Religious controversy of carbon dating bones
Religious controversy of carbon dating bones - new zealand dating compernys
But even if there were blood on the shroud, that would have no bearing on the age of the shroud or on its authenticity.
Frei's pollen grains have been controversial from the beginning.For example, it is claimed to be the negative image of a crucifixion victim.It is claimed to be the image of a man brutally beaten in a way which corresponds to the way Jesus is thought to have been treated.For his work, Mc Crone was awarded the American Chemical Society's Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.The shroud, however, has many defenders who believe they have demonstrated that the cloth is not a forgery, dates from the time of Jesus, is of miraculous origin, etc. Forensic tests on the red stuff have identified it as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.Vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, was then splashed onto the image's wrists, feet and body to represent blood." Mc Crone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in "two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder" (Mc Crone 1998).
He makes his complete case that the shroud is a medieval painting in Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (March 1999).
Some have noted that the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long. In any case, the image is believed by many to be a negative image of the crucified Jesus and the shroud is believed to be his burial shroud. Apparently, the first historical mention of the shroud as the "shroud of Turin" is in the late 16th century when it was brought to the cathedral in that city, though it was allegedly discovered in Turkey during one of the so-called "Holy" Crusades in the so-called "Middle" Ages.
Most skeptics think the image is not a burial shroud, but a painting and a pious hoax. In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350.
Since the Sudarium is believed to have existed before the 8th century, according to Danin, there is "clear evidence that the shroud originated before the eighth century." The cloth is believed to have been in a chest of relics from at least the time of the Moorish invasion of Spain.
It is said to have been in the chest when it was opened in 1075.
But, since there is no blood on the shroud of Turin and there is no good reason to accept Danin's assumption that the pollen grains were on the Shroud from its origin, this argument is spurious.