| [pending revision] | [pending revision] |
Content deleted Content added
m linking the right de Charny |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
[[Image:Shroud-of-Turin-1898-photo.jpg|thumb|right|The first photo of the Shroud of Turin, taken in 1898, had the surprising feature that the image on the negative was clearer than the positive image.]]
The '''Shroud of Turin''' (or '''Turin Shroud''') is a [[linen]] cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with [[crucifixion]]. It is presently kept in the royal chapel of the [[Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist (Turin)|Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist]] in [[Turin, Italy]]. Some believe it is the cloth that covered [[Jesus]] when he was placed in his tomb and that his image was somehow recorded on its fibers at or near the time of his imputed [[Resurrection of Jesus|resurrection]]. Skeptics contend the shroud is a medieval [[hoax]] or [[forgery]] - or even a devotional work of artistic [[verisimilitude]]. It is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, believers, historians and writers regarding where, when and how the shroud and its images were created.
Forceful arguments and evidence cited against the miraculous origin of the shroud images include a letter from a medieval bishop to the [[Avignon]] [[pope]] claiming personal knowledge that the image was cleverly painted to gain money from [[pilgrimage|pilgrims]]; [[radiocarbon test]]s in 1988 that yielded a medieval timeframe for the cloth's fabrication; and analysis of the apparent "blood flecks" by microscopist [[Walter McCrone]] who concluded they are ordinary [[pigment]]s. Forceful arguments and evidence cited for the shroud's being something other than a medieval forgery include textile and material analysis pointing to a 1st-century origin, the unusual properties of the image itself which some claim could not have been produced by any image forming technique known before the 19th century, analysis indicating that the 1988 [[radiocarbon dating]] was invalid, and chemical analyses of the purported blood stains which flatly contradict McCrone's assertions.
| |||