The debate continues about whether the Turin Shroud is
genuine or not. Opinion is divided based in part on personal belief.
Unfortunately it is impossible at present for science to settle the matter once
and for all.
What is the Turin Shroud?
The Turin Shroud is a piece of linen cloth that has been in
the possession of Turin Cathedral since 1578. The shroud is about fourteen feet
long by four feet wide and it bears on it an image of the front and back of a
man. The image is faint, and it shows up best when photographed and the
negative image used (the accompanying picture shows the shroud in negative and
positive images). It then becomes clear that the man has suffered injuries
consisted with those of Christ when he was crucified. The conclusion drawn by
many people is that this is the cloth in which Christ’s body was wrapped when
he was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb provided by Joseph of
Arimathea.
Obtaining proof
Efforts to prove the shroud to be either genuine or a fake
have gone on for many years. In 1988 a fragment of the cloth was analysed and
it was found that it was made at a date between 1260 and 1390. That seemed to
settle the matter, especially as it placed the shroud in the medieval period
when the production of religious fakes, for sale to gullible pilgrims and
others, was being done on an almost industrial scale. It is estimated, for
example, that at least forty shrouds were doing the rounds at one time, all of
them claiming to be the genuine article but some being more obvious fakes than
others.
However, the objection was then made that the piece of cloth
that was analysed in 1988 could have been from an area of the shroud that had
undergone repair in the 13th/14th century and that the
rest of the cloth, especially the part bearing the image, was considerably
older. Just to add to the argument in favour of the shroud being genuine, it
has been shown that the weave of the cloth is consistent with the type used at
the relevant time and place.
The clinching argument could be made either way if the
analysis could extend to investigating how the image was imprinted on the
cloth. However, the Vatican has never allowed this work to be done. Some people
see this as suspicious – does the Vatican know that the shroud is a fake but does
not want the outside world to find this out? Or is the motive merely one of
wanting to protect the shroud and avoid any risk of damage?
The known history of the Shroud
Another line of enquiry is based on tracing the history of
the shroud. If it could be proved that the artefact held at Turin has a
provenance that goes back beyond the era of faked relics, that would be a
considerable factor in favour of it being genuine.
On this score, there is some evidence, albeit
circumstantial, that links the shroud to the “Image of Edessa” that was known to
exist in Constantinople before the year 1204. It is contended that the Edessa
cloth, of which there is a record from the early 12th century, was
moved to Constantinople from Edessa (a town in south-east Turkey) before the
latter city was sacked by the Ottomans in 1144. Constantinople was itself
sacked by the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and it is possible that
this was when the shroud found its way to Europe, as part of the booty of a
crusading knight.
The undisputed provenance of the Turin Shroud takes the
story back to the mid-15th century, when it was held by the Duke of
Savoy. It is almost certain that the House of Savoy acquired it from the de
Charny family, and it is known that a French knight named Geoffrey de Charny
held what could easily have been the shroud in 1355. Geoffrey de Charny was
descended from a crusader, so it is indeed possible that the story of the
shroud being looted from Constantinople is true.
On the other hand, the date of 1355, which agrees with the
1988 carbon dating test on the cloth, is also slap bang within the problem era
of forged relics. So could de Charny have had the cloth made to substantiate a
family story that an ancestor had brought the Image of Edessa back from the
Fourth Crusade?
This is one of those cases in which people tend to accept
the evidence that supports their desired conclusion and reject the rest. The
real key to solving the mystery lies with discovering how the image got on the
cloth, and that is one piece of the puzzle that is frustratingly absent from
the evidence base!
© John Welford
No comments:
Post a Comment