A Commentary on the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin Joseph S. Accetta, 11/21/2019 The cornerstone of any authenticity argument regarding the Shroud of Turin is its age. If it is 2000 years old then it is almost entirely inexplicable from a man-made process point of view and everyone, me included, might just as well call it a miracle and go home. Asserting that it is 2000 years old and then further asserting some physical mechanism for its creation by a dead body within a tomb requires the positing of heretofore unknown physics and that, saying it very politely, is a most challenging proposition. Such claims do not bode well for the reputation of Shroud science in general and those who regard themselves as Shroud scientists should be wary of their long term effects. Given these appeals to non-existent physics, it should relatively easy to explain the resurrection of Lazarus as well. If the objective of “ Shroud Science” is to provide scientific underpinnings and physical proof for the divine nature of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, it is firstly unneeded and secondly the Shroud is not an article of faith nor would it become so even if it were authentic. Statements made to the popular press who thrive on controversy and sensationalism will seizes upon the “scientists are baffled” cliché and what is written between the lines is scientists can’t explain it so therefore it must be a miracle. This disingenuous citation of inexplicability does not constitute a miraculous process; to invoke another cliché, absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence! If God wanted his image on the burial cloth, it would simply be there. The Creator does not need to alter the laws of the universe to make that happen much less satisfy the human need for explanations falling within a belief system that disavows faith. That does not appear to be the case since the image would have surely been mentioned in the Gospels normally rife with miracles and other details but strangely silent on this account since the cloth itself would have become the greatest relic in all of Christendom. To get around this seemingly insurmountable obstacle, Authenticists argue that the image was latent and did not appear for some time after the crucifixion. There are no precedents for such an argument considering the image formation “process”, if indeed there was one, is not only unknown but unknowable. This latency was indeed another inexplicable phenomenon; a miracle by any other name. So now there are actually three apparent miracles including the resurrection itself in close coincidence with each other. As the old adage goes; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof especially when the lack of an explanation implies a miraculous event. I do not question the existence of extraordinary phenomenon, miracles by any other name, but for the Shroud to be authentic in an absolute sense requires that: it is about 2000 years old; it actually enshrouded the body of Jesus Christ; the image in that time frame be totally inexplicable and it has a documented provenance or chain of custody dating back to the 1 st century AD. Evidently the Shroud just shows up in the deCharney household in 1356 or so without any explanation as to where it came from which strikes one as suspicious to say the least. In addition there is an alleged confession by the maker as to its 14 th century origin but there is no independent corroboration of this; a fact which seems to have much more appeal to the Authenticists than the lack of provenance or absence from the Gospel narratives. At this juncture the evidence shows only 1 out of 4 requisites. Authenticity is a supremely extraordinary claim and proclamations of authenticity based on historical narratives about past appearances of ”Shroud like” objects; the apparent inexplicability of the image; the presence of human blood or pollen from the middle east, all really do not count for much on the