Posted on 02/25/2008 12:33:54 PM PST by BGHater
The Oxford laboratory that declared the Turin Shroud to be a medieval fake 20 years ago is investigating claims that its findings were wrong.
The head of the world-renowned laboratory has admitted that carbon dating tests it carried out on Christendom's most famous relic may be inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, said he was treating seriously a new theory suggesting that contamination had skewed the results.
Though he stressed that he would be surprised if the supposedly definitive 1988 tests were shown to be far out - especially "a thousand years wrong" - he insisted that he was keeping an open mind.
The development will re-ignite speculation about the four-metre linen sheet, which many believe bears the miraculous image of the crucified Christ.
The original carbon dating was carried out on a sample by researchers working separately in laboratories in Zurich and Arizona as well as Oxford.
To the dismay of Christians, the researchers concluded that the shroud was created between 1260 and 1390, and was therefore likely to be a forgery devised in the Middle Ages.
Even Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, the then Cardinal of Turin, conceded that the relic was probably a hoax.
There have been numerous theories purporting to explain how the tests could have produced false results, but so far they have all been rejected by the scientific establishment.
Many people remain convinced that the shroud is genuine.
Prof Ramsey, an expert in the use of carbon dating in archeological research, is conducting fresh experiments that could explain how a genuinely old linen could produce "younger" dates.
The results, which are due next month, will form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud that is being broadcast on BBC 2 on Easter Saturday.
David Rolfe, the director of the documentary, said it was hugely significant that Prof Ramsey had thought it necessary to carry out further tests that could challenge the original dating.
He said that previous hypotheses, put forward to explain how the cloth could be older than the 1988 results suggested, had been "rejected out of hand".
"The main reason is that the contamination levels on the cloth that would have been needed to distort the results would have to be equivalent to the actual sample itself," he said.
"But this new theory only requires two per cent contamination to skew the results by 1,500 years. Moreover, it springs from published data about the behaviour of carbon-14 in the atmosphere which was unknown when the original tests were carried out 20 years ago."
Mr Rolfe added that the documentary, presented by Rageh Omaar, the former BBC correspondent, would also contain new archeological and historical evidence supporting claims that the shroud was a genuine burial cloth.
The film will focus on two other recorded relics, the Shroud of Constantinople, which is said to have been stolen by Crusaders in 1204, and the Shroud of Jerusalem that wrapped Jesus's body and which, according to John's Gospel, had such a profound effect when it was discovered.
According to Mr Rolfe, the documentary will produce convincing evidence that these are one and the same as the Shroud of Turin, adding credence to the belief that it dates back to Christ's death.
Many?
Do you actually know any "young earth creationists" who believe in the Shroud of Turin? I would find that extraordinarily surprising. They would seem to me to be two distinct subsets of people. For instance, I don't know a single Catholic young earth creationist: not a scientific survey, but I know a lot of people who discuss these subjects.
The fire occured in 1532. For soot containing C14 from 1532 to skew the age of the linen in a C14 test by 1350 years, the soot would have to make up more 50% of the sample by weight.
However, that is not the case... there IS NO SOOT.
Nor is there sufficient bioplastic residue from generations of bacteria living on the fibers for that to be the cause of the erroneous date.
We now know what caused the error. It has been proved by two different scientists, independently, using two different methods and their work has been peer-reviewed and duplicated. There is no doubt.
The C14 samples were taken from a repaired area of the Shroud that was rewoven shortly after the 1532 fire... by a technique called French Invisible Reweaving. Photomicrographs of the sample retained, show that half of the sample is newer linen spun with cotton fibers in the threads and the other half is original linen without cotton fibers. Chemical tests show that the half with cotton also has been dyed, retted with alum (it contains aluminum, which is not found on the Shroud fibers), and has been spun with a twist opposite the threads of the main body of the shroud. Ergo, the samples were not homogenous and included repaired threads in sufficient quantities (40 to 60% newer material) to skew the dating. Harry Gove, the inventor of the C14 process used in the Shroud dating, when asked what growth date would the original material have to be to return date of 1350 when mixed with 50% 1550 AD material, did some calculations and said "First Century, give or take 100 years."
Huh? That's why he was born in a stable instead of at the Bethlehem Hilton?
And if wealth and nutrition makes you tall, why are so many ghetto kids playing in the NBA?
When Joseph and Mary went to the Temple to present baby Jesus, they brought with them the required sacrifices (Luke 2: 22-25).
The law called for a yearling lamb for a burnt offering and a pigeon or turtledove for a sin offering (Leviticus 12). However, if the family could not afford the lamb, they could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons instead.
Joseph and Mary brought two birds.
Their financial circumstances may well have improved in later years, but at least at the time of Jesus’ early childhood, this family was poor.
Only a relative could have gone to the Roman government to collect the body of Christ. We are talking about the Son of God here, and even back to the Kinsman Redeemer could have by law had rights to collect the body.
As for Mary, I don’t know. 1st century records of her drop after the early chapters of Acts.
Ah but now where did Christ tell his disciples to go? Matthew 10:5-6 and where did those disciples go?
You sure seem to have a vested interest in making darn sure that Turin is NOT the real thing. Why is that?
As far as not being a skeptic site, it directly addresses questions about the shroud, and does not directly take the word even of authorities when there is additional evidence contrary to their assertions. This applies to McCrone, who claimed the image was paint, as well as to those pro-genuine Shroudies who tried to explain the carbon dating by the presence of biopolymers. That by definition is skeptical -- the skepticism in this case is directed towards facile explanations, no matter which side of the debate they come from.
As for Wikipedia, why did you claim this author was doing his research there? The article on the Shroud within Wikipedia gives footnotes and cites, including direct links to skeptics as well as to peer-reviewed journals such as Nature.
BTW, is there any particular reason this image has to be that of Jesus, instead of some other person crucified under Roman authority?
If it were just some anonymous image I think a lot of the urgency and, well, irritation exhibited by both sides of this dispute would go away.
Cheers!
You’re welcome, Tallguy. I haven’t done a lot of research on this subject, but what I have read about it has been quite fascinating!
ad hominem is not a logically valid form of argument.
That negative quality is really very bad... and there are many other criteria that have to be met to "duplicate" the image on the Shroud. The Bas Relief method fails all of them. The primary failure is that the Bas Relief method has pigment which is blatantly obvious in microscopic examination... The Shroud image, contrary to Walter McCrone's unduplicatable claims, does not.
The rubbing method carries no 3D information... the Shroud does. The rubbing method contains no unseen data... the Shroud does under enhancement - for example the man on the Shroud is circumcised ( per Barrie Schwortz )... something that is NOT visible until the image is enhanced.
The image on the Shroud of Turin does NOT exist under the blood stains... which are real blood and would have been very fragile and would not have survived the rubbing technique if the rubbing occurred after the stains were placed...
Then there would be similar examples of such a technique. There are not.
I started inserting mentions of the Knights Templar in a previous post - but decided it was going to bring too much ire on my head and it's getting close to my old fashioned hot chocolate, bed time...
I have/do so, enjoy all the subjects that have found their way into this thread, because they are all entwined in such a fascinating way. But I was afraid if I brought up Geoffrey - a Knights Templar who was burned at the stake with Jacques de Molay in 1314 - it would then lead to the House of Savoy - and on and on -
people get awfully upset if you mention anything that is "NOT IN THE SCIPTURES"
While it is true they did not consider biofilm... or bioplastic residue... microscopic examination of the Shroud does not show such a film. There are a couple of other problems as well.
First of all the biofilm would have to account for better than 50% of the tested material by weight... actually close to 75% because the bacteria would have been living and dying for the entire life of the Shroud and therefore would include bacteria that died 2000 years ago and yesterday and all times inbetween... and it simple could not weigh that much and be not seen.
Secondly, such bacteria live on the linen and they do not get their carbon from the atmosphere... they eat it in their food source. Therefore, they would share the C14 ratios of their food... in this instance the linen of the shroud. And that would be 1st Century, assuming it was genuine. The bactieria that died yesterday, having eaten OLD linen and grown their bodies from the linen, would test to 2000 years old.
Again, we now know exactly what skewed the dating.
You’re still not answering how we know that only a relative could go to the Romans and collect the body of Jesus.
I don’t know what happened to Mary. I’d be happy to acknowledge the Shroud being what you claim it is if I thought that was the case, but I don’t.
I’ve never heard of someone, Jewish or not, who argued that Christ never existed. If it really is a shroud of Jesus, it doesn’t really prove anything one way or another (unless you believe that the shroud was created supernaturally, I suppose)
It’s a propaganda site attempting to beguile people, as it did you, into believing it’s something else. I said he did his research at Wikipedia because he obviously did: he quotes a long section from one of their articles. No, it doesn’t matter if it’s Jesus or not — whether it’s meant to depict Jesus or an ordinary thief, it’s a comparatively modern artwork.
What was the ROMAN law? You think just anybody could go to the Roman government and asked to collect the body of Christ. What kind of proof do you required?
I don’t know what happened to Mary. I’d be happy to acknowledge the Shroud being what you claim it is if I thought that was the case, but I don’t.
That Shroud still exists alll these many years later and here we have the testers for some unknown reason willing to retest. Now personally speaking it does NOT change my faith whether it be authentic burial cloth of Christ or not. It is rather amusing that it stillllll gets the attention of the naysayers.
See 71. And it’s not real blood.
Well, how about a quote for the Roman law. Or verification from one of the ancient Roman writers.
I happen to think that -- from a purely physical standpoint -- the Shroud was created through a very "natural" process (i.e., the process that was used to create it could be replicated in a laboratory environment if the same conditions were present). Does that make any sense?
Actually, yes.
Usually, a 'criminal' was either scourged and set free or, if he were to be crucified, the scourging was skipped and off to the stake he went...without a crown of thorns! the Crown of thorns was used ONLY on Jesus, as a mockery for His claiming to be a King .
Another point here - the man of the Shroud was crucified -
I believe the practice of Crucifixion in the area ended not long after the destruction of the temple in 70AD
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.