Changes

Raymond N. Rogers, a retired [[chemist]] from the [[Los Alamos National Laboratory]] in [[New Mexico]], studied the Shroud and declared, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what [[Pliny the Elder]] reported from his time," about A.D. 70.  "It's a shroud from the right time ...," Rogers said.<ref>http://bibleprobe.com/</ref>

Raymond N. Rogers, a retired [[chemist]] from the [[Los Alamos National Laboratory]] in [[New Mexico]], studied the Shroud and declared, "The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood, and the technology that was used to make that piece of cloth was exactly what [[Pliny the Elder]] reported from his time," about A.D. 70.  "It's a shroud from the right time ...," Rogers said.<ref>http://bibleprobe.com/</ref>

The most advanced technique, Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS), is non-invasive and was used in research published in 2022 to analyze structural degradation of the Shroud’s cellulose fibers. This "focuses on the breakdown of cellulose chains, a process that accelerates with time and environmental conditions, making it a potentially more accurate dating method than radiocarbon dating for ancient textiles. ... [T]he degradation observed in the Shroud’s fibers suggests it is far older than the results of the radiocarbon tests indicated,"<ref name="WAXS">https://www.timothyedmoore.com/groundbreaking-research-suggests-shroud-of-turin-could-be-2000-years-old/</ref> '''''consistent with an age of about 2,000 years'''''. "[I]f the Shroud were only seven centuries old, it would have required consistent exposure to temperatures far higher than those found in its known history to reach the observed state of cellulose degradation."<ref name="WAXS"/>

The most advanced technique, Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS), is non-invasive and was used in research published in 2022 to analyze structural degradation of the Shroud’s cellulose fibers. This "focuses on the breakdown of cellulose chains, a process that accelerates with time and environmental conditions, making it a potentially more accurate dating method than radiocarbon dating for ancient textiles. ... [T]he degradation observed in the Shroud’s fibers suggests it is far older than the results of the radiocarbon tests indicated,"<ref name="WAXS">https://www.timothyedmoore.com/groundbreaking-research-suggests-shroud-of-turin-could-be-2000-years-old/</ref> '''''consistent with an age of about 2,000 years'''''. "[I]f the Shroud were only seven centuries old, it would have required consistent exposure to temperatures far higher than those found in its known history to reach the observed state of cellulose degradation."<ref name="WAXS"/> Similarly, an analysis of the vanilla loss on the Shroud "suggests that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old."<ref name="Vanilla">https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/01/26/1289491.htm#:~:text=Microchemistry%20reveals%20a%20different%20date,%2C%22%20D'Muhala%20says.</ref>

Invasive radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is subject to several inherent uncertainties: the probability that the sample was taken from the original cloth rather than a patch, the probability that the miracle did not undermine the assumptions of radiocarbon dating, and the probability that centuries of mold, bacteria and fungi, and the 1532 fire which damaged the Shroud, did not distort the dating. If each of these probabilities is roughly 50%, then the chance of radiocarbon dating of the Shroud being accurate is only (1/2)³ = 12.5%.

Invasive radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is subject to several inherent uncertainties: the probability that the sample was taken from the original cloth rather than a patch, the probability that the miracle did not undermine the assumptions of radiocarbon dating, and the probability that centuries of mold, bacteria and fungi, and the 1532 fire (and drenching the Shroud to save it) that damaged the Shroud, did not distort the dating. If each of these probabilities is roughly 50%, then the chance of radiocarbon dating of the Shroud being accurate is only (1/2)³ = 12.5%.

Radiocarbon dating "is vulnerable to contamination, and often yields imprecise results, particularly for the period" of [[Jesus]] because "[t]here are fewer artefacts with known dates to calibrate the scrolls' age against."<ref>https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-06-05/dead-sea-scrolls-ai-dating-palaeography/105374410</ref> [[Carbon dating]] test results of the Shroud conflict with each other and thus are not credible.  In 1988, a small snippet of the Shroud was extracted, '''''but the "C-14 results of the three labs fall outside the bounds of the Pearson's chi-square test," illustrating a flaw in the dating''''' that was likely due to a repair seam that ran diagonally "through the area from which the sample was taken."<ref>http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/shroud_of_turin.html</ref>  A peer-reviewed scientific paper later demonstrated the invalidity of those results, suggesting instead that the Shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old,<ref>Rogers, Raymond N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin". Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425 Issue 1–2, pp. 189-194 (Jan. 20, 2005)[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4DTBVHC-1&_user=10&_handle=B-WA-A-W-WE-MsSAYWA-UUA-AAUYYDZUYC-AAUZVCZYYC-YZEWAVVVC-WE-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F20%2F2005&_rdoc=26&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235292%232005%23995749998%23553672!&_cdi=5292&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3d89246a5d4144616be7657f0d83b6cf]</ref><ref>Mark Antonacci "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence"</ref> disproving the 1988 results that claimed that the Shroud originated between A.D. 1238 and 1430.

Radiocarbon dating "is vulnerable to contamination, and often yields imprecise results, particularly for the period" of [[Jesus]] because "[t]here are fewer artefacts with known dates to calibrate the scrolls' age against."<ref>https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-06-05/dead-sea-scrolls-ai-dating-palaeography/105374410</ref> [[Carbon dating]] test results of the Shroud conflict with each other and thus are not credible.  In 1988, a small snippet of the Shroud was extracted, '''''but the "C-14 results of the three labs fall outside the bounds of the Pearson's chi-square test," illustrating a flaw in the dating''''' that was likely due to a repair seam that ran diagonally "through the area from which the sample was taken."<ref>http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/shroud_of_turin.html</ref>  A peer-reviewed scientific paper later demonstrated the invalidity of those results, suggesting instead that the Shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old,<ref>Rogers, Raymond N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin". Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425 Issue 1–2, pp. 189-194 (Jan. 20, 2005)[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4DTBVHC-1&_user=10&_handle=B-WA-A-W-WE-MsSAYWA-UUA-AAUYYDZUYC-AAUZVCZYYC-YZEWAVVVC-WE-U&_fmt=full&_coverDate=01%2F20%2F2005&_rdoc=26&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235292%232005%23995749998%23553672!&_cdi=5292&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3d89246a5d4144616be7657f0d83b6cf]</ref><ref>Mark Antonacci "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence"</ref> disproving the 1988 results that claimed that the Shroud originated between A.D. 1238 and 1430.

Indeed, there is strong evidence that the sample for the 1988 analysis was actually taken from cloth woven into the Shroud during the [[Middle Ages]], thereby giving a false result.  Moreover, "the 12th Century Hungarian 'Pray Manuscript' come to depict Jesus being wrapped in the shroud - with authentic herringbone pattern and burn marks - 100 years before carbon-dating says the material originated."<ref name="news.bbc.co.uk"/>

Indeed, there is strong evidence that the sample for the 1988 analysis was actually taken from cloth woven into the Shroud during the [[Middle Ages]], thereby giving a false result. The sample contains a dye and also vanilla which are not found in the original Shroud.<ref name="Vanilla"/> Moreover, "the 12th Century Hungarian 'Pray Manuscript' come to depict Jesus being wrapped in the shroud - with authentic herringbone pattern and burn marks - 100 years before carbon-dating says the material originated."<ref name="news.bbc.co.uk"/>

The defect in the carbon dating was that the samples were "uniquely coated with a yellow–brown [[plant]] gum containing dye lakes. [[Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry]] results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin.  The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."<ref>http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Definitions/Thermochimica-Acta.html</ref>  Instead, "[e]stimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses."<ref>http://shroudencounter.com/thermochimicaabstract.php</ref>

The defect in the carbon dating was that the samples were "uniquely coated with a yellow–brown [[plant]] gum containing dye lakes. [[Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry]] results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin.  The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."<ref>http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Definitions/Thermochimica-Acta.html</ref>  Instead, "[e]stimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses."<ref>http://shroudencounter.com/thermochimicaabstract.php</ref>

More generally, [[carbon dating]] provides less accurate results compared with other techniques for dating artifacts, as demonstrated by multiple failures in carbon dating of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. In addition, many materials cannot be reliably carbon dated, such as marine shells, due to background effects.<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440309003306#:~:text=C%20dates%20on%20marine%20shells,known%2C%20the%20knowledge%20of%20its</ref>

More generally, [[carbon dating]] provides less accurate results compared with other techniques for dating artifacts, as demonstrated by multiple failures in carbon dating of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. In addition, many materials cannot be reliably carbon-dated, such as marine shells, due to background effects.<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440309003306#:~:text=C%20dates%20on%20marine%20shells,known%2C%20the%20knowledge%20of%20its</ref>

Finally, dating the cloth is of limited significance in analyzing a potential [[miracle]], which [[logic]]ally could have happened (and still could) at any time.  A miraculous imprint of an image could have slowed ordinary decay on which carbon dating is based, so it is flawed [[circular logic]] to try to determine by carbon dating whether the shroud is miraculous.

Finally, dating the cloth is of limited significance in analyzing a potential [[miracle]], which [[logic]]ally could have happened (and still could) at any time.  A miraculous imprint of an image could have slowed ordinary decay on which carbon dating is based, so it is flawed [[circular logic]] to try to determine by carbon dating whether the shroud is miraculous.