Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Shroud of Turin Message-ID: Date: 2 Apr 91 09:07:02 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 62 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Replying to Gene Gross's article about the Shroud of Turin: There is quite a bit of literature on the Shroud of Turin. In 1978, a team of scientists spent about a week doing photographic, microscopic, and other non-invasive tests on the Shroud. Much of their findings were subsequently published in various scientific journals. Gary Habermas, together with Kenneth Stevenson (a member of the research group responsible for the 1978 scientific studies), authored a book on the Shroud some years ago entitled _Verdict on the Shroud_. They took a very strong pro-authenticity stand -- which troubled many of the other members of the research group who had been trying to keep a more objec- tive profile. In 1988, samples of the Shroud were subjected to carbon-14 dating at three laboratories. (The original proposal had called for seven labs and at least two different C-14 measurement techniques -- but it had to be cut back because officials of the Roman Catholic Church were unwill- ing to have more than a barely minimal amount of material cut from the Shroud. Remember that C-14 dating involves the incineration of a sample of the object you want to date.) The results of the C-14 testing, announced in October 1988, pointed to a 14th-century date for the fabric of the Shroud. (The Shroud's history can be traced with absolute certainty only back to the 1350's.) Such a date, of course, would conclusively rule out any possibility of the relic having been the burial cloth of Christ. However, apparently some researchers are not completely satisfied with the 1988 C-14 tests. (a) As I already mentioned, much of the redundancy in the original testing protocol was cut back due to problems in getting enough cloth to sacrifice for the measurements. (b) Questions have been raised concerning the reliability of the partic- ular technique employed in the tests (all three labs, I understand, used the same method). (c) The samples of cloth used in the tests came from a part of the Shroud that may very likely have been affected by (though not actu- ally charred in) a church fire which nearly destroyed the Shroud in 1532. (d) The testing protocol was not "blind" (i.e., all the researchers knew which sample had come from the Shroud, and which was the control). (e) There was reportedly a secret attempt to carbon-date a thread from the Shroud in 1982 -- in which the two ends of the thread were given dates 1200 years apart. Aside from pointing out the risks inherent in C-14 dating in general, this result (if true) suggests that the Shroud may not be in suitable condition for an accurate C-14 test. Hence, some students of the Shroud (including Stevenson) continue to believe -- on the basis of the earlier research -- that there is still a strong case for authenticity of the relic. Habermas, according to the new book which he co-authored with Stevenson (_The Shroud and the Con- troversy_), is somewhat more skeptical now than before. Both men, how- ever, agree that the 1988 dating attempt needs to be done over. Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (213) 825-5683