So last night I watched a documentary on the Turin Shroud. It was pretty interesting and I understand that the makers have an agenda so take of this as you will. And God lovers, don’t get too excited, even if the shroud could feasibly be from the first century, it doesn’t prove anything else. I will try and give a quick summary, some detail may be off, as this is from memory.
So the main event that puts the authenticity of the Shroud in doubt is the carbon dating performed in the 1980s. The interesting thing is that the bit of the Shroud that was cut was from one of the corners, which is exactly where the Shroud is most contaminated from various exhibitions dating back a few hundred years, in which is was physically man-handled in public. Later analysis, using various techniques attempting to establish how the image was created, show that corner of the cloth being different in nature to the rest. This is possibly due to this bacterial contamination. Experts have conceded that contamination can give incorrect carbon dating readings.
So the main evidence against the Shroud’s first century credentials is possibly flawed.
There are a number of pieces of evidence that point to the Shroud being older than the carbon dating reading.
1) While under maintenance work, it was discovered that the Shroud has an intricate type of stitching down the middle that has never been found in any Middle Ages work, and more tellingly, the only relic we have with an identical technique is a piece of cloth that dates back to the first century found in the Middle East.
2) The water marks on the Shroud are consistent with a storage technique in what is essentially a big vase that dates back to the first and second centuries
3) There is another cloth relic that is believed to have been wrapped around the head of Christ that has solid historical documentation (which the Turin Shroud does not) as having come from Jerusalem (can’t remember dates, but 1st millennium). The blood soaked into this cloth is the same AB blood type as the Turin Shroud – found in only 3% of people, and has a matching stain.
4) The blood markings on the Shroud are consistent with crucifixion as depicted in the bible (this was established by some pathologist who was clearly a lunatic with an agenda, so pinch of salt) – this could also point to it being a forgery though of course, since the forger would be going off the bible.
5) If the cloth was made as a forgery, it is incredibly intricate, and there is some doubt whether there would be anyone in the Middle Ages with the skills and techniques to do so (because it has features that suggest it is genuinely much older than the Middle Ages). The image is not any known paint – although it may be an example of the first documented photograph. Some boffin repeated a technique that could theoretically have been done using Middle Ages technology involving a dead body, some lenses, the sun, and silver oxide – this could easily be tested for, there would be traces of silver in the Shroud.
6) There is a Hungarian tapestry depicting the crucifixion of Christ that is dated prior to the earliest date suggested by the 1980s carbon dating of the Turin Shroud – it is highly detailed and depicts a cloth wrapping Christ with similar weave to the Turin Shroud and also has four holes which match some of the damage on the Shroud. This suggests that the artist may have seen the Shroud prior to it supposedly existing, and not only that, it had deterioration damage by then.
So there you go. What does this mean? That there are television companies that love stirring up **** I suppose.
Edited, Tue Mar 30 03:28:30 2004 by Patrician