View Single Post
Old 11th November 2012, 01:27 AM   #4042
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
(...)

Bear in mind that the objections to how the carbon dating was done didn't start until after the shroudies were hit with a dating they didn't like. Had the shroud been dated to the first century they would have had no problem with the procedure, but would, rather, have trumpeted to the skies how science had proved this was the burial shroud of Jesus.
The war against 14C dating of the Shroud began before it was done. See William Meacham paper http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm (1983). He proposed (or rather demanded) some unfeasible conditions. The Catholic Church had never accepted to take off any sample direct from the body area. Imagine, the Christ’s Sacred Body! Furthermore, he claimed the 14C dating was not reliable on the basis of some irrelevant examples. And so on. You can see Alcock’s comment in the same paper: “if one were so cynical as to suspect that he is preparing the groundwork for a defence of the authenticity hypothesis”. I’m afraid I’m a little “cynical”... or just sceptical about Meacham’s true intentions.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top