Is this the real face of Jesus? AI unveils image based on the Turin Shroud – as scientists claim to have new evidence the cloth was used to wrap the body of Christ after his crucifixion

Scientists in Italy hit the headlines this week, after claiming the famous Shroud of Turin dates from Jesus’ lifetime around 2,000 years ago.

Now, AI has reimagined what the son of God might have actually looked like based on the treasured relic, which is said to feature an imprint of Jesus’ face. 

MailOnline asked the AI tool Merlin: ‘Can you generate a realistic image of Jesus Christ based on the face in the Shroud of Turin?’

The AI-generated result suggests Christ was white with big blue eyes, a trim beard and thorn marks on his face.

So, can you see the similarities with the famous holy imprint?

The Shroud of Turin features the image of a man with sunken eyes, which experts have analyzed under different filters to study it (pictured) 

To some historians, the Turin Shroud – held at a chapel at the centre of the Italian city – is one of Christianity’s most holy relics. 

‘The Shroud is claimed to be the burial shroud that wrapped the crucified Christ when he was placed in the tomb,’ said Tim Andersen, research scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology who was not involved with the new study. 

‘There is no plausible scientific explanation for how it could have been forged or even created by natural processes.’ 

When it was first exhibited in the 1350s, the Shroud of Turin was touted as the actual burial shroud used to wrap the mutilated body of Christ after his crucifixion.

Also known as the Holy Shroud, it bears a faint image of the front and back of a bearded man, which many believers is Jesus’ body miraculously imprinted onto the fabric.

Research in the 1980s appeared to debunk the idea it was real after dating it to the Middle Ages, hundreds of years after Christ’s death.

But Italian academics using a new technique involving x-rays to date the material have confirmed it was manufactured around the time of Jesus about 2,000 years ago. 

The astonishing findings lend credence to the idea that the faint, bloodstained pattern of a man with his arms folded in front were left behind by Jesus’ dead body. 

The shroud first appeared in 1354 in France. After initially denouncing it as a fake the Catholic church has now embraced the shroud as genuine. Pictured, Pope Frances touches the Shroud of Turin during a visit in 2015

The Shroud of Turin (pictured) is believed by many to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus was wrapped after his death, but not all experts are convinced it is genuine. 

The cloth appears to show faint, brownish images on the front and back, depicting a gaunt man with sunken eyes who was about 5ft 7 to 6ft tall. 

Markings on the body also correspond with crucifixion wounds of Jesus mentioned in the Bible, including thorn marks on the head, lacerations on the back and bruises on the shoulders.

Historians have suggested that the cross he carried on his shoulders weighed around 300 pounds, which would have left bruises.

The Bible states Jesus was whipped by the Romans, aligning with the lacerations on the back, who also placed crown of thorns on his head before the crucifixion. 

The new research contradicts findings in the 1980s that the shroud dates back nowhere near as far as the time of Jesus. 

Some suggest that the blood stains on the shroud (shown in this negative image) are clear evidence that the cloth was used to wrap an injured person 

The Bible states that, Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in a linen shroud and placed it in a new tomb

A team of international researchers analysed a small piece of the shroud using carbon dating and determined the cloth seemed to have been manufactured sometime between 1260 and 1390 – during the medieval period. 

However, the authors of the new study claim carbon dating would not have been reliable because the fabric has been exposed to contamination through the ages that cannot be removed. 

What’s more, as Andersen points out, there is no way to explain how it could have been forged with medieval technology. 

‘While authenticity cannot be established, it should be fairly easy to determine if it is a medieval forgery,’ said Andersen. 

‘Yet, despite decades of scientific testing and peer-reviewed articles on it, that conclusion has never been demonstrated. 

‘Rather, the evidence has continually pointed away from any known forging techniques.’