Turin shroud 'older than thought'

BBC ^ | 1/26/2005

[Hank Rearden]

"It's one million years old!"

[Richard Kimball]

Fire will affect dating, but the more important point about the fire damage, AFAIC, is that the shroud was repaired afterwards, and new cloth was woven in around the edges. The concept of restoration, until the twentieth century, was primarily about making something look "new", not historical accuracy. To the people of the twelfth century, weaving new cloth in seemed a logical way to repair the damage. As this part of the history of the shroud is known, it should have been no surprise that parts of it dated to around 1200 AD. Historical records, in fact, state that part of the cloth was woven into the fabric to repair damage at that time.

[maine-iac7]

But if the test sample was taken not from the shroud itself but the cloth used to repair it, then what was that supposed to have proved to begin with?

Right - the carbon test guys got the results they wanted (to 'disprove,)

- only back to about 1200 - well, duh, yeah, that's when the nuns patched it after the fire - so that's when the patches dated back too - but the Shroud itself - goes back to Jesus' time...

But there is so much evidence from every possible discipline...as far as I believe, the only additional evidence needed would be for Jesus to appear and say "Yes..."

I'm also interested because I am a portrait artist - and have been working on many renditions of "Jesus" for decades...

[Soliton]

God forbids making graven images and then creats one himself. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Monterrosa-24]

There is a new book coming out which takes the Turin caretakers to task. William Meacham of Hong Kong has written THE RAPE OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN.

I don't have publisher info now but check Amazon in about three months.

[Antoninus]

Peer-reviewed journal. Interesting....

[Antoninus]

The 1988 tests were discredited long ago. The "scientists" who performed them turned out to be bigots who knew the answer before they asked the question.

I loved the picture of these guys sitting in front of a chalk board with the years "1240 - 1320!" on it. The fact that they added the exclamation point told me all I needed to know about their "scientific" attitudes.

[Swordmaker]

BBC Shroud of Turin PING

If you want on or off the Shroud ping list, Freepmail me.

[Antoninus]

God forbids making graven images and then creats one himself. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Tough to "grave" things out of cloth, don't you think? Actually, if you check Exodus, you'll find God himself commanding that golden cherubim be placed atop the Ark of the Covenant.

The "graven images" from the commandment was specifically with reference to pagan idols, which the pagans actually believed WERE gods or at least infused with the spirit of the gods.

[Swordmaker]

I'm not a scientist, but I've had my doubts about the radio-carbon dating due to the fact that the shroud was actually in a fire. Wouldn't that have affected the results?

But if the test sample was taken not from the shroud itself but the cloth used to repair it, then what was that supposed to have proved to begin with?

The fire could not change the amount of C14 enough to alter the age reported by the C14 test by more than a couple of years. Soot from wood cut closer to the fire date would adhere to the cloth a bit but not in a quantity that could skew the reported age by 1300 years.

The problem with the sample was that it APPEARED to be part of the Shroud cloth... however, it has now been conclusively proven to be a combination of original Shroud fibers and 16th century linen invisibly rewoven to patch a frayed area. The combination of old and newer linen resulted in a skewed reported age that varied by the ratio of the new to old. The observed percentage of 16th Century fibers to original fibers would only give the calculated C14 results IF the original fibers were 1st Century!

[Spirited]

Bump to bump.

Cool.

[smonk]

coincidentally, the national geographic channel had an hour long special on "the mystery of the shroud" this evening. it followed their 2 hour long show basically debunking the da vinci code, and they seemed to be trying to draw a connection between the shroud and da vinci. the entire show was an "exploration" of means by which da vinci either painted it, or created it using extremely primitive photographic techniques, etc., etc.

[Swordmaker]

Fire will affect dating, but the more important point about the fire damage, AFAIC, is that the shroud was repaired afterwards, and new cloth was woven in around the edges. The concept of restoration, until the twentieth century, was primarily about making something look "new", not historical accuracy. To the people of the twelfth century, weaving new cloth in seemed a logical way to repair the damage. As this part of the history of the shroud is known, it should have been no surprise that parts of it dated to around 1200 AD. Historical records, in fact, state that part of the cloth was woven into the fabric to repair damage at that time.

The repairs were apparently actually done c. 1560.

[Swordmaker]

coincidentally, the national geographic channel had an hour long special on "the mystery of the shroud" this evening. it followed their 2 hour long show basically debunking the da vinci code, and they seemed to be trying to draw a connection between the shroud and da vinci. the entire show was an "exploration" of means by which da vinci either painted it, or created it using extremely primitive photographic techniques, etc., etc.

One slight problem... Da Vinci was born 101 years after the Shroud was first put on display in Lirey, France, by Geoffrey de Charny.

[Plutarch]

Can you recommend a good recent book (or books) on the subject?

[smonk]

One slight problem... Da Vinci was born 101 years after the Shroud was first put on display in Lirey, France, by Geoffrey de Charny.

REALLY?! that would have made it tough for him to produce it then, huh?

[Fruitbat]

Boy, these tests are really accurate;

Between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

Yeah, and I'm between the ages of 15 and 78.

[timestax]

In my opinion, the image on the shroud resembles the late Frank Zappa to T.

Anybody else think so?!

[smonk]

It took me 30 seconds to determine that you are right, and national geographic is full of sh*t. Da Vinci was born in 1452. the first historically verifiable reference to the shroud is in 1453. he wasn't that smart when he was one year old.

why the heck didn't they check against such a glaring anachronism?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!