There's only one viable explanation for why the C14 datings of the Shroud of Turin isn't correct: The shroud underwent a repair after a burn in the fourteenth century, and this weaving is completely invisible. Therefore while the C14 dating is correct, it simple ends up pointing to the age of the repair. This is how its always presented to me, but its stated as fact that such a repair has taken place by Shroud supporters, not as conjecture.
If its not conjecture, then there must be good evidence for it, but I've never seen that evidence. Any Shroud supporters here who can give some good reasons for supposing this?
Personally I don't get why the Vatican doesn't give permission for a sample to taken from the middle for a final and official test. If it confirms the original C14 datings, then all discussion should cease. This is not a genuine relic, its something else. If it does point to proper age, then this would make the Shroud of Turin even more interesting than it is now.
If its not conjecture, then there must be good evidence for it, but I've never seen that evidence. Any Shroud supporters here who can give some good reasons for supposing this?
Personally I don't get why the Vatican doesn't give permission for a sample to taken from the middle for a final and official test. If it confirms the original C14 datings, then all discussion should cease. This is not a genuine relic, its something else. If it does point to proper age, then this would make the Shroud of Turin even more interesting than it is now.
Comment