The shroud is a fascinating example of a dialogue between Science and Religion/Faith. The shroud cannot be used to prove the resurrection or faith. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that the 1988 carbon dating test (which resulted in dating the shroud to between 1260 and 1390) is not conclusive. From a scientific point of view, looking back on it, that test clearly does not stand up to appropriate rigour. A further issue is the inability of current technology to replicate anything like the shroud’s image.
I have purchased Ian Wilson’s new book, and started looking at it, but have not read far enough to make a proper review – but certainly I know it will be a quality read.
The History Channel is showing a documentary and a download will be provided. I am looking forward to watching that.
Archbishop Poletto of Turin has said it well:
It is quite clear to all that our Christian faith is not based on the shroud but on the Gospel and the teaching of the Apostles. However, the displaying of the Shroud is an occasion to help the faithful meditate, pray and contemplate on the mystery and extraordinary suffering of Christ. There is no mathematical certainty that the Shroud is indeed the cloth in which Our Lord was wrapped. This can only come from scientists and historians, if it is possible at all. However, it is also true that all attempts to imitate or recreate it artificially have failed and it is certainly not something which was manufactured.
I think it not inappropriate that this blog-post is put up on the day when Christians, East and West, proclaim the gospel John 20:19-31. Further info at the Shroud of Turin website.
Just saw an interesting special on this on the history channel. Perhaps the fact that it cannot be proven or explained totally one way or the other is what makes it so compelling.
I’ve seen many scientists go back and forth on this issue.I to believe the tests from 88 have to be deemed null after what I watched this evening.I don’t know that this is the shroud of christ. But I believe its a possibility.
Is is not the Gospel of John which tells us the Shroud must be a hoax? 20″5 and 20:7 both refer to the “strips of linen lying there.” Vs 7 goes on to say that a separate “burial clothe had been around Jesus’ head”. If the Gospels are the inerrant word of Gd, the shroud by bearing the image of a whole body (head included) testifies against itself.
Thanks for your question Rohall. Please use your name in future here following this site’s comment’s policy. Your question is not dependent on your views of biblical inspiration. I suggest people research first century (CE) Judean burial practices to help here. Some, of course, identify the head cloth you mention with the Suderium of Oviedo and connect this with the Shroud. Your assumption appears to be that ἐπὶ (what you have translated here as “around”) means “covering over the face whilst inside the shroud” – I think your interpretation is pressing too far. All we can say is that John’s Gospel has this as “rolled up in a place by itself” (χωρὶς ἐντετυλιγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον). I cannot derive from that that this cloth need have been still on the face whilst in the tomb, or may have even been removed on arrival at the tomb, or might have been around the chin and not covering the face. Your knowledge of burial practices and of the Greek may be better than mine, and so I look forward to any light you or others can shed further on this.
There’s even an iPhone app released for the new showing of the Holy Shroud.
http://www.iphonesavior.com/2010/04/the-holy-shroud-of-turin-gets-an-iphone-app.html?cid=6a00d8341bfa6953ef01347fc98535970c#comment-6a00d8341bfa6953ef01347fc98535970c
So what if the Bible says “strips” there. Does it say it was “only” strips?! So do we say there were no flowers there at all?
Maybe the “shroud” was used to cover the whole body. You think they just wrapped them up nothing else? It was always obvious to me that they would cover the entire wrapped body with some kind of cover.
As to carbon dating, the three labs shared their results with each other BEFORE they reported their results. This breaks all their credibility, because they had agreed they would not communicate. Why should we believe them?
Besides, a test on a scarf belonging to a relative of one lab director of the three measured a FUTURE date. The other two labs had earlier reported similarly idiotic wrong dates on other occasions.
And now it turns out the piece used for carbon dating was proven to be from a corner repair patch from the Middle Ages.
And to think. Scientists keep blaming science.
–trutherator
http://www.truebook.wordpress.com
My main concern about this shroud is that it tempts us all to the sins of idolatry and blasphemy, for if we think it to be an image of Christ and yet it turns out not to be such then we have ascribed something to God which is not in fact of God (blasphemy), and through identifying our mental image of Christ with this face we have committed idolatry unless that image is of Christ himself.
So, I would far rather it be preserved as a historical artefact, but that no public mention be made of a link to Christ, a link which after all started as nothing more than a rumour and a coincidental discovery of the cloth.
Biblically, I cannot imagine how such a notable miracle as is supposed would not have been mentioned in any place, given the great detail used to even minor points.