12 Comments


  1. We tend to think that hard science holds the key to the shroud, but in fact social sciences raise significant questions about the shroud.

    Reply

  2. I’m sure they do. But unless the date of the shroud can be placed to within Jesus’s lifetime (which hard science deals with), those questions would have much less interest to the study of New Testament history.

    Meanwhile, I’m finding that this new study is already creating a kerfuffle, which I expect to become a major brouhaha. There, I just got to use two of my favorite words.

    Reply
  3. Just Sayin'

    On the contrary, I’m expecting a furore.

    Reply

  4. Very thoughtful post, Danusha. I left a comment at your blog. A number of scientists have argued that there is reasonable doubt about the C-14 date, saying that it based on a area of the Shroud that was re-woven in the 14th century. I think this additional evidence, along with arguments such as yours, presents a strong enough case to re-do the C-14 test.

    Reply

    1. Bilbo, thank you. I presented those questions to a professional, media atheist and he dismissed them. No need even to consider them, because hard science had “proven” the shroud to be a medieval forgery — in spite of the very many reasons to question its status as a medieval forgery. The carbon 14 date shut down his brain. And this is someone who gets paid to be a “skeptic” who questions foregone conclusions.

      Reply

        1. Biblo thanks for these updates. I love reading articles translated by google translate.

          BTW how do I ask the blog owner if he would review my book Save Send Delete here? Thanks.

          Reply

          1. Joel posted those, not me. Are you asking him to review your book?

            Joel, is there a translation of the Italian? And yes, I think that at best these new tests add weight to the argument to redo the C-14 test.

Leave a Reply, Please!