Replies

Historian Karlheinz Dietz of Wuerzburg University in Germany shares Flury-Lemberg's doubts of the 1988 carbon-dating results claiming that the cloth was made between 1260 and 1290.

In an interview with the Germany daily, Die Welt, he stated, "If you believe that the cloth hails from the Middle Ages then you must also believe that a man looking exactly like Jesus ... was whipped, crowned with thorns, crucified and then placed on linen imported from the Middle East and sprinkled with aloe and myrrh, and that on top of all he had invented monumental photography."

That's it? That's the rebuttal of the radiocarbon dating? "I don't see how this could have been done, therefore it must have been magic, therefore the radiocarbon dating can simply be disregarded."

And about him saying "looks exactly like Jesus"...we have no idea what Jesus looked like. I'm partial to Caravaggio's powerful version, myself.

There are other reasons to question the radiocarbon dating. The fire the shroud survived, as well as contamination from times it was less well protected, sould have skewed the results.

Additionally, radiocarbon dating has often been far from accurate, particularly when dealing with hundred os years rather than tens of thousands or more. There have been radiocarbon trials in which a living snail was found to be several hundred years old.

"However, this cloth left a radiant expression on me," Flury-Lemberg told UPI. She made it clear she was not a Roman Catholic but a Lutheran, "but this shroud is not just a Catholic relic but a treasure of all Christendom."

The radio carbon dating of the Shroud material has been called into question in a book published several years ago.

When a substance of organic origin, like a textile fabric, is exposed to the air, over time bacteria grow on its surface. This bacterial layer increases with time. The bacteria eventually deposit a layer of more recent organic material on the textile's surface called "bioplastic". This bioplastic includes contaminant carbon deposits of increasingly more recent origin. Taking a sample of the cloth without removing the bioplastic produces a more recent dating of the textile material than it merits.

At the time the last carbon dating procedure was carried out, the existence of this "bioplastic" was not known. There are now techniques available to remove the contaminant bioplastic before taking the radio-carbon dating. Such a sampling SHOULD produce a much earlier date for the Shroud.

Based on all prior analysis and in light of this new data presented here, the recent pollen data, and the bioplastic issue, the Shroud in all likelihood dates to the time and place of Christ's crucifixition. While it is not possibly to DEFNINITELY prove that this relic is the burial Shroud of Christ, all indications lead me to believe that it probably is.

While Christianity is based on Faith, its always nice to have some historical evidence to substance scripture.

That's the rebuttal of the radiocarbon dating? "I don't see how this could have been done, therefore it must have been magic, therefore the radiocarbon dating can simply be disregarded

I've often wondered that since the shroud was involved in a fire in the 1500's, that resulted in burning portions of the cloth, whether the carbon based smoke from the building materials involved in the fire could have permeanated the shroud with a few hundred year old wood carbon tracings, thus masking the true date of the underlying cloth.

If, as this article states, spoonfuls of soot were removed from the surface, my thoughts may have some validity.

The rebbutal of the radiocarbon dating is that the samples included deposited material on the surface - some of which was clearly of much more recent origin than the cloth. The cloth has been handled (and kissed) for hundreds of years - not to mention having water stains in locations from when it caught on fire.

Does not normal Corbon dating sampling take off the surface material before doing a dating - such as taking material from the inside of a tooth, or inside a skull, or from the center of a piece of wood?

And about him saying "looks exactly like Jesus"...we have no idea what Jesus looked like.

This is certainly a circular argument on the part of the speaker...as the image on the shroud was well known enought that painters have certainly long used the image to derive their view of Christ from it.

And about him saying "looks exactly like Jesus"...we have no idea what Jesus looked like. I'm partial to Caravaggio's powerful version, myself.

A carpenter before power tools were invented would tend toward the burly side, methinks, and not much resemble the rather willowy traditional representations.

That's it? That's the rebuttal of the radiocarbon dating?

No... that is not "it". There is much more evidence invalidating the carbon-14 testing. The sample was taken contrary to the agreed protocols; the area it was cut from was an area that had been rewoven in medieval times (threads on half of the sample are righthand twist while the main body of the shroud is left hand twist); and a large body of information shows that linen is inherently un-carbondatable with numerous samples of Egyptian linens from mummy wrappings dating hundreds or thousands of years YOUNGER than the body they wrap... yet clearly they are contemporary with the body.

The same people who protest the accuracy of radiocarbon dating when it serves the purpose will laud it as accurate beyond belief in other circumstances. And yes, I'm being purposedly evasive in pointing fingers because it doesn't just apply to certain among the religious community.

The thing missing in this conversation that amazes me is the matter of the credibility of those making the claim. It's not like this is the only claim they've ever made. Nor is there an absence of evidence re how they have acted with regard to the issue of claims in other cases. How is it that this seems to have escaped everyone to this point in the conversation. I'm a facts kind of guy. I want to know who's claiming it, what their background is and all the issues that weigh on the claim and their credibility. Is this not how things are handled in a court of law? Why do we settle for less here?