A Faulty Conclusion and Five Other Clocks That Tell a Different Time

In 1988, the world was shaken by a test. Three laboratories—Oxford, Zurich, and Arizona—conducted a radiocarbon analysis of a strip of cloth taken from the Shroud of Turin, the linen bearing the image of a man many believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. The results dated the Shroud between A.D. 1260 and 1390. Newspapers declared the relic a fraud, the work of a medieval forger. The scientific community, the Church, and skeptics alike heralded the “death” of the Shroud’s authenticity. But what if the test itself was flawed? What if, far from disproving the Shroud’s ancient origin, the 1988 radiocarbon analysis was based on compromised data, unrepresentative samples, and faulty assumptions?

This blog explores how and why the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was deeply flawed, drawing on peer-reviewed research to build a case for reconsidering the evidence. It also briefly highlights five other dating methods that point in the opposite direction—toward the 1st century. In the end, we are left not with a discarded forgery, but a compelling enigma that refuses to be dismissed.

---

What Is Carbon-14 Dating?

Radiocarbon dating works by measuring the decay of carbon-14 (C-14), a radioactive isotope absorbed by living organisms. When the organism dies, the intake of C-14 stops, and it begins to decay at a known rate (half-life ≈ 5,730 years). By comparing the remaining C-14 in an artifact to the expected original levels, scientists estimate its age. However, this method is sensitive to contamination, environmental factors, and most importantly, the representativeness of the sample tested.

---

The 1988 Test: Origins and Limitations

In 1988, after prolonged negotiations, a small piece of the Shroud was removed from the lower left corner of the cloth. This single strip, approximately 7 cm by 1 cm, was divided and sent to the three aforementioned laboratories. Their unanimous conclusion placed the cloth in the medieval period. But almost immediately, scholars began raising serious questions:

1. Non-representative Sample
   The tested area came from the edge of the cloth, a region most likely to have been handled and repaired over centuries. In 2005, a peer-reviewed study by Raymond N. Rogers, the former head of chemical research at Los Alamos National Laboratory, demonstrated that the corner used in the test was chemically distinct from the rest of the Shroud and showed signs of “invisible reweaving.”¹ The presence of cotton interwoven with linen—foreign to the rest of the cloth—suggests that the sample was from a medieval repair, not the original fabric.
2. Contamination and Reweaving
   Rogers’ study employed microchemical tests for vanillin, a compound present in newly made linen that disappears over centuries. The Shroud body showed no traces of vanillin, consistent with ancient cloth, while the tested corner retained vanillin—suggesting a more recent origin.² Additionally, the dye found in the sample area matched medieval dyeing techniques, further supporting the repair hypothesis.
3. Lack of Peer-Reviewed Transparency
   The results were published in Nature in 1989³—one of the world’s leading journals—but the actual raw data and details of the sampling were withheld for over 20 years. In 2017, a statistical reassessment by French researcher Tristan Casabianca and colleagues, using the raw data finally obtained through legal channels, concluded that the sample was not homogeneous and thus not suitable for accurate dating.⁴ This peer-reviewed study published in Archaeometry found significant statistical anomalies, confirming that the 1988 results were “not trustworthy.”
4. Violation of Protocol
   The original 1986 protocol recommended multiple samples from different parts of the Shroud to ensure representativeness. Yet only one sample location was used, a decision made without the full agreement of the scientific advisory team.⁵ The entire conclusion of the 1988 test hinges on a singular, potentially compromised piece of fabric.
5. External Damage and Fire Exposure
   The Shroud suffered fire damage in 1532, resulting in scorch marks and carbon deposits. While the labs attempted to clean the sample, complete removal of contamination is nearly impossible. No carbon-dating method can fully eliminate the uncertainties introduced by exposure to intense heat, which can artificially age or skew the results.⁶

---

Peer-Reviewed Challenges to the 1988 Results

The most significant peer-reviewed challenges include:

• Rogers, Raymond N. “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin,” Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005): 189–194. This article provided chemical and thermal analysis showing that the sample came from a repaired area.⁷
• Casabianca, Tristan, et al. “Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data,” Archaeometry 61, no. 5 (2019): 1223–1231. This team reanalyzed the original data using modern statistical techniques and found the data inconsistent and methodologically flawed.⁸
• Benford and Marino (2002), though not initially peer-reviewed, their hypothesis of reweaving inspired Rogers’ research, which was peer-reviewed and influential in overturning the assumption of a homogenous cloth.⁹
• Fanti, Giulio, et al. “Non-Destructive Dating of Ancient Linen Fabrics by Means of FTIR Spectroscopy,” Vibrational Spectroscopy 67 (2013): 61–70. This study used alternate methods to date the Shroud to the 1st century.¹⁰

These studies, while diverse in approach, converge on one point: the 1988 carbon dating is not reliable. Its findings should be considered preliminary at best, and certainly not conclusive.

---

Five Other Clocks That Challenge the 1988 Radiocarbon Dating

The 1988 Carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin has long been cited by skeptics to dismiss its authenticity. However, five independent scientific methods—each grounded in peer-reviewed research—now challenge those results, converging on a much earlier date, consistent with the first-century timeframe traditionally ascribed to the burial of Jesus. These techniques evaluate different molecular and structural properties of the linen, and unlike radiocarbon dating, they are not dependent on a single sample location or susceptible to the same contamination concerns. Here’s a summary of each:

1. Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS)
   This method assesses the degradation of cellulose crystallinity in linen fibers. As linen ages, its crystalline regions decay due to exposure to heat, light, and humidity. WAXS enables researchers to evaluate the molecular structure of cellulose without damaging the sample. A 2022 study by Liberato De Caro and Giulio Fanti found degradation consistent with an artifact approximately 2,000 years old, directly contradicting the Carbon-14 result​.
2. Break-Strength Testing
   This mechanical test evaluates the tensile strength of linen fibers, which diminishes over time as the cellulose breaks down. Fanti’s team conducted break-strength analyses and determined that the Shroud’s fibers demonstrated deterioration matching linens from antiquity, not the medieval period. These findings reinforce other non-radiocarbon methods and suggest a first-century date​.
3. Vanillin Testing
   Vanillin is a compound found in lignin, part of the cellulose structure in flax. Over time, vanillin fades. Raymond Rogers’ peer-reviewed chemical studies in 2005 found no detectable vanillin in the Shroud fibers, while modern linen retained measurable amounts. His conclusion was that the Shroud was at least 1,300–3,000 years old, with a probable origin close to the first century​.
4. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)
   FTIR uses infrared light to measure molecular changes in the chemical bonds of a material. In 2013, Fanti and his team analyzed the Shroud’s fibers and found degradation patterns consistent with 2,000 years of aging. FTIR is especially valuable because it is non-destructive and relatively resistant to external contaminants​.
5. Raman Spectroscopy
   A technique that uses laser light to detect vibrational energy levels in molecules, Raman Spectroscopy provides a molecular “fingerprint” of organic materials. Fanti’s 2013 research incorporated Raman analysis, and the results corroborated the FTIR findings, once again suggesting a first-century origin​.

Together, these five tests—each employing distinct scientific principles—consistently converge on a first-century date. This is not coincidental. Rather, it underscores the need to reevaluate the 1988 Carbon-14 dating as an outlier, likely distorted by methodological flaws, sample contamination, and the compromised integrity of the Raes corner material used for testing. Readers can explore these five methods in greater detail in my research paper, Sacred Threads: The Shroud of Turin in Scriptural and Jewish Context, available at: www.tomstheology.blog.

---

So Why Was the 1988 Test Trusted So Widely?

Science, like any human endeavor, is subject to the pressures of consensus and media. The 1988 results fit the narrative many had hoped for—debunking a religious relic. But good science is self-correcting. When new evidence arises, the hypothesis must be revised or rejected. Peer-reviewed challenges to the C-14 date have only grown stronger over the decades, while defenses of the 1988 test have largely remained static or deflective.

---

The Clock Needs Resetting

The carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin, once heralded as definitive, is now widely understood to be flawed. The peer-reviewed evidence is overwhelming: the sample was from a repaired area, the data was heterogeneous and statistically inconsistent, and the testing protocol was violated. Meanwhile, five other dating methods—from textile analysis to FTIR spectroscopy—point to a much earlier origin, consistent with the time and place of Jesus of Nazareth.

This is not merely a case of “reasonable doubt.” It is a compelling call to reexamine one of the most studied and mysterious relics in human history. If the Shroud is not medieval, then what is it? And more importantly—who is it?

---

---

For those seeking an in-depth examination of the Carbon-14 dating controversy, I highly recommend The 1988 C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé by Joseph G. Marino.

---

---

Endnotes

¹ Raymond N. Rogers, “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin,” Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005).
² Ibid.
³ P.E. Damon et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,” Nature 337, no. 6208 (1989).
⁴ Tristan Casabianca et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data,” Archaeometry61, no. 5 (2019).
⁵ Meacham, William, “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology,” Current Anthropology 24, no. 3 (1983).
⁶ Thomas Phillips, “Shroud Irradiated with Neutrons?,” Nature 337, no. 6208 (1989).
⁷ Rogers, “Studies”.
⁸ Casabianca et al., “Radiocarbon Dating”.
⁹ Benford and Marino, “Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud,” Textile Research Journal (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino2008.pdf)
¹⁰ Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi, “New Dating of the Turin Shroud from the X-ray Dating Technique,” Journal of Cultural Heritage 11, no. 3 (2013).