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.
Absolutely. Doesn't say that faith is without evidence.
I cannot even guess. I still have to finish the appendices. It is not a book for scientists, anyway. At best I would describe it as a saganesque Bible study. Would that be a fair characterization, Alamo_Girl?
I’m curious of your educational background on this issue of Joseph and Glastonbury. Do you happen to know to whom Paul wrote the Letter to the Galatians?... Who these people were by tradition and where they were when the letter was sent to them?
What does Galatians have to do with the 13th century story that Joseph of Arimathea went to Glastonbury.
Ah, we’ve found the hole in your background data. Thanks
The answer to my question is nothing then, apparently.
That would be a fair characterization of your book, dear brother in Christ! But I would add words like “delightful” and “engaging.”
You’re too kind, m’Lady.
Not at all, dear MHGinTN! The reviews will be great.
Your single source, non-peer reviewed, 30 year old reports from Walter McCrone have been superceded by 30 years of real peer-reviewed science done by experts in the various fields using far more sophisticated equipment doing specific tests that are definative... that easily trumps your single microscopist and English teacher.
If you cannot move beyond your ONE discredited source, you are willfully ignorant of the facts.
That seems to be a virus running rampant in FR lately
What facts? That the Shroud blood and image is something not made by artistry is completely void of acceptance by the scientific or historical community. The “Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages” (2001), for example:
“This cloth appeared mysteriously around 1357, in the collegiate church of Lirey... Before that date, history is silent: we find no attestation of this exceptional relic.... The bishops of Troyes were quickly disturbed by the veneration of this new relic, suspect and with no letters of authentication; they thought it recently fabricated and forbade exhibition. This decision gave rise to such contention that Clement VII had to step in; in 1389, he authorized expositions on condition that it was made clear to the faithful that it was not Christ’s shroud, but a “figure or representation” of Christ’s shroud.... Until 1988, scientific research in various fields seemed to authorise the hypothesis of its authenticity, but explained neither the formation of the impression nor of the stains, nor did they date the relic. Indeed they were carried out in difficult experimental conditions: the Shroud is almost inaccessible and the sacred aura of the object provokes very strong preconceptions. In 1988 came a thunderbolt: carbon-14 tests, carried out independently by three laboratories, put the origins of the Shroud between 1260 and 1390 and definitively forbade the attribution of the Holy Shroud to Christ. These tests do not contradict the serious results of earlier researches, which deserve to be resumed with the aim of resolving the mystery of the origin and formation of this medieval relic. (vol. 2, pg. 1347)
Or the Encyclopedia Britannica (2008):
“Scholarly analyses—attempting to use scientific methods to prove or disprove its authenticity—have been applied to the shroud since the late 19th century. It was early noticed (1898) that the sepia-tone images on the shroud seem to have the character of photographic negatives rather than positives. Beginning in the 1970s, tests were made to determine whether the images were the result of paints (or other pigments), scorches, or other agents; none of the tests proved conclusive. In 1988 the age of the cloth itself was finally determined. Three laboratories in different countries were provided with postage-stamp–sized pieces of the shroud’s linen cloth. Having subjected these samples to carbon-14 dating, all three laboratories concluded that the cloth of the shroud had been made sometime between AD 1260 and 1390. The Roman Catholic church accepted the results and announced that the Shroud of Turin was not authentic, but the church encouraged Christians to continue venerating the shroud as an inspiring pictorial image of Christ.”
Re: admitted forger - French knight who duped the church.
Why? Geoffrey de Charney was not just any knight. Nor was he a charletan. De Charney was the author of the French Code of Chivalry and was King Philip VI’s Standard Bearer. That meant he was the selected exemplarary knight who fought by and protected the King in battle. Geoffrey built a church to house the Shroud and endowed with a handsome rente to support it. His support of the church essentially bankrupted his family after his death, forcing his daughter to seek pilgrim’s donations to keep the church going. She eventually had to sell the shroud to the Savoy family of Italy to keep her family solvent. No “duping” here.
The “admitted forger” story came about 25 years after the fact when the Bishop Henri of Trois, drafted a letter to the Pope (which was apparently never sent) in which he claimed that his predecessor had investigated and found the artist who had “cunningly painted it.” No documents exist to back up this draft letter.
Re: admitted forger - French knight who duped the church.
Why? Geoffrey de Charney was not just any knight. Nor was he a charletan. De Charney was the author of the French Code of Chivalry and was King Philip VI’s Standard Bearer. That meant he was the selected exemplarary knight who fought by and protected the King in battle. Geoffrey built a church to house the Shroud and endowed with a handsome rente to support it. His support of the church essentially bankrupted his family after his death, forcing his daughter to seek pilgrim’s donations to keep the church going. She eventually had to sell the shroud to the Savoy family of Italy to keep her family solvent. No “duping” here.
The “admitted forger” story came about 25 years after the fact when the Bishop Henri of Trois, drafted a letter to the Pope (which was apparently never sent) in which he claimed that his predecessor had investigated and found the artist who had “cunningly painted it.” No documents exist to back up this draft letter.
What about the hair being straight that is not fallen behind the ears, just curious what you think?
Your amusing posts just prove the nature of Internet arguments.
The "Is not!" retort (wrapped in a bunch of cut-and-pasted blather) is alive and well...
You are quoting texts in the face of multiple, independent, repeated, converging lines of physical evidence from different sources.
As it is, material already posted on this thread contradicts both of your quotes.
Cheers!
(See my post #258)
;-)
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.