"The double image (front and back) of a scourged and crucified man, barely visible on the linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin, has many physical and chemical characteristics that are so particular that the staining ... is impossible to obtain in a laboratory," concluded experts from Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development.
The scientists set out to "identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a colour similar to that of the image on the Shroud." They concluded that the exact shade, texture and depth of the imprints on the cloth could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers – technology that was clearly not available in medieval times.
The scientists used extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light to replicate the kind of marks found on the burial cloth.
They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)." Although they stopped short of offering a non-scientific explanation for the phenomenon, their findings will be embraced by those who believe that the marks on the shroud were miraculously created at the moment of Christ's Resurrection.
"We are not at the conclusion, we are composing pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle," the team wrote in their report.
Prof Paolo Di Lazzaro, the head of the team, said: "When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things like miracles and resurrection." "But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes. We hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate but we will leave the conclusions to the experts, and ultimately to the conscience of individuals."
It would be amazing if the Shroud could be shown to be authentic, and it would be undeniably disappointing if it were shown to be a forgery. But as the pope has suggested, whether this is what it seems to be or not, it's a great reminder of Christ and His Suffering regardless of authenticity. In the Catholic Information Center, where I go for daily Mass, there's a picture of the Shroud, with the words “Your Face, O LORD, I will seek” (Psalm 27:8). Amen.
I was once on a plane with a guy who goes to Protestant services to give a presentation on how they have found Noah's Ark in the Himalayas and will soon show the world that the Bible is true. I was trying to be supportive and said, "Good. I try to support devotions that increase people's faith, for instance I like to study about the Shroud of Turin." This guy turns to me and says, "Well, that's been pretty much disproven." Last time I try to be nice!
ReplyDeleteChapter 13:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm
Another interesting thing to look into is The "Sudarium of Oviendo".
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo
It's a cloth reported to have covered Jesus' face in John 20:6-7. Apparently the blood stains on that cloth match up with the wounds on the face of the Shroud, indicating that the two cloths most likely covered the same face at roughly the same time.
I would be disappointed if it were shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the shroud was a fake -- There are still debates raging about the carbon dating tests and where they took the samples from on the shroud. There's also evidence of the shroud's existence predating the results of the carbon-dating tests, namely images of something that looks a lot like the shroud in early medieval manuscripts -- but at the same time, I'd be happy to stop wasting my time.
I had an epic link fail!
ReplyDeleteI meant:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0853.htm
Also: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0826.htm
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you pointing to? I'm lost.
That the Turin Shroud is Abgar's shroud "not made by hands"
ReplyDeleteDon't you think all this was pretty much devastated by the companion article? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100125247/the-turin-shroud-is-fake-get-over-it/
ReplyDeleteThose arguments are pretty convincing, don't you think?
Not convincing at all.
ReplyDeleteThe half life of carbon 14 is 5730 years, so how can it even be used at all as evidence is beyond me.
And philosophically, yes he is right: saying that the only way to replicate the shroud is with technology not around in the middle ages DOES not prove it is legitimate.
But stating the above DOES NOT PROVE it is a hoax either. Far from it.
Not convincing at all.
I'm fairly certain that carbon dating is effective for dates prior to 5,730 years back.
ReplyDeleteThere's a really interesting exhibit at the Notre Dame Center in Jerusalem about the Shroud of Turin. It concludes with a bronze sculpture based on 3D renderings of the image. It's also amazing to consider the types of flower imprints and pollen that are local to the Jerusalem area found on the Shroud. Here's a link: http://www.notredamecenter.org/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=330&ca=769&te=578&id=13651
ReplyDeleteDaniel, Carbon 14 dating is fairly reliable. The measurement itself is extremely precise BECAUSE the half-life of C14 is 5,730 years! About .01% of carbon in C14. However, because it is continually created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays knocking Nitrogen nuclei apart, there a steady state level of C14 is the atmosphere and in the structure of all living organisms. The "half life" means that after 5730 years 1/2 of the C14 will be gone. Testing is accurate down to 50 to 60 thousand years ago. That is roughly 10 half-lives. At that point only (1/2)^10 or 1/1000 of the C14 is still around.
ReplyDeleteMaybe so, but I wouldn't know how. If there was a way to measure the nitrogen gas (that escapes) and compare it with the carbon 14, then yes. But I don't see how this is possible.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not an expert and your mileage will vary.
HocCogitat - although I just corrected Daniel about Carbon 14 dating, I do agree with him that overall the article you pointed us to is unconvincing.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, it "sounds" very convincing, until you dig deeper. First he focuses only on the Carbon dating issue, and second, even the sources he cites are not as conclusive when you read them as he makes them sound with his quotations, which are not actually located at the link he provides.
His own source, Dr. Chris Ramsey says "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." href="http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=shroud.html
and
"The researchers conclude the original radiocarbon date of 14th century is correct, based on current evidence, but they have yet to test whether there is anything in the specific storage conditions of the shroud which might affect this conclusion." http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/080325.html
The author of the Telegraph piece also way overstates things with "Radiocarbon dating has repeatedly placed the Shroud as medieval in origin – specifically, between 1260AD and 1390AD." Yes, testing has been performed several times, but only on the same small sample taken in 1978! Further, if some process or something in the way the image was formed were to have increased the C14 proportion it doesn't matter how many times you sample.
C14 dating is best when the material has been buried or stored in a Jar for most of it's existence. The shroud has been carried around, stored in various containers, survived at least 2 fires etc. etc. As Dr. Ramsey points out, we haven't found a way to experimentally replicate a process where C14 proportion is increased in a similar material, but there hasn't been enough research to conclude it isn't possible.
C14 dating is very precise in measuring the amount of C14 in proportion to total carbon. What C14 dating absolutely cannot do is distinguish if something has happened to the sample that would have changed that proportion.
The weave of the clothe itself, the variety and types of pollen found on it, and the history of the clothe all provide reasons to question the C14 dating. As Dr. Ramsey acknowledges, the C14 date along with the very existence of the shroud and it's image don't line up for easy explanations.
The foremost question to consider, especially for anyone claiming the Shroud is a forgery is "How was this image created?" No one has any semi-plausible answer for that. Even this laser result only reproduces the coloration on the fibers, it doesn't to begin to address that the image is a negative, and is actually holographic
There has been a documentary of the shroud that is less than 10 years old. I believe it inferred the carbon dating was done on one of the corners of the shroud, which had been frequently handled through the centuries, and could have given a false date.
ReplyDeleteAs Paul in the GNW said, carbon dating in that time period is very accurate. It's not as simple as it sounds, though, because the amount of C14 produced does vary from year to year. What has been done, though is to examine living trees, or trees felled on a known date. Each ring represents one year's growth, and the ratio of C14 to C in each ring is measured. Measuring trees with overlapping life spans and "lining up" the ring C14 data, has allowed scientists to get very accurate dating for the last several thousand years.
ReplyDeleteThat said, and as Paul also pointed out, the presumption is that the sample is not contaminated. The shroud has soot embedded in it, from several fires, and has been handled almost constantly in all its known history. The fact that the sample was taken from a "high traffic" area of the shroud adds more uncertainty.
In other words, I think we can trust that C14 dating works in the abstract, but I think we can also conclude that it is not a reliable test in this case because there is no proper sample to date.
Aside from hypothesizing that the test might not be accurate, the fact that it is at odds with every other piece of evidence is an empirical indicator that it is probably off.
If you recall the Hubble space telescope mirror debacle... There were several tests made of the mirror, and the one that was accepted was the outlier, because it was more "high tech" and was theoretically more sensitive. Yes, it was sensitive, but not correct, as it turns out. The "low tech" tests that indicated it was bad, were correct, and we spent billions designing optics to correct it and send them into space.
I am so... fed up with Christ mythers. The article linked to above - just appalling.
ReplyDeleteThe obvious questions nobody seems to ever ask: If the shroud is authentic, why do none of the gospels mention that an impression of Christ was made on his burial shroud by the energy of his resurrection? Why do none of the epistles mention it? Why do no church fathers mention it? Somehow I don't think that there would be ZERO trace of the shroud in the literature of the first 3 centuries of the church if it were authentic.
ReplyDeleteBeowulf,
ReplyDeleteThe idea that no Church Father mentions the Shroud would seem to be contradicted by the resources Daniel links to above. Whether the Image of Edessa is the Shroud or not, it's at least not as extreme a picture as you're claiming.
And as for the fact that the New Testament doesn't mention it, that's hardly surprising. One of the most famous sayings of Christ, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” isn't recorded in any of the Gospels (we only know that it's a saying of Christ because of a passing reference in Acts 20:35). There are plenty of details that the New Testament doesn't include.
I.X.,
Joe