The Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin

There are a couple of very interesting specials on the Shroud this Easter from the History Channel and TBN.  Basically there are two possible conclusions.  Either the shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ or it is a very masterful fake that has baffled scientists for decades.  The possibility of this can be an authentic artifact from the crucifixion of another individual, other than Christ, will be categorized as a fake because of the numerous details of the wounds found matching the description of the torture, beating, crucifixion and death  Christ as found in the Gospels.

Most of the evidence points to the shroud being a true artifact of the resurrection.

The biggest possible proof against it being true comes as a result of the 1988 C-14 dating tests.  Many have countered that the section taken for the C-14 dating came from a repair patch that was made in the middle ages and that this was why the results dated to such and not the first century.

Part of the real story of the shroud comes from the unprofessional questioning by the media to get to the facts.  Apparently there are three different types of expertise needed for proper C-14 testing.  The first is to clearly describe and delineate where the patches start and end and to select a sample that was not part of the middle age's repair work.  The next is to clean any cross contaminated material caused by the two fires, handling over the centuries, air contamination at various sites, and the possible flood in Odessa that may have ended up on the shroud and section being tested.  The third is the actual C-14 testing with the machines properly clean.

All reporting of the evidence comes from interviews with scientists who share their conclusions and little describing their methodology and less their limitations.  One such interview was with a scientist involved in the last two or maybe only last step-not sure from the information given from various sources.  What was fascinating was that he said that he was relying on the experts for the first stage to tell him if he was testing the original (or non-patch) part of the shroud.  Numerous pictures, photographs and schematics of the shroud available for viewing yet not a single one has the details showing specifically where the patches are, nor are there any interviews with these first necessary set of experts.  It is as if people were trying to cover up the fact that the shroud was fake or to cover up that it was authentic or the more innocuous possibility of extending the news cycle - not true science or true reporting.  The reporters should be clamoring for the details about the where the middle-age's repair patches are and what section was actually tested.

The next possible evidence against the shroud is a claim that a scientist was able to recreate an image like the shroud using acid and light exposure.  Again the claim is posited and little follow-up is made by the science writers as to whether it truly meets all the levels of complexity and details found to be present with the shroud.  Where are the pictures and analysis and peer review?  To be discussed next time.