The Turin Shroud is perhaps the most controversial religious artifact in the modern world. The cloth that so many believe actually wrapped Jesus’ body and somehow became imprinted with his image has long intrigued both believers and skeptics. Now having gone on public display for the first time in over ten years, the arguments around its authenticity look set to continue.
The Turin Shroud is woven from herringbone cloth, and is discoloured with human blood while also marked by the mysterious imprint of a crucified man. This imprint is not easily noticeable and was only picked up at the end of the 19th century in an amateur photograph. Many people firmly believe that this imprint was the outline of the crucified Christ.
However, in 1988 it seemed that science had closed the issue once and for all. Carbon dating experts from universities in Zurich, Arizona and Oxford proved in testing that the shroud originated from the 14th century and not from the time of Christ. Yet, many are still arguing that this process of testing was inherently flawed.
The historian, Ian Wilson, an author of many books on this subject, still asserts the shroud could well be genuine.
"Through no fault of the labs the 1988 sample was taken from the most inadvisable place - the top left hand corner," he says. "Before 1840 the normal process of display was to have the cloth loose and held up by at least three bishops so the corners would have been contaminated. A further problem was that the shroud was in a serious fire in 1532 and smoke introduces a lot of contaminants. All of these factors are ways that the carbon dating could have been skewed as it's not infallible," he states.
Interestingly enough, there are other intriguing details of the shroud that have yet to be explained. For example the type of weave used was definitely more first century than medieval. Also, there are puncture wounds in the skull (of the imprint) which would be consistent with a crown of thorns worn by Christ. There is real human blood staining the shroud, and whereas every artist in the 14th century depicted Christ crucified through the palms, the shroud indicated it was through the wrist, which we now know as the only plausible way a body could have remained on the cross. Finally, the ‘negative’ image left by the body is a technique that has yet to be reliably replicated by modern scientific procedures. All these issues throw into question whether the shroud really was a clever 14th century hoax.
The Catholic Church has never been willing to take a firm position on the shroud’s authenticity. However, many scientists are quite willing to be very certain indeed. Professor Gordon Cook, at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, rejects the idea that the carbon dating process was in any way flawed. He firmly believes that the shroud is indeed a 14th century product.
"Pre-treatment methods should get rid of the contamination," says Dr Cook, a professor of environmental geochemistry and a carbon dating expert. "The measurements were done by three really good radiocarbon labs so I've no doubt what they measured is the correct age."
The only question that does remain in his mind is whether the sample contained repairs rather than original material. If the dating was done on a repaired piece of the cloth, it could explain why carbon dating put it at the 14th century, the BBC news says.
(To read the full story, go to http://news.bbc.co.uk)