more Mainstream Apologetics ...
Claim ID: HIS-IS42
Claim: Shroud of Turin is Likely the Genuine Burial Linen of Jesus
Summary: There is a large corpus of scientific, forensic and historical evidence related to the Shroud of Turin. Based on this evidence, the Shroud of Turin accurately depicts the postmortem characteristics of the crucified body of Jesus. Specifically, evidence related to the linen cloth, scourging and medical strongly suggest that the Shroud of Turin could not have been forged during the fourteenth century.
Description: The Shroud of Turin poses an interesting dilemma for historians and scientists. It has been observed and studied by numerous scientists for many years. No one can assess with any degree of certainty if the shroud is a genuine artifact of antiquity or a forgery. The real questions regarding the artifact's authenticity are:
The Shroud of Turin on display at the Cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin, Italy.
As the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is scrutinized, we must first answer the question "Does the Shroud of Turin depict a factual crucifixion carried out by the Roman government in the first century?" To answer this question we need to compare the shroud (c. 30-33 AD) with the archaeological remains of Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol (c. 70 AD) [HIS-EV39].
Based on historical records from the first century, we know that the Romans varied their method of crucifixion. Their main objective was to torture the victim by inflicting as much pain as possible. Over time, they refined their methods.
From history, we learn that various methods were used to affix the feet and arms to the vertical and horizontal beams, respectively. Both ropes and spikes were commonly used to affix the arms and wrists to the crossbeam. The spikes were either driven between (1) the radius and ulna bones of the arm near the wrist, (2) the wrist bones referred to as the space of destot or the wrist bones referred to as the thenar furrow. Either location would adequately support the weight of the body on the cross without the use of ropes.
We also learn from history, that various methods were used to affix the feet to the vertical beam. The feet were commonly nailed to the side of the beam, or to the face of the beam. When the feet were nailed to the face of the beam, they were commonly stacked - one foot on top of another - and affixed using a single long 7" spike. In both cases the knees were bent to prevent the victim from locking their legs to aid in breathing.
While the placement of foot spikes of Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol and the victim of the Shroud of Turin are not identical, the fact remains that spikes were used to affix the victims' feet to the vertical beams.
Based on the archaeological remains of Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol, we conclude that the Shroud of Turin depicts a factual crucifixion insofar as the feet being affixed to the vertical beam using spikes.
The spike wounds of the feet on the Shroud of Turin clearly demonstrate that the victim was crucified.
As the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is scrutinized, we must answer the next crucial question "Does the Shroud of Turin depict the crucifixion of Jesus?" To answer this question, we need to compare the shroud with the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion.
Of the characteristics identified in [HIS-EV38], the scourging, bearing the crossbeam, piercing the side with a sword, nail piercings and fracturing of legs are all common to those who are crucified by the Romans. However, the features that are unique to Jesus' crucifixion are
These unique features clearly demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin is an accurate depiction of the postmortem characteristics of Jesus' crucified body. In fact, all the injuries incurred by Jesus based on the gospel accounts are depicted in the Shroud of Turin. In other words, there are no injuries recorded in the gospel accounts that are not depicted. Therefore, there is complete consistency between the gospel accounts and the Shroud of Turin.
Another reason to attribute the Shroud of Turin to Jesus, is that a shroud of fine linen was never used on Roman criminals. As recorded in the gospel accounts, Joseph of Arimathea took and wrapped the body in a fine linen cloth and laid it in a stone tomb (Luke 23:50-53). Because it was the day of Sabbath Preparation, the women did not have adequate time to embalm the body with spices and ointments and thus enshrouded the body in a hasty manner (Luke 23:54-56). This event is evident in the Shroud of Turin because of the near-perfect depiction of a crucified person and that the image was not obscured or blurred by ointments. Typically, bodies are embalmed and wrapped during a Jewish burial. Consequently, the women planned on returning to the tomb the first day of the week to properly embalm Jesus' body (Luke 23:56).
The shroud was discovered some time before 1357. We know this because the earliest written account of the Shroud of Turin was written in 1357. This written account was known as the D'Arcis Memorandum authored by Bishop D'Arcis. It claimed the Shroud of Turin was a forgery based on the reason that the genuine shroud of Jesus could not have surfaced in France 1300 years after the death of Jesus during a time when forged relics of the Christian church abounded. It was considered highly implausible as a genuine artifact.
From the D'Arcis Memorandum account, we can establish that if the Shroud of Turin is a forgery, it must have been forged earlier than 1357.
The claims of forgery in the late fourteenth century can be disputed by current findings. These findings strongly suggest that the Shroud of Turin is highly likely the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. These findings include:
Given the following claims:
Therefore, we conclude that the Shroud of Turin is likely the genuine burial linen of Jesus.
Copyright@2025 Mainstream Apologetics