Is this the image of Jesus? There's a lot of talk about the Shroud of Turin lately, so let's break down the evidence.…

Is this the image of Jesus? There's a lot of talk about the Shroud of Turin lately, so let's break down the evidence. A new X-ray study suggests it's 2,000 years old — but that's just the beginning. Buckle up... (thread) 🧵

The Shroud of Turin is claimed to be the real burial cloth of Jesus, imprinted with a miraculous image. It is the most studied artifact in HISTORY — what we now know about it is frankly astonishing…

Jesus of Nazareth was buried in a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea, just outside Jerusalem's walls. He was covered, according to scripture, in a linen burial cloth.

When the empty tomb was discovered on Easter morning, the cloth is mentioned: "But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves" (Luke 24:12)

It then mostly disappears from the written record (with some indications it went to Constantinople). It reappears in 1354 with knight and crusader Geoffroi de Charny, although we don't know how he got it.

The shroud now lives in Turin, where it has been for 450 years — but what's so interesting about it? Well, nobody has a clue how the image was made...

First, it appears to be a photographic negative. This wasn't discovered until photography itself was — the shroud was first photographed in 1898 and the negative image revealed.

But it's more than a photograph. The image contains 3D information: its intensity corresponds to the distance between the cloth and body. The image gets darker the closer the cloth would have been to the body.

The 3D information even throws up details that make sense for a crucified individual. For instance, the chin is very close to the sternum — like the position of someone hanging on a cross, and then frozen by rigor mortis.

So, what is the image made of? There are no dyes, paints, pigments or stains present. The image exists only on the very outer surfaces of the linen fibers...

The image is just 200-500 nanometers deep — a small fraction of the width of a human hair. It could easily be scratched away by accident and lost forever. Left: a section without image; right: a discolored section of the image.

No technology exists today that could create a "burn" this precise and delicate. And no chemicals were used because they would seep too deep into the fibers. So what on Earth produced it?

Many, if not most, think it must have been a rapid burst of radiation. But forming such an image would require billions of watts of light energy — more than the "maximum power released by all UV light sources available today".

The image is therefore a total enigma. But there are other things found on the linen — like blood. The rare AB type, to be specific. UV scans revealed clotting consistent with real wounds, a detail that seems improbable for a forger to fake.

It appears whoever this man was, he really was the victim of a crucifixion. Analysis of nanoparticles on the shroud revealed high levels of creatinine and ferritin, found in patients who suffer trauma, like torture.

Then there are all the details that dovetail with the Gospel account. Marks from the crown of thorns, stab wound in the side, lacerations on the back, bruises on the shoulders...

Interestingly, the nails were driven through the man's wrists, not his hands. That satisfies modern understanding of Roman crucifixion, but goes AGAINST centuries of artistic tradition of nails going through the palms.

And pollen on the cloth was shown to be native to the Middle East, and Jerusalem specifically. There's even dirt from the feet area containing a very rare calcite found near the site of Calvary.

If the shroud was a forgery, it would be a near miracle in itself to pull off. So many impossibly clever details would need to have been taken into account. The last question, though: how old is it?

In 1988, the world waited as the shroud was carbon dated. The result: 1260 to 1390 AD — medieval, and around the time it appeared with that knight. So then, case closed?

Not exactly. It's widely stated that the analyzed corner piece was contaminated or repaired in medieval times. Later analysis showed it was cut from an area with traces of cotton found nowhere else, and a "gum/dye/mordant" coating used in textile repairs.

In 2022, a new X-ray technique was used to study the aging of the linen's flax cellulose. The finding? Breakdown of the cellulose matches other 2,000-year-old samples, not medieval ones...

For the cloth to be just 7 centuries old, as the carbon dating suggests, the cellulose must have aged incredibly fast. It would have to have been kept at a temperature "very close to the maximum values registered on the earth".

There is simply no way to condense every line of evidence into one thread. The shroud is an entire field of study unto itself. Modern science has yet to explain or replicate it — and perhaps it never will...