In response to several requests by friends of the Advanced Christianity site, this section has been erected to focus on the latest dating challenges of Shroud of Turin. Although most Christians consider the Shroud to be the genuine burial cloth of Jesus, the results of the 1988 c-14 (carbon-14) dating has been puzzling. Firm believers in the authenticity of the Shroud were confident of a serious dating error or incredible oversight in the c-14 dating process.   We dedicate this site to the remembrance Brendan Whiting, who's 2006 book "The Shroud Story" introduced the world to the most powerful evidence that the 1988 Shroud c-14 data (dating the Shroud in the 14th Century) was invalid.  We would also like to thank Tim for being kind enough to edit and write for this subdivision of the Advanced Christianity main site.

     Like an adept investigative reporter, author Brendan Whiting closely followed, attended the fundamental landmark conferences (including the International Symposium in Dallas in 2005) and wrote on the breakthrough results. Whiting’s 2006 book "The Shroud Story" was the vehicle that introduced many to the newest, most credible challenge to the 1988 c-14 dating ever, particularly when the mainstream media was ignoring these discoveries completely.  Many Christians are grateful to Whiting for first knowledge of the recent refuted dating challenge, as well as his gifted ability to describe the sequences of events in an unambiguous manor. Whiting died of leukemia in January of 2009. Catholic Weekly reported on January 11, 2009: "The author of one of the most influential books on the Shroud of Turin, Brendan Whiting, has died in Sydney, aged 73. His book, The Shroud Story, published in 2006, rebutted scientific tests carried out in 1988, that interpreted the shroud as a fraud made in the 14th century. It renewed support for the authenticity of the Shroud on the persuasive grounds that the tiny samples of cloth taken for chemical testing were remnants of nearly invisible mending done in the Middle Ages and that in 2005 further examination of the corner of the cloth from which samples for testing were taken proved to be different in chemical composition from the main part of the cloth. It also listed the findings of an international group of 24 scientists that the Shroud of Turin was surviving evidence of the crucified Christ and an expert’s assertion that the material, weave and style of the shroud were from the Dead Sea area, dating from the first century AD" (1).

     Brendan Whiting’s "The Shroud Story" rebuts scientific carbon dating tests while presenting readers with supported insight into the most recent compelling explanations. Brendan presents scientific evidence in layman’s terms how the fabric edges appear to have been mended in medieval times via a meticulous re-weaving process. The carbon dated samples were taken from this very same outside edge, which would accurately reflect the period of the added material, but not that of the original main Shroud body. Whiting describes reports of fibers detected from an area of cloth directly adjoining the tested samples retaining a gum coating not found on any of the fibers from the main part of the shroud. The identified coating appeared to be a gum arabic substance. Gum arabic was routinely used during re-weaving repairs to manage the threads. Furthermore, Whiting explains how (Shroud of Turin Research Project) STURP Chemist Raymond N. Rogers uncovered cotton fibers in the tested sample areas of the Shroud cloth, but no cotton fibers in samples taken from the main part of the shroud during the 1973 examination. These two combined clues (isolated gum arabic as well as added cotton fabric) strongly indicate that the carbon dated samples were taken from repair fabric utilized in the re-weave process at a later date. Whiting said this fact had not been discovered by the coordinators of the tests because, although the original protocol had called for the chemical analysis of the samples prior to their destruction during testing, the three testing laboratories did not perform the analysis. When this evidence is taken into consideration, the carbon dating cannot reflect the date of the untested original main Shroud body, only the period of the tested material added at a later date.  Moreover, Rogers found that the Shroud sample used for radiocarbon dating contain alizarin dye (utilized by the re-weavers to match the original main cloth), whereas no dye of any form was found on any part of the original Shroud cloth (2).  Whiting believed the Shroud of Turin to be genuine, in The Shroud Story he wrote: “Like an epiphany, it seems science has kept resurrecting evidence that the shroud indeed dates back to the time of Christ, as if repeatedly defying those who have attempted to condemn it as a medieval fake” (3).