Creationism and carbon 14 dating
The image lacks the sharp outline and vivid color of a painting and is described as "melting away" as the viewer approaches the cloth.
Yet the consensus of skeptical opinion up to the 1930s (with a few surviving remnants today) was that the image was indeed a medieval painting of Jesus which had through time taken on the appearance of a truly ancient relic.
While high technology and theology contend respectively with the other aspects of the relic, determination of its origin and place in history is an archaeological issue.
The cloth is an unprovenanced artifact purporting to be associated with events in recorded history and encoded with considerable information about its past.
The fact that it is a religious relic associated with supernatural claims is of no consequence here; certainly there is no justification for employing different or stricter criteria than for any other important artifact, except perhaps in according greater consideration to the possibility of forgery.
Considerations of the Shroud have frequently been marred by an intense desire to believe and an imprecise use of data among the overzealous and by an insistence on impossible standards of proof among the skeptics.
Clearly, every remote possibility of forgery, hoax, accident, or combination thereof must be examined before a firm archaeological/historical judgement on this artifact can be proffered.
This line of evidence is of great importance in the question of authenticity and is briefly reviewed below. Both frontal and dorsal images have the marks of many small drops of a postmortem serous fluid exuded from the pores.From its first recorded exhibition in France in 1357, this cloth has been the object of mass veneration, on the one hand, and scorn from a number of learned clerics and freethinkers, on the other.Appearing as it did in an age of unparalleled relic-mongering and forgery and, if genuine, lacking documentation of its whereabouts for 1,300 years, the Shroud would certainly have long ago been consigned to the ranks of spurious relics (along with several other shrouds with similar claims) were it not for the extraordinary image it bears.Direct study and testing of the relic since 1900 have yielded a wealth of data, and in this paper I attempt to review and summarize the major empirical data and other relevant research.Further, and unlike the authors of the most recent broad reviews on Shroud studies (e.g.