The Shroud is currently kept in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist’s Royal Chapel, which is located in Turin, Italy. Most Catholics believe that the cloth was placed on Jesus when he was buried.
Despite
several scientific investigations, it’s still unclear how the shroud’s
image got imprinted on it. Again, no one yet has managed to replicate
the image. You can clearly view the shroud’s image in Black & White
negative than its conventional sepia color. The Black & White image
first got observed on May 28, 1898 on the reverse photographic plate of
Secondo Pia, who was an amateur photographer and got the permission of
photographing it during an exhibition in the Cathedral. It was revealed
from the photographer himself that he almost broke the plate after
seeing the image.
Shroud
of Turin has been the subject of strong discussion amongst top
scientists, historians, writers and people believing in Faith. They have
all debated about the cloth and its image got created. From the
religious standing, it was confirmed by Pope Pius XII in 1958 that the
image was Jesus’ Holy Face. The day of his announcement is still
celebrated every year as Shrove Tuesday. As already mentioned, some felt
that the shroud was the cloth covering Lord Jesus, when he got placed
in his tomb.
They
believed that the image got imprinted on the fiber during the time of
his resurrection. However, skeptics believe that it’s a medieval
forgery. Even there are others, mainly scientists, who believe that the
image might be the result of reaction of chemicals or other natural
processes on the cloth.
Various tests have been conducted on the Shroud of Turin, still there are several debates continuing about its origin. In 1988, radiocarbon dating
test was conducted by 3 independent teams of scientists came to the
same conclusion that the cloth was made during Middle Ages, around 1,300
years after Lord Jesus lived. Claims of biasing and error in testing
were raised almost instantly, but were answered by Harry E. Gove. Still,
the dating controversy continued.
An
analysis published by Raymond Rogers in 2005 claimed that sample tested
by the teams belonged to the area, which was not actually a part of the
original cloth. Again, they felt that a fire in late Middle Ages
damaged the Shroud and added to its radiocarbon content. This meant that
the earlier calculations should have been effected. However, this
analysis got strict criticism by Philip Ball (Editor of Nature) and Joe Nickell (A skeptic).
However,
research made by the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit in 2008 might
have revised the 1260–1390 dating (as uncovered in 1988) towards its
original contribution. This led Christopher Ramsey, Director of the
Unit, to ask the scientific community for fresh probing in regards to
the authenticity of Shroud. Despite having an open mind in the issue,
Ramsey stressed that he might be surprised if the earlier conclusions
would be shown far off from the actual date.
No comments:
Post a Comment