>
Discovery News is reporting that the director of one of three laboratories that studied the Shroud of Turin 20 years ago is calling for the scientific community to re-evaluate the Shroud’s authenticity. According Christopher Ramsey, director of England’s Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, new research has revealed that the Shroud may not be a fake after all.
Read the news report and watch a video about the Shroud of Turin by clicking here.
Personally, I believe that, even as scientists and archaeologists re-evaluate the authenticity of the Shroud, studies will reveal that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval creation.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tag: Archaeology, Shroud of Turin
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
>Having watched what I suspect is the recent documentary lying behind this claim, this an extraordinarily “optimistic” spin on his words by a Shroud believer. His view is that if a serious new theory of contamination of the material is proposed, it should be avaluated fairly and open-mindedly. But in the same programme he also said his own vvioew was that it was mediaeval, but he wouldn’t close the door on new evidence.
LikeLike
>Doug,I apologize for the delay in answering your comment. I am on sabbatical and most days I am away from my office.I agree with your evaluation of the claims made by those who want to re-evaluate the authenticity of the Shroud. All the tests and results up to now have confirmed that the Shroud is a medieval creation and I do not expect any new study to change this conclusion.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>”All the tests and results up to now have confirmed that the Shroud is a medieval creation…”. What “all tests” are you referring to? The only tests I’m aware of that pointed to possible medeival origin were the radiocarbon dating tests all taken from one small portion of the shroud. I find the evidence that this section had indeed undergone some sophisticated repair reweaving at a later 16th century date convincing. This was a solid conclusion reached by Ray Rogers, the prominent chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, who just recently stated that “The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken. It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate.”If these are “all tests” that you are referring to, then there is in fact no evidence pointing to a medeival origin. Conversely, I find all the other evidence supporting the shroud’s authenticity to be very convincing. I find the alternate explanations offered by those insisting that it can’t be authentic to be weak at best, and/or relying on outright false information claims.
LikeLike
>PG,The same thing could be said about your statement: what are “all the other evidence supporting the shroud’s authenticity?” If the only test done on the shroud points to a 16th century date, what then conclusively says that the shroud is authentic?Claude Mariottini
LikeLike