Russ Breault writes:
Dr. Ray Schneider taught a five episode course on the Shroud at Bridgewater College in Virginia. At the conference in St. Louis, I asked him to tape it and told him I would create a page on Shroud U for his course. Well it is now complete and is an excellent addition to the site….
CLICK HERE, where we read:
This course on the Shroud of Turin will give you a comprehensive understanding of the mysteries surrounding this artifact which is widely believed to be either the actual shroud which enveloped Jesus of Nazareth in the tomb or some sort of masterful forgery intended to convey that impression. Our course will cover what is known about the shroud from a multidisciplinary perspective. Without neglecting the religious viewpoint we will examine the shroud from the viewpoint of the science that has been done, from the history that has been adduced, from forensic medical science, as well as the many speculations about faint and elusive markings. We will touch on all the attempts by both those who accept authenticity and those who seek to understand how it might have been forged. At the end of our journey you will be fully equipped to make your own informed decision.
On Russ’ site you will find video links, presentation charts (as PowerPoint and PDF files) and handouts.
Ray Schneider is up with Dating The Shroud Of Turin: Weighing All The Evidence. “When did carbon dating become infallible?” he asks. He then challenges that assumption with an excellent summary of the other evidence – at least most of it and not much of the so-called evidenced that is widely disputed. Overall, one of the best comprehensive summaries I’ve seen. Looking forward to publication of this presentation. Great charts.
Here is the abstract:
When the Carbon 14 (C14) dating of the Shroud of Turin result was announced in 1988, the tests concluded that the shroud was woven of flax whose age was estimated to be between 1260 and 1390 A.D. This result flew in the face of many expectations of authenticity but was welcomed by many as revealing the shroud to be simply inauthentic and it was then popularly heralded as a "fake." However, this rush to judgment contradicted most of the science and scholarship previously invested in the shroud. It is perhaps a measure of the respect in which C14 dating is held that the finding tended to discredit the earlier work, yet it is a questionable scientific practice to vest one kind of result with such weight as to completely discount the results of a large body of prior work. The present paper seeks a larger perspective by providing an objective account of as many factors as possible to put the issue of dating in a more complete balance. Both the positive and negative evidence for authenticity from a variety of historical, archeological, religious, and scientific domains is presented.