More recent testing suggests the contrary - there are abundant articles on the internet - here's the first one that came up on DuckDuckGo: https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/new-findings-reinforce-the-authenticity-debate-of-the-turin-shroud - the gist of the articles says the current method of analysis was not available forty years ago and the current method (which compares the shroud’s cellulose degradation with that of other linens discovered in Israel dating back to the first century) found "the data profiles were consistent with linen samples dated between 55 and 74 AD, such as those found at Masada, Israel, Herod's ancient fortress overlooking the Dead Sea."
The 1988 carbon dating was a significant moment in the Shroud's study, which is why it was chosen as the historical event for this lesson. However, as you've pointed out, it certainly wasn't the end of the story. More recent analyses using different methods have suggested to some the possibility of a much earlier origin for the Shroud.
This evolving scientific discourse actually underscores the main spiritual point of our lesson: while the historical and scientific debates surrounding religious artifacts like the Shroud are fascinating and worthy of study, our faith as Christians should not be dependent on the authenticity of any physical object.
It prompts us to consider: If the Shroud were definitively proven to be either authentic or fake, would it fundamentally change our relationship with God or the core tenets of our faith?
I appreciate you bringing this to our readers' attention. It's a great reminder of the importance of staying informed about ongoing research while maintaining our focus on the core aspects of our faith.
After Jesus' resurrection, after Jesus had told Thomas to touch his wounds, he said this to Thomas: “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.” (John 20:29 NLT) The natural world always wants some kind of physical proof of everything, but following Jesus is a walk of faith. Thus, God has called us to live by "believing and not by seeing." (2 Corinthians 5:7 NLT)
Agreed that we BELIEVE that Jesus' earthly life and death was eyewitnessed, His healed body rose after 3 days (traditional Hebrew time frame to confirm death), He was seen by Disciples and many people for 40 days before He was seen again by Disciples to ascend into a cloud. Reading the Bible for ourselves, especially Matthew and Luke (plus John and Mark) enables us to KNOW the truth.
This is also an interesting documentary that includes more information we may not have already seen:
I did make note of the controversy in my text, however, there is no general agreement on whether the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was flawed due to testing a patch rather than the original shroud material. This remains a significant point of controversy in the ongoing debate about the shroud's authenticity.
I remain skeptical. If the Church was convinced the testing was flawed why have they not allowed additional testing to settle the issue?
Yesterday: "The Shroud is real! The science is wrong!"
Today: "The Shroud is real! The science is settled!"
What concerns me is the readiness of believers to embrace any apparent validation by science, even if the scientific techniques are untested elsewhere or otherwise suspect, and reject any apparent refutation by science, even if the scientific techniques are well-understood (carbon-14 dating).
By the way, that AI rendering of the Shroud image is an abomination, the very definition of idolatry. Terrific article!
More recent testing suggests the contrary - there are abundant articles on the internet - here's the first one that came up on DuckDuckGo: https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/new-findings-reinforce-the-authenticity-debate-of-the-turin-shroud - the gist of the articles says the current method of analysis was not available forty years ago and the current method (which compares the shroud’s cellulose degradation with that of other linens discovered in Israel dating back to the first century) found "the data profiles were consistent with linen samples dated between 55 and 74 AD, such as those found at Masada, Israel, Herod's ancient fortress overlooking the Dead Sea."
The 1988 carbon dating was a significant moment in the Shroud's study, which is why it was chosen as the historical event for this lesson. However, as you've pointed out, it certainly wasn't the end of the story. More recent analyses using different methods have suggested to some the possibility of a much earlier origin for the Shroud.
This evolving scientific discourse actually underscores the main spiritual point of our lesson: while the historical and scientific debates surrounding religious artifacts like the Shroud are fascinating and worthy of study, our faith as Christians should not be dependent on the authenticity of any physical object.
It prompts us to consider: If the Shroud were definitively proven to be either authentic or fake, would it fundamentally change our relationship with God or the core tenets of our faith?
I appreciate you bringing this to our readers' attention. It's a great reminder of the importance of staying informed about ongoing research while maintaining our focus on the core aspects of our faith.
After Jesus' resurrection, after Jesus had told Thomas to touch his wounds, he said this to Thomas: “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.” (John 20:29 NLT) The natural world always wants some kind of physical proof of everything, but following Jesus is a walk of faith. Thus, God has called us to live by "believing and not by seeing." (2 Corinthians 5:7 NLT)
Thanks for sharing this.
Agreed that we BELIEVE that Jesus' earthly life and death was eyewitnessed, His healed body rose after 3 days (traditional Hebrew time frame to confirm death), He was seen by Disciples and many people for 40 days before He was seen again by Disciples to ascend into a cloud. Reading the Bible for ourselves, especially Matthew and Luke (plus John and Mark) enables us to KNOW the truth.
This is also an interesting documentary that includes more information we may not have already seen:
The Case for Christ's Resurrection
Prime Video
https://watch.amazon.com/detail?gti=amzn1.dv.gti.88a9f72f-9d2a-49ce-59ef-a1b901294112&ref_=atv_dp_share_mv&r=web
The Case For... books by Lee Strobel are all quite good.
It is well-documented that the carbon dating was done on samples from areas of the shroud that had been repaired, probably in the 16th century.
I did make note of the controversy in my text, however, there is no general agreement on whether the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was flawed due to testing a patch rather than the original shroud material. This remains a significant point of controversy in the ongoing debate about the shroud's authenticity.
I remain skeptical. If the Church was convinced the testing was flawed why have they not allowed additional testing to settle the issue?
Thank you, sir.
Yesterday: "The Shroud is real! The science is wrong!"
Today: "The Shroud is real! The science is settled!"
What concerns me is the readiness of believers to embrace any apparent validation by science, even if the scientific techniques are untested elsewhere or otherwise suspect, and reject any apparent refutation by science, even if the scientific techniques are well-understood (carbon-14 dating).
By the way, that AI rendering of the Shroud image is an abomination, the very definition of idolatry. Terrific article!