What do you think?
Rate this book
The Hidden History of The Shroud of Turin
Is the world-famous Shroud of Turin an authentic relic of the Passion and death of Jesus Christ or is it the product of one of the most cunning hoaxes ever perpetrated?
In 1978, scientists established that the relic’s image was not created by paint, and, in 1988, the relic’s fabric was radiocarbon-dated to late-medieval times, a conclusion which was subsequently determined to be unreliable. In this book, Jack Markwardt, an internationally-renowned Turin Shroud historian, discloses and discusses the relic’s entire hidden history, from the time of its discovery in Jesus’ tomb to the time of its first exhibition in Western Europe, detailing why and how its history became obscured and negating the dubious 1988 radiocarbon-dating results.
In 1978, scientists established that the relic’s image was not created by paint, and, in 1988, the relic’s fabric was radiocarbon-dated to late-medieval times, a conclusion which was subsequently determined to be unreliable. In this book, Jack Markwardt, an internationally-renowned Turin Shroud historian, discloses and discusses the relic’s entire hidden history, from the time of its discovery in Jesus’ tomb to the time of its first exhibition in Western Europe, detailing why and how its history became obscured and negating the dubious 1988 radiocarbon-dating results.
396 pages, Hardcover
Published November 15, 2021
9 people are currently reading
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 22, 2023
The only problem I have with this book is the author’s presentation of historical speculation as fact. Plausible as his hypotheses may be, it could have been presented in a more nuanced manner.
December 20, 2025
After 700 years, the Shroud still challenges science and provides material for 1st century Shroud authenticity fiction.
The reference to a "Hidden History" is nonsense and a misnomer; the book here fails to resolve the impasse in the basic time frame on the theory of 1st century origins.
This failed apologetics of this (or any) book on 1st century Shroud authenticity is the contradiction to the New Testament authority:
By comparison, the reliable dateline for the New Testament context:
Pauline Letters: ca. 45 to 65 A.D.
Synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke: ca. 60 to 100 A.D.
Fall of Jerusalem: 70 A.D.
Book of Acts: ca. 75 to 100 A.D.
Gospel of John: ca. 90 to 110 A.D.
The Gospel of John, written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem and AFTER the synoptics, has NO reference to the Shroud.
Gnostic Gospels: ca. 100 A.D. to 300 A.D.
Non-biblical 1st century contemporaries:
Flavius Josephus, Jewish-Roman historian: 35 A.D. to ca. 101 A.D.
Pliny the Elder, Roman author and naturalist: 23 A.D. to 79 A.D.
1) A burial shroud is mentioned only in the Gospel accounts.
2) The Pauline letters, written BEFORE the Gospels, have NO reference to the Shroud.
The first / earliest New Testament report on the resurrection is I Corinthians 15 (ca. 45 A.D.).
There is NO mention of the Shroud and NO mention of an empty tomb.
Also, I Cor. 15: 44 speaks only of a spiritual body in the resurrection.
3) The book of Acts, written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem, has NO reference to the Shroud circulating in the earliest Christian communities.
4) The Gospel of John, written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem and AFTER the synoptics, has NO reference to the Shroud.
5) The copious codices of the Gnostic Gospels, with their diverse texts, written much later than the Pauline epistles and the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and book of Acts, make NO mention of the Shroud in any Christian community in the Roman Empire.
6) The 1st century historian Josephus was a younger contemporary of the apostles and Paul.
He wrote his historical documentation concurrent to the Gospels and Acts, i.e. both BEFORE and AFTER the fall of Jerusalem. Josephus mentions Jesus, John the Baptist, James, and the early Christian community. Josephus makes NO mention of the Shroud.
7) The 1st century Pliny the Elder, i.e. Gaius Plinius Secundus, AD 23 – 79, was a Roman author, naturalist, scientist, and naval and army commander of the early Roman Empire. Pliny makes NO reference to any Shroud within the Christian communities.
Therefore:
Why is there NO mention of the Shroud in the Pauline epistles?
Why is there NO mention of the Shroud in the book of Acts?
Why do the Gospels make NO mention of the imprint or outline of Jesus' body on the Shroud?
Why do the Gnostic Gospels make NO mention of the Shroud?
Why does the 1st century non-Christian historian Josephus make NO mention of the Shroud?
Why does the 1st century non-biblical Roman author and naturalist Pliny the Elder make NO mention of the visible yet supernatural phenomenon of the Shroud?palsied pursuit of a Rashomonian Rorschach.
The results of this pursuit only serve to enhance the appreciation of 14th century Gothic art.
The beauty of the Shroud lies in a scientific analysis of the 14th century chevron weave, which is distinct from the common medieval Herringbone weave.
Woven on a four-shaft loom operated by heddles, the Shroud has no comparable specimen found, illustrated, or mentioned around the 1st century Middle East.
Silk production involving such a loom was restricted to China.
The Shroud cloth, however, was made in Northern Europe, in the late 13th century, by which time the appropriate apparatus was established.
The Shroud, an achievement of medieval culture, demonstrates a contribution to understanding the evolution of Gothic art in the 14th century.
Please understand that the predicated results of the entire irrational 1st century Shroud pro-authenticity indoctrination further emphasize the consummate elegance and intricacies of Gothic art.
The reference to a "Hidden History" is nonsense and a misnomer; the book here fails to resolve the impasse in the basic time frame on the theory of 1st century origins.
This failed apologetics of this (or any) book on 1st century Shroud authenticity is the contradiction to the New Testament authority:
By comparison, the reliable dateline for the New Testament context:
Pauline Letters: ca. 45 to 65 A.D.
Synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke: ca. 60 to 100 A.D.
Fall of Jerusalem: 70 A.D.
Book of Acts: ca. 75 to 100 A.D.
Gospel of John: ca. 90 to 110 A.D.
The Gospel of John, written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem and AFTER the synoptics, has NO reference to the Shroud.
Gnostic Gospels: ca. 100 A.D. to 300 A.D.
Non-biblical 1st century contemporaries:
Flavius Josephus, Jewish-Roman historian: 35 A.D. to ca. 101 A.D.
Pliny the Elder, Roman author and naturalist: 23 A.D. to 79 A.D.
1) A burial shroud is mentioned only in the Gospel accounts.
2) The Pauline letters, written BEFORE the Gospels, have NO reference to the Shroud.
The first / earliest New Testament report on the resurrection is I Corinthians 15 (ca. 45 A.D.).
There is NO mention of the Shroud and NO mention of an empty tomb.
Also, I Cor. 15: 44 speaks only of a spiritual body in the resurrection.
3) The book of Acts, written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem, has NO reference to the Shroud circulating in the earliest Christian communities.
4) The Gospel of John, written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem and AFTER the synoptics, has NO reference to the Shroud.
5) The copious codices of the Gnostic Gospels, with their diverse texts, written much later than the Pauline epistles and the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John and book of Acts, make NO mention of the Shroud in any Christian community in the Roman Empire.
6) The 1st century historian Josephus was a younger contemporary of the apostles and Paul.
He wrote his historical documentation concurrent to the Gospels and Acts, i.e. both BEFORE and AFTER the fall of Jerusalem. Josephus mentions Jesus, John the Baptist, James, and the early Christian community. Josephus makes NO mention of the Shroud.
7) The 1st century Pliny the Elder, i.e. Gaius Plinius Secundus, AD 23 – 79, was a Roman author, naturalist, scientist, and naval and army commander of the early Roman Empire. Pliny makes NO reference to any Shroud within the Christian communities.
Therefore:
Why is there NO mention of the Shroud in the Pauline epistles?
Why is there NO mention of the Shroud in the book of Acts?
Why do the Gospels make NO mention of the imprint or outline of Jesus' body on the Shroud?
Why do the Gnostic Gospels make NO mention of the Shroud?
Why does the 1st century non-Christian historian Josephus make NO mention of the Shroud?
Why does the 1st century non-biblical Roman author and naturalist Pliny the Elder make NO mention of the visible yet supernatural phenomenon of the Shroud?palsied pursuit of a Rashomonian Rorschach.
The results of this pursuit only serve to enhance the appreciation of 14th century Gothic art.
The beauty of the Shroud lies in a scientific analysis of the 14th century chevron weave, which is distinct from the common medieval Herringbone weave.
Woven on a four-shaft loom operated by heddles, the Shroud has no comparable specimen found, illustrated, or mentioned around the 1st century Middle East.
Silk production involving such a loom was restricted to China.
The Shroud cloth, however, was made in Northern Europe, in the late 13th century, by which time the appropriate apparatus was established.
The Shroud, an achievement of medieval culture, demonstrates a contribution to understanding the evolution of Gothic art in the 14th century.
Please understand that the predicated results of the entire irrational 1st century Shroud pro-authenticity indoctrination further emphasize the consummate elegance and intricacies of Gothic art.
August 13, 2022
Jack did a great job assembling all the information about the history of the Shroud. He took facts, some possible facts and other Shroud references to develop a history of the Shroud as it traveled from Jerusalem to Turin.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews