CNN just touched off its new series on the historical Jesus with a show on the Shroud of Turin. The question was debated whether the Shroud is indeed an artifact from the first century, where it could shed some light on the historicity of Jesus as being the only physical evidence of the Crucifixion, or if its a medieval forgery. As is usually the case in these yellow history shows, the verdict is inconclusive.

The Shroud is described as being consistent with the account of the Gospels (which is exactly what you’d expect from a forgery (there was a booming market in Holy Relics in medieval times), the forgers would certainly make sure they at least looked authentic. But it was mentioned that three independent labs came up with a carbon dating of 13th century for it, one that is still disputed by Shroud boosters who claim that it was contaminated by more recent carbon.

A specialist on medieval tech claims that technology existed in medieval times to create that image using a photographic technique, using silver salts, ammonia from urine (as a fixer) and a camera obscura, although I didn’t think that argument was particularly convincing.

What I found particularly infuriating is that the show was misleading, and seemed to imply the Shroud was genuine, because stains on it seemed to match up with those on another relic in Spain, and because the Shroud seemed to be consistent with modern theories of how crucifixions were carried out. I am infuriated because none of this is relevant to the real issue we are discussing here, the alleged divinity of Jesus.

Forgeries of relics were extremely common in the Middle Ages; if the Shroud was a fake, that does not mean Jesus never existed, or that he was an ordinary man. Likewise, crucifixion was a very common method of execution in the Roman world, so a genuine first century Shroud would prove nothing either. It might not be Jesus’ burial cloth, and even if it were, it sheds no light whatsoever on his divinity or resurrection. In other words, whatever the Shroud of Turin is, it proves nothing, one way or the other.

What we need is archaeological documentary evidence, such as a surviving non-religious account contemporary with Jesus, something written by someone who knew him, or at least, lived at the same time he did and was familiar with his ministry but not actually a part of it. The nearest we have to that is the historian Josephus, who was born after Jesus died. Religious texts all have an ax to grind, they can’t be trusted. A court record of Jesus’ interview with Pilate would be very convincing, for example. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if one existed, buried very deep in some Vatican archive, the Romans were legal fetishists, they would have taken notes.

I presume other chapters in this series will pursue more promising paths of evidence, such as a linguistic and historical analysis of the canonical Gospels and other religious documents from that time, such as the Apocrypha and the Hidden Gospels and the writings of the Gnostics. But if you missed this chapter, I wouldn’t worry about it. It had very little relevance to the search for the historical Jesus.