The Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image of the front and back of a naked man. Supposedly this is the shroud that was used to wrap Jesus in.

From Wiki:

The documented history of the shroud dates back to 1354, when it began to be exhibited in the new collegiate church of Lirey, a village in north-central France.Whether the memo was actually sent to the Pope or not, it seems that at least its salient information, that the Shroud was being displayed as genuine when it wasn’t, was known by the beginning of 1390, when Pope Clement issued his very restrictive bull. Ulysse Chevalier dated it at the end of 1389, although Jack Markwardt suggests early August, on the grounds that although it mentions an appeal to the King to get the relic suppressed, it does not mention that the Bailly of Troyes, acting on behalf of the King, had failed to get hold of it on 15 August.  The shroud was denounced as a forgery by the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, in 1389. ...

The microscopist and forensic expert Walter McCrone found, based on his examination of samples taken in 1978 from the surface of the shroud using adhesive tape, that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium. McCrone also found that the apparent bloodstains were painted with vermilion pigment, also in a gelatin medium. McCrone's findings were disputed by other researchers, and the nature of the image on the shroud continues to be debated.[4]: 364–366  In 1988, radiocarbon dating by three independent laboratories established that the shroud dates back to the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390.

All of this tells any right-minded person that the shroud is a fake, but that does not sit well with Christians, who have engaged in a campaign of misinformation and such is the size of the religion, finding the truth on the internet becomes increasingly difficult.

In 1532 the shroud was damaged in a fire... Just think about that for a moment. This is supposedly a relic of the all-powerful God, and he could not protect it?

Early Skeptics

With regards to Pierre d’Arcis, the bishop who pointed out it was not authentic in 1389 (only a few years after it was made), there is a comprehensive web page here.

Whether the memo was actually sent to the Pope or not, it seems that at least its salient information, that the Shroud was being displayed as genuine when it wasn’t, was known by the beginning of 1390, when Pope Clement issued his very restrictive bull. Ulysse Chevalier dated it at the end of 1389, although Jack Markwardt suggests early August, on the grounds that although it mentions an appeal to the King to get the relic suppressed, it does not mention that the Bailly of Troyes, acting on behalf of the King, had failed to get hold of it on 15 August.

It becomes apparent that the Catholic church was originally well aware that the shroud was not authentic.

In 1543 another shroud skeptic, John Calvin, said howe it must be fake.

In all the places where they pretend to have the graveclothes, they show a large piece of linen by which the whole body, including the head, was covered, and, accordingly, the figure exhibited is that of an entire body. But the Evangelist John relates that Christ was buried, "as is the manner of the Jews to bury." What that manner was may be learned, not only from the Jews, by whom it is still observed, but also from their books, which explain what the ancient practice was. It was this: The body was wrapped up by itself as far as the shoulders, and then the head by itself was bound round with a napkin, tied by the four corners, into a knot. And this is expressed by the Evangelist, when he says that Peter saw the linen clothes in which the body had been wrapped lying in one place, and the napkin which had been wrapped about the head lying in another. The term napkin may mean either a handkerchief employed to wipe the face, or it may mean a shawl, but never means a large piece of linen in which the whole body may be wrapped. I have, however, used the term in the sense which they improperly give to it. On the whole, either the Evangelist John must have given a false account, or every one of them must be convicted of falsehood, thus making it manifest that they have too impudently imposed on the unlearned.

Both these skeptics were Christians please note!

Radiocarbon dating

Radiocarbon dating became an option once the technique was sufficiently sensitive to handle mg samples. Three laboratories were selected to do the work, in Tucson, Oxford and Zürich. The results were:

the unweighted mean was "691 ± 31 years", which corresponds to calibrated ages of "1273–1288" with 68% confidence, and "1262–1312, 1353–1384 CE cal" with 95% confidence

Of course the Christians were not happy, so have been claiming the samples were contaminated or were from later repairs... because how else can they maintain their faith?

There is a good article about the radiocarbon dating by Cambridge University, which upholds the dating it to around 1300 or so.

See also the Wiki article.

New Evidence

New in the sense it has just come to light in 2024, this is a treatise written between 1355 and 1382 by Nicole Oresme. From the abstract of the recent paper.

... This article is the result of the discovery of a new, older source: in a treatise on unexplained phenomena (mirabilia) dated between 1355–82, the Norman scholar Nicole Oresme (d. 1382) refers to the Shroud as a ‘patent’ example of clerical fraud, prompting him to be more broadly suspicious of the word of ecclesiastics. ...