For decades, scientists, archeologists
and historians have struggled to answer two questions: 1) how old is the
Shroud and 2) how were the images made. If we could answer those questions,
perhaps we could know if it really is the burial cloth of Jesus.
Studies in 1978 seemed to suggest that it
was the real thing. Then, in 1988, carbon 14 tests showed that it was
medieval. But the carbon 14 test have been proven invalid. New scientific
findings show that it is much older, possibly 2000 years old.
A team of nine scientists
at the Los Alamos National Laboratory has confirmed
that the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is
wrong. See
Carbon 14 discussion at right.
Also
see the
and
Some have claimed that the images were
painted. Others speculated that they were produced by an unknown form of
medieval photography. More recent spectral analysis proves otherwise.
The shroud is sugar coated. A clear
polysaccharide residue coats the outermost fibers of the cloth. In places,
that residue has changed to a caramel-like substance. That brown substance
forms the images.
Carbon
dating in 1988 showed that the shroud was medieval.
Misleading. New, rigorously
peer-reviewed scientific findings, demonstrate that the single
sample shared by three laboratories was not part of the Shroud's
cloth. Conclusion: the carbon dating is not valid.
Scientific References
Journal: Chemistry Today
(Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008), "Discrepancies in the
radiocarbon dating area of the Turin Shroud," Benford M.S.,
Marino J.G.
Peer-reviewed conference
paper (Aug 2008), "Analytical Results on Thread Samples
Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud
Cloth," Robert Villarreal (Paper and video presentation
awaiting publication, see
)
Journal: Thermochimica
Acta (Vol 425, Jan 2005) "Studies on the Radiocarbon
Sample from the Shroud of Turin," Rogers, R.N.
Usable Quote
[T]he age-dating process
failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical
chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an
area or population must necessarily be representative of the
whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our
analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and
C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.
--Robert
Villarreal, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
chemist who headed a team of nine scientists at LANL
which examined material from the carbon 14 sampling
region. (Aug 2008)
All three radiocarbon dating laboratories obtained
similar/same/identical results.
However, misleading. Only one sample was cut from
the cloth. Each of the three labs received pieces from the same
sample. While it is true that they concurred on the range of
dates, 1260 to 1390 CE, the results failed to meet basic
statistical criteria (chi squared) for valid homogeneity. This
failure gives credence to the repair theory mentioned above. Colorado
Springs professor/physicist, John Jackson (and his wife
Rebecca), have shown that carbon monoxide contamination might
have led to an inaccurate carbon dating date.
Problematic as science. No known published findings or
supporting test results. Jackson's hypothesis is that carbon
monoxide contaminated the cloth making it seem newer than it
really is. The following quote is frequently and inappropriately used to give
credence to Jackson's work:
There is a lot of other
evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than
the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is
certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test
the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are
already doing. It is equally important that experts assess
and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing
this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of
the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the
available scientific and historical information.
--Christopher
Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon
Accelerator Unit which participated in the 1988 Carbon
14 Dating of the Shroud. (Mar 2008)
The Problem with the above
quote: (See
for full context). It pertains to all evidence that challenges
the carbon dating. More to the point, it is
preceded by the following words that specifically apply to
Jackson's contamination hypothesis:
However there are also a
number of reasons to think that carbon monoxide
contamination is not likely to have had a significant
effect. . . . So far the linen samples have been subjected to
normal conditions (but with very high concentrations of
carbon monoxide). These initial tests show no significant
reaction - even though the sensitivity of the measurements
is sufficient to detect contamination that would offset the
age by less than a single year. This is to be expected and
essentially confirms why this sort of contamination has not
been considered a serious issue before.
--Op. cit.
(Ramsey)
Scientists found paint on the Shroud of Turin.
Inaccurate, dubious
claim: The correct statement should be that one
scientist, Walter McCrone, visually identified, through
microscopy, paint particles on some fibers removed from the
surface of the shroud. McCrone was the
only scientist, among many, to examine the shroud and/or fibers
taken from the shroud, to claim finding paint.
Mark Anderson, who worked for
McCrone, examined the fibers using laser microprobe Raman
spectrometry and found that what McCrone thought was (inorganic)
paint was in fact an organic substance.
Previously, the shroud (and not
just fibers) had been observed with visible light spectrometry,
ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray
fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. No paint was found.
Later, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry
tests on individual image-bearing fibers, conducted at the Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at
the University of Nebraska, were unable to detect any paint particles or painting medium.
Scientists
have failed to identify blood on the Shroud of Turin.
Not True.
Immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as
Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens, reveal that the stains are
human blood. Many of the bloodstains have the distinctive
forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the
edge of a clot with a clear yellowish halo of serum. The heme
was converted into its parent porphyrin, and the spectra
examined. This too, revealed the fact that bloodstains are
blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood
areas. Much of this work is published in peer reviewed
scientific journals including Archeological Chemistry:
Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis (American
Chemical Society), Applied Optics and the Canadian
Society of Forensic Sciences Journal.
There is no record of the Shroud of
Turin before 1349/1355/1356.
Misleading.
The correct statement is that there is no known record of the
shroud in western Europe before 1349. Keep in mind that
many artifacts from antiquity lack records that go back to their
original provenance. Moreover, as is often the case with ancient
written records, there are gaps.
It is a common task for
historians and archeologists to find other evidence that bridge
gaps in documentation. In the case of the shroud, much is
emerging. There is, for instance, a drawing of a shroud from
1192 (nearly a century earlier than the earliest carbon 14 date)
that is clearly identifiable from particular features as the
current Shroud of Turin.
It is well established that a
cloth with a purported image of Jesus existed in Edessa (now
Urfa, Turkey) prior to 5th century CE. This was documented by
Eusebius of Caesarea in the early 4th century. According to
Eusebius (and this part of the record should be treated as
legend for it has many such qualities) the cloth was brought to
Edessa by the apostle Thomas or the disciple Thadeus (of the
biblical 70).
What is reliable history is that
in 544, a cloth with an image thought to be of Jesus was found
concealed above a gate in the city walls of Edessa. That cloth
was transferred to Constantinople on August 14, 944. At that
time, it was described by Gregory Referendarius as a
full-length burial cloth with an image of Jesus (purportedly)
and bloodstains in the vicinity of a side wound.
Following the sacking of
Constantinople in 1204, that cloth became the property of Othon
de la Roche, the French Lord of Athens and Thebes (Athens was in
French hands). He sent it to his castle home in the town of
Besan�on, France, likely in 1207. At Eastertide, it was removed
from castle and displayed in the Besan�on Cathedral. We don�t
know when that practice started but it ended when the cathedral
was destroyed by fire in March of 1349.
Any records that might have
existed may have been burned in that fire as all church records
were destroyed. In that same year, Geoffroy de Charny, a French
knight married Jeanne de Vergy, a grand-niece of Othon de la
Roche, and delivered the shroud (or a shroud) to the canons of
Lirey, thereby creating the earliest extant record in Western
Europe.
Enthusiasts/believers/proponents of authenticity believe the
image was caused by the resurrection of Jesus.
Misleading,
unsubstantiated. Some indeed do. But there is no
working scientific hypothesis in support of this idea. Others
believe that the image may have been formed naturally. In fact,
a survey of the published papers suggests strong support for a
natural image and little support for a supernatural image.
Carbon
dating in 1988 showed that the shroud was medieval.
All three radiocarbon dating laboratories obtained
similar/same/identical results.
Scientists found paint on the Shroud of Turin.