to 29 CE and the other to 30 CE. If Jesus Christ was executed in the 36th year of his life, and given that the year of that happening was ‘30 CE’, then it follows that he was born in 6 BCE during the last two years of the Rule of King Herod the Great (of Judea). Hailey’s Comet crossed the Earth in 12 BCE, but Chinese Records accurately detail a ‘bright’ comet which passed the Earth in 5 BCE (between March 9th and May 5th - with theologians speculating a birthdate for Jesus being that of Passover – or some point between April 13th - 27th). This data would suggest a speculative birthdate for the birth of Jesus Christ as anywhere from 12 BCE – 5 BCE – with 6 BCE – 5 BCE probably being more likely. This is exactly ‘how’ the speculative method of history works. Entire edifices of speculation are built upon unstable foundations simply because no other alternatives exist.
Birth of Jesus Christ: 6 BCE – 5 BCE in Palestine. As a Jewish woman, Mary – the Mother of Christ – was supposed to remain a ‘virgin’ for the first year of her marriage to her husband, Joseph, as was the Jewish custom. However, Mary became pregnant within this first year of marriage, the birth of Jesus her Son was officially recorded in the Jewish Records as a ‘Virgin Birth’. This fact has been misunderstood ever since and ascribed to mystical forces in operation. Joseph obviously denied knowledge of the situation as breaking Jewish Law was often harshly punished. Within conventional Christianity, this event is interpreted as Mary becoming pregnant through the divine action of the Will of God, who placed his only son in her holy womb.
Crucifixion of Jesus Christ: 30 CE in Palestine. The burial cloth of Jesus Christ is mentioned in the received Bible (see ‘John’ reference above). However, the ‘received’ Bible is simply a set of texts ‘preferred’ by the Christian Authorities of 5th century Rome, as the Roman State demanded that ‘acceptable’ Christianity adopt certain attitudes and behave in certain ways. Much of what passed as ‘earlier’ Christianity was suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church and forbidden from being used for genuine ‘Christian’ practice. Holy texts were confiscated, hidden or destroyed as a means to cement Roman Catholic State control over the thinking and behaviour of a spreading Christianity. The logical problem was that there had already been five hundred years of Christian practice prior to this point, and that many devout Christian attitudes and rituals had become firmly established in many areas. In the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews, it is recorded that after the Resurrection, Jesus Christ handed his burial-cloth to the ‘Servant of the priest’, St Nino (d. 335 CE) states that for a while, the Shroud remained in the care of the ‘wife’ of Pilate, before passing into the hands of St Luke (who stored it in a secure place). Around this time, the ‘Sudarium’ (facecloth of Jesus) was discovered by St Peter. These stories originate from the very real ‘Jewish-Christians’ who formulated a body of theological work that was a combination of Jewish and Greek influences integrated with the ‘new’ message of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the ‘Gospel of Hebrews’ probably indicated the text was a) used by Jewish followers of Christ, and was b) written in Aramaic. Jewish-Christian in the 1st century CE were different from the Roman Christians of the 5th century CE, in that they followed Christ whilst still adhering to Jewish law, Jewish (food) taboo customs and the practice of circumcision. The Christianity that was later moulded by the Roman State practiced none of these things. The early Church Fathers refer to three gospels which are the Gospel of Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazareans and the Gospel of the Ebionites interchangeably, and it is difficult to assess as to whether these are three different names for the same ‘single’ gospel, or the names for three separate but closely related gospels all followed by Jewish-Christians. It is likely that ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ is an error of translation as ‘Nazareth’ was a burial area for Jews and was a ‘taboo’ area to live during the 1st century CE. It is more likely to refer to the title ‘Jesus the Nazarene’, or ‘Jesus the Healer’, with the Gospel of the Nazareans (Divine Text of the Healers) confirming this conclusion. The Gospel of the Hebrews was compiled between 100 CE – 150 CE in Egypt, and was probably used by a sect of Hellenized Jews. The content of this Gospel was passed-on orally until being written-down at the times stated, although it is uncertain which language it was composed in (as there are no complete examples to study). The content of the Gospel of the Hebrews, as it pertained to Jewish-Christian practice, was ‘removed’ from the Bible by the Church Authorities of the 5th century CE, as Christianity by then, was viewed as a ‘non-Jewish’ religion.
King Abgar V (15 CE-50 CE): (c. 25 CE?) - King Abgar (who was also known as Ukkama) was the ruler of Edessa, which is today, the provincial Turkish capital of Urfa in the south-east area of Anatolia. In the 1st century CE, this was a multicultural area which included a population of Aramaic-speaking Jews, as well as Greek people and many communities from the Middle and Near East. Edessa was wealthy and vibrant. The earliest version of the story King Abgar’s communication with Jesus Christ was recorded by Eusebius (260-340). King Abgar had heard of a ‘new’ type of teacher living in Palestine, and he sent a messenger requesting that Jesus Christ visits his Court. Edessa was 528 miles north of Palestine and would have meant a substantial and time-consuming journey for Jesus. Jesus replied with a letter, stating that he would send one of his followers to Edessa who would answer all the King’s questions about the ‘new’ teaching. Furthermore, Jesus explained, he would also send a ‘portrait’ of himself ‘not made by human hands’, (the so-called ‘mandylion’). As this image was not made by human hands, it could not be counted as an otherwise forbidden ‘graven image’. This story, similar to others found within Asian religious traditions, suggests that Jesus – as a divine being – possessed the ability to ‘project’ an immaculate image of his own likeness upon objects within the physical environment. This early apocryphal story lays the foundation for the Shroud of Turin to a) exist, and b) be recognised as a ‘divine’ image inspired by Jesus Christ himself!
Theodosius II (408-450 CE): 438 - During the reign of Theodosius II (of the Eastern Roman Empire) - official Christianity received State support and sanction. This led to a widespread and thorough rebuilding campaign of Christian Churches and other holy places. The consort of Theodosius II – Athenais-Eudokia – passed on the burial cloths associated with Jesus Christ to his sister – the Empress Pulcheria. The Empress had these cloths installed in the Blachernae Church.
Bishop Braulio of Saragossa (631-651 CE): Any mention of the Shroud, as far as extent records can tell, is in the 7th century CE. By this time, Roman Catholicism is firmly established and adherents are beginning to ‘look back’ into the past of Christian history to seek-out details and inspirations. It is known that there are ‘two’ special cloths associated with the entombment of Jesus Christ, a face-cloth and a full-body Shroud. Bishop Braulio writes that in his time, he has been told that both have been found, but that he does not ‘know’ where they are being kept. He also states that the Apostles, in his opinion, definitely preserved the burial cloths (and other important relics) for future generations. It must be remembered that many followers of Jesus were arrested, imprisoned and even executed by the Roman State, whilst others were persecuted by the Jewish Authorities. This was leading to monumental conflicts and upheavals between the Romans and the subjugated Jews, with everyone caught in the middle subject to random persecution and violence. This was not a good time to be associated with Jesus Christ. A type of Hellenized Christianity would emerge from all this upheaval and would eventually align itself with the Roman State and begin anew a persecution aimed at the early Christian teachings. It is interesting to note in passing, that the Desert Fathers that developed Christian monasticism during the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, do not make any references to the Shroud, at least within extant sources.
Palestine: 670 CE – Nineteen years after the death of Bishop Braulio (d. 651 CE), Bishop Arculf of Perigueux states that he made a pilgrimage to Palestine in 670 CE, and in a Church in the Holy Land, he saw (and ‘kissed’) the burial Shroud of Jesus Christ (which he says was 8 foot long). He makes no written mention of an image being inscribed upon the surface of the cloth. This seems far too short, but we cannot be sure exactly what the Bishop saw. Was the cloth ‘folded’ in an unusual manner that obscured observation? Did he see a part of the cloth where the image is not that clear, or was it stored in the interior darkness of an old dusty Christian Church? Although there are many intangibles, this is nevertheless a dated reference to a burial cloth associated with Jesus Christ.
Charles the Great: 797 CE – King Charles the Great (of France) was given a burial cloth associated with Jesus Christ in around 797 CE. This appears to be another cloth possibly not associated with the Shroud of Turin or the face-cloth.
Abbey of St Cornelias (in Compiegne): 897 CE – The burial Shroud owned by Charles the Great was moved to this Abbey where for centuries it was an important pilgrimage attraction. It is said that this burial cloth was ‘destroyed’ during the French Revolution (1789-1793). This seems to be the end of the line of this cloth. It could be that there were more than two burial cloths associated with Jesus Christ, as no one is sure of the exact details of the matter.
Blachernae Church: 1203 CE – The cloth now believed to be the Shroud of Turin, was being exhibited in the Blachernae Church in Constantinople during the early years of the 13th century. This data originates with a Frankish Knight – Robert de Clari – who participated in the Fourth Crusade and the European invasion and destruction of Constantinople. When looking for loot, this Knight entered the Blachernae Church and witnessed first-hand the burial cloth of Jesus Christ which had an imprint of an image upon it. He was told that every Friday the ‘image of Jesus Christ’ was exhibited to the general public to strengthen faith and inspire good behaviour! The C14 test of 1988, and its result of 1325 ± 33 AD, is over a hundred years too late to match this sighting. Of course, the 1 and 2 sigma uncertainties give 1290 CE and 1260 CE respectively – moving the C14 results nearer to this 1203 date. Regardless of this, even these adjusted C14 dates are ‘87’ and ‘57’ years too late!
Lirey, France: 1357 CE – The Musee de Cluny in Paris holds an important artefact. It is a ‘pilgrim’s memento’ actually found in (and recovered from) the River Seine. Dated to ‘1357’ it depicts a small front and back engraving of the Shroud and its exposition at the Collegiate Church of Lirey. This find is the ‘first’ reliable (and ‘objective’) dating pertaining to the Shroud. Outside of allusion, assumption and speculation, no similar evidence exists that proves the Shroud existed in the physical world prior to this date. This is the point where the ‘objective’ and ‘speculative’ fields of research over-lap and feed into one another. It was the ‘selling’ of these mementos that so irritated the various Bishops of Troyes throughout the years! Elmer Gruber speculates that the Shroud came into the ownership of Geoffroi I de Charmy in Constantinople (via the Knights Templar), despite the fact that Geoffroi made no mention of it in writing throughout his life. As Geoffroi I died a heroic death fighting the English at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356, it was his widow – Jeanne de Vergy - who first seems to arrange the displaying of the Shroud in 1357.
Conclusion: Is the C14 Dating Correct?
The pre-history of the Shroud is varied and complex in its speculative trajectories. It is far more ‘involved’ in its scope than I have suggested above (due to a lack of space). Shroud pre-history is a fascinating subject that is not restricted by ‘closed systems’, or the requirement of ‘proving’ all findings to be premised upon verifiable and objective fact. It is an art-form of never-ending creativity! In this regard, despite hours of reading the books mentioned here (and one or two others), I have only located one piece of data which suggests the Shroud ‘existed’ before it came into the of possession of Geoffroi I de Charmy, and that is the 1203 reference relating to Constantinople. Of course, even with this, I have no way of ‘knowing’ whether a) this is the same Shroud as that is now in Turin, or b) it ever existed in the first place. Everything else in the ‘pre-history’ section is unreliable due to its ‘speculative’ nature. If the Shroud had existed all the way back to the time it was wrapped around the body of Christ, then why does it not show-up in the legitimate mainstream historical record? Surely, such a venerable and esteemed object would appear like Stone Henge, mentions of which are scattered throughout the history books. Admittedly, Stone Henge was constructed thousands of years before the assumed life of Jesus Christ, but the point still stands. The Greek historian Herodotus mentioned the pyramids in Egypt during the 5th century BCE, but they were soon covered by sand and not found again until the 19th CE! The point is that there was a solid reference to their existence thousands of years ago. This situation does not exist for the Shroud of Turin.
Myth-making is a potent tool. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but is continuously referred to as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’, despite the fact that ‘Nazareth’ as a place of habitation did not exist at the supposed time of the life of Jesus! Christians have no problem accepting both these propositions as a simultaneous expression of a contradictory but unified truth. The same type of thinking is seen with the Shroud – it exists ‘now’, but did not exist ‘then’. I am surprised how many people of relatively high academic standing assume that there is ample evidence for a Shroud pre-history, when in fact there is virtually none! A speculative history can be made about virtually every imaginable subject, and although it is true that some of these subjects make the journey from assumption to objective fact, most remain firmly ‘speculative’ due to the unbelievable nature of their content. The Shroud of Turin is one of these objects. The problem is that the speculative myth-making that has constructed a Shroud pre-history has also been used to ‘attack’ the C14 scientific protocols (and by the same people) as a means to undermine the result which proves the Shroud was made in the 14th century CE. Within hours of the result, researchers associated with STURP were putting-out unauthorised press releases stating that the tests were ‘flawed’ because the samples had been taken from the ‘repaired areas of the cloth! Having trawled through hundreds of hours of research papers, I can state without doubt that this is a ‘false’ assertion. The sixteen triangle patches affixed by the Nuns of Poor Clare in 1532 to the areas damaged by the fire - are not the areas from which the sample for the 1988 test was taken. The 1988 sample was taken from an edge that has sometimes been described as a ‘repair’ or an ‘added’ strip, but this is an incorrect assumption made by certain members of STURP. The edge in question had been ‘folded’ and ‘sown’ at some point so as to ‘strengthen’ the edge to serve as a ‘hanging’ area. This edge is not an ‘added’ area of a later date, and neither is it an area that has been ‘repaired’. It is a legitimate part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The ‘myth’ that a ‘repair’ was tested by three of the best universities in the world is ludicrous but surprising popular. This argument does not hold water, so to speak, but certainly possesses a ‘half-life’ and continuously traverses the religious mind, like Hailey’s Comet zooming through the heavens!
The conclusion is that the 1988 C14 date of – 1325 CE - is correct. This means that the flax from which the linen cloth was woven, was ‘cut’ in that year. Geoffroi I de Charmy built a Church in Lirey France) between 1353-1356 CE) - with the Shroud first being ‘displayed’ in 1357 CE. This fits-in almost exactly with the ‘+ 33’ years allowed by the testing! The flax could have been ‘cut’ and ‘woven’ at any time in those 33 years. What is known is that the linen a) existed in 1357, and b) already possessed the image of Jesus Christ upon it by that time. It would seem that the Bishops of Troyes were correct in their 1359 CE and 1389 CE statements that the Shroud was a local ‘fraud’ being peddled as the ‘burial Shroud’ of Jesus Christ to extract donations of money from pious pilgrims! When Harry Gove was asked about the supposed 1982 ‘secret’ STURP C14 test (which gave the two readings of 200 CE and 1000 CE), he stated that no such technology existed to carry-out a test of that complex nature, on a sample so small (a single strand cut in half)! However, Harry Gove states, in 1994 a Round Table was formed in San Antonio to discuss the problem of bio-plastic coatings produced by bacteria and fungi on some artefacts of great age – including the Shroud of Turin. It was found that the ‘cleaning’ agent designed to ‘remove’ all potential contaminants from a testing subject was not always successful in removing this bio-plastic coating. As this coating adds Carbon14 to the test subject, it has the potential of generating an ‘age result’ that is ‘too young.’ To what extent this could affect a ‘true result’ was unknown at the time.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2020.