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.
I think it is around 6 feet tall.
I personally believe that the earlier tests performed on the shroud were falsified, perhaps deliberately, perhaps inadvertantly. It was known that there were later stains on the parts tested. There is quite a bit of other evidence, such as embedded pollen, that the shroud is much older than that.
This has nothing to do with anyone’s faith. The Catholic Church treats such things, even this perhaps most famous of all relics, as matters of judgement or private believe, and does not require anyone to believe in them.
I happen personally, after having read a good deal of discussion of the evidence, to believe that it is probably real. How else do you explain it—a negative image made long before anyone had ever heard of such things?
Those who insist that it MUST be a fake, on the other hand, and ignore all evidence to the contrary, are more superstitious than those who suspend judgment, IMHO.
What’s amazing is that many of these “hardcore Christians” hanging on the results of carbon dating to “PROVE!” the Shroud of Turin is really the death shroud of Christ will also immediately dismiss any results of the same carbon dating technique that PROVE - scientifically - that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old...
And I say that as an evangelical Christian. I happen to also be an engineer and scientist, and believe that God gave us the intellect, ability to reason, and our curiosity for a purpose, and that purpose is to learn more about Him. We are to use them to learn about Him not just from the Bible, but from what He created. To not use our minds and curiosity to the full extent we can would be wasting one of the great talents He gave us, as well as forgoing the way we can continue to learn about Him.
Faith is not based on facts - that is why it is called “faith”.
Personally, there are far too many things about this relic which imply it is genuine than any explanations that it is a forgery.
Remember Occam’s razor.
“Do such people actually exist, and wouldn’t that really be at odds the basic precepts of Christianity, that one would base their entire faith on the authenticity of a burial shroud?”
Probably a few. I believe it is genuine, but if it were not, so what? That’s why its’ called “faith”.
Ping
LoL,,....
70 inches, 5’10”, a little tall for a Jewish carpenter from 2000 years ago?.........
But not for the Son of God.
Sure. Its a fake.
Some guy back in the Middle Ages decided to create a fradulent shroud. He apparently didn’t bother selling it to anybody. He went so far to insure its ingenuity that he took a time capsule into the future to learn about human physiology, palynology, linen weaves, etc. He then created a relic on which most viewers couldn’t even detect the accuracy of his fraud by simple vision. He also used a technique we can’t even explain todauy today to create the image. And he did this at a time when you sell the mummified head of a monkey for a forune as being the head of saint so-and-so.
Sure. A fraud.
Read some about it - check it out. You can only loose some of your time doing it and it might change your mind.
Seems tall for the middle ages, too. Unless you wrap them after they’ve been stretched on the rack.
I viewed the Shroud during the 1998 Torino Exposition; it was a most moving and unforgettable experience.
The Plantagenets were generally in the 6 foot range.
There were 6’ people in the time of the Romans.
When talking body size and making generalities, they are just that - generalities. Although the average may have been shorter than today, you always have outlying sizes.
Yup. It’s generally a matter of nutrition, I suspect.
Yes such people might exist, but I hope not many, because yes it kind of misses the point of believing in Christ. This is why I took issue with the article snarking that evidence against the shroud's authenticity was "...to the dismay of Christians". Quite frankly the shroud is not a central doctrine of Christianity.
On the other hand, if careful research had found and somehow authenticated the body of Jesus, that would indeed be dismaying to Christians. But in that case pigs could fly...because it ain't gonna happen.
Supporters of the authenticity of the Shroud tend to be Catholics, who usually are not Young Earth creationists.
That’s what I think. I think people on a high protein diet tend to grow larger. Look at modern day Japanese and Chinese people who emigrate to the U.S. Generally they are short. Their children, on an American diet, tend to grow as tall we do.
The ancient Romans of the lower classes and middle classes ate a diet high in carbohydrates and low on meat proteins. The Germans and Celts probably ate a diet richer in proteins with milk and cheese in abundance.
” It’s generally a matter of nutrition,”
And genes. I know a Chinese couple who are quite short. Maybe 5’6” and 5’1”. Their daughter is taller than I am, and I’m 6’3”. So, it was in the families genes, but stunted by poor nutrition. Here, she grew like a weed! A very, very lovely weed I might add!
I’m a hardcore Christian who thinks the evidence indicates the Shroud COULD have been Christ’s burial cloth. We will never be able to tell for CERTAIN.
I also believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming valid.
Who cares?
If it were the authentic burial cloth of Christ, people would just turn it into an idol and start worshipping it.
Wow! Have you hit the nail right on the head and driven it home in one blow! Nice!
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.