(All photographs courtesy STURP member Barrie Schwortz per Ateneo Pontificio Regina Apostolrum, Rome)

The Shroud of Turin remains one of the most studied and debated relics in Christian history. While the 1988 carbon-14 dating seemed to cast serious doubt on its authenticity—suggesting a medieval origin between 1260 and 1390—subsequent scholarship has revealed critical flaws in that testing. Moreover, fresh historical evidence has emerged to challenge those results. Among the most compelling is an illuminated manuscript created decades before the earliest carbon-dated range: the Hungarian Pray Codex.

This manuscript, named after György Pray who catalogued it in the 18th century, includes an illustration that many believe unmistakably parallels key features of the Shroud. If that illustration indeed represents the same burial cloth, then the Shroud existed at least a century before the carbon dating suggests—rendering those results not merely suspicious, but fundamentally flawed.

What Is the Hungarian Pray Codex?

The Pray Codex (also called the Pray Manuscript) is the oldest surviving text written in the Hungarian language, dated between 1192 and 1195. It contains liturgical texts, prayers, and illustrated scenes from the Passion and Resurrection of Christ. One such illustration—commonly referred to as the “Entombment and Resurrection” scene—has garnered significant attention among Shroud researchers.

The artwork depicts Jesus being laid in a burial shroud, and it offers details that are startling in their correspondence to the Shroud of Turin. This is not a generic medieval depiction. It is specific, unusual, and, in multiple ways, unique.

Visual Parallels Between the Codex and the Shroud

Five key features in the Pray Codex illustration appear to reflect direct knowledge of the Shroud of Turin:

1. The Body is Nude and Hands are Crossed Over the Pelvis
   Unlike typical medieval art, which avoids nudity in depictions of Christ, the body in the Codex is completely nude. Moreover, the hands are crossed in an identical manner to the Shroud: right over left, fingers elongated, and thumbs not visible.
2. The Cloth Shows a Distinctive Herringbone Weave
   The burial shroud in the Codex is marked with a zigzag, herringbone pattern—a feature not common in medieval illustrations, but which exactly matches the Shroud of Turin’s rare three-to-one herringbone twill weave.
3. The Presence of L-Shaped “Burn Holes”
   Perhaps most astonishing are the small “poker holes” or “L-shaped” patterns of four dots visible in the illustration, arranged in the same formation as the burn holes on the Shroud. These holes appear in the same location on the cloth relative to the body, strongly suggesting that the artist saw—or at least knew about—a cloth that had those features.
4. Absence of Thumbs
   Just as on the Shroud, the figure in the Pray Codex has no visible thumbs. Medical analysis of the Shroud suggests this could result from damage to the median nerve during crucifixion, causing the thumbs to retract. That this obscure anatomical detail would appear in a 12th-century manuscript is highly unlikely to be coincidental.
5. Absence of Fire Damage Seen on the Modern Shroud
   One of the most visually distinctive features of the Shroud of Turin today is the symmetrical pattern of burn marks and water stains caused by a fire in 1532, when molten silver from its reliquary case dripped through the folded cloth.¹ These burn marks are visible in modern images of the Shroud, and any artistic reproduction after that date—especially one based on the Shroud itself—would be expected to include them. Yet in the Hungarian Pray Codex, these features are conspicuously absent, further confirming that the illustration must predate the 1532 fire.

These features go far beyond artistic license or religious symbolism. They suggest that the illustrator had access to a cloth that closely resembled the Shroud of Turin—and that such a cloth existed at least 70 years before the earliest range of the 1988 carbon dating. These conclusions have been supported by academic studies, including a peer-reviewed article published in The Heythrop Journal by historian Tristan Casabianca, who writes that the Pray Codex offers “a crucial clue to the Shroud’s chronology and provides a visual argument against the reliability of the radiocarbon test.”²

The 1988 Carbon Dating and Its Problems

In 1988, radiocarbon dating tests were performed independently by three laboratories (in Zurich, Oxford, and Tucson). They dated the Shroud’s fabric to the 13th–14th century. For decades, this dating has been heralded as definitive. However, the test has come under increasing scrutiny for methodological reasons.

Most notably, the sample used in the tests came from a corner section of the cloth, which multiple researchers now believe was part of a medieval repair—a rewoven section made to strengthen or patch the original. Chemical analysis in 2005 by Raymond Rogers, a member of the original STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) team and a thermal chemist, showed that this area contained cotton fibers dyed to match the linen—a feature not found in the main body of the cloth. Rogers concluded:

“The radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth. The radiocarbon date is invalid for determining the age of the Shroud.”³

Additionally, the area tested was contaminated by centuries of handling, oils, and even smoke from fires that damaged the cloth. Longtime Shroud researcher Joseph Marino and medical consultant Sue Benford argued that the corner tested was a composite of original and newer threads, which would skew the results and make the cloth appear younger than it actually is.⁴

Could the Pray Codex Resemblance Be Coincidence?

Some critics argue that the similarities between the Codex and the Shroud are coincidental or the result of standard medieval iconography. But this argument fails under closer examination. Most medieval depictions of Christ’s burial show a loincloth or artistically draped shroud—never full nudity. The herringbone pattern is virtually unknown in medieval manuscript art. The L-shaped holes serve no symbolic function in Christian theology or iconography. Their inclusion is inexplicable apart from visual familiarity with the Shroud itself.

Moreover, the skeptic must explain not just one resemblance, but a cluster of independently improbable features: nudity, herringbone weave, L-shaped holes, crossed hands without thumbs, and the absence of fire marks. Each might be explainable in isolation, but together they suggest knowledge of a specific object—the very cloth we know today as the Shroud of Turin.

Further academic support comes from Casabianca’s 2023 peer-reviewed article in Sindon, an interdisciplinary journal specializing in Shroud research. He notes the increasing weight of iconographic and historical data, observing that the Codex “should be taken seriously as visual documentation of the Shroud’s presence in Eastern Europe prior to its appearance in France.”⁵

A Cumulative Case from History and Science

The Hungarian Pray Codex joins a growing body of evidence supporting the Shroud’s antiquity:

• Historical documents trace the Shroud back to Lirey, France, in the 1350s, and possibly earlier to Constantinople, where a burial cloth known as the “Image of Edessa” or “Mandylion” was venerated.⁶
• The Shroud matches details of Roman crucifixion and Jewish burial customs unknown to medieval forgers but consistent with 1st-century practices.⁷
• Image formation remains scientifically unexplained; no paint, dye, or pigment is responsible for the image, which rests only on the top fibrils of the linen threads.⁸
• A full English-language bibliography of studies on the Pray Codex’s relationship to the Shroud has been compiled by Joseph Marino, offering both peer-reviewed and scholarly sources for further examination.⁹

Why the Pray Codex Matters

The Hungarian Pray Codex is not merely a piece of medieval art—it may be a visual time capsule. Its illustration of Christ’s burial provides historically significant support for the Shroud of Turin’s existence in the 12th century, long before the carbon dating suggests. Coupled with evidence that the radiocarbon sample was not representative of the original cloth, the Codex adds weight to the case that the Shroud may indeed be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Shroud has not been proven beyond all doubt. But neither has it been disproven. In fact, with each passing decade, its mystery deepens and its historical plausibility grows. As we reconsider the carbon-14 results in light of mounting evidence—from chemistry, history, and even Hungarian art—the question is no longer, “Is the Shroud a medieval forgery?” but rather, “Why have we ignored the clues pointing to its authenticity?”

---

Footnotes (with hyper-links to cited papers)

1. Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), 116–118; Ian Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud (New York: Free Press, 1998).
2. Tristan Casabianca, “The Ongoing Historical Debate About the Shroud of Turin: The Case of the Pray Codex,” The Heythrop Journal 62, no. 5 (2021). Available via PhilArchive.org.
3. Raymond N. Rogers, “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin,” Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005).
4. Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford, “Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs,” unpublished manuscript, 2000.
5. Tristan Casabianca, “The Influence of the Pray Codex in the Debate About the Shroud of Turin,” Sindon 7 (2023). Available via PhilPapers.org.
6. Ian Wilson, The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved (London: Bantam Press, 2010).
7. John Jackson and Rebecca Jackson, “The Burial Shroud of Jesus: What Can Science Tell Us?” in Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Conference on the Shroud of Turin, ed. Bryan Walsh.
8. Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi, The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ! (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2015).
9. Joseph G. Marino, Does the Hungarian Pray Manuscript Indicate the Presence of Jesus’ Shroud in the 12th Century? An English-Language Bibliography, 2021. Available on Academia.edu.