Replies

What you say about carbon 14 testing is true. But a big question is simply this: Was the right thing tested?

Ben Witherington, a well-known and respected biblical scholar, tells us that the carbon 14 tests are now significantly disputed. Witherington has a vast knowledge of the New Testament and the history of Jesus’ era and has written many thoughtful books and articles. Recently, with Hershel Shanks, the editor of Biblical Archeological Review, he coauthored a best-selling book, “The Brother of Jesus.” It is about a controversial artifact, an authenticity-disputed ossuary bearing the inscription "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus.” In an article in Christianity Today (September 23, 2003), Witherington discussed the ossuary and nine other significant New Testament archaeological discoveries of the past 150 years. He led off with the controversial Shroud. Of its authenticity he wrote:

"This possibility seemed to have been ruled out when the Shroud was allowed to be carbon dated in the late '80s, and the date that came to light from the testing was from the early Middle Ages. But wait. We know the Shroud was scorched in a fire in the early Middle Ages, and it appears that the carbon 14 testing may have been skewed because a scorched part of the cloth was tested, and also because the microbiotic coating on the Shroud was not cleaned off before testing. Even careful scientific testing does not always produce indisputable results. Naturally, finding an image of Jesus would be the biggest find of any sort relating to the New Testament. But the jury is still out on the Shroud.”

A careful reading of several recent studies by many scientists and historians makes it clear that the jury is indeed is still out. Scientists now dispute the carbon 14 testing so conclusively that we can no longer consider the medieval results definitive. But not for the reason given by Witherington.

The scorching proposal is that high temperatures from a fire in 1532, which damaged and nearly destroyed the Shroud, enhanced the mix of radioactive carbon 14 and stable carbon 12 isotopes in the cloth. This, if true, would make the cloth seem newer than it is. But experiments to test this idea have not been promising. Any change caused by the fire would likely be too trivial to be significant. And while a microbiotic growth found on some archeological artifacts may be present on the Shroud, it is questionable if there can be sufficient quantity of this newer material to alter the measurements enough to make a first century cloth seem medieval.

***** Recent, thorough, well-documented and confirmable studies by several researchers explain why the radiocarbon dating was incorrect.

M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, in collaboration with number of textile experts, identified clear evidence of medieval mending on the Shroud. A patch was expertly sewn to or rewoven into the fabric to repair a damaged edge. It was from this patch—quite likely nothing more than a piece of medieval cloth—that the samples were taken. From documenting photographs of the sample areas, the textile experts identified enough newer thread to permit Ronald Hatfield, of the prestigious radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic, to estimate that the true date of the cloth is much older—perhaps even 1st century.

Independently, Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory have explored the chemical nature of the sample area. They have confirmed the finding of Benford and Marino. Ultraviolet photography and spectral analysis show that the area from which the samples were taken was chemically unlike the rest of the cloth. Chemical analysis reveals the presence of Madder root dye and an aluminum oxide mordant (a reagent that fixes dyes to textiles) not found elsewhere on Shroud. Medieval artisans often dyed threads in this manner when mending damaged tapestries. This was simply to make the repairs less noticeable. The presence of Madder root and mordant suggests that the Shroud was mended in this way.

Microchemical tests also reveal vanillin (C8H8O3 or 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde) in an area of the cloth from which the carbon 14 sample were cut. But the rest of the cloth does not test positive for it. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer, a non-carbohydrate constituent of plant material including flax. Found in medieval materials but not in much older cloths, it diminishes and disappears with time. For instance, the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls do not test positive for vanillin.

This is an important find. It suggests that the tested samples were possibly much newer and it underscores that the chemical nature of the carbon 14 samples and the main part of the cloth are outstandingly different.

In other words we probably have a very good carbon 14 test for a medieval patch and not the Shroud of Turin.

Shroudie