This is one of the most anticipated scientific announcements of all timeand fought the world of faith against the world of rational thought, under the light of the media.

So when carbon 14 tests found that the Holy Shroud of Turin this is one forgeryseems to be the last chapter in a relic revered for centuries as the cloth on which the body of Christ was wrapped nearly 2,000 years ago.

But one man, David Rolfe, a filmmaker whose documentary The Silent Witness brought the shroud to modern times, and converted to Christianity as a result of his research, I am not ready to give him up.

Rolfe is convinced that carbon dating, carried out in 1988 under the direction of British Museum and the University of Oxford, has failed. And now He says he has evidence to prove it.

The filmmaker premiered a new film, Who could he be ?, in which he said that, far from being a definite failure, new discoveries in recent years has again raised the question of its authenticity.

So Rolfe was convinced he launched a $ 1 million challenge at the British Museum. “If you think the shroud is a medieval forgery, I ask you repeat the exercise and do the same now“, challenge.

“Because of all the evidence I saw, if it’s fake, it is the most ingenious forgery in historyOh, of course, it goes back almost 2,000 years, to an era of less sophisticated counterfeiting techniques, ”he added.

“They said it was made by a medieval con man, and I said, well, if he can do it, you should be able to do it too. And if you can there is a donation of 1 million for your fund”.

According to the Gospel accounts, when Christ’s burial cloth was discovered on the floor of his tomb, his followers first believed that has risen from the dead. Throughout the centuries, the Holy Shroud has been revered.

Rolfe realizes this about 45 years agohe then asked for ideas for documentaries, and contacted writer Ian Wilson, who researched the Holy Shroud, then kept in Turin Cathedral.

Rolfe was not a believer, but found the story of the Holy Shroud fascinating. The documentary he made won a Bafta in 1978 and brought international attention to the relic.

“My documentary he never claimed to be real, but it raised questions, such as how the image of the crucified man landed on the canvas and whether its origin matched the chronology of Christ, ”Rolfe said.

The most surprising moment It came to him when he photographed the four -meter -long shroud for the first time and saw that the image of the dead man’s face was further accentuated by the negatives. “It’s almost as if it was created for the photographic age,” he said.

In the mid-1980s, the Vatican, which owned the Holy Shroud, agree on the principle that it can be dated using the latest technology, and entrusted the work to the British Museum.

A few years later, the verdict made headlines around the world: the fabric was dated 13th or 14th century and it is not possible to be true. The relic seems to have had a day.

But Rolfe, who is now in his early 70s, is determined to debunk the debunking. “Five protocols have been agreed upon [de prueba]but they are all forsakenyes, ”he said.

In the light of global publicity, the trials became en a hot potato in politics for the British Museum.

The sample used for testing, argues Rolfe in his new film, it is too small and taken from a corner where the shroud has probably been fixed over the centuries.

Many would argue that even if it could be proven that the shroud was the burial cloth of the man named Jesus who was crucified 2000 years ago, that is not equal to the proof of his resurrection, andThe basic principle of the Christian faith.

“Carbon dating may indicate that it definitely dates to the time of Christ, but it’s still hard to leave there to see it as proof that he has risen from the dead, ”said Richy Thompson of Humanists UK.

“Some people think that, yes, Jesus is a real personl, and we know that the crucifixion was a thing in those days, and Pontius Pilate is a well -documented one in history. “

“What many non -religious will say is, where is the evidence? Because if you make unusual claims, you need solid evidence to support them. And the truth that people believe [en la resurrección] it is not in the very evidence that it actually happened. ”

Rolfe was not shocked: he said the image on the fabric seemed to come from a massive burst of radiation, emitted in a fraction of a second.

When it comes to carbon dating, you’re certainly not alone in your skepticism. Barrie M Schwortz, a photographer who documented the shroud in 1978, said that “cloudyis a beautiful word to describe the events of 1988.

“Now there are at least six scientific articles peer-reviewed studies challenging the results of carbon dating, ”he said.

In his opinion, the players involved They are in a hurry to finish the job. because they want to have carbon dating on the map. “That evidence made it a household name, and it’s widely used in archeology today,” he said.

“I am Jewish, so I don’t have a horse in this race, but I believe it’s the real funeral cloth because I looked at science. “

The British Museum he was less willing to engage in this opportunity. “Any current questions about the Holy Shroud would be better for those currently caring for it in the royal chapel of Turin cathedral,” a spokesman concluded.

Source: Guardian