The Shroud and the Controversy: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for Authenticity

In 1988 the Western world held its collective breath as the Shroud of Turin was subjected to carbon-14 dating tests, supposedly to once and for all determine if it was a fake. When the announcement was made that the Shroud had been dated to the mid-fourteenth century A.D., many of us assumed that it was settled: the story was over. Science had rendered its verdict and only "faith" could lead people to believe otherwise. The authors of "The Shroud and the Controversy" wrote their book two years later, in 1990, declaring that in fact the jury is still out on the subject. We discover that there is much more to the story. The problem is that what was being reported was that the Shroud was dated with 95 percent accuracy to between 1260 and 1390, and many reports added that it was obviously a forgery, when according to the authors, "nothing could be further from the truth." They stress that "carbon-14 is not nor should be the acid test of the Shroud's possible authenticity." They are not questioning the overall validity of C-14 as a test for age, but that cloth is notoriously difficult to date because of the potential for all sorts of contaminants. Cloth of known date was dated in preparation for the Shroud carbon dating and in some of the tests the dating was off by several hundred years. What could contribute to error in dating the Shroud? Dr. Garza-Valdes has popularized the hypothesis that the Shroud has a "bioplastic" covering that comes from mold and fungus. This covering is visible only microscopically and is not removed by normal cleaning methods. He sent a cloth of known origin for C-14 testing to one of the laboratories that dated the Shroud, and they were off by 600 years. He then went to Turin where he was allowed to look at the cloth with a microscope, and he said that the same bioplastic covering was on the Shroud. The site selection from the Shroud itself may have been part of the problem. The samples were all taken from the bottom of the Shroud, only a few centimeters from a repair site due to the 1532 fire. The test sample may have been an added strip of cloth and not part of the original Shroud. Regarding the test methodology itself, a true scientific double blind study was never conducted. Though there were dummy samples, the labs knew which samples were which. There was no publication or peer review of the method and the results before the results were proclaimed to the public. Finally, there was an earlier dating than the 1988 one. At that time (1982) the Shroud was dated to the first century, but that date was not well received by scientists because it was done secretly and it was not done with normal scientific protocols (but then neither was the 1988 dating). Carbon-14 dating aside, then, there are other reasons for dating the Shroud to the first century. First, both eyes appear to have coins on them. No detail is visible until image enhancement is utilized, and then some, but

The authors make a clear attempt to keep the controversy about the shroud alive after the damage done by the news of the carbon-14 dating which made the burial cloth appear to be a clever 14th-century forgery. In achieving that goal the book is probably a success since Stevenson and Habermas manage to cast doubt on the credibility of the radioactive measurement process. The book also contains some new material and much old evidence to support the authenticity of the shroud. Anyway you wish to view it, the mystery of the shroud is an intriguing story.