Now, I do not have a link to Barbet's original article, so I quoted secondary sources. Barbet, A Doctor At Calvary, Doubleday Image Books, 1963. He was Chief Surgeon, Autopsy Surgeon, Professor of Anatomy, St. Heller, Professor of Internal Medicine and Medical Physics at Yale (member of STURP team), stated that "It was evident from the physical, mathematical, medical, and chemical eidence that there must have been a crucified man in the Shroud" (ref. I think I must point out, given that you have stated these items as supporting evidence, that none of the 5-6 physicians dated the shroud.
History2007 (talk) , (UTC) Of course, the Catholic Church could easily resolve this once and for all, by simply making the shroud available for one last and definitive C14 test.
A full gaggle of Shroudies could be involved in ensuring the sample is indisputably representative, and the whole thing would be done and dusted in a few weeks. If science proved the shroud was a first-century relic, the pilgrims would flock anew and the Church's revenues would swell, while if science proves beyond doubt that the middle ages date was correct all along, the Church stands to lose a revenue-spinning artefact.
Doesn't account for all the microbiological evidence (Jerusalem, Edessa, Constantinople, France, Italy.)
Jimfrom GTA (talk) , (UTC)I question the theory that the C14 dating tested a repair section by mistake.
You must review the 1st Century documentation detail to establish identity of the victim.
The man in the shroud matched the 1st Century discription of Jesus at the time of crucifition. Every source I see that is PRO the Turin Shroud being real, seem obsessed about it being real rather than neutral.It also seems bizarre to suppose that a group of skilled scientists, knowing full well the reason for the test, would not have taken extra pains to ensure the sample was valid.The fact that this assertion was "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean its correct, as the statement was "in my opinion", and peer-review will allow a scientist to state a personal opinion provided it is labelled accordingly.As a general point that, an image of a crucified man does not make the man Jesus.But you miss the detail of the Biblical references.But should the debate end, all those authors who continue to publish books on both sides of the debate and received nice sized royalty checks from the publishers every three months will also have to find new topics.