What scientists learned while studying the Shroud of Turin

(ORDO NEWS) — According to believers, Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth after the crucifixion. However, the conclusions of the scientists who studied the ancient artifact are disappointing, because the age of the shroud’s manufacture is dated between 1260 and 1390 AD. IFLScience writes about it.

The Shroud of Turin is a large piece of linen cloth in which, according to believers, the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped. There is a faint image on the fabric, which is believed to depict the face of Jesus of Nazareth himself, complete with a crown of thorns and stains, which some believe to be the blood of the savior.

However, scientific research and radiocarbon analysis revealed the true age of the Shroud of Turin and unraveled the secrets of the ancient relic.

As with other finds related to Jesus, the authenticity of the Shroud has long been the subject of heated debate. The first historical mention of the shroud dates back to 1354, when it became known about the Knight Templar Geoffrey de Charny, who owned the shroud of Christ. After 35 years, the artifact was put on public display. Then the bishop of Troyes called it a “cunningly drawn” forgery.

However, many Roman Popes over the years believed in the authenticity of the Shroud and made pilgrimages to it, until 2015. It is rarely on display today, but researchers were allowed to conduct analysis to determine the artifact’s provenance and age.

In the 1980s, the Shroud was radiocarbon dated along with three control samples by three separate groups of scientists, each working independently. Their results showed that the shroud was made in the medieval period, between 1260 and 1390 AD, so it cannot be related to the period of Christ’s life and death.

Other attempts to authenticate the Shroud have focused on the patterns on the fabric. One study modeled wounds using real and synthetic blood on a dummy, hoping to determine whether the patterns corresponded to a T-shaped or Y-shaped cross. However, the team concluded that the patterns did not match any of the crucifix forms.

Although it has been suggested that the shroud may have been replaced in some way, the evidence found suggests that it is simply a medieval forgery. According to one of the teams involved in the study of the origin of the Shroud, “the simplest, albeit the most boring, conclusion that can be reached is that the age of the Shroud is its historical age.”

—

Online:

Contact us: [email protected]

Our Standards, Terms of Use: Standard Terms And Conditions.