The Turin Shroud

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#1
When people try to prove Americans never went to the Moon they give lots of arguments. And recieve the same number of contrarguments. But to me there are just two that prove there were Apollo missions. The moon rocks and movies the crews were making before landing (about 15 minutes where they got thousands of craters from the big ones to the smallest possible before touching the ground. It's dactiloscopy, It's impossible to fake them and easy to check).

The same about the Turin Shroud. Syndologists can print tons of articles (which look very scientific like) but C14 dating kills them all. What else can be said? 14th century if I am not mistaken.
 
Aug 2010
16,175
Welsh Marches
#4
It is a profoundly myterious object in a great many ways, and a very interesting one. It was thought to have been exposed as a medieval forgery by the Carbon 14 dating of 1988, which dated it to the 13th to 14th Century, but this seems impossible for quite a variety of reasons, and other dating methods have in fact suggested that it is much older. I should just say that have no religious agenda on this matter as an agnostic, the shroud and the Oviedo sudarium interest me as posing a historical conundrum, and it would be a waste of time to try to discuss this matter if we are not going to approach it objectively without prejudging the issue or engaging in polemics.The shroud is a most remarkable object whatever its origin, any proper study of it raises a wide range of historical, artistic, iconographic and scientific issues, and if we are going to talk in terms of 'debunking' and the like, it would be best to break off the discussion at this point.
 
Likes: Futurist

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#6
But is it OK when all "syndologists" have a very strong agenda and pro athentisity prejudice? It is a well known fact that among the first cast of investigators all but one had a very strong believe the Shroud was geniun. They gathered to prove to the world the existence of the true relic. They even convinced the Vatican authorities in the fact that they agreed to C14 it.

By the way - if (as the syndologists say afterwards) the patch that was dated is a later material why not make a new dating taking a sample from several center places?
 
Aug 2010
16,175
Welsh Marches
#7
There are many competent scientists (and historians, iconographers etc., this is not a solely scientific question) among the sindonologists, and the contributions that thye have made to the study of the shroud cannot be dismissed on the basis that they would like to believe in its genuiness, and more that the studies of certain 'debunkers' and atheists can be dismissed on the basis that they would like to prove it ot be a forgery. The value of the evidence is what counts in either case, and we can leave people's motives out of account. Otherwise this is going to degenerate into olemics very quickly. If the C14 dating is wrong, it is not necessarily becasue the sample was taken from material of later origin (actually I think that was probably not the case). It is worth pointing out that the carbon dating for the sudarium is certainly wrong, because that dates it to a later period than it is known to have reache d Oviedo.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#8
So why not make a new dating? 30 years have passed since the last one. Now the scientists have better technology. They need just the smallest quantity of material. Why not make a new dating, get a closer to the first century result? It would be worth hundreds of marginal papers on the subject. Who opposes a new dating?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,214
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#10
In Italy there are several historical theories about the origin of the Shroud.

What we know is that the first documents about the Shroud are from 1353CE and they are related to a knight: Goffredo from Charny [who built a church at Lirey to host the Shroud]. It didn't pass a long time, some years, before someone accused Goffredo to show a fake Shroud in that church ... it was a Bishop [relics meant money for the churches and a relic like the Shroud meant a lot of money ... so the Bishop of Troyes was first of all "envious"]. There was a clerical dispute and the Shroud had declared "pictura seu tabula" [a painting on a panel]. Goffredo's daughter took the Shroud to sell it to the Savoia Family [she got excommunicated for this and because she kept on sustaining that the Shroud was genuine].

From that moment on, the Savoia Family has preserved the Shroud.

As for I know, scientists consider the object a medieval forgery and considering the historical context and the main actor [a knight who was also an author of works on Knighthood Geoffroi de Charny - Wikipedia], I tend to think the same.
 

Similar History Discussions