It is tiresome to have to go through this whole thing about the shroud of Turin being "real".
Lets get real. The fact that the figure on the shroud is NOT distorted is a serious problem in claiming it is real. If the Resurrection event created the image it would be distorted it would not look like a painting, which it does. Further the hair on Jesus' head as shown on the shroud is not falling naturally as it would if he was in a prone position, instead it is shown like he was in a upright position. Not good. Further Jesus's face looks remarkably similar to contemporary depictions of Jesus in Western Christian art, during the 14th century. Jesus during the first century C.E., would more likely have had both a short beard and shorter hair.
Also in St. John's Gospel it, the only Gospel to give a detailed description of Jesus' burial "shroud" it explicitly describes using strips of cloth not a single cloth. Further it was routine at the time to cover the face with a single small cloth.
As for the image itself it largely consists of discolored linen cloth, like a watermark. There is some evidence that earlier the4 shroud had been far more brightly colored and that faded over time has various pigments flaked off producing the photographic negative look. Of course this complicates trying to duplicate the image, given we can't wait c. 700 years, but various artists etc., have more or less gotten similar results.
Also red ochre and even pigments were found on the shroud.
The blood on the image does not behave naturally at all, it looks painted on and probably was. Aside from the fact that Jesus was dead for several hours before he was buried, and would have been washed, anointed with oils etc., so why would the body continue to bleed out massively?
And of course the whole question of why would Jesus be buried anyway. Standard Roman practice was to let bodies stay on crosses until they fell apart or were eaten by birds etc., thrown into pits after death. After all to the Romans people killed by crucifixion were rebels and people deserving of absolutely no respect and not entitled to a respectful burial. Of course there is some evidence that some victims of crucifixion were given decent burials but those seem to have been rare even in Judea.
As for the carbon 14 results the results given above also give one standard deviation and one standard deviation means that there is a c. 68% chance that the true date lies between those limits of the standard deviation. Two of the results have overlapping one standard deviation from the figure given. One figure has a standard deviation outside the standard deviations of the first two. Which is moderately discordant. However if we expand it too two standard deviations which means the within two standard deviation the true figure had a 95% chance of being there., all 3 lab results overlap. Meaning that the date has a 95% chance of lying between those dates. And of course discordant carbon 14 dating results are not in the least unusual, which is why multiple tests are often a good idea. And the 95% chance works out to 707 to 690 years ago. The first secure report about the shroud is about it's first exhibition at Lirey in 1357. That is 624 years before the carbon 14 tests, (1988). A rather close fit I think.
As for the existence of Jerusalem Limestone on the shroud. Aside from the dubiousness of this claim. It is very hard to believe that given what we know about the history of the shroud and fanciful pre Lirey history created by believers in the authenticity of the shroud that there would be any Jerusalem limestone on the shroud to begin with after 1900+ years. That is bluntly unbelievable. The shroud was moved handled, displayed multiple times over the centuries any Jerusalem limestone on the shroud would far more likely have been added later than survived 1900 years.
To add to the above pollen samples done in the 1980's found pollen supposedly from plants from Palestine. Aside from the above issue related to time etc., this was almost certainly fraudulent. Why? Well because the pollen was found in extremely large amounts from just a few areas and the sample tapes in question were almost certainly "salted". So assuming the this Jerusalem limestone thing is real I suspect "salting".
Finally there is the letter of Pierre D'Areis, Bishop of Troyes who investigated an exhibition of the shroud in Lirey in 1388. Here I should mention that there were and are multiple supposed death shrouds of Jesus in churches in Europe. To get back to the the Bishop. In his letter, dated 1389, to Pope Clement VII he says the following:
"The case Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with a passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained thus impressed together with the wounds he bore."
Later in the letter the Bishop refers to an earlier investigation of the shroud by a Lord Henry of Poitiers, who at the time was Bishop of Troyes and this Bishop after an investigation:
"Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [Henry] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."
(The Image on the Shroud, H. David Sox, London, Unwin Paperbacks, 1981, Appendix A p. 148.)
Lets get real. The fact that the figure on the shroud is NOT distorted is a serious problem in claiming it is real. If the Resurrection event created the image it would be distorted it would not look like a painting, which it does. Further the hair on Jesus' head as shown on the shroud is not falling naturally as it would if he was in a prone position, instead it is shown like he was in a upright position. Not good. Further Jesus's face looks remarkably similar to contemporary depictions of Jesus in Western Christian art, during the 14th century. Jesus during the first century C.E., would more likely have had both a short beard and shorter hair.
Also in St. John's Gospel it, the only Gospel to give a detailed description of Jesus' burial "shroud" it explicitly describes using strips of cloth not a single cloth. Further it was routine at the time to cover the face with a single small cloth.
As for the image itself it largely consists of discolored linen cloth, like a watermark. There is some evidence that earlier the4 shroud had been far more brightly colored and that faded over time has various pigments flaked off producing the photographic negative look. Of course this complicates trying to duplicate the image, given we can't wait c. 700 years, but various artists etc., have more or less gotten similar results.
Also red ochre and even pigments were found on the shroud.
The blood on the image does not behave naturally at all, it looks painted on and probably was. Aside from the fact that Jesus was dead for several hours before he was buried, and would have been washed, anointed with oils etc., so why would the body continue to bleed out massively?
And of course the whole question of why would Jesus be buried anyway. Standard Roman practice was to let bodies stay on crosses until they fell apart or were eaten by birds etc., thrown into pits after death. After all to the Romans people killed by crucifixion were rebels and people deserving of absolutely no respect and not entitled to a respectful burial. Of course there is some evidence that some victims of crucifixion were given decent burials but those seem to have been rare even in Judea.
As for the carbon 14 results the results given above also give one standard deviation and one standard deviation means that there is a c. 68% chance that the true date lies between those limits of the standard deviation. Two of the results have overlapping one standard deviation from the figure given. One figure has a standard deviation outside the standard deviations of the first two. Which is moderately discordant. However if we expand it too two standard deviations which means the within two standard deviation the true figure had a 95% chance of being there., all 3 lab results overlap. Meaning that the date has a 95% chance of lying between those dates. And of course discordant carbon 14 dating results are not in the least unusual, which is why multiple tests are often a good idea. And the 95% chance works out to 707 to 690 years ago. The first secure report about the shroud is about it's first exhibition at Lirey in 1357. That is 624 years before the carbon 14 tests, (1988). A rather close fit I think.
As for the existence of Jerusalem Limestone on the shroud. Aside from the dubiousness of this claim. It is very hard to believe that given what we know about the history of the shroud and fanciful pre Lirey history created by believers in the authenticity of the shroud that there would be any Jerusalem limestone on the shroud to begin with after 1900+ years. That is bluntly unbelievable. The shroud was moved handled, displayed multiple times over the centuries any Jerusalem limestone on the shroud would far more likely have been added later than survived 1900 years.
To add to the above pollen samples done in the 1980's found pollen supposedly from plants from Palestine. Aside from the above issue related to time etc., this was almost certainly fraudulent. Why? Well because the pollen was found in extremely large amounts from just a few areas and the sample tapes in question were almost certainly "salted". So assuming the this Jerusalem limestone thing is real I suspect "salting".
Finally there is the letter of Pierre D'Areis, Bishop of Troyes who investigated an exhibition of the shroud in Lirey in 1388. Here I should mention that there were and are multiple supposed death shrouds of Jesus in churches in Europe. To get back to the the Bishop. In his letter, dated 1389, to Pope Clement VII he says the following:
"The case Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with a passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Savior had remained thus impressed together with the wounds he bore."
Later in the letter the Bishop refers to an earlier investigation of the shroud by a Lord Henry of Poitiers, who at the time was Bishop of Troyes and this Bishop after an investigation:
"Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [Henry] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."
(The Image on the Shroud, H. David Sox, London, Unwin Paperbacks, 1981, Appendix A p. 148.)
