Source: ©1978 Barrie M. Schwortz Collection, STERA, Inc. Reprinted by permission
Posted on 12/05/2020 5:58:58 AM PST by Kaslin
Source: ©1978 Barrie M. Schwortz Collection, STERA, Inc. Reprinted by permission
Although the birth of Jesus is “the reason for the season,” his death and resurrection are the foundational reasons we celebrate Christmas. And the ancient artifact that illustrates Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection is the Shroud of Turin — a linen cloth measuring 14 feet by 3.5 feet with a faint image of a crucified man that millions believe is Jesus Christ.
The Shroud has survived over two thousand years and is the world’s most analyzed artifact. Yet, due to its numerous unexplained properties, it remains a mystery. But the Shroud’s authenticity is controversial, mostly stemming from the infamous 1988 C-14 carbon dating test, which concluded that the cloth dated between 1260 and 1390 A.D. However, since 1988 those test results have been repeatedly disputed and debunked by many scientific experts.
Among those experts is Joe Marino, a former Benedictine monk and Catholic priest who has studied and written about the Shroud for 43 years. Marino’s newest book,
“The 1988 C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin – A Stunning Expose’” details all that went awry with the 1988 tests, scientifically and politically.
Given my keen interest in the Shroud, I have written numerous Townhall articles and several specifically about the C-14 dating controversy. Therefore, I am familiar with Joe Marino’s standing as a world-renowned Shroud expert and pleased that he agreed to answer some questions about his new book.
Strong>Myra Adams: What prompted you to write an 800-page book about the 1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin?
Joe Marino: When the results of the C-14 Shroud dating test were announced in 1988, I immediately knew something was wrong. Dating the linen cloth between the years 1260 and 1390 did not correspond with the extensive scientific evidence gathered before 1988. Most notably, the medieval dates conflicted with the “gold standard” of Shroud studies — the Vatican authorized 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) with its stunning conclusion that “there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image.”
Subsequently, when I sifted through all the Shroud writings questioning the 1988 results, it became apparent that the C-14 testing was severely flawed. Then in 2016, I wrote a 175-page article titled “The Politics of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud.” After retiring in 2018, I expanded that article, which grew into an 800-page book.
MA: You have said that the book “points to irrefutable proof that politics – along with personal agendas – was the main theme of the C-14 dating of the Shroud.” Can you explain your quote?
JM: Initially, the C-14 test was to have been one of 26 multi-disciplinary tests. The process was then marred by enormous problems, including eliminating the multi-disciplinary tests, constant protocol changes, Machiavellian-type actions by members of the C-14 labs, and a complete lack of rigor in the science. All of that was accentuated by Catholic Church leaders making poor management decisions while authorizing and overseeing the C-14 dating.
Interestingly, in 1985, Cardinal Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005) initially approved that the 1978 STURP team could perform various dating tests on the Shroud, including C-14. But one of the C-14 scientists was convinced that STURP was composed of religious fanatics. A total falsehood dispelled by STURP’s team list and the prestigious U.S. government labs where most of them worked. Ultimately, a person or group overruled Ratzinger’s decision and eliminated all but the C-14 test along with the entire STURP team! THAT was politics.
MA: What do you say to readers who think the Shroud is a medieval forgery?
JM: Those who think the Shroud is a fraud should start asking why the C-14 test is the only major piece of scientific evidence to make that assessment. Then people must do some research (read my book) and quit making knee-jerk pronouncements about this mysterious cloth with properties still unexplained by 21st-century science.
MA: If the crucified male image on the Shroud was not thought to be Jesus Christ, how would the C-14 testing have been different?
JM: I’m convinced that because the Shroud is associated with Jesus, psychological factors impacted how the testing was performed. Some people have trouble trying to integrate science and religion. Suppose the image was thought to have been someone other than Jesus, no doubt that a routine scientific dating of the cloth would have been performed. But, because it is believed to be Jesus, many additional and detrimental factors were introduced into the C-14 dating process.
Consequently, because of massive amounts of Shroud scientific evidence (primarily from STURP), including the fact that no one has been able to duplicate the totality of the image characteristics (despite what some skeptics claim), most people expected the cloth to be dated to the 1st century, the time when Jesus of Nazareth lived. Therefore, if the 1260-1390 dates are correct, then it can’t possibly be the cloth used at his burial. But now, there is overwhelming evidence proving the 1988 dating results cannot be taken at face value.
MA: These days, why should anyone care about the Shroud of Turin?
JM:The world is in a dire mess right now, and many people are looking for answers and spiritual comfort. And just when faith in Jesus is most needed, there has been a glut of “Jesus never existed” articles and books. Unfortunately, we can never prove 100% that the Shroud wrapped Jesus because we do not have his DNA. Yet, the longer scientists are unable to disprove the Shroud’s authenticity increases the chances that the Shroud is exactly what it is purported to be — the cloth that wrapped the historical Jesus — who lived, died, was buried, and left his body image on his burial Shroud at the moment of His Resurrection. That is very significant!
My wish is that the Catholic Church would basically stop keeping the Shroud stored away in Turin, Italy, for I believe the burial cloth belongs to the world. Science and technology have grown by leaps and bounds since STURP’s 1978 “hands-on” research concluded with the following statement about the male image on the cloth: “It is not the product of an artist.” New technology offers humankind the opportunity to learn much more about this mysterious cloth and the “man’s” image displayed on its surface.
MA: Do you believe that the central mysteries of the Shroud will ever be solved?
JM: We will continue to learn more about the Shroud, despite its relative lack of availability, but I don’t think we will ever solve all of its mysteries. If the Shroud of Turin truly wrapped Jesus, it will likely produce even more questions than answers. However, it might help some people answer the one all-important question posed by Jesus:
“Who do you say I am?”
MA: Joe, on behalf of Townhall readers, thank you for this interview.
But the one question no one asks, if it was created in the Middle ages is WHO would subject themselves to the brutal torture depicted?
That name would be recorded in antiquities as an example of ultimate sacrifice.Yet only one man, throughout history, has been named to have suffered as the man depicted on the shroud.
Jesus Christ
I find it interesting how the foundation of some religions have no physical proof. From the golden plates of scripture of one to the body of another, they are all gone. Gee. How convenient.
I believe in God. I also believe that his being will never be proven to us until we die. We have a continuing test of our character as we live; we will then be judged for all we did and all we should have done. I do not believe in forgiveness; we will pay for all our sins.
So we have a question. Why are some people so focused on a shroud? If you already believe in God, you don’t need a shroud, especially one that’s history is highly questionable, totally open to speculation and subject to financial dealings. I don’t need any validation of my beliefs, which are the result of long study and prayer.
Have a wonderful day!
Good question. Posting an occasional article on something does not mean someone is "so focused" on it. If something is interesting and perhaps has some implication for our lives makes people want to learn more about it. You yourself would not have clicked on this thread if you didn't have some interest in the topic, even if it was a negative interest.
If you already believe in God, you don’t need a shroud..."
That's true, but nobody has said that the Shroud is necessary to ones faith. But some things can be useful without being strictly necessary.
...especially one that’s history is highly questionable, totally open to speculation and subject to financial dealings.
The history of the Shroud, because of it's purported antiquity, of course has a long but not undocumented history. None of it proves that his is the Shroud of Jesus, but an honest evaluation of the facts shows that the Shroud in and of itself defies scientific explanation. See the links provided above. Also, there's no evidence that anyone gets rich off of the Shroud. That is simply an unsubstantiated slur.
I don’t need any validation of my beliefs, which are the result of long study and prayer.
See my post #4. May God bless you.
Your belief, your choice.
Have a nice day.
I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me.
Unlike roads and trails on earth that may lead many to the same end point, there is a singular way to the Creator God Almighty.
No man of natural birth can meet His standard. Hence, He came as a man to pay for those who cannot pay themselves. That’s all of us.
To those who call on Him and His atoning payment, He erases their debt as paid in full. And to those who accept His payment, He adopts into everladting life.
So, His blood for yours. If you chose to reject that payment, indeed, you will be judged. As for me, my payment wad extracted in His body and His blood. I am free.
It’s not hard to find this in the new testament.
Peace.
Before you ask what it is, you need to reasonably establish if it is. In other words, what is the earliest date you can peg it to in the verifiable historical time stream.
What verifiable Church writers mention the item? Clement I? No. Origen? No. Tertullian? No. Augustine? No. Jerome? No. Aquinas? No.
That gets you well into the 13th Century. If it existed before that, nobody seems to have known about it.
That fact that they did not mention the Shroud is not proof that it did not exist or even that they did not know of it. There were lots of things that existed in the world that they didn't discuss, probably because they were not in contention in their times. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes, it is evidence of absence. Evidence is data that points you in one direction or another. There is zero data (evidence) that I am aware of for the existence of this item before the 14th Century. Zero data is zero data.
Here is a suggestion I bet no one has thought of (yeah, right).
Isolate and sequence DNA from the flax fibers.
Compute the genetic drift to modern flax from Israel and from ancient samples of known provenance.
There are people who believe the 5th through 13th Centuries never happened, because of lack of evidence ;-)
Ducking...
Jesus was buried by two men, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. The Bible records that some women were observing the process. There's nothing about anyone being "confused" or anyone doing anything "hurriedly".
What practice are you referring to that "doesn't allowed for anyone to pick up a body, lay it down on a VERY large and flat sheet, and fold it over the body"?
Your "analysis" is rather puzzling to say the least.
Yes, it is evidence of absence.
I suppose you could say it's evidence, but it's not particularly convincing evidence.
A new school of Bible scholarship came about in the 18th and 19th centuries that concluded the New Testament had been written long after the events and had many fictional elements. That was the start of "liberal" Christian theology. For example, Pontius Pilate was regarded as fictitious, because they couldn't find any historical evidence for him.
The Bible was the only identified source that talked about Pontius Pilate as being governor of Judea. As a result, many people questioned whether he ever truly held that position up until 1961, when the Italian archaeologist, Dr Frova discovered a limestone block while he was excavating an ancient theatre near Caesarea Maritima. Although the inscription had actually been partly removed, enough remained of its Latin writing, which when translated, displayed; Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, precisely how the gospel author Matthew defined him. Keep in mind, Prefect is the Latin title, Governor is its English equivalent.
Since then more historical information about Pilate has been discovered. Now nobody alleges he was fictional.
Ping
So commandments are reduced to suggestions.
I chose to not succumb to such arguments, much less bet my soul.
I believe it was his tenure as Governor of Judah that was regarded as fictitious, rather than being a totally made up person.
The word "wrap" indicates something tight around the body.
Stop making things up.
And you belong to a rubber room
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.