Carbon dating the shroud of turin - Essay Example

CARBON DATING THE SHROUD OF TURIN The Need to Believe Introduction In an amazing demonstration of the human nature of stubbornness, and of the religious fanaticism that drives the fundamentalists’ need not just to believe in something greater than oneself, but to be superior to other beliefs as well; is the case of the shroud of Turin. For those unfamiliar with the case, the Shroud of Turin (properly capitalized here as it constitutes a “title’ of sorts) is believed by some to be a relic of Biblical times and proportion because it was alleged to be the cloth in which the crucified body of Christ was wrapped following His crucifixion; and still bore the image of Christ’s – or someone else’s – body in its very fibers (Shrouded in Doubt. (1988, April 15). National Review, 40, 21). Lacking modern day technology that would serve to prove or disprove the claims that the Shroud of Turin actually held the body of Christ, it was on blind faith alone, the willingness to surrender oneself completely and unquestionably to faith, that people might accept that the Shroud was indeed the one in which the crucified body of Christ had been wrapped; and millions did. From the time Geoffrey Charney presented the cloth to the Church in Lirey, France, the Shroud of Turin has been upheld by millions who believe it bears not only the image of Christ, but also the blood of Christ in its fibers (Ratcliffe, S. (1998, April 18), p. 1). Photography Negative Fast forward now to the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century as technology emerges that can shed light on the “mysteries” of the past, and especially on the religious relics emerging from Christianity, over which countless surrendered their lives in both the pursuit and defense of. The nineteenth century processes of photography allowed insights into the past, revealing secrets, dispelling myths, and creating some along the way too. The latter is what has seemingly happened in the case of the Shroud of Turin. “Arguments for the Shroud’s authenticity say a medieval forger could not have devised such a delicate photographic negative image – an image first discovered in 1898 in the negatives of the Shroud’s first photograph (Witham, L. (1998, April 18).” The image on the cloth revealed the image of a human form. A man, who, like Christ, had suffered through what can only be regarded as a harrowing and gruesome death by crucifixion (Shrouded in Doubt. (1988, April 15). National Review, 40). . What stood out as astonishing to experts and to Church officials alike, is that the outlines on the cloth revealed by the photography negative process closely resembles the image most used to depict Jesus Christ, and can be discerned as such in the fibers of the Shroud (Nickell, J. (1993), p. 16). Because the image on the Shroud appears so much like that in the paintings of the masters with which we have come to associate the image of Christ, bells and whistles should sound, especially since we have no way of knowing what Jesus Chris t looked like during his lifetime, save for the vague references to the physical appearance of Christ that come from the Bible (Nickell, J. (1993), p. 22). What should come to the mind of most everyone, is that the image that we most commonly associate with that of Christ, the one instilled in our minds by the masterful medieval and Renaissance artists whose focus on human anatomy and likeness is indeed one of awe inspiring perfection, admiration, and beautiful to gaze upon; is that it is an artist’s rendering. It is a work of art, one that is intended to inspire awe and a sense of beauty in the eye of the beholder, because that’s how artists then, and now, generated the income upon which they lived. It was their task to appeal to that which the beholder held dear, to endear the beholder of the work to the work; and for that reason, we have images of Christ that perhaps do not depict in his face the hardships of a man who began his life in the rugged Middle East in a family of carpenters. Instead, we have the beautiful, angelic depictions of Christ, the Son of God, whose image is one deliberately rendered in such a way as to cast him in that divine “light,” and to instill in the image the heavenliness with which the Son is endowed. For these reasons, a cloth with that likeness might be questioned beyond blind faith. The Scandal In fact, there were such questions raised when Geoffrey Charney presented the cloth to the small church at Lirey. Allegations immediately arose that the cloth had been forged, was a fake. “It had been at the center of faith healing scare, or so it was reported to Pope Clement in 1389 by a bishop who went on to describe how a predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers, had uncovered the artist who had made it. The artist admitted, the report added, that he had ‘cunningly painted’ painted the shroud, which bore the ‘twofold image’ (i.e., front and back imprints) of an apparently crucified man (Nickell, Spring, 1998, p.1).” So, as it turns out, there was indeed concern and controversy about the shroud; yet blind faith prevailed and the Shroud continued to be upheld, first in France, later, in Italy after it had been retrieved and taken to that country to be sold by Charney’s granddaughter, Margaret (Nickell, Spring, 1998, p. 16). Thus, it was with skepticism and amidst allegations of a forged cloth that the Shroud of Turin was first presented in Lirey, France; and still, they believed. They needed to believe, it was on blind faith, unquestioning faith that they relied upon and they would not question that which was said to have held the body of the crucified Jesus. And the Church needed them to believe. Medieval Christendom During the fourteenth century the people in the little town of Lirey would not have been able to prove or disprove the image on the Shroud of Turin. What they h ad to rely upon was – again – faith, and faith was going around like the plague. Catholics in the fourteenth century were experiencing a form of hyper-religiosity, and the notion of associating “geography with ethnography was taking hold and manifesting itself through the singling out of non-Catholics, and was soon followed by expelling Jews from their homelands because of their non-Christian beliefs (Scales, L. (1999, p.49).” Blind faith, encouraged and fueled by Church priests, monks, and others who held positions in the upper echelons of the social ladder, led to cases of “ethnic cleansing (1999, p. 49), and, eventfully the expulsion of thousands of Jews from their homelands .” The time was ripe for exploitation of Christian fanaticism and for the Catholic Church to enlarge its sphere of influence. Relics, of course, served as a way by which to link certain areas, especially those remote areas, with Church-mindedness, causing villagers to form close and tight-knit bonds with the Church. Charney’s role as a soldier returning from the Crusades, and his claim to have carried a highly regarded religious relic back to his little village in France was apparently enough to sustain the appetites of the Church and the town’s faithful (Nickells, 1998, p. 11). Charney’s claim was, at that time, was also enough for the diocese to release monies funding the Church in Lirey for expansion, since it was then going to house a relic of the Crusades, and a very important one at that. Charney had, understandably, agreed to donate the Shroud to the church. The question of where and how Charney came by such an important relic must have been raised by the Church; and indeed it was. Charney claimed to have brought it back with him from the Holy Land, where he had been a solider during the Crusades (. There is no doubt, of course, that Charney, as the finder of such a valuable relic, benefited from his donation to the Church (Nickell, J. (1993), p. 22). As did the town of Lirey , since the Lirey church received funding from the diocese, and pilgrimage to the town made by countless tourists and faithful who went there to see the Shroud, and to benefit from any miracles that might be associated with it, which generated income for the town. Carbon Dating – And Still They Believe When, finally, technology and the Church agreed to test the Shroud of Turin, what followed was still more controversy. The Shroud, as it turned out, based on 1988 carbon dating and technology available at that time, could not be dated earlier than the fourteenth century (Ratcliffe, S. (1998, April 18). Still, they believe. Even today, when carbon dating, when allegations surrounding the authenticity of the Shroud were raised during the fourteenth century by the Church itself; they continue to believe. Blind faith, the need to believe, and in 1998 when, for the first time in 20 years, the multitudes who kept the faith and stood behind the Shroud of Tourin as authentic, patiently waited to see the object of their affirmation when for the first time 20 years it was, once again, displayed amidst the raging controversies that surround its authenticity (1998, p. 1). The need to believe; still they believed. Then, since 1988 when the original carbon dating tests which were performed that proved the Shroud was not exactly authentic; science came, again, to the rescue. “They are giving a lot of attention to the shroud again,” noted Dr. Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, a microbiologist at the University of Texas. He and some other scientists argue that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was skewed in 1988 because the samples used were layered with microbes of fungi (Witham, L. (1996, March 31), p. 1).” Still, they believe, blind faith sustains them. The Shroud, all controversy aside, “. . .has been preserved, wrapped in a wooden cylinder inside a silver casket, protecting it from centuries of wear and tear, fires, floods, . . . and Doubting Thomases (1998, p . 1).” A fitting preservation for a raging controversy, for a cloth that held, if not the body of the crucified Christ, at least someone who had, apparently, indeed been crucified and probably possessed blind faith. Or, if indeed the image was rendered by a master – it was at one rumored that Leonardo da Vinci had been the master behind the perfect image – then at least the preservation of a great work of art (p. 1998). And, by way of controversy, if the Shroud is not a “relic,” it does indeed merit artifact status. References Lewis-Smith, V. (1998). Ones a Deity, Twos a Shroud. 6. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5004189048 Nickell, J. (1993). Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94706492 Nickell, J. (1998, Spring). The Case of the Shroud: What Happens When Faith Attempts a Science Project. Free Inquiry, 18, 48+. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001339710 Nickell, J. (1998). Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=70388859 Ratcliffe, S. (1998, April 18). SHROUDS OF DOUBT; Were Boffins Wrong to Brand Jesus Cloth a Fake?. Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland), p. 6. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5003800619 Scales, L. (1999, October). Medieval Barbarism?. History Today, 49, 42. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001317924 Shrouded in Doubt. (1988, April 15). National Review, 40, 21. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002138172 Witham, L. (1996, March 31). Exhibit Planned, Tests Sought as Shroud of Turin Finds New Life. The Washington Times, p. 1. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000540619 Witham, L. (1998, April 18). Mysterious Shroud Still Holds Secrets. The Washington Times, p. 4. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001474009 Read More