The Shroud of Turin

The test is reliable but the sample was not representative of the original shroud. It had dyed cotton repair fibers mixed in. One of the original testers confirmed this and changed his position.

The raw data also confirmed this as there was a lot more variation between labs and the shroud measurements versus the controls.

1 Like

@colewd has already answered you (see above). If you want reference, you will find two at 79.

The claim is that it has been used to date the the “shroud”.

How would we know it was a forgery? What known examples of cloth images miraculously created by the resurrection of an incarnated god to we have for comparison?

That’s just a conspiracy theory pushed by religious zealots butthurt over the debunking of a cherished relic. There is no truth to this claim.

1 Like

Source?

EDIT: Never mind, Bill. I found the source of Ramsey’s actual statement. To what should be no one’s surprise, his position is misrepresented by the “shroud” conspiracy mongers (my bold):

The research continues because the effect of the specific storage conditions of the Turin Shroud have yet to be reproduced by John Jackson’s team. It remains possible, though not at all likely, that in these specific conditions there are reactions which provide significant contamination. There are also other possible types of contaminant, and it it could be that one, or some combination of these, might mean that the Shroud is somewhat older than the radiocarbon date suggests. It is important to realise, however, that only if some enriched contaminant can be identified does it become credible that the date is wrong by 1000 years. As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.

There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information.

http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/shroud.html

Always check your sources, Bill. It will save you from embarrassing episodes like this.

2 Likes

I don’t think it is wise for Christians to be defending the legitimacy of the shroud, for reasons similar to this:

If someone’s faith is dependent on the shroud, or even supported by it, I am not at all sure that it is – in fact, I’m pretty sure that it is not – a good idea. If it is definitively demonstrated, if it hasn’t been already, to be inauthentic (to say it gently), then where is their faith? It was not well-founded to begin with, and God wants our hearts, not a faith that’s based on externals. (Note that I said ‘based’, and not that legitimate externals don’t support it.)

4 Likes

Right, but I’m just claiming what I said. IR/Raman spectroscopy is a very appropriate tool to investigate historical artifacts. It can be used to help in the determination of the age an artifact based on the chemical components. For instance, they may help determine if the shroud was “painted” on, and if so, whether the paint was typical of the hypothesized time period. IR/Raman can also help investigate the cloth itself.

That’s certainly not what I was talking about. I was merely talking about determining whether it was plausibly a burial shroud from 1st century Israel, or perhaps a later burial shroud assumed to be 1st century, or even an intentional forgery from much later. If it’s really from the middle ages, there’s no point in asking if it could be from Jesus’s burial, right?

2 Likes

@Faizal_Ali: You say “That’s just a conspiracy theory pushed by religious zealots”

Ray Rogers who published in peer reviewed journal on dating sample is not a religious zealot.

Bill, you’re really basing all of this on a press release?

1 Like

I guess I’ll take your word for it.

No. I was just showing Fazil there was a counter argument to be considered. It looks like there was mixed ancient and newer repair fibers in the sample.

This appears to be without support. The samples taken have dyed cotton mixed with older fabric. Watch the video provided above where the dyed cotton is identified in the samples.

From abstract of Ray Rogers 2005 paper.

Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Oh, so you have videos and press releases. Big deal.

Which of these words did you not understand? “(T)here is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.”

1 Like

An abstract isn’t much deeper, particularly when the writer uses the verb “prove” in a completely unscientific way.

In that case they should take a sample from an area that the Shroud supporters swear is original and get a new 14C date. Methinks this probably won’t happen. More importantly, why aren’t the Shroud supporters clamoring for new samples to be taken for 14C dating?

2 Likes

As far as I can tell they are pursuing non destructive test methods. The accuracy of these are an issue for precise dating at this point.

Getting someone to cutoff and destroy more shroud when the first attempt was inconclusive could be a challenge.

It’s even more of a challenge, since the first attempt was so conclusive. It is understandable that the owners of the “shroud” don’t want to inflict further damage to the relic in a futile attempt to appease believers who will never accept a negative result no matter how conclusive.

So that is where things will have to be left.

1 Like

I would be interested for you to detail why you think this is true. The paper by Ray said repaired shroud is what was tested. Are saying that claim was false? Based on what?