Is the Shroud of Turin really Jesus’s burial cloth?
The 1988 radiocarbon test put the linen at AD 1260–1390, but two later peer-reviewed studies dispute the sample and the statistics, and a 2022 X-ray study points older. No record can show whose body it wrapped, and how the image formed is unexplained.
- DisputedTheoryThe shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus
- DisputedTheoryThe 1988 sample did not represent the whole cloth, so the medieval date is wrong
- DisputedTheoryA 14th-century artist made the shroud
- ✓ Confirmed16 Feb 1989Nature publishes a date of AD 1260–1390
A linen cloth bearing the faint image of a crucified man. Radiocarbon dating in 1988 called it medieval; later peer-reviewed work disputes the sample and the statistics, and nobody has shown how the image was made.
The question Is the Shroud of Turin the cloth that wrapped Jesus’s body, a medieval work, or something else, and what do the tests actually show?
What the records say
The documented story holds up: 13 of 14 timeline steps are Confirmed by the records (score 98).
4 theories checked: 1 unverified, 3 disputed. A theory is rated by its key claim.
An X-ray study says a thread is far older than seven centuries
confirmedConfirmed as a record of what this document says, not that it is true. See the step
Down the rabbit hole
The ground line is the documented timeline. Each tunnel is a theory that branches off it; every chamber is a step, coloured by how well the records support it. The deepest chamber is the theory’s key claim. Tap one to open it.
Main timeline
Oldest first- 1350sconfirmed
The cloth is first shown at Lirey, in France
The 1989 dating paper says it was first displayed at Lirey in the 1350s; the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia says it is first heard of there about 1360. No earlier record of this cloth was read here.
T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989introductioninvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputesT2Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912Sources disagreeNature (1989) gives the 1350s; the Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) gives about 1360. - 1389likely
The Bishop of Troyes tells the pope an artist had confessed to painting it
The 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia reports documents showing that in 1389 the bishop appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon pope, to stop the Lirey canons showing it as the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The bishop’s letter itself was not read here.
- 1532 and 1578confirmed
The shroud survives a fire at Chambéry, then moves to Turin
It was at Chambéry in Savoy by 1453 and was charred there in a fire in 1532; nuns patched the burn holes. It was brought to Turin in 1578.
T2Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912T1Rogers, Thermochimica Acta, 2005section 2T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989introductioninvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputes - 1898confirmed
A photograph shows the image behaves like a negative
Secondo Pia’s 1898 photograph indicated the image resembles a photographic negative, the 1989 paper says. The 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia discusses the same “negative” effect.
T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989introductioninvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputesT2Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912 - Oct 1981confirmed
The STURP team says it found no paint and cannot explain the image
After examining the cloth in 1978, the Shroud of Turin Research Project said: “No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils.” It called the image “an ongoing mystery” and said it was “not the product of an artist”.
- 29 Sep – 1 Oct 1986confirmed
A workshop in Turin agrees a protocol with seven laboratories
It was sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Archbishop of Turin. Representatives of seven laboratories agreed a dating protocol and sent it to the Vatican.
T1Gove, Nuclear Instruments and Methods B, 1987abstractT1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989introductioninvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputes - Oct 1987confirmed
Turin chooses three laboratories instead of seven
The Archbishop of Turin, acting on instructions from the Holy See, chose Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. Harry Gove, who organised the workshop, wrote that the original protocol “suggested a preferable procedure”.
T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989introductioninvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputesT1Gove, Radiocarbon, 1989abstract - 21 Apr 1988confirmed
A strip is cut from one corner and shared among the three laboratories
A strip of about 10 mm by 70 mm was cut from a single site on the bottom left edge, next to where a sample had been taken in 1973. The labs could recognise the shroud’s weave anyway, and blind-test procedures were dropped in the interests of sample pretreatment.
T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989Removal of samplesinvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputesT1Rogers, Thermochimica Acta, 2005section 1 - 16 Feb 1989confirmed
Nature publishes a date of AD 1260–1390
The laboratories report the linen dates to AD 1260–1390 “with at least 95% confidence”, which they call “conclusive evidence” it is medieval. The same paper says the quoted errors were unlikely to reflect the full scatter of the shroud results.
T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989Fig. 1; Resultsinvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputes - 24 May 1998confirmed
Pope John Paul II says the Church has no competence to rule on it
In Turin he said: “Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions,” and called the shroud “a mirror of the Gospel”.
T1Pope John Paul II in Turin, 24 May 1998paras 2–3involved party: Holy See (owner of the shroud) - Jan 2005confirmed
Raymond Rogers says the dated sample was not original cloth
The STURP chemist reports a dyed plant-gum coating and cotton in the sample area and estimates the linen at 1300 to 3000 years old. His abstract names the laboratories as Arizona, Cambridge and Zurich; it was Oxford, not Cambridge.
T1Rogers, Thermochimica Acta, 2005abstract; conclusions - 2010confirmed
The Arizona laboratory re-examines its piece and finds no coating or dye
Freer-Waters and Jull report “no evidence for either coatings or dyes” and nothing to contradict that the sample came from the main cloth.
T1Freer-Waters and Jull, Radiocarbon, 2010abstractinvolved party: University of Arizona radiocarbon laboratory, one of the three that dated the shroud in 1988 (A. J. T. Jull co-wrote the 1989 paper) - 22 Mar 2019confirmed
A study of the raw data says the 1988 results lack homogeneity
Casabianca and colleagues say the raw data were not released until a legal request in 2017, and that their analysis “strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking” and the procedure should be reconsidered.
T1Casabianca et al., Archaeometry, 2019abstract - 11 Apr 2022confirmed
An X-ray study says a thread is far older than seven centuries
Wide-angle X-ray scattering on one thread matched a linen dated to AD 55–74. The authors say a 2,000-year age fits only if the cloth was kept at about 20–22.5 °C and 55–75% humidity for 13 unknown centuries.
T1De Caro et al., Heritage, 11 Apr 2022abstractDate noteThis study was published in April 2022, not 2024; no later X-ray study of the shroud was found or read.
Branches
Go down oneA branch is only as strong as its weakest step so far. The count is how many sources back each step.
The burial cloth of Jesus
Is the shroud the cloth that wrapped Jesus’s body after the crucifixion?
By 1389 the Lirey canons were showing the cloth so that people believed it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ, as the Bishop of Troyes complained to the pope (summarised in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia).
- 1,199,682 English Wikipedia views of the article “Shroud of Turin”, Oct 2025–Sep 2026 as of 17 Oct 2026 NO TIERWikipedia page views, Oct 2025–Sep 2026
No paint, dye or stain makes the image
STURP concluded the image “is not the product of an artist”.
The premise: likelySTURP’s summary says no pigments were found (one tier-2 source). Before those tests, the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia judged it probably painted.
The image holds three-dimensional information
STURP reports a VP-8 image analyser found “unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it”.
The premise: likelyReported by STURP; no independent test of that result was read here.
X-rays date the linen to the time of Jesus
The 2022 study found its thread matched a linen from AD 55–74.
T1De Caro et al., Heritage, 11 Apr 2022abstractThe premise: disputedOnly if the cloth was kept at 20–22.5 °C and 55–75% humidity for 13 unknown centuries, the authors say. The 1988 radiocarbon test says medieval.
T1De Caro et al., Heritage, 11 Apr 2022abstractT1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989Resultsinvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputes
- confirmed
The first records of the cloth date from the 1350s
Carried over from the main timeline (step 1). No earlier record of this cloth was read here.
T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989introductioninvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputesT2Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912StartStrength so far:confirmed· 2 sources on this step - likely
STURP found no paint, dye or stain on the image fibrils
Its 1981 summary says X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry rule out paint. The blood stains, it says, contain haemoglobin and test positive for serum albumin.
▼ WeakerStrength so far:likely· 1 source on this step - disputed
Key claim: the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus
The claim needs a first-century cloth. The 1988 dating says medieval; a 2005 chemical study and a 2022 X-ray study say older (see the dating branch). Nothing read can show whose body it was.
T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989Resultsinvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputesT1Rogers, Thermochimica Acta, 2005abstractT1De Caro et al., Heritage, 11 Apr 2022abstract▼ WeakerStrength so far:disputed· 3 sources on this step
Bullshit meter
- No step is Unverified or Disproven.
- Key claim contradicted by tier 1? Not by an independent record. The age the claim needs is disputed between peer-reviewed studies, and no record can show whose body the cloth touched. The Holy See, which owns it, says the Church has no competence to rule.
Fluff meter: possibly planted
- Can’t be traced to an original record. Absent: traced to the 14th-century Lirey records, via the Catholic Encyclopedia.
- First appeared from new or anonymous accounts. Not measured.
- Coordinated identical wording. Not measured.
- Cited source doesn’t exist. Absent.
- Later contradicted. Not measured.
● present · ○ absent · – not measured. Lists signals only. It never accuses anyone.
Personal interest meter
- The Holy See, owns the shroud; the Archbishop of Turin, its custodian, chose the three dating laboratories on its instructions. T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989introductioninvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputes
“Has a documented interest” only, each one sourced. Never an implication of guilt.
Correlation meter
- The 1988 dating, is the main evidence in the dating, forgery and authentic branches; it is marked Questioned because three peer-reviewed studies contradict it. T1⚠ QuestionedDamon et al., Nature, 16 Feb 1989Resultsinvolved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputes
- STURP’s 1981 summary, is cited for the image in the authentic, forgery and radiation branches. T2STURP summary of conclusions, Oct 1981
Links to other cases appear once those cases exist.
Who worked on this
This case was assembled by the site from public records. Contributions are not open yet. Nothing here is invented, so the counts are zero.
This is the first published version of the case.
Sources
- T1⚠ QuestionedPeer-reviewed studies contradict it on the point it is cited for: Rogers (2005) says the sample was not original cloth, Casabianca et al. (2019) find the raw data lack homogeneity, and De Caro et al. (2022) find the linen much older under stated storage conditions. involved party: The three 1988 dating laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, Zurich) and the British Museum, whose sample and statistics are what the dating theory disputes P. E. Damon and 20 others, “Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin”, Nature 337 (6208), pp. 611–615, 16 Feb 1989, doi 10.1038/337611a0. Read in the reprint on shroud.com (reprinted by permission).. doi.org · copy read: www.shroud.com
- T2Herbert Thurston, “The Holy Shroud (of Turin)”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 13 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), New Advent edition. www.newadvent.org
- T1Raymond N. Rogers (Los Alamos National Laboratory; STURP member), “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin”, Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005), pp. 189–194, doi 10.1016/j.tca.2004.09.029. Read in full from a PDF copy on sindone.info.. doi.org · copy read: www.sindone.info
- T2“A Summary of STURP’s Conclusions”, written by John Heller and distributed at the press conference after the Shroud of Turin Research Project’s final meeting, October 1981, as published on shroud.com (a site run by STURP’s documenting photographer). www.shroud.com
- T1Harry E. Gove, “Turin workshop on radiocarbon dating the Turin Shroud”, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, November 1987, doi 10.1016/0168-583X(87)90234-5. Abstract read (OpenAlex).. doi.org
- T1Harry E. Gove, “Progress in Radiocarbon Dating the Shroud of Turin”, Radiocarbon 31 (1989), doi 10.1017/S0033822200012595. Abstract read (OpenAlex).. doi.org
- T1involved party: University of Arizona radiocarbon laboratory, one of the three that dated the shroud in 1988 (A. J. T. Jull co-wrote the 1989 paper) Rachel A. Freer-Waters and A. J. T. Jull, “Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin”, Radiocarbon 52 (2010), doi 10.1017/S0033822200056277. Abstract read (OpenAlex).. doi.org
- T1Tristan Casabianca, Emanuela Marinelli, Giuseppe Pernagallo and Benedetto Torrisi, “Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data”, Archaeometry, published 22 Mar 2019, doi 10.1111/arcm.12467. Abstract read (OpenAlex); the full text was not opened.. doi.org
- T1Liberato De Caro, Teresa Sibillano, Rocco Lassandro, Cinzia Giannini and Giulio Fanti, “X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample”, Heritage 5 (2), pp. 860–870, published 11 Apr 2022, doi 10.3390/heritage5020047. Abstract read (OpenAlex); the publisher returned 403 for the full text.. doi.org
- T1Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli, “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin”, Journal of Forensic Sciences, published online 10 Jul 2018 (print 64 (1), 2019), doi 10.1111/1556-4029.13867. Abstract read (OpenAlex).. doi.org
- T1P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, E. Nichelatti, A. Santoni and G. Baldacchini, “Superficial and Shroud-like coloration of linen by short laser pulses in the vacuum ultraviolet”, Applied Optics 51 (2012), doi 10.1364/AO.51.008567. Abstract read (OpenAlex).. doi.org
- T3Thomas J. McAvoy, “On Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin”, International Journal of Archaeology 9 (2), 2021, doi 10.11648/j.ija.20210902.11. Abstract read (OpenAlex). Tier 3: the journal’s review standards were not checked.. doi.org
- T3M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, “New Historical Evidence Explaining the ‘Invisible Patch’ in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud”, 2005, as published on shroud.com (the proponents’ own paper). www.shroud.com
- T1involved party: Holy See (owner of the shroud) Pope John Paul II, address in Turin Cathedral before the Shroud, Sunday 24 May 1998, vatican.va. www.vatican.va
- NO TIEROur own measurement: monthly user page views of English Wikipedia articles from the Wikimedia pageviews API, summed over the 12 months October 2025 to September 2026, read on 17 Oct 2026. Interest in a topic, not belief in a theory. Not a source tier.