Turin Shroud Older Than Thought

[Cicero]

By Rossella Lorenzi, Discovery News

Jan. 25, 2005 — The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long believed to have been wrapped around Jesus's body after the crucifixion, is much older than the date suggested by radiocarbon tests, according to new microchemical research.

Published in the current issue of Thermochimica Acta, a chemistry peer- reviewed scientific journal, the study dismisses the results of the 1988 carbon-14 dating.

At that time, three reputable laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Ariz., concluded that the cloth on which the smudged outline of the body of a man is indelibly impressed, was a medieval fake dating from 1260 to 1390, and not the burial cloth wrapped around the body of Christ.

"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the shroud in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the shroud. Indeed, the patch was very carefully made. The yarn has the same twist as the main part of the cloth, and it was stained to match the color," Raymond Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratories and former member of the STURP team of American scientists that examined the Shroud in 1978, told Discovery News.

...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050124/shroud.html

...

It's interesting, at the very least. Although I am a Christian, I've always been wary about those who try to "prove" the divinity of Christ. I've always thought that you were supposed to have faith.

That having been said, it does raise some fascinating questions. The article states the Shroud is anywhere from 1300 to 3000 years old. It certainly puts it in the timeframe, anyway...

Regardless of what you believe about the divinity (or even historical existence) of Christ, you must admit the article is interesting. I wonder if we'll ever figure out just what the Shroud is...

Later,

[LibInternationalist]

1. short answer

no, we won't ever figure out just what the Shroud is, unless we get time-travelling wormhole cameras a la Arthur C. Clarke's The Light of Other Days

this whole debate over the age of the shroud is really confusing the issue, because its age has nothing to do with its divinity

[RC]

2. There is more to carbon dating an article than just carbon dating.

The article is physically examined to see if it can be placed in the appropriate time period. For instance, in the case of the Shroud, the weave was examined. The weave is consistent with the carbon date. This herring bone weave did not exist at the the time of Christ.

[McKenzie]

3. the bible proves the shroud does not show an image of Christ

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself."

Joh 20 : 7

I don't want to be rude, but read your bible - the body was wrapped, not placed in a shroud.

http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk/

edited to stop the forum scripts generating a smiley

[Bob3]

4. I would take this with a lot of salt.

this is about the 3rd attempt to refute the carbon dating of the shroud -the others did not stand up, it's a good bet this one won't either. For one thing, how familiar are chemists with carbon 14 dating procedures?

The shroud is a fake. A very interesting fake but a fake nonetheless.

[Dr.Phool]

5. Not only was a part of the shroud tested

But a sample of the image was also chemicaly analyzed and was found to be paint, that was common during the period of the carbon dating, and was not available 2000 years ago.

[McKenzie]

6. art historians agree on that Dr.Phool

A huge amount of analysis has been carried out on the shroud, in the context of art history.

[Ediacara]

7. So the dated portion is from "new" cloth?

Oddly enough that portion was the only part that the owners of the shroud would part with. If I had full access to the shroud, I would take pieces from all areas of the cloth (including the areas that show Christ) and date them all. I suspect however, that a dark ages date will result in all cases.