The Turin Shroud: Fact or fiction?

by Admin · Published March 25, 2015 · Updated March 25, 2015

On Good Friday we behold the Lord on the Cross, sharing in the despair of his followers at the cruel death Jesus suffers. Unlike the disciples on that Friday, we live with the joyful anticipation of the Risen Christ.

The Shroud of Turin

John�s gospel tells us that when the tomb was found empty, Jesus� burial cloth was neatly folded (20:7), indicating that the body had not been stolen, for no grave robber would take care to leave behind a tidy crime scene.

Many Catholics believe that the very burial shroud which the two disciples found folded in the tomb is now kept in the cathedral of Turin. And as that shroud is going on a rare public exposition as of April 15, the debate over its provenance again moves into the limelight.

The Catholic Church declines to take a firm position on whether the shroud is Christ�s actual burial cloth. In official statements, Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have cautiously called it an �icon�, though both clearly believe it to be a relic of Christ�s crucifixion and resurrection.

Pope St John Paul II in 1980 described it as a �distinguished relic linked to the mystery of our redemption�. But he also said in 1998: �Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce� on the shroud�s authenticity.

The Vatican�s caution is prudent. The radiocarbon test of a piece of the cloth in 1988 determined it to date to between 1260�1390, the timeframe in which the holy shroud is first documented as being in the possession of a French crusader in the 14th century.

The test results seemed to put to rest the notion of the shroud being Christ�s burial cloth � except for two problems.

Firstly, the test results have been challenged in at least four credible academic articles, including one by a Jewish professor who was part of the testing, and another by a researcher who replicated the test. The reading of the 1988 tests, it is suggested, might have been false due to contamination or the quality of the samples used.

These objections create not enough doubt on the test results as to conclusively refute them, but the disputed test results also are not enough to claim that the shroud is a medieval hoax.

Which raises the second point: the onus to prove a hypothesis resides with those who advance it. This means that those who claim the shroud to be a forgery must demonstrate exactly how such a sophisticated and unique fraud was perpetrated. It is not enough to just say it was a hoax.

It is definitively established that the image on the shroud was not painted. Nobody knows how the image came to be imprinted on the linen cloth.

Many have tried to replicate the image; none successfully. The closest anyone has come is South African art historian Nicholas Allen, who believes that the shroud was created by the process of a camera obscura � but that technology dates back to only the 16th century.

There simply is no proof of forgery, nor an explanation for how such a highly sophisticated fraud could have been committed.

The forger would have needed the skills and knowledge of a modern forensic blood splatter expert to recreate the blood marks as accurately as they are on the cloth.

He also would have required anatomical and medical knowledge that was not available to people of his time in other aspects of his representation of a crucified man, including the insight that it was impossible to nail a man to the cross through the palms of his hands. Contrary to all artworks of the time, before and after, the man on the shroud was nailed to the cross through the wrists.

In short, the purported forger would have possessed physiological, anthropological and historical knowledge that he simply could not have had to create the likeness of a crucified man with such unerring authenticity, and the technical expertise to create an image of a kind that has not been replicated since.

There is much evidence, however, that the cloth has first-century origin in Palestine, such as the method of its weaving and seams, and pollen and limestone dust that have been found on it.

Other pollen found on the shroud is unique to Anatolia in Turkey and Constantinople (now Istanbul), suggesting that before it appeared in 14th-century France, it must have been kept in Turkey.

Perhaps it is, as the author Ian Wilson has controversially but coherently argued, the Image of Edessa, a cloth bearing the likeness of Christ�s face which was lost during the sack of Constantinople by French crusaders in 1204. This would explain the absence of records of the shroud prior to its appearance in France in the 14th century.

The crown of thorns on the shroud image doubtless identifies the man on the image as Jesus Christ. If the shroud is not a forgery�and there is no proof that it is � and if the radiocarbon testing is not conclusive, which it isn�t, then it is reasonable to believe that the shroud is the authentic burial cloth donated by Joseph of Arimathea, which covered the body of the dead Jesus and the risen Christ.

Mere reference to a disputed radiocarbon test and vague speculation about how a forger might have perpetrated his fraud simply does not suffice to make the case that the shroud is a medieval hoax. But even if the shroud is not an authentic relic, it nevertheless is an icon which brings those who venerate it closer to Christ.

In this way it is wholly unimportant whether or not it is the genuine burial cloth of our Saviour. For Catholics, the truth of the shroud can be found in its fruits: the deepening of faith of those who believe in it.

In the words of Pope Francis, the Holy Shroud of Turin �invites us to contemplate Jesus of Nazareth. This image�speaks to our heart and moves us to climb the hill of Calvary, to look upon the wood of the Cross, and to immerse ourselves in the eloquent silence of love.�