Earthquake theory proposed for ‘Shroud of Turin’

Shroud of Turin, poster from 1898

There is another explanation proposed to try to explain an earlier date for the Shroud of Turin that made the news:

February 12, 2014

The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has been in question for centuries and scientific investigations over the last few decades have only seemed to muddle the debate. Is the revered cloth a miracle or an elaborate hoax?

Now, a study claims neutron emissions from an ancient earthquake that rocked Jerusalem could have created the iconic image, as well as messed up the radiocarbon levels that later suggested the shroud was a medieval forgery. But other scientists say this newly proposed premise leaves some major questions unanswered.

The Shroud of Turin, which bears a faint image of a man’s face and torso, is said to be the fabric that covered Jesus’ body after his crucifixion in A.D. 33. Though the Catholic Church doesn’t have an official position on the cloth, the relic is visited by tens of thousands of worshippers at the Turin Cathedral in Italy each year…

Radiocarbon dating tests conducted at three different labs in the 1980s indicated the cloth was less than 800 years old, produced in the Middle Ages, between approximately A.D. 1260 and 1390. The first records of the shroud begin to appear in medieval sources around the same time, which skeptics don’t think is a coincidence. Those results were published in the journal Nature in 1989. But critics in favor of a much older date for the cloth have alleged that those researchers took a sample of fabric that was used to patch up the burial shroud in the medieval period, or that the fabric had been subjected to fires, contamination and other damaged that skewed the results.

The new theory hinges on neutrons released by a devastating earthquake that hit Old Jerusalem around the same time that Jesus is believed to have died. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/11/shroud-turin-could-ancient-earthquake-explain-face-jesus/

The Shroud of Turin…researchers from the Politecnico di Torino have come up with a theory that they believe might provide some answers. They say that it’s possible that neutron emissions from an earthquake around the time of Jesus’ death could have created the image, as well as affected radiocarbon levels that suggested the shroud was a forgery from medieval times

The scientists linked the earthquake with Jesus’ death by citing Greek historian Thallos’ account of the day Christ died, the gospel of Matthew, and the narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, as well as with the work of Dante Alighieri, writing, “Moreover, if we assign the image imprinted on the Shroud to the Man who died during the Passover of 33 a.d., there are at least three documents in the literature attesting the occurrence of disastrous earthquakes during that event.”

Some are interpreting these findings as a testament to the Shroud’s authenticity, as it claims the medieval radiocarbon dating done by Oxford University in 1988 is erroneous.

However, other scientists doubt the results of the study, pointing out that radiocarbon dating from other seismically active areas like Japan has generally not been considered inaccurate. “People have been measuring materials of that age for decades now and nobody has ever encountered this,” Gordon Cook, a professor of environmental geochemistry at the University of Glasgow, told LiveScience.

This isn’t the first time a radiation theory has been proposed, however. In 2013, Giulio Fanti and a research team from the University of Padua conducted a test which dated the shroud from between 300 BC and 400 AD. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/shroud-of-turin-earthquake-jesus_n_4770202.html

Now, it is true that there can be problems with carbon-dating. It is also true that there was an earthquake associated with Jesus’ death. But Jesus was not in the linen cloth when the biblically recorded earthquake occurred. Notice the full account in Matthew:

54 So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

55 And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

57 Now when evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. 58 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be given to him. 59 When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed. (Matthew 27:54-60)

Notice that the earthquake reported in Matthew’s account happened BEFORE Jesus was wrapped in the clean linen cloth. Based upon the account in Matthew, the Shroud of Turin would not seem to have been affected by the earthquake that way some are now claiming.

Despite claiming it has no position, the Church of Rome holds the position that it is acceptable for its members to venerate and pay homage to this shroud. This is not consistent with the Bible nor the practices of original Christians. Furthermore the resurrection was more likely to have been at least two years earlier than 33 A.D.

The Continuing Church of God does not consider that the Shroud of Turin is holy nor the burial clothe of Jesus.

Amongst other reasons, it is not supported by the historical record nor scripture. The image on the Shroud of Turin shows a long-haired male. Yet, Jesus did not have long hair.

Notice that even Catholic translations of the Bible support that:

¹⁴ Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

¹⁵ but when a woman has long hair, it is her glory? (1 Corinthians 11:14-15a, New Jerusalem Bible)

While hair does grow after death, it does not grow quickly enough for the length that is on the Shroud of Turin. Jesus said He would be in the grave three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40), and that would not be enough time for long hair to appear.

Here are a few comments on the Shroud of Turin from the Answers.com article titled Is the Shroud of Turin true or fraud?:

There is no record of the shroud during the first centuries of the Christian era, it is first mentioned in the 14th century, having been found in the Diocese of Troyes…

The Gospel writers say that the body of Jesus, after being taken from the stake by Joseph of Arimathea, was wrapped in clean fine linen. (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56) The apostle John adds: Nicodemus also came bringing a roll of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds of it. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it up with bandages with the spices, just the way the Jews have the custom of preparing for burial. John 19:39-42…writers of the third and fourth centuries, many of whom wrote about a host of miracles in connection with numerous relics, did not mention the existence of a shroud containing the image of Jesus. What happened to it at this time, if it did exist, is unknown.

Let’s quote John 19:39-42 in its entirety:

39 And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. 40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom 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 tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby. (John 19:39-42)

Basically, strips of linen were placed on Jesus’ body somewhat like a mummy (this is also basically what happened to Lazarus, see John 11:43-44). If the Shroud of Turin was saturated with myrrh and aloes, it would by now be fairly stiff and would tend to look quite differently than it now does.

Notice furthermore that Jesus’ burial cloths, though mentioned in scripture, are basically only mentioned as being folded after the resurrection (and the description of multiple cloths also does not necessarily seem to quite match the Shroud of Turin):

6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went away again to their own homes. (John 20:6-10).

By the time the Apostle John wrote this, if there had been any real special powers with the cloth, it would have seemed that he would have mentioned them, but he did not.

Even if the actual burial cloth of Jesus were the Shroud of Turin or some other similar relic, it should not be venerated by Christians. History records that the early Christians opposed venerating relics. Many do not seem to realize how negatively early Christians viewed such items. The Bible warned against the adoption of such things (cf. 1 John 5:21) and that in the time of the end that a false religion will employ various iconic images (Daniel 11:31; Revelation 13:14-15).

Most know very little about early church history–and what many think they know is clouded by misinformation and misconceptions. And the Shroud of Turin does not provide helpful information into original Christianity, only for those who seem to prefer improper traditions of men over what the Bible teaches.

Those interested in early Christianity may wish to read the following documented articles to learn more:

What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons? Did Catholic and Orthodox “saints” endorse or condemn idols and icons for Christians?
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Continuing Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions.
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Do they matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?