I'd be happy to. See below (1998 article).
*****************************
The Shroud of Turin Controversy
Joe Nickell
For the first time in 20 years, the controversial Shroud of Turin will be placed on exhibit at its home in northern Italy. Not only are pilgrims expected to flock to the site, the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, but many claims are expected to be made for the cloth by its defenders. Some facts are therefore in order.
Historically, the Shroud of Turin is one of some forty reputed burial cloths of Jesus, although it is the only one to bear the apparent imprints and bloodstains of a crucified man. Religious critics have long noted that the Turin shroud is incompatible with the bible, which describes multiple burial wrappings, including a separate “napkin” that covered Jesus’ face (John 20:5–7).
The Turin cloth first appeared in north-central France in the mid-fourteenth century. At that time the local bishop uncovered an artist who confessed he had “cunningly painted” the image. Subsequently, in 1389, Pope Clement VII officially declared the shroud to be only a painted “representation.”
Years later, this finding was conveniently forgotten by the granddaughter of the original owner. She sold it to the House of Savoy, which later became the Italian monarchy. Eventually the cloth was transferred to Turin. In 1983 Italy’s exiled king died, bequeathing the shroud to the Vatican.
The shroud’s modern history has confirmed the assessment of the skeptical bishop and Pope Clement. Forensic tests of the “blood” — which has remained suspiciously bright red — were consistently negative, and in 1980 renowned microanalyst Walter C. McCrone determined that the image was composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.
Finally in 1988 the cloth was radiocarbon dated by three independent labs using accelerator mass spectrometry. The resulting age span of circa 1260–1390 was given added credibility by correct dates obtained from a variety of control swatches, including Cleopatra’s mummy wrapping.
These findings are mutually supportive. The tempera paint indicates the image is the work of an artist, which in turn is supported by the bishop’s claim that an artist confessed, as well as by the prior lack of historical record. The radiocarbon date is consistent with the time of the reported artist’s confession. And so on.
The approach of impartial scientists has therefore been to let the evidence lead to a conclusion. In contrast, self-styled “sindonologists” (sindon being Greek for “shroud”) typically begin with the desired answer and work backward to the evidence — challenging anything that would seem incompatible with authenticity.
For example, they claim to have discovered microbial contamination on shroud samples that may have altered the radiocarbon dating. Yet for there to be sufficient contamination to raise the date thirteen centuries there would have to be twice as much debris, by weight, as the entire shroud itself! Moreover, the Vatican and the Archbishop of Turin have challenged the sample’s authenticity, and Walter McCrone insists that the fibers shown in photomicrographs of the piece of cloth “did not come from the ‘Shroud’ of Turin.”
For some, belief will always take precedence over historical and scientific evidence. For others, however, the realization that the shroud never held a body should come as no surprise.
Can you please link us the the site where this article appeared? I am particularly interested in the identity of the mystery artist.
I'd also like to read Pope Clement VII's official statement, and get an explaination on how he was able to make it in 1389, when he sat in the Papal seat from 1523-1534. And before you try to claim that the name was a typo, Clement VI died in 1352.
The fact that the naysayers feel the need to lie and make things up to discredit the Shroud is uncontrovertible proof that they are unable to prove that it is fake. I'll leavc their motives for wanting it to be fake for others to speculate.