Anyone who thought that the Christian relic known as the Shroud of Turin was dead and buried would have been surprised last week by a sudden burst of headlines around the world suggesting the burial cloth, said to carry an image of Jesus in death, was not a fake after all.

The headlines included: “Turin Shroud may actually be Jesus's burial cloth, new study suggests” (TheIndependent); “Controversial new Shroud of Turin evidence said to offer proof of Christ’s crucifixion” (the New York Post), and “Was Jesus buried in Shroud of Turin? Latest research reveals shocking details” (The Times of India)!

Reports also appeared in London’s Sun, Mirror, and Daily Mail, Al Jazeera, The Tablet, Fox News, and the Hindustan Times.

What the heck?

Close inspection reveals not one story, but two feeding off each other.

One was based on a recent dating test of a Shroud sample to the first century. Most people know a carbon-dating test in 1988 concluded that the Shroud was a medieval forgery.  But the latest tests, recently published in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Heritage, contradict the carbon dating, and say that the Shroud is likely to be 2000 years old.

The tests were carried out by a team of five scientists, led by a member of Italy’s National Research Council, Dr Liberato De Caro. They were based on a new dating technique – wide-angle, X-ray scattering (WAXS), which measures the natural ageing of flax cellulose, from which the Shroud is made.

Dr de Caro insists WAXS is more reliable than carbon dating. He points out it is not affected by carbon-14 contamination, widely believed to be responsible for the misleading results from the 1988 carbon dating.  He explains that it is difficult to know whether the radiocarbon tests measured the carbon 14 on the original fabric or additional carbon-14 that was added later.

The other story behind the headlines was about a former atheist, British filmmaker David Rolfe, who set out to “prove Shroud of Turin was fake”, realised it had to be “the cloth Jesus was buried in”, and became a Christian. Rolfe’s award-winning film, The Silent Witness, showed cinemagoers all over the world how compelling the evidence for the Shroud was at the time.

Many people would have wondered last week how the Shroud could suddenly be authentic. But the truth is that evidence has been growing relentlessly for decades. And most people don’t know the 1988 carbon dating is now widely believed by Shroud researchers to be flawed.

I am very aware of all this because I set out to write a book about the Shroud a few years ago explaining why it was a fake and ended up publishing a book titled: Riddles of the Shroud: Questions science can't answer. The message, summed up in the sub-title, was that science has indeed failed to answer many questions raised by the Shroud since it first attracted the attention of scientists 126 years ago.

In 1898, when the first photo of the Shroud was taken, the world was amazed to hear that the image on the linen cloth was a negative “photographic” image that had existed for centuries before photography was thought of.

Left: original Shroud image. Right: photographic negative (really a positive)

Sceptics claimed at the time – with impressive faith – that science would work it out. But over the past century, as the Shroud became the most researched artefact in history, science has only succeeded in discovering more unanswerable questions about it.

My list of questions in Riddles of the Shroud stopped at 99. The list has grown longer since then.

So why do so many people think the Shroud is some kind of miracle? Well, apart from the image’s photo-negative features, the Shroud has no traces of any artistic medium – no paint, pigment, ink or dye, but is inexplicably made from a microscopic layer of discoloured linen microfibres, found only on the microscopic surface of the cloth. (This means the image could not have been caused by a fluid or even gas, both of which would have penetrated much deeper into the cloth.) Many scientists have concluded it is an image that could only have been produced by a burst of radiation from the body.

Several tests have also confirmed that the image is three-dimensional, unlike all known photographs. Then there are the wounds and blood flows on the body image. They are forensically perfect. And the blood chemistry shows it came from someone who was tortured.

As well, microscopic traces of soil and flower pollen from the area around Jerusalem were uncovered. Other pollens point to a journey from Jerusalem, through Eastern Europe to France and Italy, all confirmed by historical writings and images on icons and coins matching the face on the Shroud.

The list goes on.

But it is not just this evidence that casts doubt on the 1988 carbon dating, but the raw data from the carbon dating as well. This was only recently made public after being locked away for almost three decades. Many requests for the data over the years were denied, but it was finally released by a legal request under Britain’s freedom of information laws.

Suspicion about the carbon dating goes right back to a press conference carbon daters held in 1989 to publicise their findings. The three men who conducted the conference in London (seen below l-r) were Professor Edward “Teddy” Hall (deceased), from the Oxford University carbon-dating lab, Dr Michael Tite (retired) from the British Museum which coordinated the dating, and Professor Robert Hedges (retired), from Oxford University.

The carbon daters claimed the Shroud was “faked up” by a forger from a “multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century”. But physicists and statisticians have now published papers in peer-reviewed academic journals challenging the carbon dating. They say the statistics are not “homogenous” – that they are “heterogeneous”. Most people would have no idea what these words mean, but the experts who do know say the findings are dramatic – they argue the dating was invalid and new dating tests are needed.