....right before the California lab was destroyed by something still considered "top secret" by the U.S. Army.
Posted on 08/07/2008 6:25:36 AM PDT by NYer
Thursday, August 7, 2008
UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: Is the Turin Shroud real or a medieval forgery? The centuries-old question may soon be answered, writes William Reville
THE TURIN SHROUD (TS) poses a fascinating mystery. It is a linen cloth (4.42m x 1.13m) bearing the image of a man that many believe is the crucified Jesus Christ. The cloth has been investigated scientifically but the jury is still out as to the age of the TS and the identity of the man whose image it carries. Much has been written on the TS. I would recommend Is the Turin Shroud a Fake? by Ian Wilson and Barrie Schwortz ( Folio Book of Historical Mysteries , 2008).
The TS bears the image of a man who appears to have been crucified and the shroud is kept in the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin. Many believe it is the cloth placed on Jesus Christ in the tomb. The image is in sepia tones but is much clearer as a black and white negative. Sceptics argue that the shroud is a medieval forgery.
Byzantine tradition refers to a shroud bearing an image of Christ taken from Jerusalem to Turkey in the first century, then lost, rediscovered and brought to Constantinople in 944. The TS lacks an unbroken record dating it back to the first century. It surfaced in France in the 1350s and was eventually bequeathed to Pope John Paul II in 1983.
A fragment of the TS was radiocarbon dated in 1988 by three different laboratories and their results are in agreement. The results claim a 95 per cent probability that the TS dates from between 1260 and 1390, with the odds against the TS dating from the first century described as "astronomical". The researchers interpreted the TS as a medieval fake - forging religious relics during the 14th century was big-business. But there are reasons to question the results of this radiocarbon dating.
Contamination of samples can pose serious problems in radiocarbon dating and have caused several anomalous results, described by Wilson and Schwortz. For example, Lindow Man, a well preserved ancient British human sacrifice, was found in a Cheshire bog in 1984. Samples taken from the body and surrounding peat were radiocarbon dated by three well-respected laboratories. These laboratories dated him respectively to 500 AD, 100 AD and 300 BC, each claiming accuracy to within 100 years.
In 1993 the suggestion was made at a TS conference that a natural bio-film of micro-organisms had built up on the surface of the shroud. Biofilms are common and widespread and are found on our skin, intestine and even on rocks. The mass of biofilm on the TS might skew the results of radio carbon dating. Subsequent microscopical examination of the TS showed the presence of the biofilm and the procedures used to clean the shroud sample for the 1988 radiocarbon tests failed to remove this biofilm. However, about 60 per cent of the mass of the TS sample would have to be biofilm to skew the results by 13 centuries! New radio carbon tests are now to be carried out on the TS at Oxford.
But, if the TS is a forgery, how was the image formed? One hypothesis is that the image was made by a medieval photographic process. This would involve hanging a linen cloth in a light-proof room in one wall of which is a quartz crystal lens. The cloth is impregnated with silver salts. Outside, a body is hung in strong sunlight. The lens is opened and over several days the image is exposed on the cloth. Then the forger must enter the room without letting light in and fix the image using urine or ammonia. Experiments using this technique have reproduced many but not all of the TS's image properties. However, it seems highly unlikely to Wilson and Schwortz that a medieval forger could have invented in one go a process that was later invented in several steps over an extended period.
What if the TS really is the burial cloth of Christ? The Gospels record that the disciples found the tomb empty and the linen cloths left lying there. The Gospel account of the resurrected Christ is that he was entirely different to a physically embodied Christ - able to pass through walls, and to appear and disappear suddenly. What if his resurrection involved nuclear events in his dematerialisation? Dr August Accetta, California, has carried out a fascinating experiment in which he injected himself with a radioactive compound used in medical imaging to show up internal organs. He then assumed the pose of the man imaged on the TS and a gamma camera imaged the radioactivity emanating from his body. The results astonishingly replicated most of the features of the image on the TS.
So there you have it. The TS story is still running strongly. We await the results of the Oxford radio carbon dating.
...
William Reville is Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Public Awareness of Science Officer at UCC - www.understandingscience.ucc.ie
Ping
So there you have it. The TS story is still running strongly. We await the results of the Oxford radio carbon dating.
*************************
Wow.
Will this be the definitive opinion?
....right before the California lab was destroyed by something still considered "top secret" by the U.S. Army.
No matter what Oxford presents, there will be skeptics.
I’ve always surmised that the image was due to ionizing radiation emanating from a piece of statuary made of rock containing radioactive materials. The early Byzantine history of the Image of Edessa claims that the original stood untouched in the walls of Edessa for five hundred years, and was found in the company of an exact duplicate of the cloth image on a “tile.”
This will be interesting, regardless of the outcome.
It will be interesting to see what the newer technologies produce for results.
So now we’re supposed to trust academia? They can’t even tell the truth about economics.
I believe it is the genuine thing.
I hope the tests will confirm its authenticity.
The summary above omits numerous other facts which have lead Sindonologists to conclude a forgery is not possible here.
Actually, the Mandylion of Edessa was discovered in Edessa in the 544 AD, so if the Shroud is the Mandylion, that brings it back to 544, not 944.
ping
It looks like the writer just glossed over a step along the way. The Shroud was held in Edessa from the time of its discovery there in 544, until the Byzantine emperor had the cloth “transferred” (”expropriated” might be a better term) to Constantinople in 944.
He will know.
We have a shroud expert in the forum. In the meantime, click on the SHROUD STORY link posted above for the most current scientific research.
Thanks!
I believe this is the Shroud of Christ...
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.
