Some of the first real studies of the Shroud were done by a French anatomist named Yves Delage at the beginning of the 20th century. Despite this, the Shroud itself continued to draw attention as it moved from France, eventually ending up in Turin, Italy, where it has resided for over 400 years. One of the first recorded mentions of the Shroud is in a letter from a French bishop to the pope denouncing it as a forgery. The Shroud first appears in the historical record in the 14th century, and it was almost immediately contentious. Despite this, there’s still no consensus on how, exactly, the image was made, leaving the door open to a number of fringe theories and speculations. Today, the bulk of evidence indicates that the Shroud originated sometime around the Middle Ages, and was created by human hands. Their findings sparked academic debates and subsequent studies that would go on for decades.
SHROUD OF TURIN DEBUNKED 2016 SERIES
Serious studies of the Shroud date back to the 1970s, when multiple groups of scientists from various backgrounds conducted a series of technical examinations of the Shroud and the image on it. The image is unmistakable, but the actual evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity is less so. What appears to be bloodstains are also visible. The most striking evidence for this is the image of a man imprinted on the cloth, naked and with hands covering the groin - caused by a yellowish discoloration of the cloth.
A rectangular sheet about 14-feet-long and 3-and-a-half feet wide, the cloth is purported to be the shroud that wrapped Jesus’ body in the tomb. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Perhaps no religious relic has received more scientific scrutiny than the Shroud. How Jesus Died: Rare Evidence of Roman Crucifixion Found. That is consistent with a fourteenth-century bishop’s report that a forger confessed to having “cunningly painted” the image. Instead, the Shroud placement matches the more recent of two styles imagined by artists as well as copious data (e.g., radiocarbon dating) that identifies the cloth as fourteenth century. Thus, admittedly very limited data suggests that the foot placement represented on the Shroud of Turin is incompatible with the two known burials of actual crucifixion victims. The Shroud of Turin, which appeared in the middle of the fourteenth century, has the feet placed separately, although the left one points inward, indicating the artist probably intended to suggest a crossed-feet position which by then was conventional (Nickell 1998, 64–66). The earliest representations showed the feet nailed separately, side by side much later depictions had one foot crossed over the other and both secured by a single nail. While the nailed heels of the 19 discoveries are mutually corroborative, they do not support either of the foot placements depicted for Jesus in Christian art. (In neither instance was there clear evidence of the wrists being nailed and it is assumed they were tied.) That earlier discovery came in 1968 with the excavation of a Jerusalem tomb bearing the inscription “Jehohanan.” That victim’s heel bone was still attached to a piece of wood by a nail driven through the side of the heel (Nickell 1998 62,v65). The discovery is significant since it is consistent with the only other apparent crucifixion wound known to archaeology. The article (June 4, 2018) described examination of the bones (originally discovered in 2007 near Venice) as revealing a lesion together with an unhealed fracture located on one heel bone.
The new finding-the 2000-year-old skeletal remains of a crucified Roman-was reported on Live Science (Metcalfe 2018). As if there were not already enough evidence debunking the Shroud of Turin-the historical record, a forger’s confession, tempera paint, multiple carbon-dating tests-now new evidence further discredits the authenticity of the reputed burial cloth of Jesus.
0 kommentar(er)
