Carbon dating the shroud
Carbon dating the shroud
A different sort of dating test was conducted by Giulio Fanti of Padua University in 2013.This technology uses infra-red light and spectroscopy to measure the radiation intensity through wavelengths, and from these measurements a date can be calculated.
It has been venerated as such for centuries, and since the 17th century, when it came to Turin, has been the cathedral’s best-known treasures.Fanti’s method dated fibres from the Shroud to 300 BC–400 AD.Of course, there are critics who argue that Fanti’s methods are unreliable.Dust from the area of the image by the knees and feet is from the area around Jerusalem. The Shroud details are perfectly consistent with first-century Jewish burial customs.There are even microscopic traces of the flowers that would have been used in the burial-flowers that grew locally and were known to be used for burial.Not only can scientists and historians not reproduce the image using medieval technologies, they can’t reproduce it with modern technology.
Italian scientist Paolo Di Lazzaro tried for five years to replicate the image and concluded that it was produced by ultraviolet light, but the ultraviolet light necessary to reproduce the image “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today.” The time for such a burst “would be shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and the intensity of the ultra violet light would have to be around several billion watts.” 2) The 3D capabilities of the image. The wounds of the crucified man are all consistent not only with Roman crucifixion, but the details of Jesus’ particular crucifixion – the scourging, the crown of thorns, no broken bones, and the wound in the side.
There is now a mountain of evidence about the Shroud, but too many dismiss the possibility of the Shroud’s authenticity based on the Carbon-14 dating alone.
However, a good detective does not rely on one piece of evidence. Here are the pieces of evidence which I find compelling. It is not a stain, nor is it painted on the Shroud.
The most recent finding again suggests that the crucified man was tortured. The cloth is consistent with fabrics from first-century Israel, but not with medieval Europe.
A forger would have had to not only forge the image, but would have had to have detailed knowledge of linen weaves of the first century and then not only reproduce it, but age it convincingly.
The question immediately arises, “If the Shroud is a medieval forgery how did they do that?